# 2002 Priority Setting for Standards and Test Procedure Rulemakings

Draft August 3 1,200 

## 1

## FISCAL 2002 PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS 

## The enclosed data sheets reflect the priorities proposed for Fiscal Year 2002 by the Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Research and Standards. The Office requests comments on the data sheets and the proposed priorities and schedules. These proposed priorities arebased on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance StandardsProgram will be funded at its requested level for the 

## fiscal year 2002. Final priorities will be based on the Department's consideration of comments received and funds available. Once rulemakings are completed low priority actions will be added to the highlmediumpriority lists. Written comments should be submitted by October 11,2001, to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1000Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0 121,

## Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-4 1, or by e-mail at 

## Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Raymond at (202) 586-961 1.Table of Contents

1 Product CarnalAIC & HP 65-240 lrBN Camat AIC &HP,39, < 65 kBN Clotber Oryen

ClotberWash

Comm~cial NC & Heat Pumps

Comm~cial Fumacm & Boi Gmn~~d Oil ad Gas-FW PackagcdBoilen

CmFumacm Cmnn~ciat WatsH~vrs

Cwkiog Prahts Cmldng Produas Dip- HalingEqsipmikt. Gas

Dis~h~s

J3Wiiution Trsnsformas

Eknric Mom, 1-200HP

haps toow priority up00 "~~MOII Rulemaking Srandards standards Standards
~est Procedure Standards Test Procedure' SQndards Test Procedure Standards Standards Test Pre Test Raedure SQndards Test Prmdure Standards
Test Procedure Staodanls Test Procedwe' Standards Test Pmcedure' Standards
Test Produre

Standards
Test Procedure* Priority High Medium Low
LOW
Low Low Low Low
Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low
Low Low Low Low High High Low

Low
Low Page

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

lo 11 12 I3 14 15
16 17

19 20 21 22 Roduci
Fluorescat Lamp eatlass*
High Intwily DischargeImp

Lamps

MobileHome Fumace~

Packaged TminalNC& Heaf Pumps Plmbing Fihu&itting

Pml Heam (Gas)

Refrigerators

Res. Central AIC and H. P.

Res. Cacral AIC & HP -Ductless Split Res. F~adBoilen

ResidentialWater Heatas Rulemaking
srandards Test Procemurs DetKminatiw st Prmdure Standards Test Pnralure' Standards Test Procedure'
Srandarh Srandards Test Pr&e* Sendards Test Procedure* Standa&* Test Procedures
Standards' Test Procedure'
Trst Prmdure SQndards Trst Pmcature' Srandards' TatProcghnl

23
24

* Final Rules for he products havebeet recentlypubliikd Srandards* Test Produre Sfaodanfr
Trst Raedure Rmm Air Conditioners

Tanldss Gas-Firedlnstankuww Wats Heaten SmallEldc MWors Priority
Low Low *Low m ow Low Low Low Low High Low Low Low Low Lav Low-Medium for compm

High High Medium

Low Low Low Page 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 1 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Low Low Medium High Low 47 48 49 50 51

## Summaw of Priorities Standards and Determinations 

# (Dl

Test Procedures High Priority Products Air-Cooled CentralAir Conditionersand AirSource Heat Pumps, 65-240 kBtu/h Distribution Transformers Packaged Terminal Air Conditionersand Heat Pumps Residential Central AC/HPi ResidentialFurnaces and Boilers Small Electric Motors (D) Medium Priority Products Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts* Central Air Conditionersand Heat Pumps, 3 Phase, Q5 

### kBtu/h Page 1 21 

## f 33 40 

# 1 43 

# 1 SO 

# 1 1 

# f Low Priority Products Clothes Dryers Clothes Washers* CommercialA/C and Heat Pumps* 

# - CommercialFurnaces & Boilers* Commercial Water Heaters* Cooking Products Direct Heating Equipment, Gas Dishwashers Electric Motors, 1-200 

### HP

Medium Priority Products Compact Refrigerators Ductless Split Central AC/HP Low Priority Products Clothes 

### Drya ClothesWashers* Commercial NC and Heat Pumps Commercial Furnaces Commercial Water Heaters Cooking Products* Page 3 

### 5 7 9 13 15 17 19 23



## ' Drops to Low Pnontyupon Complet~on 

### * F~nal Rules for these productshave been recentlypubhshed. 

## 1 39 42 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts High Intensity DischargeLamps Lamps* 26 28 30 32 I 

### I 35 

### 37 39 

### 44 46 48 5 

### 1 { Mobile Home Furnaces* 4 

## 1 6 

## 1 8 f 12 

## f 14 

# 1 16 

# 1 Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers Plumbing FixturesFittings* Pool Heaters, Gas Refrigerators Residential Furnaces and Boilers* Residential Water Heaters* Room Air Conditioners 

### f 

### I Small Electric Motors

## Standards Product: Air-Cooled Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps, 65-240 kBtu 

### Priority: High


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

### Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmentalor Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 0.50 

### -4.71' (in addition to savings due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) 

# I0.4 (estimatedNPV, billions of $1998) 

# ICarbon emissions reduction 

### - est. 7 million tons. 

# I DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by September 2001. 

### Seepage 8. 

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

# I

Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99, which would save an estimated 2.2 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional energy savings. High 

### Promed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

# I DOE plans to initiatemlemaking in 

### FY 200 1. 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Energy savings are significant. \



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



## Draft 

# - August 3 

## 1,2001

# Standards Product: CentralAir Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 

### 3 phase, <65 

### kBtu Priority: Medium


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmentalor Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary EMiciency Improvements Issues
FY 2001

### Priority 1.7 (estimatedNPV, billions of $1998) Carbon emissionsreduction - est. 

### 25 million tons. DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporatethe test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by September 2001. Seepage 8. Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). None known. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. Efficiencies ofthese products were left unchanged. Single-phase products areregulated by NAECA, and it is desirable to have the same standards for singleand three phase versions. 

### A DOE rulemakingis in progress for single phase products.


### Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale



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

### 30929. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level



## Draft 

# - August 3 

## 1,2001 DOE plans to initiaterulemaking when rulemaking for residential (singlephase) products is completed. Energy savings are significant. L

# Standards Product: Clothes Dryers

# - (GasIElectric) Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions 

# IRecommendations 

### by

Interested Parties 

# 1 I Evidence of Market-Driven or

Voluntary Efficiency 

# I I Improvements 

# !

Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 

# 1 Not available Not available Reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation of new product class for condensingdryers. DOE regulation of clothes washers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholdersthat updating clothes dryer standards should be given low priority. At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketinghigh efficiency clothes washers, which are likely to have improved moisture extraction. Significantdryer savingspotential will be considered in clothes washerm~emaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been estimated to be 20 times more cost effectivethan thermal extraction. Low 

# - Proposed Schedule and Rationale

Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 2001 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level



## Draft 

# - August 3 

## 1,2001 DOE does not plan to actively pursue mlemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technologyinvestigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Other DOE standardswill impose cumulativeburden on white goodsmanufacturers.

## Test Procedure Product: Clothes Dryers

# - (GasElectric) 

### Priority: Low 

### Relationshipto Changesin Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard Low CSA has conducted specialized dryertests and has asked 

### DOE to considerrevisions to the test procedure.
A new product class needs to be defined for condenserdryers. Currently there is one waiver in effect. There are numerous changes that are required prior to a standardsrulemaking for clothes dryers. 

### Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,200 

## 1 Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level Considered to be a low priority by stakeholders.

# Standards Product: ClothesWashers 

### Priority: Low


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

Recommendationsby 

### Interested Parties Evidenceof Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency PotentialEconomic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmentalor Energy Security Benefits Statusof Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions
Improvements Issues 

### EY 2001 Priority The Net Present Value (NPV) is $15.3 billion cumulativefrom 2004 to 2030 in 1997 dollars. For period 2004- 2030,95 million metric tons of carbon and 254 thousand metric tons of NO,. Final Rule issued January 12,200 

### 1. Changes to the test procedure were incorporated into the standardsrulemaking. DOE regulation of clothes dryers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Consortiumfor Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Starprogram. Federal Energy Management Program forprocurement initiative. At least three U.S. manufacturersare marketing high efficient clothes washers. 

# 1 / High 

# 1 Proposed Schedule and Rationale



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,200 1 Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level ANOPR 

# - Published 1 1 / 19/98 NOPR 

### - 7/00 Final Rule 

# - 0 1101 Final Rule published 

### I/12/200 

### 1 I

# Test Procedure Product: ClothesWashers 

### Priority: 

### Low Relationshipto Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Test Procedure was changed as part ofthe standardsrulemaking. Low



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule 

# IPublished 

### as part of standardsrulemaking. NOPR 

# - 7/00. Final Rule 01/01. 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Test procedure 

### was revised recently to 

### implement the standardsrulemaking.



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,200 1

## Standards Product: Commercial Air Conditioners& Heat Pumps (All products for which DOE proposes to acceptASHRAE 90.1-1999 levels) 

### Priority: Low 

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

### 2030 Potential Economic BenefitdBurdens Potential Environmentalor Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions 

# / Recommendationsby



### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2001 

### Priority 2.94(ASHRAE Standard90.1-1999)
Not available. Specific estimates of emissionreductions have not been developed however, energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings areminimal. DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporatethe test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by September2001. EPA phase out of HCFC refrigerants.
None known. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale



### Based on ScreeningAnalysis Report for CommercialWACStandards, see 

### 65 FR 30929. Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level



## Draft 

# - August 3 

## 1,2001 Notice of Availability 5/00. Final Rule published 0 11121200 1. Standards set by EPACT were amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1. No further action. t

# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Air Conditioners& Heat Pumps (DOE accepts ASHRAE 90.1-1999 test procedures for all commercial aleproducts.) 

### Priority: Low



### Relationshipto Changesin Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Standards set by EPACT and arebeing amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.

### I Low for most products.



### Issues 

# I
Promed Scheduleand Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level NOPR 

### - 6/00 Final Rule 10/0

### 1 Final Rule should be published near beginning ofFY2002.

## Standards Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers 

### Priority: Low



### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic BenefitsiBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efftciency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 0.5' (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) 

# INot available.

Specific estimatesof emission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporatethe test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by June 2001 (furnaces) and July 2001 (boilers). Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). None known. 

# 1 Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99.


### Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale



### Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial WAC

### Standards,see 

### 65 FR 30929. b



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,2001

Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Notice ofAvailability 5/00. Final Rule published 01/12/01 Standardsset by EPACT were amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1. No further action. /

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

### Priority: Medium

-- 

# I Potential Energy Savings 

# I 0.12 

### - 0.60 '(in addition to savings due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1 999) 

### from Regulatory Action; 

# I Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements issues FY 2001 

### Priority 0.2 (estimated

### NPV, billions of $1998) Carbon emissions reduction 

### - est. 

### 4 million tons. DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporatethe test proceduresreferred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by July 2001. Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). None known. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99, which would save an estimated 0.06 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional energy savings. 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

# I DOE plans to initiate work in support ofrulemaking 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Energy savings are significant. ;


### 6Based

### on ScreeningAnalysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 

### 65 FR 

### 30929.



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,200 

### 1

# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers 

### Priority: Low Relationshipto Changes in Standards set by EPACT are being amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 

### Standard Priority of Standard 

# I International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation 

### by Interested Parties 

# i
Statutory Deadline 

# I Issues 

# I I Proposed Schedule and Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 

## 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR 

### - 8/00 Final Rule 9/01 Final rule should be published beforeFY2002.

# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Furnaces 

### Priority: Low 

# IRelationship to Changes in 

# I Standards set by EPACT arebeing amended upon revision of

### ASHRAE 90.1 

# I

Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Low



### Pro~OSed Schedule and Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,200 1 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR 

# - 12/99 Final Rule

# - 9/01 Final rule should be published before FY2002. 

# .

# Standards Product: Commercial Water Heaters 

### Priority: Low


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

### 2030 Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions 

## / 0.07 '(ASHRAE Standard 90.1

# - 1999)
Not available. Specificestimates of emission reductions have not been developedhowever, estimated energy savingsindicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. DOE plans to publish the Final Rule to incorporatethe test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in September 200 1. 

# IRecommendations by



### Interested Parties Voluntary Efficiency 

# I Evidence of Market-Driven or None known. 

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

### FY 2001 

### Priority High 

### Pro~osed Scheduleand Rationale Proposed Schedule 

# 1 Notice of Availability 5/00. Final Rule 1/01 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Standards setby EPACT and are being amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1



### 7Basedon Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards,see 

### 65 

### FR 30929.



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,2001

## Test Procedure Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: 

### Low

- - 

# I Relationshipto Changes in 

# / Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHW 90.1 Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

# I Issues 

# i Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale:



## Drafi 

# - August 

## 3 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level NOPR 

### - 6/00 Final Rule

# - 0910

### I Final rule should be published before FY2002.

# Standards Product: Cooking Products

### - Gas & Electric Ovens, Cook Tops, and Microwave Ovens Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic BenefitsBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits 

# ' Status of Required Changes to

Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidenceof Market-Driven or Voluntary Efliciency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2000 Priority Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale Total ranges considered (Gas only): 

## * Ovens Cook Tops [0.1 

### - 2.11 [0 

### - 0.51 E(9.3) 

# - 0.11 [(4.0) 

### - 0.021 NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% NOx 

### [1 

### I-2391 NOX[ 0 

# - 65 

## 1 C02 16- 1331 C02 [0-361 Emission reductions in (kt) for NOx, and (Mt) for COP DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. None known. Pilotless designs may require installation of an electrical outlet. Loss of consumer utility if loss of electricalpower. If a loss of electricity, cannot use oven. High (Gas); Low (Electric)

Final Rule 

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

### - requires new analysis for mlemaking.
8 Based on 

### Draft Report, April 1996 and Supplemental Analysis, November 1997.



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,200 1

## Test 

# Procedure Product: Cooking Products

# - Ovens, Cook Tops, 

### and Microwave Ovens Priority: 

### Low 

# I Relationshipto Changes in Test Procedureneeded to be changed for standard.

Standard 

# 1 I Priority of Standard 

# I International or Other

Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

# , I Interested Parties

Statutory Deadline 

# I Issues Low

Proposed Scheduleand Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule issued 

# - October 3, 1997

J

# Standards Product: Direct Heating Equipment 

### (Gas)


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030


### Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### IT2001

### Priority Total ranee considered: 

### TO 

### - 0.11' Svecific examvlesbelow:1° (78.0% Modulat. Oper. 87.0%AFUE [(1.4) 

# - 0.11 NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% 0 0.1 (0.6) (1.4) SO, 0 (7) (140) (320) NOx 0 (6) (132) (301) 

## co2 0 (3) (72) (165) Emission reductionsin (kt) for SO2and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,. Final rule published 5/12/97. None known that will impact product. None known. Fuel switching. Rural communities use for backup heating during power outages. Utility concern with electronic ignition. Low 

### Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale

Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. lo Examples shown for design options and AFUE are for gravity wall heaters (27 

# - 46 

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



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,200 

## 1 DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemakingin the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntaryprograms. Interested parties believe this is 

### a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low.

## Test 

# Procedure Product: Direct Heating Equipment 

### (Gas) Priority: 

### Low 

# IRelationshipto Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard

Standard 

# I Priority of Standard Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation 

### by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 

## 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule issued 5/12/97 &

# Standards Product. Dishwashers 

### Priority: Low


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidenceof Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues PY 2001 Prinritv Not available. Not available. Test procedure is being revised to properly reflect energy consumption for new technologies(e.g. adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Some manufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard should be given a low priority. Energy Savers program. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least two 

### U.S. manufacturersare marketing adaptivecontrol dishwashers. Increased efficiency may impactproduct utility (e.g. may requirepre-rinsing of dishes or cleaning of filters) or the availability of affordable models (contract housing). Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale

" Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 

### 2001' 2



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,200 1 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemakingin the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntaryprograms. Estimated potential energy savings are moderate.

# Test Procedure Product: Dishwashers 

### Priority: High 

### Relationshipto Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation 

### by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard. Low Effortsunderway to harmonize international test procedures should include dishwashers. Manufacturers support a test procedurerevision for more accurate testing of new adaptive control models. Industry working on revising its test procedure suggestionsto encompass the variety of sensor techniques now in the market. New technologyin product, i.e. smart controls, 

### fuzzy logic. 

### Proposed Scheduleand Rationale:



## Draft

# - August 3 

### 1,200 1 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR 

### - published 9/99 Reopening Notice

# - 7/00 Final Rule -01102 New technologyin product, i.e. smart controls, 

### fuzzy logic.

# Standards Product: Distribution Transformers 

### Priority: High


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

### 2030 

### Potential Economic BenefitsBurdens Potential Environmentalor Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Not available. Specific estimates of emission reductionshave not been developedhowever, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Need to publish a test procedure before rule. None known. 

### EPA Energy Star program for liquid immersion transformers. NEMA's 

### TP-I and the National Business Awareness Campaign to promote energy efficient electrical products. Most efficient designs include proprietary technology. NEMA recommends adoption of voluntary standards as specified in TP-I. Energy savings questionedby NEMA. High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

# I DOE plans to begin actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2001. 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Potential for significantenergy savings.

l2 

### Based on DOE determination notice, October 22, 

### 1997.



## Drafi 

# - August 3 1,200 1

# Test Procedure Product: Distribution Transformers 

### Priority: Low 

### Relationshipto Changes in Test Procedure needs to be established for standard. 

### Standard Priority of Standard 

# I International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

# 1 High NEMA recommends using NEMA TP-2 test standard. 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# I SamplingPlan; Definitions of Covered Products 

### Prowsed Schedule and Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 

### 1,200 

## 1 Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level NOPR 

# - published 

### 1 1112/98 Reopening Notice 6/99 Final Rule 

### - 8/00 Test procedure should be completed during FY 2000. 

# .

# Standards Product: Electric Motors, 1

### - 200 

### HP Priority: Low 

# IPotential Energy Savings 

# IEstimate 3 

### 1.3 billion KWIyr could be saved through enforcement of EPCA



### from Regulatory Action; efficiency standardsfor electric motors -enough electricityto meet the lighting 

# I I ~umula&e (~uads) 

# Ineeds of all U.S. households for 4 months. 

# I Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changesto Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2001 

### Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

# IProposed Schedule

Rationale for Priority Level Not Available. Not Available. Final rule for test procedurespublished 1015199. None known that will impact product. Enforcement ASHRAE 90.1. "Consortium for Energy Efficiency" program with utilities. Motor Challenge. MotorMaster+ DOE regulates system efficiencies (e.g. HVAC) where motors are componentsof such systems. Low

DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two 

### years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

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



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,2001

# Test Procedure Product: Electric Motors, 

### 1 

# - 200 

### HP Priority: Low 

# I Relationshipto Changes in Test Procedure needed to be revised to supportthe standard

Standard 

# 1 Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation

### by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Low Natural ResourcesCanada: Energy Efficiency Regulationsfor Electric Motors International Electrotechnical Commission/InternationalStandards Organisation (IECIISO) Manufacturersand energy efficiency advocates support test procedurerulemaking.

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Issues 

# I

Proposed Schedule Expect DOE test procedureto be revised for compatibilitywith global (IECIISO) test procedure.

Rationale for Prinritv 1,evel Proposed Rule Issued 

# - 11/27/97 Final Rule - 1015199 Final Rule recentlypublished 

### . 

# I

Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,2001

# Standards Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

### Priority: Low


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 

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

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 1.4

### -2.6 NPV, billions of 1997$ @ 7%
None required. Someballast manufacturers also make electric motors. EPA 

### Green Lights and Energy Star buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE'SFederal Relighting Initiative (FEMP), The Energy Cost Savings Council, and some utility DSM programs. Standards,for electronic ballasts, may adversely affect U.S. manufacturers. Impact on U.S. employment levels. Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale



## Draft 

# - August 3 

## 1,200 1 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR - 3/00 Final Rule 

### - 9/00 Final Rule in FY2000.

# Test Procedure Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

### Priority: 

### Low 

# IRelationshipto Changes in Efficiency levels for new standards are already in the market and are covered by



### Standard existing standards and test procedures. 

# IPriority of Standard 

# I International or Other

Coordinating Activities Recommendationby 

# , I Interested Parties 

# i Inw

Statutory Deadline 

# I
Proposed Scheduleand Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level



## Drafl 

# - August 3 

## 1,2001

# Standards Determination Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps 

### Priority: Low

I 

### Potential Energy Savings [O. 1 1-0.22]'3



### from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic 

# I Not Available. 

### Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimatesof emission reductions have not been developedhowever, 

### Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicativeof the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### Status of Required Changes to IES and ANSI procedures are in place. 

### Test Procedures 

# I lssues with definitions,covered products and sampling. 

### Other Regulatory Actions 

# / EPA mercury disposal requirementsmay apply. 

### Recommendations by Interested Parties Voluntary Efficiency 

# I Evidence of Market-Driven or Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure sodium lamps. 

### Improvements Issues Concern about non-equitableimpact of possible elimination of mercury vapor lamps (e.g. significantregional and municipal variation exists). High first cost impact (elimination of mercury vapor lamps will require fixture replacement). 

### FY 2001 

### Priority Low 

### Prooosed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

# IDOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Potential energy savings are low.

l3 Based on 

### DOE rough estimate, May 1996.



## Drafi 

# - August 3 1,2001

# Test Procedure Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp Priority: 

### Low 

# i Relationshipto Changes in Test Procedure needs to be developed for standard. Standard 

# I / Priority of Standard 

# I Internationalor Other

Coordinating Activities Recommendation 

### by 

# , I Interested Parties

Statutory Deadline 

# I Issues Low

Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,200 1 hProposed Schedule

Rationalefor Priority Level No work expected during 

### FY2001.

# Standards Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voiuntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Not Available. Not Available. Not Available. IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued 5/29/97 Existing EPA mercury disposal requirementsapply, but EPA issued a final rule July 6, 1999, includinglamps as Universal Hazardous Waste. EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings,ASHRAE 90.1, and someutility DSM programs, FEMP. Because lamps 

### are components of systems, establishment of standardsis more difficult. I ,nw 

### PTODOS~~ Schedule and Rationale



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 

## 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemakingin the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Interested Parties believethis is a low priority product. Potential energy savings areunknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002) for amending current lamp standardsand 1999 for adding additional general service fluorescent and incandescentlamps.

# Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent 

### Priority: 

### Low Relationshipto Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard 

### Standard 

# I Priority of Standard 

# IInternational or Other

Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

# , Interested Parties 

# i

Statutory Deadline 

# I Issues 

# I Proposed Scheduleand Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule issued 5129197

# Standards Product: Mobile Home Furnaces



### Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Pri

Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other RegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidenceof Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030

Issues FY 

### 2001 Priority 

# I

Proposed Schedule 

# 1 Rationalefor Priority Level Condensing (91.7AFLJE) Imprv. fan motor, ht. exchgr., condens. & full modulation (93.7% AFUE) 0.5 Gas
Oil 

## I [ (0.8) 

# - 0.1 ] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 

### 7% 0.1 0.1 (0.2) 

## so2 16 17 

### 4 NOx 15 16 4 

## co2 9 9 

### 2 Emission reductionsin (kt) for SO, and NOx, and (Mt) for C02. Final rule issued 5/12/97. Total range considered: [ 0.1 

# - 0.6 ]I4 Specific examplesbelow:

None known that will impact product. Imprv. fan motor (76.6% AFUE) Imprv. fan motor (82.1% AFUE) 0.1

None known. Impm. fan motor & burner box damper (79.6 AFUE) Imprv. fan motor (82.1% AFUE) 0.1

Fuel switching. Limited space for installation. Low DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technologyinvestigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Potential energy savingsare low to moderate. Higher standards levels requiring technologies, such as condensing furnaceswould impact utility to consumers.

l4 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.



## Drafi 

# - August 3 

## 1,200

## 1

# Test 

# Procedure Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: 

### Low 

# IRelationshipto Changes in

Standard 

# I Priority of Standard 

# I International or Other

Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

# , Interested Parties

Statutory Deadline 

# I Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Low

Pr0~0Sed Schedule and Rationale:



## Draft

# - August 

## 3 1,2001 i Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final rule issued 5112/97.

# Standards Product: Packaged Terminal Air Conditionersand Heat Pumps 

### Priority: High


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic Benefitmurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits 

# I Status of Required Changesto

Test Procedures 

# IOther Regulatory Actions 0.55 -0.78 l5 (in additionto savings due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999)
0.6 (estimated NPV, billions of $1998). Specific estimates of emission reductionshave not been developed however, energy savingsindicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporatethe test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by September 2001. EPA phase out of HCFC refrigerants.



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or None known. 

### Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Proposed Schedule 

# I DOE plans to initiaterulemaking in FY200 1. 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Energy savingsare significant. 

### Issues FY 2001 

### Priority

l5 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 

### FR 30929. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99, which would save an estimated 0. 11quads from 2001 -2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional energy savings. NIA



## Draft 

# - August 

## 31,200 

### 1

# Standards Product: Plumbing FixtureslFittings 

### Priority: Low 

# I Potential Energy Savings 

# I The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy 

# I I - - - --



### from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. 

### Cumulative (Quads)

Proposed Schedule and Rationale Potential Economic 

# I Not available. 

### Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmentalor Energy Security Benefits Statusof Required Changes to Test Procedures



## Draft 

# - August 

## 31,2001 Not available.



### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI toASMEIANSI A1 12.18.1 and ASMEIANSI A1 12.19.6. 

### Other Regulatory Actions 

# I None. 

### ~eco-endations by 

### Interested Parties 

# 1 Evidence of Market-Driven or VoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues FY 2001 Priority None known. As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be carefully considered. Low

# Test Procedure Product: Plumbing FixturesFittings 

### Priority: 

### Low 

# IRelationshipto Changes in

Standard 

# 1 Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties 

# i
Statutory Deadline 

# I Issues 

# I I Pro~osed Scheduleand Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 

## 31,200 1 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule 

### - March 18, 

### 1998

# Standards Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) 

### Priority: Low


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 

### Potential Economic BenefitsnBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Eficiency Improvements Issues Total range considered: [0.2 

### - 0.91'' Specific examples below: 

# 1 IID, (78% 

### J&) Non-condensing limit, (82.2% 

### &)Condensing, (90.8% &) 0.2 0.4 0.7 

# I [ (1.4)

# - 0.2 

## 1NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% 0.2 0.2 (0.6) SO, 0 0 0 NOx 42 42 42 CO, 11 18 

### 35 Emission reductionsin (kt) for SO, and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,. Final rule issued 5/12/97. None known that will impactproduct. None known. 

# IFY 2001 

### priority 

# I LOW 

# I Proposed Schedule and Rationale

l6 

### .Basedon DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level



## Drafi 

# - August 3 

### 1,200 1 DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntaryprograms. Interested Partiesbelieve this is a low priorityproduct. Potential energy savings are low.

## Test Procedure Product: Pool Heaters 

### (Gas) 

### Priority: Low Relationshipto Changes in Test Procedurenot needed to be changed for standard. 

### Standard Priority of Standard 

# I Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties 

# I
Statutory Deadline 

# I I I Issues 

# I Proposed Scheduleand Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,200

## 1 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final rule issued 

### 5/12/97. 

# -

# Standards Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers,& Freezers 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative(Quads) 1998- 2030 

### Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmentalor Energy SecurityBenefits Statusof Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FV 20111 Prinritv I The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy savings for this product. Not available Not available No changes required for standards. EPA phase out of insulation HCFCs in 2003. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. SuperEfficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing Authoritymass procurement. Energy Saversprogram. Significant quantities of new high efficiencymodels are being marketed. Final Rule Issued 

# - April 28, 1997. I 'OW 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

# I Final Rule Issued 

### - April 28, 1997 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# 1 Rule issued, will be effectiveJuly 1,2001



## Drafi 

# - August 

## 3 1,2001

# Test Procedure Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, & Freezers 

### Priority: Medium for compact refrigerators and refiigeratorifreezers, Low for all others. 

### Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard. 

# I Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues Low

Tests at NIST have revealed deficiencies in the compact refrigeratortest procedure. These will be researched and corrected, probably by revising the test procedure for compact refrigerators. 

### Proposed Scheduleand Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 

### 1,200 1 Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level NIST tested compact refrigerators, and proposed a modification ofthe compact refrigeratortest procedure. A rulemaking to modify the test procedurewill begin in 

### 2002. Compact refrigerator manufacturers have obtained inconsistent results when testing each other's products. Deficienciesin test procedure have been identified.

# Standards Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps 

### Priority: High 

# - drops to Low priority upon completion


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental 

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

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efirciency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 

### Priority Prowsed Schedule and Rationale 

# IProposed Schedule

Rationale for Priori Level 

# C- I Total range considered: [2.2 

### - 10.4]'7 Specific examplesbelow:



### 1 1 SEER 12 SEER 13 SEER 18 SEER 

# ---- 2.2 3.8 

### 5.4 10.4 [(22) 

### - 01 NPV, Billions of 1998$ @ 

### 7%

0 (1) (5) (22) Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developedhowever, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emissionbenefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings areminimal. Changes are not required for standards. EPA phase out of HCFC-22 refrigerant 

# - 20 10 DOE regulation of furnaces. Energy Starprogram recommending a 12 SEER. 

# 1 Small manufacturers. Niche Products. Regional variation.

SANOPR

# - 1 1 /99 NOPR 

### - 8/00 Final Rule 

### - 1/01

# - quashed 

### - new proposed rule published July 25,2001. Potential energy savings are large.

l7 Based on 

### DOE analysis for NOPR, see 

### www.eren.doe.gov/buildingsicodes standards/index.htm.



## Draft 

# - August 3 

## 1,2001

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

### Priority: High
1 

### Relationshipto Changesin

Standard Priority of Standard Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### InterestedParties Statutory Deadline Test Procedure does not need to be changed for standard. High Would like to see it published.



### Pro~osed Scheduleand Rationale: Issues Many changes to accommodatenew technology. 

### ARI has submitted data for and developed new default cyclic degradation coefficients.



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,2001 Proposed Schedule . 

### Rationalefor Priority Level NOPR 

# - 1/01 Final Rule

# - 3/02 Test procedurerevision long overdue.

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

# -Ductless Split Systems 

### Priority: Medium Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure does not need to be changed for standard. High Ductless split system manufacturers would prefer to use calorimeter test. Calorimetertest (which is used for room air conditioners) is more suitableand accurate for testing ductless split central air conditioners,but this test is not currently in the DOE central air conditioning test procedure. 

### Proposed Scheduleand Rationale: Proposed Schedule 

# I DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Change would make test proceduremore accurate for this product.



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,2001

# Standards Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers 

### Priority: High 

### Potential Energy savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads)

Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Statusof Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Furnaces 1(8 1.8% AFUE) 1(92%AFUE) [heat pump 

## I ~IID & pulse l~as 

## / Total range considered: [0.6 

### - 10.2]'8Specificexamples below:

Not available. Gas absorption Gas Boilers
Specificestimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are more significantthan other products. Final rule issued 5/12/97 Previous & condensing Gas

Possible State and regional environmental regulation. DOE regulation of central air conditioningproducts. ConsumerProduct Safety Commission

### - possible regulation. Insul., IID, imprv. fan motor, & two stage oper. IID (8 1.8%AFUE) 0.6

Energy Star program. Wisconsin state condensinghrnacdboiler program. ACEEE indicatedthat trend for higher efficiency products stoppedin 1994. 

# IFY 2001 

### Priority 

# I Low 

# I condensing (90.4% 3.7



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale absorption heat pump 10.2



### Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level DOE plans to initiate rulemaking in 2001. Potential energy savings are significant. Higher standards levelsrequiring technologies such as condensing furnaceswould impact utility to consumers. 

# '' Based on DOE rough estimatefor gas only, May 1996.



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3

## 1,200

## 1

# Test Procedure Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: 

### Low 

# I Relationshipto Changes in

Standard 

# I Priority of Standard 

# I Internationalor Other

Coordinating Activities 

# IRecommendation

### by

Interested Parties Test Procedurenot needed to be changed for standard High 

# I Statutory Deadline 

# 1 

# I [ Issues 

# I 

# 1 Proposed Scheduleand Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level Final rule issued 

### 5/12/97

# Standards Product: Residential Water Heaters

# - Gas, Oil & 

### Electric 

### Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) ' 

### 2003-2030

Potential Economic Benefitsmurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Total ranges considered: 3.4- 13.119
Electric
Gas Quads at source NPV, 1998$ Heat Traps & 

### Insul. Tank Bottom 2"Insul., Heat Traps, Flue Baffle Heat Traps, 2.5" Insul. & 

### Ht. Traps, 

### 3" Insul. Tank Insul. & 

### Bottom Plastic Tank 

### 3"Insul., 2.5" Insul., Sidearm 

### w/ Heat Traps, 80% Flue Flue Baffle Baffle & 

### IID

The Final Rule energy savings was 4.6 quads over 2004-2030. The Net Present Value (NPV) is $2.0 billion cumulativefrom 2004 to 2030 in 1997 dollars. For period 2004- 2030, I52 million metric tons ofcarbon and 273 thousandmetric tons of NO,. Changes not required for standards. Final rule for test procedurewas published in 1998. Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidenceof Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency



### Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale EPA phase out of HCFCs for insulation (2003). Consumer Product Safety Commission initiative for prevention of ignition of flammable vapors by gas waterheaters. Demand-side management programs for high efficiency water heaters. Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority Electronicignition has impact on customer utility. Fuel switching. Replacement blowing agent for insulation. Installation in small spaces. High

l9 

### Based on 

### DOE analysisMay 1999. Energy savingsreduced due to phase out ofHCFC-141b insulationblowing agent in 2003.



### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,200 

## 1 NOPR -

### 4/00 Final Rule 

### - 1/01 No Final Rule published 111712001.

# Test Procedure Product: Residential Water Heaters 

### - Gas, Oil & Electric 

### Priority: Low 

# I Relationshipto Changesin

Standard 

# IPriority of Standard 

# I International or Other

Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

# , Interested Parties

Statutory Deadline 

# / Issues No change needed High



### Proposed Scheduleand Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 

## 3 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level Test procedurepublishedin May 

### 1998.

# Standards Product: Room Air Conditioners 

### Priority: Low


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

### 2000 -2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority The Departmenthas not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy savings for this product. Not available Not available Not required for standards. 

### EPA phase out of HCFC-22 refrigerant. DSM programs. Labeling program very effective. Final Rule Issued 

# - September 24, 1997 Low 

### Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale



## Drafi 

# - August 3 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule Issued 

### - September24, 1997

I

# Test Procedure Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: Low 

# I Relationshipto Changes in 

# ITest Procedurenot needed to be changed for standard 

# I

Standard Priority of Standard Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation 

### by Interested Parties Low 

# I Statutory Deadline

Issues 

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



## Drafi 

# - August 

## 3 1,2001

# Standards Product: Tankless Gas-Fired InstantaneousWater Heaters 

### Priority: Medium 

# I Potential Energy Savings 

# I0. I0 "(ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999)



### from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads)'1995- 2030 

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

### FY 2001

### Priority Not available. Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savingsindicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. DOE plans to publish the Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in September 2001.

None known. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. 

# I Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

# INotice ofAvailability5/00. Final Rule 5/02 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Standards setby EPACT and are being amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1 z 

### "Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 

### 65 FR 

### 30929.



## Drafi 

# - August 3 1,2001

## Standards Determination Product: Small Electric Motors 

### Priority: High 

# / Potential Energy Savings 

# 1 r0.8-4.51" 

# 1 

# I I

-



### from Regulatory ~ctio*; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 

### Potential Economic Not available. 

### BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

### Energy Security Benefits 

# I estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### Status of Required Changes to IEEE 

### 1 14test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review. 

### Test Procedures 

# I Other Regulatory Actions 

# I Small motors used in NAECA "covered products" (e.g. white goods) are exempt. 

### Recommendationsby Interested Parties 

# 1 Evidence of Market-Driven or None known. 

### Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

# I

Proposed Schedule and Rationale Issues FY 2001 

### Priority
Proposed Schedule 

# I DOE plans to initiate determination in FY2002. 

### Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Potential energy savingsare significant. Determination required by EPCA. None. Medium

Based on 

### draft DOE report, May 1996.



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,2001

# Test Procedure Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: 

### Low Relationshipto Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# I I High

Proposed Schedule and Rationale:



## Draft 

# - August 3 1,2001 Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level Dependent on Determination.