October 3, 2000

New Efficiency Standards Proposed for Appliances

By MATTHEW L. WALD

ASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Central air-conditioning and heat pumps would have to do the same amount of work on 20 percent to 30 percent less electricity under standards that will be proposed on Tuesday by the Energy Department as part of a broad effort to reduce consumption by appliances to cut air pollution, fuel use and strain on the electric system.

The added costs for central air- conditioning and heat pumps would be greater than the cost of the energy saved, officials said, but the reduced need for new power plants might make up the difference.

The standards would add $274 to the price of new central air-conditioners, an increase of about 12 percent, and $486 to the price of new heat pumps, an increase of about 13 percent, the department said.

"We're not only helping consumers to save energy and money on their monthly utility bills," Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said in a telephone interview, "we're also helping ensure that the country has enough power to meet its energy needs."

The energy-saving strategy also includes a proposal to make clothes washers 35 percent more efficient in use of water and power, which will be announced this week; a new standard making water heaters 5 percent to 9 percent more efficient, proposed in April; and a new rule on fluorescent lamps, published in final form on Sept. 19.

Coincidentally, a new rule requiring that room air-conditioners be 10 percent more efficient took effect on Sunday. A rule that will make refrigerators 30 percent more efficient takes effect on July 1.

The department is also considering an additional standard that would require central air-conditioners to be built to run at peak efficiency at 92 degrees to hold down demand on the hottest days of summer.

The proposal to be announced on Tuesday calls for central air-conditioners to be 20 percent more efficient and for heat pumps, which cool in summer and heat in winter, to be 30 percent more efficient. It has divided manufacturers, who had planned a meeting with Mr. Richardson last week but canceled it, apparently because they could not decide on a common strategy.

At the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, a trade group here, Edward W. Dooley, a spokesman, said that if efficiency requirements pushed prices too high, some people would not be able to afford to buy the appliances. But Mr. Dooley said his group had not decided how high was too high.

Conservation advocates said the department was being too timid. David M. Nemtzow, director of the Alliance to Save Energy, said the government had ignored the experience of last summer in New York and elsewhere, which showed that electricity prices shot up when air-conditioning was needed.

And, Mr. Nemtzow said, the efficiency of air-conditioners has a strong impact on emission of gases believed to cause climate change.

"They assign no value to the fact that it avoids carbon," he said. "A higher standard is completely justified."

Mr. Richardson said the department was "on a rush to establish an environmental and energy self-sufficiency legacy." He is acting under a 1987 law that required the department to set standards for common household appliances, and revisit them intermittently. But the fate of the standards under a new administration is not clear.

There is no new technology involved in the rules; many appliances, including some air-conditioners and washers, already meet the proposed standards.

The energy-saving techniques vary. Washers, for example, will have to have sensors to measure the amount of clothes in them and meter out precisely the amount of water needed; they will also spin faster, cutting down the work that the clothes dryer must do. Air-conditioners will have to have more efficient compressors. Water heaters will need more insulation and may require a U-shaped trap, like the one under the kitchen sink. This one, though, will stop hot water from rising up the pipe when no faucet is turned on, keeping the water in the heater until it is needed.

The rules would take effect on varying dates; the washing machine rule would not be completely effective until 2007. The department estimates that in 2010, the six new standards will collectively save 2.4 quadrillion B.T.U.'s, enough energy to light every American home for nearly two years.

The financial impact on consumers would be quite small, but the economy and environment would benefit, the department said. The only proposal that will cost slightly more than it saves is the air-conditioner rule, which would cost $1 billion to $2 billion over 25 years, on top of the expected cost of owning and operating the units of $380 billion.

The clothes washer standard would add as much as $240 to the cost of a washer, doubling the price of a bottom-of-the-line model, but would save consumers $30 a year, because machines would run on less electricity, use less energy to heat water and use less water. Nationally, that comes to $15.3 billion over 25 years.

Unlike the air-conditioner rule, the washer rule is a consensus proposal of the manufacturers and environmental groups.

The water heater proposal, published in April, would add $68 to the cost of an electric water heater and $45 to a gas model, and over the nine-year life of the unit would save the customer $152 more than the extra initial cost, according to the department; for the gas model, the saving would be $116 above additional costs.

The lighting rule, published in final form last month, will add $7 to the minimum cost of a ballast, the major component of a fluorescent fixture besides the tube itself. The device would pay for itself within three years, the department believes.