[Senate Hearing 111-24]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-24
APPLIANCE STANDARDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 598, THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2009
__________
MARCH 19, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-840 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Connelly, Mark, Senior Director, Appliances & Home Improvement,
Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY................................... 42
McLean, Brian, Director, Office of Atmoshperic Programs, Office
of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency.......... 10
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 2
Nadel, Steven, Executive Director, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)............................... 16
McGuire, Joseph M., President, Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers.................................................. 58
Pitsor, Kyle, Vice President, Government Relations, National
Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA.............. 34
Rodgers, David, Director, Strategic Planning and Analysis, Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy 3
Upton, Richard D., President and CEO, American Lighting
Association, Dallas, TX........................................ 32
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 63
APPLIANCE STANDARDS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Senator Jeff
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Why don't we go ahead? I'm informed Senator
Murkowski is on her way. But we should go ahead and proceed.
This is a hearing on legislation to strengthen two programs
that are central to improving the Nation's efficient use of
energy. The DOE Appliance Standards Program and the joint
Department of Energy and EPA, excuse me, Energy Star Program.
It's estimated these programs have reduced national electrical
demand approximately 10 percent below what it would have been
absent these programs.
Net savings to customers are estimated at over $400
billion. Notwithstanding this success energy efficiency
continues to be the most cost effective strategy for enhancing
economic and energy security, saving consumers money and
reducing the environmental impacts of energy production. S. 598
which is the legislation that we've prepared on this would help
to achieve these goals by expanding the Standards Program and
by making several operational improvements.
For example, S. 598 would establish Federal standards for
table and floor lamps. This provision alone is expected to save
enough electricity by 2020 to serve 350,000 homes.
I understand that the witnesses will have recommendations
to establish standards for additional products and to improve
program operations and decisionmaking. I look forward to
working with Senator Murkowski on these recommendations. See
how we can proceed legislatively on them.
I'm sorry the committee is unable to accommodate all of the
requests we've had for folks to testify on this important set
of issues. But I assure you the input of all stakeholders is
appreciated. All written statements will be made part of the
record.
Members of the staff will be available to follow up on the
ideas and concerns contained in all of the testimony. I
recognize the vital role that energy efficiency advocates and
industry associations play in these programs. We thank all of
you for the commitment that you have to the Nation's economy
and the Nation's energy security.
I just went ahead with my opening statement, Senator
Murkowski. If you wanted to make an opening statement, we'll go
ahead and hear that. Then hear from the witnesses.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Great, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate yet another committee hearing of
substance.
We've had a good full week of them. This is yet one more.
This is another important step as we work to craft a
comprehensive energy bill that's ultimately going to help
improve our energy security.
Today's bill S. 598 addresses the need for improved
consensus appliance standards that increase energy efficiency.
Have the potential to shrink the energy bills of average
American families. I think for far too long we've let
bureaucracy stand in the way of implementing consensus
efficiency standards for appliances.
Technology is out pacing our ability to set effective
standards. So it's time that we streamline the process. I think
that this bill sets us on the path. This bill will support and
build upon the proven track record of DOE's Appliance Standard
Program as well as the joint DOE/EPA Energy Star Program which
has successfully promoted the sale of high efficiency products
through labeling and marketing. In addition to establishing new
minimum standards for various products including portable light
fixtures the bill holds DOE accountable for implementation in a
timely fashion.
The U.S. has shown an ability to be a global leader in
manufacturing innovation. Although there is a continued role
for the government to play in the development of standards, it
shouldn't be the government's primary role. We know that
markets aren't perfect. But much of our success in the
manufacturing arena is due to the ingenuity within the private
sector. I think that this bill provides the necessary framework
to ensure a good partnership between government and the
industry.
I look forward to the comments from the witnesses today and
their help as we have drafted this legislation. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We have a very
distinguished panel here. Let me introduce all six panelists.
Then we'll hear from you in that order.
First, Mr. David Rodgers, who is Director of Strategic
Planning and Analysis with the Department of Energy and we
welcome him.
Next, Mr. Brian McLean, who is the Director of the Office
of Atmospheric Programs in the EPA, thank you for being here.
Next is Mr. Steven Nadel, who is the Executive Director of
ACEEE here in Washington.
Next, Mr. Richard Upton, President and CEO of the American
Lighting Association, thank you for being here.
Next, Mr. Kyle Pitsor, who is Vice President of Government
Relations for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
in Rosslyn.
Finally Mr. Mark Connelly who is the Senior Director for
Appliances and Home Improvement at Consumer Reports, thank you
very much for being here.
Mr. Rodgers, why don't you go right ahead?
STATEMENT OF DAVID RODGERS, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING AND
ANALYSIS, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Rodgers. Thank you sir. Chairman Bingaman, Ranking
Member Murkowski, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss a draft
legislation on appliance standards and Energy Star. I'd like to
thank the committee for holding this hearing as well as for
your leadership in the areas of energy efficiency and strong
support for clean energy programs at the Department of Energy.
Mr. Chairman, I know that energy efficiency is a priority
for the committee. We are excited to work with you to advance
the goal of making our homes, our offices, our factories and
our vehicles more efficient. We look forward to working with
you on this legislation.
As directed by Congress the Department's appliance and
commercial equipment standards program develops test procedures
and energy conservation standards for residential appliances
and commercial equipment. Standards promulgated by the
Department and standards established by this committee save
consumers money, spur innovation, conserve energy and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. On February 5 of this year, President
Obama issued a memorandum to the Secretary of Energy requesting
that the Department take all necessary steps to finalize
legally required conservation standards rulemaking as
expeditiously as possible and consistent with all applicable
judicial and statutory deadlines.
We're moving forward to meet the President's request.
Specifically the Department will be completing 5 appliance
standards rulemaking by August of this year and as highlighted
in the President's memo these 5 rulemakings are likely to
contribute up to 25 quads of energy savings over 30 years.
The five standards rulemakings includes the codification of
standards prescribed by Congress in the Energy Independence and
Security Act.
Standards for fluorescent and incandescent lamps.
Beverage vending machines.
Ranges and ovens.
Certain commercial equipment covered by ASHRAE standards.
With the Secretary's leadership I am pleased to report that
the codification of the EISA standards rule was already sent to
the Federal Register and should be published shortly. The
notice on ASHRAE products is scheduled to be published in the
Federal Register tomorrow. This is just a start.
In the next 3 years the Department will also be revising
standards for many, many additional categories of products. The
Department is also proactively working with industry and
stakeholders to improve and streamline our test procedures and
enforcement of appliance standards. As you know appliance
standards sets the minimum requirements for these residential
and commercial appliances.
Energy Star helps consumers and businesses to easily
identify those highly efficient products that go beyond the
minimum standards to save energy and money. DOE manages Energy
Star program for eight product categories including clothes
washers, refrigerators, dishwashers, room air conditioners,
windows and doors, compact fluorescent lamps and solid state
lighting and water heaters. We believe that these qualified
products in the Department's portfolio have achieved
significant energy and cost savings.
Our analysis indicates as much as 55 billion kilowatt hour
reduction in energy consumption. Eight billion saved on utility
bills since 1997. Clothes washers have been a notable success
when the program was first announced in 1997.
Qualified models made up less than 1 percent of annual
washer sales. As a result of Energy Star and appliance
standards today every single washer sold in the U.S. meets
those original Energy Star criteria. The technology continues
to improve.
Our compact fluorescent light program has helped increase
the number of those lamps sold to nearly 300 million in 2007
corresponding to a doubling of market share for these efficient
products. We expect that to grow more.
Our newest product categories are solid state lighting
commenced in September of last year. Residential water heaters
launched in January. Here again we're establishing criteria
recognizes accelerating the best that industry has come to
innovate.
We have ten different solid state lighting products from
four different manufacturers that are qualified to display the
Energy Star label. These are available today. We're continuing
to evaluate many other clean energy products as candidates for
Energy Star labeling.
With continually evolving market and technology
improvements leading to greater energy efficiency the Energy
Star program does require regular updates and improvements to
protect the brand. We have been reminding our partners that
they must fulfill their obligations as part of the Energy Star
agreement.
DOE is also establishing third party testing and
verification for our managed appliance products. We have
studied recent recommendations to improve Energy Star. Have
adopted them for DOE managed products.
Energy efficiency is the foundation to transform our
Nation's energy economy and meet the President's goals. We're
therefore committed to promulgating tough commercial and
residential appliance standards developing Energy Star ratings
for new product categories. We're modernizing and improving and
tailoring these programs to market conditions and to be
responsive to legislative and regulatory requirements. Our
Nation deserves no less.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these vital
programs. I'm happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Rodgers, Director, Strategic Planning and
Analysis, Office of energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department
of Energy
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss draft legislation on Appliance Standards and ENERGY STAR. The
Administration has not formulated an official position on the recently
introduced legislation in its entirety, but I am happy to provide an
initial comment as well as an overview and update of related programs
at the Department of Energy (DOE).
DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) do not
support Section 3 of the draft bill entitled ENERGY STAR Program, which
directs agency coordination and standardization of program management.
The Agencies believe that these purposes can be best addressed through
Agency-led efforts to improve interagency coordination, identify and
address issues where they arise, and increase communication with
stakeholders about program processes and decision-making. The
Administration is aware of these issues and is committed to addressing
them and working with program stakeholders to continue to build on the
success of the ENERGY STAR program and extend the benefits it provides
in reduced energy use and fewer emissions of greenhouse gases.
Specifically, the EPA and DOE will, within 45 calendar days, provide to
the Committee written documentation on the resolution of these issues.
As this Committee well knows, energy efficiency is the fastest,
lowest risk, most economical way to address climate and energy security
concerns. Improvements in energy efficiency can be made today, with
significant benefits: the McKinsey Global Institute identified energy
savings sufficient to cut world-wide consumption growth in half using
only existing technologies that offer at least a 10 percent internal
rate of return.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ McKinsey Global Institute, ``Curbing Global Energy Demand
Growth,'' May 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I know that energy efficiency is a priority for you
and your Committee, and we are excited to work with you to advance the
goal of making our homes, offices, factories, and vehicles more
efficient. The Department advances energy efficiency through a number
of efforts, including promoting the adoption of energy efficient
policies and practices; broadening consumer acceptance of energy
efficiency as a high-priority, serving as a cost-saving energy
resource; and accelerating market adoption of energy efficient
technologies. The Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards
Program, as well as the ENERGY STAR Program, which is co-sponsored by
EPA, are major components of the Department's energy efficiency
efforts.
appliance standards
The Department's Appliance and Commercial Equipment Standards
Program develops test procedures and energy conservation standards for
residential appliances and commercial equipment. These standards save
consumers money, spur innovation, conserve energy, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
The Appliance Standards Program was established with the passage of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which designated
test procedures, conservation targets, and labeling requirements for
certain major household appliances. The act has been amended several
times, changing the conservation targets to mandatory standards and
adding categories to eventually include a broad range of residential
and commercial products. As amended, the appliance standards
requirements are among the broadest and most stringent of any country
in the world. In 2005, the Department was sued for allegedly failing to
meet the deadlines and other requirements of EPCA. Deadlines for these
specific products had been repeatedly missed, in some cases for a dozen
years or more.
In January 2006, the Department released its plan to eliminate the
backlog on appliance standards by issuing one new or amended standard
for each of the products in the backlog by June of 2011. This ambitious
schedule reflects a 6-fold increase in standards activities compared to
the previous 18 years. In addition to clearing the backlog of appliance
standards, the Department is addressing additional standards and test
procedure requirements included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT
2005) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).
In November 2006, the Department entered into a consent decree,
under which it agreed to publish the final rules for 22 product
categories by specific deadlines, the latest of which is June 30, 2011.
Although the Department has made significant progress on meeting
its consent decree and the additional EPACT and EISA requirements, it
remains subject to deadlines on 15 of the 22 product categories. On
February 5, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum to the Secretary
of Energy requesting that the Department take all necessary steps to
finalize legally required energy conservation standards rulemakings as
expeditiously as possible and consistent with all applicable judicial
and statutory deadlines.
The Department is committed to fulfilling the President's request.
Specifically, DOE plans to complete five appliance standards
rulemakings by August 8th of this year, highlighted in the President's
memo. The five standards rulemakings include the codification of
standards prescribed by EISA, standards for fluorescent and
incandescent lamps, beverage vending machines, ranges and ovens, and
certain commercial equipment contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. In the
next three years, the Department will also be revising standards for
several additional categories of products, including residential air
conditioners, refrigerators, clothes washers, and water heaters.
While DOE has already been working at an increased pace to complete
required rulemakings, the Administration's goal of using appliance
standards to increase energy savings and avoid greenhouse gas emissions
means that the Department is examining and reviewing operations to be
even more efficient and productive. In addition, the Department has
been proactively working to improve and streamline its test procedures
and enforcement of appliance standards. The improved procedures will
build upon DOE and industry best practices, creating a process for
developing, reviewing, and updating test procedures that will be able
to accommodate changes in designs and technologies.
EISA added new flexibility into the rulemaking process that could
contribute to the Department's productivity. Section 308 of EISA
permits DOE to issue direct final rules in cases where a fairly
representative group of stakeholders (including manufacturers, States,
and efficiency advocates) jointly submit a recommended standard and no
adverse public comments are received. This has the potential to
eliminate months from the timeline for each consensus rule, usually a
three-year process. EISA also authorizes DOE to consider the
establishment of regional standards for furnaces and central air
conditioners and heat pumps. The residential central air conditioner
rulemaking, currently underway, is the Department's first opportunity
to pursue the establishment of regional standards under the new
authority. Furthermore, section 307 of EISA removes the requirement for
DOE to publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) in
rulemakings on energy conservation standards for certain residential
products. In lieu of ANOPRs, DOE has begun to post analyses to its
website and hold public meetings to receive stakeholder input on DOE's
preliminary analyses.
The Department is assessing the resource needs of the appliance
standards team as well as determining how best to improve and or
reengineer the underlying processes. The goal is to put sufficient
resources (Federal and outsourced staff and funding) in place to ensure
all requirements are met within given timelines and quality and content
requirements. These resources will be applied to current activities
(rule development) as well as to standards enforcement.
energy star
Whereas appliance standards set the minimum requirements for
residential appliances and commercial equipment, ENERGY STAR helps
consumers and businesses to easily identify those highly-efficient
products, homes, and buildings that go beyond the minimum standards to
save energy and money while protecting the environment. ENERGY STAR is
a voluntary labeling and recognition program co-sponsored by DOE and
EPA that seeks to accelerate the adoption of clean and efficient
domestic energy technologies. More than 12,000 organizations have
joined ENERGY STAR as partners committed to improving the energy
efficiency of products, homes and businesses, and the ENERGY STAR label
appears on more than 60 product categories.
DOE manages ENERGY STAR programs for eight product categories. This
includes clothes washers, refrigerators, dishwashers, room air
conditioners, windows and doors, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs),
solid state lighting (aka LED lighting), and water heaters. Together,
these products target energy savings from six of the top seven areas of
residential energy consumption.\2\ Products like clothes washers and
refrigerators are also very visible to consumers, and are often cited
as examples of products associated with ENERGY STAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on 2006 data as summarized in the 2008 Buildings Energy
Databook, http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/?id=view_book&c=6. (The
top seven residential end uses are space heating, space cooling, water
heating, lighting, electronics, refrigerator, and wet cleaning. DOE
products target all of these except electronics.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department estimates that sales of ENERGY STAR-qualified
products in its portfolio have achieved significant energy and cost
savings for America. DOE's biggest success has probably been with
clothes washers. When the ENERGY STAR program for clothes washers was
announced in 1997, qualified models made up less than one percent of
annual unit sales. As a result of ENERGY STAR and appliance standards,
today every single clothes washer sold in the United States meets those
original ENERGY STAR criteria. Even with three revisions to strengthen
the criteria, the market share of ENERGY STAR clothes washers has risen
to more than 40 percent, and future changes are scheduled for this July
and again in January 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Source: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/manuf_res/
2007FinalSalesData.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFL program, first launched in 1999, has also achieved large
energy savings. Due in part to the ENERGY STAR Program and related
campaigns, the number of CFLs sold in 2007 was nearly 300 million,
corresponding to a doubling of the market share of the previous year
from 8% to 20%.\4\ There is a national average of about four CFLs per
home--with about 40 sockets per home, DOE sees a lot of additional
energy savings potential from the continued promotion of CFLs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The National Electrical Manufacturers Association of America
(NEMA) and http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/
dc57b08b5acd42bc852573c90044a9c4/970f05bf0bc5d9aa85257
3d10055b38d!OpenDocument
\5\ Source: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/
CFL_Market_Profile.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's newest product categories are solid state lighting
(which commenced in September 2008) and residential water heaters
(which just started in January). Here again, DOE established criteria
asking manufacturers to create products beyond the norm, thus
recognizing and accelerating the best of the best. The Department
expects these two product categories will provide significant energy
savings in the years to come. DOE is also continuing to evaluate
several clean energy products developed at the Department of Energy as
candidates for ENERGY STAR labeling.
The Department has worked closely with retailers and utilities,
whose efforts have been instrumental in building market share for
ENERGY STAR lighting and appliances. DOE estimates that this year,
utilities are planning to spend about $176 million on lighting rebate
programs and $83 million for appliances.
DOE has also implemented a number of education and outreach
activities to help drive awareness and sales of ENERGY STAR products.
The most recent examples include Operation Change Out, a partnership
with the Department of Defense to promote the use of CFLs; and the
Recycle my Old Fridge campaign, designed to encourage consumers to get
rid of older second refrigerators.
With a continually evolving market and technological improvements
leading to greater energy efficiency, the ENERGY STAR Program requires
regular updates and improvements to protect the ENERGY STAR brand.
To this end, DOE has reminded its ENERGY STAR partners about their
obligations under the test procedures when DOE learns that the
procedures are not being followed. For example, the Department came to
an agreement with LG Electronics, USA, Inc., in November 2008, in
response to concerns about several refrigerator-freezer models. To
effectively measure the savings associated with the ENERGY STAR
Program, all partners must report energy consumption based on the same
standardized test procedures. Those procedures require the ice maker to
be disabled but require all temperaturecontrolled compartments,
including ice storage bins, to be set at their coldest temperature, a
condition missed by LG's testing. As part of a November 2008 agreement
between the Department and LG, the refrigerator-freezers in question
have been voluntarily withdrawn from the ENERGY STAR Program, and LG
has agreed to provide free inhome modifications to products already
sold to improve their energy efficiency. Consumers will also receive a
payment covering the energy cost difference between the new measured
energy usage of the product and the amount stated on the original
Energy Guide label, as well as payments for future incremental energy
usage for the expected useful life of the refrigerator. Under its
agreement with DOE, LG will modify its test procedure to assure that
customers have accurate information going forward.
DOE is also establishing third party testing and verification for
its managed appliance products beyond the testing and verification
already underway for its lighting products. This new work follows some
of the inquiries made in light of the LG issue and coincides with
recommendations for program improvement.
conclusion
DOE is continually working to seize the opportunities that energy
efficiency provides to achieve greater savings of energy, electricity
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the greatest
opportunities for energy savings are in the appliances and products
that consumers and businesses use every day. The Department is
therefore continuing its progress in promulgating tighter commercial
and residential appliance standards and, jointly with EPA, developing
ENERGY STAR ratings for new categories of energy efficient products.
DOE is constantly modernizing, improving, and tailoring the two
programs to respond to changing market conditions, while being
responsive to legislative and regulatory requirements.
Thank you again for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to
discuss the Department's Appliance Standards Program and ENERGY STAR. I
am happy to answer any questions that the Committee Members may have.
(Please see attachment for list of standards completed since EPACT
2005 and rulemakings to be completed by 2011.)
ATTACHMENT
APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM Standards Completed Since EPACT
2005 Rulemakings to be Completed by 2011Package Terminal Air ............... EISA 2007 En Masse Standard
Conditioners and HeatPumps
Distribution Transformers ............... Clothes Washers, Commercial
Residential Furnaces ............... Ranges and Ovens (Electric and Gas) and Microwave Ovens
Residential Boilers ............... Refrigerated Bottle or Canned Beverage Vending Machines
Small Furnaces ............... Incandescent Reflector Lamps
Mobile Home Furnaces ............... General Service Fluorescent Lamps
Small Electric Motors ............... External Power Supplies, non-Class A (Determination)
Determination
Ceiling Light Fan Kits ............... Small Electric Motors
Commercial Refrigeration ............... Water Heaters, Residential
Equipment
EPACT 2005 En Masse Standard* ............... Direct Heating Equipment
............... Pool Heaters
............... High-Intensity Discharge Lamps (Determination)
............... Refrigerators, Residential
............... Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
............... Room Air Conditioners
............... Clothes Dryers
............... Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
............... Battery Chargers
............... External Power Supplies, Class A
............... ASHRAE 90.1 Products
............... Residential Clothes Washers* The En Masse Standard codified Congressionally prescribed standards.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. McLean.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN MCLEAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ATMOSHPERIC
PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. McLean. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Bingaman and
members of the committee. I am Brian McLean. I'm Director of
EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs where EPA's energy
efficiency and climate programs reside.
I'm pleased to testify today concerning the Appliance
Standards Improvement Act of 2009, particularly regarding
Section 3 which proposes additional requirements for the
implementation of the Energy Star program at the EPA and the
United States Department of Energy. I want to comment on these
additional requirements because they would have a significant
impact on activities at the EPA as EPA manages about 90 percent
of the Energy Star program within the Federal Government
including more than 50 of the 60 product categories currently
covered by the program as well as our work on new homes
construction and commercial and industrial facility energy
management strategies.
I would like to make three points this morning.
First, EPA appreciates the committee's interest in the
Energy Star program. Energy Star has been an important part of
improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions across the country since initiated by EPA in 1992.
The program has grown to not only promote efficient products,
but also energy efficient management practices and services
across the residential, commercial and industrial sectors.
These sectors are responsible for about 55 percent of the
carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use in the country
and their emissions are growing. Importantly these sectors
offer large opportunities to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases at low cost. Costs that are about half those of building
the new energy supply we would otherwise need.
Energy Star helps capture these low cost reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions by addressing barriers that stop these
energy efficiency improvements from occurring. These barriers
include:
Split incentives between builders and buyers and landlords
and tenants;
Lack of consumer information; and
High transaction costs among other things.
As of 2007 EPA efforts with Energy Star are helping
Americans avoid the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to
those of 27 million vehicles while saving $16 billion per year
on energy bills. These efforts complement many other Federal
and State policies and programs such as building codes,
appliance standards, research and development and energy
efficiency in public housing. The Energy Star program will
remain important as climate legislation is advanced.
Many of the market barriers present today that limit
investment in low cost energy efficiency will exist even when
climate legislation is passed, as many of these barriers are
not substantially changed by the changes in energy prices
likely to result from such legislation.
Second, while EPA appreciates the committee's interest in
the Energy Star program, EPA and DOE do not support Section
Three of the bill, as currently written, which directs agency
coordination and standardization of program management. The
agencies believe that these purposes can be best addressed
through agency led efforts to improve interagency coordination,
identify and address issues where they arise, and increase
communication with stakeholders about program processes and
decisionmaking.
The administration is aware of these issues, and is
committed to addressing them and working with program
stakeholders to continue to build on the success of the Energy
Star program and extend the benefits it provides in reduced
energy use and fewer emissions of greenhouse gases.
Specifically, EPA and DOE will, within 45 days, provide the
committee written documentation on the resolution of these
issues.
Third, many efforts are underway relative to provisions in
the draft bill. EPA actively undertakes revisions in Energy
Star specifications as market share grows and is addressing the
need for enhanced testing of Energy Star qualifying products.
Specifically, EPA collects market share data on Energy Star
qualifying products annually, assesses which product categories
warrant a revision based on a range of market factors,
publishes the agency's plans and undertakes necessary
revisions.
EPA is currently revising seven specifications, completed
important revisions last year such as with large screen
televisions, and will take on additional revisions next year.
EPA is also actively addressing additional testing of Energy
Star label products.
EPA manages a compliance audit program which includes
verification testing administered by EPA using third party
independent laboratories and quality assurance testing for
lighting products in particular. EPA has now conducted
verification testing across many product categories and is
phasing in verification testing requirements as part of the
Energy Star partnership starting with computers. Further, given
the growth of the Energy Star program and the number of
qualified products on the market, EPA is also working to
leverage third party certification programs.
In conclusion, I appreciate the interest of the committee
in addressing issues that it believes will continue the success
of the Energy Star program. EPA and DOE believe that these
issues can best be addressed through agency processes. EPA is
committed to working with DOE to address these issues and to
report back to the committee.
In addition, I hope my testimony has helped to illustrate
activities underway at the EPA to keep Energy Star
specifications up to date, and to enhance verification testing
of products using the Energy Star label. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McLean follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian McLean, Director, Office of Atmoshperic
Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning, Chairman Bingaman and members of the Committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Environmental
Protection Agency concerning the Appliance Standards Improvement Act of
2009 (the Act) and the ENERGY STAR program. My name is Brian McLean and
I am Director for the Office of Atmospheric Programs within EPA's
Office of Air and Radiation, the office that oversees EPA's energy
efficiency programs including the ENERGY STAR program. EPA has been
very involved in promoting greater energy efficiency since 1991 because
the way we use and produce energy is one of the largest contributors to
greenhouse gas emissions and some criteria pollutants in this country.
overview
My testimony is focused on Section 3 of the Appliance Standards
Improvement Act, the section entitled the ENERGY STAR program. This
section proposes additional requirements for the implementation of the
ENERGY STAR program at the EPA and the US Department of Energy. I want
to comment on these additional requirements because they would directly
affect a broad set of activities at the EPA, as EPA manages about 90
percent of the ENERGY STAR program across the federal government
(including more than 50 of the 60 product categories, all of the work
on ENERGY STAR new homes and all of the ENERGY STAR work to improve the
energy efficiency of commercial and industrial buildings). I will also
provide an overview of the EPA's role, experience, and key activities
relative to the ENERGY STAR program in support of EPA's comments.
comment on section 3 of the act
EPA and DOE do not support Section 3 of the draft bill entitled
ENERGY STAR Program, which directs agency coordination and
standardization of program management. The Agencies believe that these
purposes can be best addressed through Agency-led efforts to improve
interagency coordination, identify and address issues where they arise,
and increase communication with stakeholders about program processes
and decision-making. The Administration is aware of these issues and is
committed to addressing them and working with program stakeholders to
continue to build on the success of the ENERGY STAR program and extend
the benefits it provides in reduced energy use and fewer emissions of
greenhouse gases. Specifically, EPA and DOE will, within 45 calendar
days, provide to the Committee written documentation on the resolution
of these issues.
the energy star program
In support of this recommendation I would like to review EPA's role
and experience with the ENERGY STAR program and outline EPA's
activities in several areas addressed in the Act.
EPA introduced ENERGY STAR in 1992 as a voluntary labeling program
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by identifying and promoting energy
efficient products.\1\ Since then, the program has grown to be a
successful and important greenhouse gas mitigation and pollution
prevention strategy, offering energy efficiency solutions across the
residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. It has grown to not
only promote efficient products but also energy efficient management
practices and services across these three sectors. In each sector, the
ENERGY STAR works to dismantle market barriers limiting investment in
energy efficiency and bring practical solutions to the residential,
commercial and industrial sectors.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with DOE in 1996
providing DOE with program responsibilities for a set of products and
EPA with program responsibilities for other products, new home
construction, and commercial building efforts.
\2\ ENERGY STAR and Other Climate Protection Partnerships: 2007
Annual Report (US EPA, 2008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ENERGY STAR program will remain important as climate
legislation is advanced. Many of the market barriers present today that
limit investment in low cost energy efficiency will exist even when
climate legislation is passed as many of these barriers are not
substantially changed by the changes in energy prices which may result
from such legislation.
ENERGY STAR addresses the roughly 40%\3\ of carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from fossil fuel use in the country that is
associated with commercial and residential buildings, in addition to
the CO2 emissions from the industrial sectors. Improving the
energy performance of residential and commercial buildings and
industrial facilities in the United States offers a particularly large
and cost-effective opportunity for realizing greenhouse gas reductions
in both the near and long terms as documented recently in the 4th
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and the 2007 study by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company,
``Reducing GHG Emissions: How Much at What Cost?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006
(US EPA, 2008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The program addresses market barriers such as split incentives
between home builders and buyers, lack of information and awareness,
high transaction costs, lack of qualified contractors, and lack of
common measurement approaches for building energy efficiency. It
complements the many other important energy efficiency policies
undertaken throughout the Federal government such as appliance
standards, R&D, and energy efficiency in public and federally-assisted
housing.
The results from the ENERGY STAR program for the products and
services that EPA manages are substantial. In 2007, Americans with the
help of EPA's efforts under ENERGY STAR, prevented 40 million metric
tons of greenhouse gas emissions--equivalent to the annual emissions
from 27 million vehicles--and saved more than $16 billion on their
utility bills\4\. And these benefits are on track to nearly double\5\
in 10 years as more households, businesses, and organizations rely on
ENERGY STAR for guidance on investing in energy efficient products,
practices, and policies. Note that in December 2008, the EPA Inspector
General (IG) reported that improvements were necessary to validate the
ENERGY STAR benefits. The IG identified a number of steps for EPA to
take to improve its benefits estimates which EPA estimates could have
impacted the 2006 benefits estimates by 2 to 3 percent, either up or
down. As this point, many of these steps have been completed and
incorporated into the 2007 benefits estimates provided above. We are
currently pursuing two additional expert and peer-reviews of the
Agency's methods and will incorporate recommendations from these
reviews as they become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ENERGY STAR Overview of 2007 Achievements (US EPA, 2008)
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, ENERGY STAR is now a national platform for energy
efficiency with strong public recognition and positive influence on
many consumer decisions; and it is a platform that can continue to
expand and achieve greater results. Recent surveys show\6\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Awareness of ENERGY STAR for 2007: Analysis of 2007
CEE Household Survey. (US EPA, 2008)
More than 70% of U.S. households recognize the ENERGY STAR
label;
More than 35% of households knowingly purchased at least one
ENERGY STAR qualifying product in the last twelve months, and
Eighty percent of purchasing households say they are likely
to recommend ENERGY STAR to others showing that ENERGY STAR is
positioned for continued growth.
And, more than 12,000 organizations have partnered with the ENERGY
STAR program to advance energy efficiency across the key sectors in the
US economy.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ENERGY STAR and Other Climate Protection Partnerships: 2007
Annual Report (US EPA, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's responsibilities and strategies with the ENERGY STAR program,
and which have led to the results cited above, constitute a large
majority of the program and include:
Efficient Products. EPA manages the ENERGY STAR label across
about 50 product categories, and DOE offers the ENERGY STAR
label for almost ten additional product categories. The EPA-
managed product categories include heating and cooling
equipment, consumer electronics, office equipment and certain
lighting. ENERGY STAR identifies efficient products above
federal minimum efficiency standards, where they exist;
however, for over half of the product categories, there are no
minimum efficiency standards. Many ENERGY STAR qualifying
products offer consumers savings of 30 to 60%, relative to
typical models, and up to 30 percent savings in a household
using all ENERGY STAR products.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ENERGY STAR and Other Climate Protection Partnerships: 2007
Annual Report (US EPA, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficient New Home Construction. EPA has managed the ENERGY
STAR program for new homes since 1995. Today, ENERGY STAR
qualified homes are typically 20 to 30 percent more efficient
than standard homes. ENERGY STAR promotes the best available,
off-the-shelf technology as well as effective construction
practices. Significant numbers of new homes are being built to
ENERGY STAR requirements; about 12 percent of all new homes
nationally in 2007, with 20 percent or more market penetration
in 10 states and more than 20 metropolitan areas.\9\ More than
5,000 builders have partnered with EPA,\10\ offering ENERGY
STAR homes in every state in the country. EPA is developing the
next generation of ENERGY STAR specifications to make these
homes even more efficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ibid.
\10\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affordable Homes. EPA is working with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), DOE, and others to bring
ENERGY STAR to HUD's major affordable housing programs,
particularly public housing. HUD now provides bonus points
through its competitive grant programs for use of the ENERGY
STAR label; both for products and new homes, and local
communities are also adopting the ENERGY STAR label as part of
HUD's formula grant programs. EPA has also worked with many
state housing finance agencies (HFAs) to promote ENERGY STAR
products and homes in their funding criteria for housing
projects.
Existing Home Improvements. EPA and DOE developed Home
Performance with ENERGY STAR as a whole-house retrofit program
that provides homeowners with guidance and services for going
beyond the purchase of efficient products and helping them tap
into the low cost efficiency improvements in their homes. This
program targets the low cost energy efficiency opportunities in
the more than 100 million existing homes in this country,
particularly the more than 40 million homes that were
constructed before the existence of modern energy codes.\11\
EPA and DOE have now partnered with 20 State and local program
sponsors of Home Performance with ENERGY STAR and estimates
that these programs can help homeowners save 20 percent on
average on their energy bills. In addition, EPA has developed
an ENERGY STAR program for the proper installation of heating
and cooling equipment. Heating and cooling typically represent
almost 50 percent of a household energy bill, and studies
indicate that more than half of central air conditioners may be
improperly installed, leading to higher demand on peak energy
days.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey (2006).
\12\ ENERGY STAR and Other Climate Protection Partnerships: 2007
Annual Report (US EPA, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial and Institutional Buildings. EPA has managed
ENERGY STAR programs in the commercial sector since 1993 and
now works with thousands of public and private organizations to
advance superior energy management at the organizational level,
provide a range of technical resources and trainings, and help
organizations achieve energy savings of 10 to 30 percent across
their entire suites of buildings. This includes an initiative
to assist small business and congregations that has engaged
more than 3,300 organizations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standardized Measurement and Labeling of Commercial Building
Energy Use. An important foundation of the ENERGY STAR program
is the EPA-developed standardized commercial building energy
performance rating system, like the miles per gallon rating for
vehicles, which compares the energy use of an individual
building against the national stock of similar buildings using
a 1 to 100 point rating system. EPA developed this system
because of a wide variation in commercial building energy use
(on a per square foot basis) that is not closely tied to the
age of the building or the presence or absence of newer
technologies. This system enables commercial building owners
and managers to measure how well building systems are
integrated, operated, and maintained and to set and measure
progress toward energy performance goals. The system now
applies to more than 70 percent of the commercial square
footage across the country and continues to grow. Commercial
building owners and operators have now used the system to rate
the energy efficiency of 83,000 buildings or about 16 percent
of commercial square footage in the country.\14\ The system is
being used by a number of states and municipalities to assist
in their building energy use disclosure policies. For example,
the State of California recently passed AB 1103 which requires
commercial building owners to disclose their energy performance
score at any time a property is leased, bought, sold or
financed. EPA also offers the ENERGY STAR label to the most
efficient of these buildings across the country. More than
6,200 commercial buildings have earned the ENERGY STAR label
and these buildings are using about 35% less energy than
average ones.\15\ Achieving the label is becoming increasingly
important. For example, CoStar, the leading multiple listing
service for U.S. Commercial real estate properties, now shows
which buildings for lease or sale have earned an ENERGY STAR
label, and the Minnesota Governor called for the achievement of
1,000 ENERGY STAR buildings across the state by 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ENERGY STAR Overview of 2008 Achievements (US EPA, 2009)
\15\ EPA Press Release, March 3, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Commercial Building Construction. EPA has offered ENERGY
STAR tools and resources for commercial new construction since
2004. The cornerstone of this effort is the Designed to Earn
the ENERGY STAR graphic which can be used on building plans for
buildings that have been designed to achieve ENERGY STAR
performance levels once in use. These buildings can apply for
the ENERGY STAR once there is sufficient data.
Industrial Energy Efficiency. EPA has managed an ENERGY STAR
industrial energy efficiency program since 2000. This program
area also promotes superior energy management at the
organizational level, provides a range of technical resources
and trainings, and helps organizations achieve significant
energy savings across all of their facilities. EPA works with
many diverse industrial organizations, through targeted efforts
with more than 15 specific industrial sectors, and through a
partnership with the National Association of Manufacturers to
reach medium and smaller sized organizations.
International Partners. EPA is working with international
partners, including Australia, Canada, the European Union,
Japan, New Zealand, and Taiwan, who are implementing one or
more parts of the ENERGY STAR program in their own countries
and regions.
implementation of the energy star program
EPA spends significant time and resources implementing the ENERGY
STAR program in a consistent manner, protecting the integrity of the
label and program, and supporting core activities across the entire
ENERGY STAR program at EPA and DOE. EPA manages the following
activities, several in conjunction with DOE:\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Maintaining the Value of ENERGY STAR: 2007 Report (US EPA,
2008)
Establishing ENERGY STAR requirements for product categories
using criteria that are employed consistently across the
program;
Revising ENERGY STAR product specifications once sufficient
progress is made to increase market penetration and there is a
new level for the ENERGY STAR requirements that is consistent
with the program criteria;
Monitoring the use of the ENERGY STAR logo use across the
40,000 or more products in which it is used to ensure proper
use as well as monitoring for use on ineligible products and
following up as necessary;
Having products tested to ensure ENERGY STAR labeled
products meet ENERGY STAR specifications and auditing buildings
to ensure they comply with requirements;
Developing, implementing, and monitoring third-party testing
programs for product categories where these testing programs
are determined to be necessary;
Assessing consumer awareness of and experience with ENERGY
STAR;
Tracking the partnership (and licensing) agreements with the
more than 12,000 program partners;
Assuring partner outreach and product labeling materials are
consistent with the ENERGY STAR program guidelines;
Providing consumer information through Website, hotline, and
publication distribution system; and
Evaluating the results of the program.
Several of these areas are described in greater detail below as the
Act includes related provisions.
Establishing and Revising ENERGY STAR Specifications
EPA consistently follows a set of guiding principles, which have
proven to address existing market barriers and lead to significant
results, to establish the eligibility criteria for an ENERGY STAR
product category.\17\ \18\ ENERGY STAR is designed to be easy for
consumers as a binary (yes/no) label and is technology neutral across a
product category to avoid having the government pick winners and losers
or inadvertently locking in a specific approach. The criteria are
established so that ENERGY STAR products will not sacrifice performance
or quality and will offer energy savings with attractive paybacks to
the buyer--such as two years or less--if there are higher initial first
costs. Currently, two-thirds of the product categories under ENERGY
STAR are offering efficient products with no price premium, and these
product categories are providing the majority of the energy savings
from the product labeling part of the ENERGY STAR program.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The ENERGY STAR Label: A Summary of Product Labeling
Objectives and Guiding Principles, USEPA, 2003.
\18\ Building a Powerful and Enduring Brand: The Past, Present, and
Future of the ENERGY STAR Brand (Interbrand, 2007)
\19\ Maintaining the Value of ENERGY STAR: 2007 Report (US EPA,
2008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA collects product shipment data from participating manufacturers
annually both to evaluate the impact of the program and to assess
opportunities for specification revisions. To determine when a
specification revision is necessary, EPA monitors the patterns of
market share growth and other factors, such as relevant legislation,
over time. EPA is currently engaged in seven product specification
revisions as listed on the ENERGY STAR Web site. The market share of
ENERGY STAR products for these product categories when EPA began the
specification revisions ranged from 35 to 50 percent. EPA published a
report in 2008 showing the market share of ENERGY STAR qualifying
products in each product category for 2007 and whether or not the
Agencies were considering a specification revision. When specification
revisions are undertaken the principles outlined above are adhered to
so as to maintain a consistent meaning of the program, or brand
promise, from the consumer perspective.
Verification Testing to Ensure Compliance with ENERGY STAR Requirements
EPA manages a Compliance Audit Program as part of its ENERGY STAR
program efforts which includes verification testing administered by EPA
using third-party independent laboratories and quality assurance
testing for lighting products, in particular. EPA has now conducted
verification testing across 14 product categories, and is phasing in
verification testing requirements (in addition to qualification
testing) as part of the ENERGY STAR partnership, starting with
computers. In conjunction with increased verification testing, EPA has
collaborated with accreditation bodies to establish requirements for
laboratories testing ENERGY STAR products and is phasing in a
requirement that qualification testing be conducted at impartial,
accredited laboratories. For residential light fixtures, EPA has
established quality assurance testing to drive enhanced quality
assurance and quality control processes for manufacturers, which has
been shown to be lacking for light fixtures. Further, given the growth
of the ENERGY STAR program and the number of qualified products on the
market, EPA is also working to leverage third-party certification
programs.
conclusion
ENERGY STAR is an important energy efficiency program for helping
consumers and public and private organizations lower their costs and
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. We appreciate the interest of the
Committee in addressing issues that it believes will continue the
success of the program. However, EPA believes that Section 3 should be
removed. EPA is committed to working with DOE to address the issues
that need to be addressed and to report back to the committee on our
resolution in 45 days. In addition, I hope my testimony has helped
illustrate activities underway at the EPA to keep ENERGY STAR
specifications up to date and to enhance verification testing of
products using the ENERGY STAR label so as to help clarify that these
issues can be addressed without additional legislation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nadel.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN NADEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL
FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY (ACEEE)
Mr. Nadel. Ok. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, madame ranking
member.
Federal appliance efficiency standards were first adopted
in 1987 and have been augmented by Congress four times since
then most recently in the 2007 Energy bill. The program has a
long history of bipartisan support. In fact most of the
appliance standards laws were signed by Republican Presidents
beginning with President Reagan.
My organization the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy, known as ACEEE, estimates that these
standards will reduce United States electricity use. Peak
demand in 2010 by about 10 percent and will reduce overall 2010
energy use by about 5 percent. These are very large savings. We
estimate that net savings to consumers from standards that have
already been adopted or already law will exceed more than $400
billion.
The majority of these standards have been set by Congress
based on consensus agreements between manufacturers and energy
efficiency organizations such as mine. At times this committee
has put standards in bills that do not quite have consensus in
an effort to push parties toward compromise before final
legislation passes. This is what the committee successfully did
in 2007 with general service incandescent lamp standards. Where
there is not consensus Congress has often delegated decisions
to DOE allowing each side to make their arguments and then
having the Secretary make the final decision.
The proposed Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009,
sometimes abbreviated ASIA. Builds on these solid foundations
and we support this bill. We thank Senators Bingaman and
Murkowski for introducing this bill and for moving the
discussion forward.
The heart of ASIA is new efficiency standards on portable
lighting fixtures such as floor and table lamps. The proposed
standard was developed by the American Lighting Association,
Mr. Upton and ACEEE and built largely on the standard adopted
by California last year. The standard provides with a range of
compliance options and will save substantial energy. We
estimate that by 2020 this standard alone will save enough
electricity to power 350,000 average American homes.
ASIA also contains several useful reforms of the Appliance
Standards and Energy Star programs that we also support. While
this is a solid bill we believe it can be improved by
incorporating several improvements.
First, several technical amendments we suggest to the
portable lighting fixture standard which are noted on the back
of my testimony. I believe ALA has signed off on these. We've
also signed off on one amendment I believe they are going to be
suggesting.
Second, the 2007 Energy bill contained several drafting
errors and technical corrections to these errors should be
incorporation in the new legislation. These have all been
provided to staff and have the support of relevant trade
associations.
Third, we recommend adding new standards on outdoor
lighting fixtures to the bill based on a proposal now being
developed by Philips Lighting, ACEEE and other lighting
manufacturers and energy efficiency groups. We plan to provide
draft legislative language to committee staff within the next
few days which we see as an initial draft, a work in progress.
We hope to refine that working with manufacturers and others
just as we did with the incandescent lamp standard.
Fourth, we suggest that new standards be added to the bill
on drinking water dispensers, hot food holding cabinets and
portable electric spas. Pictures and descriptions of these
products are contained in my written testimony. Standards on
these products have been adopted in three to seven states
depending on the product.
We are now vetting this proposal with manufacturers. Have
received positive initial responses. But we're still working
with them to try to get final sign off.
Fifth, Senator Menendez sent all of the witnesses here at
this table some potential amendments to the Standards program.
We support these amendments. Very briefly let me talk about one
or two.
First amendment would direct DOE to consider standards on
incandescent reflector lamps that are now excluded from Federal
standards. These are a type of lamp called a BR or a bulge
reflector lamp. Here's a sample that has a slight bulge in the
outside which basically differentiates it very slightly from
current products.
These are relatively low cost, relatively inefficient.
There are efficient products made. This happens to be one by
Philips.
It's the type of product that Congress has already required
for general service incandescent lamps. But the BR lamps are
exempted. We suggest that you direct DOE to develop these
standards so that lamps like this can become common practice.
Second I will mention that provision about multiple metrics
for standards. For many products a single metric isn't adequate
for characterizing the efficiency of a product. Indeed as shown
in our table in my written testimony, 11 times Congress has
established standards using more than one metric.
But DOE council has argued that DOE cannot issue standards
with more than one network. Just last week DOE rejected a
consensus standard for commercial furnaces only because it
contained more than one efficiency requirement. The amendment
that Senator Murkowski has floated would clarify that DOE can
adopt standards with more than one metric, does not require
multiple metrics it just allows them.
Each standard will still need to be technically feasible
and economically justified. Some manufacturers argue that
multiple metrics on a product would be costly or onerous. But
this is a type of argument they should make to DOE to say that
this is not economically justified. We believe DOE should have
the power to set the multiple metric standards and then the
appropriate arguments to be made at the rulemaking level.
In conclusion the various amendments we support would more
than quadruple the energy savings resulting from this bill and
would improve program implementation decisionmaking. We are
open to discussing all of these suggestions with committee
members and their staff and with manufacturers and other
interested parties. We hope that consensus can be reached on
modified versions of all of these provisions before legislation
is signed into law.
Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nadel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Nadel, Executive Director, American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Summary
Federal appliance efficiency standards were first adopted in 1987
and were augmented by Congress in 1988, 1992, 2005 and 2007. The
program has a long history of bipartisan support. My organization, the
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), estimates
that without these standards and subsequent DOE rulemakings, U.S. 2010
electricity use and peak electric demand would be about 10% higher and
U.S. total energy use about 5% higher. Net savings to consumers from
standards already adopted will exceed $400 billion by 2030 (2008 $).
The majority of these standards have been set by Congress, based on
consensus agreements between manufacturers and energy efficiency
advocates. But where there is not consensus agreement, Congress has
often delegated decisions to DOE, allowing each side to make their
arguments and having DOE make the decision.
The proposed Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009 (ASIA)
builds on these solid foundations and we support this bill. We thank
Senators Bingaman and Murkowski for introducing this bill and moving
the discussion forward on how best to improve the appliance standards
program.
The heart of ASIA is new efficiency standards on portable lighting
fixtures, such as floor and table lamps. The proposed standard was
developed by the American Lighting Association and ACEEE and builds
largely on a standard adopted by California last year. The standard
provides a range of compliance options and will save substantial
energy--by 2020 this standard alone will save enough electricity to
power 350,000 average American homes.
ASIA also contains several useful reforms to the appliance
standards and ENERGY STAR programs.
While ASIA is a solid bill, we believe it can be improved by
incorporating:
Several technical amendments to the portable lighting
fixture standard as described in my testimony;
Technical amendments to the standards adopted in EISA that
are needed to correct drafting errors;
Adding new standards on outdoor lighting fixtures, based on
a proposal now being developed by Philips Lighting, ACEEE, and
other lighting manufacturers and energy efficiency groups;
Adding new standards on drinking water dispensers (water
coolers) and hot food holding cabinets that are based on ENERGY
STAR specifications and have been adopted in California,
Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, and
the District of Columbia;
Adding new standards on portable electric spas (hot tubs)
adopted in California, Connecticut, and Oregon;
Adopting several improvements to the appliance standards
program proposed by Senator Menendez that:
--Direct DOE to consider standards on several types of reflector
lamps;
--Allow states to help enforce federal standards in federal courts
using federal procedures;
--Allow DOE to consider multiple standard metrics for products;
--Provide states more flexibility to develop performance-based
building codes;
--Simplify the process for states to obtain waivers from federal
preemption while keeping the main decision-criteria in
place; and
--Direct DOE to undertake a rulemaking to establish regular
reporting of data needed to support the standards, ENERGY
STAR and related programs.
These provisions would more than quadruple the energy savings
resulting from ASIA and would improve program implementation and
decision-making going forward. We are open to discussing all of these
suggestions with Committee members and their staff, and with
manufacturers and other interested parties, so that hopefully consensus
can be reached on modified versions of all of these provisions.
Introduction
My name is Steven Nadel and I am the Executive Director of the
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a nonprofit
organization dedicated to increasing energy efficiency to promote both
economic prosperity and environmental protection. I have worked
actively on appliance standards issues for more than 20 years at the
federal and state levels and participated actively in discussions that
led to enactment of federal standards legislation in 1987 (NAECA), 1988
(NAECA amendments), 1992 (EPAct), 2005 (EPAct), and 2007 (EISA).
Without these laws, plus subsequent DOE rulemakings updating some
of these standards, ACEEE estimates that U.S. 2010 electricity use and
peak electric demand would be about 10% higher and U.S. total energy
use about 5% higher. Net savings to consumers from standards already
adopted will exceed $400 billion by 2030 (2008 $).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculations from a forthcoming ACEEE report to be published
spring 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, much more savings are possible through a combination of
further updates to existing standards, plus adding new products to the
federal standards program. ACEEE estimates that U.S. energy use in 2030
can be reduced by about 2.5 quadrillion Btu's (about a 2.2% reduction
from projected levels) and carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by
about 165 million metric tons, a 2.6% reduction from projected
levels.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Preliminary estimate of savings can be found at: http://
www.standardsasap.org/ documents/DOE_schedule.pdf. Percentage
reductions are relative to reference case in EIA's 2009 Annual Energy
Outlook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortunately, the federal standards program has a long history of
bipartisan support, at the Committee level, on the House and Senate
floors, and from Presidents of both major parties: standards laws have
been signed by Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan (two laws), George H.W.
Bush, and George W. Bush (two laws).
The foundation of these laws was adoption of consensus standards
negotiated between appliance manufacturers and energy efficiency
advocates. ACEEE has been involved in all of these negotiations. Most
federal standards build on previous state standards: after several
states adopt standards on a product, manufacturers generally prefer
uniform national standards to a patchwork of state standards. But where
manufacturers and efficiency advocates disagree, Congress has commonly
delegated decisions to DOE, allowing each side to make its best case
and then having the Secretary of Energy decide.
The proposed Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009 (ASIA)
builds on these solid foundations. We thank Senators Bingaman and
Murkowski for introducing this bill and moving the discussion forward
on how best to improve the appliance standards program. In the sections
below I comment on the provisions in ASIA, and also on some additional
provisions that we recommend be added to increase the energy savings
achieved and improve the appliance standards program's processes.
Provisions in ASIA
The heart of ASIA establishes new efficiency standards on portable
lighting fixtures, such as the floor and table lamps most of us use in
our homes. Other significant provisions in ASIA relate to appliance
test procedures, a schedule for DOE to rule on petitions, compliance
with federal standards, and ENERGY STAR. We discuss each in turn.
standards for portable lighting fixtures and gu-24 lamps (sections 5
and 6)
Standards for portable lighting fixtures and GU-24 lamps were
established in California in 2008 and this provision makes this
standard a national one (section 5). This standard transitions new
fixtures away from use of inefficient screw-in incandescent lamps, and
towards an array of more efficient choices including compact
fluorescent lamps, LED lighting, or low/medium wattage halogen lamps. A
variety of options are provided to manufacturers and consumers, so an
appropriate choice can be found for all applications. For example,
under the provision, there are two main compact fluorescent options--a
dedicated ENERGY STAR compact fluorescent fixture or including ENERGY
STAR screw-in compact fluorescent lamps in the box with the fixture.
Consumers who truly dislike compact fluorescent lamps can use the
included lamps in other sockets or give them to friends. The provision
also builds upon current DOE and EPA ENERGY STAR standards for LED
fixtures, providing guidance for an important emerging type of light.
In addition, the GU-24 provision follows California rules to
prevent a new type of universal compact fluorescent base (GU-24) from
being used with incandescent lamps. Unlike present bases, the GU-24
base can be used with many types of compact fluorescent lamps.
Industry, utilities, and ENERGY STAR staff are planning to widely
promote its use as a way to guarantee lighting energy savings. However,
these efforts would be undermined if GU-24 incandescent lamps are
introduced because no energy is saved if incandescent lamps are used in
GU-24 fixtures. Section 6 would prevent this from happening.
In the process of negotiating these federal provisions, a few
refinements to the California regulations were negotiated between ACEEE
and the American Lighting Association (the industry trade association
for these products) to strengthen some of the requirements, gradually
phase in the requirement for testing for whole system efficacy, and
exclude purely decorative fixtures from the whole system efficacy
requirements. For example, for LED fixtures over the 2012-2016 period,
the bill permits these fixtures to either meet the current DOE ENERGY
STAR LED fixture specification, or provides an option for a higher
``light engine'' efficacy (``efficacy'' is a lighting industry term for
efficiency), without requiring testing of whole system efficacy. As of
2016, new standards will apply, to be developed by DOE by 2014. Given
California's pioneering role, this provision also allows California to
revise its current standard, but this authority expires in 2014.
Similar provisions were included in EISA and EPAct 2005, when
California standards were adopted as federal standards. These changes
represent thoughtful compromises on these issues, compromises that have
the support of both ACEEE and ALA.
ACEEE estimates that this provision will reduce U.S. electricity
use in 2020 by about 3.9 billion kWh, enough to serve about 350,000
average U.S. residential customers for a year.\3\ These standards will
reduce peak electric demand in 2020 by about 570 MW, equivalent to a
typical new coal-fired power plant or two typical natural gas-fired
power plants. Net present value financial savings to consumers will
exceed $600 million from purchases through 2030, accounting for both
the value of the energy saved and the modestly higher purchase cost for
complying fixtures. By 2020, this standard will reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by about 2.62 million metric tons, helping to make a
significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions. This is equivalent to
taking 485,000 cars off the road for a year.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ At 11,000 kWh/year per household, per EIA data.
\4\ Based on 12,000 miles/vehicle each year, a fuel economy of 20
MPG, and 20 pounds of CO2 emitted per gallon. There are
2,204.6 pounds per metric ton. With these assumptions each car emits
about 5.44 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we support this provision, we think it can be improved in
four respects:
1. The bill references a specific Illuminating Engineering
Society (IES) specification for testing portable lighting
fixtures for overall efficiency. Since the bill also sets
standards for ``light engine efficacy,'' it should also
reference a pending IES specification for testing light engine
efficacy.
2. The bill permits GU-24 fixtures as a compliance path, but
establishes no standards for these fixtures. We recommend that
the bill reference the same ENERGY STAR specification for GU-24
fixtures as it references for dedicated compact fluorescent
lamp fixtures. Since some GU-24 LED lamps are in development,
the legislation should make clear that LED fixtures with GU-24
sockets must meet the LED requirements in the bill.
3. Change the maximum LED color temperature to 4000 K from
4200 K. 4000 K is a specific color category in the consensus
industry specification developed by the Illuminating
Engineering Society (IES). For this reason, there are no 4200 K
LED lamps. The IES specification allows some testing leeway, so
products do not need to be exactly 4000 K and still qualify.
4. The bill also permits halogen fixtures up to 100 Watts,
but provides no efficiency standards for these products. We
recommend that halogen lamps be required to meet efficiency
levels similar to those Congress adopted for general service
incandescent lamps as part of EISA. We are now trying to
develop a specific proposal in discussions with ALA.
Specific language changes for the first three of these
recommendations are attached to my testimony. We will forward our
suggested language on the final recommendation when discussions are
completed.
appliance test procedures
In 2007, EISA directed DOE to review and revise appliance test
procedure changes over a seven-year period. But seven years is a long
time and some revisions cannot wait. This provision allows interested
parties to petition DOE to adopt changes to specific DOE test
procedures. DOE reviews the proposal in line with established
procedures and criteria and is given a deadline for making decisions.
Direct final rules are permitted for consensus recommendations, per a
provision added to the law in EISA. This provision thereby encourages
consensus agreements that can accelerate updates and ease DOE's
workload. It also requires timely responses from DOE to petitions,
something that is a problem. As an egregious example, a petition
submitted by the California Energy Commission in May 2008 to repeal a
useless television test procedure from 1977 has not even been
acknowledged, let alone acted upon.
schedule for doe to rule on petitions (section 4)
Current law has a provision permitting interested parties to
petition DOE to revise a specific standard. However, no deadlines are
provided. This section gives DOE 180 days to respond to the petition,
and if the petition is granted, three more years to publish a final
rule on the standard.
studying compliance with federal standards (section 7)
More than 40 products are now regulated and to our knowledge no one
has ever conducted a systematic review on whether manufacturers are
complying with the standard. Enforcement is important in order to
ensure that energy savings are real, and to protect the vast majority
of law-abiding companies from unscrupulous competitors. We have heard
informal reports that some standards are not being fully followed. Some
Congressional offices have expressed interest in improving standard
enforcement. The first step in such efforts is to conduct a study to
see what the problems are and where they lie. This provision would have
DOE conduct such a study. We envision that DOE would hire one or more
contractors to survey products on the market for each regulated product
category, ascertaining as best as possible from available data which
products are in compliance with standards and which are not. Such
surveys would be made using the Web (manufacturer, wholesaler, and
retailer sites), and by visiting a sample of retail stores. Some
products on the market would be purchased and independently tested to
see if they were in compliance or not.
energy star (section 3)
ENERGY STAR has been a valuable and very successful program to
promote the sale of high efficiency products. The program was started
by EPA, but for many years DOE has taken the lead on some products,
under the terms of an interagency MOU. In October 2008, Consumer
Reports published a report on ENERGY STAR, finding a few problems.
Specifically, they found that a few manufacturers were distorting
refrigerator test results, and since the program relied only on
manufacturer testing, there was no mechanism to catch this problem. The
article also noted that some appliance specifications needed updating,
as indicated by the fact that a majority of products on the market
earned the ENERGY STAR rating, although DOE and EPA generally target
the top 25% of products for the label. Our understanding is that the
agencies have been working to address these problems, but Section 3
requires them to take action. Specifically, it requires some type of
independent certification or review of product testing for each
product, while giving the agencies and each industry flexibility as to
what type of certification/review most makes sense for a product. This
provision also requires DOE and EPA to review the ENERGY STAR
specification when the market share for a product category reaches 35%.
If a review begins when market share reaches 35%, market share can grow
considerably in the year or more it takes to complete the review, set a
new specification, and put the new specification into effect. While 35%
is a good review threshold for most products, there are exceptions
(e.g., compact fluorescent lamps where ENERGY STAR is a quality mark
and not just for the best products). Therefore, the provision permits
the agencies to revise this percentage on a product-specific basis as
part of their first review. We believe these provisions will improve
the ENERGY STAR program, while giving the agencies needed flexibility.
Recommended Additions
We recommend several additions to ASIA including technical
corrections to EISA, adding several new product standards, and adopting
some amendments to appliance standard processes and procedures as
recently suggested by Senator Menendez.
technical corrections
When the EISA conference negotiations were completed, a number of
errors were made in compiling the final bill. We have worked with
industry and Committee staff to identify these problems and develop
suggested edits. We recommend that these technical corrections be added
to the bill.
additional standards
In addition to portable lighting fixtures, a number of other
products are ripe for adding to the appliance standards program. Below
we recommend four specific products. We are talking to industry about
all of these products. We anticipate reaching consensus on all or most
of these in the next month. Placeholder language for three of these
products is provided as an attachment to my testimony. We will provide
recommended legislative language for outdoor lighting fixtures shortly.
Outdoor Lighting Fixtures
Outdoor lighting fixtures are generally fairly high wattage
products and are on for many hours each night. Outdoor lighting
accounts for about 8% of U.S. lighting energy use and 2% of U.S. total
electricity use. The largest outdoor lighting uses are roadways
(streets and highways) and parking lots.\5\ Current systems use a
variety of lamp types, including incandescent, mercury vapor, low and
high pressure sodium (yellowish light), and metal halide lamps. In the
past few years, rapid technical strides have been made and a new
generation of more efficient types is emerging including LED lighting
and advanced metal halide and high pressure sodium lamps. In addition,
efficiency can be improved with electronic ballasts, use of lighting
controls. and improved fixture designs. Substantial energy can be saved
by standards that steadily eliminate the least efficient fixtures from
the market in favor of more efficient products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Navigant Consulting. 2002. U.S. Lighting Market
Characterization. Washington, D.C.: Buildings Technologies Program,
U.S. Department of Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early this year Philips Lighting approached ACEEE and other
efficiency groups\6\ to explore the possibility of new mandatory
standards for outdoor lighting. Proposals have been prepared and
legislative language is being drafted. Recently, this coalition has
begun reaching out to other major lighting manufacturers to seek their
input and support. This is the same process that was used to develop
the standards on general service incandescent lamps in EISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Alliance to Save Energy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project,
and Natural Resources Defense Council
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its current form, the proposed standard would regulate the whole
system efficiency of new outdoor lighting fixtures with an initial
requirement of 50 lumens per watt, effective 2011, rising to 70 lumens
per watt in 2013 and 80 lumens per watt in 2015 (existing fixtures
would not be affected). Additional provisions would require 2-level or
dimming controls and good lumen maintenance (maintenance of light
levels over time). Advanced LED, metal halide, and high pressure sodium
systems would all comply, but old technologies would not. The proposed
standards would also outlaw the ongoing sale of the least efficient
high light output outdoor lamps. New, more efficient replacements are
readily available.
Philips Lighting has analyzed the likely savings from this standard
and estimates that this standard would eventually save about 30,500
million kWh per year from fixture efficiency improvements alone, once
existing fixtures are fully replaced. The bi-level controls would add
additional savings. They estimate annual carbon dioxide emissions
reductions of more than 16 million metric tons and annual energy bill
reductions of about $3.6 billion once all fixtures are replaced.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Cook, Keith. 2008. ``Proposed Outdoor Lighting Efficiency
Standards''. Washington, DC: Philips Lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottle-Type Water Dispensers
Bottled water dispensers are commonly used in both homes and
offices to store and dispense drinking water. Designs include those
that provide both hot and cold water and those that provide cold water
only. In 2000, the EPA issued a voluntary ENERGY STAR performance
specification for standby energy of 1.2 kWh per day and 0.16 kWh per
day for ``hot and cold'' dispensers and ``cold only'' dispensers,
respectively. ``Hot and cold'' water dispensers tend to be much less
efficient than ``cold only'' because they must maintain water tanks at
two temperatures in a small space. The greatest factor determining
energy efficiency is insulation of the water reservoirs. Older models
of ``hot and cold'' dispensers often do not have insulated hot water
tanks, which increases heat dissipation and standby energy waste.
Adding insulation between the tanks and increasing existing insulation
levels can reduce standby energy waste. A Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
report found that a reduction from the baseline ``hot and cold''
dispenser daily energy consumption of 1.93 kWh to the proposed 1.2 kWh
would save nearly 38% of annual energy consumption. The slight cost
(about $12) to improve a basic unit to meet the proposed standard would
be earned back in lower energy costs within about 6 months at national
average energy prices. EPA data indicate that just over 40% of water
dispensers sold meet the ENERGY STAR specification.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Nadel, S., A. deLaski, M. Eldridge, and J. Kliesch. 2006.
Leading the Way: Continued Opportunities for New State Appliance and
Equipment Efficiency Standards. Washington, DC: American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2004, the California Energy Commission adopted the
ENERGY STAR standard for ``hot and cold'' dispensers as a mandatory
standard, affecting units sold after January 1, 2006. Subsequently the
same standard has been adopted in Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire,
Oregon, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. We recommend that
this same standard be adopted as a federal standard and that DOE be
directed to develop a revised standard by 2013, effective three years
later.
I provide estimates of energy and economic savings for this
proposal later in this testimony.
Commercial Hot Food Holding Cabinets
Hot food holding cabinets are used in hospitals, schools and other
applications for storing and transporting food at a safe serving
temperature. They are freestanding metal cabinets with internal pan
supports for trays. Most are made of stainless steel and are insulated;
however, there are some models that are non-insulated and are often
made of aluminum. The main energy-using components include the heating
element and the fan motor.
The ENERGY STAR specification sets a maximum idle energy rate
issued for hot food holding cabinets of 40 Watts per cubic foot of
measured interior volume. Appropriate insulation in hot food holding
cabinets is the key mechanism to meet this specification. Insulated
cabinets also have the advantage of quick preheat times, less
susceptibility to ambient air temperatures, and a more uniform cabinet
temperature. The recommended maximum idle energy rate translates to a
78% annual energy savings of 1,856 kWh relative to a basic, inefficient
model. These energy savings cover the estimated additional cost of more
efficient units within 3 years. Data is uncertain, but it appears that
about 40% of hot food holding cabinet sales meet this specification.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2004, the California Energy Commission adopted this
level as a statewide minimum standard, effective January 2006.
Subsequently the same standard has been adopted in Connecticut,
Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the District of
Columbia. We recommend that this same standard be adopted as a federal
standard and that DOE be directed to develop a revised standard by
2013, effective three years later.
I provide estimates of energy and economic savings for this
proposal later in this testimony.
Portable Electric Spas (Hot Tubs)
Portable electric spas are self-contained hot tubs. They are
electrically heated and are popularly used in homes for relaxation and
therapeutic effects. The most popular portable spas hold between 210
and 380 gallons of water; however, some models can hold as much as 500
gallons. ``In-ground'' spas are not included in this category.
Over half the energy consumed by a typical electric spa is used for
its heating system. Heat is lost directly during use and through the
cover and shell during standby mode. Improved covers and increased
insulation levels are key measures to improving efficiency and can
decrease standby energy use by up to 30% for a spa of average-to-low
efficiency. Another measure is the addition of a low-wattage
circulation pump or improvements to pump efficiency that would
generally save 15% of standby energy consumption of an average-
efficiency spa. Automated programmable controls, which would allow
users to customize settings based on predicted usage patterns, are a
third measure to improve efficiency and could save roughly 5% of a
spa's standby energy consumption.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2004, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted a
maximum standby energy consumption standard of 5 (V2/3)
Watts for portable electric spas where V = the total spa volume in
gallons and 2/3 means to the two-thirds power. Standby energy
consumption represents the majority (75%) of the energy used by
electric spas and refers to consumption after the unit has been
initially brought up to a stable temperature at the start of the season
and when it is not being operated by the user. The energy consumption
calculation (V2/3) used by CEC approximates total spa
surface area, which is directly related to standby energy use. A
maximum standby energy requirement indexed to total spa surface area
thus requires spas of all sizes to be equally efficient.
The California standard is a modest initial effort and is probably
met by the majority of spas now being sold. CEC estimates that the
products meeting the standard cost $100 more than basic models. At
national average energy prices, this additional cost is covered within
4.3 years.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut and Oregon have subsequently adopted the California
standard. We recommend that the same standard be adopted as a federal
standard and that DOE be directed to develop a revised standard by
2013, effective three years later.
Estimates of Energy Savings
The table below summarizes estimates of energy savings from the
proposed new standards:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Peak Demand 2020 CO2 Emissions Net Discounted Consumer
Product 2020 kWh Saved (millions) Reduction (MW) Reductions (MMT) Benefits (million $)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable lighting fixtures 3,856 573 2.62 662
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outdoor lighting fixtures 12,570 Small, on off-peak 8.54 Not calculated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water dispensers 250 35 0.17 229
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot food holding cabinets 314 103 0.21 291
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable electric spas 185 43 0.13 104
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 17,175 754 11.67 1,286
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Net Discounted Consumer Benefits are for purchases through 2030. 2020 kWh savings for outdoor lighting fixtures adapted by ACEEE from Philips
estimates cited above, based on a 20 year average fixture life. CO2 savings are prorated based on ratio of kWh to CO2 savings for other products.
process improvements
Senator Menendez on March 16, 2009 provided witnesses at this
hearing with some potential amendments to ASIA and asked for comments.
We support Senator Menendez's amendments and provide specific comments
below. In general these amendments free DOE and states from
restrictions that have hampered implementation of the standards and
related programs. None of these amendments would set new standards
directly, so to the extent particular manufacturers have concerns, they
will be able to make these concerns known as part of formal DOE and
state rulemaking proceedings. We are also open to discussing possible
edits to these amendments based on suggestions from industry and
others. We urge this Committee to encourage all parties to discuss
these amendments and seek to reach consensus on them. Below we discuss
each of these provisions and why they are needed.
Reflector Lamp Loophole
EISA extended existing reflector lamp standards to some previously
exempted lamps. DOE under the previous administration interpreted the
EISA language to permanently bar DOE from addressing any other exempted
reflector lamps, which was not the intent we agreed to when we helped
negotiate the EISA language. The new administration is now reviewing
this interpretation, but if there are legal doubts, Congress should
correct the law.
Due to this interpretation, final standards for incandescent
reflector lamps due in June 2009 may include a huge loophole (about 30%
of total sales) which will only grow bigger because these exempted
lamps are lower cost than regulated products. The proposed amendment
closes the loophole by requiring DOE to do a quick rulemaking to
consider standards for the exempted products. The rulemaking is quick
because it can build on the three-year rulemaking for related products
that is now nearing completion. If manufacturers believe that standards
for these products are not technically feasible and economically
justified, they can make these arguments during the rulemaking. If DOE
fails to complete the rulemaking on time, the standard DOE establishes
this June for other reflector lamps would apply. Further, the amendment
requires that DOE conduct a future rulemaking (completed by 2015) for
reflectors which considers all technology on an equal basis rather than
just incandescent technology.
Traditionally, among incandescent lamps, reflector lamps have led
in efficiency innovations. With EISA, general service incandescent
lamps (the pear-shaped lightbulb) are moving towards advanced
incandescent technology. The reflector lamp loophole is protecting some
common reflector lamps from having to make this transition, even though
the advanced technology can be applied--in fact, advanced incandescent
products are presently available in retail stores for the main exempted
category.
State Authority to Seek Injunctive Enforcement
Compliance with federal standards is essential for achieving the
expected energy savings. Under present law, only the federal government
may bring enforcement actions, but since there is no federal budget for
this, no significant enforcement is taking place. This amendment would
allow states to bring their expertise and resources to bear on
compliance by enabling them to seek injunctive enforcement of federal
standards in federal court on an equal basis to the Federal government.
All provisions of federal law apply. Such a provision was included in
EISA for general service incandescent lamps. It should be extended to
other regulated products.
Multiple Metrics
The past two administrations have disagreed on whether DOE may set
more than one standard for a product. For quite a few products Congress
has imposed more than one standard for a product. Some examples are
listed below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Metrics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat pumps Cooling efficiency and heating
efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clothes washers Energy Factor and Water Factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dishwashers Energy Factor and Water Factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential boilers AFUE, restrictions on pilot lights
and a control requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General service incandescent lamps Maximum Watts, minimum life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorescent lamps Efficacy and color rendering
------------------------------------------------------------------------
External power supplies Active mode efficiency and no-load
mode watts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact fluorescent lamps Initial efficacy, lumen maintenance,
lamp life, rapid cycle test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiling fans Efficient light kits, several
control requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walk-in coolers and freezers Insulation, glass, motor, control,
lighting, and door requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice-makers Energy use and water use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list above includes two very different groups. Most combine two
performance parameters, such as cooling efficiency and heating
efficiency, where the product combines multiple energy-using functions.
Some combine a performance standard with one or more prescriptive
requirements, such as boiler controls and minimum life for lamps. This
situation is critical for obtaining savings where energy-saving
technology options have developed more quickly than rating methods have
been revised, as in the case of boiler controls.
Uncertainty about DOE's authority has caused several problems in
recent years. In the current rulemaking for general service fluorescent
lamps, DOE decided it was prohibited from revising the now outdated
requirements for color rendering, even though both advocates and
industry recommended that this part of the standard be updated. In 2007
DOE turned down a consensus agreement on new residential boiler
standards, requiring the parties to go to Congress to successfully ask
that this provision be included in EISA. Similarly, just this past
week, DOE declined to adopt new multi-metric standards for commercial
warm air furnaces developed by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).\12\ Another
potential application of this authority is to require that some
products have two-way communication interfaces, so they can communicate
with the ``Smart Grid''. For example, some electric industry
representatives have suggested that DOE consider such a requirement for
electric water heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See pp 38 to 40 of the Proposed Rule made available on March
12, 2009 by DOE at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html but
not yet published in the Federal Register. This proposed rule confirms
an initial determination issued on July 16, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 40770).
DOE asserts it lacks authority to adopt the ASHRAE requirements which,
for commercial furnaces, would eliminate standing pilot lights, set a
limit on jacket losses and require power venting or automatic flue
dampers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is whether DOE, in revising standards, can also use
more than one metric if such a standard is technically feasible and
economically justified. The Clinton administration ruled that DOE has
this authority; the Bush administration took the contrary view. If the
law is this unclear, it should be clarified, as this amendment would
do. This amendment does not require DOE to set any standards with
multiple metrics; it just gives DOE the option. Even with this
amendment, DOE cannot set a multiple metric standard if such a standard
is not technically feasible or economically justified. Some
manufacturers argue that multiple standards on particular products are
costly or onerous. This is an argument they should make to DOE.
Concerns some manufacturers have about some products should not affect
DOE's ability to set appropriate standards for all products.
This provision passed both the House and Senate in 2007 but was
left out of EISA at the last minute. It should be adopted this year.
State Performance-Based Building Codes
Under present law, states with performance-based building codes
must use minimum-efficiency equipment when developing code
requirements. Performance-based codes provide an overall level of
performance and permit many paths for reaching these goals (e.g. more
insulation, better windows, reduced air infiltration, or improved
equipment). But if equipment is limited to only federal minimums, some
states are finding they can't set strong enough codes to meet their
energy and climate goals. Also, this part of federal law creates a
loophole in performance based codes, as builders exceeding federal
minimums can install less insulation, even though insulation lasts for
the life of the building while equipment lasts for only one to two
decades.
The goal of these changes is to allow greater flexibility in
performance-based codes to address equipment that is covered under
federal appliance standards. This provision would allow states to use
covered products with above-federal-minimum efficiency levels in
formulating their building codes, while keeping the framework of
preemptive federal standards. The proposed amendment includes two
changes:
1. The first change allows the use of above-federal-minimum
products in codes at an efficiency level set in the IECC or in
ASHRAE model code. Federal law already allows states to adopt
many commercial product standards in their codes at levels
above federal minimums if contained in an ASHRAE model code.
Creating a similar structure for residential products would
enable states to require the use of more efficient products in
construction covered by their prescriptive building codes at
levels set in a national standard-setting process. This is most
necessary for products for which a different efficiency makes
sense for new construction than for replacement. For some
products such as furnaces, it is often much less expensive to
install efficient products in new construction than in existing
homes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Indeed, some builders find installing higher efficiency
(condensing) furnaces (and power-vent water heaters) to be less
expensive than using lower efficiency products, since it avoids the
need for a conventional chimney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The second change allows states to offer options for
meeting their codes using above-federal-minimum covered
products as long as at least one option assumes covered
products at the level of federal standards, and that this
option is ``reasonably achievable using commercially available
technologies''. In other words, if a state set performance
requirements that were based in part on high efficiency
furnaces, they would have to provide an explicit pathway for
installing a minimum efficiency furnace, making up the lost
savings with other measures such as more insulation or improved
windows. This would enable states to establish a performance
standard that meets the needs of the state as long as they
provide a clear path for code compliance using covered products
that do not exceed federal-minimum efficiency standards.
Removing the Catch-22 from the State Waiver Petition Process
Under current law, federal standards preempt state standards,
unless a state submits and DOE approves an application for exemption
from preemption. Such application must demonstrate that ``such state
regulation is needed to meet unusual and compelling State or local
energy or water interests'' and that such regulation ``will not
significantly burden the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, sale
or servicing of the covered product on a national basis.'' The detailed
requirements for states to get waivers from federal preemption include
submittal of information that may be obtainable only from
manufacturers, who may oppose the waiver. The amendment would prevent
DOE from denying a state a waiver from preemption for failing to
provide information which manufacturers refuse to make available to the
state. The amendment would also limit DOE from denying waivers to
states for failing to explore every conceivable energy saving
alternative to standards or for not having a formal state energy plan.
States would still have to demonstrate that they meet the primary
determination factors, as summarized above, but the provision would
remove some secondary requirements that impose needless roadblocks on
state action. Even with these amendments, states would still have a
difficult case to make, but these amendments at least make it possible
to make the case.
DOE Collection of Key Data for Making Standards Decisions
The distribution of efficiency levels among products sold is a key
piece of information for establishing new standards; however, DOE has
sometimes failed to obtain such data in developing new rules. DOE
usually asks for such information, but manufacturers sometimes decline
to provide it. The amendment would require DOE to conduct a rulemaking
to determine what data manufacturers must submit, inclusive of
efficiency performance data, to enhance DOE decision making. Existing
law includes provisions to protect confidential data. Improved data
will help DOE's decision-making process for standards, and will also
aid other programs such as ENERGY STAR. For example, in the past few
weeks DOE posted data on ENERGY STAR product market share in 2007, but
noted: ``The validity of the clothes washer data for quarter one and
quarter three is questionable. It is expected that the incorrect coding
of previously qualified units for these two quarters resulted in a
higher than actual market share projection. The drop in refrigerator
market share in the fourth quarter is also due to data from one
retailer.''\14\ This data provision would help DOE to get accurate
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``2007 Sales Data_National, State and Regional'' available at:
http://www.energystar.gov/ index.cfm?c=manuf_res.pt_appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The proposed Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009 (ASIA)
builds on past bipartisan appliance standards bills and we support it.
The proposed portable lighting fixture standards will save enough
electricity to power 350,000 average American homes while providing
substantial flexibility to manufacturers and consumers. ASIA also
contains several useful reforms to the appliance standards and ENERGY
STAR programs.
While ASIA is a solid bill, we believe it can be improved by
incorporating:
Several technical amendments to the portable lighting
fixture standard as described in my testimony;
Technical amendments to the standards adopted in EISA that
are needed to correct drafting errors;
Adding new standards on outdoor lighting fixtures, based on
a proposal now being developed by Philips Lighting, ACEEE, and
other lighting manufacturers and energy efficiency groups;
Adding new standards on drinking water dispensers (water
coolers) and hot food holding cabinets that are based on ENERGY
STAR specifications and have been adopted in California,
Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, and
the District of Columbia;
Adding new standards on portable electric spas (hot tubs)
adopted in California, Connecticut, and Oregon; and
Adopting several improvements to the appliance standards
program proposed by Senator Menendez that:
--Direct DOE to consider standards on several types of reflector
lamps;
--Allow states to help enforce federal standards in federal courts
using federal procedures;
--Allow DOE to consider multiple standard metrics for products;
--Provide states more flexibility to develop performance-based
building codes;
--Simplify the process for states to obtain waivers from federal
preemption while keeping the main decision-criteria in
place; and
--Direct DOE to undertake a rulemaking to establish regular
reporting of data needed to support the standards, ENERGY
STAR and related programs.
These provisions would more than quadruple the energy savings
resulting from ASIA and would improve program implementation and
decision-making going forward. We are open to discussing all of these
suggestions with Committee members and their staff, and with
manufacturers and other interested parties, so that hopefully consensus
can be reached on modified versions of all of these provisions.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to
present these views.
Appendix: Specific Legislative Changes
Suggested Edits to Portable Lighting Fixture Standards in ASIA
p. 16, line 2: At the end, add: ``and an approved IES test
procedure for testing LED light engines.''
Explanation: LM-79 doesn't cover light engines. IES is now
developing a test procedure for light engines and this should
be used once finalized and approved.
p. 16, lines 16-18, reword to read as follows (edits underlined):
``(B) Be equipped with only 1 or more GU--24 line-voltage
sockets, not be rated for use with incandescent lamps of any
type, as defined in ANSI standards, and meet the requirements
of the ENERGY STAR program for Residential Light Fixtures,
Version 4.2.
EXCEPTION: GU-24 fixtures for LED lamps shall meet
the requirements of paragraph (C). in lieu of meeting
the requirements of the ENERGY STAR program for
Residential Light Fixtures, Version 4.2.
Explanation: GU-24 should meet the applicable ENERGY STAR
requirements, thereby keeping poor quality, inefficient lamps
and fixtures from U.S. market. To prevent confusion, fixtures
for LED lamps are covered by paragraph (C) and not by the more
limited LED requirements in the Residential Light Fixture spec.
p. 17, line 17: Change 4200K to 4000K.
Explanation: 4000K is a standard temperature to LEDs and the
IES test procedure provides enough flexibility that it doesn't
have to be exactly 4000K to pass. This change conforms to
classes in the IES standard.
Legislative Language for Water Dispensers, Hot Food Holding Cabinets
and Portable Electric Spas
Sec. 321 is amended by adding at the end the following:
(67) The term ``Water dispenser'' means a factory-made assembly
that mechanically cools and heats potable water and that dispenses the
cooled or heated water by integral or remote means.
(68) The term ``Bottle-type water dispenser'' means a water
dispenser that uses a bottle or reservoir as the source of potable
water.
(69) The term ``Point of use water dispenser'' means a water
dispenser that uses a building's water pipes as the source of potable
water.
(70) The term ``Commercial hot food holding cabinet'' means a
heated, fully-enclosed compartment with one or more solid or glass
doors that is designed to maintain the temperature of hot food that has
been cooked in a separate appliance. ``Commercial hot food holding
cabinet'' does not include heated glass merchandizing cabinets, drawer
warmers, or cook-and-hold appliances.
(71) The term ``Portable electric spa'' means a factory-built
electric spa or hot tub, supplied with equipment for heating and
circulating water.
Sec. 323 is amended by adding at the end the following:
(19) BOTTLE TYPE WATER DISPENSERS AND POINT OF USE WATER
DISPENSERS.--Test procedures for bottle type water dispenser and point
of use water dispensers shall be based on ``Energy Star Program
Requirements for Bottled Water Coolers version 1'' published by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Units with an integral, automatic
timer shall not be tested using Section D, ``Timer Usage,'' of the test
criteria.
(20) COMMERCIAL HOT FOOD HOLDING CABINETS.--Test procedures for
commercial hot food holding cabinets shall be based on the test
procedures described in ANSI/ASTM F2140-01 (Test for idle energy rate-
dry test). Interior volume shall be based on the method shown in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ``Energy Star Program
Requirements for Commercial Hot Food Holding Cabinets'' as in effect on
August 15, 2003.
(21) PORTABLE ELECTRIC SPAS.--Test procedures for portable electric
spas shall be based on the test method for portable electric spas
contained in section 1604, title 20, California Code of Regulations as
amended on December 3, 2008.
Sec. 325 is amended by adding after subsection (hh) the following:
(ii) BOTTLE TYPE WATER DISPENSERS AND POINT OF USE WATER
DISPENSERS.--
(1) STANDARDS.--Effective January 1, 2012, bottle-type water
dispensers and point of use water dispensers designed for
dispensing both hot and cold water shall not have standby
energy consumption greater than 1.2 kilowatt-hours per day.
(jj) COMMERCIAL HOT FOOD HOLDING CABINETS.--
(1) STANDARDS.--Effective January 1, 2012, commercial hot
food holding cabinets with interior volumes of 5 cubic feet or
greater shall have a maximum idle energy rate of 40 watts per
cubic foot of interior volume. Commercial hot food holding
cabinets with interior volumes of less than 5 [tentative] cubic
feet or less shall have a maximum idle energy rate of x Watts
[value still being discussed].
(kk) PORTABLE ELECTRIC SPAS.--
(1) STANDARDS.--Effective January 1, 2012, portable electric
spas shall not have a normalized standby power greater than
5(V2/3) Watts where V=the fill volume in gallons.
(ll) The Department of Energy shall consider revisions to the
standards in subsections (ii), (jj) and (kk) in accordance with
subsection (o) and publish a final rule no later than January 1, 2013
establishing such revised standards, or finding that no revisions are
technically feasible and economically justified. The revised standards
shall take effect January 1, 2016.
Sec. 327 subsection (c) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(10) is a regulation concerning standards for hot food holding
cabinets, drinking water dispensers and portable electric spas adopted
by the California Energy Commission on or before Jan. 1, 2013.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Upton.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD D. UPTON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN
LIGHTING ASSOCIATION, DALLAS, TX
Mr. Upton. Good morning. I'm Richard D. Upton, President of
the American Lighting Association. Our headquarters are in
Dallas, Texas.
The American Lighting Association is a vertically
structured association and we represent the residential
decorative lighting industry. Our membership includes the
designers, the manufacturers, the manufacturer's
representatives and the lighting independent showrooms in the
United States, Canada and the Caribbean. Our membership
includes--it sounds like a lot, but it's only 1,500 companies
because it's a small industry.
Attending the hearing are nine members of our association
including our chairman, Mr. Paul Eusterbrock. We're here to
join with the National Association of Electrical Manufacturers,
NEMA and ACEEE in endorsing this bill relative to the portable
fixtures. The first action to gain efficiency on portables
began in California last year.
As you may know the California Energy Commission has been
directed by their legislature to gain a 50 percent reduction in
residential lighting by 2018. Over the last several years
they've taken actions to meet their objectives. In 2008 one of
their focuses became portable lighting fixtures.
ALA advocates energy efficiency and the CEC working
together with others were successful in delivering a series of
recommendations to reduce energy consumption on portable
fixtures. It's not in my written testimony but the savings is
estimated by CEC to be 136 million kilowatt hours. Those
recommendations were adopted and for the most part have been
placed into this bill.
Because government advocates in the lighting industry were
able to develop and support an agreed upon set of requirements
for portable fixtures. We believe we gain a favorable buy in
from California consumers. Importantly get the buy in for
moving to energy efficient products.
The ALA, the ACEEE and NEMA have come together to recommend
these actions be implemented nationally. By doing so, the
country will benefit with an energy efficient program for
portables. Our industry will be able to design and manufacture
them based on a single set of efficiency specifications which
is very important to an industry that's made up of so many
small companies.
One of the most positive aspects of the bill is there are
several pathways for manufactures to follow that will provide
customers choices and options in energy efficient portable
lighting that they purchase which is especially important
because portable lighting purchases are significantly a
decorative purchase as well as a functional one. Those pathways
include.
A fluorescent light fixture that meets Energy Star 4.2
requirements.
A light fixture equipped only with a GU24 socket that is
not rated for incandescent lamps.
An LED fixture with a minimum of 200 lumens.
A minimum light engine efficacy of 40 lumens per watt
installed in fixtures with an efficacy of 29 lumens per watt or
alternatively a light engine efficacy of 60 lumens per watt for
fixtures that do not meet the 29 lumens per watt efficacy.
A minimum LED light fixture efficacy of 29 lumens per watt
and a minimum LED light engine efficacy of 60 lumens per watt
would be required by the language by 2016.
Fourth, a light fixture boxed with an Energy Star screw
base, compact fluorescent lamp or LED lamp for each socket that
are fully compatible with the fixture controls. In other words,
if the fixture calls to be dimmable, the bulbs must be dimmable
or three way. These options are also important in allowing
consumers to achieve the proper application of lighting which
is often overlooked.
We will note that the Secretary of the Department of Energy
is charged to review the regulations. Recommend changes that
may be needed. We believe those reviews are appropriate in the
timeframes recommended because expected changes in advancements
in the industry will need those changes.
We again would like to thank our partners in this effort,
NEMA and ACEEE, for working with us to bring this recommended
legislation to you which we think will be very successful
simply because everybody has gotten together on the same page.
When that happens then we don't have confused consumers. Thank
you very much for the opportunity to address you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard D. Upton, President and CEO, American
Lighting Association, Dallas, TX
My name is Richard D. Upton, and I am the President/CEO of the
American Lighting Association (ALA).
The ALA is vertically structured and represents the residential
decorative lighting industry. Our membership includes the designers,
manufacturers, manufacturers' sales representatives and independent
retail lighting showrooms that manufacture and sell lighting, lighting
controls and ceiling fan products in the United States, Canada and the
Caribbean. Our membership includes 1,500 business members. Our office
is located in Dallas, Texas.
Attending the hearing are nine members of our association,
including Mr. Paul Eusterbrock, the chairman of our association's Board
of Governors.
We are here to join with the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE) to speak in favor of the Bill and to respectfully
encourage you to pass it.
The first action to gain energy efficiency in portable fixtures
began at the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 2008.
The CEC has been directed by the California Legislature to reduce
the energy consumption of indoor residential lighting by 50 percent by
2018. Over the last several years, they have taken actions to meet
their objective, and in 2008, one of their focuses was on portable
lighting fixtures. The ALA, advocates of energy efficiency, the CEC
staff and others worked together successfully over several months and
delivered a series of recommendations to reduce the energy consumption
of portable fixtures.
Those recommendations were adopted by the CEC and, for the most
part, have been incorporated into this proposed Bill.
Because government, advocates and the lighting industry were able
to develop and support an agreed upon set of requirements for portable
fixtures, we believe we will gain a favorable buy-in by California
consumers, leading to an effective market transformation.
The ALA, the ACEEE and NEMA have come together to recommend that
the favorable actions taken by the CEC be implemented nationally. By
doing so, the country will benefit with an effective energy efficient
program for portable fixtures, and our industry will be able to design
and manufacture them based on a single set of energy efficiency
specifications.
The latter is very important to portable lighting manufacturers.
This segment of the industry is made up of many very small companies,
and they cannot be successful if they are faced with multiple rules,
regulations and reporting requirements by various states.
One of the most positive aspects of the Bill is that there are
several pathways manufacturers can follow that will provide consumers
choices and options in the energy-efficient portable lighting they
purchase. We believe this is especially important because portable
lighting is, to a large extent, a decorative purchase.
Portable fixture pathways include:
1. A fluorescent light fixture that meets ENERGY STAR 4.2
requirements
2. A light fixture equipped with only GU-24 sockets, not
rated for incandescent lamps
3. An LED light fixture with:
A minimum of 200 lumens
A minimum light engine efficacy of 40 lumens per
watt installed in fixtures with an efficacy of 29 lumens per
watt or, alternatively, a light engine efficacy of 60 lumens
per watt for fixtures that do not have an efficacy of 29 lumens
per watt
A minimum LED light fixture efficacy of 29 lumens
per watt and a minimum LED light engine efficacy of 60 lumens
per watt by January 1, 2016.
4. A light fixture boxed with ENERGY STAR screw-based compact
fluorescent lamps (CFLs) or LED lamps for each socket that are
fully compatible with fixture controls (i.e. dimmable, three-
way, etc.)
5. A light fixture with single-ended non-screw-based halogen
lamp sockets with a dimmer or low control and limited to 100
watts
These options are also important in allowing the consumer to
achieve the proper application of lighting in their home.
We note the Secretary of the Department of Energy is charged to
review the regulations and recommend changes that may be needed. We
believe those reviews are appropriate, in the time frames outlined,
because of expected changes and advancements in the industry.
We again want to thank NEMA and the ACEEE for working cooperatively
with us so we can bring you our collective endorsement of this Bill.
Thank you for receiving our comments.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Pitsor.
STATEMENT OF KYLE PITSOR, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ROSSLYN, VA
Mr. Pitsor. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Murkowski, members of the committee. On behalf of the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association I'm Kyle Pitsor, Vice
President for Government Relations. NEMA is the trade
association for the electrical and medical imaging equipment
manufacturing industry. Our approximately 430 member companies
manufacture a broad range of products including smart grid
technologies, energy storage and batteries, electric motors,
transformers, light bulbs, indoor and outdoor lighting
fixtures, thermostats, exit signs, circuit breakers, wire and
cable and medical imaging products with domestic sales
exceeding $100 billion and employing about 400,000 U.S. jobs.
I'm pleased to be here today to present our association's
views on the Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009. NEMA
members are at the very heart of our national effort to reduce
energy use through the research, development, manufacturing and
deployment of energy efficient products and technologies.
Advancing energy efficiency in our economy comes about through
a mix of policy approaches, building codes, product standards,
consumer education, labeling of products, voluntary programs
like Energy Star, government procurement and energy tax
incentives.
NEMA urges the committee to support inclusion of the
provisions to improve the operation and efficacy of a robust
national appliance standards program and a strong Energy Star
program. These two programs work hand in hand to advance the
use of energy efficient products and technologies. It is
important that operational coordination occur between the two
programs.
We offer the following recommendations with respect to the
legislation.
NEMA supports the use of recognized test procedures and
requirements that a petition to amend current test procedures
needs to contain substantive information on why the current
procedure needs to be amended so as to prevent frivolous or
general petitions lacking substantiation.
Second, NEMA supports a direct final rule approach as
provided in the legislation for broad consensus petitions to
amend test procedures for covered products. Such petitions must
have the broad support of manufacturers, utilities, advocates
and other stakeholders.
Third, the Energy Star program should regularly be reviewed
for the qualification requirements. In a cost effective manner
ensure that the Energy Star labeled products are able to
demonstrate compliance with applicable Energy Star
requirements. A one size fits all approach does not work for
the over 50 Energy Star product categories. The agencies need
to have flexibility in consultation with manufacturers and
others in arriving at the appropriate compliance verification
approach for that product.
Based on marketing and stakeholder confusion due to
competing and differing Energy Star programs for solid state
lighting by the two agencies, NEMA and the American Lighting
Association do support consolidating the Energy Star lighting
activities under one agency at the Department of Energy due to
its expertise in solid state lighting and lighting technologies
generally. For over 2 years industry and others have been
seeking the agencies to work out competing activities. But
without success including the intervention of the White House
Council Environmental Quality, I might add.
Companies are investing in making decisions on new LED
lighting. With conflicting Energy Star programs will impede
introduction and acceptance of this developing lighting
technology. NEMA is pleased to support in joining the
establishment of new Federal efficiency standards for portable
lighting fixtures such as table lamps and floor lamps as
testified earlier today.
NEMA believes that the study on compliance and enforcement
in the bill should contain recommendations for improving
enforcement. We also recommend that the General Accountability
Office conduct the study in consultation with DOE. We are
seeing some non compliance products come in from overseas. The
study will provide Congress with recommendations on what
changes may be needed to improve enforcement.
Industrial electric motor driven systems use 23 percent of
all electrical energy produced. There are significant
opportunities at reducing those costs. We support the provision
in the bill for DOE to conduct an assessment of the market and
provide recommendations to improve the deployment of energy
efficient motor systems.
We are also, Mr. Chairman, working with the American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and others on a
proposal for a utility administered motor rebate program to buy
down the cost of premium efficient motors to purchasers. We
look forward to providing recommendations and authorization
language for the committee to consider in this legislation. As
Congress adds more responsibilities and deadlines to both DOE
and EPA Congress needs to provide sufficient resources so these
agencies can complete their missions.
Since the outset of this program in 1975 a fundamental
tenant of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is the
significant and outstanding principle of Federal preemption for
overseeing Federal efficiency standards. Exceptions to Federal
preemption were intentionally narrowed to avoid a patchwork of
differing State requirements. NEMA urges Congress not to weaken
this fundamental tenant going forward.
NEMA also recommends the inclusion, as Mr. Nadel noted of a
technical corrections package for EISA legislation that has
come to light since it was introduced.
Last, Mr. Chairman not included in my written statement.
Just looking forward I think one of the things we need to be
thinking about with respect to the Appliance Standards program
and the Energy Star program is how those programs in energy
efficiency in general are going to play out as we implement and
develop a smart grid because the smart grid also impacts demand
response in the home, at work and in businesses. Those
communication protocols with dimming, smart sensors on motors,
smart appliances will have an impact on the energy efficiency
standards both administered by DOE and with respect to Energy
Star products.
So looking forward I think we need to take that into
consideration how we structure the program so we don't have
silos of these different programs. These programs are
coordinated closely together. That completes my testimony. I
welcome questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitsor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kyle Pitsor, Vice President, Government
Relations, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
Committee: On behalf of the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA), I am Kyle Pitsor, Vice President for Government
Relations. NEMA is the trade association of choice for the electrical
and medical imaging equipment manufacturing industry. Our approximately
430 member companies manufacture products used in the generation,
transmission and distribution, control, and end-use of electricity, and
represent about 400,000 jobs. These products are used in utility,
medical imaging, industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential
applications. Domestic production of electrical products sold worldwide
exceeds $120 billion.
I am pleased to be here today to present our Association's views on
the importance and role of the national energy efficiency standards
program and the Energy Star voluntary program, and to offer our
comments on the ``Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009.''
I would like to note that our member companies strongly support
advancing energy efficiency in the marketplace. NEMA members and their
employees are at the very heart of our national effort to reduce energy
use through the research, development, manufacturing, and deployment of
energy-efficient products and technologies. Many energy efficient
technologies exist, and what we all must strive for is wider
recognition, deployment, and use of today's state-of-the-art products
and technologies, and support for emerging technologies.
Advancing energy efficiency in our economy through greater
deployment and use of energy efficient technology comes about through a
mix of policy approaches: building codes, product standards, consumer
education, labeling of products, voluntary programs like Energy Star,
government procurement, and energy tax incentives.
NEMA supports a robust national energy conservation standards
program under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as
amended. We believe that a strong national program of standards, test
procedures and labeling/information disclosure is critical to
effectively maximize energy savings for the Nation and the consuming
public. Products are manufactured and distributed on a national (and
sometimes global) basis, and it is key that energy conservation
regulation for products occur at the federal level.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide our comment on the
legislation and have organized our testimony based on the bill's
sections. We also offer comment on several other topics following our
section-by-section comments which we hope will be considered as the
legislation moves forward.
section 2: test procedure petition process
The establishment of energy efficiency standards for federally-
covered products and equipment is predicated on the use of recognized
and established consensus test procedures. Without agreed upon test
procedures, it would be impossible to compare efficiency claims among
products. The current program is based on incorporation of relevant
test procedures within the regulatory program under EPCA.
Once the Department of Energy (DOE), or in come cases Congress,
establishes the test procedure for a regulated product, it is important
that the test procedure be evaluated as time passes to ensure that it
stays current with the energy efficiency levels mandated for the
product. When DOE undertakes reviews of the efficiency standard for a
product, it also undertakes a review of the applicability of the test
procedure and whether it needs to be changed or not.
We note that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA
2007) amended EPCA to require DOE to review test procedures for all
covered consumer appliances and industrial equipment at least once
every 7 years and to amend test procedures for any such product if DOE
determined that the amended procedure would more accurately or fully
comply with the EPCA requirement to be
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, water use . . ., or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered product during a
representative average use cycle or period of use . . ., and
shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
The EISA 2007 amendment also directed DOE to publish notice in the
Federal Register of any determination not to amend a test procedure.
The proposed legislation would permit DOE to consider amending a
test procedure as a result of petition, conduct a public rulemaking to
determine if the test procedure should be amended or not, and set
deadlines. It should be noted that the granting of the petition does
not establish a presumption that the test procedure should be amended,
only that DOE must undertake a rulemaking to make a decision on what
changes to the procedure are warranted, if any, and to publish such a
determination. In addition, for industrial equipment, the legislation
would require DOE to conduct a test procedure rulemaking at a minimum
of once every seven (7) years on a mandated basis.
NEMA supports the need to keep test procedures current based on the
use of recognized and established consensus test procedures. Petitions
under the proposed legislative changes need to include detailed
information on why a current procedure should be amended, otherwise we
fear that very general petitions could be filed that would tie up DOE
resources unnecessarily and be counterproductive to the administration
of the appliance standards program.
Section 2 also permits the DOE to adopt a ``consensus'' petition to
amend a test procedure on an expedited basis per changes made in EISA
2007 applicable to ``consensus'' petitioning to amend efficiency
requirements. NEMA supported the changes to EISA 2007 for an expedited
process via a direct final rule for new efficiency standards where
there exists a broad consensus of stakeholders (including
representatives of manufacturers, efficiency advocates, states,
utilities, etc.). It is critical that such ``consensus'' petitions have
broad support, and if they do, then considerable resources can be saved
by the government and the private sector in a direct final rule. With
respect to the current legislative proposal to extend this same
approach to test procedures, NEMA supports the proposed change.
section 3: energy star program
Since they help direct consumers to the leading edge and highest
performing products and buildings in terms of energy efficiency and
consumer satisfaction, the voluntary Energy Star market transformation
programs must also undergo periodic review and updating to ensure they
are meeting their mandate from Congress in the Energy Policy Action of
2005 (EPACT 2005) to
identify and promote energy-efficient products and buildings
in order to reduce energy consumption, improve energy security,
and reduce pollution through voluntary labeling of, or other
forms of communication about, products and buildings that meet
the highest energy conservation standards.
In Section 131 of EPACT 2005, Congress specifically authorized the
Energy Star program within the Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Further, Congress specified certain duties of
the agencies including to preserve the integrity of the Energy Star
label, to regularly update Energy Star product criteria, to solicit
comments from interested parties prior to establishing or revising an
Energy Star product category or specification, to provide a reasonable
notice of any changes along with an explanation of the changes, and to
provide an appropriate lead time (270 days) prior to the effective date
of applicable changes.
The legislation under consideration today further elaborates on the
duties of the two agencies charged with administering the Energy Star
program. We endorse the provisions encouraging measures to verify that
Energy Star labeled products can demonstrate compliance with the
program criteria and find that the approach taken in the legislation is
properly balanced to ensure protection of the Energy Star brand and
consumer interests while minimizing additional burdens on
manufacturers. We stress the importance of providing flexibility to the
agencies in determining the appropriate, if any, method by which
compliance is demonstrated to Energy Star criteria by qualified
products. Given the over 50 product categories in the Energy Star
program, one scheme of verification of compliance is not appropriate
for all products, and we are encouraged that the legislation as drafted
allows for consideration of different approaches based on the product
category in question. The determination of the appropriate approach
must be conducted in an open and transparent manner by the respective
agency in consultation with interested parties including manufacturers.
We also support the application of a cost/benefit analysis provided for
in the draft legislation.
The draft legislation also establishes timetables for when the
agency should undertake a review of the product criteria and
specification. Each product category would be reviewed at least once
every three (3) years or when the market share for an Energy Star
category reaches thirty-five (35) percent. The market share trigger
would be adjusted during the first review to take into account
technology and market attributes for that specific product. We believe
it is important for the respective agency to undertake periodic reviews
of the specification, and we note that just because the market share of
a particular product exceeds 35 percent it does not automatically mean
that the specification is somehow out-of-date, since that determination
is technology-specific for a product category. Indeed, what we are
striving for is greater penetration of Energy Star products in the
market place so one measure of success is higher market share of Energy
Star products as compared to lower efficiency products. For example, in
the case of Energy Star Compact Fluorescent Lamps, Energy Star CFLs
comprise over 70 percent of the CFL products but CFLs represent only 25
percent of the general lighting market, which is the target of the
transformation effort.
We also strongly endorse the requirement set out in this section
for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to
renew and update their 1996 Energy Star memorandum of cooperation. As
specified in the legislation, the updated agreement should be based on
resources and expertise available within each agency, as well as on
other factors, provide for mechanisms to resolve disagreements between
them, and include structures for regular consultations, planning
sessions and program reviews.
This brings me to our lighting industry's ongoing concerns and
market confusion engendered by competing Energy Star programs within
the Environmental Protection Agency and the DOE that address solid
state lighting (SSL) technologies. SSL technologies like LED (light-
emitted diode) lighting represents a major paradigm shift from
conventional lighting, and portends significant energy savings, if we
do it right.
As you may recall, Congress recognized the importance of SSL when
it created Section 912 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005)
and authorized annually $50 million thru 2013. Section 912 directed the
DOE to create a Next Generation Lighting Initiative ``to support
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application
activities related to advanced solid-state lighting technologies based
on white light emitting diodes.'' NEMA is the secretariat of the Next
Generation Lighting Industry Alliance, selected by DOE as its industry
partner in this effort. NEMA and NGLIA member companies are deeply
involved in the private-sector committees that are writing rigorous
performance and testing standards for this technology area. Since the
initial NGLI program plan was developed, an Energy Star program for
solid state lighting has been one of the goals of the commercialization
activity.
In 2006, DOE began consultations with the lighting industry about
possible requirements for an Energy Star program for solid-state
lighting products. After many rounds of drafts, meetings and comments
from the lighting industry and other stakeholders, Version 1.0 of the
requirements were finalized in March 2008, and took effect September
2008. DOE has also undertaken review of these specifications with a
view to adding additional application categories in light of the
dynamic changes taking place with SSL.
During this process, I have personally written to both EPA and DOE
on behalf of our industry several times to encourage the agencies to
work together to resolve any disagreements and cease any redundant
activities standing in the way of support for research, development,
standardization, commercialization and consumer adoption of quality
solid state lighting products. However, in June 2008, with apparently
no coordination with DOE, EPA's Energy Star program for residential
light fixtures began to allow qualification of fixtures that use solid
state lighting as the primary source of illumination. As you might
imagine, this caused some confusion and consternation in the
marketplace, and among lighting manufacturers, market transformation
organizations, and utilities. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric, a
major California electric utility, stated openly that it would not
recognize the EPA requirements.
We raised our concerns about two competing and confusing
specifications to both agencies, and also to the White House Council on
Environmental Quality and we understood that the two agencies were
directed to work out a way to cooperate in this important area, but
each agency has seemingly continued to pursue its own path.
Given the significant investments that companies are making in SSL
technologies, we cannot afford market confusion and competing
government programs. Accordingly, NEMA and American Lighting
Association (ALA) recommend that Energy Star programs involving solid
state lighting be under the jurisdiction of one agency, the Department
of Energy. DOE has a solid expertise in SSL and it very familiar with
lighting technologies and products.
section 4: petition for amended standards
The proposed legislation would establish deadlines for DOE action
with respect to petitions to amend the efficiency requirements for
products and equipment. This petition process would be in addition to
the DOE process for considering updates to the efficiency standards. We
note that the petition needs to contain detailed information on why the
efficiency standards need to be revised, and that the granting of the
petition does not presume that an amended efficiency standard is
warranted, only that DOE will undertake a rulemaking to make a decision
on amending the standards. In considering the petition proposed in the
legislation, DOE should be able to take into consideration the review
cycle for that particular product/equipment. Ramping up the necessary
analysis and consultations with stakeholders is costly and DOE will
need to have flexibility to make programmatic adjustments. NEMA
supports appropriate deadlines for DOE to respond to petitions, taking
into account these issues.
section 5 and 6: portable light fixtures and gu-24 base lamps
Portable light fixtures, such as table lamps, are presently not a
federally-covered product. The legislation proposes to establish for
the first time federal efficiency requirements and test procedures for
portable light fixtures. This proposal is based in part on language
adopted by the California Energy Commission during its Title 20
rulemaking in 2008. NEMA participated in that rulemaking with respect
to lighting products since we represent the manufacturers of light
bulbs, including LED replacement bulbs, and we coordinated with the
American Lighting Association (ALA), which represents manufacturers of
the portable light fixtures themselves. NEMA supports the establishment
of portable light fixture efficiency standards and test procedures
under EPCA.
section 7: study of compliance with energy standards for appliances
NEMA strongly supports the need for a study of the appliance
standards program and the level of compliance and enforcement of
efficiency standards. Our industry has invested heavily in the federal
program of efficiency standards, test procedures and product labeling,
and are concerned about the levels of imported products that are not in
compliance with federal requirements for certain federally-covered
products. The study will be valuable in making recommendations on how
our enforcement regime should be structured in light of today's global
competitive environment.
We also suggest that the General Accountability Office (GAO), in
coordination with the Department of Energy, conduct the study of
compliance, compliance options, and enforcement.
section 8: study of direct current electricity supply in certain
buildings
The potential energy savings from the implementation of a DC
electricity supply for individual buildings could be significant on the
basis of elimination of the multitude of individual power supplies used
for various information technology, audio-visual and other devices. Use
of a centralized DC electricity supply would require major investment
in new wiring devices (to prevent misconnection with existing systems),
installers would need to establish new practices, and rules for safe
use would need to be developed. The most practical use would be for new
construction or major renovation, as separation of these circuits from
the installed alternating current wiring must be maintained. A study
would be highly beneficial to identify the key considerations and
limitations for implementation of direct current electricity supply.
section 9: electric motor-driven systems assessment
Section 9 of this legislation is a requirement for the Department
of Energy to conduct a motor market assessment and commercial awareness
program. NEMA represents all of the major electric motor manufacturers.
Electric motors convert 65-70% of the electrical energy used in
commercial and industrial applications such as drive pumps, fans,
compressors, material handling. The objectives of the Market Assessment
are to develop a detailed profile of the current stock of motor-driven
equipment in U.S. and survey how the installed base of industrial
horsepower motors is broken down. This updated assessment will support
future legislative, regulatory, and voluntary programs aimed at
increased motor systems energy efficiency. Other items this study will
accomplish are: characterize and estimate the magnitude of
opportunities to improve the energy efficiency of industrial motor
systems; survey how many systems use drives, servos and other higher
technologies; how many systems use process control, by application
category, pump, compressor, fan/blower, material handling. Furthermore,
it will develop an updated profile of current motor system purchase and
maintenance practices; how many companies have motor purchase and
repair specifications, including company size, number of employees. And
finally, it will develop methods to estimate the energy savings and
market effects attributable to the DOE's Save Energy Now Program.
In addition to serving DOE's program planning and evaluation needs,
the market assessment is designed to be of value to manufacturers,
distributors, engineers, and others in the supply channels for motor
systems. It would provide a detailed and highly differentiated portrait
of their end-use markets. For factory managers, this study presents
information they can use to identify motor system energy savings
opportunities in their own facilities, and to benchmark their current
motor system purchase and management procedures against concepts of
best practice.
outdoor lighting efficiency standards
As I noted at the beginning of my testimony, NEMA members have been
actively engaged and has a proven track record in supporting public
policies that transform the U.S. market to more energy-efficient
lighting, both at home and in the workplace.
One area that we believe is now ripe for the establishment of
national energy-efficiency standards is outdoor lighting. Outdoor
lighting consumes over 178 TWh according to Navigant Consulting (data
from 2007), the equivalent output of about 17 nuclear plants (1200 MW)
or 34 coal-burning plants. We believe that federal efficiency standards
should cover new street, roadway, parking and area lot applications,
including major renovations. New federal standards, together with
lighting controls, where appropriate, would drive the deployment of
today's commercially available energy-efficient products and as well as
new advanced solid-state lighting technologies, with the benefit of
lowering energy bills and providing users with good quality lighting.
We hope that a proposal to establish federal efficiency standards for
outdoor lighting can be added to this legislation.
federal preemption
A fundamental tenet of the Energy Policy Conservation Act, as
amended, is the significant and longstanding principle of federal
preemption for overseeing energy efficiency standards. The twin
cornerstones of the ``comprehensive national energy policy'' enacted by
Congress in 1975 to implement EPCA (S. Conf. Rep. No. 94-516 at 116
(1975)) are:
1. The establishment of national standards for energy
efficiency, testing and information disclosure for ``covered
products,'' and
2. Express Federal preemption of State laws and regulations
respecting energy efficiency standards, testing, and
information disclosure for those covered products.
The exceptions to Federal preemption were intentionally narrow: (a)
State petitions for waivers required that States show there were
``unusual and compelling State and local interests'' that were
``substantially different in nature and magnitude from those of the
Nation generally,'' so that achieving the waiver would be difficult;
(b) State procurement standards would be permitted; (c) and a narrowly
drawn exception for State and local building codes that must meet seven
requirements. NEMA supports the current federal and state preemption
provisions.
NEMA supports a robust federal program set forth by Congress. For
many federallycovered products, standards have been established by
Congress in the various acts; in the case of other covered products,
Congress has delegated to the Department of Energy and the Federal
Trade Commission the authority to determine uniform national standards
and policy. EPCA also provides for certain remedies where DOE misses
statutory deadlines by permitting any person to commence a civil action
against DOE where there is an alleged failure by DOE to perform any
non-discretionary act or duty under EPCA. 42 USC '6305(a). EPCA
requires the courts to expedite the disposition of such civil actions.
Persons also have the right to petition DOE to commence a rulemaking to
enact or amend a rule.
I mention these matters because as Congress considers improvements
to the federal program, we need to ensure that resources are provided
so that the agencies charged with administering the program are able to
do so. In the past, some have proposed weakening pre-emption because of
missed deadlines, which ends up penalizing the manufacturers for
government's lapse.
technical corrections to eisa
Mr. Chairman, since the passage of the Energy Independence and
Securities Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), several items have been identified
that warrant ``technical correction'' to address implementation issues
and obtain clarification. Over the past 15 months, since the passage of
EISA, NEMA has been working closely with various stakeholders, several
of which are testifying today, in obtaining a consensus agreement on a
technical corrections bill. We have agreed on a package of non-
controversial corrections and we urge consideration of inclusion of a
technical corrections package as part of the Appliance Standards
Improvement Act of 2009.
conclusion
In conclusion, NEMA urges the Committee to support inclusion of
provisions to improve the operation and efficacy of the Appliance
Standards Program and the Energy Star Program. These two programs work
hand-in-hand to advance the use of energy efficient products and
technologies, and it is important that operational coordination between
the two programs occur. NEMA members are committed to advancing the use
and deployment of energy efficient technologies, and offer the
following recommendations:
1. NEMA supports use of recognized test procedures and that a
petition to amend a current test procedure needs to contain
detailed information on why current test procedure needs to be
amended in order to prevent general petitions lacking
substantiation.
2. NEMA supports a direct final rule approach for broad
``consensus'' petitions to amend test procedures for covered
products and equipment.
3. Energy Star programs should regularly review their
qualification requirements and, in a cost-effective manner,
ensure that Energy Star labeled products are able to
demonstrate compliance with applicable Energy Star
requirements.
4. Based on market and stakeholder confusion due to competing
Energy Star specifications and programs for solid state
lighting, we support consolidating Energy Star solid state
lighting activities in one agency, the Department of Energy.
5. Support the establishment of federal energy efficiency
standards and test procedures for portable lighting fixtures.
6. The study on compliance and enforcement of the appliance
standard program should contain recommendations for improving
enforcement and we recommend that the General Accountability
Office conduct the study in consultation with DOE.
7. NEMA supports the Motor Assessment study and the study on
benefits and costs of Direct Current supply in certain
buildings.
8. We support inclusion of a negotiated consensus proposal on
energy efficient standards for outdoor lighting in the
legislation.
9. Congress needs to provide sufficient resources for the
national standards program and support for federal-preemption.
10. Recommend inclusion of an ``EISA 2007 Technical
Corrections'' package as part of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the
Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide these
remarks and recommendations to the Committee today on behalf of our
industry.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Connelly.
STATEMENT OF MARK CONNELLY, SENIOR DIRECTOR, APPLIANCE & HOME
IMPROVEMENT, CONSUMERS UNION, YONKERS, NY
Mr. Connelly. Good morning, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking
Member Murkowski and distinguished members of this committee. I
am Mark Connelly, Senior Director of Appliance and Home
Improvement for Consumers Union publisher of Consumer Reports.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to address this
committee regarding legislation to improve appliance standards.
An issue that is not only critical for our energy security, but
important to consumer's pocketbooks.
Consumer Union has been publishing our test results and
informing consumers for more than 70 years, currently reaching
approximately eight million subscribers through our print and
online publications. I now run the appliance testing program
for Consumer Reports. Have worked in appliance testing
laboratories for more than 20 years.
The Energy Star program has been successful in raising
consumer's awareness of energy efficiency as an important
consideration in purchasing decisions. But Energy Star needs to
keep up with the changing marketplace in order to stay
relevant. As successful as the Energy Star program has been it
is in need of serious improvement, especially for appliances.
As we noted in the October 2008 issue of Consumer Reports
while the program saves energy, it has not kept up with the
times. We would like to focus on three main areas we believe
Congress can improve Energy Star.
One, keep test procedures relevant to a changing
marketplace.
Two, provide rigor and better enforcement than current self
certification procedures.
Three, tighten up qualifying standards.
The first issue is that test procedures are out of date.
Appliances are constantly changing. They aren't the simple
white boxes that they used to be. But Federal test procedures
haven't kept pace with the new technology and new products in
the marketplace.
As an example the test procedure that DOE and Energy Star
use today to measure refrigerator electricity consumption and
energy efficiency was developed about 20 years ago. At that
time refrigerators such as French door, bottom freezers with
through the door ice and water dispensers did not exist. The
procedure for testing bottom freezers with through the door ice
and water dispenser allowed for the ice maker to be turned off.
This is not the way consumers would use this product. It
artificially improves the apparent efficiency of this type of
refrigerator. If consumers were to use these refrigerators as
they were tested and rated they would have a puddle of water on
their kitchen floor from all the melting ice.
Although not the intent of this program unfortunately some
manufacturers took advantage of the situation and sold products
with an undeserved Energy Star. To their credit, DOE took care
of this. But it was a patch and not a long term solution.
A similar situation existed a number of years ago with
dishwashers. These have dirt sensors that adjust water
consumption based on soil load. Yet the test procedure used
clean dishes.
The result was that the energy efficiency of dirt sensing
dishwashers was apparently much better than what a consumer who
washes only dirty dishes would realize. It took us a number of
years. But we finally convinced DOE to change its test
procedure to use dirty dishes in their tests.
Other appliances are also changing. Washing machines have
steam and allergy removal cycles that are ignored in current
test procedures. Also ignored in current test procedures are
dryers, some cooking appliances, wine refrigerators and compact
refrigerators among others.
One of the reasons that test standards are so outdated is
that it usually takes DOE at least 3 years to publish new
rules, a period that includes comments from manufacturers and
consumer groups, such as mine. It then usually takes another 3
years for the updated requirements to take effect. Meanwhile
new features and new technologies keep appearing in appliances
and the only thing that remains constant is that the test
procedures are out of date. It is important that the DOE and
Energy Star program keep up with the changing marketplace.
The second issue we'd like to focus on is that companies
test their own products. The DOE does not test products for
compliance with its standard. Some manufacturers do. Sometimes
the consumer organizations like Consumer Reports will test
claims in performance.
But in general there's little independent verification of
manufacturer's self reported claims. In addition to
refrigerators when we tested some products like dehumidifiers
and room air conditioners. We found electricity consumption
results to be significantly higher than those self reported by
one manufacturer.
While some may think that the Energy Star products not
meeting qualification standards will be reported to the EPA by
rivals. There is scant evidence that self policing is
occurring. Mergers within the appliance industry where one
manufacturer can account for significant market share in a
product category further cut down on the number of cops.
We recommend that EPA and DOE establish a marketplace
surveillance program to sample and independently verify the
energy efficiency claims made by manufacturers. If this
sampling finds widespread problems, we recommend a more
thorough, marketplace wide testing to be conducted by EPA or
DOE.
Finally we think that qualifying standards are lax.
Consumers Union agrees with the EPA's own guidelines that about
25 percent of products in any one category should qualify for
an Energy Star. But with dishwashers for example, Energy Star
qualified products recently represented more than 90 percent of
all dishwashers on the market. With a tighter standard that
share has dropped. But it's still about 50 percent.
Certainly when that many products qualify for Energy Star,
the value of the star decreases. Congress needs to raise the
bar on Energy Star. We agree with the approach in this
legislation which requires that once Energy Star designation
exceeds 35 percent of a product category, there will be a
rulemaking to raise the standard.
We appreciate this opportunity to testify on this
significant consumer issue. Look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connelly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Connelly, Senior Director, Appliance & Home
Improvement, Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY
Good morning Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and
distinguished members of this Committee. I am Mark Connelly, Senior
Director of Appliance & Home Improvement for Consumers Union, publisher
of Consumer Reports. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to
address this Committee regarding legislation to improve appliance
standards (S. 598, the Appliance Standards Improvement Act), an issue
that is not only critical for our energy security, but important to
consumers' pocketbooks.
For the past 30 years I have focused my career on product
performance testing for manufacturers as well as for consumers. I have
worked in and managed testing laboratories that assessed a wide range
of products. Consumers Union has been publishing our test results and
informing consumers for more than 70 years, currently reaching
approximately 8 million subscribers through our print and online
products. I now run the appliance testing program for Consumer Reports,
and have worked in appliance testing laboratories for more than 20
years. My background gives me a unique perspective for understanding
product testing in a competitive marketplace and the critical
importance of how best to inform consumers about those test results.
The Energy Star program has been successful in raising consumers'
awareness of energy efficiency as an important consideration in
purchasing decisions, but Energy Star needs to keep up with a changing
marketplace in order to stay relevant. Today, more than 70% of U.S.
consumers are aware of the Energy Star logo. For many, the presence of
an Energy Star makes a very complicated decision a simple yes or no.
Consumer demand for Energy Star-labeled appliances and electronics
has prompted manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their products.
Energy Star has also helped to raise efficiency standards, making
products such as washing machines much more efficient than those sold
10 years ago. As you know, the 17 year old program co-administered by
the EPA and DOE covers more than 50 product categories. It is a
voluntary standard that many manufacturers choose to pursue.
As successful as the Energy Star program has been, it is in need of
some serious improvement. As we noted in the October 2008 issue of
Consumer Reports, while the program saves energy, it has not kept up
with the times.
We appreciate this Committee's leadership in introducing S. 598,
the Appliance Standards Improvement Act, and would like to focus on
three main areas where this legislation can improve the Energy Star
program, and offer suggestions to help strengthen them: keep test
procedures relevant to a changing marketplace, provide rigor and better
enforcement than current self-certification procedures, and tighten up
qualifying standards.
1. test procedures are out of date
Appliances are constantly changing. They aren't the simple white
boxes that they used to be. But Federal test procedures haven't kept
pace with new technology and new products in the marketplace. As an
example, the test procedure that DOE and Energy Star use today to
measure refrigerator electricity consumption and energy efficiency was
developed 20 years ago. At that time, some refrigerators had to be
manually defrosted, didn't have adjustable shelves, temperature-
controlled drawers, water filters, or electronic controls of any kind.
Refrigerators now have multiple compartments that thaw meat, convert
from a refrigerator to a freezer, have computer monitors on their
doors, and have sophisticated software programs to control temperature,
humidity, defrost cycles, etc.
Refrigerator manufacturers recently introduced French-door, bottom-
freezers with through the door ice-and-water dispensers. With that
feature, bottom freezer sales took off and bottom freezer sales have
gone from 10% of the refrigerator market to more than 30%. But, the
procedure for testing bottom freezers with through-the-door ice and
water dispensers allowed for the ice maker to be turned off. This is
not the way consumers would use this product and artificially improves
the apparent efficiency of this type of refrigerator. If consumers were
to use these refrigerators as they were tested and rated, they would
have a puddle of water on their kitchen floor from all the melting ice.
Although not the intent of this program, unfortunately, some
manufacturers took advantage of this situation and sold products with
an undeserved Energy Star.
A similar situation existed a number of years ago with dishwashers.
These have dirt sensors that adjust water consumption based on soil
load, yet the test procedure used clean dishes. The result was that the
energy efficiency of dirt-sensing dishwashers was apparently much
better than what a consumer, who washes only dirty dishes, would
realize. It took us a number of years, but we finally convinced DOE to
change its test procedures to use dirty dishes in their tests.
Other appliances are also changing. Washing machines have steam-and
allergen-removal cycles that are ignored in current test procedures.
Also ignored by current test procedures are cooking appliances, wine
refrigerators, and compact refrigerators.
One of the reasons that the test standards tend to be outdated is
that it usually takes the agencies at least three years to publish new
rules--a period that includes comments from manufacturers and consumer
groups such as Consumers Union. It then can take another three years
for the updated requirements to take effect. Meanwhile, new features
and new technologies keep appearing in appliances and the only thing
that remains constant is that the test procedures are out-of-date.
It is also important that the Energy Star program keep up with the
changing marketplace; we are pleased that EPA extended Energy Star to
certain TVs last Fall, though it is not clear to us that the TVs are
being tested as they would normally be used. We look forward to working
with the agency to keep the protocols as relevant as possible.
We applaud S. 598 for requiring EPA and DOE to review each product
category at least once every 3 years or when market share for a product
reaches 35%--though we would hope the language could be clarified to
say ``whichever is first,'' so that each product category is reviewed
at minimum every 3 years.
We are also encouraged that the bill will require the agencies to
clearly define their roles and responsibilities within Energy Star so
that there are not gaps and undue overlap; we believe this will ensure
fewer products fall through the cracks.
2. companies test their own products
The DOE does not test products for compliance with its standards;
sometimes manufacturers do; sometimes a consumer organization like
Consumers Union will test claims and performance. But, in general,
there is little independent verification of manufacturers' self-
reported claims. In addition to refrigerators, when we tested some
products like dehumidifiers and room air conditioners, we found
electricity consumption results to be significantly higher than those
self-reported by one manufacturer. While some may think that Energy
Star products not meeting qualifications standards will be reported to
the EPA by rivals, there is scant evidence that self-policing is
occurring.
Mergers within the appliance industry, where one manufacturer can
account for significant market share in a product category, further cut
down on the number of ``cops on the beat.''
The Energy Star program rewards manufacturers, in the form of tax
credits, for selling high efficiency appliances. This gives
manufacturers an added incentive to engineer around the standard or to
find and exploit loopholes if the standards are unclear or outdated.
We recommend that EPA and DOE establish a marketplace surveillance
program to sample and independently verify the energy efficiency claims
made by manufacturers. If this sampling finds widespread problems, we
recommend more thorough, marketplace-wide testing to be conducted by
EPA or DOE. Furthermore, if a particular manufacturer is found to be
misrepresenting energy use, that manufacturer should be required to do
audited compliance for products going forward. This spot-check program
should apply to both minimum standards programs as well as Energy Star.
The proposed legislation represents substantial progress by
requiring manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the standard,
rather than relying exclusively on manufacturer claims. As the bill
moves forward, we would like to see the bill eliminate self-
certification as an option for demonstrating compliance.
3. qualifying standards are lax
Consumers Union agrees with the EPA's own guidelines that about 25%
of products in any one category should qualify for an Energy Star. But,
with dishwashers, for example, Energy Star qualified products recently
represented more than 90% of all dishwashers on the market. With a
tighter standard, that share has dropped, but still about 50% of
dishwashers now qualify for the Energy Star. Certainly, when that many
products qualify for an Energy Star, the value of the Star decreases.
Congress needs to raise the bar on Energy Star.
We agree with the approach in S. 598 which requires that once
Energy Star designation exceeds 35% of a product category, there will
be a rulemaking to raise the standard. While we might prefer to see a
lower trigger (such as 10-20% so that consumers will know they are
buying an exceptionally efficient product), reasonable minds can differ
as to the right threshold.
We appreciate this opportunity to testify on this significant
consumer issue, and look forward to any questions.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you.
Let me start with a few questions.
Let me ask both Mr. Rodgers and Mr. McLean. I think both of
you have indicated you're opposed to Section Three of the bill
as we have introduced it. It directs coordination in Energy
Star management.
You specifically commit in your testimony, as I understand
it, to provide the committee with written documentation on the
resolution of these issues within 45 days. Are you
contemplating that that would be in the form of a signed
memorandum of agreement between the two agencies? Or is this
just documentation of what has been agreed to?
What's your thought on this? Obviously if we do
legislation, energy legislation, the strong temptation I would
have is to go ahead and legislate in this area and not postpone
that on the hope that someday the two agencies will resolve
these problems.
Mr. Rodgers.
Mr. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Chu and
Administrator Jackson have met and discussed these issues. They
have committed to resolve the issues. They've directed each of
our staffs to take all necessary steps to put all the issues on
the table and resolve them.
I believe that we can meet that deadline. Provide to the
committee clear documentation that we've addressed any and all
of the issues that have been brought forward within that 45 day
period.
The Chairman. Mr. McLean, what's your thought on that?
Mr. McLean. I'm trying to think if I have any differences
with that statement. I think that's correct. The Secretary and
the Administrator met a few weeks ago.
We actually met last week which we scheduled that meeting
before this--we knew we were going to be testifying at this
hearing. But recognized that the administration recognizes that
we need to resolve this so that there is not confusion and we
agree. Because of your schedule we want to do it as quickly as
we can. We thought we could do that within 45 days.
The Chairman. Is the objective to have a signed memorandum
of agreement or understanding between the two departments or
agencies? Is that?
Mr. McLean. I think the goal is to sit down and figure out
where there are concerns and work them out. Identify to you
that we have. A lot of them have to do with coordination.
We have not decided whether we need a new MOU or modify the
existing MOU that we've had for 10 years. So that remains to be
seen exactly what that would take the form of. But it would be
an agreement and documentation back to the committee.
The Chairman. Mr. Pitsor, you have in your testimony a
description here of what you refer to as the confusion and
consternation caused by the lack of coordination by the two
agencies in the solid state lighting area. Could you just
elaborate on that a bit?
Mr. Pitsor. We have a situation that's developed since
EPACT 2005 passed which established a solid state lighting
program at the Department of Energy for research development
demonstration and commercialization including Energy Star work.
In partnership with DOE the industry has been working on a
specification which was over the course of 2 years has now been
published and went into effect last year. In the meantime at
EPA they were working on also requirements for solid state
lighting products for some of their programs.
They were not coordinated with industry. They weren't
coordinated with DOE. Then both agencies then promulgate
specifications which creates quite a bit of confusion in the
marketplace. Manufacturers are heavily investing in LED
lighting doing the research work. Customers are confused as a
result as well in terms of which Energy Star product is really
an Energy Star product.
So that's why we believe this needs to be centralized
within one agency with the expertise on lighting and that being
at DOE.
The Chairman. Mr. McLean, you heard, I think Mr. Connelly's
comments about the compliance problems and lack of monitoring
and enforcement in the Energy Star program. Did you agree with
that that there's a substantial deficiency there? Or do you
think that Mr. Connelly is misinformed?
Mr. McLean. I think there always can be improvements. We
have done a number of things for the products that we cover,
several hundred tests and trying to identify if there are
issues out there. I think most of the products he identified
we're not involved with.
So I think it depends on the product you're talking about.
The challenges involved in updating testing. If we want to go
product by product I think we can talk about it. But it's hard
to generalize across all product categories.
So he identified refrigerators, dishwashers, clothes
washers, areas that he was concerned about. Those are not under
our purview. We think we're doing a pretty good job with third
party testing and other activities.
So I think it's good to be very specific about where the
concerns are. I know DOE has taken a number of steps to deal
with these issues.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
better understand the situation with Section Three and the
objections coming out of DOE and EPA. Do I understand correct?
I think it was you, Mr. McLean that you said you've had an
interagency agreement or some kind of a MOU in place for the
past 10 years? Is that?
Mr. McLean. Yes. That's correct.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate the efforts that you have
indicated today that it's your intention to within 45 days
resolve this. But it seems to me that we're at a point when
we're talking about energy policy. We recognize the efficiency
gains that can be had when we look to upgrades in our
appliances that we do need to keep current.
We do need to be more aggressive in staying on top of
things rather than operating under agreements that are perhaps
10 years old. Within the industry or the consumer end of the
equation here, it doesn't sound as if they believe you are as
current as you need to be. If you are unable to work out the
details within 45 days I'm assuming you would not have any
objection to what we have included in the Section Three which
is updating the interagency agreement to improve the
cooperation and the delineation of rules and responsibilities
of formal decisionmaking.
Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Rodgers.
Mr. Rodgers. Thank you. The Secretary and the Administrator
believe that we can address this issue and resolve it. We are
committed to doing that.
The issues that you have raised in the legislation are in
fact some of the very issues that we need to address. As you
point out an MOU that's 13 years old doesn't describe some of
the products that are currently at issue and of importance to
the current Energy Star programs. So those are exactly the
things that we will be looking at.
We believe the administration can make a faithful committed
effort to resolve this. But we do appreciate the catalytic
efforts that the committee has had in spurring that effort.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Let me ask about the
consensus approach that we're taking. We're suggesting that
when there's broad consensus out there that you can advance
standards more quickly than the 7-year review. I would think
that from industry's perspective, that from the consumer's
perspective this is something that will keep us nimble. This
will keep us ahead of the curve.
From the agency's perspective, what's your feedback on
that?
Mr. Rodgers. Very excellent point. In fact we have asked
for and we were very grateful that in the Energy Independence
and Security Act the Congress did give the Department the
authority to accelerate rulemaking, especially when there is a
voluntary consensus standard developed by industry and
stakeholders. So we're very supportive of this provision and we
would like to encourage it.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Mr. Nadel, I want to make sure
that I understand what's going on in terms of the consensus
standards out there. You referenced some specific State
standards or initiatives. Can you tell me what role the states
actually play in moving national consensus standards, if you
will?
Do we have individual states that are more aggressive and
then advancing/pushing that standard out on a national scope?
Mr. Nadel. Yes, I can. For many products that are not
federally regulated, regulation begins at the State level.
Senator Murkowski. Like, give me an example.
Mr. Nadel. Drinking water dispensers. State of California
came up with a standard. I think it was around 2004. It's
subsequently been adopted in six other states. I believe they
are all identical.
So we're recommending, now we have seven states. It's time
to bring the same standard to a national level. I point out
that actually the standard is based on like a 2003 Energy Star
level.
So what was----
Senator Murkowski. OK and one question for the rest of you
here then. When we talk about broad consensus within the
industry that would allow us to accelerate a standard, what
would you consider to mean broad consensus?
Mr. Pitsor.
Mr. Pitsor. I think it's important that consensus involve a
broad--the manufacturers of the products, advocacy groups,
State energy boards, energy commissions, also utility entities.
So it's a cross section of users, consumers, manufacturers and
policy advocates.
Senator Murkowski. We're all in agreement that's what we're
talking about? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to all of you.
Michigan is home to a major appliance manufacturer,
Whirlpool is I can put in an ad for them this morning. They
also make refrigerators in Arkansas, Indiana and Iowa. So it's
not just Michigan, but we're very proud to have them in
Michigan. They're not just participants in the Energy Star
program, but they are leaders.
In fact I want to congratulate them. Because later this
month they will receive the 2009 Energy Star's sustained
excellence award from the EPA and DOE. The award recognizes the
company's leadership in offering consumers appliance, energy
and water efficiency through its portfolio brand.
So this is their tenth Energy Star award and fourth
consecutive sustained excellence award. So I wanted to make
sure and get that on the record today. We're very proud of
them.
For companies like Whirlpool the energy guide label and the
Energy Star rating helps them to highlight the quality of their
products. They take it very seriously. Consumer Reports and Mr.
Connelly you talked about looking at under reporting.
Consumer Reports, I'm sure through your efforts reported in
October 2008 that some companies under report the energy use of
their refrigerators. You talked about the loopholes and test
procedures and so on. Unfortunately those reports show that the
Energy Star label is really diminished when there is not strong
enforcement.
The value of it goes down. It really creates an unlevel
playing field for companies who are taking this very seriously
and want consumers to be able to trust the labels. So I applaud
the fact that the bill under discussion includes a provision
requiring DOE to report to Congress on the degree of compliance
with energy standards. Certainly you need to be enforcing
compliance and letting penalties and companies who violate the
rules.
So within that vein I'd like to ask Mr. Rodgers and Mr.
McLean to talk more about your current authority in terms of
enforcing minimum standards and the Energy Star rating. Have
you found companies out of compliance? How did you respond?
Mr. Rodgers. I thank you, Senator. That's a critical
question of vital importance. We have very carefully tracked
enforcement. I think we respectfully agree with many of the
recommendations in the Consumer Reports articles that there
should be expanded improvement of our test procedures. We're
moving to do that.
We also believe there should be greater independent
verification of test results. We're moving to do that. We also
believe that the Energy Star program levels should be examined
on a regular basis and updated consistent with technology
advances. We are moving to do that.
I think in the cases where we have discovered compliance
issues I would like to complement the industry associations. In
many cases they do a good job of self policing and reporting
that to us. But more needs to be done.
Last year we took a settlement agreement with one
manufacturer who agreed they were not following the correct
rules. They have provided rebates to consumers. Taken their
products, modified them, removed the Energy Star label. This is
the kind of thing that we intend to do going forward.
Senator Stabenow. Yes, Mr. McLean.
Mr. McLean. Yes, Senator. We do a number of things for the
products that we manage. We have been conducting verification
testing, pulling products out of the marketplace and testing
them to screen them for compliance for the last 5 years.
We've completed testing across 14 product categories,
testing more than 400 products. Of the 400 products that we
pulled and tested, we only found four where there were issues.
We went back and those have been corrected.
We recognize there has been growth in the Energy Star
program. We have to keep up with that growth and the number of
products we have to cover. For lighting we've already responded
to demonstrated performance issues with enhanced scrutiny in
order to qualify products. Manufacturers must submit test data
from an independent laboratory for prior approval.
In addition we've instituted quality assurance testing for
off the shelf products. Furthermore what we've done is we've
also collaborated with accreditation bodies like NIST National
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program and the American
Association for Laboratory Accreditation to establish
requirements for laboratories testing Energy Star products. In
phasing in that requirement through qualification testing
conducted by impartial accredited laboratories.
So what we're trying to do is as the program expands we're
expanding the accreditation and testing procedures to make sure
that these products are in line. We have not found major
problems with the products that we've been covering.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Both Senator Murkowski and I are
going to have to go to the Senate floor for the debate on these
public land amendments that are coming up here in the next few
minutes. So let me call on Senator Menendez. Just ask if he or
unless you're planning to stay, if you are, ok.
If you could go ahead and Senator Lincoln could go ahead
and complete the hearing, that would be great.
Thank you. Thank all witnesses again for your testimony.
Senator Menendez [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
want to thank you and the ranking member for holding a hearing
on what I think is an incredibly important topic. It may not
seem to get the same sex appeal as others, but I think the best
energy at the end of the day is that which we don't use and/or
use effectively.
So I think this is incredibly important. It's a vital, cost
effective way for us to meet our energy challenges. We need to
pursue energy efficiency as aggressively as possible.
I want to say that I appreciate that the DOE and the EPA
have announced that yesterday that they're going to work out an
agreement by the end of April on the Energy Star program for
solid state lighting. This is a great development. I look
forward to a positive result.
But I want to caution both departments that if they don't
reach an agreement as they've pledged to that some of us,
certainly, I may very well decide the conflict for them. I'd
rather you decide the conflict. But if not, I think it's
important to finalize it. I'll be keeping a close eye on that.
So let me ask some questions. Mr. Rodgers, does the
department believe that it has the authority to regulate BR
type reflector lamps that are now exempted from Federal
standards? If so, do you have, are you considering any
regulations for these lamps?
Mr. Rodgers. Thank you, Senator. In fact that topic has
been a discussion with the acting general council and the
Secretary's office. We expect to make an announcement on that
very soon.
We recognize as Mr. Nadel has pointed out that this
category of products could potentially provide significant
energy savings. So I think I'd be happy to report as soon as
possible on the determination made by the Secretary in that
area.
Senator Menendez. Is that determination going to be that
whether or not you have the authority to regulate now or do you
believe you have that and then your answer is about whether or
not you're going to consider any regulations?
Mr. Rodgers. The answer that you will be receiving sir,
will be when the department plans to begin rulemaking on this
topic.
Senator Menendez. Ok. Which means you believe you have the
authority to regulate?
Mr. Rodgers. That's a fair conclusion.
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. Can't regulate if you don't have the
authority, so I assume that you're taking the position that you
have the authority. Alright. We'll look forward to that because
one of the things that I was considering as we mark up is to
clarify the Department's authority and establish a schedule for
regulating these lamps.
So I've circulated an amendment to you and to other
witnesses here. So I look forward to hearing back from you.
Second, during the Clinton administration the Department of
Energy determined that it had the authority to set both energy
and peak demands for standard air conditioners. Then during the
Bush administration the Department of Energy rejected several
consensus standard proposals because they included more than
one metric. Now that there's a new administration is that
interpretation being reviewed again? Would it be useful for
Congress to clarify the Department's authority along the lines
of the amendment that I circulated to you and others?
Mr. Rodgers. Thank you, Senator. Let me just say it's
always useful when Congress provides clarification. In this
case I have not discussed this issue with our Office of General
Council that it has been of concern in the past that it was
viewed that we did not have the authority to establish more
than one metric.
Clearly there are energy savings to be had if this
authority was available to us. So we look forward to working
with the committee on this issue.
Senator Menendez. Ok. Mr. Pitsor, let me ask you this. In
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 we authorized
states to help enforce standards on incandescent lamps by
seeking injunctive relief in Federal courts. The intent was to
permit additional enforcement while following Federal
procedures. Is that something that you support extending this
injunctive enforcement authority to other standards?
Mr. Pitsor. Mr. Chairman, the enforcement of the general
service light bulbs. Why we supported State injunctive relief
is that we're talking about a high volume product over a
billion light bulbs or so annually in the United States. As we
move the migration to the new efficiency standards and starting
in 2012 we could see a lot of light bulb sales at the Federal
Government aren't going to be able to monitor, but the states
would be able to monitor at retail.
So we supported that State attorney general's ability to
seek injunctive relief with respect to that high volume
product. I'm not sure we have the same type of situation with
low volume type products. Electric motors, transformers, these
are not high volume products that we see a problem with respect
to enforcement at the present time. So it's somewhat product
specific as to whether that would make an appropriate vehicle
for enforcement.
Then second the legislation has in the base bill a study
that has been called for to look at compliance and enforcement
options. We think that that study should be conducted and come
back with Congress on recommendations on what needs to be done.
Senator Menendez. I just look at the fact that the DOE has,
as far as I can see, has never issued a single fine for failure
to comply with efficiency standards. It just seems to me they
need help enforcing these laws. So that's why I asked the
question what we're looking forward to how that moves forward.
Let me ask two final questions. The sales--and this is to
you, Mr. Pitsor as well. The sales of BR type lamps that are
exempted from Federal standards appear to represent about 30
percent of total reflector lamp sales. Do you support giving
the Department of Energy authority to regulate BR lamps so that
more efficient products can become standard practice?
Mr. Pitsor. The industry--we're presently involved in
incandescent reflector rulemaking that as we understand will be
made final in June, August of this year. The industry has
supported migrating these remaining exempted products for DOE
rulemaking going forward. So we are supportive of having those
remaining BR lamps added to the DOE rulemaking authority.
Senator Menendez. Ok. Let me turn to Senator Lincoln.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the
chairman and the ranking member for holding a hearing today on
appliance efficiency. Want to congratulate you on your work to
develop legislation where both industry and energy efficiency
advocates and consumer advocates have worked together to get
all on the same page.
That's not an easy task. We're pleased with the leadership
we've found there.
I think we can all agree that energy efficiency is probably
the most cost effective way we can decrease our energy
consumption. As Senator Menendez mentioned energy that we don't
use is the easiest to capture and to deal with. That's an
important point that we've tried to make here.
It all obviously reduces our carbon footprint and maintains
energy security. There's no doubt that each and every one of us
should be looking for the ways that we can make that happen.
I'm especially interested in the topic today because
manufacturing of electrical equipment and appliances is one of
the top manufacturing sectors in my home State of Arkansas as
Senator Stabenow mentioned.
I hope that the improvements set forth in the Appliance
Standards Improvement Act will provide clarity to efficiency
standards and support their industry. I want to echo what
Senator Stabenow mentioned earlier in terms of helping to
strengthen the Appliance Standard Improvement Act helping to
strengthen the Energy Star program. There are concerns there
making sure that the clear and tougher standards and how we
improve the enforcement of that Energy Star program
requirements.
Mr. Rodgers, you continue to say moving to do that. Do you
have dates certain set for the types of things that you're
challenged by and moving toward doing that?
Mr. Rodgers. Thank you, Senator. Let me give you two
examples. On refrigerator test procedures we have already
invested resources and are building a testing site so that we
can conduct independent tests of refrigerators.
We're also evaluating tougher Energy Star standards for
several of the white good appliances as we speak.
Senator Lincoln. Good. That's good. We want to move forward
and see that happening.
Maybe you might touch a little bit about you, in your
testimony you talked about education and outreach programs such
as the recycle my old frig campaign. My husband continues to
tell me that the small freezer in my basement that I bought at
a yard sale if I would just replace it that I would probably
pay for my new freezer in a matter of moments.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lincoln. From what I would save. I am the product
of depression babies. So throwing out something that still
works is very difficult for me.
But what are you finding? Maybe you might elaborate on the
importance of education and encouraging and maybe describe some
of the detail efforts that DOE is making on educating
consumers.
Mr. Rodgers. Senator, it's a great question. Energy
efficiency although extremely cost effective requires constant
reminders. So we found great success in working with Disney to
promote for kids the Ratatouille character and helping promote
compact fluorescent light replacement, working with the
military to promote the change out of old lamps on military
bases.
As you mentioned the recycle the frig campaign because
unfortunately many Americans put the old frig in the basement
or the garage. So instead of saving energy with the Energy Star
product, now energy has increased. So we do believe that
investing in educating Americans will be critical.
The Secretary is committed to that. You will see some of
new programs from the Department this year with the resources
that Congress has provided.
Senator Lincoln. Great. My husband would be proud that
you're echoing his thoughts there.
Mr. Pitsor, in your testimony you mentioned that there's
many energy efficient technologies that exist. But we've got to
strive for wider recognition of these technologies and promote
their use. You list energy tax incentives as one policy
approach to advancing energy efficiency in our economy.
I've been involved in pushing for premium motor tax credits
to help incentivize the use of more efficient motors. I also
believe that a rebate is an incentive to taxpayers to replace
motors in need of repair with new motors rather than extending
the life of old, less efficient motors. I think it's worth
discussion and an important thing that we could do.
In today's economy how do you believe we can best make new
and more efficient electrical equipment such as motors
affordable to various industries particularly as well as
individuals?
Mr. Pitsor. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
leadership with respect to tax incentives for speeding up the
deployment of today's technologies that are available. In the
situation of electric motors, motors represent 23 percent of
our electrical use. They power pumps, fans, compressors in
industry and homes and buildings.
We have premium efficient motors, NEMA premium motors
available today. But the initial cost is higher than the EPACT
level efficiencies.
Senator Lincoln. Right.
Mr. Pitsor. To make up for that initial cost impact the tax
incentives, motor purchase incentives, programs, utility
sponsored programs, rebate programs, all can help bring down
the initial cost to the purchaser. So when he needs to replace
that motor or replace that other product. That initial price
hurdle can be overcome.
So we look forward to putting together and having the
committee consider a rebate program for industrial motors. When
that motor fails a building owner has to decide whether to
replace it or to simply have it repaired. Obviously if you're
repairing it, you're repairing an inefficient product to begin
with. We need to change that process over to incent buying the
new motor.
Senator Lincoln. Incentivizing the individual that's, as
you said, replacing or repairing that motor is important. Is
it, I mean, do you think quantitatively I mean we can really
show that it's going to be cost effective in terms of energy
consumption?
Mr. Pitsor. We did an analysis with respect to a rebate
program that we've been talking about. If we simply change that
1 percent of the old motors currently installed, 1 percent each
year that would be about 300,000 units we'd be saving an
estimated 1.5 billion kilowatt hours. So there's a significant
energy savings potential there.
Senator Lincoln. Great. Thank you for your work on that.
I'm interested to explore.
Mr. Upton, it was good to meet you the other day. I
appreciate getting to visit with you in the hallway. I want to
again commend you and all the groups involved in this bill for
working together on how we can really do great improvements in
efficiency for products and benefit both our environment as
well as our consumers.
In your testimony you stated that one of the positive
aspects of the Appliance Standards Improvement Act we're
discussing today is that it provides manufacturers the
flexibility to choose several paths in providing energy
efficiency to consumers while also allowing consumers choices
in what lighting fixtures that they want in their homes. How
critical was providing this flexibility? How does the
residential lighting industry provide the balance between
providing consumers with what they want decoratively and also
most efficiently?
Mr. Upton. Thank you for your question. It was on.
The decorative lighting industry in the portable section
was a very fragmented industry. Literally, mom and pop kind of
operations where you might make 50 of this and 75 of that and
100 of something else. Having pathways for those kind of
companies to be able to meet those needs are really critical.
If we wouldn't have had that in California, it was our
judgment that the only kinds of products would be available in
portable industry would have been commodity products. You just
couldn't afford to manufacture for one State. That's one of the
reasons we asked for this to become a national bill.
But if you drop the various pathways that save the energy
and especially the fourth item that we talk about which I call
bulb in a box. We're going to be introducing people to energy
efficient lighting that they've never experienced before
because it's going to have probably at this time a compact
fluorescent bulb in it, later an LED. If we can make those
kinds of things happen the cost savings as far as the energy
consumption was about 136 million kilowatt hours for
California.
The payback time that you were referring to earlier is
seven tenths of a year. So the value to the consumer's eye, the
value of the manufacturer's eye, because he's got the various
pathways. For different manufacturers different technologies
will be valuable.
We think anytime that multiple technologies are available
that are still energy efficient then the consumer has brought a
choice and we've got a win/win situation for everyone.
Government achieves what it wants. The manufacturer has a
product he can deliver. The consumer has the choice of
something that meets everybody's needs.
Senator Lincoln. So that flexibility for those pathways is
critical. I know because we've got a couple of those mom and
pop operations where, like you talk, small businesses that
produce decorative items and other things like that. But to be
able to----
Mr. Upton. Senator, the industry is so small. My family
taught me energy efficiency was you turned the light off and if
you didn't you got banged alongside the head.
Senator Lincoln. That's right.
Mr. Upton. Happily we've got more opportunities today,
especially with controls that are becoming much more widely
used. But I think if we can deliver the quantity of products
that we want to have and provide all that choice then you've
got the best of all worlds. That's one of the reasons we fought
so hard to find the right answers.
Because the day you don't have consensus with government,
advocates and industry then you have confusion in the
marketplace. If there's confusion in the marketplace our
experience is the consumer stays with what they know. We want
them to move forward into new products.
Senator Lincoln. Great.
Mr. Upton. If I didn't respond to you properly, I'll try
again.
Senator Lincoln. No, you did great.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Senator Lincoln. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Thank you. I have one last question and
one follow up and then we'll, unless a member appears we'll
close the hearing.
Mr. McLean, I've heard that Energy Star covers a fairly
large portion of products on the market, usually at least 25
sometimes 50 percent. That some including Secretary Chu is
thinking that it might be useful to complement the current
Energy Star program with a higher energy super star tier that
might represent the top 5 percent of products. But still be
required to be cost effective to consumers.
What do you think of this concept?
Mr. McLean. This clearly is something we do want to talk to
the Department of Energy about. We do agree that there is a
range of products out there with a range of efficiencies. If we
go back to the reason that we created Energy Star, what we were
trying to do is overcome information barriers to consumers and
other barriers in the marketplace.
We were not trying to invent new technologies or advance
new technologies. We wanted to get the technologies that had
been invented and were out there to get them consumed. So the
whole brand was created around that concept.
Another concept is to identify a market segment of
individuals who want to be first movers, who are willing to pay
more for higher technology efficiency. We may need a new
strategy to deal with that group. So we want to talk about how
best to do that.
We agree that there are people who want higher efficiencies
and are willing to pay for it. If the technology is there at no
additional cost, then we can change the Energy Star level. The
issue is not, you know, can you adjust it. But is there a
difference in cost and are you talking about a different
segment.
So in the product categories we want to look at that. If we
can move toward some way of recognizing the highest efficiency
products, that might be a very good thing to do. But I think we
want to look at each of the categories and say, is this a
generic thing or is this specific? Are we talking about a few
specific areas where we could do that effectively? Then figure
out how to do that.
Senator Menendez. Ok. Mr. Pitsor, let me just go back to an
answer you gave me a few minutes ago with reference to the BR
type lamps. I heard you say, well we're engaged in the
regulatory process. The question is this has been exempted for
17 years.
So when is it that you support, if you support, going ahead
and including giving DOE the authority to regulate what is
about 30 percent of total reflector lamp sales? What timeframe
do you support it in?
Mr. Pitsor. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In the Energy Security and
Independence Act 2007 we significantly narrowed the exemption
of what was available. So in 1992 when the Congress passed the
initial exemption, that has been narrowed over the years. DOE
set actually a wattage cap on BR lamps of 65 watts during that
process.
In 2007 now we've narrowed that group to even a smaller
category such that 95 percent of your medium screw based
sockets in your home are now or will be under Federal
regulation. So we're talking about a very small set remaining
that we support being added to the Federal program at the
conclusion of the----
Senator Menendez. So are you saying that it's not 30
percent of total reflector lamp sales in the marketplace?
Mr. Pitsor. I'm talking about the options the consumers
have in their home in terms of what types of bulbs they want to
use for different settings. Because obviously how you light
your dining room will be different than how you light your
living room in terms of what types of bulbs and types of
fixtures you're using. So you have reflector. You have
incandescent. You have halogen. You have compact fluorescent.
There is a mix of products that are available to consumers.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Nadel, do you have any views on this?
Mr. Nadel. Yes. I mean I do believe it's at least 30
percent of reflector lamps that are exempted even with the
tightening up. It used to be 40 to 50 percent. What Mr. Pitsor
is saying is he's adding in all the general service pear shaped
bulbs.
Yes, if you add those all in it dilutes it. But the fact is
that's it's about 30 percent or more of the reflector lamps. We
estimate that closing this loophole will save enough
electricity to power 300,000 American homes. So we think it's
pretty significant and not small.
Senator Menendez. Alright. Thank you all for your
testimony. We appreciate that. Seeing no other members here,
the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record.]
Statement of Joseph M. McGuire, President, Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
Committee, thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the Association of Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) regarding
the Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009 (S. 598) to amend the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act to improve appliance standards. We
appreciate the Committees willingness to listen to our views as this
legislation was developed and as it moves through Congress.
AHAM is the trade association representing the manufacturers of
major, portable and floor care home appliances, and suppliers to the
industry. The home appliance industry is an important factor in the
U.S. economy as its product shipments are valued at $30 billion
annually. Our members manufacture products that are in virtually every
U.S. household and employ people in the U.S. in 32 states and 158
Congressional districts.
AHAM and its members are committed to providing energy efficient
home appliances that have a direct positive impact on the lives of
consumers. In the last 8 years, manufacturers have reduced energy
consumption of home appliances by nearly 8 billion kWh.
federal standards
We understand and have supported federal efficiency standards over
the years for products that AHAM member company's manufacturer. Uniform
standards throughout the U.S and even throughout North America and
beyond are preferable to a patchwork of disconnected state-by-state
standards. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) needs the proper
resources to devote to the development of test procedures and standards
to ensure a full analysis is completed. DOE's challenge is to stay on
schedule, particularly with enactment of new laws, while ensuring that
there is not a rush to judgment that yields poorly developed standards
that do not save energy, frustrate consumers or that create unneeded
costs to the manufacturers of these appliances.
The current law provides a framework to ensure federal standards
balance a number of factors so that the final efficiency standard
provides real energy savings. It makes no sense to establish a standard
so stringent that penalizes consumers and manufacturers and slows the
rapid deployment of new much more efficient products. The current
process can be improved though more DOE resources and encouragement and
fast tracking of consensus standards and test procedures, but otherwise
is a comprehensive process that starts with updating the test procedure
taking into consideration--
1. Consistency across products
2. New technologies
3. Testing of new procedures for repeatability, uniformity,
burden, simplicity, and representativeness
Once a test procedure is established, then for standards revision
there needs to be a determination of--
1. Baseline energy usage with existing standards using
today's machines
2. Maximum levels of energy efficiency that are technically
feasible, including impacts on performance, and which are
economically justified to consumers and to US manufacturers,
who, among other things, are trying to maintain domestic
employment
However, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA)
makes clear that no standard can be set which may result in loss of
product availability in popular styles and prices, and product
functions consumers want.
Analysis must determine what standard provides benefits exceeding
the burdens. The factors considered are as follows:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers, retailers,
distributors and society
2. Savings in operating costs through the life of the product
compared to price increase and maintenance costs
3. Total energy or water savings
4. Lessening of the performance
5. Lessening of competition (Department of Justice opines)
6. Need for national energy and water conservation
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant
Thus, energy savings is not the only factor because without
assuming that manufacturers can make the product and consumers will buy
the product everybody--the government, the manufacturers, the consumers
and the environment--loses.
Further, establishing statutory schedules for new test procedures
or standards must take into account other necessary regulatory
activities and that future developments may occur that would obviate
the need for some scheduled rulemakings. This could occur with the
support of all stakeholders. For example, DOE was required by law to
establish a new energy efficiency standard for clothes dryers in 2000
but determined, with the support of state energy offices, environmental
advocates and manufacturers, that it was not necessary because the
newly promulgated clothes washer standards reduced the average drying
time for standard washer loads to such an extent that a new dryer
standard would not result in any significant energy savings over the
existing standard. These types of practical policy examples need to be
weighed before new schedules are imposed on the Department of Energy.
There have been numerous iterations of standards development and
reviews over the years, with more already scheduled and not even fully
implemented. The chart* below shows the many iterations for a few
products and how far into the future standards are already in the cue
to be revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Chart has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appliance standards improvement act of 2009
As consideration is given to how much more energy savings can be
achieved from home appliances, we need to be mindful that huge gains
have been made recently and more are planned through recent laws and
upcoming regulations. Refrigerators/freezers, dishwashers and clothes
washers account for a 43% combined decrease in energy consumption since
2000. From a global climate change perspective, the energy savings
realized in 2008 shipments of refrigerators, dishwashers and clothes
washers versus 2000 models would offset the CO2 emissions of
more than 698 million gallons of gasoline consumed or the annual
CO2 emissions from 1.3 coal fired power plants.
Clothes washer energy consumption has decreased by 63% since 2000
while tub capacity has grown by 8%. Dishwasher energy consumption has
dropped nearly 30% and water consumption has declined 29% since 2000.
Refrigerator energy consumption has also decreased 30% since 2000 and
efficiency, measured by a unit's energy factor has increased 39%. The
average refrigerator sold today consumes less energy than a 60-watt
light bulb left on 24 hours a day.
The essential principle behind the underlying Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) is that national uniformity can be maintained
with a series of vigorous national standards which save energy, water,
carbon and consumer's money while maintaining product utility, moderate
prices, a competitive manufacturer base, and minimizing the negative
impact on domestic employment. A simplistic payback test, for example,
which does not take into account all relevant factors, undermines this
balance.
There is a critical need for coordination and integration of
federal regulatory scheme because of the enormous cumulative regulatory
burden on the appliance industry of investing in new designs for
multiple products over many years while at the same time meeting
increasingly challenging and related environmental requirements such as
ozone depletion and climate change.
Improvements in overall appliance efficiency in consumer homes will
not be achieved in the best way by additional micro-management and
constant revision of the appliance standards law. This law was last
substantially revised just in 2007 and many of its provisions, such as
those requiring future rulemakings, the handling of standby energy
power, and the acceleration of consensus rulemakings, have not been
fully employed.
There are three major ways in which appliance efficiency can be
enhanced:
1. Incentives: There should be support for continuation and
expansion of consumer rebates and manufacturer's tax credit for
all manufacturers of efficient appliances regardless of where
the product is produced. These incentives not only create a
critical simulative effect in the economy but also incentivize
manufacturers, retailers and consumers to buy increasingly
energy-efficient products even when the existing units still
function (accelerated replacement). Buying even average or
above average efficient appliances today and replacing the 10-
year old appliances, for example, provides significant energy
and water efficiency and carbon savings for consumers and
society.
2. DOE Resources: There must be significant additions of
resources for DOE energy efficiency programs, including but not
limited to appliance standards. Constant new Congressional
mandates without additional resources are not a solution.
3. Energy Star Resources: The Energy Star Program should
receive significant new funding for revision, expansion and
promotion. It is a highly successful program and is a win-win
for consumers, retailers, manufacturers, the environment and
the economy.
test methods
The present EPCA test procedure wisely requires a balance between
measuring actual field energy use (which is highly variable) with the
cost, uniformity and repeatability parameters required for test
procedures for products mass-produced globally. Congress must recognize
that simply adding new mandatory deadlines on top of dozens of existing
deadlines in EPCA does not resolve the problem of an agency that does
not have the resources to undertake all these tasks in a timely,
accelerated manner.
We support authorizing consensus test procedures to be adopted more
quickly when the industry and others agree. It makes sense to allow
noncontroversial test procedures to be ``fast tracked,'' i.e., they can
be promulgated in direct final if they meet certain criteria subject to
subsequent sufficient negative comment such that a regular rulemaking
is required.
energy star program
AHAM understands the need to periodically review Energy Star levels
as long as the review does not require a modification. Further,
specifying that a review has to occur based on a 35% market share may
not be appropriate for every product. If 80% of the market is Energy
Star, that shows it has been a success. Also, it is possible that a
raise in the Energy Star qualifying level would be counterproductive.
For example, today's refrigerator on average uses the same power as a
60 watt light bulb. If the market share were to be high for Energy Star
refrigerators and DOE was forced to increase the qualifying level by
let's say 10%, that would mean the consumer would see a savings of
going from a 60 watt light bulb to a 54 watt light bulb and possibly a
significant increase in cost of the refrigerator. The savings of 6
watts or about 50 cents per month in utility costs may not be enough to
pay for a large increase in the price of the refrigerator, which would
lead the consumer to buy a model that is less efficient. It also is
necessary to allow recoupment of investment such that, as with
appliance standards, Energy Star levels are not changed constantly and
there is opportunity to sell newly designed products.
Regarding third party test requirements, great care should be taken
in requiring widespread, costly third party testing. If done the wrong
way it will add many millions of dollars to costs, and there are not
sufficient outside laboratories or programs to handle this volume.
Allowing for a cost effective verification program through industry
trade associations, for example, should be allowed.
study of compliance with energy standards for appliances
It is important that any study regarding the compliance standards
program be undertaken from an expert and objective point of view.
incentives
It clearly remains vital that efficiency standards are dealt with
at a national level providing consumers, ratepayers and appliance
manufacturers the benefits of a national market. However, incentive
programs are doing a powerful job of supplementing mandatory standards
and can be targeted to regional energy concerns. The recently enacted
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law No: 111-5)
provided $300 million for the Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate
Program. This program provides rebates to replace used appliances with
more energy efficient ENERGY STAR products, as authorized by Section
124 of the Energy Policy Act 0f 2005 (PL 109-58). A State energy office
would receive funding once it has established an appliance rebate
program.
We appreciate DOE's willingness to listen to our views on this
matter, but it is essential that DOE does not overly complicate this
program and distribute this funding to the state energy offices quickly
and simply. DOE should not allow outside interests to try to use this
program, which is supposed to be to stimulate consumer spending on new,
more energy efficient appliances, as a vehicle to try to achieve their
longstanding political objectives. This program would have the dual
impact of reducing home energy usage while incentivizing consumer
spending for manufactured products. Further, the added savings that
consumers would obtain through lower utility bills would stimulate
additional spending in the economy. It is imperative that states be
given the flexibility to implement the details and specifics based on
their regional needs.
The stimulus package was intended to help the economy. Shipments of
major appliances decreased 10% in 2008 and shipments of appliances
continue to fall. Already, shipments for 2009 are down 20% compared to
2008. DOE must distribute this funding to the states quickly to help
stimulate this area of the economy and save energy.
If every household in the US upgraded to ENERGY STAR appliances,
residents would save more than $10 billion in utility costs per year.
The rebate would provide an important benefit to the environment
through energy savings. By replacing appliances with ENERGY STAR
appliances, the US would save more than 82 billion kWh per year.
The energy savings and climate benefits are significant from an
Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate program. It is a practical, effective
public policy measure at this time. Retiring older, less efficient
appliances with ENERGY STAR products is the single, most cost effective
step a consumer can take to save money and energy.
conclusion
The bottom line is that consumers have great choices for dealing
with energy efficiency in the home appliance arena. Public policy has
evolved to blend mandatory and voluntary market programs through the
Energy Guide label, national appliance standards and Energy Star
providing a pragmatic approach, but federal agencies need the resources
to do it right. We look forward to continuing to work with the
Committee on these issues.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Steven Nadel to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Mr. Pitsor has recommended two amendments: to authorize
an electric motor rebate program, and to give DOE exclusive
jurisdiction for Energy Star programs involving Solid State lighting.
What is your position on these?
Answer. ACEEE has worked with NEMA to refine the proposal for an
electric motor rebate program. We support the current proposal and
understand that Senator Lincoln may offer it as an amendment.
Regarding Energy Star programs for solid state lighting, we prefer
that DOE and EPA work this out rather than establish the precedent of
Congress intervening on program details. Furthermore, we believe that
the portable lighting fixture standard in ASIA provides the foundation
for resolving this issue, with most solid-state lighting fixtures
subject to the DOE specification, but fixtures that are primarily
decorative subject to a specification along the lines of the EPA
specification. But if the agencies cannot resolve this issue, then we
support the proposed amendment.
Question 2. You have proposed amendments establishing efficiency
standards for three additional products: water dispensers, hot food
holding cabinets, and portable electric spas. In each case, your
proposed standard is the same as that adopted in several states.
Please briefly describe what you know regarding the positions of
the manufacturers of these products on a federal standard?
Answer. We have reviewed and discussed the portable electric spa
standard with the trade association for these products, the Association
of Pool & Spa Professionals, and they tell us they support this
standard. Their one comment was to reference a forthcoming ANSI test
standard and we have provided the suggested edit to Committee staff.
For the other two products there is no trade association and so we have
contacted multiple manufacturers. All of the manufacturers we have
reached support the standard, a few with small edits that we have
provided to Committee staff.
Question 3. The Energy Star program encourages the purchase of
highly efficient products by identifying the top 20-30 percent most-
efficient models with the Energy Star label. There has been discussion
of authorizing a program that would label the top, few most-efficient
models, a so-called ``Super Star'' program.
What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of this
concept, and do you think Committee should have DOE and EPA study it
and report to Congress?
Answer. Energy Star typically includes at least 25% of the products
on the market and in some cases more than 50% of the products on the
market are Energy Star. For most of these products there is no way for
consumers to differentiate between typical Energy Star products and the
best products. We have heard suggestions from consumers, from
manufacturers, and from program operators to provide recognition for
the best products so consumers who are interested can look for these
products, and manufacturers and program operators can better promote
them. The prime advantage of such a ``Super Star'' program would be to
increase sales and market introduction of the best products,
accelerating the market transformation process. Such a label would not
be appropriate for all products, and should be limited to products that
are cost-effective to consumers over the product life. The disadvantage
of such a program is that it would require a significant effort to
explain a new dual program (Energy Star and Super Star) to consumers,
and if there is not a significant consumer education effort at program
launch, some consumers will be confused. We believe the potential
advantages are large enough that EPA and DOE should be directed to
study the concept.
Question 4. In Japan the appliance efficiency program is known as
``Top Runner''. Minimum efficiency standards for a product are
automatically and periodically increased based on the market share of
the most-efficient models.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and do
you believe the Committee should have DOE study it and report to
Congress?
Answer. The Top Runner approach provides a straight-forward way to
set new standards and would significantly raise the standard levels
over time. However, the Top Runner approach does not consider consumer
economics nor impacts on manufacturers and therefore is a very blunt
instrument. Furthermore, in Japan at least, my understanding is that
Top Runner standards are not quite mandatory and that the standards
cover fleet average efficiency, meaning that some products can fall
short of the standard as long as an offsetting proportion exceed the
standard. In Japan I have been told that there is a strong sense of
shame that manufacturers feel, making the standards nearly mandatory. I
think U.S. manufacturers have a different attitude and non-mandatory
standards would not work here. Also, fleet average standards are very
difficult to enforce. Given these disadvantages, I question whether it
is worth the resources to study such an approach for the U.S.
Responses of Steven Nadel to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe briefly how, in your opinion, this bill
best improves upon the existing structure for updating appliance
standards.
Answer. This bill addresses a few limitations in the current
appliance standards process such as setting deadlines for DOE to
respond to petitions on initiating test procedure and standard
rulemakings and allowing fast-track approval of consensus changes to
test procedures. DOE has often been slow to respond to petitions in the
past and this bill would prevent this process from dragging on too
long, while still leaving DOE free to rule on the merits of petitions.
The bill's process section primarily addresses test procedures and does
little on the process for setting new standards. In addition, the bill
directs DOE to study compliance with standards and to develop
recommendations for improving compliance. Our understanding is that
while compliance is generally pretty good, there are some compliance
problems. We hope this study will lead to recommendations and actions
to improve compliance.
Question 2. Please describe the different policy options available
to greater deploy and use energy efficient technology.
Answer. There are a variety of policy options for increasing use of
energy-efficient technologies. Among the options are:
Labeling of products for energy consumption, so consumers
can identify the most efficient and wasteful products. Labels
can have numeric values, a scale (e.g. 1-5 stars), or be a
simple pass-fail designation like the current Energy Star.
Promotion and incentive programs to encourage consumers to
purchase efficient products. These are commonly operated by
utilities, but some states also offer programs. Incentives can
also take the form of tax incentives, as were contained in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and have been revised several times.
Procurement initiatives targeting large-scale purchases of
highly efficient products, so manufacturers have an incentive
to develop and bring new high-efficiency products to market.
Purchasers can be government agencies, utilities, or large
companies.
Mandatory minimum efficiency standards that set an
efficiency floor and eliminate inefficient products from the
market.
Question 3. Please describe an efficient process that could be
undertaken to review test procedures within the DOE.
Answer. DOE needs to systematically review all of its test
procedures to see that they reasonably estimate performance of typical
products in actual use and to see that they reasonably measure the
performance of modern products. EISA directed DOE to review and revise
all test procedures over a seven year period. We recommend that DOE
develop a plan and schedule for this process and that DOE prioritize
test procedures for major products that are known to be out of date,
such as the procedures for televisions (can't be used for flat screen
sets), refrigerators (problems with how the procedure treats ice-maker
energy use), air conditioners (procedure does a poor job of reflecting
performance in the field), and water heaters (overestimates performance
of on-demand water heaters). Key parties involved in the standards
program should be surveyed or interviewed to help identify the test
procedures that most need updating so these can be targeted first.
Question 4. Please describe a process that could be undertaken
within the industry to ensure that there exists ``broad consensus''
regarding test procedures.
Answer. Industry trade associations often work together to develop
test procedures they all support. Industry has a lot of expertise on
how to do this. However, this process often leaves out non-industry
participants who also have useful expertise such as utility, state,
federal and non-profit organization experts. On the other hand, these
other experts often do not have enough time to be involved in the many
detailed meetings needed to develop test procedures. I would recommend
that at the beginning and middle of each process to develop a test
procedure, a broad array of experts be invited to help define the needs
and objectives at the beginning of the process, and assess how well
these needs and objectives are being addressed in the middle of the
process, so that the final test procedure is likely to meet the needs
of most interested parties.
Question 5. Please describe options on how to ensure that solid
state lighting (SSL) technologies are pursued in a cooperative fashion
with both the DOE and EPA and interested stakeholders.
Answer. We believe that DOE has done an excellent job of working
with industry to develop technologies, test procedures, and market
support materials to help advance solid-state lighting. EPA and other
stakeholders should be invited to identify issues that are not being
adequately addressed and DOE should be asked to respond to these
suggestions. As appropriate, some tasks should be delegated to EPA and
other parties, but given all its work in this area, DOE is the logical
agency to coordinate this effort.
Question 6. Please describe the process your organization
undertakes with the appliance makers to address consensus standards.
What is your definition of a consensus standard?
Answer. ACEEE works to develop consensus standards by working with
a wide array of parties including manufacturers, their trade
associations, states, utilities, environmental and consumer
organizations and technical experts. We seek to obtain the best data on
what is technically feasible and likely to be cost-effective to
consumers. Based on these data we seek to develop workable draft
proposals, share drafts with interested parties and solicit comments.
Based on comments we receive, we modify the draft proposal and seek
consensus of all parties. However, some parties want strong standards,
others weaker standards, so consensus often requires compromise among
the parties. We often seek creative solutions to bridge differences of
opinion, such as creation of new product classes with different
standard levels and development of multiple standards and effective
dates (milder initial standards, stronger latter standards). In order
to help drive this consensus process, it is usually helpful that some
action will take place if consensus is not reached, such as a DOE
rulemaking, state action, or Congressional action. Fear of these
actions can often drive the critical compromises that are needed to
reach consensus. In our view a consensus standard is one everyone can
live with and that is considered superior by all to the alternative of
not reaching agreement.
______
Responses of Richard D. Upton to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe briefly how, in your opinion, this bill
best improves upon the existing structure for updating appliance
standards.
Answer. The bill would establish ``first time'' energy efficiency
standards for the portable lighting industry. Importantly, they are
standards that both industry and advocates support.
Question 2. Please describe the different policy options available
to greater deploy and use energy efficient technology.
Answer. Many policy options are available to help promote energy
efficiency in residential lighting. The policy which would yield the
most energy efficiency in residential lighting use would be a policy
which incentivizes the conversion of the existing housing units to
switch to more energy efficient lighting. Currently, many regulations
exist at the state level such as Title 24 in California which requires
new housing to meet some energy efficiency standards. All the new laws
directed at residential lighting product whether fixture or portable
only effect new lighting purchases and as such will take a very long
time to make significant energy savings when compared to the total
energy used in residential lighting. The best option to affect the
greatest energy savings and to try to speed the conversion process to
energy efficient product would be to supplement new portable lighting
appliance standards with an incentive to replace the large existing
stock of residential lighting fixtures through a significant tax
incentive for consumers to convert to energy efficient product.
Question 3. Please describe an efficient process that could be
undertaken to review test procedures within the DOE.
Answer. The organization responsible for lighting standards and
lighting test procedures in the U.S. and Canada is the Illuminating
Engineering Society (IES). The IES has a long history (100+ years) of
developing practical and technically-correct procedures that involve
both measurement of light as well as proper lighting application
information. IES standards are developed using a formal consensus
process developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
Many IES lighting standards are also approved as ANSI standards. Both
the DOE and the EPA have utilized IES-developed standards in the
process of advancing efficient lighting including new solid state
lighting technology and this process has worked efficiently with the
enthusiastic support of other lighting industry organizations such as
the American Lighting Association (ALA) and the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA). These organizations have worked
together, for example, to form ad hoc groups that quickly resolve
specific test, measurement or lighting application problems. The
process works well and the DOE should be encouraged to make greater use
of it for their internal needs since it represents a broader consensus
than the recommendations of individual contractors or consultants.
Question 4. Please describe a process that could be undertaken
within the industry to ensure that there exists ``broad consensus''
regarding test procedures.
Answer. The lighting industry is experienced in working with others
to develop a broad consensus on major issues including application
recommendations and test procedures. The industry's own codes and
standards via the ANSI consensus process is a good example. Another
example is the widely-used ``Standard 90'' which was first developed in
1975 and has now gone through several revisions. ``Standard 90'' is the
basis of energy-efficient lighting design for new buildings in the U.S.
It is an effort of the IES and the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), but the
development process has substantially involved the design community,
building users, owners, developers and the general public.
The experience of the industry over the last 25 years has proven
that broad consensus-based efforts, such as described above, are the
most effective way to change lighting practice and transform the
lighting market to incorporate energy-efficient products, policies and
practice.
Question 5. Please describe options on how to ensure that solid
state lighting (SSL) technologies are pursued in a cooperative fashion
with both the DOE and EPA and interested stakeholders.
Answer. Options to gain cooperative action on LEDs between the EPA,
the DOE industry and other stakeholders:
A. Direct the EPA & the DOE to keep their discussion agenda
focused on substantive program differences vs. ``turf''
battles.
B. The Senate Energy & Natural Resources could direct the EPA
& the DOE to add other parties to their 45 day process,
including industry representatives (ALA & NEMA) one or two
advocates, plus one or two members of the Senate and House
Energy Subcommittees.
Totals:
Industry 2
Advocates 2
Government 2 or 4
C. If the EPA & DOE can not reach a successful resolution to
their differences have the 6 to 8 parties identified in the
above ``B'', convene and develop recommendations and submit
them to a joint Senate and House Energy Subcommittee panel for
ratification.
Question 6. Please explain the benefits of a consensus process
between advocates and industry and how they can work effectively with
government to move the market forward. Can this be done without
mandates?
Answer. The key benefit of gaining a consensus between advocates,
industry and government, when establishing legislation on a product, is
you create a ``uniform voice'' to consumers regarding the product. As a
result you have the opportunity to gain the consumers ``buy-in'' and
the best opportunity for a successful market transformation. Without a
``uniform voice'' the parties send competing messages to consumers and
they are then confused. When confused the consumer tends to ignore all
messages and continues to purchase products they know and are
comfortable using.
In setting any mandates it is important that: 1) they not price any
new technology out of the market place and/or stunt their development,
2) any requirements should be available. For example, after the 190
watt power limiter was legislated for torchieres we learned there was
no technology available and the industry was very challenged to meet
the required deadline set for the product.
Regarding mandates--they should, in our view, be limited and only
used if there is a significant safety issue or over arching objective
to be obtained. Most all, safety issues are met in the lighting
industry through the requirements of UL standards and the Uniform
Electric Code. Both entities do an excellent job of keeping their
standards/codes up-to-date and have frequent, scheduled reviews.
The most effective mandates are those that industry, with input
from others, requests of government such as SB 598 where we, the
lighting industry with the participation of ACEEE, have recommended
action on energy efficient portables. In this instance government and
advocates will gain significant energy savings and industry knows it
will be able to successfully produce energy efficient products that
give consumers the choices they want.
______
Responses of Mark Connelly to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe briefly how, in your opinion, this bill
best improves upon the existing structure for updating appliance
standards.
Answer. The Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009 improves
the existing structure for updating appliance standards in several
ways:
First, by allowing any person to petition DOE to amend test
procedures and requiring DOE to act on the petition within 180
days.
Second, it requires the DOE Secretary to review all test
procedures at least once every 7 years. While an improvement
over no review requirement whatsoever, this proposed review
cycle remains too infrequent. In our opinion, the review cycle
should be half that being proposed, that is, once every 3\1/2\
years, since technology changes quickly and test procedures
need to keep up.
Third, it requires a review of product categories when
market share for an Energy Star product reaches 35%. Again,
this is better than the current lack of any requirement, but it
is our opinion that this percentage should be lowered to 25%
since setting a higher bar will result in a more meaningful
program.
Fourth, test methods are to be reviewed and revised to
reflect actual product use. (Please see my answer to question 6
for details.)
Finally, a demonstration of compliance with Energy Star
shall include, as appropriate, third-party verification, third-
party certification, and government purchase and testing of
products from the market. We suggest, however, that the phrase
``as appropriate'' be deleted since we believe these are always
needed.
Question 2. Please describe the different policy options available
to greater deploy and use energy efficient technology.
Answer. Some available policy options for deploying and using
energy efficient technology include continually raising the bar for the
Energy Star program. When more than 35% of all products sold in any
given category have achieved an Energy Star, then that signals that the
technology and economies of scale have reached a point where achieving
an Energy Star is too ``easy'' and that the bar need to be raised.
Also of concern is that there are no minimum performance standards.
For example, as dishwasher energy efficiency becomes tighter,
manufacturers may be tempted to sacrifice wash performance. At this
point, without minimum performance standards, there is a danger where
Energy Star products get a bad reputation--much like low flow toilet
had when they were first introduced.
Question 3. Please describe an efficient process that could be
undertaken to review test procedures within the DOE.
Answer. One simple way to improve the process would be to solicit
stakeholders once each year about what, if any, test procedure changes
are warranted. (Stakeholders would include manufacturers, umbrella
organizations like AHAM, retailers such as Sears, Home Depot, and
Lowes, and consumer groups such as ACEEE and Consumers Union.)
Another way to improve the process is to review DOE test procedures
when more than 10% of the products (as measured by sales volume) in any
given category have been granted waivers by DOE.
That many waivers indicate that test procedures are out of date
relative to the products in the market. At that point, a task force
could be appointed by DOE to determine whether test procedures need to
be modified. The task force would be given a short deadline (one month)
to determine if test procedures need to be modified and recommend how
they should be modified. The task force should be small, but consist of
at least one representative from industry (e.g., AHAM), DOE, and a
consumer group (e.g., ACEEE).
Question 4. Please describe a process that could be undertaken
within the industry to ensure that there exists ``broad consensus''
regarding test procedures.
Answer. AHAM (Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers) the
appliance manufacturers' umbrella organization, provides that process
now. However, influence in AHAM is proportional to market share,
meaning large companies can monopolize the process and possibly block
consensus and progress. While non-manufacturers and consumer groups can
comment on AHAM proposals, our experience--not surprisingly--has been
that manufacturers' concerns and perspectives always come first.
Outside the appliance industry, other similar umbrella organizations
could be utilized. While it is always nice to have a broad consensus,
it is our opinion that government needs to ensure that the expectations
of the marketplace are met, especially when consumers are paying a
premium, as they are with Energy Star products.
Question 5. Please describe options on how to ensure that solid
state lighting (SSL) technologies are pursued in a cooperative fashion
with both the DOE and EPA and interested stakeholders.
Answer. We suggest that one of the two agencies should be appointed
as the lead. Our recommendation is that EPA be made the responsible
agency. EPA has a larger staff and budget devoted to the Energy Star
program. In fact, we believe that responsibility for all lighting
products be given to EPA. The need for sustainable lighting development
should take into account additional issues, like toxic materials and
recycling needs. This can be best accomplished in a centralized
approach that is lead by the EPA. Please note that we'd like to add our
concern that halogen lighting is being exempted from efficiency
standards. Halogen lights use much more energy than CFLs, just like
other incandescent lights. While halogens are more efficient than
standard incandescent bulbs, granting them an exemption would be
unfortunate.
Question 6. Please describe how the energy star label factors into
your product rating systems.
Answer. The Energy Star label does not factor into product ratings
published by Consumer Reports or ConsumerReports.org. While we may
report whether or not a product has an Energy Star, this is only to
help our subscribers identify the product when they shop.
In many cases, we do not agree that the DOE test procedures
represent consumers' experience. Quite simply, in many cases the DOE /
Energy Star tests are too easy. For example, although dishwashers are
now tested with soiled dishes, the amount of soil is anemic and on
average, represents about 1 soiled plate (out of 10 plates). By EPA's
own estimate, consumers would be wasting about 6,000 gallons of water
per year--and the energy used to heat that water--by running pre-rinsed
dishes through the dishwasher.
For washing machines, the test load averages to about an 8 pound
load and does not ``stress'' or assess the machine at its maximum load.
However, all manufacturers (especially for front loading and high-
efficiency top loading washers) tout their machines' maximum capacity
in advertising.
When testing refrigerators, electricity consumption is calculated
with the fresh food compartment at +45 F. At this temperature, food
will quickly spoil. (We recommend +37F). In many cases, the conditions
at which appliances are tested are akin to measuring vehicle fuel
economy when going downhill with a tailwind.
Question 7. In your opinion, will the Department of Energy ever be
able to keep up with changing technology, even with these improved
streamlines?
Answer. Yes with these improved streamlines and increased attention
to the issues, DOE should be able to do a better job of keeping up with
ever-changing technology. DOE has to keep up because consumers are
relying on DOE's information when purchasing appliances and other
products that will be consuming electricity for years to come.
Question 8a. You mentioned a test done on refrigerators with their
ice makers turned off that allowed manufacturers to take advantage of a
testing loophole in order to sell a product undeserving of an Energy
Star.
What sanctions, if any, do you think there should be for these
manufacturers?
Answer. The sanctions that DOE put in place were appropriate.
However, DOE should threaten even bigger sanctions in the future to
prevent manufacturers from taking advantage of situations like this
again. DOE should also consider mandatory third-party testing and
certification of appliances from manufacturers who take advantage of
testing loopholes. For example, if one refrigerator is found out of
compliance, all their models of that type in that line/type need to be
subject to mandatory, third-party testing. Of course, if DOE reviews
test procedures more frequently, the likelihood of this happening again
diminishes.
Question 8b. Are the examples used in your testimony anecdotal, or
do you believe there is widespread abuse?
Answer. The examples used in our testimony were real and
disturbing. It is difficult to say how widespread they are without
casting a very wide net and testing many more products.
Question 9. You mention the example of the dishwasher being tested
with clean dishes instead of dirty ones, resulting in a skewed
efficiency rating for dirt-sensing dishwashers. Are there examples
where your reports have been able to positively influence the test
procedures?
Answer. Consumers Union can only test a fraction of the total
appliances in a market. In addition, the resources we can devote to
publicizing our findings dwarfs those that manufacturers can marshal
through advertising and promotion to drown out our findings. Finally,
Consumers Union and Consumer Reports is no substitute for systematic,
rigorous, and regularly updated test protocols.
______
Response of Kyle Pistor to Question From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Mr. Nadel proposes several amendments dealing with: BR
lamps; state enforcement; multiple metrics; building codes; state
waivers, and data reporting.
Please give the committee your reaction to these proposals for the
record (if NEMA does not have stakeholders with an interest in any one
of these amendments, would you help us coordinate a response from the
appropriate association)?
Answer. BR Lamps--NEMA and ACEEE reached a consensus agreement on
coverage of the remaining few BR lamps through a DOE rulemaking and
submitted the recommendation to the Committee. The Committee
subsequently approved the agreement during mark-up on March 31, 2009.
State Enforcement--States (and persons) currently have authority to
enforce federal law under 42 USC Section 6305. Sec. 6305 allows
``persons'' to file citizen suits to enforce a violation of any part of
the Act or a Rule provided they give 60-day notice to the Secretary of
Energy, the Federal Trade Commission, and the alleged violator.
Presumably this gives the alleged violator of a 60-day cure period to
avoid an enforcement action from ``any person.''.
In EISA 2007, Congress amended Sec 6304 to allow States to seek
injunctive relief to enforce general service incandescent light bulb
standards. This was a special case due to nature of the regulated
product and the manner in which light bulbs reach consumers through
distribution. Light bulbs are not refrigerators or commercial HVAC
equipment or utility distribution transformers. Over a billion light
bulbs are sold each year and given the new light bulb standards that
begin in 2012, it was felt that injunctive relief might assist in DOE's
enforcement of the light bulb standards. The key difference with the
EISA provision, is that in the case of light bulbs, no 60-day notice
need be given. The unique nature of light bulbs as a federally-
regulated product is the only reason these products were treated
specially for enforcement. Those reasons do not exist for other
federally-regulated products.
Multiple Metrics--Efficiency is regulated at the appliance or
equipment system-level. Permitting DOE to set a standard on a component
of a regulated product is inappropriate since manufacturers need to
have flexibility to trade-off various component technologies to achieve
the overall efficiency of the product, and they need flexibility to
innovate components as well.
Building Codes--Congress has established a specific framework for
the interaction of the federal energy efficiency requirements on
products and states establishment of building codes prescribing
technologies and efficiency requirements. That framework must be
supported; otherwise, products that are legally permitted under federal
law could be prohibited due to a state building code that was written
with efficiency requirements that prohibit such products.
State Waivers--The suggestion seems to be a solution looking for a
problem. No state waiver has ever been denied due to lack of product
data from manufacturers. States must show a compelling and unique state
circumstance for a waiver of federal preemption. The unique or
compelling state circumstance is not a function of manufacturers'
product data being available or not.
Data Reporting--DOE already has legal authority to request
information of manufacturers. Manufacturers already provide information
to DOE during the technical assessment for specific product
rulemakings. Requiring detailed annual reporting of information to DOE
raises questions on how the information would be used and protected,
not to mention the costs for the hundreds of manufacturers and
importers that would now file such annual reports.
Responses of Kyle Pistor to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe briefly how, in your opinion, this bill
best improves upon the existing structure for updating appliance
standards.
Answer. The bill provides certainty by establishing specific
deadlines for decisions and/or actions by the administering agencies.
The bill mandates a review every 7 years of standards/test procedures
if the product is not under a prescribed review cycle. It expands on
the EISA 2007 consensus process for standards by adding test procedure
updating. The bill also seeks to improve on the enforcement of the
standards through a study and report on recommendations to the
Congress.
Question 2. Please describe the different policy options available
to greater deploy and use energy efficient technology.
Answer. Advancing energy efficiency comes about through the use of
a mix of policy approaches. Product standards establish energy
efficiency requirements for products thereby eliminating the least
efficient products in favor of higher efficient products. Consumer
education is carried out by many stakeholders, including manufacturers,
and is a key driver in gaining understanding and acceptance of new,
energy efficient products. Labeling of products provides information to
the purchaser on the energy costs of operating the equipment and
assists the purchaser in making trade-off decisions of first cost
versus life cycle costs of operation. Building codes that are
performance based provides the builder or architect with flexibility in
selecting specific components and technologies in order to achieve
overall energy efficiency of the structure. Voluntary programs like
Energy Star is another type of consumer education since the Energy Star
mark on the product indicates that the product represents a higher
efficiency than products not containing the mark. Procurement of energy
efficient products by federal and state governments can be a driver in
the market inasmuch as it can influence private sector procurement
decisions. Most energy efficient products have an initial higher cost
than inefficient products. Energy tax incentives (e.g., rebates, tax
credits, accelerated depreciation, tax deductions) assist in overcoming
the initial cost hurdle in purchasing energy efficient technologies.
Question 3. Please describe an efficient process that could be
undertaken to review test procedures within the DOE.
Answer. Typically, test procedures are reviewed when DOE undertakes
a rulemaking to consider amending the energy standard for the product.
The test procedure is the first step in the standards-setting process
since an agreed upon test procedure is needed in order to determine if
a product meets or exceeds an established energy efficiency level.
Since products are reviewed by DOE on a prescribed basis, the revision
of the test procedure should go hand-in-hand. In come cases, DOE adopts
a specific version of a test procedure which may then get modified or
updated by the Standards Development Organization (SDO) that wrote the
standard. In such cases, it may be appropriate to update the DOE
adopted procedure to reflect the changes made by the SDO. The
legislation under consideration would permit such an update through the
submittal of a petition and for DOE to conduct a rulemaking to
ascertain whether the petition should be granted and the test procedure
amended. In many cases, the SDO changes may be quite minor and the
updating of the DOE adopted procedure is noncontroversial. In those
cases, the legislation allows DOE to adopt the petition as a direct
final rule, subject to objection by an interested party and withdrawal
of the action by DOE.
Question 4. Please describe a process that could be undertaken
within the industry to ensure that there exists ``broad consensus''
regarding test procedures.
Answer. The writing of a test procedure results in the sponsoring
SDO to have the document balloted for approval. Under the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) process, such balloting takes place
to ensure that there is a ``balance of interests'' involved in
approving the procedure which include manufacturers, users, general
interest, and government. Any negative votes on the document must be
addressed by the sponsoring SDO, and there is a due process mechanism
to address any balloting questions. A concern with ``international''
test procedures is that they may not apply similar ``ANSI'' processes.
In submitting a consensus recommendation to DOE, either on a test
procedure or on an efficiency standard, the recommendation needs to
have the support of a broad group of interests including manufacturers,
non-governmental efficiency organizations, state governments,
utilities, and other stakeholders related to the product in question.
Question 5. Please describe options on how to ensure that solid
state lighting (SSL) technologies are pursued in a cooperative fashion
with both the DOE and EPA and interested stakeholders.
Answer. Solid state lighting represents a new lighting technology
which has the promise of transforming how lighting products are
manufactured, designed, and installed. This process will take years,
and the results could be quite dramatic for our economy. Such a
paradigm shift in lighting will be successful if all parties approach
the matter in a collaborative manner. All parties will have a role to
play in assisting the deployment of the technology, in educating
consumers, in changing codes and practices, and in sharing best
practices. The Energy Star program offers the promise of assisting
consumers in selecting the best performing of these new SSL products
thereby supporting the transformation of the lighting market. If
consumers have a ``bad'' experience with new technology, then they will
resist change. It is therefore critical that the government agencies
involved (and their contractors) coordinate efforts in a cross-agency
process that engages the SSL industry. NEMA favors consolidation of SSL
technology programs at DOE given its expertise in SSL, and recommends
that EPA and other agencies defer to DOE on issues relating to SSL
Energy Star requirements for residential and commercial lighting
fixtures that use SSL technology as the light source.
Question 6a. Outdoor lighting efficiency standards seems like a
huge opportunity for energy savings, considering the vast numbers of
lights lining streets, highways and parking lots across America.
Can you elaborate on the specifics of the proposal that you
mentioned in your testimony?
Answer. Discussions are underway within the lighting industry
(lamps, ballast, luminaires, and lighting controls) on appropriate
approaches to increase the deployment of energy-efficient outdoor
lighting technologies and products. These approaches may includes
efficiency standards to prohibit lower efficient technologies in favor
of commercially available alternatives that are cost effective to end-
users; application based approaches given the variety of outdoor
lighting uses that may require different products for different
applications; and energy tax incentives to deployment technologies.
Question 6b. What barriers currently exist?
Answer. Outdoor lighting, like most lighting, is application
specific and therefore no single approach may meet all the needs. In
seeking to address energy costs associated with outdoor lighting, one
must also consider concerns for sky glow, light trespass, effects on
animals and plants, glare, brightness perception, safety and security,
and circadian disruption. End-users of outdoor lighting also are quite
varied. There is lighting associated with lighting the exterior of
buildings, but also street and roadway lighting which includes
municipalities, utilities, federal and state departments of
transportation. Each of these end-use applications must be taken into
account in crafting a national outdoor lighting approach.
______
Responses of Brian McLean to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. How serious do you believe the compliance problem is
with Energy Star; how many staff do you have for monitoring and
enforcement; and are there specific plans to increase this capacity in
FY2010?
Answer. For the product categories EPA manages, which comprise more
than 50 of the 60 product categories covered in the ENERGY STAR
program, EPA has in place a comprehensive quality assurance program for
assuring the integrity of the ENERGY STAR label. This includes formal
partnership agreements with manufacturers; an initial certification
process that uses standardized, formal test procedures; and the review
of submitted data. In terms of verification testing, EPA uses a
combination of approaches to maximize coverage of the product
categories covered under the ENERGY STAR program so as to effectively
use government resources. These approaches include EPA testing of
products, leveraging the testing programs of third parties, and
specific testing programs for certain product categories. For example,
in residential lighting, EPA also requires quality assurance testing to
drive enhanced quality assurance and quality control processes for
manufacturers, as quality has been shown to be lacking for some
lighting products.
To date, EPA has conducted verification testing on 14 product
categories, testing more than 400 product models. Of the more than 400
models tested, only four failed to meet all relevant ENERGY STAR
performance requirements. The issues in those four instances have been
resolved.\1\ EPA recognizes that the dramatic growth in the size of the
ENERGY STAR program and the increasing complexity of the products
covered warrant expanded scrutiny. To that end, EPA is phasing in
verification testing requirements (in addition to qualification
testing) as part of the ENERGY STAR partnership, starting with
computers. EPA believes this will be an effective mechanism to ensure
compliance, without requiring a substantial additional investment in
EPA staff time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maintaining the Value of ENERGY STAR: 2007 Report (USEPA, 2008)
and testing results from 2008 product verification testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. The Energy Star program encourages the purchase of
highly efficient products by identifying the top 20-30 percent most-
efficient models with the Energy Star label. There has been discussion
of authorizing a program that would label the top, few most-efficient
models a so-called ``Super Star'' program.
What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of this
concept, and do you think Committee should have DOE and EPA study it
and report to Congress?
Answer. EPA believes super efficient products offer an important
opportunity for energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions
and is supportive of promoting them in the market. In fact, in response
to a need expressed by our energy efficiency program partners (e.g.,
utilities), we have developed a ``Save More'' marketing platform that
has been used in a number of successful applications to highlight
higher tier ENERGY STAR products. This platform uses higher efficiency
levels that have been developed by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency
(CEE), a non-profit membership organization implementing energy
efficiency programs across the country. Before pursuing additional
approaches, there are a number of issues to consider:
Is a new designation for super efficient products the most
effective approach for promoting such products given the
typically much higher first costs to consumers; and how would
the issue of these higher first costs be addressed?
How does such a designation interact with the tax credits
that have been established for a variety of super efficient
products? Do the tax credit requirements implicitly already
provide this designation?
How would this effort interact with a number of other
ongoing efforts to define and promote super efficient products
such as the Consortium for Energy Efficiency's Tiers, the tax
credits mentioned above, and a new Top Ten program designating
the top ten efficient products being developed through a newly
formed non-profit?
Does the ENERGY STAR program already capture many of these
benefits given that it is not a static program, but is
regularly updated to have more stringent requirements as the
market moves?
Is this designation one that key market players such as
utilities, retailers and others can effectively support in the
market place and under what conditions does more information
assist consumers versus complicate the purchasing process?
EPA continually reviews these types of issues and the role the
ENERGY STAR is playing in advancing energy efficient products in
partnership with market players.
Responses of Brian McLean to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe briefly how, in your opinion, this bill
best improves upon the existing structure for updating appliance
standards.
Answer. EPA is responding to questions regarding this legislation
from the perspective of its role with the ENERGY STAR Program, which
involves a set of voluntary standards. As we indicated in our written
testimony, we believe we have the necessary authority to update ENERGY
STAR specifications and test procedures without the need for additional
authorities as provided in this bill.
Question 2. Please describe the different policy options available
to greater deploy and use energy efficient technology.
Answer. There is a broad range of policy options available to
increase the deployment, use, and benefits of energy efficient
technologies and practices. These go well beyond mandatory appliance
standards and the labeling of appliances that were the focus of the
March 19th Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. The
policy options cut across federal, state, and local governments and
they involve a number of federal agencies including EPA, the Department
of Energy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
General Services Administration. The full portfolio of energy
efficiency policy options include:
Energy Efficiency Programs (utility, 3rd party, and/or
government)
Building Labeling and Energy Performance Disclosure (e.g.,
Energy Star and Energy Smart Home Scale)
Appliance Labeling [e.g., Energy Star (voluntary) and
Federal Trade Commission EnergyGuide (mandatory)]
Building Codes (mandatory)
Appliance Standards (mandatory)
Utility Regulatory Policy (e.g., resource planning, utility
financial incentives, rate design, and distributed generation
policies)
Tax Policy
Other Government Policies (e.g., ``lead by example'' in
government owned buildings and procurement policies)
Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS)
Existing Federal Statutory Authorities (Clean Air Act)
Question 3. Please describe an efficient process that could be
undertaken to review test procedures within the DOE.
Answer. EPA defers to DOE in responding to this question.
Question 4. Please describe a process that could be undertaken
within the industry to ensure that there exists ``broad consensus''
regarding test procedures.
Answer. EPA makes use of an open, transparent, and inclusive
process when developing ENERGY STAR specifications. A key element of
this process is the identification of a well vetted, fair, accurate,
and reliable test procedure that ensures that products compete on a
level playing field when testing for ENERGY STAR qualification.
Whenever possible, the Agency references test procedures developed
through a consensus-based standard development process like, for
example, that which is offered by the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC). Such testing standards are also global in nature and
offer the benefit of international harmonization for product testing,
saving manufacturers and governments considerable resources. For
example, EPA was actively engaged in, and requires the use of, IEC62087
for testing On Mode TV energy use, and IEC 62301 for testing standby TV
energy use as part of the ENERGY STAR program.
In cases where a consensus-based standards body has not created a
test procedure for a product category that EPA wishes to add to the
ENERGY STAR suite of products, EPA will draft and vet with stakeholders
a product testing approach. For example, EPA proposed and vetted with a
wide range of interested parties--from manufacturers, to cable,
satellite, and telecomm service providers, to utilities, and non-profit
organizations--a means of testing the energy performance of cable,
satellite, and telecomm boxes. EPA and stakeholders finalized this test
procedure and EPA has called for its use in the first phase of its
ENERGY STAR Cable, Satellite, and Telecomm requirements (effective
January 1, 2009). EPA has also engaged with the IEC in the development
of a test standard for these products and IEC is considering making use
of large portions of the current ENERGY STAR test procedure. Should IEC
finalize a test procedure for cable, satellite, and telecomm boxes that
EPA feels confident is fair and produces accurate and reliable results,
EPA will call for the use of the IEC test procedure for the next phase
of its ENERGY STAR Cable, Satellite, and Telecomm Requirements (in
effect January 2011).
Question 5. Please describe options on how to ensure that solid
state lighting (SSL) technologies are pursued in a cooperative fashion
with both the DOE and EPA and interested stakeholders.
Answer. This is an issue that EPA and DOE will specifically address
as part of the 45 day process to improve coordination between the
agencies. We plan to report back to the Committee on a resolution to
this issue in that timeframe.
Question 6. Please further describe the timeframe you will
undertake to accomplish your recommendation to improve interagency
coordination of the ENERGY STAR Program. Please describe how you will
work with Program stakeholders to improve the success of the ENERGY
STAR Program.
Answer. EPA and DOE will report back to the committee within 45
days as to the resolution of issues with interagency coordination and
standardization of program management across the agencies. This effort
will involve identification and discussion of these issues and
resolution of the issues. Written documentation of the resolution will
be provided.
EPA will continue to work with program stakeholders to increase the
benefits the program offers in EPA's areas of responsibility with the
ENERGY STAR program, which constitute about 90 percent of the program
areas and include:
more than 50 product categories across heating and cooling,
lighting, office equipment, home electronics, and commercial
food service;
new homes construction;
new and existing commercial and existing buildings; and
industrial energy management
Question 7. Please describe the administrative tools you have to
improve the overall efficiency of appliances. What other tools do you
believe are necessary to ensure that we continue to achieve greater
success within this area?
Answer. EPA has designed and managed the ENERGY STAR program to
improve the efficiency of a wide variety of consumer products including
heating and cooling equipment, office equipment, consumer electronics,
commercial food service and light fixtures. The ENERGY STAR program is
employed to help consumers find products that are more efficient than
federal minimum standards as well as products in product categories not
subject to federal standards. The ENERGY STAR program is well
positioned to continue to play this role. For example, as of 2007, the
ENERGY STAR Program, with the support of ENERGY STAR program partners
such as states, local governments, and others, is delivering more than
48 TWh of electric savings and 8.5 MMTC of greenhouse gas reductions
annually from qualified office equipment.\2\ ENERGY STAR qualified
consumer electronics, such as TVs, DVDs, audio products and products
with external power adapters are delivering a combined savings of 14.7
TWh and 2.8 MMTC in greenhouse gas reductions per year.\3\ For rapidly
changing, globally traded products such as office equipment and
consumers electronics, ENERGY STAR has proven a particularly effective
approach to driving greater efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ENERGY STAR and Other Climate Protection Partnerships: 2007
Annual Report (USEPA, 2008)
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 8. One area of concern regarding the Standards Program has
been the turn around time in ensuring that test procedures and energy
conservation standards are monitored and updated as needed. Please
describe how you will address these concerns.
Answer. EPA defers to DOE in responding to this question.
Question 9. Within your testimony you reference that you are doing
all that you can to examine and review operations to be even more
efficient and productive--can you please further elaborate what these
operations entail?
Answer. The testimony reference noted in this question is from
DOE's testimony from the March 19, 2009, hearing and therefore EPA
defers to DOE in responding to this question.
Response of Brian McLean to Question From Senator Barrasso
Question 1a. Improving appliance energy efficiency is an important
component of keeping consumers' energy bills down.
The Energy Star program has helped consumers make informed
decisions regarding energy efficiency products.
It has also raised consumer awareness of the issue and encouraged
manufacturers to improve efficiency.
There are, however, products made by small businesses in my state--
innovative, energy-conserving products--that have faced challenges with
the Energy Star program.
Are heating devices, like space heaters, currently included in the
Energy Star Program?
Answer. Space heaters are not currently included in the ENERGY STAR
program. EPA has historically focused on the mass market for
traditional forms of heating where the greatest opportunities for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions exist (i.e., central AC and heating).
These equipment types also have solid, industry vetted test procedures,
and meet ENERGY STAR program guiding principles, including:
1) Significant energy savings can be realized on a national
basis.
2) Product performance can be maintained or enhanced with
increased energy efficiency.
3) Purchasers will recover their investment in increased
energy efficiency within a reasonable time.
4) Energy efficiency can be achieved with several technology
options, at least one of which is non-proprietary.
5) Product energy consumption and energy performance can be
measured and verified with testing.
6) Labeling would effectively differentiate products and be
visible for purchasers.
EPA's prior assessments of space heaters demonstrated that although
space heaters can deliver heat in a cost effective and efficient
manner, in some limited situations they do not offer the opportunity
for efficiency that whole home systems do. EPA could revisit this
assessment if new information comes to light.
Question 1b. Do residential heating systems that independently
generate 100 percent of their power from an attached solar or wind
power source qualify for consideration? If not, why?
Answer. The ENERGY STAR Program currently addresses furnaces,
boilers and heat pumps. To the extent these products meet the relevant
ENERGY STAR specification, regardless of their power source, they could
qualify. We do not specifically qualify residential heating systems
that independently generate 100 percent of their power. Given the need
for back-up power for solar or wind sources, we are not aware that such
a heating system exists.
______
Responses of David Rodgers to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. I have a strong interest in the integrity of the Next
Generation Lighting Initiative and I share the frustration of the
industry partners in the Initiative that EPA and DOE have established
different and conflicting test procedures for solid state lighting.
Given DOE's leadership in the development and understanding of this
new technology, why should DOE not have exclusive jurisdiction with
respect to Energy Star activities related to solid state lighting? Flow
and when do you plan to resolve this conflict?
Answer. The Department of Energy has maintained a preeminent
position in solid-state lighting (SSL) since 2002 with its research and
development program and its commercialization support efforts. The
Department has worked diligently to establish a strong relationship
with industry and all stakeholders in an effort to assure that the
marketplace for SSLs was in no way compromised by lack of quality
products. The Department recognizes that the energy savings potential
of SSLs is huge--the potential to reduce lighting energy use by 33
percent--and has focused each clement of its Program on meeting that
potential.
The Department intends to work in partnership with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the current inter-agency
deliberations to address any ENERGY STAR Program differences, including
those with SSLs.
Question 2. On page 5 you outline the case of cheating by a
refrigerator manufacturer. The investigation by Consumer Reports
indicates that compliance may be a systemic problem. You state that DOE
is establishing third party testing and that there is ``new work that
coincides with recommendations for program improvement.''
Could you be more specific? For example, how many positions are
dedicated to monitoring and enforcing compliance, and what are the
plans to increase this capacity in fiscal year 2010?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) is exploring ways to
strengthen monitoring and enforcement provisions of both ENERGY STAR
and the Department's energy conservation standards. DOE is evaluating,
for example, recommendations from its Peer Review of the ENERGY STAR
Program, the Consumer Reports article, and stakeholder feedback.
The ENERGY STAR Program across the eight product categories managed
at DOE already requires third party testing of Compact Fluorescent
Lamps and Solid State Lighting, and third party qualification testing
of windows, doors, and skylights. Appliances are currently self-
certified by manufacturers using DOE test procedures. The Department is
considering whether to establish a random off-the-floor testing program
of these products in order to ensure products at retail meet ENERGY
STAR qualifying criteria. If the program were started, the Department
would anticipate dedicating up to one-half of a full time equivalent
(FTE) position at Headquarters to manage third party testing for the
products in the ENERGY STAR program. At DOE's operational contractor's
office, it is expected 0.75 FTE will be required to handle the
logistics of the program. At the testing laboratories, where there is
one facility dedicated for lighting products, one for appliance testing
and between seven to ten for fenestration product testing and
simulation, the Department expects upwards of five FTEs working solely
on ENERGY STAR verification testing.
The Appliance Standards Program is equipping a testing facility at
the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) where products will be
tested to verify their compliance with efficiency standards. The
facility will also be used to gather information related to product
cost impacts resulting from increases in energy efficiency. Start up of
this facility is underway with ramping up of activities to occur
through out FY2010.
Question 3. The Energy Star program encourages the purchase of
highly efficient products by identifying the top 20-30 percent most-
efficient models with the Energy Star label. There has been discussion
of authorizing a program that would label the top, few most-efficient
models, a so-called ``Super Star'' program.
What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of this
concept, and do you think the Committee should have DOE and EPA study
it and report to Congress?
Answer. This concept of a ``Super Star'' has been discussed at the
program level for some time and the Department welcomes the opportunity
to investigate it more fully. The advantage of such a program is that
it could provide the consumer with a broader picture of what energy
efficiency purchases are available and allow better alignment with
utility incentives for customers, or incentives to retailers and/or
manufacturers. A potential disadvantage will be communicating the new
approach to consumers to avoid confusion when individuals attempt to
determine which level is appropriate for their specific needs. These
are issues that need to be investigated.
Secretary Chu recently stressed the key role that energy efficiency
in appliances and buildings should play in curbing greenhouse gas
emissions. He also emphasized the need to ensure that consumers sec
efficient appliances and home materials as choices that will ultimately
save them money. The Secretary has described a ``superstar'' category
of perhaps the top 5 to 10 percent best performers, saying this would
allow manufacturers to claim that their products would ultimately save
consumers the most money despite higher up-front costs.
Question 4. In Japan the appliance efficiency program is known as
``Top Runner.'' Minimum efficiency standards for a product are
automatically and periodically increased based on the market share of
the most-efficient models.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and do
you believe the Committee should have DOE study it and report to
Congress?
Answer. Japan's Top Runner program establishes energy conservation
standards based on the most energy-efficient products on the market at
the time of the standard setting process. Top Runner identifies the
efficiency levels of the most efficient commercially available
products, and uses this efficiency level as the baseline for which the
corporate weighted average energy efficiency must meet or exceed.
Unlike the U.S. system, this allows manufacturers to produce products
that arc less efficient than the standard as long as the manufacturer
compensates by producing very efficient models in sufficient quantities
to ensure that the total shipment weighted average efficiency is
greater than the standard. Additional differences include that the Top
Runner program has a shorter time frame for the standard setting
process however it lacks provisions for potential needs such as
regional variation in standards.
Although we see that key differences exist between the appliance
standards programs in Japan and the U.S., we have insufficient
information at this time to reach a conclusion on the merits of the Top
Runner program. For example, while the corporate weighted average
energy efficiency component of the Top Runner program allows for
flexibility, it also makes enforcement more complicated, as it requires
more data collection, record keeping, and verification of calculations.
A more in-depth study of the Top Runner program would be needed to
provide greater understanding of whether the differences that exist are
advantages or disadvantages. This study would investigate areas such as
support of innovation, speed of development, recognition of regional
effects, relative magnitude of energy savings, cost of meeting
standards, impact on the availability of product features, and
manufacturer impacts.
Question 5. You describe DOE's requirement to release 22 final
rules by June 30, 2011, and that the Department is assessing the
resource needs to meet these requirements.
When will this assessment be complete and can a copy be made
available to the Committee?
Have decisions been made regarding the funding level for the
program for fiscal year 2010, and if so can you summarize them?
Answer. The program currently operates with a full-time staff of 11
employees. The efficiency measures that were introduced in 2006 greatly
increased the productivity of the Appliance Standards Program and
allowed the program to meet its obligations through 2008. In the last
three years, the program has issued almost as many rulemakings as were
issued in the 18 prior years. Additionally, 23 new rulemakings were
initiated.
The additional workload to accomplish requirements from the
EnergyIndependence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) as well as other
identified needs have created challenges for the program. Adding
additional employees to the Appliance Standards Program and adjusting
the program to meet growing demands will help overcome these
challenges. A top priority is updating test procedures that have not
kept pace with technological developments. Also, activities related to
test procedures, such as petitions for waivers from DOE test procedures
and verification of compliance with test procedure and efficiency
standard requirements, need additional resources and attention. DOE
will report back to the committee once the assessment of Appliance
Standards resources has been completed.
Responses of David Rodgers to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe briefly how, in your opinion, this bill
best improves upon the existing structure for updating appliance
standards.
Answer. The proposed bill would amend the requirements for the
Department of Energy's (DOE's) consideration of a petition to establish
amended energy conservation standards by adding time limits for DOE
responses to petitions. The bill would require DOE to respond to a
petition for an amended standard within 180 days and would require DOE
to complete a rulemaking within three years from granting a petition.
This petition process is, to a certain extent, redundant given the
existing rulemaking requirements in the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA). Section 305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA) amended EPCA to require DOE to review the energy
conservation standards for residential products and commercial
equipment every six years.
As structured, the bill may allow for some acceleration of
rulemakings compared to the schedule set by the EISA amendments and
thus deliver energy savings sooner. This would be dependent upon the
quality and extent of information included in a petition. Petitions
that contain detailed information relevant to a standard and recommend
changes could encourage more robust rulemakings. Petitions submitted
with little information or without recommendations as currently
permitted in the proposed bill, could increase the burden on DOE to
respond in a timely manner and impact resources needed for other
rulemakings.
Question 2. Please describe the different policy options available
to greater deploy and use energy efficient technology.
Answer. There are several policy options available to greater
deploy and use energy efficient technology. These options include
Research and Development (R&D), information, incentive, and regulatory
programs.
In addition to developing new technology, R&D programs include the
establishment of performance metrics (e.g. EER, SEER, U-Values) and
testing procedures to ensure standardization and also aid the
commercialization and deployment of new technology. Technology
competitions, like the L Prize, provide a bridge between R&D and the
other deployment programs, and help to spur manufacturers to develop
and deploy energy efficient technology. Programs such as the labeling
programs (e.g., ENERGY STAR, the Federal Trade Commission's EnergyGuide
and EnergySmart Home Scale (E-Scale) of Builders Challenge) help
consumers understand energy performance and costs when shopping for a
new product or home. Incentive programs are very effective in helping
consumers overcome higher up front costs for efficient products that
deliver net savings over the life of the product. Many of the incentive
programs have been built on the information included in the education
and labeling programs. Regulatory programs, such as the Department of
Energy's appliance energy conservation standards program can be very
effective at increasing deployment which results in significant energy
savings.
Question 3. Please describe an efficient process that could be
undertaken to review test procedures within DOE.
Answer. Test procedures are the foundation for consistent testing
and measuring of product performance, and arc the foundation for both
the appliance standards program and the ENERGY STAR program. For those
products that fall under the mandatory appliance energy conservation
standards program, DOE develops test procedures vetted through the
formal rulemaking process. In many cases, DOE encourages and adopts
test procedures that have undergone a rigorous industry vetting process
in which both industry and non-industry stakeholders participate. These
voluntary consensus test procedures arc a very efficient way to review
and maintain test procedures as technology matures.
For example, DOE requires that ENERGY STAR windows, doors, and
skylights be tested under procedures maintained by the National
Fenestration Rating Council. Such test procedures have been carefully
vetted with DOE input and arc used as the basis for product
qualification in residential and commercial building codes and
standards across the U.S. and Canada.
Question 4. Please describe a process that could be undertaken
within the industry to ensure that there exists ``broad consensus''
regarding test procedures.
Answer. Test procedures developed through notice and comment
rulemaking provide the opportunity for all interested stakeholders to
review and contribute, leading to test procedures that are transparent
and apply equally to all. Furthermore, many DOE test procedures either
incorporate by reference or are based on test procedures developed by
other standards bodies (e.g., Air-Conditioning, Heating and
Refrigeration Institute, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers, International Organization for
Standardization, International Electrotechnical Commission,
Illuminating Engineering Society, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, National Electrical Manufacturers Association).
Each organization has its own procedures for enabling public
participation in their standards-development process. Typically, these
standards bodies involve multiple stakeholder groups, including
industry, DOE and other federal agencies, energy efficiency advocacy
groups, utilities, states, trade associations and others in developing
their test procedures. In addition, DOE has supported contractors,
including staff from the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), to participate in many of these processes.
The Energy Policy Conservation Act as amended, requires DOE to
review each test procedure on a seven-year cycle to determine if
amendments are warranted. In carrying out this review, DOE will
evaluate its test procedures as well as those developed by the relevant
standards bodies, and will consider providing further support for those
standards bodies that develop updated test procedures that meet the
program's requirements.
Question 5. Please describe options on how to ensure that solid
state lighting (SSL) technologies are pursued in a cooperative fashion
with both the DOE and EPA and interested stakeholders.
Answer. This is an issue that DOE and EPA will specifically address
as part of the process to improve coordination between the agencies.
The Department and EPA plan to report back to the Committee on a
resolution to this issue. The Department and EPA will focus on options
that reduce confusion among consumers and manufacturers, provide
consumers with efficient lighting choices with the features they want,
clarify management roles for SSL, better utilize industry standards
organizations for the development of test procedures, and align agency
programs with the goals of the Next Generation Lighting Industry
Alliance, and protect the integrity of the ENERGY STAR brand.
Question 6. You stated that the Department is currently assessing
the resources needs of the appliance standards team in light of the
ambitious schedule you have taken on in order to meet your deadlines.
Do you feel that you have or will have the workforce necessary to
complete your objectives?
Answer. Yes, the Department is taking steps to ensure it has
adequate staff. The program currently operates with a full-time staff
of 11 employees. That level is not adequate to meet all the existing
appliance standards requirements, and additional staff are being hired.
The efficiency measures that were introduced in 2006 greatly increased
the productivity of the Appliance Standards Program and allowed the
program to meet its obligations through 2008. In the last three years,
the program has issued almost as many rulemakings as were issued in the
18 prior years. Additionally, 23 new rulemakings were initiated. The
Department is proposing additional measures to help sustain this
increased level of efforts.
A top priority is updating test procedures that have not kept pace
with technological developments. Also, activities related to test
procedures, such as petitions for waivers and verification of
compliance, need additional resources and attention.
Question 7. You spoke of your education campaigns Operation Change
Out and Recycle my Old Fridge. Have these programs been effective? What
do you find is the best incentive for consumers to move from older
appliances to newer, more efficient ones?
Answer. ENERGY STAR OPERATION CHANGE OUT--THE MILITARY CHALLENGE, a
joint effort of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of
Defense (DOD), was launched on Earth Day of 2008 at Camp Lejeune and
resulted in the immediate change-out of 17,500 inefficient,
incandescent light bulbs with ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent
bulbs. As of April 2, 2009, 147 bases have joined the challenge with
the Air Force at 100 percent participation of major commands in the
U.S. Over 800,000 bulbs have been changed, saving over 214.6 million
kWh, $53.8 million energy costs, and preventing over 175,000 metric
tons of greenhouse gases over the lifetime of the bulbs.
The ENERGY STAR, Recycle My Old Fridge effort focuses on drawing
increased attention to the millions of inefficient refrigerators in
homes throughout the U.S. and to the benefits of proper recycling and
of replacing the inefficient models with ENERGY STAR qualified models.
Begun in 2008, the program targets the 44.5 million households with
refrigerators over ten years old and 16.9 million households with
freezers over 10 years old. Combined, inefficient freezers and
refrigerator-freezers use $4.9 billion per year in energy costs. Also
an estimated 84.1 million households have a top-loading washer; or
which 24 million of these are at least ten years old. Combined, the
inefficient washers use $9 billion per year in energy and water costs.
In early April, the Department will launch its 2009 campaign at
www.energystar.gov/recycle, adding freezers and clothes washer
information this year, with the updated names of ENERGY STAR, Make a
Cool Change, and ENERGY STAR, Make a Clean Change.
Consumers generally buy new appliances when their current units
fail, but they also replace appliances as part of a kitchen remodel or
to upgrade for aesthetic or performance reasons. Consumers may be
motivated to select an ENERGY STAR model for a number of reasons,
including: energy bill savings, financial incentives from the retailer
or manufacturer, rebates from their local utility, and a State-level
sales tax holiday. Some also choose ENERGY STAR models for their unique
performance features, e.g., the larger capacity of ENERGY STAR clothes
washers. In addition to steering consumers towards ENERGY STAR when
buying a new appliances, DOE encourages consumers to get rid of old
``second refrigerators'' that are often found in garages and basements.
A number of utilities run programs designed to remove old inefficient
refrigerators from the grid by paying a small financial incentive to
customers who agree to have their old unit picked up and recycled.
Sometimes non-financial factors can motivate decisions to replace
with ENERGY STAR products. DOE and EPA regularly promote the energy and
environmental benefits of using ENERGY STAR products. During OPERATION
CHANGE OUT DOE also found that competitive peer pressure among the
military bases helped spur investment in efficient lighting.
Question 8. Do you think we should try to use the power of the
Energy Star brand and the awareness of it by consumers to help out in
other areas that we want to see rapid development in, like demand
response technologies, distributed storage devices, smart meters and
other smart grid technologies?
Answer. The Department believes the ENERGY STAR brand can be used
to promote certain new energy saving technologies. The brand can lead
both established markets such as refrigerators or dishwashers, and new
markets, such as highly efficient water heaters and solid state
lighting. The Department has successfully launched water heater and
solid state lighting initiatives and has seen market entry of qualified
products. However, without the availability of the ENERGY STAR label,
these products may have been stuck on manufacturers' drawing boards.
Expanding the program to cover demand response technologies,
distributed storage devices may be able to help consumers and
businesses make wise purchases. However, much work would need to be
done before the Department could determine whether ENERGY STAR could
assist in the marketing of these products, and, if so, what criteria
should be used to qualify eligible products. Further, substantial
changes in the market place for how energy is priced may be important
for consumers to see benefits from some of these technologies. However,
the potential contribution of these technologies to peak load reduction
and energy savings is large enough to warrant a thorough evaluation of
ENERGY STAR labeling.
Question 9. Please further describe the timeframe you will
undertake to accomplish your recommendation to improve interagency
coordination of the ENERGY STAR Program. Please describe how you will
work with Program stakeholders to improve the success of the ENERGY
STAR Program.
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) made a commitment at the
March 19, 2009, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing
on the Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009, to resolve inter-
agency coordination issues within 45 days. This process has already
begun and is expected to culminate in mutual agreement.
ENERGY STAR has become the Nation's most visible and consistent
symbol of energy and resource efficiency. ENERGY STAR can become an
even more important tool to achieve energy efficiency goals in the
future.
Energy efficiency technologies and programs are more critical than
ever given the growth of peak electricity prices and variable natural
gas prices and the challenge of addressing global climate change. The
Department will explore working with its ENERGY STAR partners to
promote efforts to (a) tap into the power of the private sector to
deliver savings, (b) focus end-users on comprehensive, efficiency-based
solutions, and (c) establish a mechanism by which all public sector
policy actors with a legitimate interest in energy efficiency can focus
their energies on overcoming barriers in the efficiency marketplace.
Whereas simple dollar savings and an environmental message have
been the mainstays of ENERGY STAR consumer marketing, broadening the
impact on the commercial and industrial sectors would require more
specific rationales for improving energy performance. The Department
believes that ENERGY STAR has the potential to remain both a strong,
consistent call to action for end-users as well as a strong
``rationalizing force'' in the efficiency marketplace.
Question 10. Please describe the administrative tools you have to
improve the overall efficiency of appliances. What other tools do you
believe are necessary to ensure that we continue to achieve greater
success within this area?
Answer. There are several administrative tools available to greater
deploy and use energy efficient technology. These options include
Research and Development (R&D) programs, information programs,
financial incentives, and regulatory programs.
R&D programs, besides developing new technology, also include the
establishment of performance metrics (EER, SEER, U-Values, etc) and
testing procedures to ensure standardization and to aid the deployment
of new technology. Information deployment programs such as the labeling
programs used by ENERGY STAR and the Federal Trade Commission's
EnergyGuide program help consumers understand energy performance and
costs when shopping for a new product or home. The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) provides for financial incentives
for American consumers to buy energy efficient ENERGY STAR products to
replace old appliances. Per the Recovery Act, approximately $300
million will be allocated to states to develop and administer the
ENERGY STAR appliance rebate programs. Regulatory programs, such as
DOE's appliance energy conservation standards program, provide the
strongest form of deployment which results in significant energy
savings. Working with product manufacturers, designers, utilities,
consumers, and other government agencies, this program area develops
test procedures and sets minimum efficiency standards for residential
appliances and commercial equipment. DOE does not believe it needs
additional tools to ensure deployment of energy efficient technologies.
Question 11. One area of concern regarding the Standards Program
has been the turn around time in ensuring that test procedures and
energy conservation standards are monitored and updated as needed.
Please describe how you will address these concerns.
A primary technique for accelerating development of test procedures
is to work with industry standards organizations (e.g. ASHRAE, ISO,
NEMA). The Department has the authority to adopt voluntary consensus
proposals and will work closely with standards organizations to
accelerate the modernization of existing test procedures.
Answer. The Department is taking steps to ensure it has adequate
staff in order to meet the turn around times. In the last three years,
the program has issued almost as many rulemakings as were issued in the
18 prior years. Additionally, 23 new rulemakings were initiated. The
Department is proposing additional measures to help sustain this
increased level of efforts. A top priority is updating test procedures
that have not kept pace with technological developments. Also,
activities related to test procedures, such as petitions for waivers
and verification of compliance, need additional resources and
attention.
Question 12. Within your testimony you reference that you arc doing
all that you can to examine and review operations to be even more
efficient and productive--can you please further elaborate what these
operations entail?
Answer. In its January 2006 report to Congress, the Department of
Energy (DOE) released its multi-year schedule to eliminate backlogged
appliance standards, while keeping up with the new requirements of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. Since then, the productivity of the
appliance standards program has substantially increased. DOE has
accomplished this by implementing rule-making process improvements,
such as ``technology grouping,'' ``cross-cutting strategy meetings,''
``bundling,'' and ``valley filling.'' Such management tools enable DOE
to take advantage of economies of scale for rulemakings that are
related or have certain common elements, and to maximize rulemaking
capacity.
DOE's analysis teams are grouped by technology. Each team
specializes in one or more common area, such as lighting, heating, home
appliances, etc. This enables individual teams to become experts within
their specialty, and increases the overall resource and knowledge-base
sharing to accelerate the productivity of the program.
Weekly cross-cutting strategy meetings have significantly enhanced
the program's productivity. Meeting attendees include all the appliance
standards program staff, as well as representatives from DOE General
Counsel and Policy and International Affairs. The meetings give all
parties the opportunity to discuss overarching rulemaking matters that
affect all teams, and enable DOE project managers to more efficiently
apply strategies across multiple rulemakings.
Bundling increases productivity by combining multiple products into
a single standard or test procedure rulemaking. DOE considers bundling
when there is significant overlap among manufacturers that produce a
particular product, have multiple products in common, or where the
technologies and issues are related. Further, a single trade
association may cover multiple products that are identified in
different rulemakings and, therefore, many of the same manufacturers
are able to review the DOE analyses and attend a single public meeting.
When multiple products are consolidated into a single rulemaking, one
project manager can oversee all the related rulemaking activities and
thereby leverage DOE resources.
At certain times, there can be a break in the analysis activity for
a particular rulemaking. Breaks in analysis activities include
internal/external technical reviews, mandatory concurrence by other DOE
offices, and public comment periods. At such times, DOE uses valley
filling as a management technique to refocus a rulemaking team's
efforts to another related rulemaking. Essentially, valley filling
combines a 36-month scheduled rulemaking with an overlapping
rulemaking. Thus, the total time to complete the combined rulemaking
activities is less than if the related activities were performed
sequentially.
With respect to the acceleration of the schedule presented along
with the January 2006 Report to Congress and the addition of subsequent
requirements in EISA 2007, DOE is losing some of its valley-filling
benefits while expanding output. In effect, by accelerating the
schedule, DOE is paralleling work that had originally been intended to
be interwoven. While paralleling work enables the program to accomplish
more in the same time, it does require greater resources. DOE continues
to seek out productivity enhancements and is continually evaluating its
processes.
Response of David Rodgers to Question From Senator Barrasso
Question 1a. Improving appliance energy efficiency is an important
component of keeping consumers' energy bills down.
The Energy Star program has helped consumers make informed
decisions regarding energy efficiency products.
It has also raised consumer awareness of the issue and encouraged
manufacturers to improve efficiency.
There are, however, products made by small businesses in my state--
innovative, energy-conserving products--that have faced challenges with
the Energy Star program.
Are heating devices, like space heaters, currently included in the
Energy Star Program?
Answer. Certain space heating products such as furnaces, boilers,
electric air-source heat pumps, and geothermal heat pumps are labeled
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the ENERGY STAR
program. However, space heaters (i.e., vented and unvented room
heaters) are not labeled as ENERGY STAR qualified products. Space
heaters have been evaluated by EPA for inclusion in the program but DOE
understands that there are no plans to label them at this time.
Question 1b. Improving appliance energy efficiency is an important
component of keeping consumers' energy bills down.
The Energy Star program has helped consumers make informed
decisions regarding energy efficiency products.
It has also raised consumer awareness of the issue and encouraged
manufacturers to improve efficiency.
There are, however, products made by small businesses in my state--
innovative, energy-conserving products--that have faced challenges with
the Energy Star program.
Do residential heating systems that independently generate 100
percent of their power from an attached solar or wind power source
qualify for consideration? If not, why?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has included solar water
heaters as part of the ENERGY STAR program effective January 1, 2009,
although these systems do not generate 100 percent of their power needs
from renewable energy due to the need for backup power. Additionally,
DOE is currently evaluating photovoltaic technologies and small wind
turbine technologies for inclusion into the ENERGY STAR program.