![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating, Air Conditioning and Water Heating Equipment
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 12, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 9)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3335-3356]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja01-21]
[[Page 3335]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part X
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment:
Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating, Air Conditioning and Water
Heating Equipment; Final Rule
[[Page 3336]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EE-RM/STD-00-100]
RIN 1904-AB06
Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating, Air
Conditioning and Water Heating Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended,
establishes energy efficiency standards for certain commercial heating,
air conditioning and water heating products. For some of these
products, the Department of Energy (DOE, Department or we) is adopting
efficiency standards contained in the new American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) and
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard
90.1, as revised in October 1999, as uniform national standards. This
final rule also identifies other products covered by the recently
revised ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 that DOE will analyze further
to determine whether more stringent standards are warranted.
DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective February 12, 2001.
Compliance Dates: The compliance date of standards adopted in this
rule for central water-cooled air conditioners, water source heat
pumps, and evaporatively-cooled air conditioning products with cooling
capacities rated at or above 135,000 Btu/h and below 240,000 Btu/h is
October 29, 2004. For all other standards adopted in this rule, the
compliance date is October 29, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You can read the transcript of the public workshop regarding
this rulemaking, the public comments received, and the Screening
Analysis report referred to in this notice in the Freedom of
Information Reading Room (Room No. 1E-190) at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. You can also obtain the Screening
Analysis report electronically from the Office of Building Research and
Standards world wide web site at the following URL address: [http://
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/index.htm].
This final rule also refers to certain industry standards
established by ASHRAE and IESNA. These industry standards are
referenced by the single comprehensive title ``ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1.'' The revision of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 published in 1999 is
referenced by the title ``ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1--1999.'' You can
view this standard at the Department's Information Reading Room at the
address stated above. You can also obtain copies by mail from the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc., 1971 Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, or
electronically from ASHRAE's web site, [http://www.ashrae.org/book/
bookshop.htm].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cyrus H. Nasseri, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail Station,
EE-41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202)
586-9138, FAX (202) 586-4617, e-mail: Cyrus.Nasseri@ee.doe.gov, or
Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, Mail Station, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507, e-mail: Edward.Levy@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Consumer Overview
B. Authority
C. Background
1. General
2. ASHRAE Action
II. Discussion
A. The Screening Analysis and Results
1. Content and Results of the Screening Analysis
2. Discussion of Issues Raised Concerning the Screening Analysis
B. Treatment of Specific Products
1. DOE Views Expressed in the Workshop Notice
2. Discussion of Comments on General Issues Surrounding Adoption
of Efficiency Standards in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1--1999
3. Discussion of DOE Views Regarding Specific Products
C. Final Rule and Other DOE Actions
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
E. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
H. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
I. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
J. Review Under the Plain Language Directives
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
L. Review Under the Small Business and Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
I. Introduction
A. Consumer Overview
This rule adopts amended ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 energy
efficiency standards for 18 product categories of commercial air
conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, water heaters, and hot water
storage tanks. The effect is to replace standards specified in EPCA for
these product categories for equipment manufactured after October 29,
2003, or October 29, 2004, in the case of large packaged air
conditioners and heat pumps. DOE expects the imposition of these new
standards to save in excess of 1.1 quadrillion Btu (Quads) of energy
nationwide between 2004 and 2030.
The commercial air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, water
heaters and hot water storage tanks subject to the standards adopted
today apply to equipment generally found in commercial buildings.
Today's standards do not apply to consumer products. EPCA established
the efficiency standards for consumer appliances, and the Department is
considering amendments for residential central air conditioners and
heat pumps, clothes washers and water heaters under separate
proceedings. The new commercial standards apply to products
manufactured after the dates specified, to products installed in new
construction as well as existing buildings.
DOE expects the energy costs for space heating and cooling and
water heating in commercial buildings to be reduced as a result of
today's standards. In addition to reducing building cost-of-operation,
the standards will result in lower emissions due to less fuel being
used for heating and for generating electricity.
In addition, the Department is considering more stringent standards
than those adopted by ASHRAE for 11 categories of commercial products.
The Department believes more stringent standards than those found in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 may save
[[Page 3337]]
significant additional amounts of energy and be technologically
feasible and economically justified. DOE also plans to recommend to
ASHRAE that it consider new, amended standards for four categories of
commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps not considered in
the update of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. Finally, the Department
is rejecting a standard for electric water heaters that will increase
energy use over the level specified in EPCA and leaving the EPCA level
in place. A summary of the actions taken by the Department is presented
in Table 1.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 3338]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.029
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
[[Page 3339]]
B. Authority
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA) of 1975, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended, by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, the National
Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, the
National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988),
Pub. L. 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), Pub. L.
102-486, established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products other than Automobiles. Part 3 of Title IV of NECPA amended
EPCA to add ``Energy Efficiency of Industrial Equipment,'' which
included air conditioners, furnaces, and other types of equipment.
EPACT also amended EPCA with respect to industrial equipment,
providing definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy
conservation standards, and the authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers. EPCA sections 340-345, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316.
For example, EPCA specifies explicit minimum energy efficiency levels
for certain commercial packaged air conditioning and heating products,
packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps, warm air furnaces,
packaged boilers, water heaters and unfired hot water storage tanks.
EPCA section 342(a)(1)-(5), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)-(5). The efficiency
requirements in the statute correspond to the levels in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 as in effect on October 24, 1992. The statute further
provides that if the efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1
are amended after that date for any of the covered products, the
Secretary of Energy (Secretary) must establish an amended uniform
national standard at the new minimum level for each effective date
specified in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, unless (s)he determines,
through a rulemaking supported by clear and convincing evidence, that a
more stringent standard is technologically feasible and economically
justified and would result in significant additional energy
conservation. EPCA section 342(a)(6)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A).
If the Secretary elects to publish such a rule, it must contain the
amended standard, and the determination must consider, to the greatest
extent practicable: the economic impact on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products; savings in operating cost
throughout the life of the product, compared to any increases in
initial cost or maintenance expense; the total projected amount of
energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the
standard; any lessening of the utility or performance of the affected
products; the impact of any lessening of competition; the need for
national energy conservation; and other factors the Secretary considers
relevant. The Secretary may not prescribe such an amended standard if
(s)he finds (and publishes the finding) that interested persons have
established by a preponderance of evidence that the amended standard is
likely to result in unavailability in the United States of products
with performance characteristics (including reliability), features,
sizes, capacities and volumes that are substantially the same as those
generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's
finding. EPCA section 342(a)(6)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B).
Finally, the Secretary may not prescribe any amended standard which
increases maximum allowable energy use or decreases minimum required
energy efficiency. EPCA section 342(a)(6)(B)(ii), 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii).
C. Background
1. General
Pursuant to the EPACT amendments to EPCA in 1992, DOE extended its
energy conservation program for consumer products to certain commercial
and industrial equipment, and created a new Part 431 in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, entitled, ``Energy Conservation Program
for Commercial and Industrial Equipment.'' This part includes
commercial heating, air conditioning and water heating products, as
well as large electric motors. The new program consists of: test
procedures, Federal energy conservation standards, labeling,
certification and enforcement procedures.
2. ASHRAE Action
ASHRAE's Board of Directors gave final approval to certain
revisions to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 on October 29, 1999. The
revised Standard indicates that the amended commercial HVAC and water
heater equipment efficiencies will become effective as part of the
Standard two years after final ASHRAE approval (i.e., on October 29,
2001).
ASHRAE changed the efficiency standards only for some products
covered by the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1. For the remaining products,
ASHRAE considered some efficiency levels in the course of revising
Standard 90.1 but left them at their preexisting values, and it
deferred consideration of other products. The standard levels
prescribed in EPCA and ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 appear in Tables
2 and 3.
II. Discussion
A. The Screening Analysis and Results
1. Content and Results of the Screening Analysis
To decide whether to adopt efficiency standards contained in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 or to initiate the process of
developing and analyzing more stringent standards for particular
product categories, DOE performed a simplified Screening Analysis and
evaluated other information. This process was designed to identify
products covered by EPCA for which it was unlikely that a more detailed
analysis would reveal evidence sufficient to justify more stringent
requirements, and also to identify products for which it was reasonably
possible such evidence would be revealed by further analysis. Screening
products in this way allows DOE to adopt several ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-1999 standards expeditiously without hindering appropriate
consideration of the remaining products.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 3340]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.030
[[Page 3341]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.031
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
[[Page 3342]]
In conducting the Screening Analysis, the Department used existing
data from industry and other sources, including the analysis used by
ASHRAE in support of its deliberations over the new ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency levels. For each product category, we
estimated the likely cost of achieving several higher technologically
feasible efficiency levels and then calculated for each such level the
corresponding rate of energy consumption required to fulfill the
product's function. Applying appropriate climate data, typical building
design characteristics, inventories of buildings in different regions
of the country, equipment sales volumes, economic discount rates, and
energy prices, we computed cost/benefit measures corresponding to the
higher efficiency levels and also estimated the nationwide energy and
net cost savings, if any, that would result from setting more stringent
standards than the levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. While the
conclusions of the Screening Analysis by themselves do not constitute
clear and convincing evidence to justify more stringent standards, they
do serve to differentiate those products for which such evidence is
unlikely to emerge from further analysis from those for which a
reasonable likelihood exists.
The Department examined a range of efficiency levels for each
product analyzed. The range included the levels specified in EPCA and
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, as well as more efficient levels
characteristic of the most efficient products now available in the
market and those associated with the lowest life-cycle cost. For each
level above the EPCA standard, DOE estimated: (1) The incremental
national energy and carbon emission savings, and (2) the net nationwide
direct economic benefit, represented by the national net present value
(NPV), that would result from setting a standard at that level,
compared to the corresponding levels now in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1999 and EPCA.
Table 4 lists the 24 product categories studied in the Screening
Analysis. It shows for each one the efficiency level that the Screening
Analysis indicates would correspond to the lowest average life-cycle
cost, taking into account both the costs of efficiency improvements and
the savings from reduced energy consumption. In addition, where that
efficiency level lies above the level specified in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999, Table 4 shows the following potential benefits that
the Screening Analysis suggests would result over the period from 2004
to 2030 from setting a standard at the higher level:
1. The estimated nationwide energy savings, expressed in trillions
of Btu (TBtu);
2. The estimated net nationwide direct economic benefit,
represented by the net present value (NPV); and
3. The estimated reductions in atmospheric carbon emissions, in
millions of tons.
When Table 4 shows a zero for a product in all three of these
categories, the Screening Analysis indicates that the efficiency level
that corresponds with the product's lowest average life cycle cost is
the same as the level specified in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 3343]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.032
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
[[Page 3344]]
On May 15, 2000, the Department published a Notice of Document
Availability and Public Workshop (Workshop Notice), in which we
described the Screening Analysis, announced the public availability of
the Screening Analysis report, and published our preliminary
inclinations with respect to the commercial heating, air conditioning,
and water heating products covered by EPCA, including several product
categories not included in the Screening Analysis. 65 FR 30929. We also
invited comments and conducted a public workshop on July 11, 2000.
2. Discussion of Issues Raised Concerning the Screening Analysis
Several comments took issue with different aspects of the Screening
Analysis. These views are listed below, along with DOE's responses. In
general, many of the comments will be useful in more detailed
evaluations of ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999 efficiency levels which are not
adopted as national standards in today's rule. On the other hand, none
of the comments on the analysis itself indicates that clear and
convincing evidence exists to justify more stringent standards than
those adopted today.
Comment: DOE relied too heavily on equipment cost and efficiency
relationships initially developed in 1994 for ASHRAE's deliberations in
amending ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1. These relationships are out of
date and contain errors. (No. 8, Rheem Manufacturing Company, p. 1; No.
11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p. 6; No. 16,
California Energy Commission, p. 2; No. 19, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, p. 3; No. 22, Lennox Industries, Inc., p. 3).
Response: DOE updated baseline cost data in the Screening Analysis
through interviews with manufacturers, distributors and contractors and
by application of appropriate price indices. However, the relative
costs of alternative efficiency levels are assumed not to have changed
since 1994. DOE did not expect that these costs had changed
sufficiently to warrant collecting new independent data as part of an
analysis to provide a framework for deciding which efficiency levels in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 to adopt, and which required further
study. Notwithstanding, we did invite and receive public comments
related to cost and efficiency relationships, and these are reflected
in today's rule. The analysis in support of a future rulemaking for any
product will entail collection of current cost and efficiency data,
which will be subjected to public comment.
Comment: The Screening Analysis should have included copies of all
referenced material from non-published sources. (No. 15, GARD
Analytics/Gas Research Institute, p. 2).
Response: Although DOE attempts to make all referenced material
available to interested parties, including copies of this material in
reports is not always practical due to its volume.
Comment: The seven percent discount rate, taken from OMB Circular
A-94 to reflect the time value of money in DOE's economic analysis, is
too low. (No. 2, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p. 10;
No. 11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p. 7), or too
high. (No. 12, American Gas Association, p. 3).
Response: DOE believes that the OMB guidance is appropriate,
reflecting the approximate marginal pretax rate of return on average
investments, expressed in real terms (net of inflation), for evaluating
the economic impact of Federal actions on the economy. In pursuing
further evaluation of products for which amended efficiency levels are
not adopted in today's rule, DOE will account for differing opinions
concerning discount rates through sensitivity analyses in evaluating
the economic impact of standards on consumers and manufacturers. For
example, in past rulemakings, DOE has evaluated the impact on consumer
life-cycle-cost by considering alternative discount rates varying from
two percent to fifteen percent.
Comment: DOE's level gas price projections underestimate the effect
of gas industry restructuring and technological innovation. The Gas
Research Institute projects a 1.5% annual decline in gas prices between
2000 and 2015. (No. 12, American Gas Association, p. 3).
Response: DOE considers the projections, taken from the Energy
Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2000, to be
authoritative and reasonable for the purposes of the Screening
Analysis. In addition, concerning products for which DOE is adopting
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 levels, any decline in gas prices that
does occur would likely make higher efficiencies less cost-effective
for gas-fueled equipment and thus diminish the likelihood of uncovering
clear and convincing evidence that more stringent standards are
technically feasible and economically justified. For all covered gas-
fueled products, except gas-fired boilers, DOE has decided to adopt the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 levels as they are, so any diminished
likelihood of finding evidence to support more stringent standards for
these products would serve to reinforce DOE's decision with respect to
them. In evaluating the potential impacts of more stringent standards
for gas-fired boilers, DOE will assess the impact of alternative fuel
price scenarios on the life-cycle costs of achieving higher efficiency
levels as well as the impacts of standards on the Net Present Value
(NPV).
Comment: It is unclear whether the energy conversion factor in the
Screening Analysis for electricity includes losses of fuel delivered to
the powerplant. (No. 15, GARD Analytics/Gas Research Institute, p. 2).
Response: Losses of fuel delivered to the powerplant prior to
combustion are not included in the conversion factors, but DOE
considers these losses to be small in relation to the fuel actually
consumed and thus to have little impact on national aggregate energy
savings and greenhouse gas emissions reduction estimates.
Comment: The 15-zone prototype building model does not represent
individual building types adequately, use of historical CBECS building
data does not account for newer buildings built to 1989 and 1999 ASHRAE
standards, not treating health care buildings as a separate category
creates inaccuracy, and window-to-wall ratios seem too low. (No. 15,
GARD Analytics/Gas Research Institute, p. 2).
Response: The 15-zone model provides estimates of building energy
consumption which, DOE believes, are representative of most building
types, and from which we can infer the effects of standards on products
used in most building types with sufficient precision. We recognize
that individual buildings may have different energy uses, depending on
building location, operation, age and other building-specific factors.
However, we believe this modeling approach is valid for the purpose of
reaching a decision on whether the potential exists for additional
energy savings, beyond those resulting from the adoption of the ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 levels, that warrant consideration of higher
standards.
Comment: Air conditioners and heat pumps often exceed the minimum
energy efficiency level specified in EPCA, leading DOE to overestimate
the energy savings impacts of more stringent standards. (No. 2, Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p.6; No. 4, Carrier
Corporation, p. 4-5; No. 11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute, p. 6; No. 13,
[[Page 3345]]
Carrier Corporation, p. 2; No. 22, Lennox Industries, Inc., p. 3). ARI
believes the current shipment-weighted efficiencies for PTAC's and
PTHP's exceed current minimum efficiency levels by about 10 percent.
(No. 11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p. 4).
Response: To the extent DOE, in computing the base case, i.e., no
adoption of a further standard, used an average efficiency lower than
what actually occurs, ARI may have a valid point because a more
stringent standard would result in lower energy savings than what was
estimated. But ARI has provided no data to indicate the amount of the
possible overstatement of energy savings. Morever, to some extent, any
such overstatement would be offset because, for the purpose of this
analysis, we also assumed that under new standards the average
efficiency would be equal to the new standard. We expect the shipment-
weighted efficiency to be higher than the standard, however, and this
would have the effect of modestly underestimating the energy savings
due to standards. Aside from these considerations, given the amount of
energy that could potentially be saved by more stringent standards on
these products, even if it is less than estimated, we believe they
warrant further consideration as candidates for more stringent
standards. In evaluating the impacts of more stringent standards, DOE
will attempt to capture the effect of the market demand for more
efficient products than required by a minimum efficiency standard.
Comment: Use of Full Load Equivalent Operating Hours (FLEOH's)
overstates energy consumption by air conditioning equipment, since
part-load operation is more efficient than at full load for this
equipment. (No. 2, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p. 8;
No. 4, Carrier Corporation, p. 4; No. 11, Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute, p. 4; No. 13, Carrier Corporation, p. 2-3; No.
15, GARD Analytics/Gas Research Institute, p. 1; No. 22, Lennox
Industries, Inc., p. 3).
Response: DOE agrees that FLEOH's do not capture the part load
performance of products. The Department used FLEOH's for the Screening
Analysis because of a limited amount of part load efficiency data and
because the standard under investigation is expressed in terms of full
load operation. DOE believes that any discrepancies introduced by use
of FLEOH's would not materially alter the likelihood that clear and
convincing evidence supporting stricter standards will ultimately be
found, because efficiencies at full and part load are correlated.
Nonetheless, the Department welcomes suggestions concerning better ways
to account for performance under part-load conditions as it conducts
further analysis of air-conditioning products.
Comment: DOE understated energy costs for air conditioners by
failing to account adequately for seasonal electric rate variation and
demand charges. (No. 15, GARD Analytics/Gas Research Institute, p. 1,
2; No. 19, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, p. 5-6).
Response: The Screening Analysis includes calculations of energy
savings and life-cycle costs for specific products at regional and
national levels, and DOE believes that it handled electric costs
appropriately, based on surveys of actual rate data, and that its
conclusions reflect existing market conditions today. DOE recognizes,
however, that rate levels and structures could change in the future in
unpredictable ways with utility industry restructuring, but we believe
that this uncertainty does not remove the reasonable likelihood that
more stringent standards may be justified in the case of products DOE
plans to analyze further, nor does uncertainty by itself make finding
such a justification appreciably more likely in the case of products
for which DOE is adopting standards in today's rule. Any seasonal rates
and demand charges that increase the cost of energy consumed by air
conditioners will serve to make more stringent efficiency requirements
cost-effective, thus reinforcing DOE's decision to study air-cooled air
conditioners further before adopting the levels contained in ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. For water-cooled air-conditioners, DOE is
adopting ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 901.-1999 efficiency requirements today,
because these products are less common and for this reason do not
appear to afford opportunities for significant energy savings. This
determination does not depend on the cost of electric power. In
conducting further investigation of electric product efficiencies, we
may also apply appropriate sensitivity analysis to capture prevailing
ranges of opinion concerning the various rate scenarios. We welcome
suggestions from stakeholders regarding better methodologies to account
for seasonal rates and demand charges within any detailed rulemaking,
including suggestions on how to address their wide variety in the
commercial sector (e.g., specific utility service territory, type of
building, end-use application, hours of usage, prior usage patterns,
and correlations with kWh consumption).
Comment: Heating operation should be included along with cooling in
analyzing heat-pumps, since cooling efficiency improvements can reduce
energy costs for heating as well. (No. 15, GARD Analytics/Gas Research
Institute, p. 1).
Response: DOE agrees with this point and will include heating and
cooling operations together in the detailed analysis of efficiency
levels for air-source heat pumps. Higher efficiencies in cooling mode
are likely to result in improved heating performance as well,
increasing the likelihood that higher standards for these products are
economically justified and will lead to significant additional
conservation of energy. This consideration therefore reinforces DOE's
decision to conduct further analysis of air-source heat pumps along
with corresponding air-source air-conditioners. For water-source heat
pumps, DOE is adopting ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency
requirements, because these products are less common and for this
reason do not appear to afford opportunities for significant energy
savings. This determination does not depend on the combined cost or
efficiency of heating and cooling.
Comment: Cost and efficiency relationships used by ASHRAE and
subsequently in the Screening Analysis reflect use of R-22 refrigerant,
which must be replaced by 2010. (No. 2, Air Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute, p. 9-10; No. 8, Rheem Manufacturing Company,
p. 1; No. 11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p. 6).
Response: DOE recognizes the possibility that alternatives to R-22
may alter the cost effectiveness of achieving higher efficiency levels
for equipment sold after 2010 and will take this factor into account in
conducting further analysis of air-source heat pumps and air-cooled
air-conditioners. Since the effect of as yet undetermined alternative
refrigerants on the cost of achieving higher efficiency levels is
unknown at this point and the subject of debate, DOE does not believe
that the refrigerant requirement eradicates the reasonable likelihood
of uncovering evidence supporting higher standards for air-cooled
products. As indicated above, the decision to adopt ASHRAE 90.1-1999
efficiency requirements for water-source, water-cooled, and
evaporatively cooled equipment stems from low aggregate energy
consumption and not cost-effective efficiency considerations.
Comment: DOE's analysis of packaged terminal air conditioners and
heat pumps does not accurately reflect the life and usage
characteristics of these products, thereby incorrectly estimating
[[Page 3346]]
the energy savings and life-cycle-cost effects of more stringent
standards. Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps have a
useful life of 10 years or less, not 15 as assumed in the Screening
Analysis. The shorter lifetime is due to application in hotels and
motels, which undergo more frequent renovations, and to corrosion from
salt near the seacoast. (No. 2, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute, p. 6; No. 4, Carrier Corporation, p. 3; No. 11, Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p. 4; No. 13, Carrier
Corporation, p. 2; No. 14, EnviroMaster International Corporation, p.
2). The ``generic building'' approach to estimating heating and cooling
loads fails to reflect the unique design characteristics of hotels and
motels, where PTAC's and PTHP's are most commonly used. (No. 11, Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p. 4). These products are
used less during hours of peak electric demand than other air-
conditioning equipment, since the rooms are frequently vacant during
the day. (No. 14, EnviroMaster International Corporation, p. 1).
Response: DOE accepts the possibility that the lifetime assumed for
these products in the Screening Analysis may not reflect the likelihood
of the units being replaced earlier during routine renovations. A more
frequent replacement would increase the cost associated with these
products. It is also possible that these products are used less during
hours of peak electric demand than other air-conditioning products and
thus do not conform to a ``generic building'' operating schedule, and
that a different operating schedule may be warranted for them during
analyses. Although shorter working life and fewer hours of operation
under peak conditions would reduce the estimated energy and cost
savings associated with more stringent standards, the potential saving
identified by the Screening Analysis for these products is so large, in
DOE's view, as to compensate for the simplifying assumptions involved
in calculating them. Potential national energy savings of over 500
trillion Btu for packaged terminal heat pumps leaves considerable room
for error in determining that a reasonable likelihood exists that
evidence would support more stringent standards. However, we welcome
additional independent data on equipment life and operating schedules
for these products, so we can improve the precision of the detailed
analysis we will be undertaking for these products.
Comment: DOE overestimated the feasibility and underestimated the
cost of improving efficiencies of PTAC's and PTHP's by failing to take
into account the small wall openings (16" by 42") into which they must
fit, especially for retrofit applications. (No. 2, Air Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute, p. 7-8; No. 4, Carrier Corporation, p. 3; No.
9, First Company, p. 2; No. 11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute, p. 5; No. 13, Carrier Corporation, p. 2; No. 14,
EnviroMaster International Corporation, p. 1). Also, DOE failed to
account for recently introduced ``vertical'' PTAC's, which have
different design constraints from traditional units covered by the
analysis. (No. 14, EnviroMaster International Corporation, p. 1).
Response: DOE will model PTAC's and PTHP's performance in simulated
environments that match their actual applications as closely as
possible. However, the comments contain no conclusions bearing on the
impact of these two sets of considerations on DOE's decision to
continue its evaluation of these products before adopting uniform
national efficiency standards for them, and DOE does not believe that
the considerations eliminate the reasonable likelihood of uncovering
evidence supporting more stringent standards under the terms of EPCA.
Comment: The Screening Analysis may not have correctly reflected
the preponderance of commercial boiler shipments to the Northeast and
North Central regions of the country, greatly overstated shipments of
copper tube or coil-type commercial gas water heaters, and
overestimated potential energy savings for these products. (No. 20, Gas
Appliance Manufacturers Association, p. 1-3). Fluctuations in the GAMA
shipment data for gas water heaters need further explanation, and the
projected one percent annual growth rate for water heaters until 2030
is overly optimistic. (No. 12, American Gas Association, p. 3, 4). The
shipment figures for oil-fired boilers appear too high, possibly
because they include dual-fuel boilers, and the analysis does not
adequately account for differences in boiler installation costs at
higher efficiencies. (No. 15, GARD Analytics/Gas Research Institute, p.
2).
Response: DOE will verify shipment data during its further analysis
of boilers and tankless water heaters, and we will account for
differences in installation costs at higher efficiencies. However, DOE
does not believe that these considerations remove the reasonable
likelihood of discovering adequate evidence to support more stringent
standards for these products according to EPCA criteria. Installation
is only a small component of the total cost of acquisition, and
alternative shipping patterns and growth rates could effect energy
savings and economic justification either way. Greater predominance of
shipments to states with colder climates, for example, increases the
likelihood that more stringent standards would be cost effective, while
slower growth in shipments diminishes the energy savings likely to
result from higher efficiencies in the future.
Comment: The Screening Analysis did not handle jacket and standby
losses properly. (No. 20, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, p.
1-3).
Response: With regard to jacket and standby loss, we believe that
the Standby Loss Correction for boilers is in fact needed to estimate
the energy use of these devices correctly. The difference between
thermal and combustion efficiency is primarily reflected in the shell
loss of the boiler, and during operating hours, the thermal efficiency
of the boiler accounts for these losses. However for much of the year,
the boiler is maintained on a hot standby status. The amount of time on
hot standby is assumed in the Screening Analysis to be the total number
of hours the boiler is available for use minus the full load operating
hours for the year. Values for the hot standby periods were taken from
the 1997 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, as shown in Appendix A (A.9)
of the Screening Analysis. During these hot standby periods, we have
assumed the boiler standby loss to be 5% for the base boiler (the
assumed difference between combustion and thermal efficiency). To
capture the energy used during the hot standby period, the Screening
Analysis applied an adjustment factor for the FLEOH, calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.076
[[Page 3347]]
Variation in boiler design or setback of system temperature through
the year will have some effect on this adjustment factor, however for
purposes of the Screening Analysis, we believe the methodology outlined
above to be a fair assessment of the contribution of hot standby to
energy consumption.
Comment: In the amended ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, ASHRAE
changed the definition of ``storage volume'' for electric storage water
heaters from ``measured volume'' to ``rated volume.'' (No. 16,
California Energy Commission, p. 3; No. 17, Oregon Office of Energy, p.
3).
Response: DOE recognized this change and accounted for it in the
Screening Analysis.
B. Treatment of Specific Products
1. DOE Views Expressed in the Workshop Notice
In the Workshop Notice, DOE stated its inclination to adopt as
national standards, without further study, the efficiency levels in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for 12 of the 24 products included in
the Screening Analysis. 65 FR at 30933, 30935. The 12 products comprise
several categories of air conditioners and heat pumps, warm air
furnaces, and certain water heating products. DOE stated that the
Analysis estimated that most of these efficiency levels have the lowest
life-cycle cost (LCC) for the product, and for the remainder a slightly
higher efficiency would have the lowest LCC but would save relatively
little additional energy.
For four categories of 3-phase air conditioners and heat pumps with
capacities under 65,000 Btu per hour, DOE stated its inclination to
take no action to adopt standards at this time but to encourage ASHRAE
to consider an addendum to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. 65 FR at
30933-34, 30935. DOE noted that ASHRAE did not address these products
in revising Standard 90.1, although the Screening Analysis indicates
that higher efficiency standards for them may well have benefits.
For seven of the eight remaining categories analyzed in the
Screening Analysis, DOE stated its inclination to propose consideration
of an addendum to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, and to further study
whether more stringent efficiency levels than those adopted by ASHRAE
are warranted. 65 FR at 30934, 30935. DOE stated that it appears such
levels would result in significant, cost-effective energy savings. The
products involved are certain types of air conditioners and heat pumps,
as well as boilers and tankless instantaneous gas water heaters.
Electric water heaters was the other product included in the Analysis,
and DOE tentatively decided to leave the EPCA standard in force based
on its view that the efficiency level in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1999 would increase energy use relative to that standard. 65 FR at
30934, 30935.
DOE excluded certain commercial air conditioning, heating and water
heating products from the Screening Analysis for reasons such as
insufficient data, small sales volumes, and difficulty in assessing
efficiency performance. 65 FR at 30934. For several of these products,
DOE stated its intent to adopt ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999
standards because the products have small markets and higher standards
are unlikely to result in significant energy savings. For the heating
COP of several heat pump categories, and the efficiency level for oil-
fired boilers, DOE indicated it did not plan to adopt the levels in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 because they should be considered
either as part of other evaluations that would be undertaken or
subsequent to such other evaluations. 65 FR at 30934-35. For all other
heat pumps covered by EPCA, DOE stated its intention to adopt the
amended ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 COP levels as uniform national
standards.
2. Discussion of Comments on General Issues Surrounding Adoption of
Efficiency Standards in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999
Comment: Stakeholders were divided on DOE's discretion to impose
more stringent standards than those in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999
and on the Department's duty to scrutinize each efficiency level
strictly. Some emphasized the limitations on DOE's authority to set
more stringent standards than those contained in ASHRAE 90.1-1999 in
the absence of certain clear and convincing evidence, and they
encouraged adoption of ASHRAE's amended standards in their entirety.
(No. 2, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, pp. 4-5; No. 3,
Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, pp. 1-2; No. 10, Edison
Electric Institute, pp. 1-2; No. 11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute, p. 3). Others emphasized what they felt was DOE's duty to
seek such evidence more exhaustively before adopting any of the ASHRAE
standards. (No. 16, California Energy Commission, pp. 1-2; No. 17,
Oregon Office of Energy, pp. 1-2; No. 19, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, pp. 1, 10-11)
Response: DOE believes it has struck an appropriate balance,
consistent with EPCA, between the requirement to adopt the efficiency
standards contained in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 and the
discretion to adopt more stringent standards if they are warranted by
clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, DOE performed a Screening
Analysis of the amended standards in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999,
and invited public comments on the Analysis, in order to assess the
likelihood of uncovering such clear and convincing evidence. Based on
those steps, DOE is adopting in today's rule over half of the amended
standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999, and is undertaking further
analysis of virtually all of the remaining ASHRAE standards. The
Department believes it is exercising due care in performing the role
defined in the statute for the Secretary.
Comment: Numerous comments addressed ASHRAE's process in arriving
at ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. Several comments commended ASHRAE
for its analytical and procedural integrity and recommended adopting
the resulting standards on the strength of ASHRAE's process. (No. 1,
ASHRAE, p. 1; No. 2, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, pp.
2-3; No. 4, Carrier Corporation, p. 1; No. 10, Edison Electric
Institute, p. 1; No. 11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute,
pp. 2-3; No. 13, Carrier Corporation, p. 1; No. 18, National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association, p. 1; No. 22, Lennox Industries,
Inc., p. 2). Others criticized ASHRAE's process for analytical and
procedural shortcomings and recommended strict scrutiny of the
standards. (No. 5, California Energy Commission, pp. 1-2; No. 16,
California Energy Commission, pp. 2-3; No. 17, Oregon Office of Energy,
pp. 1-4; No. 19, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, pp.
1-3).
Response: DOE recognizes that opinions differ on the strengths and
weaknesses of ASHRAE's process in arriving at the requirements in
Standard 90.1-1999. Nevertheless, EPCA stipulates that DOE must adopt
the amended ASHRAE standards unless certain conditions are met, and,
for the reasons stated in our response to the previous comment, we
believe our actions here properly reflect the status that EPCA affords
to Standard 90.1-1999.
Comment: Subjecting standards to further DOE analysis would delay
the realization of energy savings that might occur sooner if amended
ASHRAE standards were adopted immediately. (No. 8, Rheem Manufacturing
Company, p. 1). On the other hand, voluntary adherence to the amended
standards
[[Page 3348]]
and state adoption of the updated ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 in
building codes will serve to offset the effect of any delay at the
Federal level. (No. 16, California Energy Commission, pp. 4-5; No. 17,
Oregon Office of Energy, p. 4). In addition, DOE's further analysis
could create a situation in which manufacturers would have to redesign
their products twice in rapid succession: Once to comply with ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 and shortly afterward, to comply with
standards resulting from a possible DOE rulemaking. (No. 4, Carrier
Corporation, p. 2; No. 11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute, p. 7; No. 13, Carrier Corporation, p. 3; No. 14,
EnviroMaster International Corporation, p. 2; No. 22, Lennox
Industries, Inc., p. 3-4).
Response: Any future rulemaking by DOE will take into account the
impacts of more stringent standards on affected manufacturers,
including the effect of timing on product development cycles, and it
will analyze the influence of effective dates on energy savings
resulting from the standards. DOE notes also that the process it
envisions can be terminated for any product whenever DOE concludes that
the EPCA criteria for a more stringent standard are not likely to be
satisfied. This could occur either as a result of further analysis by
DOE during a rulemaking process or by ASHRAE adopting a new Addendum to
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for which a more stringent alternative
is not justified.
Comment: DOE has no authority to propose that ASHRAE consider
addenda to Standard 90.1 in cases where it feels that the requirements
in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 are not sufficiently stringent. In
these cases, the Department must proceed with a rulemaking if higher
efficiencies meet the requirements of EPCA. (No. 12, American Gas
Association, pp. 1-2).
Response: While EPCA does not specifically authorize the Department
to propose addenda to ASHRAE standards, DOE can find no statutory
prohibition against doing so and indeed has traditionally provided
technical support to ASHRAE's standard-setting processes in the
interest of encouraging and taking advantage of open, consensus-based
approaches. In addition, section 307(b) of the Energy Conservation and
Production Act, 42. U.S.C. 6836, seems to contemplate that DOE would
provide such support to ASHRAE, and even that it would propose addenda
to ASHRAE.
3. Discussion of DOE Views Regarding Specific Products
Comment: Industry data used in ASHRAE's standard setting process
and DOE's Screening Analysis overstated the cost of efficiency
improvements for central air-source air-conditioners between 65,000 Btu
per hour and 135,000 Btu per hour. (No. 19, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, pp. 3-5). Some industry comments opposed this
view. ( No. 11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, p. 5; No.
13, Carrier Corporation, p. 3).
Response: Since the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE) supported its contention regarding air-source air-
conditioners with price survey data, and the potential savings from
efficiency improvements for this product category are potentially large
on account of its widespread use, DOE has decided that clear and
convincing evidence may exist to justify more stringent standards for
air-source air-conditioners in the 65,000 Btu/h to 135,000 Btu/h range.
The Department has therefore added this product category to those that
will be subjected to further study and will review the cost-efficiency
data.
Comment: Industry data used in ASHRAE's standard setting process
and DOE's Screening Analysis also overstated the cost of efficiency
improvements for 3-ton water-source heat pumps. (No. 19, American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, pp. 3-5).
Response: For water-source heat pumps, the data to support the
ACEEE comment is considered proprietary and has not been submitted to
DOE, so the Department is unable to verify the comment. In any case,
the nation-wide energy use for this product appears to be so small that
the Department considers it unlikely that more stringent standards for
this product would satisfy EPCA criteria. Accordingly, the Department
is adopting the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency level for
this product category in today's rule.
Comment: Industry data used in ASHRAE's standard setting process
and DOE's Screening Analysis also overstated the cost of efficiency
improvements for gas-fired boilers. (No. 19, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, pp. 3-5).
Response: Since the gas-fired boilers are proposed to be analyzed
further, based on the Screening Analysis, ACEEE's comment would not
affect the decision embodied in today's rule.
Comment: DOE should include Integrated Part-Load Values in
standards governing air conditioning equipment. (No. 16, California
Energy Commission, p. 5; No. 17, Oregon Office of Energy, p. 3).
Response: DOE recognizes that Integrated Part-Load Value is
increasingly common as a rating metric and believes that it has the
authority to establish minimum requirements using this metric if ASHRAE
has amended the standard corresponding to the air-conditioning
equipment in question, and EPCA's requirements for a more stringent
standard are met. DOE is also aware that Integrated Part Load Value
only applies to the performance of equipment with modulated capacity
and thus will not capture part-load efficiencies for most single-stage
air-conditioners. DOE will therefore consider including Integrated
Part-Load Values in any prospective rulemaking for air conditioning
equipment. However the Department has reached no conclusions on their
appropriateness as part of a future standard and will seek public
comment before proceeding.
Comment: Standards for 3-phase air-conditioners and heat pumps
under 65,000 Btu per hour should be the same as those for single phase
models, which are used in residential applications and are more
numerous. (No. 8, Rheem Manufacturing Company, p. 2; No. 11, Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, pp. 3-4; No. 13, Carrier
Corporation, p. 3; No. 22, Lennox Industries, Inc., p. 2-3).
Response: DOE agrees that the products are closely related, and
that standard-setting for them should be coordinated. There may be
valid reasons, however, for the standards themselves to differ. Once
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 is amended with respect to these
products, DOE will evaluate the new standards to determine if they
should be adopted or if a more stringent standard is likely to save a
significant amount of energy, and be technologically feasible and
economically justified.
Comment: More stringent standards for gas space heating and water
heating equipment will serve to shift customers to electric equipment,
with a detrimental effect on gas equipment sales and energy
consumption. (No. 12, American Gas Association, p. 2). Further changes
in efficiency levels for PTAC's and PTHP's will particularly hurt small
manufacturers. (No. 9, First Company, p. 3).
Response: Under EPCA, if DOE adopts a more stringent standard, it
must consider, to the greatest extent practicable, the economic impact
on the manufacturers and consumers of the affected products, savings in
operating
[[Page 3349]]
cost throughout the life of the product compared to any increases in
initial cost or maintenance expense, and the total projected amount of
energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the
standard. EPCA section 342(a)(6)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i). DOE
will therefore carefully consider possible effects due to fuel
switching as well as impacts on small businesses as it proceeds with
any further analysis of these products that might lead to more
stringent standards.
Comment: More stringent standards could affect the availability of
types of boilers that have no cost-effective substitute for certain
building applications. (No. 3, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association,
pp. 2-5). They could also affect the availability of PTAC's and PTHP's
that will fit in existing limited spaces. (No. 9, First Company, pp. 1-
2).
Response: DOE recognizes that EPCA prohibits an amended standard
that is likely to result in unavailability in the United States of
products with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities and volumes that are substantially the same
as those generally available beforehand. EPCA section 342(a)(6)(B)(ii),
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii). This prohibition would govern any future
rulemaking with respect to these products.
Comment: Since ASHRAE amended the standard for electric water
heaters, DOE has the authority to evaluate and consider more stringent
standards than those in EPCA for these products and should do so. (No.
15, GARD Analytics/Gas Research Institute, p. 2; No. 16, California
Energy Commission, p. 3). Heat pump water heaters should be considered
among the technological alternatives. (No. 15, GARD Analytics/Gas
Research Institute, p. 2)
Response: DOE agrees with the comment regarding DOE's authority.
However, in rejecting the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 provision,
which allows for increased energy consumption, the Department does not
intend to subject electric water heaters to further evaluation or
consideration of more stringent standards. The standard for electric
water heaters will remain as originally stipulated in EPCA. This
decision is based on the low likelihood of finding sufficient evidence
to support a more stringent standard for them. The heat pump water
heater is the most promising (but significantly more complex)
technology to significantly improve the heating efficiency of electric
water heaters above current levels. However, when DOE considered this
technology for our residential water heater rulemaking, we concluded
that it was not economically justified due to the cost of
manufacturing, installing, servicing, and sometimes a potential loss of
product utility. These concerns might also apply to commercial heat
pump water heaters. Furthermore, currently there is no suitable test
procedure for these products to measure the efficiency in commercial
applications, so a standard predicated on heat pump technology would be
difficult to enforce.
C. Final Rule and Other DOE Actions
EPCA requires DOE to adopt ASHRAE's amended efficiency standards
for certain commercial heating, air conditioning and water heating
products unless the Secretary determines, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a more stringent uniform national
standard is technologically feasible and economically justified and
would result in significant additional energy conservation. DOE
believes that this language places a burden on DOE not to initiate a
standards development process unless there is at least a reasonable
possibility that strong evidence exists to show that significant
additional energy savings could be achieved through more stringent
efficiency standards that would be both technologically feasible and
economically justified.
To decide whether to adopt efficiency standards contained in
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1999, or to initiate the process of developing
and analyzing more stringent standards for particular product
categories, DOE performed a simplified Screening Analysis and evaluated
other information. This process was designed to identify products
covered by EPCA for which it was reasonable to expect that more
detailed and sophisticated analysis was unlikely to reveal evidence
sufficient to justify more stringent requirements, and also to identify
other products for which such evidence was reasonably likely to be
revealed by further analysis. Screening products in this way allows DOE
to adopt several ASHRAE 90.1-1999 standards expeditiously and thereby
to:
Minimize any possible adverse effects on energy savings of
delaying the imposition of more stringent national efficiency
standards;
Minimize uncertainty faced by manufacturers as they design
products to meet future standards; and
Manage the resources within DOE efficiently, concentrating
comprehensive analyses of the cost-effectiveness and energy savings of
alternatives to ASHRAE standards where the clear and convincing
evidence required by EPCA for more stringent standards is most likely
to be found.
As further discussed below, based on evaluation of the results of
the Screening Analysis, other information for products not included in
the analysis, and the comments received in response to the Workshop
Notice, the Department has decided to pursue, for each product
category, one of four courses of action:
Adopt immediately the ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1999
efficiency level as a uniform national standard;
Propose consideration of an addendum to ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1-1999 where ASHRAE did not consider a more efficient
level, and a more efficient level appears warranted;
Propose consideration of an addendum to ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1-1999 and undertake a more thorough evaluation to
determine whether a higher standard is justified, where ASHRAE
considered amending or amended the standard, and a more efficient level
appears warranted than is contained in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1999;
or
Reject the ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency level
if it increases maximum allowable energy use or decreases minimum
required efficiency.
As to the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 efficiency levels that DOE is
immediately adopting, these standards are being adopted because (a)
significant improvements in energy efficiency beyond the level
recommended by ASHRAE appear unlikely to be technically feasible or
economically justified, (b) the national energy savings that would
result from any cost-effective efficiency improvements appear unlikely
to be significant, or (c) the additional energy savings resulting from
a more stringent standard are not likely to offset the loss in energy
savings likely to result from the delay that would be caused by the DOE
analytical and rulemaking process.
As to efficiency levels in the third category above--where DOE is
proposing further consideration by ASHRAE and undertaking further
analysis--DOE selected these products for further analysis, because the
findings of the Screening Analysis suggested at least a reasonable
possibility, and in several instances a high likelihood, of uncovering
clear and convincing evidence that more stringent standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
significant additional energy conservation. Implicit in DOE's
[[Page 3350]]
selection is the judgment that additional energy savings resulting from
more stringent standards are likely to offset the loss in energy
savings likely to result from the delay in the imposition of a new
standard due to DOE's analytical and rulemaking process.
Based on our consideration of the Screening Analysis, DOE has
identified the ten products listed below as not warranting further
consideration of standards that are more stringent than those in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 and is consequently adopting the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency levels for these products
today as uniform national standards.
Central Water Source Heat Pumps, 17 kBtu/h-65 kBtu/h
Central Water Cooled Air Conditioners, 65 kBtu/h-135 kBtu/
h
Central Water Cooled Air Conditioners, 135 kBtu/h-240
kBtu/h
Central Water Cooled Air Conditioners, 65 kBtu/h
Central Water Source Heat Pumps, 17 kBtu/h
Central Water Source Heat Pumps, 65 kBtu/h-135 kBtu/h
Gas-Fired Warm Air Furnaces, 225 kBtu/h
Gas Storage Water Heaters, 155 kBtu/h
Gas Storage Water Heaters, >155 kBtu/h
Gas Instantaneous Water Heaters with Tanks
In all except the first three of the ten product categories listed
above, the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency levels are the
same as those identified in the Screening Analysis as achieving the
lowest life-cycle costs. Therefore, the Department considers it
unlikely that further analysis would reveal clear and convincing
evidence that more stringent standards would be economically justified
for these products. For the central water-source heat pumps between 17
and 65 thousand Btu/hour, and the two sizes of central water-cooled air
conditioners between 65 and 240 thousand Btu/hour, the Screening
Analysis estimates that the efficiency levels corresponding to minimum
life-cycle cost are slightly higher than ASHRAE's, but the total
cumulative energy savings that could be achieved cost-effectively by
adopting the three higher levels would amount to only 70 trillion Btu
between 2004 and 2030. In the case of these products, for which
potential energy savings appear to be relatively small, the Department
considers it unlikely that further analysis would reveal clear and
convincing evidence that a more stringent standard would result in
significant energy conservation.
Of the remaining products studied in the Screening Analysis, the
Analysis suggests that efficiency standards higher than those in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for four categories of 3-phase air
conditioners and heat pumps with capacities under 65,000 Btu per hour
may well have significant energy savings potential and economic
benefits. According to the Screening Analysis, adopting the efficiency
levels corresponding to the lowest average life-cycle cost for all four
of these product categories would result in estimated cost-effective
nationwide cumulative energy savings of as much as 1.9 quadrillion Btu
between 2004 and 2030, leading the Department to believe that further
evaluation could reasonably be expected to uncover clear and convincing
evidence supporting a more stringent standard. However, these products
were not addressed by ASHRAE in revising ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, so
DOE has decided not to take any action at this time to adopt a standard
with respect to them. Based on the results of the Screening Analysis,
DOE encourages ASHRAE to consider adopting an addendum to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 and will support ASHRAE in its future deliberations
concerning these products in conjunction with ongoing development of
NAECA standards for similar, but single phase, residential equipment.
Should ASHRAE amend the efficiency standards for these air conditioners
or heat pumps in the future, DOE will then act on such amendments as
required by EPCA. The four categories of 3-phase air conditioners and
heat pumps with capacities under 65,000 Btu per hour are:
3-phase Single Package Air Source Air Conditioners, 65
kBtu/h;
3-phase Split Air Source Air Conditioners, 65 kBtu/h;
3-phase Single Package Air Source Heat Pumps, 65 kBtu/h;
and
3-phase Split Air Source Heat Pumps, 65 kBtu/h.
For seven of the eight remaining product categories analyzed,
ASHRAE amended the efficiency standards contained in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1, but the Screening Analysis indicates that it is at least
reasonably likely that significant, cost-effective energy savings would
result from even more stringent standards. Therefore, DOE believes that
the clear and convincing evidence required by EPCA may well be revealed
by further analysis. These products are the following:
Central air-source air conditioners, 135 kBtu/h-240 kBtu/
h;
Central air-source heat pumps, 135 kBtu/h-240 kBtu/h;
Packaged terminal air conditioners;
Packaged terminal heat pumps;
Small gas-fired steam and hot water boilers, 0.3 MMBtu/h-
2.5 MMBtu/h;
Large gas-fired steam and hot water boilers, >2.5 MMBtu/h;
and
Tankless Gas Instantaneous Water Heaters.
Although the Screening Analysis did not identify a potential for
cost-effective energy savings for central air-cooled air conditioners
and air-source heat pumps between 65 kBtu/h and 135 kBtu/h, the
Department received public comments that included data, derived from
sale price surveys, supporting the contention that higher efficiencies
could be achieved at lower cost than indicated in the Screening
Analysis for these products. Based on the data we received, the
Department believes that evidence to support more stringent standards
is sufficiently likely to be uncovered by further study to warrant a
more thorough evaluation, with resources allocated within the
Department's priority-setting framework, to determine whether higher
standards are justified under the terms of EPCA for these products. DOE
also intends to propose consideration of an addendum to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999.
For one product category, electric water heaters, the new
efficiency level in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 would increase
energy consumption relative to the standard in EPCA. Under these
circumstances, DOE cannot adopt the new level, since EPCA stipulates
that the standards it contains cannot be relaxed. Therefore, DOE is not
adopting the requirement in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for this
product, and the original standard remains in force.
Eighteen commercial products covered by Section 342(a) of EPCA were
not analyzed in the Screening Analysis. These products, for which
performance characteristics were not analyzed in detail, fall into
groups as follows:
Heating coefficients of performance (COP) and heating
seasonal performance factors (HSPF) for all heat pump product
categories;
Efficiencies of water-cooled air conditioners and water-
source heat pumps with capacities between 135 kBtu/h and 240 kBtu/h;
Evaporatively cooled air-conditioning products;
Oil-fired warm air furnaces, storage and instantaneous
water heaters, and packaged boilers; and
Unfired hot water storage tanks
[[Page 3351]]
DOE believes that the water-cooled and evaporatively cooled air-
conditioning products, oil-fired warm air furnaces and water heaters,
and unfired hot water storage tanks have small markets and are
therefore unlikely to represent significant energy savings as required
to justify more stringent standards under EPCA, so we are adopting
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 standards for these products in today's
rule. Since the heating COP is closely related to the cooling
efficiency for heat pumps, DOE is not adopting at this point the
heating COP levels contained in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for:
(1) Three-phase heat pumps with capacities under 65 thousand Btu per
hour, which ASHRAE did not address in formulating Standard 90.1-1999;
(2) central air-source heat pumps with capacities between 65 thousand
and 240 thousand Btu per hour, which would be the subject of further
analysis with respect to cooling as a result of the Screening Analysis
and public comments; and (3) packaged terminal heat pumps, which also
would be the subject of further analysis of their cooling performance.
DOE recognizes that ASHRAE did not evaluate the efficiency levels
for oil-fired packaged boilers explicitly, and the published values in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 were tied to the corresponding
efficiencies for gas-fired packaged boilers. Since DOE intends to
evaluate gas-fired packaged boilers as a result of the Screening
Analysis, we plan to wait for that evaluation to be complete before
adopting efficiency standards for the equivalent oil-fired products.
Finally, ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 provides, in effect, that its
boiler efficiency standards apply only to low pressure boilers. In
another rulemaking, DOE is addressing the question of whether EPCA
efficiency requirements apply also to high pressure boilers. (See 65 FR
48838, 48843, Aug. 9, 2000). We intend to address in that proceeding
the impact, if any, of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 on efficiency
standards under EPCA for high pressure boilers.
In sum, today's rule adopts ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999
standard levels as uniform national standards for 18 product
categories. These product categories appear in Table 5, along with the
Department's intentions with respect to an additional 16 products, for
which DOE is not adopting new efficiency levels at the present time.
For the latter products, the levels prescribed in EPCA remain unaltered
at present.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 3352]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.033
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
[[Page 3353]]
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
EPCA prescribes energy efficiency standards for certain commercial
products and stipulates that if ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 is amended,
the Secretary must adopt new efficiency requirements in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 for covered products, unless (s)he determines that
certain conditions for requiring more stringent standards are met.
Where these conditions are not met, the Secretary has no discretion to
adopt a higher standard. In today's rule, we are adopting standards for
a variety of commercial products included in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-1999, as published in October of 1999, as uniform national
standards. Under the terms of EPCA, these standards are at the lowest
levels permitted by law.
We have reviewed today's rule under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, the
Department's regulations for compliance with NEPA, 10 CFR Part 1021,
and the Secretarial Policy on the National Environmental Policy Act
(June 1994). Implementation of today's rule would not result in
negative environmental impacts. We have therefore determined that
today's rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found at
paragraph A6 of appendix A to subpart D of the Department's NEPA
Regulations, which applies to rulemakings that are strictly procedural.
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
Today's rule has been determined not to be a ``significant
regulatory action,'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4,
1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 603, requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for every
rule which the agency must propose for public comment, by law, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on
small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative
impacts.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply in this case. First,
today's rule need not have been proposed for comment. Second, even if
the rule were required to be proposed for comment, no less stringent
standard is permitted under the statute, so any impact on small
business is due to EPCA and not to today's rule.
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) imposes certain
requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or
regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The rule published today will primarily
codify energy efficiency standards at the minimum levels allowed by
EPCA and will not regulate the states. We have determined that today's
rule does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
E. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
We have determined under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,'' 52 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not
result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Today's rule will codify energy efficiency standards for certain
commercial products and will not require any additional reports or
record-keeping. Accordingly, this action was not subject to review
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, Section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by Section 3(a), Section 3(b) of the Executive Order
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of the Executive Order requires agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable standards Section 3(a) and
Section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to
meet one or more of them.
We reviewed today's rule under the standards of Section 3 of the
Executive Order and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, it
meets the requirements of those standards.
H. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under Section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91), the Department of Energy must comply with Section 32
of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the
Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (FEAA). 15
U.S.C. 788. Section 32(c) provides that the Secretary may not
incorporate commercial standards within any rule nor prescribe any rule
specifically authorizing or requiring commercial standards, unless
(s)he has consulted with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the
Federal Trade Commission concerning the impact of the standards on
competition, and neither official recommends against incorporating or
using them.
This rule incorporates efficiency levels specified by a commercial
standard, ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, for certain commercial
products. However, since EPCA specifically directs the adoption of
these
[[Page 3354]]
levels at a minimum, Section 32 of the FEAA does not apply to the
incorporation of these commercial standards in today's rule.
I. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
each Federal agency, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the
effects of Federal regulatory actions on state, local and tribal
governments and the private sector (other than to the extent that such
regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law). 2
U.S.C. 1531. The statute also requires a written statement, before
promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking or any final
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published,
if the rule in question contains a mandate that may result in aggregate
expenditures of over $100,000,000 by state, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. 2 U.S.C. 1532 (a).
In adopting the efficiency standards in today's rule, DOE is
incorporating requirements specifically set forth in EPCA. Furthermore,
no notice of proposed rulemaking was required, nor has one been
published. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act do not apply to this action.
J. Review Under the Plain Language Directives
The President's Memorandum, ``Plain Language in Government
Writing,'' 63 FR 31885 (June 10, 1998) directs each Federal agency to
write all published rulemaking documents in plain language. The
Memorandum includes general guidance on what constitutes ``plain
language.'' Plain language requirements will vary from one document to
another, depending on the intended audience, but all plain language
documents should be logically organized and clearly written.
We have written this final rule to be easy to understand by
organizing it to suit the needs of stakeholders better, by avoiding
unnecessary technical jargon, and by following Departmental
instructions and guidelines related to plain language. We conclude
that, to the extent practicable, the language of this final rule is
consistent with the President's Memorandum on ``Plain Language in
Government Writing.''
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. Today's rule is not a proposed rule, nor will the
rule have any impact on the autonomy or the integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary
to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
L. Review Under the Small Business and Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act
Consistent with Subtitle E of the Small Business and Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, DOE will submit to
Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's final rule before
the effective date set forth at the outset of this notice. The report
will state that it has been determined that this rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 (2).
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Commercial and Industrial
Equipment, Energy conservation,
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, 2001.
Dan J. Leiter,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 10, Part 431 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for Part 431 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316.
2. Subpart Q is added to read as follows:
Subpart Q--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Commercial
Equipment, and Effective Dates
Sec.
431.701 Purpose and scope.
431.702 Commercial warm air furnaces.
431.703 Small and large commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment.
431.704 Commercial water heaters and unfired hot water storage
tanks.
Subpart Q--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Certain
Commercial Equipment, and Effective Dates
Sec. 431.701 Purpose and scope.
This subpart sets forth the minimum efficiency levels for
commercial equipment, contained in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1999, that
the Department of Energy has adopted as national standards, effective
in 2003 or 2004 as specified in Secs. 431.701 through 431.704. On their
effective dates, these levels will amend and replace some of the
efficiency levels required for certain commercial equipment by Section
342(a) of EPCA. The Department has not adopted the efficiency levels
specified in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1999 for products not identified
in this subpart, and the levels specified in Section 342(a) of EPCA for
those products will remain in force unless and until they are amended.
The Department adopted the efficiency levels in this subpart pursuant
to Section 342(a)(6) of EPCA, which addresses the establishment of
national standards at minimum levels specified in amendments to ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1, in place of the efficiency levels required in
Section 342(a) of EPCA.
Sec. 431.702 Commercial warm air furnaces.
Each commercial warm air furnace manufactured after October 29,
2003 must meet the following energy efficiency standard levels:
(a) For a gas-fired commercial warm air furnace with capacity of
225,000 Btu per hour or more, the thermal efficiency at the maximum
rated capacity must be not less than 80 percent.
(b) For an oil-fired commercial warm air furnace with capacity of
225,000 Btu per hour or more, the thermal efficiency at the maximum
rated capacity must be not less than 81 percent.
Sec. 431.703 Small and large commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment.
Each commercial water- or evaporatively-cooled air conditioner and
water-source heat pump manufactured after October 29, 2003 (except for
large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, for
which the effective date is October 29, 2004) must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) for heating and cooling set
forth in Tables 1 and 2 of this section.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 3355]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.034
[[Page 3356]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.035
[FR Doc. 01-610 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C