Appliance

Standards Program

The FY 2003 PrioritySetting Summary

Report and Actions

Proposed

Date: August 22, 2002

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. iv

1 Energy Conservation Program - Product Prioritization Process .......1-1

1.1 Background on Appliance Standards Program ........................................... 1-1

1.2 DOE Authority to Add Products ................................................................ 1-2

1.2.1 Consumer Products ............................................................................... ..... 1-3

1.2.2 Commercial Products ................................................................................. 1-5

1.2.2.1 Products Regulated under EPCA Provisions Concerning Consumer

Products ...................................................................................................... 1-5

1.2.2.2 Products Regulated under EPCA Provisions Concerning Commercial

Products ...................................................................................................... 1-7

1.2.3 Potential Impact of Pending Legislation .................................................... 1-9

1.3 The Product Prioritization Process ........................................................... 1-10

1.3.1 Annual Priority-Setting Analysis and Development of Priorities List ..... 1-10

1.3.2 Process to Expand the Program ............................................................... 1-11

1.4 Refining the Prioritization Process - September 11, 2001 Meeting ........ 1-12

1.5 Refining the Priority Products List - November 6, 2001, Meeting.......... 1-14

2 General Comments on the Prioritization Process ............................... 2-1

2.1 General Comments on the DOE Program .................................................. 2-1

2.2 Effects on Consumers ................................................................................. 2-2

2.3 Ranking and Prioritization .......................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Overall Process and Methodology .............................................................. 2-5

2.5 Technology Changeover, Product Convergence, and Innovation .............. 2-6

2.6 Voluntary or Other Programs ..................................................................... 2-6

2.7 Setting Standards at ASHRAE Levels ....................................................... 2-6

2.8 One Watt Standby Level ............................................................................ 2-7

2.9 NAECA's 100 kWh Annual Energy Usage Requirement .......................... 2-7

3 Comments on the Products under Existing Regulation : Productspecific Feedback Received and DOE Response ................................ 3-1

3.1 Dishwashers ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Fluorescent Lamps ...................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 High Intensity Discharge Lamps ................................................................ 3-3

3.4 Residential Clothes Dryers ......................................................................... 3-4

3.5 Incandescent General Service Lamps ......................................................... 3-5

3.6 Incandescent Reflector Lamps ................................................................... 3-6

4 Comments on the New Products under Consideration for Regulation:

Product-specific Feedback Received and DOE Response .................4-1

4.1 Torchieres ................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Ceiling Fans ................................................................................................ 4-2

4.3 Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct Furnaces .................................................. 4-4

4.4 Commercial Refrigeration .......................................................................... 4-5

4.4.1 Walk-in Coolers, Freezers, and Combinations .......................................... 4-5

4.4.2 Supermarket Refrigeration Systems ........................................................... 4-6

i

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Table of Contents (continued)

4.4.3 Water Coolers ............................................................................................. 4-7

4.4.4 Ice Machines ............... ................................................................................ 4-8

4.4.5 Reach-in Freezers and Reach-in Refrigerators .......................................... 4-9

4.4.6 Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers .................................... 4-10

4.5 General Comments on Consumer Electronics .......................................... 4-12

4.5.1 RACK/Component Audio .......................................................................... 4-13

4.5.2 Compact Audio ......................................................................................... 4-15

4.5.3 Monitors ................................................................................................... 4-15

4.5.4 Desktop Personal Computers ................................................................... 4-16

4.5.5 Televisions ................................................................................................ 4-18

4.5.6 Set-top Boxes ............................................................................................ 4-19

5 Products Not Considered ......................................................................5-1

5.1 General Comments ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps .............................. 5-1

5.3 Ground Source Heat Pumps ....................................................................... 5-2

5.4 Cooking Products ....................................................................................... 5-2

5.5 Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps .............................. 5-3

5.6 Residential Refrigerators and Freezers ....................................................... 5-4

5.7 Residential Furnaces and Boilers ............................................................... 5-4

5.8 Commercial Boilers .................................................................................... 5-4

5.9 Commercial Laundry .................................................................................. 5-5

5.10 Oil Unit Heaters .......................................................................................... 5-7

5.11 Exit Signs .................................................................................................... 5-7

5.12 Traffic Signals ............................................................................................ 5-7

5.13 Dehumidifiers ............................................................................................. 5-8

5.14 Copy Machines ........................................................................................... 5-8

5.15 Fax Machines .............................................................................................. 5-8

5.16 Laser Printers .............................................................................................. 5-9

5.17 Low-End Servers, Commercial .................................................................. 5-9

5.18 Wine Chillers .............................................................................................. 5-9

5.19 Power Supplies and Battery Chargers ...................................................... 5-10

5.20 Video Cassette Recorders ......................................................................... 5-10

6 Summary of Proposed Actions............................................................. 6-1

References ..................................................................................... R - 1

Appendix A: Technical Support Document (TSD) .......................................A - 1

Appendix B: Data Sheets for Existing Products ........................................... B - 1

Appendix C: Data Sheets for New Products ............................................. C - 1

I

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Table 1-1: Timeline of the Prioritization Process ....................................................... 1-11

Table 1-2: Initial List of Potential New Products ....................................................... 1-12

Table 1-3: Existing Covered Products ........................................................................ 1-13

Table 1-4: Product Prioritization Criteria ................................................................... 1-13

Table 1-5: Information Contained in the Preliminary Data Sheets ............................. 1-14

Table 1-6: Existing Products with High and Medium Priority - Standards and

Determinations ......................................................................................... 1-15

Table 1-7: Existing Products with High and Medium Priority - Test Procedures ..... 1-15

Table 1-8: Products with a Maximum Energy Savings Potential Exceeding One Quad

(Includes New and Existing Products) ..................................................... 1-15

Table 1-9: Products with Energy Savings Potential under One Quad (Includes New and

Existing Products) .................................................................................... 1-16

Table 1-10: Refined list of Products Selected for Further Consideration ................... 1-17

Table 3-1: Categorization of Energy Savings Potential (for 2008-2030 Period).......... 3-1

Table 6-1: Summary of Proposed Actions for Currently Regulated Products under

Consideration .............................................................................................. 6-1

Table 6-2: Revised Priorities-Standards and Determination ........................................ 6-3

Table 6-3: Revised Priorities - Test Procedures ............................................ 6-3

Table 6-4: Summary of Proposed Actions for New Products under Consideration ..... 6-4

III

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In May 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPD Group)

reported a National Energy Policy to the President. One of the recommendations called

for the President to direct the Secretary of Energy to take steps to improve the energy

efficiency of appliances. The recommendation included supporting the existing

appliance standards program, setting higher standards and expanding the scope of the

program to include additional products where technologically feasible and economically

justified.

In response, the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) extended the scope

of its annual priority-setting activities and held two informal public meetings. These

meetings provided a forum for the Department and stakeholders to discuss the priorities

of the existing program and any possible expansion of the scope of the program to

include additional consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment. The

Department received suggestions on the criteria it should use to reach decisions on these

issues and on the factors, and data and analysis methods that might be used by DOE in

its decision making process. The Department also obtained product-specific

recommendations for further actions.

As a result of the priority-setting activities, the Department plans to take the

following actions:

1. Assess whether to class the following as "covered products:

a. Additional New Consumer Products: In the course of this activity the

Department considered which consumer products could be added to the

program. The Department found that substantial energy savings could be

achieved through wider use of certain types of incandescent reflector lamps

(e.g. ER and BR), torchieres and ceiling fans that are more energy efficient

than those which now dominate the marketplace. These products are not

currently covered under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA),

and we intend to assess whether to classify them as "covered products"

under Section 322 of the statute. If we do classify them as covered

products, we would then review and decide what if any action to take with

respect to adoption of test procedures and energy conservation standards

for any product that we classify as covered. In addition, the Department

plans to support energy efficiency for torchieres, ceiling fans, and

consumer electronics through ENERGY STAR® initiatives

b. Additional New Commercial and Industrial Equipment: The Department

found that substantial energy savings could be achieved through wider use

of some categories of commercial refrigeration equipment (reach-in

iv

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
freezers and reach-in refrigerators; vending machines and beverage

merchandisers), that are more energy efficient than those which now

predominate in the marketplace . Currently, EPCA prescribes no efficiency

requirements for these products, and we intend to examine covering them

under provisions of the statute that concern commercial products. If we do

classify commercial refrigeration equipment as covered under the statute,

we would then review and decide what if any action to take with respect to

adoption of test procedures, labeling requirements, and energy

conservation standards for such products covered.

2. Existing Appliance Standards: As a result of the expanded priority-setting activity,

the Department is proposing to change the priority status of several products covered

under existing regulations.

a. ASHRAE Products: In the January 2001 Final Rule for efficiency

standards for commercial heating, air conditioning and water heating

products, the Department announced its decision to consider more stringent

standards than those adopted by ASHRAE for several categories of

commercial products. The Department places a high priority on

reassessing the energy savings potential for a subset of those product

categories, specifically, Packaged Terminal Air Conditioning (PTACs),

Commercial Oil- and Gas-fired boilers, and tankless instantaneous water

heaters. If appropriable, the Department will reconsider adopting the

ASHRAE standards levels for these products.

In the January 2001 Final Rule, the Department identified four

categories of three-phase air conditioners and heat pumps with capacities

less then 65 kBtu/h that may well have significant energy savings. Since

these products were not considered by ASHRAE at the time , DOE took no

action. During the 2002 summer meeting, ASHRAE proposed including

these products at a 12 SEER level. The department plans to place these

products on high priority once ASHRAE has taken final action.

b. High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps - Determination: Given their high

potential energy savings, the Department proposes to move HID lamps

from low to high priority for standards determination.

c. Dishwasher Standards: The Department proposes to promote dishwashers

from low to medium priority for standards.

d. Small Motor Standards: The Small Electric Motors determination process

is continuing and remains a high priority.

V

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
I Energy Conservation Program - Product Prioritization Process

The Department of Energy (referred to herein as DOE or the Department), and

particularly the appliance standards program, plays a distinct role in the National Energy

Policy of the current administration, as indicated in the "Report of the National Energy

Policy Development Group". I Specifically, the Energy Policy Development Group

recommends that the Department of Energy explore ways of promoting energy

efficiency, including expanding the Appliance Standard Program and improving the

energy efficiency of appliances.

The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of

Energy to take steps to improve the energy efficiency of appliances.

• Support appliance standards program for covered products, setting higher

standards where technologically feasible and economically justified.

Expand the scope of the appliance standard program, setting standards for

additional appliances where technologically feasible and economically

Thus tasked by the President, the Department has expanded the annual priority setting

process for the appliance standards program to include an examination of additional

products that could be included in the program.

1.1 Background on Appliance Standards Program

The Department of Energy's Appliance Standards Program is conducted pursuant to

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). (Pub. L. 94-163).

In 1987, EPCA was amended to establish national efficiency standards for certain

appliances by law and a schedule for DOE to conduct rulemakings to periodically

review and update these standards . (National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, or

NAECA, Pub. L. 100-12). The products covered by these standards included

refrigerators and freezers , room air conditioners, central air conditioners and heat

pumps, water heaters, furnaces, dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, direct heating

equipment, ranges and ovens, and pool heaters . Fluorescent lamp ballasts were added

by an amendment in 1988. In conducting the rulemakings to update the standards, the

Secretary of Energy is to set standards at levels that achieve the maximum improvement

in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) further amended EPCA to expand the coverage

of the standards program to include certain commercial and industrial equipment,

including commercial heating and air-conditioning equipment, water heaters, certain

incandescent and fluorescent lamps, distribution transformers, and electric motors.

(Pub. L.102-486). EPAct established maximum water flow-rate requirements for certain

plumbing products and provided for voluntary testing and consumer information

1 National Energy Policy, 2001, `Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group", May. Available at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy Policy.odf..

1-1

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
programs for office equipment and luminaries. EPAct also established a labeling

program for commercial products.

EPCA provides for DOE to establish test procedures to be used in evaluating

compliance with efficiency standards. These test procedures are revised periodically to

reflect new product designs or technologies.

Any new or amended standard for consumer products must be designed so as to achieve

the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and

economically justified. Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A).

Section 325 (o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), provides that before DOE

determines whether a standard is economically justified , it must first solicit comments

on a proposed standard. After reviewing comments on the proposal , DOE must then

determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest

extent practicable , on a weighing of the following seven factors:

"I. The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the

consumers of the products subject to such standard;

II. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the

covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the

initial charges for , or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to

result from the imposition of the standard;

III. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from

the imposition of the standard;

IV. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely

to result from the imposition of the standard;

V. The impact of any lessening of competition , as determined in writing by the

Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

VI. The need for national energy conservation; and

VII. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant."

These principles and criteria also apply for the most part to standards that EPCA

authorizes DOE to promulgate for commercial products.

Section 327 of the Act addresses the effect of Federal rules on State energy conservation

laws or regulations concerning testing, labeling, and standards. Generally, all such State

laws or regulations are superseded by the Act unless specifically exempted in Section

327. The Department can grant a waiver of preemption in accordance with the

procedures and other provisions of Section 327(d) of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).

1.2 DOE Authority to Add Products

The Department's ability to act on the National Energy Policy's recommendation to

expand the scope of the appliance standard program is dependent on its statutory

authority. This section discusses the Department's understanding of its current authority

with regard to consumer and commercial products. In summary, the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act (EPCA, the Act, or the statute) authorizes DOE to impose energy

1-2

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
conservation standards and test procedures for 13 specified consumer products.2 In

addition, EPCA authorizes DOE to classify any other consumer product as a "covered

product," and to impose test procedures for that product, if DOE determines such

classification is "necessary or appropriate" to carry out the purposes of EPCA and that

the average energy use for the product by a household using it is likely to exceed 100

kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. 42 U.S.C (6292 (b). DOE can also promulgate energy

conservation standards for any such product if it determines that the product meets

additional, more detailed criteria specified in EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295(1).

As for commercial products, the Department has the authority to promulgate energy

conservation standards for both specific commercial equipment set forth in section 342

of EPCA, as well as other types of the commercial equipment which the Secretary

classifies as covered equipment under section 341(b) of EPCA. With respect to "other

covered equipment," Section 345(a) of EPCA specifically references the criteria and

procedural requirements in section 325(l)-(s) as applying to Part C of EPCA. These

referenced sections concern prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards,

including standards for "other covered products."

Part C of EPCA covering commercial equipment parallels the statutory scheme of Part

B for residential products. As with residential products, EPCA allows the Department

to prescribe energy conservations standards and test procedures. In the case of

commercial equipment, the Department also has the authority to prescribe labeling

requirements. For residential products, the Federal Trade Commission has such

authority.

1.2.1 Consumer Products

EPCA provides energy conservation standards, and authorizes DOE to promulgate

standards, for any energy using product of a type that "to any significant extent, is

distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals", and that is one

of 13 products specified in the Act. EPCA Section 321 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.

Of these 13 products, the statute does not provide definitions for the following seven

products, and therefore DOE's authority to impose standards, as well as test procedures,

applies to all residential types of these seven products:

1. Room air conditioners;

2. Dishwashers;

3. Clothes washers;

4. Clothes dryers;

5. Direct heating equipment;

6. Kitchen ranges and ovens; and

7. Television sets.

EPCA does define the following six products, and therefore provides and authorizes

standards only for types of products that are within the applicable definitions:

2 Section 322(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6292(a), lists only 12 types of products, but one of the 12 (furnaces) is defined as including the 13`h

3product, residential boilers. EPCA Section 321(23), 42 U.S.C. 6291(23).

Such products are typically referred to, and are referred to in this section of this report, as "consumer" (or "residential") products. Each

unit of such a product is covered under EPCA as a consumer product, regardless of whether that unit "is in fact distributed ... for

personal use or consumption by an individual." EPCA Section 321(1), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). Thus, for example, if a type of product is to a

significant extent distributed for personal use or consumption by individual consumers in their homes and is regulated under EPCA's

consumer product provisions, then the regulations would apply to any units of that same product distributed for commercial applications.

1-3

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
1. Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers, EPCA Section 322(a)(1), 42

U.S.C. 6292(a)(1);

2. Central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps , EPCA Section

321(21), 42 U.S.C. 6291(21);

3. Water heaters, EPCA Section 321 (27), 42 U.S.C. 6291(27);

4. Furnaces, EPCA Section 321 (23), 42 U.S.C. 6291(23);

5. Boilers, EPCA Section 321 (23), 42 U.S.C. 6291(23); and

6. Pool heaters, EPCA Section 321(25), 42 U.S.C. 6291(25).

Section 321(21) of EPCA defines "central air conditioner" for example as being a

product that is (A) powered by single phase electric current, (B) air cooled, (C) below

65,000 Btu per hour, (D) not in the same cabinet with a furnace having a rated capacity

above 225,000 Btu per hour, and (E) a heat pump or cooling only unit. If a product

were to be developed for residential use that met all of these criteria except that it was

water cooled instead of air cooled, it would not be within this definition and hence

would not be subject to regulation as a "central air conditioner" under EPCA.

EPCA does, however, authorize DOE to incorporate additional residential products into

its program. EPCA Section 322(a) (19) and (b), 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19) and (b). DOE

could add (1) for the six products listed above which EPCA defines, types of these

products that are not within the EPCA definitions, such as a water cooled residential

central air conditioner for example, and/or (2) products completely different from the

listed products, such as, for example, ceiling fans or VCRs.

To be added as a covered product under the EPCA provisions that regulate consumer

products, a product must consume or be designed to consume energy, and be distributed

to "any significant extent ... for personal use or consumption by individuals." EPCA

Sections 321(1) and 322, 42 U.S.C. 6291(1) and 6292. DOE would also have to

determine that (1) including the product as a "covered product" is "necessary or

appropriate" to carry out the purposes of EPCA and (2) the average energy use for that

type of product by a household using it is likely to exceed 100 kWh per year. EPCA

Section 322(b), 42 U.S.C. 6292(b). To prescribe an energy conservation standard for a

product that met those criteria, DOE would also have to determine that,

"(A) the average per household energy use within the United States by products

of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any 12-

month period ending before such determination;

"(B) the aggregate household energy use within the United States by products of

such type (or class) exceeded 4.2 billion kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any such

12-month period;

"(C) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of such type

(or class) is technologically feasible; and

"(D) the application of a labeling rule under ... [EPCA] to such type (or class) is

not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers

and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) which

1-4

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
achieve the maximum energy efficiency which is technologically feasible and

economically justified."

EPCA Section 325(1), 42 U.S.C. 6295(1). In addition, the criteria that normally apply in

setting an energy conservation standard under EPCA would apply to setting a standard

for one of these added products. Thus, it is possible that a product could meet the

criteria for being added as a "covered product" under EPCA, but not meet the criteria

for setting a standard for that product. In such an instance, DOE could establish test

procedures for the product and the product would be subject to labeling requirements.

EPCA Sections 323(b) (1)(B) and 324(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(B) and 6394(a)(3).

EPCA does not specify a process for determining whether a product meets the criteria to

be added as a new covered product or whether, having met those criteria , the product

meets the additional criteria for having standards applied to it. Sections 325(1) and (p)

of EPCA could reasonably be interpreted, however, as requiring the latter determination

to be included as part of the standards rulemaking process for such a product . 42 U.S.C.

6296(1) and (p).

Finally, in some instances the EPCA provisions that prescribe standards for a consumer

product limit the application of those standards to a narrower category of products than

is covered by EPCA's definition for the product, or, absent an EPCA definition, than

would be covered by a commonly accepted definition. For example, Section 325(b)(2)

of EPCA states that the standards prescribed for refrigerator products in Section

325(b)(1) "do not apply to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with total refrigerated

volume exceeding 39 cubic feet or freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 30

cubic feet." 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1). Since it is neither contained in EPCA's definition of

the covered product, nor worded so as to indicate a future limit on coverage, such a

limitation does not appear to bar DOE from promulgating a standard for products that

are within the limitation.

1.2.2 Commercial Products

1.2.2.1 Products Regulated under EPCA Provisions Concerning Consumer

Products

As part of its program for consumer products, EPCA provides energy conservation

standards, directs DOE to adopt test procedures, and authorizes DOE to adopt amended

standards, for the following three largely commercial products:

1. Fluorescent lamp ballasts;

2. General service fluorescent lamps; and

3. Incandescent reflector lamps.

EPCA Sections 321(1), 323 (b)(5)-(6), and 325(g)(5) and (i), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1),

6293(b)(5)-(6), 6295(g)(5) and (i). EPCA contains a definition for each of these

products, using considerable specificity and detail for the latter two products. EPCA

Section 321(29)-(30), 42 U.S.C. 6291(29)-(30). The test procedures and standards that

EPCA prescribes for lamps cover all or virtually all products that fall within its

definitions for these two products, but the statute's requirements for ballasts apply only

to certain of the products that meet its definition of "fluorescent lamp ballast." EPCA

1-5

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Sections 321(29)(A), 323(b)(5)-(6), and 325(g)(5) and (i), 42 U.S.C. 6291(29)(A),

6293(b)(5)-(6), 6295(g)(5) and (i). Moreover, although the language of the definitions

and standard-setting provisions indicate that the standards and test procedures apply

largely to equipment distributed for commercial use, they also apply to any consumer

product that meets the definitions and other criteria that govern their application. EPCA

Sections 321(1) and 322(a)(13)-(14), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1) and 6292(a)(13)-(14).

Although EPCA specifies requirements only for certain types of ballasts, the statute

specifically authorizes DOE to determine in subsequent rulemakings whether to adopt

standards for other products that meet EPCA's definition of "fluorescent lamp ballast."

EPCA Section 325(g)(7), 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7). For lamps, the statute authorizes DOE,

in a rulemaking to begin within 24 months after labeling requirements become effective

under EPCA, to determine if it should adopt standards for "additional ... general

service incandescent lamps," a category that includes but is broader than the

incandescent reflector lamps for which the statute prescribes standards. EPCA Section

325(i)(5), 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5).^ EPCA also contemplates a third rulemaking

concerning lamps, to begin "not less than eight years after October 24, 1992," in which

DOE must "determine if the standards in effect for fluorescent lamps and incandescent

lamps should be amended." EPCA Section 325(i)(4), 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(4). Arguably,

this provision authorizes the Department to promulgate standards for products that meet

the definition of "fluorescent lamp" or "incandescent lamp" in Section 321(30)(A) and

(C) of EPCA, 6291(30)(A) and (C).

For products that are within EPCA's definition of "fluorescent lamp ballast," "general

service fluorescent lamp," or "incandescent reflector lamp," clearly any rulemaking

could cover commercial products. See EPCA Section 321(1), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). As

discussed below, EPCA also authorizes DOE, subject to certain conditions, to

promulgate standards for commercial (as well as consumer) high-intensity discharge

lamps. EPCA Section 346, 42 U.S.C. 6317. But EPCA does not expressly authorize

DOE to promulgate standards for any other commercial lighting product. See EPCA

Sections 321(1), 322, and 325(1), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1), 6292, and 6295(1). Nevertheless,

since Section 325(i) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(i), authorizes DOE to amend the

standards for commercial incandescent reflector lamps to include standards for

"additional general service incandescent lamps," EPCA may be construed as authorizing

standards for commercial versions of general service incandescent lamps. For

essentially the same type of reason, if DOE were to conclude that Section 325(i)(4) of

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(4), authorizes it to prescribe standards for "fluorescent lamps"

and "incandescent lamps," a sound argument could be made that the Department can set

standards for commercial versions of these products. (For the reasons discussed in

Section 1.2.1 above, under Sections 321(1), 322(a) and (b) and 325(1) of EPCA, 42

U.S.C. 6291(1), 6292(a) and (b) and 6295(1), DOE can also add to its energy

conservation program any consumer lighting product that meets the applicable criteria in

those sections.) The net effect of the foregoing would be that DOE could adopt

standards for any lamp, whether commercial or consumer, that met EPCA's definition

of "fluorescent lamp" or "incandescent lamp." But for lamps excluded from these

definitions, such as for example reflector lamps with elliptical reflector (ER) and bulge

° This provision also authorizes DOE to consider adopting standards for "additional general service fluorescent lamps." But it is difficult to

discern what "additional" lamps might be contemplated here, since section 325(i)(1) of EPCA appears to prescribe standards for all or

virtually all lamps that meet the statute's definition of "general service fluorescent lamp."

1-6

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
reflector (BR) shapes or wattages over 205 Watts (W), under section 322 and 325(1) of

EPCA DOE could adopt standards for products that are distributed to any significant

extent for personal use or individual consumption. In addition, if reflector lamps with

ER or BR shapes meet the criteria for other covered industrial equipment, then standards

could be set for such lamps that are distributed to any significant extent for industrial or

commercial use.

Finally, as will be discussed in Section 1.2.2.2. which follows, the EPCA provisions that

specifically concern commercial products can be construed as authorizing DOE to

promulgate standards for both the types of products for which those provisions already

prescribe standards and for other industrial equipment the Secretary classifies as covered

equipment under section 341(b). These would include some lighting products, since

DOE is authorized to add to its program, for example, types of "electric lights" that are

distributed for commercial or industrial use. EPCA Sections 340(l)-(3) and 341((b), 42

U.S.C. 6311(1)-(3) and 6312(b).

1.2.2.2 Products Regulated under EPCA Provisions Concerning Commercial

Products

Sections 340 through 345 of EPCA concern "covered equipment," which consists of

certain "industrial equipment" that "to any significant extent ... [is] distributed ... for

industrial or commercial use" and is not covered under the EPCA provisions for

consumer products. EPCA Section 340(l)-(2), 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)-(2). Sections 342 and

343, 42 U.S.C. 6313-6314, prescribe energy conservation standards and test procedures

for certain types of the following commercial products:

1. Electric motors;

2. Small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment;

3. Large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment;

4. Warm air furnaces;

5. Packaged boilers;

6. Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps;

7. Storage and instantaneous water heaters; and

8. Unfired hot water storage tanks.

EPCA contains a definition for each of these products. For the first five the statute

prescribes standards for most but not all of the products that meet the applicable

definition, and for the last three it provides standards for all products that meet the

definition. EPCA Sections 340(l)-(13), and 342(a)(1)-(5) and (b), 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)-

(13), and 6313 (a)(1)-(5) and (b).

As to DOE's authority to promulgate standards for these products, EPCA provides

standards for "electric motors" ranging from one to 200 horsepower, and authorizes the

Department to amend these standards. EPCA Section 342(b), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b). The

statute does not explicitly address whether such amendments can include standards for

electric motors smaller than one or larger than 200 horsepower, but arguably DOE has

authority to adopt such standards. See EPCA Sections 341(a) and 342(b)(3)(A), 42

U.S.C. 6312(a) and 6313(b)(3)(A). EPCA provides no explicit authority to adopt

1-7

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
standards for any other type of motor, with the exception of small electric motors as

discussed below.,

For each of the remaining seven commercial products listed above, EPCA states that

DOE can amend the Federal energy conservation standard for a product if and when the

American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 is amended for that product., EPCA Section 342(a)(6), 42

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). Thus, if EPCA, or at a later point DOE's regulations, contains a

standard for one of these products, or for a subcategory of one of these products, and

ASHRAE amends the standard in ASHRAE 90.1 for such product or subcategory, then

DOE could amend the corresponding Federal standard.,

EPCA also authorizes DOE to determine if energy conservation standards are

warranted, and if so to promulgate such standards, for the following three largely

commercial products:

1. Distribution transformers;

2. High-intensity discharge lamps; and

3. Small electric motors.

EPCA Section 346, 42 U.S.C. 6317.

For any product that falls within one of the EPCA definitions for commercial heating,

air conditioning and water heating products, but for which the statute did not set a

standard, EPCA authorizes DOE to set a standard if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were

revised to set or amend a standard for that product.-

EPCA does allow the Department to classify as "covered equipment" certain specific

types of commercial and industrial equipment, if (1) they meet EPCA's general criteria

for covered equipment (presented at the outset of this section) and (2) DOE determines

that such classification "is necessary to carry out the purposes of' the EPCA provisions

concerning such equipment. EPCA Section 340(1)(G) and (2)(A), and 341(b), 42

U.S.C. 6311(1)(G) and 2(A), and 6312(b). Those products are as follows:

1. Compressors;

2. Fans;

3. Blowers;

4. Refrigeration equipment;

5. Electric lights;

6. Electrolytic equipment;

7. Electric arc equipment;

8. Steam boilers;

9. Ovens;

6 It should be noted that Section 340(1)(A) also specifies "pumps" as "covered equipment."

6 DOE has taken the position that an "amendment" to ASHRAE 90.1 consists either of a change in an efficiency standard in 90.1, or a

decision by ASHRAE not to change such a standard after having reviewed it to determine whether a change is warranted.

' EPCA does not set standards for commercial unit heaters or duct furnaces, and the statute's definition of "warm air furnace" specifically

excludes these products. EPCA Sections 340(11)(A) and 342(a), 42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A) and 6313(a). Thus, DOE may lack authority to

regulate these products.

6 For example, EPCA defines "large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment" as including "water source" products,

but prescribes no standard for large water source air conditioners. If ASHRAE were to amend Standard 90.1 to change or include a

standard for that product, then DOE could adopt a standard for that product.

1-8

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
10. Kilns;

11. Evaporators; and

12. Dryers.

DOE can prescribe test procedures and labeling requirements for any of these products

that it classifies as "covered equipment." EPCA Sections 343(a)(1) and 344(a), 42

U.S.C. 6314(a)(1) and 6315(a). And because (1) the purpose of this part of EPCA is to

improve the efficiency of "certain ... industrial equipment," 42 U.S.C. 6312(a), and (2)

the standards rulemaking provisions for consumer products are made applicable to any

products DOE classifies as "covered equipment," 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), DOE also has

authority to set standards for these products.

1.2.3 Potential Impact of Pending Legislation

Neither H.R. 4, the energy bill passed by the U.S, House of Representative (the House

bill), nor the bill passed by the Senate (the Senate bill), would limit DOE's authority to

add consumer products to its energy conservation program, and to promulgate energy

conservation standards for such newly added products. Both bills would add authority

for DOE to address energy consumed by products in the standby mode, although the

standby loss provisions in the two bills differ from one another. The Senate bill

specifically directs DOE to initiate rulemaking as to standby mode energy use of battery

chargers and external power supplies.

Section 143 (b) of the House bill would require DOE to identify any consumer products

not currently listed as covered products in EPCA that (1) meet the statute's criteria for

being added as covered products and (2) are major users of electricity. DOE would be

required to adopt energy conservation standards for any such product. The bill would

also require the Department to adopt test procedures and standards for the following

products:

1. Residential furnace fans;

2. Residential central air conditioner and heat pump circulation fans;

3. Suspended ceiling fans; and

4. Cold drink vending machines.

Except insofar as some of these products are commercial, the House bill does not

address commercial products.

The Senate bill would require DOE to develop and adopt test procedures and standards

for the following products:

1. Suspended ceiling fans;

2. Cold drink vending machines;

3. Commercial unit heaters; and

4. Commercial refrigerators, freezers and refrigerator-freezers.

The bill would also prescribe standards for the following four products, and require

DOE to adopt test procedures for the first three:

1-9

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
1. Illuminated exit signs;

2. Low voltage dry-type transformers;

3. Traffic signal modules; and

4. Torchieres.

Finally, Section 922 of the Senate bill is entitled "Authority to Set Standards for

Commercial Products." It would give DOE the authority to add commercial products as

"covered products" under the provisions of EPCA that cover primarily consumer

products. (DOE already has this same authority for consumer products.)

Notwithstanding the title of Section 922, however, because it amends neither Section

322(a)(19) nor Section 325(1) of EPCA, which taken together empower DOE to

promulgate standards for newly added consumer products, Section 922 arguably would

not authorize DOE to promulgate standards for newly added commercial products.

Rather, read literally, the amendments in Section 922 would appear to allow DOE only

to promulgate test procedures for newly added commercial products. See, e.g.,

paragraph (9) of Section 922 of the Senate bill.

1.3 The Product Prioritization Process

In September, 1995, the Department announced a formal effort to consider further

improvements to the process used to develop appliance efficiency standards, calling on

energy efficiency groups, manufacturers, trade association, state agencies, utilities and

other interested parties to provide input to guide the Department. On July 15, 1996, the

Department published a Final Rule: Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised

Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products (hereinafter referred to as the

Process Rule), 61 FR 36974.

The Process Rule set forth guidelines for developing efficiency standards. These

guidelines are designed to provide for greater, and more productive, interaction between

the Department and interested parties throughout the process. It is also designed so that

key analyses are performed earlier in the process, with early opportunities for public

input to and comment on the analyses. The guidelines are consistent with the procedural

requirements of law, but add some important steps to enhance the process.

1.3.1 Annual Priority-Setting Analysis and Development of Priorities List

As contemplated in the 1996 Process Rule, at least once a year the Department prepares

an analysis of pending or prospective rulemaking using several factors (identified

below) based on existing literature, direct communications with interested parties and

other experts, and other available information. The results of this analysis are used to

develop rulemaking priorities and proposed schedules for the development and issuance

of all rulemakings. Each year, DOE invites public input to review and comment on the

priority analysis. Finally, each fall, the Department issues, simultaneously with the

issuance of the Administration's Regulatory Agenda, a final set of rulemaking priorities,

the accompanying analysis, and the schedules for all priority rulemakings that it

anticipates within the next two years.

1-10

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Based on the guidelines set forth in EPCA, the Department compiled the following

initial list of factors to be considered in developing priorities and establishing schedules

for conducting rulemakings:

1. Potential energy savings;

2. Potential economic benefits;

3. Potential environmental or energy security benefits;

4. Applicable deadlines for rulemakings;

5. Incremental DOE resources required to complete rulemaking process;

6. Other relevant regulatory actions affecting products;

7. Stakeholder recommendations;

8. Evidence of energy efficiency gains in the market absent new or revised

standards;

9. Status of required changes to test procedures; and

10. Other relevant factors.

1.3.2 Process to Expand the Program.

Generally, the annual Priority-Setting Process focuses on products already covered by

the energy conservation program under EPCA. The Department viewed the PrioritySetting Process as an opportunity to work with stakeholders to define which products

could be added to an expanded appliance standards program.

The overarching goal of the extended prioritization process was to identify the products

that offer the largest and most readily-attainable energy savings, and that, taking into

account a variety of other important factors, warrant further, more detailed evaluation.

Ultimately, some of the new products considered may be subject to a rulemaking or

other actions by the DOE, including (but not limited to) voluntary programs and

research and develop (R&D) programs.

Table 1-1 provides a chronologically-based overview of the prioritization process,

including a description of key events and documents generated to support the process.

Table 1-1: Timeline of the Prioritization Process

09/11/2001 First Prioritization Meeting Initial Prioritization Criteria and

Product Lists

10/26/2001 Data Sheets for Potential New

Products Posted on DOE Website

Data Sheets for Potential New

Products

11/06/2001 Second Prioritization Meeting Revised Prioritization Criteria List

12/06/2001 Deadline for Receipt of

Stakeholder Comments

Response to meetings and data

sheets

The rest of this section describes the most recent prioritization process in chronological

order, beginning with the September 11 meeting.

1-11

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
1.4 Refining the Prioritization Process - September 11, 2001 Meeting

For the September 11, 2001, meeting, DOE developed an initial list of 36 products for

possible inclusion in an extended program. These products are listed in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 : Initial List of Potential New Products

Clothes Washers Inkjet Printers*

Clothes Dryers Automatic Coffee Makers

Electric Cooking Set Top Boxes

Gas Cooking Compact Audio

Supermarket Refrigeration Dehumidifier

Walk-In Refrigerators Furnace Fans

Vending Machines Microwave Ovens

Beverage Merchandisers Pool Pumps

Reach-In Refrigerators RACK/Component Audio

Ice Machines Torchiere Lamps

Traffic Signals (VCR) Video Cassette Recorder

Pedestrian Crossing Signs Waterbed Heaters

Exit Signs Well Pumps

General Service Incandescent Lamps Window/Stand/Desk Fans

Gas Unit Heaters# Ceiling Fans

Oil Unit Heaters#

Gas Duct Furnaces#

Ground-Coupled Heat Pumps#

Desktop (PC) Personal Computers*

Monitors*

Low-End Server Computers*

Copy Machines*

Laser Printers*

Facsimile Machines*

*Denotes commercial and residential devices; initially, energy consumption and savings

calculations were performed separately for commercial and residential uses.

# Denotes that the product has a minimum energy efficiency specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1

In addition, as it does every year, the Department provided information relative to all

products existing in the current program. Existing covered products are listed in Table

1-3.

1-12

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Table 1-3: Existing Covered Products

rs^. d <~f^ ft

Central AC and HP (3-phase > 65kBtu/h)# Clothes Dryers

Central AC and HP, 65-24OkBtu /h # Clothes Washers

Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water

Heaters#

Cooking Products

Commercial Furnaces and Boilers # Direct Heating Equipment, Gas

Commercial Water Heaters# Dishwashers

Distribution Transformers Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Electric Motors, 1-200HP# Fluorescent Lamps

Commercial Oil- and Gas-Fired Packaged

Boilers#

Mobile Home Furnaces

High-Intensity Discharge Lamps Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings

Packaged Terminal A/C and HP# (PTAC) Pool Heaters, Gas

Small Electric Motors (< 1 horsepower (HP)) Refrigerators

Residential Water Heaters

Room Air Conditioners

Residential Central AC/HP

Residential Furnaces and Boilers

#Denotes that the product has a minimum energy efficiency specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1

For the September meeting, the Department offered for consideration all of the products in

Tables 1-1 through 1-3. The Department compiled the list of potential new products by

drawing from similar lists prepared by independent organizations, and supplemented with

products the Department identified as consuming significant amounts of energy. Inclusion

of a given product on the initial list did not constitute a final decision by DOE to initiate

further action. Instead, the initial list sought to include a broad range of potential products

that might stimulate a discussion of different prioritization criteria.

During the meeting, the Department received input on the prioritization process.

Specifically, participants suggested what criteria, besides those already outlined in the

process rule, should influence the selection of products for further action. These

suggestions, and comments received after the meeting, enabled the Department to refine

its list of prioritization criteria as shown in Table 1-4.

Table 1-4 : Product Prioritization Criteria

Energy savings potential

Potential economic benefits

Potential environmental or energy security benefits

Applicable deadlines for rulemakings

Incremental DOE resources required to complete rulemaking process

Evidence of energy efficiency gains in the market absent new or revised standards

Status of required changes to test procedures

Impact of potential regulation on product innovation 3

Fuel neutrality 3

Impact on peak demand for electricity 3

Impact of potential regulation on small businesses

Cumulative regulative burden on products, related products manufactured by the same

manufacturers

3 New criteria

Denotes new criterion developed for or during the workshop.

1-13

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
1.5 Refining the Priority Products List - November 6, 2001 , Meeting

In light of the revised prioritization criteria, the Department developed preliminary "data

sheets" for all of the products under consideration. The preliminary data sheets, which

offer product-specific information under each prioritization criterion, were posted on the

DOE website-, and made available for the November 6, 2001, meeting. Tablel-5

summarizes the type of information contained in preliminary data sheets.

During the September meeting, stakeholders emphasized the need for energy savings

estimates for all products. The Department made every effort to develop energy savings

calculations using the most up-to-date and complete data available. In practice, the

sheer number of new products under initial consideration limited the quantity and depth

of analysis applied to each product. Consequently, the energy savings calculations

derived were intended to be preliminary, yet reasonable estimates based on available

literature.

Table 1-5: Information Contained in the Preliminary Data Sheets

Energy Annual Energy Consumption; Energy Savings potential of different

standard levels/technologies

Sales Annual sales; installed base; product lifetime

Efficiency Levels Installed base; typical new; best available; ENERGY STAR® (as

applicable); future/posited technologies/standard levels

Test Procedures Status of test procedures (DOE; Industry [e.g., ASHRAE], ENERGY

STAR®, other); overview of procedure(s); future test procedures under

consideration; correlation between test procedure and energy

consumption; correlation between test procedure and peak electricity

demand; potential ways to improve test procedure relevance to energy

consumption

Cumulative Regulatory Current regulations affecting product (and related products), including

Burden energy efficiency

Evidence of Market-Driven Market shares of products meeting technology/standard levels;

or Voluntary Efficiency ENERGY STAR® product market share; other evidence/reasons for

Improvements market movement to technology/standard level (e.g., move to light

emitting diodes (LED) traffic signals because of much longer lifetime

and reduced maintenance costs)

Using the updated prioritization criteria, the Department developed information for both

"new" and "existing" products, which enabled comparison of all products on a common

basis. By evaluating existing products side-by-side with the proposed new products the

Department could propose a revised list of "high," "medium" and "low" priority

products. Existing medium and high priority products from the 2001 Regulatory

Agenda are shown in Table 1-6, for Standards and Determinations, and Table 1-7 for

Test Procedures. Section 6 of this report presents a proposed revision to these priorities.

t0At: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes standards/notices/notc0044/index.htmI

1-14

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Table 1-6: Existin g Products with Hi gh and Medium Priority - Standards and Determinations

• 11,

-

, r- r^ ' ^ i,

Residential Central AC/HP Central Three-Phase, <65k Btu

Distribution Transformers Oil- and Gas-Fired Fired Commercial Packaged

Boilers

Residential Furnaces and Boilers Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water

Heaters

Central AC/HP, 65-240k Btu

Small Electric Motors - Determination

Packaged Terminal AC/HP

Table 1-7: Existing Products with High and Medium Priority - Test Procedures

Dishwashers Compact Refrigerators

Residential Central AC/HP Ductless Split Central AC/HP

Commercial A/C and Heat

Pumps

Commercial Furnaces

Commercial Water Heaters

Following the September meeting, the Department reduced the list of products under

consideration primarily on the basis of maximum energy savings potential.

The "short" list developed from the original list of 36 (Table 1-2) included 12 products

with an energy saving potential in excess of one quad" and included both new and

existing products. (Table 1-8). This list did not seek to exclude other products from

consideration, but was intended to serve as a focal point for product prioritization

discussions at the meeting. Furthermore, the Department recognized that this "short"

list would need to be changed in light of revised energy savings calculations and of the

other prioritization criteria.

Table 1-8: Products with a Maximum Energy Savings Potential Exceeding One Quad (Includes

New and Existing Products)

High Intensity Discharge (HID)

Lamps

8.3 Televisions 4.1

Monitors I 4.4 Incandescent General Service

Lamps

3.7

Personal Computers 4.2 Residential Clothes Dryers 3.5

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 2.2 Ceiling Fans (including Lighting) 2.4

Fluorescent Lamps 2.1 Set-Top Boxes 1.9

Torchiere Lamps 1.7

Dishwashers I 1.7

Source: 2002 Priority Setting Data Sheets

* Energy Savings Cumulative to 2030

" A "quad" denotes one quadrillion Btus, or 1015 Btus.

1-15

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Table 1-9 shows the products that fell under the one quad criterion.

Table 1-9: Products with Energy Savings Potential under One Quad (Includes New and Existing

Products)

1 r ^^•1`(^ u`^.μ ^'r Y^^:^^ S- CC.

^mmercial Furnaces

Commercial Oil- and Gas-Fired

1t.^":.-- ^ '{-

N.S.

. 28

a LF

SjYl^i

'^3 ^ ^^1 x'C'1t l y^

Clothes Washers

Cooking Products

^R"4' .+?

NS

.6

ercial Water He aters N.S. Direct Heating Equipment .1

ic Motors N.A. Pool Heater .7

ged Terminal AC &HP

Ji

.56 Refrigerators,

Refri erator/Freezers

N.S.

ess Instantaneous Water

rs

. 10 Residential Water Heater N.S.

Room Air Conditioners N.S.

Commercial Clothes Washers .46 Compact Audio .57

Commercial Clothes Dryers . 81 Dehumidifier .53

All Cooking(D 1.024 Pool Pumps .21

Super Market Refrigeration . 31 RACK/Component Audio .87

Walk-in Refrigerators .37 VCR .38

Vending Machines .45 Well Pumps .24

Beverage Merchandisers .22

Reach-in Refrigerators/Freezers .89

Ice Machines .21

Exit Signs .35

Gas Unit Heaters .73

Oil Unit Heaters .01

Gas Duct Furnaces .13

Low-end Server Computers .92

Copy Machines .81

Laser Printers .50

Facsimile Machines .48

Water Coolers .26

Traffic Signals .60

Source: 2002 Priority Setting Data Sheets.

* Energy Savings Cumulative to 2030

N.S. Recently adopted standard

N.A. Not available

01 Includes Broilers, Fryers, Griddles, Ovens, Ranges and Steamers.

For the November meeting, the Department had several objectives. Specifically the

Department wanted to:

• Complete the discussions concerning the program's existing priorities.

• Review the prioritization criteria and the process to expand the program's scope

through the addition of new products.

• Receive comments on the preliminary data sheets.

12 Energy Savings estimates as presented during the November workshop.

1-16

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
• Obtain product-specific recommendations for further actions.

Although discussion at the meeting centered on whether or not to pursue a standards

rulemaking for these products, future actions could follow a variety of different paths,

including:

• Initiating a rulemaking;

• Developing a test procedure;

• Conducting further analysis to assess the viability of a rulemaking or other action;

• Considering non-regulatory actions to influence the products sold in the market

(e.g., an ENERGY STAR® program for the product); and

• Suspending further action at this time.

During the meeting, the Department and stakeholders refined the "short" list of products

for further consideration (Table 1-10). The need to limit the number of products under

consideration reflects the Department's resource constraints, which allow the

Department to pursue approximately four priority rulemakings a year.

Table 1-10: Refined list of Products Selected for Further Consideration

i.i^ t

t k f' 1eSF s P P • 1

High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps 2 . 2 Televisions 1.7

Monitors 4 .44 Incandescent General Service 8.7

Lamps

Personal Computers 4.08 Residential Clothes Dryers 3.5

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 2.7 Ceiling Fans (including Lighting) 3.7

Fluorescent Lamps 2.6 Set-Top Boxes 1.55

Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct 1.6 Torchiere Lamps 1.7

Furnaces*

Commercial Refrigeration* 4.3 Dishwashers 1.7

Home Audio (Compact and 1.44

RACK/Component)*

*13 Products Added based on updated energy savings potential.

Several products not appearing on the initial list (Table 1-8) warranted further

consideration. Gas Unit Heaters were added to the list based on their revised maximum

energy savings potential (1.3 quads). In addition, gas duct furnaces were added in

recognition of their historical link to gas unit heaters, as to energy efficiency levels in

ASHRAE 90.1 and as to test procedures in American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) Z38. Commercial refrigeration equipment encompasses several different kinds

13 *Denotes added to short list for consideration based upon input received at meeting.

1-17

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
of systems: supermarket refrigeration systems; ice machines; refrigerated vending

machines; reach-in refrigerators; reach-in freezers; and beverage merchandisers.

Collectively, these products have an energy savings potential of up to 4.3 quads, which

formed the rationale for further study. In addition, home audio equipment, including

compact audio and RACK/component audio products, warranted further study based on

their collective energy savings potential (up to 1.44 quads).

Several questions arose at the November meeting concerning the derivation of energy

savings calculations. A companion Technical Support Document (TSD) describes the

derivation of energy consumption and savings estimates for all products listed in Table

1-10.14 In addition, the TSD provides product-specific information relating to the other

prioritization criteria. The TSD is continued in Appendix A to this report.

14 Spreadsheets containing the assumptions and calculations for equipment under consideration were posted on the DOE website at! -18

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes standards/notices/notc0044/index.htmI.

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
2 General Comments on the Prioritization Process

2.1 General Comments on the DOE Program

Several commentators voiced support for some type of DOE action in general, while

others broadly opposed DOE action.-, The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) supports DOE

action to update test procedures, and Shaver supports an expansion of the energy

conservation program. Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA) also supports

efforts to update test procedures, but it is opposed to expansion of the energy

conservation program. Similarly, the Electronic Consumers Alliance (ECA) and

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) provided comments opposed to the energy

conservation program in general.

EEI commented that "the Department should concentrate on expanding the program

where it is cost-effective for the maximum number of consumers, technically feasible,

economically justified on a national basis, and saves a significant amount of energy,

both at the end-user level and at the national level" (EEI, No. 3316). EEI further

commented that the Department should focus its effort on updating test procedures (EEI,

No. 33).

In full support of expanding the energy conservation program to include additional

consumer products (i.e., computers, monitors, printers, microwave ovens, incandescent

light bulbs, and compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs), Shaver commented that such

inclusion "is necessary in order to provide an effective and significant counter to the

trend (of growing electricity consumption) which threatens the ability of the ...

electricity generation and distribution system to meet consumer and industry demands"

(Shaver, No. 7). Shaver further commented that "inclusion in the Program would

provide consumers with more economical products, provide consumers with tools to

make energy-smart purchases, and provide companies with an incentive to produce

more energy efficient products" (Shaver, No. 7).

The California Energy Commission (CEC) commented that upgrading of standards for

consumer products as mandated by NAECA should be given priority. CEC also

supports completion of January 2001 rulemaking activity for the identified products that

required further study to assess adoption of several standards contained in ASHRAE

90.1-1999. On the other hand, CEC asserted that the Department is not in a position to

expand the scope of the appliance standards program at this time, and that in most cases

it lacks legal authority to do so (CEC, No. 38).

15 This section does not address comments provided with respect to specific products.

16 Dominion Virginia Power commented that it is "in full support of the detailed comments submitted by the Edison Electric Institute" (DVP,

No. 31). Instead of noting this comment in conjunction with each and every EEI comment, it appears once in this footnote.

2-1

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) commented that it

believes DOE should be able to undertake five rulemakings at this time, in addition to a

few test procedure rules, because the rulemakings now being considered are unlikely to

be as controversial as many of the recent rulemakings. ACEEE added that, therefore,

there is room to start two to three new rulemakings, as there are currently only three or

four other major rulemakings. ACEEE recommend that the department choose

incandescent reflector lamps, unit heaters, and external power supplies/battery chargers

(which did not make the final list of potential products for consideration) as subjects for

new rulemakings, as new ENERGY STAR® programs have recently started for ceiling

fans, set-top boxes, and commercial refrigerators. Furthermore, ACEEE recommended

that the Department monitor efficiency trends of products for which the U.S. Congress

is likely to adopt new standards without DOE action (i.e., torchieres) and products for

which an ENERGY STAR® program is making progress in capturing energy savings

(e.g., computers/monitors and TVs/VCRs/audio equipment) (ACEEE, No. 39).

EMPA is in support of updating test procedures; however, it is opposed to the addition

of new products to the existing appliances standards program (EMPA, No. 3 and 25).

EMPA commented that the U.S economy is already much less energy intensive than in

the past due to three key factors, which do not include mandated efficiency standards:

relatively high energy prices in the 1970s and early 1980s, new technologies that have

permitted increased productivity and required less energy, and a shift in the U.S.

economy to less energy-intensive manufacturing and services (EMPA, No. 25).

ECA and CEI generally opposed further DOE action. ECA commented that "mandated

reduced energy consumption will result in conservation; however, it is an incomplete

premise upon which to base policy, in the same way as it would be to increase energy

prices" (ECA, No. 23). On a different note, CEI commented that "most energy-using

home appliances (including heating and air conditioning systems, refrigerators, water

heaters, cooking products, clothes washers and dryers)" have already been regulated,

and the new products under consideration are only "minor energy users" (CEI, No. 8

and 24). CEI further commented that "the Department is statutorily precluded from

promulgating any standard that does not save a significant amount of energy and that is

not economically justified" (CEI, No. 24).

2.2 Effects on Consumers

CEI, ECA, Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE), National Association of

Farmer Elected Committees (NAFEC), Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC),

First Company, EMPA, and the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) provided

comments regarding energy efficiency standards and the interests of consumers. These

commentators, in general, asserted that standards would have the effect of increased

consumer prices and would likely be adverse to the interests of consumers.

Furthermore, commentators discussed NAECA's consumer protections for rulemakings,

2-2

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
including impact on purchase price, life cycle cost, maintenance and service agreements,

as well as product choice, utility, features, and performance (CEI, No. 24; ECA, No. 23,

WIFE, No. 19; NAFEC, No. 22; SBSC, No. 27; FC, No. 26; EMPA, No. 3 and 25;

ACGA, No. 35).

Due to impact on consumers, WIFE, NAFEC, SBSC, and ACGA commented that the

Department should not expand the list of consumer products under energy efficiency

regulation. ECA opposes expanding the scope of energy efficiency regulation without

further empirical consideration of the relative costs and benefits for residential and small

business consumers (ECA, No. 23). CEI and ECA commented that DOE should only

promulgate standards that are in the best interest of consumers or that would benefit

consumers positively (CEI, No. 8 and 24; ECA, No. 23).

WIFE, NAFEC, and ACGA are concerned about rural area impact, commenting that

expansion of the standards program would primarily impact affordability and access to

basic household appliances and electronics in rural America . (WIFE, No. 19; NAFEC,

No. 22; ACGA, No. 35). SBSC commented that consumers will bear the burden for

costs incurred by industry, making some essential products unaffordable for "many

Americans" (SBSC, No. 27).

EMPA commented that the Department could account for the interests of real

consumers by specifically contracting with one or more organizations that would be

charged explicitly with such a task. This would include analyzing existing and proposed

energy efficiency standards, evaluating data used by the Department and its contractors,

and defending consumers' economic and choice freedoms (EMPA, No. 15). EMPA

further commented that DOE currently provides funding to energy efficiency advocacy

groups, including National Laboratories (AES), ACEEE, The Alliance to Save Energy,

(AES) and State energy offices (EMPA, No. 3 and 25).

2.3 Ranking and Prioritization

Southern Company, EEI, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)

and ACEEE provided comments commending the ranking and prioritization criteria.

Specifically, EEI commended the additional criteria of innovation and fuel neutrality

(EEI, No. 5 and 16), and AHAM commended the consideration of cumulative regulatory

burden (AHAM, No. 10). ACEEE commented that it would add "reduction in peak

electrical demand" to the list, which the Department did, as shown in Table 1-4

(ACEEE, No. 39).

EEI questioned the relationship between the one-quad cutoff criteria and economic

justification. EEI commented that if the technology that provides one-quad of

cumulative energy savings is the highest efficiency (and technically feasible) product, it

is not likely to be economically justified (EEI, No. 5 and 16). Several other

2-3

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
organizations made similar comments about the appropriateness of "best available"

products as a potential energy efficiency level, primarily in the context of consumer

electronics and office equipment. Specifically, the Consumer Electronics Association

(CEA) noted that many products that can achieve the `best available' energy efficiency

may be a `de-featured' product, likely to have very limited market appeal (CEA, No.

28). In addition, CEI commented that "NAECA contains provisions to protect

consumers from conservation standards that may diminish product choice, features"

(CEI, No. 8 and 24). The Department acknowledges that consideration of technical

energy savings potential alone would be inappropriate. The one Quad criterion was a

preliminary sorting threshold and the list of priority products will include consideration

of economic and other factors.

First Company suggested that three more factors be considered for prioritization criteria:

status as a niche product, dual function products, and effect on consumer choice (FC,

No. 26). First Company stated that in many cases niche products are manufactured by

small independent companies, and their share of the market is small. For `dual function

products,' First Company commented that "a product cannot, by definition, have two

`primary' functions, and the Department's legal authority is limited to developing

energy efficiency standards based on the primary function of an appliance" (FC, No.

26). In past rulemakings the Department has considered the unique consumer utility

niche products provide by establishing separate product classes for these products.

Also, the Department has evaluated separately - and considered - the burdens placed on

niche manufacturers. For the purposes of the priority setting, the Department did not

evaluate dual function products.

ACEEE commented that energy savings estimates should not be included for

technologies that are unlikely to meet NAECA's criteria of "technically feasible" and

"economically justified." For example, since heat pump and microwave clothes dryers

are unlikely to be cost-effective to consumers, they should not be included in the

energy-saving analysis. ACEEE further commented that other factors listed in NAECA

under economic justification are generally more difficult to screen; thus, these other

factors should be generally left to the rulemaking process as opposed to the screening

process (ACEEE, No. 39). In the initial screening process, DOE identifies technically

feasible options for energy savings estimates, albeit some that are not yet commercially

available. Then, the Department reviews the list of design options based on the factors

and policies specifically listed in the Process Rule. Procedures for Consideration of

New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products, 61 FR 36974

(July 15, 1996).

ACEEE also commented that one major problem with the analysis is that many related

products were examined separately, with the result that energy savings appear small.

Where products have enough similarity that they can be combined into a single

2-4

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
rulemaking (e.g., commercial reach-in refrigerators, freezers and refrigerator-freezers),

they should be examined together and not separately (ACEEE, No. 39).

The Department has determined that the following sets of products should be combined

into a single rulemaking:

• Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct Furnaces

• Reach-In Freezers and Reach-In Refrigerators

• Vending Machines and Beverage Mechandisers

• RACK/Component Audio and Compact Audio

2.4 Overall Process and Methodology

While few comments were raised regarding the overall process and methodology,

several general points of interest were brought to DOE's attention. First, for products

selected for further rulemaking consideration, the National Electrical Manufacturers

Association (NEMA) and EMPA presumed that significantly more detailed analysis of

potential energy savings and economic benefits will be undertaken (NEMA, No. 20;

EMPA, No. 3). In the TSD accompanying this report, the Department is providing a

more detailed analysis of the energy savings potential and where possible, a description

of the consumer economic impacts. For any products ultimately selected for standards

actions, the Department will undertake a rigorous economic analysis.

Southern Company commented that it generally agrees with the methodology (SC, No.

17). However, EMPA commented that the period of time in lifecycle cost analyses

should be changed to reflect the period of time that the initial purchaser owns the

appliance'? (EMPA, No. 15). DOE maintains that the correct definition of time period to

be considered is the entire life of the product, as useful energy and cost savings are

realized throughout the product's entire life. Regarding the compiled list of potential

products, EEI commented that the list came only from a selected group of stakeholders

and the additional suggestions made in October 2001, by other stakeholders should be

considered (EEI, No. 16). As suggested by EEI the Department expanded the products

under consideration in response to comments received during and following the public

meetings.

Southern Company and AHAM recommend reestablishing the Advisory Committee on

Appliance Energy Efficiency so that a forum exists to discuss and communicate issues

of a general nature (S.C., No. 6; AHAM, No. 10). On the other hand, EMPA does not

recommend that the Department reestablish the Committee, asserting that the former

Committee resulted in communication limited to a preferred group. However, EMPA

further commented that if the Committee is reestablished, it should assure that all

17 EMPA commented that authority for this is given under 42 USC 6295 (o) (EMPA, No. 15).

2-5

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
legitimate interests are represented , including "real consumers" (EMPA, No. 15). At

this point, DOE does not plan to re-establish the Advisory Committee on Appliance

Energy Efficiency; instead, it will continue to hold public meetings and encourages

participation of a broad range of stakeholders in the prioritization process.

2.5 Technology Changeover, Product Convergence, and Innovation

Bose, EEI, CEI, EMPA, and the Information Technology Industry Council (ITT)

commented that technology changeover, product convergence, and innovation affect

consideration of standards for new products, specifically consumer electronic products

and office equipment (i.e., VCRs, Component and RACK Audio, Compact Audio,

Monitors, Desktop PCs, Televisions, and Set-top Boxes). The three specific

characteristics of consumer electronics products postulated as precluding energy

conservation standards are: (1) short product life-cycles relative to the rulemaking

cycle, (2) rapid evolution of product features, including multi-functionality; and (3) the

possibility that energy consumption caps might result in products that cannot support the

otherwise desired breadth of features (i.e., de-featured products). Detailed discussion of

each of these issues and the specific comments is given in Section 4.5.

2.6 Voluntary or Other Programs

W.C. Wood, Southern Company, Controlled Energy Corporation, Sony, SBSC, CEA,

CEI, and ITT provided comments in support of voluntary and/or energy-use labeling

programs. W.C. Wood, Sony, CEA, CEI, and ITI provided comments in favor of

increasing the number of products covered by, and increasing the support to, the

ENERGY STAR® Program, and Southern Company supported efforts to extend the

energy-use labeling program to new products (W.C. Wood, No. 4; Controlled Energy

Corp., No. 14; Sony, No. 21; CEA, No. 28; Bose, No. 32; CEI, No. 8 and 24; ITT, No.

30; SC, No. 6 and 17). Sony recommended that the Department consider building on

the ENERGY STAR® program to avoid potentially difficult and non-productive

regulation (Sony, No. 21). CEI commented that the success of non-regulatory

approaches reduces the need for additional standards (CEI, No. 8 and 24). ITI

commented that "a number of factors have contributed to ENERGY STAR's®

success... perhaps the most important is the program's reliance on voluntary rather than

`command-and-control' compliance mechanisms" (ITT, No. 30). As noted in Section 1,

the Department strongly supports the development of voluntary programs (such as

ENERGY STAR®) that promote energy efficiency for products, as appropriate.

2.7 Setting Standards at ASHRAE Levels

EEI commented that DOE should accept ASHRAE standards for products already

covered by ASHRAE (EEI, No. 5); however, First Company commented that ASHRAE

standards should not be a substitute for the Department's own rulemaking processes and

protections (FC, No. 26). EEI believes that Department resources should be saved for

2-6

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
other activities (EEI, No. 5). On the other hand, First Company commented that it

should not be assumed that standards developed by `standards-setting' organizations

such as ASHRAE are truly `consensus' standards that meet Department criteria (FC,

No. 26).

DOE responds that its role in mandating equipment efficiency is separate from the role

of ASHRAE and building codes. Specifically, the Department, for products over which

it has authority to regulate, is tasked with setting standards in accordance with criteria

set forth in EPCA, and the ASHRAE 90.1 standards may not satisfy these criteria.

2.8 One Watt Standby Level

Southern Company commented that it recommends setting a different standby power

standard for each product rather than a universal one-watt (1 W)standby power

maximum (SC, No. 17). The Department will consider standby power standards that

vary from product-to-product. A universal one-watt standby power level may not be

appropriate for all applicable products. The Department intends to incorporate standby

power consumption on a product by product basis in the course of revising test

procedures. Furthermore, the July 2001 Executive Order, which specifies that the

Federal government should purchase products which consume one watt or less in

standby mode, will create an incentive for manufacturers to produce devices meeting the

one-watt threshold where feasible.

2.9 NAECA's 100 kWh Annual Energy Usage Requirement

EEI and CEI commented that the Department may not be allowed to legally issue

rulemakings for products using less than 100 kWh per year on average (EEI, No. 5; CEI,

No. 24). For several product classifications (e.g., desktop personal computers, monitors,

and laser printers), some participants in the meetings on priorities questioned the

distinction between household and commercial energy consumption for purposes of

applying NAECA's requirement of a 100 kWh minimum annual energy consumption

(per household). For example, they questioned DOE's authority to promulgate energy

efficiency regulations for desktop PCs, as the average desktop PC consumes -297

kWh/year in commercial applications but only -56 kWh/year in residential applications.

CEI noted this discrepancy between residential and commercial usage and asserted that

desktop PCs, as well as monitors, cannot legally be subjected to rulemakings (CEI, No.

24). To further clarify application of the NAECA requirement for some products (e.g.,

halogen torchieres and compact audio systems which may only be used with batteries),

EEI suggested that detailed studies may be needed to determine the average or median

energy usage (EEI, No. 5).

In the context of an expansion of the appliance program as contemplated by the National

Energy Policy, this report seeks to identify which products could have the potential to

2-7

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
save energy from regulatory or other actions. Once the Department has identified those

products, the Department's consideration of further action must take into account its

authority under EPCA.

2-8

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
3 Comments on the Products under Existing Regulation : Product- specific

Feedback Received and DOE Response

This (and the following) section of the report addresses product-specific issues for those

products identified by stakeholders as most promising for future standards. Each

product sub-section includes concise background information about the subject product,

a summary of comments received, DOE's responses to these comments, and the

Department's proposed action for that product. This section considers products under

existing regulation, and the next section covers the same topics for potential new

products that might be included in the program. Section 5 addresses these same topics

for products not selected for further consideration at this time.

In all of the recommendations, specific data for energy savings potential estimates

represent the cumulative quads of energy saved in the period 2008-2030. To give

perspective on the relative energy savings potential of different products for the purpose

of this report only, the energy saving potentials have received categorization as "high,"

"moderate," or "low," based on the thresholds shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 : Categorization of Energy Savings Potential (for 2008-2030 Period)

High >1.0

Moderate 0.5 to 1.0

Low <0.5

3.1 Dishwashers

Dishwashers, with an installed base of 53.8 million units, consume 0.24 quads of energy

annually. The current minimum efficiency standard is an energy factor (EF) of 0.46.

The identified technologies considered for revised energy efficiency standards are: (1)

the best available unit as listed in ENERGY STAR® (1.05 EF) and (2) the current

minimum standard ENERGY STAR® for a dishwasher (0.58 EF). Using the efficiency

of these two products as standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings

are 1.4 quads and 0.40 quads, respectively. -8

Currently, the primary issue concerning energy savings for dishwashers is the need for a

test procedure that properly reflects energy consumption for new, readily available

adaptive control technologies. The existing test procedure specifies testing with clean

dishes only; therefore it cannot properly reflect actual energy consumption of

dishwasher models that alter cycle times and functions based on the level of cleanliness

of the dishes. In support of this, ACEEE commented that the dishwasher test procedure

needs to be corrected (ACEEE, No. 39). Similarly, EEI contended that energy savings

values based on the requirement that consumers use an appliance in one particular way

18 Source: Appendix A, Technical Support Document (TSD).

3-1

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
(e.g. requiring pre-rinsing) are not likely to be obtained (EEI, No. 16). Industry supports

a test procedure revision for more accurate testing of new adaptive control models.

Upon finalization of a new test procedure, ACEEE recommended that dishwashers be

subject to a new rulemaking, as many presently-available dishwashers exceed the

current standard by 25 percent or more (ACEEE, No. 39).

To address new technology (e.g., adaptive controls, dirt sensors), the Department is in

the process of updating the test procedure. The new procedure will use dirty test-dishes

to encompass the variety of sensor techniques now in the market. As the next step, the

Department plans to evaluate the energy performance of dishwashers under the new test

procedures. This will allow the Department to determine the relative performance of the

products and evaluate their energy savings potential.

The Department considers the development of new dishwasher test procedures a high

priority. Furthermore, given the relatively high energy savings potential of new

standards, the Department proposes to move dishwashers from low to medium priority

for rulemaking.

3.2 Fluorescent Lamps

Fluorescent lamps consumed 3.0 quads of energy in 2001. Energy efficiency levels

considered for possible future standards are: (1) best available Federal Energy

Management Program (FEMP) procurement recommendation levels (4-foot, 8-foot, and

U-tube lamps), and (2) recommended FEMP procurement recommendation levels (4-

foot, 8-foot, and U-tube lamps). Estimates for cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings

at these levels are 3.54 and 1.84 quads, respectively. When taking into account market

trends towards the use of electronic ballasts, the energy savings estimates due to the best

available and recommended FEMP levels become 0.47 and 0.14 quads, respectively.

These lower estimates are more likely as ballast standards mandating the use of

electronic ballasts for new fluorescent lamp installations will become effective in the

year 2005.

Fluorescent lamps are subjects of EPACT, the ENERGY STAR® program, the

ASHRAE 90.1 building energy efficiency code, the FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative,

and some utility demand side management (DSM) programs. Furthermore, although not

specific to lamps, a recent Federal rule (2000) established electronic ballasts as the

baseline for fluorescent lamps/ballast systems. NEMA commented that no further

action is necessary because of the 2000 Federal fluorescent lamp ballast energy

conservation standards (NEMA, No. 20). EEI commented that these ballast standards,

which go into effect in 2005, will shift the lamp technology to T8 lamps (EEI, No. 16).

In clarification, DOE acknowledges that the ballast standards will essentially require

electronic ballasts, as opposed to magnetic ballasts. Furthermore, the most common

lamp/ballast system sold in the U.S. today is a T8 lamp running on an electronic ballast,

3-2

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
so a shift to T8 lamps is already occurring. In addition, the updated ASHRAE 90.1-

1999 building code lighting provisions essentially require T8 lamps in new nonresidential buildings.19 As of October 2001, seven states had already adopted the

updated 1999 standard. ACEEE commented that lighting power density standards in

building codes (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-1999) are a more flexible and preferable option than

new lamp standards and thus recommended that fluorescent lamps should remain a low

priority for a new rulemaking (ACEEE, No. 39).

Due to the low to moderate energy savings potential of the two FEMP scenarios2o (0.14-

0.47 quads, based on a more likely characterization of the future ballast market), the

Department will not conduct further energy savings and economic analysis of new

standards for fluorescent lamps, and this product will have low priority status.

3.3 High Intensity Discharge Lamps

High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps, with an installed base of 167 million units,

consume 1.4 quads of energy annually. If all HID lamps rated at 100 W or higher had

an efficacy of at least 50 lumens per watt, which would result from the substitution of

metal halide and high-pressure sodium lamps for mercury vapor lamps, the potential

cumulative (2008-2030) energy saving would equal 1.4 quads.

Southern Company, EEI, NEMA, and ACEEE commented on the cumulative potential

energy savings estimate (with the opinion that it was too high). They noted that

inefficient mercury vapor lamps are already being replaced by more efficient choices

and that HID lighting (in general) is already used in applications where it produces the

most light for the least electricity (SC, No. 17; EEI, No. 16; NEMA, No. 20; ACEEE,

No. 39). NEMA commented that even if all mercury vapor lamps were eliminated,

potential energy savings may not even meet the 1.0 quad threshold. If the rulemaking

occurs, NEMA commented that HID standards should be tailored to eliminate mercury

vapor lamps, an already declining market, over a time period that allows users to make

an orderly transition (NEMA, No. 20).

Market-driven replacement of inefficient mercury vapor lamps with metal halide and

high-pressure sodium lamps is occurring but it is uncertain whether it will continue into

the future. Data reported in the companion TSD shows that the annual sales of mercury

vapor lamps decreased by more than 75 percent from 1993 to 2001. But there are

markets (e.g., the southern U.S.) and fixture types (e.g., dawn-to-dusk fixture) that

continue to use mercury vapor lamps due to their extremely low cost. Although life

cycle costs clearly favor the change from mercury vapor to either metal halide or high19 ASHRAE 90.1-1999 contains lighting power density (LPD) allowances in Watts/sq. ft for various building and space types. Where a

fluorescent light is typically used, the LPDs were calculated based on T8 fluorescent lamp efficacies.

20 Another scenario considered, with a technology shift from T12 to T8 lamps offers too low of an energy savings potential to warrant

consideration for rulemaking. It is assumed that this shift will take place as a side-effect of the upcoming fluorescent ballast standards,

which will result in a shift to electronic ballasts. Therefore, since the large majority of these electronic ballasts will be used with T8 lamps,

the additional savings from mandating the present T8 technology would be small.

3-3

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
pressure sodium lamps for most applications, it is possible that core markets will

continue to utilize low first cost mercury vapor lamps.,,

The drop-off in mercury vapor HID lamp sales over the past decade suggests a strong

market-based move to more efficient HID technologies. The Department will conduct

additional analysis to determine if this trend is likely to continue at the current rate or

"bottom out" at a specific level.

Due to the potential, yet uncertain, energy savings for HID lamps, the Department will

conduct a standards determination to accurately assess the viability of minimum energy

efficiency standards. Market trends will receive particular attention in the determination

analysis.

3.4 Residential Clothes Dryers

Residential clothes dryers can be divided into gas and electric subcategories. At an

installed base of 18 million units, gas residential clothes dryers consume 0.064 quads of

energy annually. Electric residential clothes dryers, at an installed base of 60.5 million

units, consume 0.6 quads of energy annually. The identified technologies considered for

energy efficiency standards are: (1) heat pump electric dryer with modulation (5.5 EF);

(2) heat pump electric dryer (5.2 EF22); (3) microwave electric dryer (3.4 EF); and (4)

modulating gas dryer (2.8 EF). Using these products as standards, the potential

cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings are 3.8, 3.5, 1.2, and 0.06 quads, respectively.

EEI and ACEEE questioned the economic and technical feasibility of heat pump and

microwave clothes dryers. EEI is not aware of any working model or prototype of heat

pump electric clothes dryers. EEI also commented that Edison Power Research Institute

(EPRI) research found little success when applying microwave clothes dryers to full size

applications (EEI, No. 16). ACEEE commented that heat pump and microwave clothes

dryers are unlikely to be cost-effective; thus energy savings from a new standard are

likely to be modest (ACEEE, No. 39).

The primary issue as to the energy savings potential of clothes dryers is that mechanical

extraction of moisture in clothes washers is 20 times more efficient than an incremental

gain in clothes dryer efficiency.2, The move to a modified energy factor (MEF) for

washer performance has led to more washer designs that strive to reduce the remaining

moisture content (RMC) of clothes, in turn reducing the energy consumed by dryers (by

approximately 15 percent). Consequently, the potential energy savings for residential

clothes dryers would decrease by approximately 15 percent.

2' Actual payback for conversion from mercury vapor to high pressure sodium or metal halide varies depending on three factors: actual

wattage reduction, electricity rate structures of the region, and the number of hours electric lighting is used in the location.

22For dryers, the Energy Factor (EF) equals the number of pounds of moisture removed from a specified set of test cloths per kW h of

energy consumed by the dryer.

23 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

3-4

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Furthermore, numerous changes to the clothes dryer test procedure are required prior to

a standards rulemaking for this product, such as accounting for sensor systems (i.e.,

humidity sensors). Also, a new product class needs to be defined for condenser dryers

and currently there is one test procedure waiver in effect.

The Department considers residential clothes dryers to be a low priority product and will

not consider further actions at this time due to three factors: (1) energy savings for the

task of drying clothes is effectively realized in clothes washers as opposed to clothes

dryers; (2) the products with large potential energy savings (i.e., heat pump and

microwave electric dryers) are not yet available in the market; and (3) the energy

savings potential of the remaining options are low.

3.5 Incandescent General Service Lamps

Incandescent general service lamps (A-type) consume 2.5 quads of energy annually

(2001). The identified energy efficiency levels considered for standards are: (1) a 1.5

percent efficacy increase over products currently sold; (2) a three percent efficacy

increase; and (3) a technology shift to incandescent halogen lamps (17 percent efficacy

increase). Estimates for cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings at these levels are 0.80,

1.57, and 8.52 quads, respectively.24

ENERGY STAR®' ASHRAE 90.1, the FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative, and some

utility DSM programs address efficient alternatives to present incandescent general

service lamps. NEMA recommended that the Department pursue increased use of

ENERGY STAR® compliant compact fluorescent lamps as the method to improve the

efficiency of residential lighting (NEMA, No. 20). NEMA further commented that to

support this effort and maintain the quality and efficiency of CFLs, the Department

should consider minimum efficiency standards for CFLs similar to the current 2001

ENERGY STAR® specifications (NEMA, No. 20). Shaver commented that both

incandescent general service lamps and CFL lamps should be included in the standards

program as the annual average per-household energy consumption meets NAECA's

threshold (Shaver, No. 7).

EEI and NEMA provided comments in opposition of the potential shift to halogen lamp

technology. EEI commented that a shift to compact fluorescent technology may be

more desirable (EEI, No. 16). NEMA commented that the expected market price of "A"

lamps cannot support the cost of internal halogen capsules with infrared (IR) coatings,

nor would they be sufficiently robust for household use (NEMA, No. 20). ACEEE

commented that the economics of halogen IR technology has not yet been demonstrated.

Likewise, halogen lamps are generally not as cost-effective as CFLs. In summary,

ACEEE commented that economically justified standards will not result in substantial

24 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

3-5

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
energy savings at this point in time and thus recommended that DOE focus only on

R&D efforts for halogen IR technology at this time (ACEEE, No. 39).

Regarding the proposed potential standards in general, EEI commented that an efficacy,

increase does not guarantee energy savings, as manufacturers may still make the same

wattage bulbs, with the effect being the production of more light (EEI, No. 16). NEMA

commented that residential users perceive value in longer life, not in greater efficiency,

citing increased acceptance of screw based halogen non-IR lamps (NEMA, No. 20).

NEMA also commented that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates labeling of

these lamps (NEMA, No. 20).

At this time, DOE considers development of new standards for incandescent general

service lamps a low priority because the more efficient technologies do not appear to be

economically viable for this very mature technology. But due to the large amount of

energy savings possible from shifting to halogen lamp technology, support for voluntary

programs encouraging CFL or halogen substitution will continue and the Department

will explore research opportunities to reduce the cost of halogen alternatives

3.6 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Two classes of incandescent reflector lamps were analyzed: lamps regulated under

EPACT (essentially PAR lamps) and unregulated incandescent reflector lamps (BR and

ER lamps and exempt Parabola Aluminized Reflector (PAR) and reflectors (R) lamps)

PAR reflector lamps consumed 0.29 quads of energy in 2001. The identified potential

energy efficiency standards are: 1) a 1.5 percent efficacy increase over current product

sold; 2) a 3 percent efficacy increase over current product sold; and 3) a technology shift

to halogen infrared reflector lamps (30 percent efficacy increase). Estimates for

cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings at these levels are 0.09, 0.18, and 1.44 quads,

respectively.

Unregulated reflector lamps consumed 0.30 quads of energy in 2001. The identified

potential energy efficiency standards are: (1) a 1.5 percent efficacy increase over

current product sold; (2) a switch to halogen lamps (18 percent efficacy increase); and

(3) a technology shift to halogen infrared reflector lamps (54 percent efficacy increase).

Estimates for cumulative (2008-203 0) energy savings at these levels are 0.1, 1.0, and

2.26 quads, respectively.'

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 established minimum average lamp efficacy standards

(LPW) for many other incandescent reflector lamps, although BR, ER and some PAR

25 Efficacy is a measurement of lighting efficiency, recording a device's ability to convert watts of power into lumens of light. Stated in

units of lumens per watt (LPW), efficacy is a primary metric by which light sources are compared. Increased efficacy of a light source

results in either a) decreased wattage for a given lumen level orb) increased lumens for a given wattage.

26 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

3-6

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
and R lamps remain exempt. In addition , ENERGY STAR®, ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP

programs, and some utility DSM programs address efficient alternatives to incandescent

reflector lamps.

EEI, ACEEE and NEMA provided two general comments. EEI commented that for

incandescent reflector lamps, a shift to halogen technology has already occurred in the

commercial sector (EEI, No. 16). Similarly, ACEEE commented that because halogen

lamps are fairly standard at present and because IR reflecting lamps are widely

available, a new rulemaking on these products is appropriate (ACEEE, No. 39). NEMA

commented that incandescent reflector lamps are already regulated for efficiency and

test method by the Department and labeling by the FTC (NEMA, No. 20).

Furthermore, NEMA provided comments addressing each of the three classes of

incandescent reflector lamps:

• Halogen PAR - already covered by EPACT standards;

• Halogen PAR-IR - technology is not yet sufficiently mature for the general market.

Furthermore, the technology can only be applied to a small inner capsule, and it is

therefore not a candidate for manufacturing a more efficient BR lamp; and

• BR lamps - the efficiency of BR lamps is already considerably greater than the

lower cost alternatives ("A" or "K" lamps). Subjecting BR lamps to efficiency

standards would only restrict the general availability of the lamps, resulting in

increased usage of the higher wattage alternatives. The Department could consider

elimination of the BR rough service exemption and include lamps of BR31 and

higher in the BR40 limit of 120 watts. Currently the "one-piece" PAR (BR38) is

exempt and generally available at 150 watts (NEMA, No. 20).

Regarding BR lamps, ACEEE added that a rulemaking should include BR lamps as

these lamps are a major "loophole" in the current EPACT standard (ACEEE, No. 39).

In response, DOE acknowledges that most PAR lamps are covered by EPACT, but

notes that a number of products, notably BR and ER lamps, are currently exempt.

Moreover, the energy savings potentials of one option for the regulated category and

two of the three energy savings options are high. Since the Department believes it

would be best to consider all incandescent reflector lamps together, as a first step DOE

will assess whether to classify currently exempt incandescent reflector lamps as

covered.

3-7

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
4 Comments on the New Products under Consideration for Regulation:

Product-specific Feedback Received and DOE Response

Whereas Section 3 discusses products currently part of the appliance standards program,

Section 4 describes new products, which if included, would expand the scope of the

appliance standard program. This section brings together knowledge about the products,

summarizes stakeholder comments, and articulates the Department's proposed actions.

Note that energy savings potential of a product category depends to large extent on

which products are aggregated in the category. We have made considerable effort to

base product categories on rational groupings of products, taking into account function,

test procedure, similarity of energy consuming technology and characteristics, etc. For

example, reach-in freezers and refrigerators are grouped together because they share the

same basic test procedure; only the operating temperatures differ. On the other hand,

commercial refrigeration is not considered a single overarching product category due to

the wide variety among individual products, including their test procedures (e.g.,

vending machines versus reach-in freezers).

4.1 Torchieres

With an installed base of 40 million units (1998) and annual shipments of about 14

million units (1999), torchieres consumed approximately 0.19 quads of energy in 1997.

The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standard levels are: (1)

wattage limit set at 190 W, and (2) wattage limit set at 70 W. These levels have

potential cumulative energy savings (2008-2030) of 0.83 quads and 1.7 quads,

respectively.27

DOE has not adopted a test procedure for torchiere lamps. However, there is an

ENERGY STAR test procedure that references various ANSI, Illumination

Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), and Underwriters Laboratories (UL)

test procedures, which include the performance characteristics of input power and light

output. The inclusion of these two key energy efficiency metrics means that the test

procedure accurately represents energy consumption and the potential savings.

Furthermore, the test procedure and metric of energy input correlate highly with the

peak output of torchiere lamps.

EEI and ACEEE provided comments regarding the energy savings analysis. EEI

believes that the analysis overstates the total annual primary energy usage and that peak

demand correlation is likely low (EEI, No. 16). Second, EEI suggested using import

and export shipment data to provide information on market growth (EEI, No. 16).

Finally, EEI noted that if CFL torchieres cannot be dimmed, then the potential for

27 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

4-1

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
energy savings is reduced (EEI, No. 16). ACEEE commented that DOE's assumptions

are inconsistent and lead to an overly conservative estimate of energy savings.

Specifically, ACEEE estimates sales of nine million incandescent and halogen torchiere

units per year and a 10 year average life, resulting in an installed base of 90 million

units, much higher than DOE's estimate of 40 million units. ACEEE recommended that

the Department review and revise its figures, which it believes will likely lead to a

higher savings estimate (ACEEE, No. 39).

The Department agrees with EEI and ACEEE that the energy savings calculations are

uncertain. In the TSD, DOE highlights two major counteracting uncertainties; the size

of the installed base and, a market shift to lower-wattage lamps due to safety concerns.

Even considering the uncertainties the Department believes the energy savings potential

of higher efficiency torchieres is such that they warrant further consideration.

The Department will give further consideration to the possible development of

efficiency standards for torchieres, given their moderate to high-energy savings potential

(0.83-1.7 quads). Since EPCA currently prescribes no efficiency requirements for

torchieres, DOE will first assess whether to classify them as "covered products" under

Section 322 of the statute.

4.2 Ceiling Fans

Ceiling fans have an installed base of 158 million units and annual shipments of 16.5

million units (2000); approximately 95 percent of ceiling fans incorporate a lighting

fixture in addition to the fan. The fan apparatus (air-moving) and lighting involve

distinct energy use issues, and the 2000 energy consumption levels equaled 0.14 quads

for motors and 0.36 quads for the associated lighting. The identified technologies

considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) the ENERGY STAR°-compliant airmoving efficacy level (75 cfm/W2,); (2) the best available aerodynamic fan blade

performance (130 cfm/W); (3) aerodynamic fan blade combined with improved motor

technology (260 cfm/W); and (4) ENERGY STAR® compliant lighting (pin-based

CFL). Using these levels as baseline standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030)

energy savings equal 0.47, 1.1, 1.6, and 3.7 quads, respectively.29

EEI and AHAM provided several comments regarding the energy savings analysis.

First, EEI questioned the assumptions of (1) lighting always "on" when the fan is

operating, and (2) no use of dimming switches. Second, EEI commented that the metric

of cfm/W for ceiling fan systems has no impact on annual energy usage or peak demand

savings, as total watts consumed is the metric necessary for energy consumption (EEI,

No. 16). AHAM commented that data needs to be gathered to determine the number of

hours of use, the number of fans per home, usage patterns, climatic differences,

28 Cfm/W (cubic felt per minute/wall) quantifies the amount of air moved per motor power draw , where fan speed is characterized as the

number of cfm of air flow. The levels cited are for the highest-speed setting.

29 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

4-2

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
saturation and energy usage versus savings potential. AHAM added that the use of a fan

(as opposed to an air conditioner) actually provides energy savings during warm

weather, because fan usage allows thermostats to be raised to avoid or reduce the use of

central or room air conditioners (AHAM, No. 10).

Our estimate of the lighting energy consumption reflects a lighting usage pattern

independent of the fan usage. In addition, the Department recognizes that to achieve the

goal of energy conservation, any efficiency standard must address watts consumed and

that the efficacy metric of cfm/W does so. This metric valuates and compares the

energy efficiency of the air-moving characteristics of the motor and blade technologies

under consideration. Also, the Department recognizes that additional analyses are

needed to address the issues raised by AHAM.

Significant issues concerning regulation of ceiling fans are the variety of air-flow

capacities of fans and the common inclusion of lighting as an integral component of

ceiling fans. Approximately 95 percent of ceiling fans are shipped with lighting and

lighting typically consumes more energy than the fan motor; therefore, ceiling

fan/lighting combinations may warrant consideration as a potential new product for

rulemaking.30 EEI commented that efficiency of the fan and efficiency of the lighting

system should be addressed separately (EEI, No. 16). DOE has - and will continue to

analyze the lighting and fan motor components of ceiling fan energy consumption

separately.

A DOE test procedure does not exist for ceiling fan air moving efficacy; however, one

does exist under ENERGY STAR®. The ENERGY STAR® test procedure is based on

the industry developed Hunter Method, which measures the efficiency of a fan's ability

to move air (cfm/W). Tier I ENERGY STAR® requirements, which took effect on

January 1, 2002, also govern controls, lighting, warranty, and provide consumer

information. Tier II levels take effect on October 1, 2003, and include amendments that

cover most of the above categories and additional noise regulations. Controls may also

increase energy savings (e.g., the Gossamer Wind fan includes motion-sensing controls

to insure that the fan does not operate when people are not present in the room).

The Department will give further consideration to the possible development of

efficiency standards for ceiling fans, given their moderate to high-energy savings

potential (0.47 -5.3 quads). Since EPCA currently prescribes no efficiency

requirements for ceiling fans, DOE will first assess whether to classify them as "covered

products" under Section 322 of the statute. Also, the Department will continue to

support the ENERGY STAR® program for ceiling fans.

30 Source : Appendix A, TSD.

4-3

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
4.3 Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct Furnaces

Gas unit heaters have an installed base of approximately 3.2 million units (1995) and

annual shipments of 0.14 million units (1995). Annual energy consumption is 0.5 quads

(1998). Gas duct furnaces, at an installed base of 0.24 million units (1997) and annual

shipments of 0.11 million units (1995), consume approximately 0.1 quads of energy

annually. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are:

(1) power vent (Et31 = 82 percent); (2) pulse combustion (Et = 90 percent); and (3)

condensing (Et = 93 percent). Using these levels as standards, the potential cumulative

energy savings (2008-2030) for gas unit heaters are 0.59, 0.72, and 1.3 quads,

respectively, and 0.13, 0.16, and 0.3 quads for gas duct furnaces, respectively.32

Efficiency levels for both products are set forth in ASHRAE 90.1-1999. EEI

commented that the Department should work with ASHRAE to change the efficiency

levels of gas unit heaters and gas duct furnaces (EEI, No. 16). EEI believes that

products that are already covered by ASHRAE 90.1 standards should not have separate

standards set by the Department (EEI, No. 16).

The existing ANSI test procedure measures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for unit

heaters and duct furnaces operating under full-load and steady-state conditions.

However, thermal efficiency measured under these conditions does not fully indicate the

actual annual energy consumption of this equipment. First, the fans and other types of

air movers that are built into unit heaters and duct furnaces consume electricity but are

not covered under the current testing procedure. Second, the test procedure only

measures full-load steady-state efficiency and does not indicate how well the heater or

furnace performs during "warm-up" and "cool-down" operation, or during part-load

operation (when the dampers are partially closed or the fan operates at partial speeds).

A seasonal measure, such as annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE), would better

model these effects. ACEEE commented that the Department should base its analysis

on seasonal efficiency (e.g., AFUE), as the biggest opportunity for savings is by

reducing off-cycle losses, which are not accounted for in thermal efficiency

measurements (ACEEE, No. 39).

Despite the moderate to high energy savings potential of gas unit heaters (0.59-1.3

quads), and the additional energy savings potential of the technologically similar gas

duct furnaces (0.13-0.30 quads), these products are not currently covered under EPCA,

and the Department plans no further action at this time.

31 The thermal efficiency, Et, equals 100 percent minus the energy that escapes via the flue.

32 Source : Appendix A, TSD.

4-4

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
4.4 Commercial Refrigeration

Several commentators addressed commercial refrigeration products in general. EEI

raised the concern that DOE had under-estimated the payback periods for all

commercial refrigeration products because the average cost of electricity it used was too

high (EEI, No. 16). The analysis, which was performed in 1996, used an electricity

price based on geographic locations with medium energy costs of 7.82 cents per kWh

(1996).3 EEI commented that, according to the Energy Information Administration

Statistical Yearbook 2000, the average commercial cost of electricity was 7.26 cents per

kWh in 1999 and had been declining since the early 1990's. In response, DOE notes

that using the most recent (1999) cost of electricity prices represents an approximate

seven percent increase in the estimated simple payback periods and that this does not

have a substantial impact upon the economic analysis. For example, the 1999 cost of

electricity would increase a 2-year payback period to about 2.15 years.

The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) raised concerns about grouping

diverse commercial refrigeration products into "broadly defined categories" (ARI, No.

36). ARI further commented that it is only by aggregating all commercial refrigeration

products into one category that the one quad criterion for consideration for rulemaking

is met. On the other hand, ACEEE commented that commercial reach-in refrigerators,

freezers, refrigerator-freezers, and beverage merchandisers should be part of the same

rulemaking. ACEEE reasoned that because residential refrigerators, freezers, and

refrigerator-freezers have been covered by a single rulemaking, the same should hold

true for commercial products. ACEEE also suggested that refrigerator vending

machines could be part of such a rulemaking, as they are essentially refrigerators with

coin vending features (ACEEE, No. 39). Finally, ART commented that DOE must first

establish standardized test procedures for each product line and product class before it

can consider regulation for commercial refrigeration products (ART, No. 36). The

Department's response and proposed action for each product category of commercial

refrigeration equipment is discussed individually in the following sub-sections.

4.4.1 Walk-in Coolers, Freezers , and Combinations

Walk-in coolers, freezers, and combinations thereof, are estimated to have an installed

base of 0.54, 0.28, and 0.065 million units, respectively. It is estimated that walk-in

coolers consumed 0.095 quads of energy in 1995, walk-in freezers 0.064 quads, and

combination units 0.022 quads. The identified technology considered for energy

efficiency standards is a combination of energy savings options,,, which result in

potential cumulative energy savings (2008-2030) of 0.37 and 0.35 quads for walk-in

coolers, and freezers and cooler-freezers, respectively.,,

33 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

Includes Floating Head Pressure, Ambient Subcooling, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan

Motors.

3' Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

4-5

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Two factors complicate the application of energy standards to walk-in refrigeration

equipment: (1) the wide range of combinations of insulated boxes and condensing units

actually used in the field, and (2) the importance of field installation to overall energy

consumption. Moreover, a test procedure for a complete walk-in refrigeration system

does not exist. However, various test procedures exist for compressors and condensing

units, which are major components of walk-in refrigeration systems. Due to the wide

variety of walk-in refrigeration systems as a whole (size, operating temperatures, etc.),

we believe any energy test procedure should focus on individual components, such as

the condensing unit and/or the insulated box.

EEI commented that the Department should work with ARI or ASHRAE to set

standards for commercial refrigeration (EEI, No. 16).

Based on the low energy savings potential (0.35 - 0.37 quads), the large diversity of

systems in this product category (and consequent complexity in promulgation of

standards), as well as the fact that many systems are assembled on site, the Department

does not plan to take any actions for these products at this time.

4.4.2 Supermarket Refrigeration Systems

Supermarket refrigeration systems, with an installed base of 0.03 million units and

annual shipments of 0.055 million units, consumed 0.33 quads of energy in 1995. The

identified technologies to be considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) a

brushless direct connect evaporator, and (2) a combination of other energy savings

measures with less than a 5-year payback period.,,, Using these two levels as standards,

the potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings are 0.44 quads and 0.39 quads,

respectively.31

EEI provided two comments regarding supermarket refrigeration systems. First, EEI

suggested a review of EPRI research on supermarket refrigeration electric load profiles

(EEI, No. 16). Second, EEI believes that voluntary and information programs, rather

than standards, are the best way to advance energy efficiency due to the nature of this

equipment (EEI, No. 16).

The Department believes that the very wide range of system architectures used in

supermarket refrigeration systems makes application of energy standards extremely

complicated. At this time, no suitable efficiency definitions have been established for

supermarket refrigeration systems, since they are complex systems composed of many

components, serving site-specific loads. Moreover, almost all supermarket refrigeration

36 Includes Hot Gas Defrost, Antisweat Heater Control, Defrost Control, Liquid-Suction Heat Exchangers for Low Temperature

applications, Evaporative Condenser, Floating Head Pressure, Heat Reclaim, and Mechanical Subcooling.

"Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

4-6

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
systems are assembled on site. Energy test procedures might focus on individual

components, such as display cases or condensing units.

Given the low energy savings potential (0.39-0.44 quads), combined with the great

range and complexity of supermarket refrigeration systems, the Department does not

plan to take any actions for these products at this time.

4.4.3 Water Coolers

Water coolers, with an installed base of 6.03 million units (1992) and annual shipments

of 1.0 million units (1998), consume approximately 0.044 quads of energy annually

(1992). The identified technology to be considered for energy efficiency standards is a

combination of energy savings options,- which would result in potential cumulative

(2008-2030) energy savings of 0.26 quads.,, The ENERGY STAR® performance level

would realize 0.24 quads of energy savings in the same period.

The baseline energy studies are 10 years old (1992), and EEI commented that a more

accurate baseline of energy usage is needed and suggested conducting field studies (EEI,

No. 16). EEI also commented that daily energy use may vary significantly by season

(EEI, No. 16).

A DOE test procedure does not exist for water coolers. However, ASHRAE and

ENERGY STAR® both have test procedures for the measurement of water cooler

energy consumption: (1) ASHRAE 18-1987 (R1997) and (2) the ENERGY STAR® test

procedure (based on ASHRAE 18). It is unlikely that alternative test procedures will be

developed; if an alternative procedure were developed, it would likely be based on the

ASHRAE procedure. The ENERGY STAR® test procedure's emphasis on standby

energy use probably captures most of the energy use associated with water coolers.

Also, the ambient temperature of 75° F used in the ENERGY STAR® test is appropriate

for most applications. EEI commented that the minimum hot water temperature in the

ENERGY STAR® test procedure of 165° F raises concerns regarding scalding (EEI, No.

16). We expect this safety issue to be addressed by the ENERGY STAR® program.

The wide range of water cooler types (e.g., ARI categorizes water coolers as: bottletype, pressure-type, compartment-type, hot and cold-type, and remote-type) complicates

the promulgation of standards. Given the diversity of this product and the low energy

savings potential (0.24-0.26 quads), the Department does not plan to take any action for

the product at this time.

38 Includes High Insulation Value, Energy Efficient Compressors, Better Thermal Bond between coil and evaporator, Improved motor

efficiencies, and Storage Coil Redesign.

w Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

4-7

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
4.4.4 Ice Machines

Ice machines, with an installed base of 1.2 million units (1995) and annual shipments of

0.30 million units (1998), consumed an estimated 0.10 quads of energy in 1995. The

identified technologies to be considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) a

combination of energy savings technologies,,- (2) the Canadian standards; (3) FEMP

recommended levels; and (4) FEMP best available levels. Using these four levels as

standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings are 0.18, 0.0, 0.16, and

0.31 quads, respectively.4'

Application of energy standards to ice machines is complicated due to the significant

variety of products involved. AHAM commented that this product is undefined in the

Department document, and that therefore it is unclear if the Department is considering

icemakers contained in other types of products, and residential icemakers and/or

commercial products (ARAM, No. 10). EEI commented that DOE should differentiate

product categories by cooling type (air or water) and daily ice production capacity

(pounds per day) (EEI, No. 16). DOE clarifies that the product category of "ice

machines" that we analyzed, which are classified under "commercial refrigeration,"

refers to stand alone, commercial ice machines. The energy consumption and savings

evaluations in our analysis take into account energy consumed to make and refrigerate

ice.

Although a DOE test procedure for ice machines does not exist, an industry accepted

test procedure exists under ASHRAE Standard 29. However, because the ASHRAE test

procedure was initially developed primarily for manufacturers to evaluate ice machine

capacity, as opposed to ice-machine energy efficiency, it does not incorporate typical

ambient and supply water temperatures. In addition, the ASHRAE test is performed at a

machine's full ice-making capacity, which overestimates the duty cycle of machines

used in many applications. To better measure and represent actual energy use, a new

test procedure that specifies more typical ambient and water supply temperatures, as

well as a range of representative capacities, is needed.

The current ASHRAE test procedure involves high ambient air and water temperatures

and 100 percent duty cycle and correlates well with peak load impact. EEI commented

that peak load impact for beverage merchandisers and ice machines depends on the

location of the equipment (indoor vs. outdoor) and the time of usage (e.g., whether ice

production is in the daytime or at night) (EEI, No. 16).

ARI commented that since ice machines do not meet the DOE one-quad criteria for

standards consideration, regulatory action is not warranted. The Department does not

40 Includes High-Efficiency Compressor and Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor.

41 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

4-8

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
plan further actions for ice machines at this time, given the low energy savings potential

(0.0-0.31 quads).

4.4.5 Reach-in Freezers and Reach -in Refrigerators

Reach-in freezers, with an installed base of 0.8 million units and annual shipments of

0.08 million units, consumed 0.065 quads of energy in 1995. The identified

technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) a combination of

energy savings options (35 percent energy reduction) ; , (2) California regulations Tier I;

(3) California regulations Tier II; and (4) ENERGY STAR® minimum levels. Using

these levels as standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings are 0.40,

0.09, 0.15, and 0.23 quads, respectively.4,

Reach-in refrigerators, with an installed base of 1.3 million units and annual shipments

of 0.12 million units, consumed 0.054 quads of energy in 1995. The identified

technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) three combinations of

energy savings options (44 and 67 percent energy reductions);,, (2) California

regulations Tier I; (3) California regulations Tier II; and (4) ENERGY STAR®

requirements. Using these levels as standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030)

energy savings are 0.42, 0.64, 0.76; 0.0, 0.09, and 0.28 quads, respectively.4'

The primary issues as to reach-in freezers and refrigerators are significant product

variety and repeatability of the door-opening tests in the ASHRAE 117 test procedure,

as a DOE test procedure does not exist. On the issue of product variety, ARI

commented that the design and intended use of reach-in products varies greatly. Some

"reach-in" products have sliding doors, some have standard hinged doors, and some of

these doors are transparent while others are solid (ARI, No. 36). ARI believes that

assigning uniform minimum efficiency standards for all "reach-in" products is

impractical since they are very different products that, as a result of their design and use,

have significantly different energy use requirements (ARE, No. 36). Regarding the test

procedure's door-opening issue, the expense of the test means that not all models made

by a manufacturer are tested; instead, the manufacturer tests selected models and

extrapolates the results to estimate the energy consumption of other models. Test

procedures involving no internal load and no automatic door openings would be

significantly easier to carry out and would have greater repeatability of results; however,

the automatic door-openings provide a reasonable representation of typical reach-in use.

42 Includes Hot Gas Antisweat, High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors..

43 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

44 Includes Hot Gas Antisweat, High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors, (44% Energy

Reduction); Includes Improved Face Frame Design, Improved Gasket, Reduced Antisweat Heater Wattage, Condensate Line Trap,

Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor, PSC Condenser Fan Motor, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Refrigeration System Optimization (67%

Reduction.); Includes Improved Face Frame Design, Improved Gasket, Reduced Antisweat Heat Input, Condensate Line Trap, Brushless

DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors, Variable-Speed Refrigeration System, Hot Gas Antisweat Heating (80% Reduction).

45 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

4-9

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Nevertheless, ASHRAE Standard 117 is already being used to determine the energy use

of reach-in refrigeration products. Canada, California, and ENERGY STAR® have all

adopted this test standard. Correlation of peak load impact with the ASHRAE 117 test

procedure is fair, since the test procedure's ambient temperature is relatively low.

However, the ambient temperature condition is somewhat low compared to temperatures

often seen in commercial kitchens employing the equipment. EEI does not agree with

the determination that peak load impact is "high," as they believe that this equipment

has a relatively flat electric load profile with a high load factor (EEI, No. 16).

EEI also provided several comments regarding the energy savings analysis. First, EEI

commented that the analysis does not show how technologies may interact to increase or

reduce payback periods (EEI, No. 16). Second, EEI commented that the best available

efficiency of 5 kWh per day for reach-in freezers appears to be based on a product that

does not yet exist. EEI does not believe that standards should be based on "rough

estimates" for equipment that does not exist in the marketplace (EEI, No. 16).

ACEEE commented that DOE uses a model developed by the Delfield Company to

represent the base case energy consumption of commercial refrigerators and freezers.

Based on its research, ACEEE believes that Delfield tends to make some of the most

efficient units presently on the market and thus does not represent a good average

baseline. ACEEE recommends that DOE examine the California Energy Commission

database for these products to determine a more appropriate baseline (ACEEE, No. 39).

Due to the potentially high potential energy savings (0.09 - 1 . 16) of reach-in freezers

and reach-in refrigerators, the Department plans to conduct further analysis for these

products. Currently EPCA prescribes no efficiently requirements for these products.

Hence, DOE will first examine covering them under provisions of the statute that

concern commercial products. If DOE classifies them as covered under the statute, we

would then review and decide what if any action to take with respect to adoption of test

procedures, labeling requirements, and energy conservation standards.

4.4.6 Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers

Vending machines, with an installed base of 4.1 million units and annual shipments of

0.4 million units, consumed 0.13 quads of energy in 1995. The identified technology

considered for energy efficiency standards is a high-efficiency compressor combined

with a brushless direct current (DC) evaporator fan motor (28 percent energy use

reduction) and Royal Vendors' Econo-cool unit (47 percent energy use reduction).

These technologies have cumulative energy savings potentials (2008-2030) of 0.67 and

1.13 quads.46

46 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

4-10

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Beverage merchandisers, with an installed base of 0.8 million units and annual

shipments of 0.6 to 0.12 million units, consumed 0.05 quads of energy in 1995. The

identified technology considered for energy efficiency standards is also a highefficiency compressor combined with a brushless DC fan motor. Using this technology

as a possible standard, the potential cumulative energy savings equals 0.33 quads.a,

Significant product variety is the primary issue for promulgation of energy efficiency

standards for vending machines. For both products, EEI commented that separate

standards and test procedures should be created for indoor and outdoor vending

machines and beverage merchandisers to account for the significantly different ambient

conditions. EEI believes that the suggested efficiency metrics may be feasible for

indoor units, but are not feasible for outdoor units. Furthermore, EEI commented that

DOE should clarify how it defines these two equipment types (EEI, No. 16).

For refrigerated vending machines, ACEEE commented that Royal Vendor, one of the

largest manufacturers of refrigerated vending machines, just announced a new model

that cuts energy use by about 50 percent, indicating that DOE's estimate of savings

(which used a 28 percent energy reduction) can be nearly doubled (ACEEE, No. 39).

As noted above, the Department has added the Royal Vendors unit performance level as

a technology option and included it in the companion TSD.

For beverage merchandisers, the main issue is the importance of energy use during pull

down mode verses steady state. Furthermore, a test procedure specific to beverage

merchandisers does not exist. California treats Glass-Door Beverage Merchandisers as

Glass-Door Reach-Ins, for which ASHRAE Standard 117 is the established test, and

Coca Cola has proprietary test procedures which include evaluation of energy use.

However, a test procedure could be developed which is more suited than ASHRAE 117

to the operation of beverage merchandisers. Although the ASHRAE 117 ambient

temperature of 75° F is appropriate for typical temperatures for beverage merchandisers

in most applications, the test procedure does not have a component which evaluates the

energy required to pull down the temperature of warm beverages loaded into the

machine. EEI commented that the Department should work cooperatively with

ASHRAE to create energy efficiency standards for beverage merchandisers (EEI, No.

16). DOE agrees that the energy savings estimate should include the recovery condition

(versus steady state) and differentiate between indoor and outdoor product performance,

and sees the need for test procedures that reflect these scenarios.

The Department believes that vending machines and beverage merchandisers energy

have moderate to high energy savings potential (1.0 - 1.43 quads). Currently, EPCA

prescribes no efficiency requirements for these products. Hence DOE intends to

examine covering them under provisions of the statute that concern commercial

products. If they are classified as covered under the statute, DOE will review and

47 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

4-11

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
decide what if any action to take with respect to adoption of test procedures, labeling

requirements, and energy conservation standards.48

4.5 General Comments on Consumer Electronics

Three issues are significant to energy efficiency standards for consumer electronics

products :41 (1) short product life-cycles relative to the rulemaking cycle; (2) rapid

evolution of product features, including multi-functionality; and (3) the possibility that

energy consumption caps might result in products that cannot support the otherwise

desired breadth of features (i.e., de-featured products). The distinct possibility exists

that an efficiency standard for one of these products could be obsolete by the time of its

promulgation because the typical consumer electronic product is manufactured for a

period significantly shorter than the typical rulemaking cycle. Furthermore, the variety

and rapid evolution of features for these products complicate rulemaking. For instance,

emerging digital TV technology may account for a large portion of the new TVs sold by

2006 and their power consumption characteristics may change significantly relative to

today's analog TVs. Finally, concern exists over the possibility that an "energy budget"

for electronics products would limit the ability to add energy consuming features desired

in the marketplace, resulting in decreased product utility.

Bose, EEI, CEI, EMPA, and ITI provided comments regarding technology changeover,

product convergence, and innovation with respect to consideration of standards for new

products. EEI and ITI noted that given the rate of evolution for these products, new

regulations would most likely lag far behind product development and potentially be

obsolete before finalization (Boss, No. 32; EEI, No. 5; ITI, No. 30). EEI specifically

cited desktop PCs, computer monitors , compact audio systems, RACK audio systems,

VCRs, and the convergence of any of these technologies with other products (e.g., Web

TV and TV/VCR combinations) (EEI, No. 5). CEI added that most previously regulated

appliances had been on the market for several decades before being regulated, and hence

incorporated mature technologies that manufacturers had had sufficient time to develop

(CEI, No. 8 and 24).

Commentators also asserted that expansion of a standards program would have the

effect of increased consumer prices and/or a decrease in product utility. CEI, ECA,

WIFE, NAFEC, SBSC, First Company, EMPA, and ACGA all provided comments with

regard to this issue and the interests of consumers. Additionally, WIFE, NAFEC, and

ACGA commented that rural Americans would feel the greatest impact of higher prices

and/or less useful consumer electronics, especially in efforts to overcome the digital

divide (WIFE, No. 19; NAFEC, No. 22; ACGA, No. 35). First Company, SBSC, and

48 Proposed legislation pending in the Congress would amend EPCA to authorize the Department to treat commercial products as

"covered products" under Section 322 of EPCA, and to specifically include commercial unit heaters and certain commercial refrigeration

equipment among the products covered by the statute. If such legislation is adopted, we would re-assess what action to take concerning

these products.

41 VCRs, Component and RACK Audio, Compact Audio, Monitors, Desktop PCs, Televisions, and Set-top Boxes

4-12

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
EMPA extended this defense to affordability for all Americans (FC, No. 26; SBSC, No.

27, EMPA, No. 38 and 25). With respect to specific products, CEA commented that

DOE should withdraw computers, monitors, set top boxes, and televisions from

consideration (CEA, No. 28), and ITI commented that computers, monitors, servers,

printers, copiers, fax machines and multifunctional devices should not be considered for

future rulemakings (ITI, No. 30). In summary, CEI commented that "NAECA contains

provisions to protect consumers from conservation standards that may diminish product

choice, features, and performance50" (CEI, No. 8 and 24).

CEA and ITI commented about the success of ENERGY STAR' for consumer

electronics products. CEA asserted that "by voluntarily supporting the ENERGY

STAR® program, the electronics industry has increased consumers' awareness and use

of energy efficient products; such industry involvement has been vital to the past

success of ENERGY STAR® and will be important to the evolution of the program"

(CEA, No. 28). Furthermore, CEA commented that it is important for reasons of

product convergence that electronic product specifications remain voluntary and marketdriven (CEA, No. 28). ITI commented that, given the substantial success of ENERGY

STAR® in the U.S., and growing international support for the program as is, it would be

"unduly burdensome" for the Department to create redundant energy efficiency

regulations and labeling programs for information technology products (ITI, No. 30).

ACEEE provided suggestions regarding grouping of similar product classes for the

purpose of rulemaking. ACEEE recommended, for the reasons stated, that the following

groups of products each be considered as a general group for rulemaking:

• Televisions, VCRs, DVDs, and audio equipment - opportunities for reducing their

standby energy use are similar;

• Set-top boxes - digital, analog, and wireless may be considered as separate product

classes but should be considered together for rulemaking; these could also be

included as part of a TV/VCR rulemaking; and

• Desktop PCs and monitors - these devices are used in tandem (ACEEE, No. 39).

The following subsections address product-specific comments and issues.

4.5.1 RACK/Component Audio

RACKCComponent Audio systems, with an installed base of 74 million units and annual

shipments of 10.6 million units, systems consumed 0.11 quads of energy in 1998. The

identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) the current

ENERGY STAR® level (2 watt standby); (2) the ENERGY STAR® 2003 level (I W

standby); and (3) the best available level (0.26 W standby). Using these levels as

50 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and (42 U.S.C. § 6295( o)(4) as taken from (CEI, No. 8 and 24).

4-13

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings are 0.10, 0.20 , and 0.27

quads, respectively.-

Presently, more than 25 RACK/Component audio models draw one W or less in standby

mode. Further evidence of market-driven or voluntary approaches is evident in

ENERGY STAR®'s target market penetration rate of 54 percent (2000). However,

standby mode only accounts for about 10 percent of RACK/Component audio energy

consumption.

EEI commented that the analysis should not focus on standby mode energy use as the

potential impact of such use on annual energy usage and peak demand will be minimal

(EEI, No. 5). The only existing test procedure is the guideline for measurement of

standby power in the "ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements ." Given that the

standby mode only accounts for about 10 percent of RACK/Component audio energy

consumption, results from applying the existing test procedure are likely to provide a

poor indication of actual energy consumption . Furthermore, the test procedure likely

does not accurately evaluate peak load conditions, as many units are in "active" mode

during peak load time periods.

Bose raised several questions regarding power budgets, product convergence, and

technology changeover for RACK/Component audio and compact audio products. Bose

suggested that the power `budget' should be specified by function rather than by product

category. For example, if a product were to consist of a receiver, digital video devise

(DVD) player, powered speaker, and video display all with separate line cords, each

should get its own energy budget. Furthermore, Bose commented that many of its

products contain components traditionally thought of as `computers,' including hard

drives, video displays, and mother boards, which raises the issue of product convergence

and allowed power consumption. Bose suggested that products currently on the market

at the time of promulgation should be allowed to live out their normal product lives (i.e.,

more than eight years), as it would be impractical to redesign all products in less than

seven or eight years in order to comply with a new rulemaking. Furthermore, Bose

commented that the DOE should consider the negative effect of energy conservation

regulations on innovation in the high end of the industry , which is U. S.-based and in

which there is a high technology turnover (Bose, No. 32).

Bose also provided comments clarifying the degree to which RACK /component audio

manufacturers are already subject to electromagnetic regulations and power factor

regulations in many of the countries to which it exports . Bose suggested that to mitigate

the impact of regulatory burden, DOE could ensure that testing and certification are

permitted by existing agencies (Bose, No. 32). DOE considers overall regulatory

burden as one criteria in its rulemaking process.

51 Source : Appendix A, TSD.

4-14

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Given the low energy savings potential (0.10 - 0.27 quads), DOE does not plan to take

actions for RACK/Component audio products other than support for ENERGY STAR®

levels that include standby energy.

4.5.2 Compact Audio

Compact audio products, with an installed base of 47 million units (1998) and annual

shipments of 11.8 million units (2000), consumed 0.057 quads of energy in 1998. The

identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) the current

ENERGY STAR® level (2 watt standby); (2) the ENERGY STAR® 2003 level (1 W

standby); and (3) the best available level (0.25 W standby). Using these levels as

standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings are 0.49, 0.55, and 0.60

quads, respectively.-

Presently, at least 50 compact audio models draw one watt or less in standby mode.

Further evidence of market-driven or voluntary approaches is evident in ENERGY

STAR®'s target market penetration rate of 54 percent (2000).

The only existing test Procedure is the guideline for measurement of standby power in

the "ENERGY STARK Program Requirements." Standby energy consumption accounts

for about 50 percent of compact audio energy consumption, and therefore, the existing

test procedure correlates somewhat with actual energy consumption. The test procedure

likely fails, however, to evaluate peak load conditions, as many units are in "operation"

mode during peak load times. EEI and Bose made the same comments for compact

audio as for RACK/Component audio regarding inappropriate focus on standby mode

and technology evolution (EEI, No 15; Bode, No. 32).

Given the low to moderate energy savings potential (0.49 - 0.60 quads), DOE does not

plan to take actions for compact audio products other than support for ENERGY

STAR® levels that include standby energy.

4.5.3 Monitors

Monitors, with an installed base of 60 million commercial units and 51 million

residential units, consumed 0.22 and 0.05 (commercial and residential sectors

respectively) quads of energy in 2000. The identified technologies considered for

energy efficiency standards are: (1) the current minimum ENERGY STAR® standard

(at its current enabling rate) and maximum 1 W sleep level (and 17-inch cultivate ray

tube (CRT) screen); (2) the current minimum ENERGY STAR® standard, 100 percent

enabled (and 17-inch CRT screen); and (3) the current ENERGY STAR® rate with

liquid crystal display (LCD) screen (15-inch screen). Using these three technologies as

standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings are 0.44, 2.6, and 3.6

52 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

4-15

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
quads respectively in the commercial sector, and 0.32, 0.1, and 0.84 quads in the

residential sector.53 Note that the ranking of the energy savings potential for the three

options differs between the two sectors.

The energy savings potential for monitors depends in large part upon increasing the

ENERGY STARR enabled rate - a software option. Although ENERGY STAR® is

prevalent in new monitor sales, the user often disables the power management feature,

leading to 60 percent and 59 percent ENERGY STAR®-enabled rates for the

commercial and residential monitor stocks, respectively. Increasing the ENERGY

STAR® enabled rate may require software modification (e.g., permanent enabling of

power-down features).';

Although LCD monitors offer a large energy savings potential, they have a cost

premium of about 85 percent relative to CRT technology. This translates to a payback

period for commercial use for a 15-inch LCD of 11 years, and 33 years for residential

use, both relative to a 17-inch CRT.,, Both far exceed the average monitor lifetime of

three years. It should be noted that the market share of LCD monitors is growing.

Although LCDs represented less than three percent of the total monitor stock as of 2000,

their sales doubled from 1999 to 2000.

EEI commented that computer monitors for the residential sector may not be subject to

standards according to NAECA because the unit energy consumption is less than the

criteria of 100 kWh per year. EEI also commented that the focus should not be on

standby energy usage and that the most efficient available products may be "defeatured" products (EEI, No. 16).

In response to these issues and comments, DOE plans to pursue activities to increase the

enabling rate of ENERGY STAR® power management features (and other ENERGY

STAR® initiatives) but will not give further consideration to other actions at this time.

4.5.4 Desktop Personal Computers

Desktop Personal Computer (PC) energy conservation standards are considered

separately for the commercial and residential sectors. For the commercial sector, with

an installed base of 59 million units, desktop PCs consumed 0.21 quads of energy in

2000. For the residential sector, with an installed base of 51 million units, they

consumed 0.03 quads of energy in 2000. Total annual shipments are 44 million units

(2000).

53 Source : Appendix A, TSD.

54 Source : Appendix A, TSD.

55 In practice, a 15-inch LCD screen effectively replaces a 17-inch CRT screen due to the LCD's more efficient use of screen space for

viewing and higher display resolution.

4-16

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) 1 W

sleep (current ENERGY STAR® enabled rate) with standard microprocessor; (2) 50

percent ENERGY STAR®-enabled; (3) 100 percent ENERGY STAR®-enabled,

standard central processing units (CPU); (4) laptop computer; and (5) low-power CPU

design. The five technologies have cumulative energy savings potentials (2008-2030)

of 0.16, 0.89 , 1.9, 3.8, and 3.6 quads, respectively ,- for the commercial sector and 0.11,

0.03, 0. 08, 0.35, and 0.48 quads, respectively for residential desktop PCs.

Like all consumer electronics, issues are raised concerning focus on standby energy

consumption, use of de-featured products, technology convergence , and innovation.

The energy savings analysis found that the laptop computer and a low-power computer

options yielded the largest energy-savings potentials . However, EEI commented that

using a laptop computer as the "best available" unit energy consumption is not logical

because laptop computers may have less features when compared to standard desktop

computers. EEI further commented that laptop and desktop computers should be

analyzed separately (EEI, No. 16). DOE acknowledges (and mentioned in the data

sheets presented at the meetings) that many of the low-power strategies used in

commercially-available laptop computers (e.g., low-power CPUs) often command a

price premium.

The DOE data sheet also stated that the low-power design desktop computer is not

commercially available, but it is technically feasible to design and build . Such a model

takes advantage of low power elements and components found in a laptop but avoids the

high costs of tight packaging and liquid-crystal displays. A hurdle, in addition to the

lack of implemented low-power desktop designs, is the cost premium of these chips.

However, several commentators raised different views regarding the low power design

option. CEA and ITI commented that, contrary to the DOE data sheet, a low-power or

power-aware desktop computer is commercially available (CEA, No. 28; ITI, No. 30).

Both commentators also believe that the correlation of a computer's power consumption

with a microprocessor significantly over-simplifies the analysis for this product. ITI

also commented that correlation of low-power design with only one manufacturer (e.g.,

Transmeta) is misleading as other manufacturers have developed and market low power

processors for laptop PCs and certain desktop PCs, including some which cost less than

the $50 quoted for the Transmeta processor (ITI, No. 30).

As noted previously, uncertainty regarding the authority of DOE to promulgate of

standards for desktop PCs based on NAECA's 100 kWh annual household energy

consumption threshold were raised by several commentators. EEI commented that

desktop computers for the residential sector may not be subject to standards according to

NAECA because the unit energy consumption is less than the criteria of 100 kWh per

year (EEI, No. 16). On the other hand, Shaver commented that computers and computer

56 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

4-17

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
peripherals should be included in the standards program because the energy

consumption of a household computer system (including a monitor, printer, and

computer) meet NAECA's threshold (Shaver, No. 7). Given the NAECA threshold, it

might well be necessary to declare a household computer system as a product in order to

legally regulate these products.

The energy savings potential for desktop PCs, like monitors, depends in large part upon

increasing the rate at which ENERGY STAR® power management software is enabled.

For example, although more than 90 percent of desktop PCs sold in 2000 were

ENERGY STAR®-compliant, only 25 percent of desktops in stock are ENERGY

STAR®-enabled. Due to the very rapid evolution of PCs and their functionality, the

Department does not plan to take any actions for this product at this time other than

support ENERGY STAR® initiatives.

4.5.5 Televisions

Televisions, with an installed base of 212 million units (1998) and annual shipments of

31.4 million units (2000), consumed 0.348 quads of energy in 1998. The identified

technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) future ENERGY

STAR® (1 W standby); (2) the best available model (0.1 W standby); and (3) LCD

screens. Using these three levels as standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030)

energy savings are 1.4, 1.7, and 1.1 quads, respectively.,,

The present focus on standby instead of active mode energy consumption is the primary

issue for the energy conservation potential of televisions. The "active" mode dominates

TV energy consumption (89 percent"), and the DOE test procedure measures both active

and standby power draws. On the other hand, the ENERGY STAR® test procedure

measures only standby power and will not measure potential energy savings from

approaches that decrease the active power draw of TVs (such as LCD). CEC

commented that the current mandatory federal test method is not accepted or used by

industry, and that, it is therefore a hindrance to other organizations that want to take

energy efficiency action either by mandatory standards or by incentive programs. CEC

recommends that the Department withdraw the current test method, thus giving the

opportunity for others to develop a new test method without the threat of Federal

preemption (CEC, 38). EEI commented that the energy savings analysis should focus

on the active mode and that peak demand impact should consider that the average home

likely has more than one television (EEI, No. 16). The TSD reflects these views.

Several other issues complicate the establishment of effective energy standards for

televisions. First, digital TV will probably have a major impact on the future of the

television. A federal mandate to convert all television programming to digital signals by

57 Source : Appendix A, TSD.

58 Source : Appendix A, TSD.

4-18

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
2007 will require either the purchase of new TVs with a built-in digital receiver box or

deployment of digital receivers (set-top boxes) to enable digital signals to function with

existing analog TVs. Either adaptation will strongly impact television energy

consumption. Second, high-definition TVs (HDTV), which offer much higher

resolution than conventional analog TVs, exist in the marketplace and are expected to

capture a significant market share in the future. HDTV will likely impact the active

(and possibly the standby) power draw of TVs. Third, the quantity of multi-function

TVs (TV/VCR, TV/DVD, TV/Monitor, electronic programming guide functions, etc.)

could increase in the future, impacting overall device unit energy consumption (UEC).

Due to the rapid evolution that will likely occur to televisions, the Department does not

plan to take any actions for this product at this time other than to support ENERGY

STAR® initiatives.

4.5.6 Set-top Boxes

We have considered set-top box energy conservation standards separately for cable and

wireless product classes. Currently, analog and digital cable set-top boxes, with

installed bases of 45 million and 3.8 million units (1999), consume 0.047 and 0.008

quads annually respectively. The 13 million wireless set-top boxes installed in 1999

consumed an additional 0.02 quads, for a total of 0.075 quads for all set-top boxes.

However, because of the Federal government's mandate that all television broadcasting

transition to digital signals by 2007, digital set-top boxes are expected to displace all

analog cable set-top boxes before 2008. Consequently, all subsequent analysis of cable

set-top boxes assumes that the entire 1999 population of cable set-top boxes will

become digital devices in the 2008-2030 period.

The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) current

ENERGY STAR® minimum level (15 watt standby); (2) ENERGY STAR® 2004

minimum level (7 W standby); and (3) best available (1 W standby). Using these three

levels as standards, the potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings for digital settop boxes are 0.45, 0.95, and 1.3 quads, respectively. For wireless set-top boxes, the

potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings are 0.02, 0.15, and 0.25 quads,

respectively.,,

The ENERGY STAR® program addresses set-top boxes; however, only two products

for digital cable TV meet the ENERGY STAR® power draw requirement of 15 W or

less. In addition, the feasibility of a one-watt standby level for a set-top box is unclear.

With respect to the use of potential standard levels that are not necessarily feasible, CEA

commented that only "real-world" feasibility should be used to estimate energy savings

potential (CEA, No. 28).

"Source: Appendix A, TSD.

4-19

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
The ENERGY STAR® test procedure, which calls for measurement of standby power

only, sufficiently accounts for current set-top box energy consumption, as analog and

digital boxes consume more than three times more energy annually in standby mode

than in active mode. In addition, the boxes consume little additional energy in active

mode (relative to standby): analog boxes require an average of 1.4 W (13 percent) more

to operate in the active mode, digital boxes 0.7 W (three percent).,, EEI commented that

a more proper way to define the energy usage modes of set-top boxes would be

"processing" mode and "processing plus transmission" mode. According to EEI, settop boxes are never in "standby" mode as they are constantly downloading and

processing hundreds of channels of information (EEI, No. 16).

Two issues complicate the establishment of an energy standard for set-top boxes. First,

although presently consisting of cable and wireless boxes, the set-top box category may

grow in the future to include a wide range of products, including digital TV, personal

VCF, video game consoles, Internet access devices, videophone, and multifunction

devices. Second, the functionality of future set-top boxes may expand to encompass

several different tasks, e.g., receiving and recording TV content, computer network

access, telephony, etc. All product evolutions will impact the feasibility of different

standards levels. As a result, the Department does not plan to take any actions for this

product at this time other than to support ENERGY STAR® initiatives.

60 Source : Appendix A, TSD.

4-20

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
5 Products Not Considered

This section summarizes comments received on products which DOE did not select for

further analysis or give explicit consideration.

5.1 General Comments

CEC provided several comments that addressed a group of products under existing

energy efficiency programs. First, as a priority, CEC commented that the Department

should publish final rules on the following commercial products for which rulemaking

workshops have already taken place:

• Central air conditioners and heat pumps;

• Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps;

• Central furnaces;

• Packaged boilers;

• Water heaters; and

• Hot water storage tanks.

As another priority, CEC commented that the Department should take action concerning

test procedures for these products as well as for water heaters that are consumer

products. CEC stated that the scope of the energy efficiency provisions for water

heaters is very clear, but that the test method, which was developed before NAECA

became law, has a much more limited scope and has resulted in confusion over Federal

preemption of State standards (CEC, No. 38).

5.2 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential of packaged terminal

air conditioners and heat pumps (PTACs) is 0.03-0.56 quads.6 EEI and ARI provided

comments in favor of adopting ASHRAE standards for PTAC and heat pumps. ACEEE

commented that ASHRAE 90.1-1999 is not the maximum level of energy efficiency that

is technically feasible and economically justified and therefore should not be adopted by

DOE. ACEEE recommends that the Department conduct a rulemaking for PTACs once

higher priority rulemakings are completed. EEI and ARI commented that the

Department should adopt the ASHRAE 90.1 (1999 or 2001) energy efficiency standards

for packaged terminal conditioners and heat pumps (EEI, No. 16; ARI, No. 36). They

further commented that any other Department action may result in less energy savings

61 Source: Appendix B, Data Sheets for Existing Products.

5-1

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
due to the delay in standards implementation. EEI further commented that the

Department should then work with ASHRAE to update the standards (EEI, No. 16).

PTACs were classified high priority products for rulemaking during the 2001 priority

setting. The Department plans to maintain the high priority and reassess the energy

savings potential. The Department will also reconsider adopting the ASHRAE 90.1 -

1999 standard levels.

5.3 Ground Source Heat Pumps

Southern Company commented that given that most ground-coupled heat pumps are

significantly more efficient than air-source heat pumps, it would be counterproductive to

set standards for ground-coupled heat pumps (SC No. 6). Southern Company further

commented that setting standards for ground -coupled heat pumps would likely increase

their cost, thus encouraging consumers to purchase the less efficient and less expensive

air-source heat pump equipment (SC No. 6).

The Department decided not to consider ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) due to the

low energy savings potential that could be expected from minimum efficiency

requirements.

5.4 Cooking Products

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for cooking products is

0.1-0.2 quads for gas cooktops and 0.2-0.4 quads for gas ovens.62 This product category

was not selected for further consideration, primarily because of its low to medium

energy savings potential. Comments received regarding these products are summarized

in the following paragraphs.

Southern Company commented that changes in efficiency levels for competing products

with different fuel types should be implemented at the same time to reduce effects on

competition. Southern Company further commented that, therefore, standards for gascooking products should be issued as soon as possible since new standards for electriccooking products (only) were issued in 1998 (SC, No. 6 and 17). Furthermore, EEI

commented that it is concerned that gas cooking products were demoted to low priority

in 2001 from high priority in the previous year (EEI, No. 5).

EEI commented that microwave ovens are shown as a NAECA covered product under

"cooking products" in the 2002 priority setting document dated August 31, 2001. EEI

asked whether or not the Department wants to define microwave ovens as a separate

product category (EEI, No. 5). Shaver commented that microwave ovens should be

62 Source: Appendix B. Data Sheets for Existing Products

5-2

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
included in the energy efficiency program, because the annual average per-household

energy consumption meets NAECA's threshold (Shaver, No. 7). AHAM commented

that it opposes any new rulemaking on microwave ovens, which were subject to a final

no-standard determination in 1995 (AHAM, No. 10). AHAM further commented that

microwave ovens are relatively efficient cooking products and there are serious

technical and economical issues in significantly improving their efficiency (AHAM, No.

10).

AHAM commented that coffeemakers should not be the subject of regulation, as their

energy savings potential is small (AHAM, No. 10). AHAM further commented that the

California Energy Commission agrees with this view in its pending rulemaking

(AHAM, No. 10).

Given their low potential energy savings the Department is not considering further

analysis for microwave ovens or coffeemakers. (The Department notes that, as

indicated by AHAM's comments, microwave ovens are already a covered product and

DOE has place then in a separate product category.)

5.5 Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

A final rule was issued on May 23, 2002 for these product categories establishing a 12

SEER standard for most products. Comments received regarding these products are

summarized below.

CEC commented that the Department's highest priority should be the completion of its

rulemaking for residential air-cooled air conditioners and residential air source heat

pumps. Furthermore, CEC commented that the Department should maintain the original

seasonal energy efficiency rating (SEER) 13 standard and its effective date (CEC, No.

38). EEI and ARI commented that the Department should not consider this equipment

until 2011 because the new, higher efficiency standards are scheduled to go into effect

in 2006 (EEI, No. 5; ARI, No. 36).

ACEEE commented that it supports revisions to the test procedure and recommended

that a key part of a rulemaking be to look at the accuracy of the test procedure relative to

field conditions. In particular, ACEEE commented that the current test procedure

underestimates fan energy use and does not fully adjust for the benefits of thermal

expansion valves in the field (ACEEE, No. 39).

EMPA provided comments regarding the energy savings analysis . EMPA commented

that there are limitations to the data used to make estimates about air conditioners and

heat pumps (EMPA, No. 3). EMPA also commented that the time period for the

payback calculation should be the amount of time that the appliance remains in the

63 Source: Appendix B, Data Sheets for Existing Product.

5-3

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
ownership and use of the initial purchaser, as opposed to the entire useful lifetime of the

product (EMPA, No. 3).

5.6 Residential Refrigerators and Freezers

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for refrigerators,

refrigerators/freezers, and freezers is 1.4 quads.,,, A final rule for this product category

was issued on April 28, 1997, and became effective July 1, 2001. Thus, these products

were not selected for further consideration for new energy efficiency standards at this

time.

W.C. Wood commented that household freezers (and other classes/sizes of refrigerators)

are a logical extension of the ENERGY STAR® Program. W.C. Wood also

recommended that in addition to "automatic defrost" type freezers, "manual defrost

chest" freezers and "manual defrost upright" freezers should be included in a proposed

rulemaking. W.C. Wood further commented that in some models and sizes, the

electrical savings of manual defrost type freezers are equal to or greater than those

available from the automatic defrost type freezers (W.C. Wood, No. 4).

ACEEE commented that a 20-30 percent increase in residential refrigerator efficiency is

possible, as opposed to the 10 percent improvement used in DOE's analysis, and would

result in savings of 2.8-4.2 quads. Thus, ACEEE recommended that DOE pursue a new

rulemaking on residential refrigerators in the next few years (ACEEE, No. 39).

5.7 Residential Furnaces and Boilers

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for residential furnaces

and boilers is 1.8-15.1 quads.6, A rulemaking for these products was initiated in 2001.

ACEEE commented that it supports the current rulemaking on residential furnaces.

ACEEE further commented that the DOE analysis should include improved efficiency

of furnace fans. ACEEE estimates that the use of high-efficiency variable speed motors

in furnace blowers can save 2.8 quads of energy (ACEEE, No. 39). The Department

notes that in the course of the residential furnaces and boilers rulemaking analysis it will

assess the impact of design options on electricity use as well as AFUE, and will seek

comment on whether to regulate electricity use.

5.8 Commercial Boilers

ACEEE recommended that DOE adopt the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 standard for steam

boilers but that nothing be done for hot water boilers at this time. ACEEE commented

that the ASHRAE standard represents a three percent efficiency increase for steam

fi4 Source: Appendix B, Data Sheets for Existing Products.

65 Source: Appendix B, Data Sheets for Existing Products.

5-4

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
boilers over the current EPAct standard. For hot water boilers, the ASHRAE standard

represents little change from the current EPAct standard. ACEEE further commented

that if DOE were to adopt the ASHRAE standard, it would not be able to act again

unless and until ASHRAE develops another set of new efficiency standards, an

undertaking ASHRAE has shown little interest in (ACEEE, No. 39).

The Department proposes to move commercial oil and gas-fired packaged boilers, from

medium to high priority for a standards rulemaking. The Department will also reassess

the energy savings potential and reconsider adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-1999.

5.9 Commercial Laundry

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potentials for commercial clothes

dryers (gas) and commercial clothes washers are 0.40-0.81 quads and 0.26-0.72 quads

respectively.« These products were not selected for further consideration for regulatory

activity, primarily because they did not meet the one-quad criterion. However, Alliance

Laundry Systems (ALS), AHAM, and the Multi-Housing Laundry Association (MLA)

provided comments regarding commercial washers and dryers. Their comments are

summarized in the following sections.

MLA commented that washers and dryers in common-area laundry rooms in residential

buildings (i.e., coin-operated laundry) should be included in the existing program for

residential laundry machines and that "nationwide uniformity" should be added to the

list of criteria for including new products in an energy efficiency program (MLA, No.

29). MLA commented that coin-operated laundry machines generally fall within the

definition applied to residential clothes washers and dryers and that these machines are

used directly by consumers, not businesses. MLA suggested that only an interpretive

ruling stating that the existing standard applies to coin-operated laundry machines is

needed (MLA, No. 29).

MLA further commented that manufactures and suppliers at present face the prospect of

having to comply with State regulations that are different from any Federal standard

(i.e., Texas and California). According to MLA, machines in common-area laundry

rooms are approximately three percent of all 7.5 million washers and dryers

manufactured each year. MLA commented that manufactures would find it either very

inefficient economically or in practice unfeasible to produce one set of machines for the

residential market and then several thousand other machines to meet any one State's

energy efficiency standard (MLA, No. 29).

ALS and Maytag commented that they support expansion of the Energy Conservation

Program to include commercial clothes washers (ALS, No. 9 and 37; Maytag, No. 18).

ALS commented that a Federal energy efficiency standard for commercial clothes

66 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

5-5

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
washers is needed to preempt State regulations that have been adopted (i.e., California,

February 6, 2002) or are being considered (i.e., Maryland, with legislation introduced

into its Senate on February 1, 2002) (ALS, No. 9 and 37).

Maytag, AHAM, and ALS commented that the existing definition of clothes washers in

NAECA should be interpreted to include "commercial" units (Maytag, No. 18; AHAM,

No. 10; ALS, No. 9). AHAM noted that commercial/residential-style clothes washers

are products that are essentially the same as residential clothes washers , and therefore

DOE should use its discretion to extend coverage of NAECA to these commercial

products. Maytag added that commercial clothes washers should be included under the

existing energy efficiency standards required for residential clothes washers since

commercial clothes washers are "distributed in commerce for personal use or

consumption by individuals" (42 U.S.C. 6291. Sec. 321( l)(B), (Maytag, No. 18).

Maytag noted that, earlier in the year , DOE recognized the similarities between

residential and commercial clothes washers by allowing commercial units to carry the

ENERGY STAR® label.(Maytag, No. 18).

While supporting the inclusion of commercial washers into the standards program, ALS

commented that any proposed commercial clothes washer standard must be set at

MEF=1.15 ft3/kWh/cycle, and not at the consumer home-style washer standard of MEF

= 1.26 " (ALS, No. 9).

EEI and Maytag provided comments regarding the test procedure for commercial

clothes washers. EEI commented that there are too many issues with test procedures

and baseline efficiency parameters to warrant setting a standard for commercial clothes

washers (EEI, No. 16). On the other hand, Maytag commented that the same test

procedure that is used for residential units could also be used for commercial units

(Maytag, No. 18).

ALS and AHAM commented that the Department should not add commercial clothes

dryers to the Energy Conservation Program (ALS, No. 9; AHAM, No. 10). ALS further

commented that it bases its recommendation on the recognition in previous Department

rulemakings that more substantial impact on the energy from laundering can be made

through increasing spin extraction speeds of the clothes washer (ALS, No. 9). AHAM

similarly commented, adding that since residential dryers are not subject to new

standards, it will provide very little energy benefit to apply existing standards to

commercial clothes dryers (AHAM, No. 10). ALS further commented that no states

have initiated any energy efficiency rulemakings for commercial clothes dryers at this

time (ALS, No. 9).

The Department intends to investigate, in a context other than this priority setting

activity, the possibility of covering residential-style commercial clothes washers under

existing requirements for residential washing machines.

5-6

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
5.10 Oil Unit Heaters

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for oil unit heaters is

0.01 quads.,, Oil unit heaters were not selected for further consideration primarily

because of their low energy savings potential.

Similar to its comments for gas unit heaters and gas duct fu naces, EEI commented that

the Department should not set standards for oil unit heaters because they fall under

ASHRAE 90.1-1999 standards. EEI believes that the Department should work with

ASHRAE to change the efficiency levels of this equipment (EEI, No. 16). EEI also

commented that peak load impact should refer to natural gas/petroleum peak demand,

not electricity (EEI, No. 16).

5.11 Exit Signs

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for exit signs is 0.06-

0.41 quads .6, This product category was not selected for further consideration, primarily

because of its low energy savings potential. Comments received regarding this product

are summarized in the following paragraph.

EEI commented that the best available technology, in terms of energy efficiency, should

be an (LED) exit sign that meets all applicable codes. EEI commented that the

Department should not use electro luminescent or photo luminescent exit signs, as they

do not meet current fire and safety codes, especially with regards to visibility (citing

January 1994 National Lighting Product Information Program (NLPIP) Specifier

Report) (EEI, No. 16).

5.12 Traffic Signals

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for traffic signals is 0.3-

0.6 quads.6, This product category was not selected for further consideration primarily

because of its low to moderate energy savings potential and the strong market-based

demand for (more efficient) LED traffic signals.

EEI provided two comments regarding the energy savings estimates for traffic signals

(EEI, No. 16):

1. Variations in the physical size of traffic lights lead to variations in wattage of the

lighting system (e.g., 9-inch disc versus 12-inch disc).

2. Ambient temperature impacts the energy usage of LED traffic lights. The

67 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

68 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

69 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

5-7

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
California Energy Commission's proposed standard sets different levels for 25°C and

74°C.

EEI also commented that the peak load impact estimates should be reevaluated. EEI

added that the CEC uses a 34 percent coincident demand factor (EEI, No. 16).

5.13 Dehumidifiers

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for dehumidifiers is

0.19-0.53 quads.,- This product category was not selected for further consideration

primarily because of its low to moderate energy savings potential.

AHAM commented that the ENERGY STAR' Program for dehumidifiers should be

sufficient for dehumidifiers considering their modest energy use (AHAM, No. 10). EEI

commented that seasonal usage patterns should be taken into account for determining

impact on peak demand. High correlation may occur in summer, but little or no

correlation occurs in the winter (EEI, No. 16).

5.14 Copy Machines

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for copy machines

equals 0.1-0.7 quads in the commercial sector and 0.08-0.11 quads in the residential

sector." This product category was not selected for further, primarily because of its low

energy savings potential.

EEI commented that the analysis for copiers should focus on the "active" mode. EEI

does not agree that energy savings depends on the technical abilities to lower "sleep

power" as it likely constitutes only 10.5 percent of the total energy usage (EEI, No. 16).

Regarding the test procedure, EEI commented that the procedure should measure energy

usage in all modes (e.g., active, standby, sleep and off) with appropriate weighting

factors for each (EEI, No. 16). Finally, EEI agreed with using total annual energy usage

as the metric rather than watts for particular modes (EEI, No. 16).

5.15 Fax Machines

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for fax machines is

0.12-0.24 quads in the commercial sector and 0.04-0.07 quads in the residential sector. 72

This product category was not selected for further consideration primarily because of its

low energy savings potential.

70 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

71 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

72 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

5-8

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
EEI commented that fax machines may not meet NAECA's 100 kWh per year annual

energy consumption criterion (EEI, No. 16). Furthermore, EEI commented that if fax

machines are becoming an obsolete technology, it does not make sense for the

Department to create standards (EEI, No. 16). Similar to its comments for desktop

computers, EEI stated that there is an incorrect focus on standby energy usage and that

best available products may be "de-featured" products (EEI, No. 16).

5.16 Laser Printers

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for laser printers is 0.2-

0.5 quads in the commercial sector and 0.0 quads in the residential sector. 13 This product

category was not selected for further consideration, primarily because of its low energy

savings potential.

EEI commented that laser printers for the residential sector may not be subject to

standards according to NAECA because the unit energy consumption is less than the

criteria of 100 kWh per year. EEI further commented that only laser printers in the

commercial sector use more than 100 kWh per year (EEI, No. 16). EEI also commented

that the analysis of commercial laser printers should account for the different usage

patterns between a desktop and networked printer (EEI, No. 16). Finally, EEI

commented that, like copiers, laser printers are likely to have multiple "standby" modes

(EEI, No. 16).

5.17 Low-End Servers, Commercial

The estimated cumulative (2008-2030) energy savings potential for low-end commercial

servers equals 0.19 to 0.92 quads.74 This product category was not selected for further

consideration primarily because of its low energy savings potential and the rapid

evolution of low-end server products. Comments received regarding this product are

summarized in the following paragraph.

EEI commented that the amount of time in "sleep" mode for low-end commercial

servers is probably very small. Therefore, the 90 percent energy savings shown for the

best available unit may be overstated (EEI, No. 16). EEI further commented that if

power management systems affect server performance, they will not likely be accepted

in the marketplace (EEI, No. 16).

5.18 Wine Chillers

Although wine chillers were not on the list of potential new products under

consideration, one comment was received regarding this product. CEC commented that

73 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

74 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

5-9

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
the Department should publish the proposed rule that would change the wording of the

Code of Federal Regulations to make it clear that wine chillers are exempt products

under federal regulation. CEC commented that this ruling is needed to clear the

question of federal preemption of state standards for wine chillers (CEC, 38).

5.19 Power Supplies and Battery Chargers

The product categories of external power supplies and battery chargers were not on the

list of potential new products for consideration for regulation but were raised for

consideration at the November 26, 2001, meeting. ACEEE, EEI, and Southern

Company thereafter provided comments on these products.

ACEEE commented that DOE should add external power supplies and battery chargers

to its analysis. ACEEE commented that both have relatively high standby energy use

and thus provide opportunities for significant energy savings. ACEEE estimates that the

average household has 3-5 of these devices and that standards can reduce the standby

power of these products by at least 3 watts (from an average of about 4.5 watts to an

average of 1-1.5 watts), resulting in 1.6-2.8 quads of cumulative energy savings. In

summary, ACEEE recommended that the Department conduct rulemaking activity on

external power supplies and battery chargers as a priority at this time (ACEEE, No. 39).

On the other hand, Southern Company commented that the Department does not have

authority to regulate power supplies and battery chargers because they do not meet the

NAECA criterion of unit energy consumption of 100 kWh per year, and EEI asserted

that stand alone battery chargers likely fail to meet this criterion (EEI, No. 16; SC, No.

17). The 100 kWh criterion, however, does not apply to energy consumption by a unit

of a product per household, but rather applies to consumption by a product per

household (i.e., by all units in a household). Southern Company added that it seems

incorrect to interpret the law to lump these products into one group that would meet the

100 kWh criterion (SC, No. 17). EEI commented that external power supplies and

many battery chargers are appliance components, and that energy efficiency standards

should not be set for such products without regard for the appliance system of which

they are part, as this could result in increased energy usage by the system (EEI, No. 16).

5.20 Video Cassette Recorders

VCRs, with an installed base of 129 million units (1998) and annual shipments of 24

million units (2000), consumed 0.10 quads of energy in 1998. The identified

technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) the new ENERGY

STAR® compliant level (2 W standby) and (2) a 1 W standby level (proposed 2003

5-10

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
ENERGY STAR' level). Using these two levels as standards, the potential cumulative

(2008-2030) energy savings are 0.25 quads and 0.38 quads , respectively.,,

Currently, 45 VCRs in the market meet ENERGY STA' standards (i.e., the ENERGY

STAR® website lists 45 models by eight different manufacturers, available as of

September 1, 2001). A test procedure does not exist for VCRs, but future revisions of

the "ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements" will include test procedures that call for

the use of a power meter to measure VCR power draw in standby mode. However, this

test procedure would have a low correlation with VCR energy consumption as standby

mode accounts for only about 35 percent of VCR annual energy consumption.

Accordingly, EEI commented that the energy conservation impact of reducing

"standby" energy usage would be minimal and may prevent important innovations (EEI,

No. 16). EEI added that the "best available" products (i.e., low standby power) might

not have the features necessary for market appeal (EEI, No. 16). As for product peak

load impact, the degree of correlation for VCRs is unknown because it depends upon the

distribution of VCR operational mode during peak power demand periods which cannot

be readily determined.

Given the low energy savings potential (0.25 - 0.38 quads) and the general issues of

product life-time relative to the rulemaking cycle, rapid evolution of features, and the

potential for a "de-featured" product, DOE does not plan to take actions for VCRs at

this time other than support for ENERGY STAR® levels that include standby energy.

75 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

5-11

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
6 Summary of Proposed Actions

A summary of the proposed actions for each currently regulated product considered is

given in Table 6-1.

For each product under consideration the Department is proposing one or more of the

following future actions:

• Changing the priority of standards and test procedures;

• Conducting additional analysis;

• Supporting ENERGY STAR®6 and other voluntary efforts;

• Exploring research opportunities

Table 6-1: Summary of Proposed Actions for Currently Regulated Products under Consideration

'

(., h "Ktsn,. # i fit Sri ! M #3k

^ r:_ e _ rY'z!

.

Dishwashers 0.40-1.4 High priority test procedure

• Move from low to medium rulemaking

priority for standards

Fluorescent Lamps 0.14-0. 47 Maintain low priority for standards

• Conduct additional analysis

• Explore research opportunities

High Intensity Discharge Lamps 1.4 High priority for standards determination

Residential Clothes Dryers 0.06-3.8 Low priority for standards

Incandescent General Service 0.8-8.52 Low priority for standards

Lamps Support voluntary efforts encouraging CFL

• and Halogen

• Explore research opportunities

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 0.19-3.7 Assess possibility of classifying as a

"covered product" for 2 currently exempt

lamps ( e.g., BR and ER)

Dishwashers: The Department estimates the potential cumulative (2008-2030) energy

savings from new dishwasher standards between 0.40 and 1.4 quads. Before these

savings can be obtained, however, a revised test procedure is needed to properly reflect

the energy consumption of products that use adaptive control technologies.

Consequently, the Department considers the development of new dishwashers test

procedures a high priority. Furthermore, given the relatively high-energy savings

76 DOE and EPA jointly administer the ENERGY STAR® program, and the DOE supports all products in the program. The "Support

ENERGY STAR® " comment is intended to signify products for which the ENERGY STAR® program offers greater energy savings

potential; its absence is not intended to signify exclusion of certain products

6-1

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
potential of new standards, the Department proposes to move dishwashers from low to

medium priority for standards.

Fluorescent lamps are subjects of numerous mandatory and voluntary initiatives

including the ENERGY STAR® program, ASHRAE 90.1 building energy efficiency

standards, the FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative, and utility DSM programs.

Furthermore, new ballast standards, which go into effect in 2005, are expected to

accelerate to market shift to T8 lamp technology. Given the rapidly changing lamp

market, the Department proposes to maintain fluorescent lamps in the low priority

category for standards development. However, given the large energy savings potential

resulting from even a small efficiency improvement, the Department will conduct

additional analysis.

High Intensity Discharge Lamps: Due to the potential, yet uncertain, energy savings,

for this product, the Department considers HID lamps a high priority (determination)

product.

Residential Clothes Dryers: The Department's analysis indicates that the Clothes Dryer

design options with large potential energy savings (i.e., heat pump and microwave

electric dryers) are not yet commercially viable. Also limiting the potential benefits of a

new standard is the expectation that the new descriptor for clothes washer efficiency,

(Modified Energy Factor or MEF), will led to more washer designs that strive to reduce

the remaining moisture content of clothes. In conclusion, given the low energy savings

potential identified DOE considers residential clothes dryers a low priority product for

both standards and test procedures and is not considering further actions at this time.

Incandescent General Service Lamps (A-type): At this time , DOE considers

development of new standards for incandescent general service lamps a low priority

because the more efficient technologies do not appear to be economically viable for this

very mature technology. Support for voluntary programs encouraging CFL or halogen

substitution will continue and the Department will explore research opportunities to

reduce the cost of halogen alternatives (e.g., IR coatings).

Incandescent Reflector Lamps: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 established minimum

average lamp efficacy standards (lumens per watt) for many incandescent reflector

lamps, although BR, ER and some PAR and R lamps remain exempt. The Department

estimates that the potential energy savings from both regulated and unregulated lamps

are large. The Department will assess whether to classify currently exempt incandescent

reflector lamps as covered products under EPCA. If these lamps become covered

products then the Department will consider moving all incandescent reflector lamps

from low to high priority for standards.

6-2

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Incorporating the proposed actions just described for new products, Table 6.2 presents

the appliance standards programs' revised priorities for standards and determinations.

Table 6-2 : Revised Priorities-Standards and Determination

Residential Central AC/HP Dishwashers

Distribution Transformers Central AC/HP, three-phase <65 kBtu

Residential Furnaces and Boilers

HID (Determination) #

Small Electric Motors (Determination)

Central AC/HP, 65-24OkBtu

Oil- and Gas-Fired Commercial Packaged

Boilers #

Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water

Heaters#

Packaged Terminal AC/HP

#Indicates change in priority status compared to 2001 priority

Comparing table 6-2 with table 1-6 illustrates the change in priorities since the 2001

priority setting. The Small Electric Motors determination process is continuing and

remains a high priority.

The test procedure priorities are shown in table 6-3. These are unchanged from the

2002 priorities shown in table 1-17.

Table 6-3: Revised Priorities - Test Procedures

Dishwashers Compact Refrigerators

Residential Central AC/HP Ductless Split Central AC/HP

Commercial A/C and Heat

Pumps

Commercial Furnaces

Commercial Water Heaters

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
A summary of the recommended actions for each new product considered is given in

Table 6-4.

Table 6-4: Summary of Proposed Actions for New Products under Consideration

I Ma

Torchieres (0.83-1.7) Assess possibility of classifying as

"covered product"

• Support ENERGY STAR®

={' " Ceiling Fans • Assess possibility of classifying as

(excluding lighting) (0.47-1.6) "covered product"

(including lighting) (4.17-5.3) • Support ENERGY STAR®

Gas Unit Heaters (0.72-1.6) No further action at this time"

and Gas Duct

Furnances

Walk-in Coolers, (0.35 - 0.37) • No further actions at this time

Freezers, and

Combinations

Supermarket (0.39- 0.44)

Refrigeration

o Systems

Water Coolers (0.24 - 0.26)

•a' Ice Machines (0.0-0.31)

Reach-in Freezers (0.09 - 1.16) • Assess possibility of classifying as

and Reach-in "covered product"

0

Refrigerators

E Vending Machines (1.0-1.43) • Assess possibility of classifying as

o and Beverage "covered product"

Merchandisers

RACK / Component (0.10 - 0.27) • Support ENERGY STAR®

vc

Stereo Audio

o Compact Audio (0.49 - 0.60)

ID Monitors (.76 - 4.44)

W

a) Desktop PC (0.27 - 4.15)

E

Televisions (1.1-1.7)

0

Set-Top Boxes (0.47 - 1.55)

U

6-4

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Torchieres: The Department found that substantial energy savings could be achieved

through wider use of torchieres that are more energy efficient than those which now

predominate in the marketplace. EPCA currently prescribes no efficiency requirements

for torchieres, and therefore DOE intends to assess whether to classify them as "covered

products" under Section 322 of the statute. If they are classified as covered products,

the Department will then review and decide what if any action to take with respect to

adoption of test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE plans to support

energy efficiency for torchieres through ENERGY STAR® initiatives.

Ceiling Fans: Based on the potential for high energy savings from use of more efficient

ceiling fans, DOE plans to consider the development of efficiency requirements for this

product. Since EPCA currently prescribes no efficiency requirements for ceiling fans,

as with torchieres, DOE intends to assess whether to classify them as "covered

products" under Section 322 of the statute. If they are classified as covered products,

the Department will then review and decide what if any further action to take DOE plans

to support energy efficiency for torchieres through ENERGY STAR® initiatives.

Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct Furnace: The Department believes that substantial

energy savings could be achieved through wider use of gas unit heaters and duct

furnaces that are more energy efficient than those which now predominate in the

marketplace. Also, it might be beneficial to develop a test procedure for these products

that take into account seasonal efficiency. Since EPCA prescribes no efficiency

requirements for these products, DOE does not plan to take any further action for these

products at this time.,,

Walk-in Coolers, Freezers, and Combinations; Supermarket Refrigeration Systems;

Water Coolers; and Ice Machines: The Department analyzed and received comments

on several additional types of commercial refrigeration equipment. Given their low

energy savings potential, the Department does not plan to take any further actions for

these products at this time.

Reach-in Refrigerators and Reach-in Freezers; Vending Machines and Beverage

Merchandisers: The Department believes that substantial energy savings could be

achieved through wider use of more efficient commercial refrigeration equipment of

these types. Since EPCA prescribes no efficiency requirements for these products, DOE

intends to examine covering them under the statute. If they are classified as covered,

DOE would then review and decide what if any further action to take.

Consumer Electronics: Most consumer products present significant issues such as their

product life-time relative to the rulemaking cycle and rapid evolution of features. Given

77 Proposed legislation pending in the Congress would amend EPCA to authorize the Department to treat commercial products as

"covered products" under Section 322 of EPCA, and to specifically include commercial unit heaters and certain commercial refrigeration

equipment among the products covered by the statute. If such legislation is adopted, we would re-assess what action to take concerning

these products.

6-5

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
consideration of these concerns, the Department does not plan to take any further action

for these products at this time. Instead, DOE plans to support energy efficiency for

consumer electronics products through ENERGY STAR® initiatives. This includes

pursuing development actions to support more user-friendly ENERGY STAR® power

management interfaces for office equipment. ENERGY STAR® already has consensusbased efficiency levels tailored to each consumer electronics product, as well as

widespread industry participation for most products.

6-6

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
References

The commentators are listed in order of receipt by the Department and as numerically

labeled by the Department. Numbers (1,2, 11, 12, and 13) were not assigned to a

comment. Number (34) was the same as number (14).

Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA, No. 3). Glenn R. Schleede. September

11, 2001.

W.C. Wood Company Limited (W.C. Wood, No. 4). David M. Scheach. September 14,

2001.

Edison Electric Institute (EEI, No. 5). Steve Rosenstock, P.E. October 9, 2001.

Southern Company (SC, No. 6). Donald M. Brundage , P.E. October 10, 2001.

Gary Shaver (Shaver, No . 7). October 11, 2001.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI, No. 8). Ben Lieberman. October 11, 2001.

Alliance Laundry Systems LLC (ALL, No. 9). Phil Manthei. October 15, 2001.

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM, No. 10). Charles A. Samuels.

October 29, 2001.

Controlled Energy Corporation (California Energy Commission, No. 14). Mary

Moffroid. November 12, 2001.

Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA, No. 15). Glenn R. Schleede.

November 20, 2001.

Edison Electric Institute (EEI, No. 16). Steve Rosenstock, P.E. November 30, 2001.

Southern Company (SC, No. 17). Donald M. Brundage, P.E. December 4, 2001.

Maytag Corporation (Maytag, No. 18). Ron Fey. December 5, 2001.

Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE, No. 19). Sheila Massey. December 5,

2001.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA, No. 20). Edward Gray.

December 5, 2001.

1

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04
Sony Electronics Incorporated (Sony, No. 21). David L. Traver. December 5, 2001.

National Association of Farmer Elected Committees (NAFEC, No. 22). Paul Clark.

December 4, 2001.

Electric Consumers Alliance (ECA, No. 23). Robert K. Johnson. December 5, 2001.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI, No. 24). Ben Lieberman. December 5, 2001.

Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA, No. 25). Glenn R. Schleede.

December 6, 2001.

First Company (FC, No. 26). James H. Nation. December 6, 2001.

Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC, No. 27). Karen Kerrigan. December 5,

2001.

Consumer Electronics Association (CEA, No. 28). Douglas Johnson. December 6,

2001.

Multi-Housing Laundry Association (MLA, No. 29). David Field. December 7, 2001.

Information Technology Industry Council (ITI, No. 30). Ken J. Salaets. December 6,

2001.

Dominion Virginia Power (DVP, No. 31). Harold Crowder. December 6, 2001.

Bose Corporation (Bose, No. 32). Joseph L. Veranth. December 5, 2001.

Edison Electric Institute (EEI, No. 33). Steve Rosenstock, P.E. December 19, 2001.

American Corn Growers Association (ACGA, No. 35). Larry Mitchell. December 4,

2001.

Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute (ARI, No. 36). Deborah E. Miller. January

22, 2002.

Alliance Laundry Systems LLC (ALL, No. 37). Phil Manthei. February 15, 2002.

California Energy Commission (CEC, No. 38). R. Michael Martin. October 16, 2001.

American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE, No. 39). Steven Nadel.

November 30, 2001.

R-2

EE-RM-STD-03-100 EE-RM-STD-03-200 EE-RM-STD-03-300 COMMENT 04