Energy Efficiency Standards and Labels in North America: Opportunities for Harmonization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To support the North American Energy Working Group's Expert Group on Energy Efficiency (NAEWG-EE), USDOE commissioned the Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program (CLASP) to prepare a resource document comparing current standards, labels, and test procedure regulations in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The resulting document reached the following conclusions: Out of 24 energy-using products for which at least one of the three countries has energy efficiency regulations, three products -- refrigerators/freezers, split system central air conditioners, and room air conditioners -- have similar or identical minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) in the three countries. These same three products, as well as three-phase motors, have similar or identical test procedures throughout the region. There are 10 products with different MEPS and test procedures, but which have the short-term potential to develop common test procedures, MEPS, and/or labels. Three other noteworthy areas where possible energy efficiency initiatives have potential for harmonization are standby losses, uniform endorsement labels, and a new standard or label on windows. This paper explains these conclusions and presents the underlying comparative data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".