Capacity:508ltrFreezer:193/Refr:315 Dimensions:W/H/D855/1720/664 Shelves:4CoolingFeatures:NoFrost/Multi Flow,VegetableandFruitDrawer/LCD display/RefrigerantR600a/SilverNano AntibacterialCoating RS20CRPS(504liters)

RSA1DTMH516litres

RSA1ZTMH501litres Capacity:501ltrFreezer:159/Refr:342 Dimensions:W/H/D912/1789/672 Shelves:4,CoolSelectZoneDuo,Cooling Features:NoFrost/MultiFlow,Mono Cooling,WineShelf,VegetableandFruit, Beveragestation,ExternalWaterDispenser, Drawer/LEDdisplay/RefrigerantR600a/ SilverNanoAntibacterialCoating
Capacity:516ltrFreezer:159/Refr:357 Dimensions:W/H/D912/1789/734 Shelves:5CoolingFeatures:NoFrost/Multi Flow,MonoCooling,VegetableandFruit Drawer/LEDdisplay/RefrigerantR600a/ SilverNanoAntibacterialCoating

RSH3DBIS(547liters)

RSH3DBPE(547liters)
Capacity:547ltrFreezer:184/Refr:363 Dimensions:W/H/D912/1789/764 Shelves:5CoolingFeatures:NoFrost/Multi Flow,TwinCooling,ExternalWaterFilter withDispenser,VegetableandFruitDrawer /LEDdisplay/RefrigerantR600a/Silver NanoAntibacterialCoating
RSH3KBRS(529)liters Capacity:529ltrFreezer:184/Refr:345 Dimensions:W/H/D912/1789/764 Shelves:5,FoldableShelve,CoolingFeatures :NoFrost/MultiFlow,TwinCooling, ExternalWaterFilterwithDispenser, VegetableandFruitBeverageStation, Drawer/LEDdisplay/RefrigerantR600a/ SilverNanoAntibacterialCoating
RSH1FBIS(524liters) Capacity:524ltrFreezer:179/Refr:345 Dimensions:W/H/D912/1789/734 Shelves:5,FoldableShelve,CoolingFeatures :NoFrost/MultiFlow,TwinCooling, ExternalWaterFilterwithDispenser, VegetableandFruitBeverageStation, Drawer/LEDdisplay/RefrigerantR600a/ SilverNanoAntibacterialCoating
RSH1KLMR506litres Capacity:506ltrFreezer:179/Refr:327 Dimensions:W/H/D912/1789/734 Shelves:5,FoldableShelve,CoolingFeatures :NoFrost/MultiFlow,TwinCooling, ExternalWaterFilterwithDispenser, VegetableandFruitBeverageStation, Drawer/LEDdisplay/RefrigerantR600a/ SilverNanoAntibacterialCoating
RSJ1KERSJM(506liters) Capacity:506ltrFreezer:179/Refr:327 Dimensions:W/H/D912/1789/721 Shelves:5,FoldableShelve,CoolingFeatures :NoFrost/MultiFlow,TwinCoolingPlus, ExternalWaterFilterwithDispenser, VegetableandFruitBeverageStation, Drawer/LEDdisplay/RefrigerantR600a/ SilverNanoAntibacterialCoating

Washing Machines

MODEL WFB1062GW(6KG1000RPM)TROIKA

MODEL WFJ8547KG(800RPM)

MODEL WF8702LSW/YLV(7KG1000RPM)
MODEL WF8702RPF(7KG1200RPM)(airfresh)
MODEL WF8802LSW/YLV(8KG1000RPM)
MODEL WF8802RPF(8KG1200RPM)(airfresh)
MODEL WF8702RSS(7KG1200RPM)SILVERBody
MODEL WF8802RPA(8KG1200RPM)(airfresh)Black

It was agreed not to undertake specific consumer research on new labels until outputs from the above consultancies could be considered in detail and used as a basis for developing specific proposal for consumer testing. However it was agreed that any specific proposals for a new label would need to be tested before final recommendation. The group agreed to circulate all reports and papers coming into/out of this process to all participants today. Issue 3 - Establishing some short term goals for the project & Issue 4 - Stakeholders developing a timetable to finish the project It was noted that the Ministers need some outline of action by April or May 1997. A timetable was agreed as follows: TOR for label focus studies prepared by EV and circulated for comment to the steering group, finalised by 17 December, report to be delivered by late February. EV to undertake work on review of existing data on the energy label in conjunction with Neill Patterson in December (incorporated into his final report or to be delivered as a separate package by late February, preferably before). DPIE to manage and instigate O/S label study in December, report to be delivered by late February. Brown and Patterson reports to be circulated to the steering group in early January 1998. Initial meeting of the steering committee (The Big Group) on 5 February 1998 in Sydney to primarily consider technical recommendations arising from Brown report. (Note that EL15 is scheduled for 4 February in Sydney). A second meeting is targeted for 11 March 1998 Possible draft recommendation to NAEEEC by 30 April 1998. A broad indication of cost for a comprehensive focus group session was mentioned - up to about $30,000 for a series of around 12 focus groups in several cities/country areas. This would cover three major consumer types. This could be cut down to a lower level if necessary for the first round to benchmark the existing label as there will be a need for a follow up study if label changes are proposed. It was agreed that Melbourne and Sydney at least would have to be separately surveyed. There is a need to acknowledge the infrastructure costs for the labelling program to date. There will be a need to consider the costs and benefits of change and be sure that these are justified before any major changes are undertaken. Finally a Mission Statement was developed - Purpose of energy labelling is to influence consumers to buy the appliance which will result in the lowest energy consumption and which meets their needs. The weaknesses and strengths of the energy label needs to be examined within this process. It was agreed to prepare a list of attendees and circulate names, addresses and contact details.

Bunching of Star Ratings Revised algorithms in the same format as the existing star rating system were recommended by the Working Group: For cooling, Option C is recommended as follows: Star Rating Index = [ EER 10 - 17 ] 3
For heating, Option H is recommended as follows: Star Rating Index = [ COP 10 - 20 ] 3
Where: EER is the energy efficiency rating (cooling) as determined under AS/NZS 3823.1.1 COP is the coefficient of performance (heating) as determined under AS/NZS 3823.1.1 Star rating index is the decimal value of the star rating (called EEV in AS/NZS 3823.21998) The star rating values for various EERs and COPs are summarised in the following table.
Proposed Star Rating 1 Star 1.5 Star 2 Star 2.5 Star 3 Star 3.5 Star 4 Star 4.5 Star 5 Star 5.5 Star 6 Star EER Option C < 2.15 <2.3 < 2.45 < 2.6 < 2.75 < 2.9 < 3.05 < 3.2 < 3.35 < 3.5 > 3.5 COP Option H < 2.45 < 2.6 < 2.75 < 2.9 < 3.05 < 3.2 < 3.35 < 3.5 < 3.65 < 3.8 > 3.8
The proposal meets the broad criteria set out by the Energy Labelling Review Committee. Options C and H are shown in the following figures.
RC S/S RC W/W CO S/S CO W/W Option C 6 Star C Option C 5.5 Star C Option C 5 Star C Option C 4.5 Star C Option C 4 Star C Option C 3.5 Star C Option C 3 Star C Option C 2.5 Star C Option C 2 Star C Option C 1.5 Star C Option C 1 Star C
RC S/S RC W/W Option H 6 Star H Option H 5.5 Star H Option H 5 Star H Option H 4.5 Star H Option H 4 Star H Option H 3.5 Star H Option H 3 Star H Option H 2.5 Star H Option H 2 Star H Option H 1.5 Star H Option H 1 Star H
Part Load Operation The Air Conditioner Algorithm Working Group noted that the issue of part load operation for inverter units is critical. The Working Group recommended that work in this area should be accelerated, although it was noted that government is unlikely to be the main initiator of this work. It was felt that industry need to make representations through the standards committee to drive this process. It was noted that computer
modelling work under way at the University of NSW may provide some options with respect to deal with part load operation in a systematic manner. Highlighting Capacity on the Energy Label The Working Group agreed that the capacity needs to be highlighted on the energy label, but that details should be completed by the energy label design group. Standby Power Consumption The Working Group agreed to refer the issue of measurement of standby energy consumption to EL15/16. It was noted that an EL15 subcommittee may prepare general recommendations for inclusion into all applicable EL15 standards or there may be a separate standard on the measurement of standby energy consumption. Once a methodology to measure standby has been developed, policy options to address the issue can then be developed by government.

Group 1 - Comparison with best European & US Models
700 Energy (adjusted to 32C ambient)
600 Aust Models 1998 Best European 1998 Best USA 1997 AU MEPS 1999 Option ZStar

Adjusted Volume (litres)

Only European models which have been clearly identified as automatic defrost have been included. Generally, the best European models consume less than 50% of the same sized better Australian models. The best European models rate about 7 stars (or better). Very few single door all refrigerators with automatic defrost are available in the USA (about 23 models out of about 2,700 refrigerator and freezer models). However, three are shown above - small models are similar to the better Australian models while the large model shown would easily rate better than 5 stars under Option Z1. More information can be gleaned when the MEPS levels for Australia, Europe and the USA are examined. Only two small Group 1 models on the market at the moment would meet the European 1999 MEPS requirements. About 7 models currently meet the USA 1993 MEPS levels, but only the small models would meet the 2001 USA MEPS requirements. The 5 Star line for Group 1 under Option Z1 is approximately equal to the US 2001 MEPS level for larger models (remembering that the majority of sales are over 240 litres in size). It is technically difficult to justify setting the MEPS line for Group 1 models at 1.5 Stars, given the broad principle adopted to set the 1 Star line at the MEPS line (where Groups are rated separately, or at one of the MEPS lines where Groups are combined for rating purposes). Also the energy reduction of only 14% per star makes the star bands rather narrow.
600 Energy kWh per year Energy 500 AUS MEPS 1999 MEPS Europe 1999 MEPS USA 1993 MEPS USA 2001 Option ZStar 300
Given that the better models in Europe have already attained an energy consumption of about 30% to 40% below the proposed 5 Star energy under Option Z1, and that the few larger products available in the USA also already achieve 5 Stars, there is a strong case for making the Group 1 star ratings more stringent, even if the current products on the market in Australia only achieve one or two stars in the first instance. A range of new options were examined. If the 1 Star line is set at the Group 1 MEPS line with a 17% reduction in energy per star (Option G1), the best European models still easily achieve 5 stars (although they lie considerably closer to the 5 Star line), while the larger US model achieves about 4 stars. Under this Option, seven Group 1 models rate 1 star (another six fail MEPS), but there are 4 models (50, 100, 260 and 420 litres) that achieve 2 stars and one model (390 litres) almost achieves 2.5 stars. Although this initially appears to be an onerous rating system for this Group, it should provide a robust longer term rating system. Recommendation for Group 1 It is recommended that the 1 Star line for Group 1 be set at the Group 1 MEPS line with the energy reduction per star set at 17%. Discussion for Groups 2 & 3 Starting Point: Working Group Option Z23: 1 Star at Group 3 MEPS line, 17% reduction per star. Final Recommendation for Groups 2 & 3: It is recommended that the 1 Star line for Groups 2 & 3 remain at the Group 3 MEPS line but with the energy reduction per star increased to 20%.

Key Issues for Considered in this Paper
Uses per year for the CEC Bunching of star ratings and size bias Field use factor Program time in the brochure Standby power consumption
It is still to be decided whether retesting will be mandatory for the introduction of the new energy label and algorithms, or whether current models can be re-registered with the new label without further tests.
Wet Products Algorithm Working Group Discussion Paper 1 - Clothes Dryers, EES Mar 99
Summary of Recommendations
Uses per year for the CEC It is recommended that the Pacific Power data analysis proceed as quickly as possible to assist in finalising the CEC value on the label. However, it is noted that the CEC has no bearing on the relative energy efficiency of the product (ie star rating). Bunching of star ratings and size bias At this stage, it is recommended that Option C or Option D (developed by EES) be given further consideration by the wet products algorithm working group for adoption as the new star rating algorithm for clothes dryers. These alternatives can be discussed and refined at the next working group meeting as required. Option C Equation: 1 Star = 137 + 141 RC, reduction per star = 15% Pros - appears to reasonably account for size bias, top end of current market around 3 stars. Cons - unclear if and when technology developments will fill the 3 to 5 star ratings, although overseas models are now available at > 5 stars. Option D Equation: 1 Star = 50 + 160 RC, reduction per star = 15% Pros & Cons - similar to Option C in net effect. Field use factor It is recommended that the current 10% timer penalty be retained for the time being. The working group may wish to commission some further monitoring to more accurately quantify the differences between timer and autosensing dryers. Program time in the brochure As for verification of other declared variables, program time should be subject to a verification regime during check test. The same regime as for water consumption is recommended for program time, viz: a) republished program times be based on the manufacturers published or declared values; b) test results for each of the three units submitted for an energy labelling registration application should be no more than 5% worse than this declaration; c) for check testing purposes, the measured value should be no more than 10% worse than this declaration. It is also recommended that the Part 1 test procedure be modified to measure the actual cool down time, which should also be reported in the test report, so that total program time can be determined (for comparison with the declared value). Standby Power Consumption It is recommended that standby power consumption be incorporated into the energy consumption shown on the energy label. Actions required to achieve this are: defining the possible power consumption states; defining the instrument accuracy requirements;

finalisation of the frequency of use to be shown on the energy label; deciding on the composition of the standby power states when the appliance is not in use. For wet products, the Part 2 standard can then sum data on assumed uses per year and energy per cycle with standby power consumption for non-use periods to give the CEC. Standby power consumption should eventually be shown in brochures and the Internet. It is recommended that the work and proposals of IEC TC74 working group 9 be followed and incorporated into the wet product test procedures as appropriate.
Uses per year for the CEC The uses per year affects the magnitude of the comparative energy consumption shown on the energy label, but has no bearing on the relative energy efficiency of the product (ie star rating). While it is desirable to get the CEC as close as possible to the actual average energy consumption from a consumer perspective, this is not absolutely critical. There needs to be a balance between policy objectives (favouring overstating energy to encourage efficiency) and accuracy of information for consumers. Currently available data sources suggest that the average uses per year are of the order of 50 times. It should be possible to improve this estimate (in terms of both the average and the frequency distribution) once the Pacific Power data has been analysed. Initial results should be available by the middle of 1999. In October 1998 the wet products algorithm working group suggested that energy consumption should be shown in kWh per year and that uses should be shown as uses per week. This would suggest that uses per year should be 52 or 104 (corresponding to 1 & 2 times per week), depending on the findings of the Pacific Power Data. It is recommended that this data analysis proceed as quickly as possible to assist in finalising the CEC value. Bunching of star ratings and size bias While bunching of star ratings for clothes dryers is a problem, this is mainly due to the relatively uniform nature of the technology used for clothes dryers in Australia. In fact, much of the difference in current models is due to the Field Use Factor, which penalises timer dryers by 10% in comparison with autosensing dryers. This issue is discussed in the next section. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Field Use Factor of 10% remains in place (although it could easily be eliminated or increased as necessary). The current star rating system is linear in nature. The current formula to determine EER is as follows:

References 10CFR430, US Code of Federal Regulations - Energy Conservation Programs for Consumer Products, US Department of Energy, 1 January 1998. 16CFR305, US Code of Federal Regulations - Energy Labelling Requirements for Consumer Products, US Federal Trade Commission, 1 January 1998. AS2442.2 1996, Performance of household electrical appliances - Rotary clothes dryers, Part 2: Energy labelling requirements, Standards Australia. Brown 1998, Energy Labelling Review - Options for Improvement of Labels, R.A Brown & Associates, Torrens Park, January 1998. EU 1995, Implementing Directive on the Energy Labelling of Household Electric Tumble Dryers, European Commission, Brussels, Directive 95/13/EC, 23 May 1995. Federal Register 1990, 45 FR 46762, July 10, 1980, US Federal Code of Regulations. GWA 1991, Review of Residential Appliance Labelling, George Wilkenfeld & Associates (with Artcraft and Test Research), for the SECV, September 1991. Dryers are covered pp 138-142 of the main report, Section A4 of the Appendix pp71-87. NRC 1996, Guide to Canadas Energy Efficiency Regulations, Natural Resources Canada. UPA, UPA Appliance Report, details unclear (obtained from LBL), circa 1990. US DOE 1982, Consumer Products Efficiency Standards Engineering Analysis Document, US Department of Energy, Washington, March 1982.
Appendix A: Results of Auto vs Timer Dryer Tests at F&P
From: Richard Bollard, Fisher & Paykel
Dryer Manual v's Sensing Comparisons.
Background. With the review of the Energy Labelling algorithms it was necessary to assess the validity of the 10% penalty applied to all manually-set, timer dryers. Aim: To quantify the savings, if any, achieved when using an Auto sensing dryer rather than a manually set timer dryer. Method. To do this we compared the energy used to dry the same load, first in a sensing dryer and then in a manually-set, timer dryer. 5 different people set the length of the timer dryer's cycle. The tests used similar dryers rated at 4.5kg. The only difference is the control system. The dryers were tested at 1/3rd and 2/3rds the rated capacity of the dryer. The sensing dryer was run 3 times and the power consumption averaged. The result of each individual's power consumption was measured and then compared to this average. Results. The detailed results are on an accompanying separate sheet but as summarized below. Load 1.5kg 3.0kg. Sensing Power Consumption kWh 1.25 2.17 'Timer' Power Consumption kWh 1.47 2.41 % Increase Power Consumption +18% +11%

Appendix C - Support Documentation - Clothes Dryers
As circulated to Wet Products Algorithm Working Group, October 1998

Clothes Dryers

Determination of Clothes Dryer CEC Issue: The current algorithm assumes some 150 uses of a clothes dryer per year. Preliminary data from an end use metering project suggests that this is too high by a factor of 5. Discussion on the Issue: Sales weighted average CEC for clothes dryers sold in 1996 was 643 kWh (EES 1997). Data from Pacific Power (1996) shows that metered in-use energy consumption of some 135 clothes dryers over a one year period was 123 kWh. This suggests that actual frequency of use is of the order of 30 to 50 times per year compared with 150 times assumed in the energy labelling algorithm. Raw data collected by Pacific Power will provide statistics on frequency and duration of use, particularly the spread of use across households. Although the average use across all households is low, there are likely to be some households with high levels of use ( where there is no clothes line eg flats). These should be considered when making changes to the energy label. Data Sources: Brown (1998) discusses the issue in Section 8.1 (page 48). Pacific Power (1996) provides directly metered energy consumption for 135 clothes dryers for one year in 1993/94. It is expected that frequency of operation by household will be available from the raw data if this is obtained, but it is unclear whether data on each appliance monitored will be available as well. Note that the Pacific Power data is for NSW households only. Data collected in Queensland (Report 2, Table 32, QEC 1993) suggests that average use is about 3.5 times per month (around 40 times per year) which corroborates data collected by Pacific Power. ABS 8218.0 (1988) collected diary data from 19,331 households over the period from 17 June 1995 until July 1996. A new group of about 750 households collected one weeks diary data commencing at the start of each fortnight, so that usage patterns for the whole year were covered. A summary of the data is shown Table 1 to Table 3. Table 2 clearly shows the seasonal pattern of use by state, with peak use in winter and minimum use in summer, as expected. Annual use by state in 1985/86 was derived from ABS8218.0 (1988) and is shown in Table 3. The indicative frequency distribution of use was also derived from ABS8218.0 and is shown in Figure 1. Note that only days that the appliance was used over a one week period were used to derive this figure, so that the number of cycles shown in this distribution does not include those cases were the appliance was used more than once per day (underestimates total use).

Inclusion of Program Time on the Brochure Issue: Clothes dryer program time is currently included on the energy labelling brochure, as this is a variable of interest to consumers. However, the program time determined from the test does not include the cool down period. Discussion on the Issue: Information included in energy labelling brochures should be accurate as far as is possible. Program time is a variable that is of interest to consumers but there is currently no standardised way of reporting this in product literature. Values in current brochure are taken from the test report which does not include the cool down period. Values should be based on manufacturer rated values as far as possible. Approaches to this issue should be discussed by the committee. Data Sources: There are no specific data sources for this issue.
Energy Labelling Review Committee Decision: Time on the brochure - it was agreed to continue to use data from the test report. Noted that the 230V/240V issue will have a significant impact in this respect.
Highlighting Capacity on the Energy Label Issue: Clothes dryer capacity is a key variable of concern to consumers. Although the capacity is currently shown on the label, it is in small print. Discussion on the Issue: Consideration should be given to highlighting capacity on the energy label. If recommended, this should be tested on consumers. Data Sources: The international review of energy labelling provides examples of clothes dryer labels for consideration.
Energy Labelling Review Committee Decision: Capacity - look at options for formatting this data in focus groups.
Appendix 12: Clothes Washers algorithm discussion paper
Appliance Labelling Review Committee Wet Products Algorithm Working Group Discussion Paper - Clothes Washers
During 1998, the Appliance Energy Labelling Review Committee considered a wide range of issues associated with the possible revision of the appliance energy labelling program. A number of issues relating to specific products were referred to algorithm working groups. In October 1998, the wet products algorithm working group met to consider the issues associated with the energy labelling of dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers, including the possible regrading of star rating algorithms. An excerpt from the minutes of this meeting which are relevant to clothes washers has been included as Appendix A. An extract from the Appliance Energy Labelling Review Committee support document for clothes washers is attached as Appendix B. This paper reviews the issues associated with clothes washers. Only issues that require additional discussion have been included (ie topics are not included where a final decision has already been agreed). Where necessary, additional data has been analysed and the results summarised. Some preliminary recommendations are presented for further consideration by the working group. The opinions offered within this document are those of EES and are not intended to bind the committee to any particular course of action.

existing star rating system uniformly rates all types of clothes washers under a single rating system. The problem with the rating Options as proposed by Brown is that a reference spin equivalent component of Em is not defined within the star rating equations value as given. Without this, the value of CEC + Em for each machine will appear relative high against the reference 1 star consumption proposed by Brown (which currently has no Em component). Plotting CEC versus capacity while the value of F is greater than zero will result in a jagged graph. To remedy this, a reference spin component is proposed. This could be either based on the current market average spin index is 0.78 for clothes washers, or the worst spin index on the market. Mathematically, the worst currently on the market works bests as this value is used to define the 1 star line, which should equate to the lowest rating models (worst spin index is currently 1.03). If we had 4 star rating bands (from 1 to 5 stars) with a reduction of 20% per star, this would effectively reduce the reference spin component to around under 0.5 at 5 stars, which is roughly equal to the current technological limit. Hence the reference Em value is also reduced by the same proportion as CEC under this proposal. Hence, to each of Browns Options, the following Em component is proposed: Em = (F WEIref RC 365) / 1.08 Equation
Where: F = spin weighting factor to be examined (F is currently 0.21, about 0.05 proposed by Brown as per above) WEIref = reference spin index (proposed worst value = 1.03) RC = Rated capacity in kg 1.08 is assumed moisture content of dry load under normal conditions Investigating these options is rather complex as we can essentially vary four variables: fixed kWh component, capacity related kWh component, energy reduction per star and the magnitude of the value of F (spin component). First, the Options proposed by Brown are examined. The first proposal by Brown (Option A) is for top loading machines only: 1 Star = 230 + 99 RC where: 230 = fixed energy offset 99 = slope of the 1 star line (in kWh per kg rated capacity) RC = rated capacity in kg F = 0.05 Em = (0.05 1.03 RC 365) / 1.08 Note that other options below are in the same general format.
Under Option A each additional star is defined as a 15% reduction in energy from the previous star (ie as a geometric progression). Option A (top loading only) is shown in the following figure (it is assumed that this includes twin tubs):
Current Clothes Washer Models 1999 - Option A CEC+Em (F=0.05)
1200 Energy Consumption + Dryer Energy Em kWh/year

CEC+Em Top CEC+Em T/tub

Option A 1 Star Option A 2 Star Option A 3 Star
Option A 4 Star Option A 5 Star
The second proposal by Brown (Option B) is for front loading machines only: 1 Star = 111 + 48 RC F = 0.05 Under Option B each additional star is defined as a 24% reduction in energy from the previous star (ie as a geometric progression). Option B (front loading only) is shown in the following figure (note that 2 models are well below 1 star):

Standby Power Consumption It is recommended that standby power consumption be incorporated into the energy consumption shown on the energy label. Actions required to achieve this are: defining the possible power consumption states; defining the instrument accuracy requirements; finalisation of the frequency of use to be shown on the energy label; deciding on the composition of the standby power states when the appliance is not in use. For wet products, the Part 2 standard can then sum data on assumed uses per year and energy per cycle with standby power consumption for non-use periods to give the CEC. Standby power consumption should eventually be shown in brochures and the Internet. It is recommended that the work and proposals of IEC TC74 working group 9 be followed and incorporated into the wet product test procedures as appropriate.
Uses per year for the CEC The uses per year affects the magnitude of the comparative energy consumption shown on the energy label, but has no bearing on the relative energy efficiency of the product (ie star rating). While it is desirable to get the CEC as close as possible to the actual average energy consumption from a consumer perspective, this is not absolutely critical. There needs to be a balance between policy objectives (favouring overstating energy to encourage efficiency) and accuracy of information for consumers. Currently available data sources suggest that the average uses per year are of the order of 200 to 350 times. It should be possible to improve this estimate (in terms of both the average and the frequency distribution) once the Pacific Power data has been analysed. Initial results should be available by the middle of 1999. Note that it is not possible to show a frequency distribution on the current energy label. In October 1998 the wet products algorithm working group suggested that energy consumption should be shown in kWh per year and that uses should be shown as uses per week. This would suggest that uses per year should be 209, 261, 314 or 365 (corresponding to 4, 5, 6 & 7 times per week), depending on the findings of the Pacific Power Data. It is recommended that this data analysis proceed as quickly as possible to assist in finalising the CEC value. Program nominated for energy labelling The October 1998 the wet products algorithm working group noted that the dishwasher standard currently allows manufacturers to specify any program for energy labelling - this may not be recommended for normal use by the consumer (and in fact may be difficult to select in some cases). It was further agreed at the meeting that in future that data on the energy label should be determined for the program we expect will most often be used in practice by the consumer this may be the 3

Minimum Wash Performance Requirement Issue: Some have argued that the minimum wash performance requirement in AS/NZS2007 is too stringent and this impacts on energy. Discussion on the Issue: This issue was raised by Patterson (1998). The minimum wash performance has been modified in the new version of AS/NZS2007-1998 so that the test machine performance is compared against a specified program on the reference machine. The intention was to ensure that the wash performance requirement is broadly equivalent to the old method under AS2007-1988. The degree of equivalence is still being assessed by manufacturers. Historically, the wash performance requirement in AS2007 has been regarded as satisfactory from a consumer perspective. There is no compelling evidence that this needs to either be strengthened or weakened. In any case, this is an issue for Standards Committee EL15/4. Data Sources: AS/NZS2007.1-1998 defines the performance requirements for dishwashers. It should not be necessary for the Committee to consider this further.
Energy Labelling Review Committee Decision: Minimum wash performance - adequately covered by new standard.
Performance and Energy for Half Loads Issue: Should consideration be given to a half load test for energy and performance? Discussion on the Issue: Most dishwashers are designed to operate fully loaded (even though there are usually 2 baskets, there is effectively only a single compartment). A few models have an option to conserve water and energy for part loads through some minor adjustments to water volumes and temperatures, but these tend to be incremental in nature. This issue arose primarily due to the appearance of the new Fisher & Paykel dishwasher which has separate drawers which can be operated separately or together. This feature reduces energy and water consumption for a half load. While the committee may wish to consider this issue, it is unclear if or how such data should be shown on the energy label. It may be more appropriate to show this in brochures. One option would be to request EL15/4 to develop an approach for testing such a dishwasher at half load. Data Sources: Fisher & Paykel product and performance literature.
Energy Labelling Review Committee Decision: load - It was agreed in principle to label a product on the program and at the load capacity the consumer will normally use. It may be possible to consider putting half load data in brochures/web site later down the track. At this stage it was agreed not to include half load data on the label. This issue will be introduced into the standards committee process when the technology is more mature.

Should the Star Rating Algorithm Change?
The general principles and guidelines for the star rating system were set out by the Energy Labelling Review Committee in 1998 as follows: 1. new star ratings should be a geometric progression; 2. star rating to be shown in half stars on the new label; 3. elimination of size bias where this is significant; 4. worst products on the market (or MEPS level where applicable) should generally be around 1 star; 5. best products currently on the market should not generally exceed 4 stars; 6. 5 star should be set as difficult but achievable in the next 5 years;
These points are addressed below. Geometric Progression As already noted, the current star rating system is already a geometric progression; this objective was implemented in the 2000 Part 2 edition. The current form of the labelling algorithm should be retained. Half Stars The current star rating system already has half stars: these should be retained. Elimination of Size Bias where it Exists Figure 1 shows the relationship between energy and size as at 2002. It would appear that there is some size bias in the dishwasher algorithm at present, although smaller units on the market can still achieve a star rating of 3 (majority are 1 and 1.5 stars, although there are 2 and 2.5 star models as well). However, it is important to note that 90% of dishwasher registered in Australia (and probably a high sales share than 90%) are either 12 or 14 place settings. Interestingly, 14 place setting models generally have lower energy across the board compared to 12 place setting modes (this goes against the trend of capacity versus energy). Interestingly, the dishwasher algorithm working group discussed the issue of size bias and agreed that it is not necessary to change the algorithm to eliminate the current size bias (ie star rating curves would still pass through the origin). in 1998 and recommended the present labelling algorithms, even though it was acknowledged at the time to have some size bias. The effect of size bias can be reduced by decreasing the size related component of the BEC (currently 48 RC) and increasing the fixed component of BEC (currently zero). The only models that would benefit significantly from such are change are dishwashers with a capacity of less than 10 place settings. 12 place setting models would see no difference while 14 place setting models may see a slight disadvantage (depending on the exact algorithm adopted). Worst Products on the Market to be About 1 Star Figure 1 shows the relationship between energy and size star rating as at 2002. The current system would appear to be reasonable in terms of allocating a 1 star rating for the lowest efficiency products on the market. The only exceptions are two small dishwashers that have an SRI of about 0.5 while the worst 14 place setting model is somewhat better than the current 1 star line (BEC) the worst is about 1.5 stars. It may be possible to construct other 1 star line (BEC) scenarios that are also a reasonable approximation of the least efficient models currently on the market. Some of these are shown in Appendix A.