Rule2021-14837
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 14, 2021
Effective
July 14, 2021
Issuing agencies
Energy Department
Abstract
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act ("EPCA"), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners and water- cooled commercial package air conditioners (referred to as evaporatively-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners ("ECUACs") and water-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners ("WCUACs") in this document). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") to periodically determine whether more stringent, amended standards would result in significant additional conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and be economically justified. In this final determination, DOE has determined that more stringent standards for small (cooling capacity less than 135,000 Btu/h), large (cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 and less than 240,000 Btu/h), and very large (cooling capacity greater than or equal to 240,000 and less than 760,000 Btu/h) ECUACs and WCUACs would not result in significant additional conservation of energy, and thus has determined that the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37001-37013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14837]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 37001]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032]
RIN 1904-AE07
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Water-
Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA''), as amended,
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including
evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners and water-
cooled commercial package air conditioners (referred to as
evaporatively-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (``ECUACs'')
and water-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (``WCUACs'') in
this document). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy
(``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more stringent, amended
standards would result in significant additional conservation of
energy, be technologically feasible, and be economically justified. In
this final determination, DOE has determined that more stringent
standards for small (cooling capacity less than 135,000 Btu/h), large
(cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 and less than
240,000 Btu/h), and very large (cooling capacity greater than or equal
to 240,000 and less than 760,000 Btu/h) ECUACs and WCUACs would not
result in significant additional conservation of energy, and thus has
determined that the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be
amended.
DATES: The effective date of this final determination is July 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents
in the docket are listed in the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> index.
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032">https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032</a>. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbfacbcbd7d2dad5d8dee8cfdad5dfdac9dfc8eacedec8cfd2d4d5c8fbdede95dfd4de95dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="206150504c49414e43457354414e44415244537155455354494f4e536045450e444f450e474f56">[email protected]</span></a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7335. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a3b0a0a16131b14191f290e1b141e1b081e092b0f1f090e131514093a1f1f541e151f541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="226352524e4b434c41477156434c464350465173574751564b4d4c516247470c464d470c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.
Ms. Linda Field, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-3440. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c002522282d620a252920280c243d62282329622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0bc999e9491deb699959c94b09881de949f95de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. Rulemaking History
III. Discussion and Rationale
A. General Comments
B. Energy Efficiency Metric
C. Market Analysis
1. Shipments Estimates
2. Model Counts
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
IV. Final Determination
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317, as codified). This equipment includes ECUACs and WCUACs, the
subject of this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public
Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant to the EPCA
requirement that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final
rule establishing or amending an energy conservation standard for
covered equipment, DOE must publish either a notice of determination
that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a notice
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(6)(C)(i))
For this final determination, DOE analyzed the ECUACs and WCUACs
subject to the standards found at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431. See 10 CFR 431.97. DOE first analyzed
the potential for energy savings of more efficient ECUACs and WCUACs.
Based on this analysis, as summarized in section IV of this document,
DOE has determined that there is not clear and convincing evidence that
amended standards would result in significant additional conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Therefore, DOE has determined
that the current standards
[[Page 37002]]
for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, 441(a) (42 U.S.C.
6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program
for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This includes the
ECUACs and WCUACs that are the subject of this final determination. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy conservation requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede state laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular state laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D) applying the preemption
waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).
EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for
commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small,
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (``PTACs'') and packaged
terminal heat pumps (``PTHPs''), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers,
storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot
water storage tanks. (Id.) In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy
conservation standards that generally correspond to the levels in
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,'' in effect on October 24, 1992
(i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989). ECUACs and WCUACs are covered under
EPCA's definition of commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) EPCA established initial standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 240,000 Btu/h. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a))
If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to the standard
levels or design requirements applicable under that standard for
certain commercial equipment, including ECUACs and WCUACs, not later
than 180 days after the amendment of the standard, DOE must publish in
the Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy
savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Within certain exceptions, DOE must adopt amended
energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and convincing
evidence to support a determination that the adoption of a more
stringent efficiency level as a uniform national standard would produce
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
If DOE decides to adopt, as a uniform national standard, the
efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE
must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication
of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I))
However, if DOE determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence,
that a more stringent uniform national standard would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified, then DOE must establish the more
stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and
(B)(i))
EPCA also requires that every six years DOE evaluate the energy
conservation standards for certain commercial equipment, including
ECUACs and WCUACs, and publish either a notice of determination that
the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR that includes new
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) EPCA further provides that,
not later than three years after the issuance of a final determination
to not amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended,
or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE must make the analysis on which the
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(ii)) Further, a
determination that more stringent standards would (1) result in
significant additional conservation of energy, (2) be technologically
feasible and (3) economically justified must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A).) A determination that amended energy conservation
standards are not needed must be based on the same considerations as if
it were adopting a standard that is more stringent than an amendment to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B))
[[Page 37003]]
DOE is publishing this final determination pursuant to the six-year
review required by EPCA, having determined that amended standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs would not result in significant additional
conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and be
economically justified.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are
located in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97. These standards and their
compliance dates are presented in Table II.1 of this document. The
current efficiency metric used for ECUACs and WCUACs is the energy
efficiency ratio (``EER'').
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package
Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooling capacity
Equipment type (Btu/h) Heating type Minimum EER Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled............ <65,000.......... All............. 12.1 October 29, 2003.
Small Water-Cooled............ >=65,000 and No Heating or 12.1 June 1, 2013.
<135,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.9 June 1, 2013.
of Heating.
Large Water-Cooled............ >=135,000 and No Heating or 12.5 June 1, 2014.
<240,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 12.3 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
Very Large Water-Cooled....... >=240,000 and No Heating or 12.4 June 1, 2014.
<760,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 12.2 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled.... <65,000.......... All............. 12.1 October 29, 2003.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled.... >=65,000 and No Heating or 12.1 June 1, 2013.
<135,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.9 June 1, 2013.
of Heating.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled.... >=135,000 and No Heating or 12.0 June 1, 2014.
<240,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.8 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
Very Large Evaporatively- >=240,000 and No Heating or 11.9 June 1, 2014.
Cooled. <760,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.7 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Rulemaking History
On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with
respect to small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-2010). With
regard to ECUACs and WCUACs, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 updated efficiency levels
for certain small (i.e., cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h), large, and very large ECUACs
and WCUACs. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 also updated its referenced test
procedures for this equipment. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 did not amend the
efficiency levels for certain small (i.e., cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h) WCUACs and ECUACs but did amend the test procedure for
this equipment.
In a final rule published May 16, 2012, DOE amended the standards
for ECUACs and WCUACs by adopting EER levels for this equipment
established in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. 77 FR 28928 (``May 2012 final rule'').
For certain small (i.e., cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h), large, and very large WCUACs
and ECUACs, DOE estimated the energy savings potential of standards at
the max-tech \3\ efficiency levels over those efficiency levels in
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (i.e., energy savings estimates for max-tech levels do
not include the energy savings from increasing the Federal standard at
the time to the level found in ASHRAE 90.1-2010). 76 FR 25622, 25644-
25646 (May 5, 2011). Based on an analysis of two different shipment
scenarios (shipments based on historical trends and constant shipments
fixed to 2009 shipment levels), DOE estimated that efficiency standards
at the max-tech level would result in additional energy savings of
between 0.0061 to 0.0102 quads primary energy savings for the six
classes of small, large, and very large WCUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622,
25644-25645), representing approximately 4.9 percent to 5.5 percent of
estimated WCUAC energy use during the analysis period. DOE estimated
that efficiency standards at the max-tech level would result in
additional energy savings of between 0.0013 to 0.0021 quads primary
energy for the two classes of very large ECUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622,
25646), representing approximately 3.7 percent to 3.9 percent of
estimated ECUAC energy use during the analysis period. DOE did not
examine certain small WCUACs and ECUACs (i.e., equipment less than
65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) because the levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010
for such equipment were not amended. 76 FR 25622, 25631. Additionally,
DOE did not assess potential energy savings for ECUACs with cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000
Btu/h because it did not find any equipment in this capacity range in
the U.S. market. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The max-tech level represented the highest efficiency level
of equipment available on the market at the time of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its analysis and the review of the market, DOE determined
that it did not have ``clear and convincing evidence'' that significant
additional conservation of energy would result from adoption of more
stringent standard levels than those in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 for ECUACs and
WCUACs. 77 FR 28928, 28979. DOE did not conduct an economic analysis of
standards more stringent than the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 levels for ECUACs
and WCUACs because of the conclusion that more stringent standards
would result in minimal energy savings. Id.
Since ASHRAE 90.1-2010 was published, ASHRAE 90.1 has undergone
three revisions. On October 9, 2013, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2013;
on October 26, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2016; and on October
24, 2019, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2019. In none of these
[[Page 37004]]
publications did ASHRAE amend minimum EER levels for small, large, and
very large WCUACs or ECUACs; therefore, DOE was not prompted to examine
amended standards for this equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). As
a result, the current federal standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are those
set forth in the May 2012 final rule and codified in Table 1 of 10 CFR
431.97.
On July 29, 2019, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
to solicit information and data from interested parties to consider
amendments to the DOE energy conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs. 84 FR 36480 (``July 2019 ECS RFI'').
On September 15, 2020 DOE published a notice of proposed
determination (``NOPD'') with the tentative determination that energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended
(``September 2020 NOPD''). 85 FR 57149. The comment period for this
notice closed on November 30, 2020. On October 1, 2020, DOE held a
public webinar \4\ to discuss the analysis and results from the
September 2020 NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The public webinar presentation and transcript can both be
found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under docket number EERE-2017-
BT-STD-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received several comments from interested parties in response
to the publication of the September 2020 NOPD. Table II.2 lists the
commenters, their abbreviated names used throughout this final
determination, and organization type. Discussion of the relevant
comments provided by these organizations and DOE's responses are
provided in the appropriate sections of this document.
Table II.2--Interested Parties That Provided Written and Oral Comments Regarding the September 2020 NOPD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Abbreviation Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United CoolAir......................... UCA............................ Manufacturer.
Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU IPI............................ Academic Institution.
School of Law.
California Investor Owned Utilities CA IOUs........................ Utilities.
(Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
Diego Gas and Electric, and California
Edison).
Trane Technologies..................... Trane.......................... Manufacturer.
Daikin................................. Daikin......................... Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment, quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket for this determination. (Docket
No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032, which is maintained at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032">https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032</a>). The references
are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion and Rationale
DOE developed the conclusions in this notice after considering oral
and written comments, data, and information from interested parties
that represent a variety of interests. This section addresses the
analyses DOE performed for this final determination regarding ECUACs
and WCUACs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's
analyses and responses to relevant comments received regarding the
September 2020 NOPD.
A. General Comments
In response to the September 2020 NOPD, DOE received several
general comments. CA IOUs supported DOE's initial determination to
maintain the current standards, stating that the market for this
equipment is extremely small. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) UCA stated that
if DOE is correct in its assumed decline of shipments, then there is no
need for an increase in efficiency at this time. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1)
As discussed below, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would
result in significant additional energy savings and be technologically
feasible and economically justified.
DOE received comments from UCA and CA IOUs regarding the test
procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13
at p. 2) UCA stated that several third party test facilities are
limited in the physical size and capacity limits they can test;
therefore, they stated that certain UCA models cannot be tested at
these facilities. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
expedite work on an updated test standard for all CUACs. (CA IOUs, No.
13 at p. 2) Specifically, CA IOUs commented that the Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC''),
Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
Working Group unanimously agreed that a new test procedure for CUACs,
which should include a more representative evaluation of indoor fan
power consumption, should be completed no later than January 1, 2019.
Id.
The September 2020 NOPD sought comment on DOE's determination of
whether the energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs should
be amended. Consideration of amendments to the test procedures are not
within the scope of this determination. DOE will consider comments
received regarding ECUAC and WCUAC test procedures in the ongoing
evaluation of the CUAC test procedure. See 82 FR 34427 (July 25, 2017).
B. Energy Efficiency Metric
The current energy efficiency descriptor for the ECUAC and WCUAC
Federal standards is EER. 10 CFR 431.97. ASHRAE 90.1 has specified both
EER and integrated energy efficiency ratio (``IEER'') minimum
efficiency levels since 2010.
The EER metric represents the efficiency of the equipment operating
at full load. The IEER metric factors in the efficiency of operating at
part loads of 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of capacity as
well as the efficiency at full load by weighting the full- and part-
load efficiencies based on the average amount of time operating at each
load point. Additionally, IEER incorporates reduced condenser
temperatures (i.e., reduced entering water temperature for WCUACs and
reduced outdoor air dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures for ECUACs) to
reflect the representative ambient conditions for part-load operation
in the field. Table III.1 shows the IEER test conditions for ECUACs and
WCUACs specified in AHRI Standard 340/360-2019, ``Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat
[[Page 37005]]
Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2019'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ AHRI 340/360-2019 is the industry test procedure referenced
in ASHRAE 90.1-2019 for testing CUACs with cooling capacity greater
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h.
\7\ UCA pointed out a typographical error in Table III.6 in the
September 2020 NOPD (see 85 FR 57149, 57159), in which the entering
air dry-bulb temperature should be a test condition for ECUACs and
not WCUACs. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) This has been corrected in Table
III.1 of this final determination.
Table III.1 IEER Test Conditions for Water-cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners From AHRI 340/360-
2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-cooled Evaporatively-cooled
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent load Entering water Entering air dry- Entering air wet- Makeup water
temperature bulb temperature bulb temperature temperature
([deg]F) \7\ ([deg]F) ([deg]F) ([deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100............................. 85.0.............. 95.0.............. 75.0.............. 85.0
75.............................. 73.5.............. 81.5.............. 66.2.............. 81.5
50.............................. 62.0.............. 68.0.............. 57.5.............. 68.0
25.............................. 55.0.............. 65.0.............. 52.8.............. 65.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following equation shows the weighting factors for each testing
condition.
IIIIIIII = (0.020 <bullet> A) + (0.617 <bullet> B) + (0.238 <bullet> C)
+ (0.125 <bullet> D)
Where (see Table III.1 for condenser temperature for all four test
points):
A = EER, Btu/W<bullet>h, at 100 percent capacity at standard rating
conditions
B = EER, Btu/W<bullet>h, at 75 percent capacity and reduced
condenser temperature
C = EER, Btu/W<bullet>h, at 50 percent capacity and reduced
condenser temperature
D = EER, Btu/W<bullet>h, at 25 percent capacity and reduced
condenser temperature.
The intent of this weighted average across a range of condenser
temperatures is to produce an IEER rating that is more representative
of outdoor conditions that air conditioners face for much of the year,
rather than just the peak temperature experienced in most climates for
only a small minority of operating hours.
In the September 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to maintain standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER because the current IEER metric may
not be representative for ECUACs and WCUACs and compliance with IEER
would impose additional testing and certification burden on a small
market. 85 FR 57149, 57161. DOE initially determined that for ECUACs,
the weighting factors for IEER may not be representative of typical
applications.
ECUACs may be disproportionately marketed and sold in relatively
hot and dry climates where there is a larger efficiency benefit to
using evaporative condenser cooling. 85 FR 57149, 57160. The IEER
equation assigns a weighting factor of just 2 percent for the full-load
test point, so almost all of the IEER rating for ECUACs would reflect
performance at outdoor air temperatures which is cooler than what would
typically be experienced in the hot and dry climates where this
equipment is installed. For ECUACs with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h DOE's preliminary analysis suggested that these units are
primarily marketed for residential applications, whereas the IEER
metric was developed for commercial applications by analyzing air
conditioner energy use in commercial buildings. Id. For WCUACs, it is
not certain whether the IEER weighting factors appropriately reflect
the average use of WCUACs given that IEER was developed based on an
analysis of air-cooled CUACs (``ACUACs''). Id.
Additionally, IEER requires at least four tests whereas EER
requires a single test. Examining the models listed in the CCMS
database, DOE found that many models did not have any online product
literature demonstrating that they are rated with IEER, suggesting that
many WCUAC and ECUAC models would need to be retested in order to
comply with Federal IEER standards. 85 FR 57149, 57161.
In response to the September 2020 NOPD, DOE received several
comments in support of its proposal to maintain standards in terms of
the EER metric. UCA supported DOE's proposal to maintain the EER metric
for WCUACs, stating that they disagreed with using IEER for certain
WCUACs installed indoors within mechanical rooms because these units
typically see constant water temperatures year-round. (UCA, No. 11 at
p. 1) CA IOUs supported maintaining EER and not adopting IEER for
ECUACs until the test procedure has been updated and DOE has evaluated
the appropriate condenser entering air dry-bulb and wet-bulb
temperatures for the climates in which ECUACs are typically installed.
(CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2)
Regarding WCUACs, CA IOUs stated that if DOE were to adopt IEER,
DOE should complete the test procedure rulemaking first and consider
aligning the temperature test points and weighting factors with those
of water-cooled variable refrigerant flow (``VRF'') equipment. (CA
IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2; Public Webinar Transcript,\4\ No. 10 at p. 21).
For the reasons provided previously and presented in the September
2020 NOPD, DOE is maintaining federal standards for ECUACs and WCUACs
in terms of EER.
DOE's analysis in support of the final determination is based on an
evaluation of ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER.
C. Market Analysis
DOE develops information in the market analysis that provides an
overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned. For this
final determination, DOE conducted a review of the current market for
ECUACs and WCUACs, including equipment literature, the AHRI Directory
of Certified Product Performance (``AHRI Directory''),\8\ and the DOE
Compliance Certification Management System (``CCMS'') database.\9\ DOE
also considered market data and stakeholder comments received in
response to the July 2019 ECS RFI and the September 2020 NOPD, the
analysis performed in the previous standards rulemaking for ECUACs and
WCUACs, and the energy savings
[[Page 37006]]
potential for amended standards determined in the May 2012 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The AHRI Directory for unitary large equipment can be found
at <a href="https://www.ahridirectory.org/Search/SearchHome">https://www.ahridirectory.org/Search/SearchHome</a>. AHRI's
certification program does not currently include ECUACs of any
cooling capacities or WCUACs with cooling capacity greater than
250,000 Btu/h.
\9\ Data from the DOE CCMS database used in the September 2020
NOPD and this final determination was accessed on December 16, 2019.
This database can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/">http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Shipments Estimates
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on
energy use.\10\ The shipments model takes an accounting approach in
tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units
in the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE uses data on manufacturing shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis conducted for the September 2020 NOPD was based on the
same model specification used for the May 2012 final rule and
incorporated additional shipments data provided by AHRI in response to
the July 2019 ECS RFI. 85 FR 57149, 57155-57156. Based on the shipments
data, the DOE September 2020 NOPD analysis indicated declining future
shipments for WCUACs and ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h.
Table III.2 presents the historical shipments for WCUACs from the
May 2012 final rule (1984-2009) along with historical shipments in the
following years as provided by AHRI (2010-2018). As shown in Table
III.2 for the small and large WCUACs, shipments starting in 2009 are
lower than in prior years. The very large WCUAC shipments fell in the
years immediately following 2008, and while the shipments have
rebounded, they did not rebound to the highest shipment levels seen
previously.
Table III.2--Historical Shipments Data for WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small AC water- Small AC water- Large AC water- Very large AC
Year * cooled (<64.9 cooled (65 to cooled (135 to water-cooled
kBtu/h) 134.9 kBtu/h) 249 kBtu/h) (>=250 kBtu/h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989............................................ .............. 1437 793 1622
1990............................................ .............. 1503 779 1211
1991............................................ .............. 1107 621 908
1992............................................ .............. 1068 537 720
1993............................................ .............. 985 520 668
1994............................................ .............. 922 504 815
1995............................................ .............. 1121 493 805
1996............................................ .............. 1217 652 1020
1997............................................ .............. 989 522 1216
1998............................................ .............. 795 623 1886
1999............................................ .............. 874 477 898
2000............................................ .............. 1478 1621 1170
2001............................................ .............. 606 409 762
2002............................................ .............. 502 355 1227
2003............................................ .............. 390 287 740
2004............................................ .............. 447 291 711
2005............................................ .............. 177 188 861
2006............................................ .............. 316 278 1231
2007............................................ .............. 359 317 1231
2008............................................ .............. 282 311 1390
2009............................................ 91 152 182 585
2010............................................ 119 139 186 531
2011............................................ 84 209 180 609
2012............................................ 95 230 137 624
2013............................................ 59 198 164 751
2014............................................ 54 216 114 829
2015............................................ 52 137 147 770
2016............................................ 44 105 154 946
2017............................................ 45 62 128 985
2018............................................ 39 106 108 844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data for 1989-2009 from the May 2012 Final Rule. This data does not include WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h because this class was not included in that rulemaking. Data for 2009-2018 provided by AHRI
in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI.
DOE developed two shipment projections for the September 2020 NOPD
analysis; one based on historical trends and one that held shipments
constant at the 2018 shipment level (referred to as ``2019 trend'' and
``2019 constant'', respectively). 85 FR 57149, 57155-57156. The 2019
trend and 2019 constant projections are compared to projections from
the May 2012 final rule that were based on the historical trends and
fixed at the level of the 2009 shipments (referred to as ``2012 trend''
and ``2012 constant'', respectively). This comparison is shown in Table
III.3 of this document.
DOE was unable to identify shipments data for the ECUAC equipment
classes and none were provided by the stakeholders. For the September
2020 NOPD analysis, shipment projections were developed by scaling the
WCUAC shipment projections using a ratio of unique model counts for
each equipment class. 85 FR 57149, 57155. For the small (cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) ECUAC class of products, the shipment
projection was further adjusted by a factor of 0.5 to better reflect
the approximate size of the market in the mid-2000s.\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Emerging Technologies
Program, Application Assessment Report # 0605. Evaluation of the
Freus Residential Evaporative Condenser System in PG&E Service
Territory. <a href="https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/images/stories/pdf/ETCC_Report_464.pdf">https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/images/stories/pdf/ETCC_Report_464.pdf</a> accessed December 18, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCUACs are typically sold as part of a large project (i.e., a
multi-tenant, multi-story office building). To account for shipments
being a function of large office construction, DOE also developed a
third projection for the very large WCUAC equipment class, using a
regression analysis with historical data
[[Page 37007]]
and projections of large office existing floor space and large office
additions as the variables (referred to as ``2019 regression'' in Table
III.3). 85 FR 57149, 57156.
Table III.3--Comparison of Shipment Projections for WCUACs and ECUACs by Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small WCUAC, <65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend....................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
2012 constant (=2009)............................ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
2019 trend....................................... 39 33 18 10 6 3 2
2019 constant (=2018)............................ 39 39 39 39 39 39 39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small WCUAC, <ls-thn-eq>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend....................................... 93 76 46 28 17 10 6
2012 constant (=2009)............................ 152 152 152 152 152 152 152
2019 trend....................................... 106 87 52 32 19 11 7
2019 constant (=2018)............................ 106 106 106 106 106 106 106
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large WCUAC, <ls-thn-eq>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend....................................... 132 117 87 64 47 35 26
2012 constant (=2009)............................ 182 182 182 182 182 182 182
2019 trend....................................... 108 110 78 55 39 28 20
2019 constant (=2018)............................ 108 108 108 108 108 108 108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large WCUAC, <ls-thn-eq>=240,000 and <=760,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend....................................... 953 944 923 903 882 861 840
2012 constant (=2009)............................ 585 585 585 585 585 585 585
2019 trend....................................... 844 777 721 664 608 551 495
2019 constant (=2018)............................ 844 844 844 844 844 844 844
2019 regression.................................. 844 1000 929 927 865 844 828
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small ECUAC, <65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend....................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
2012 constant (=2009)............................ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
2019 trend....................................... 156 132 72 40 24 12 8
2019 constant (=2018)............................ 156 156 156 156 156 156 156
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large ECUAC, <ls-thn-eq>=240,000 and <=760,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend....................................... 245 243 238 232 227 221 216
2012 constant (=2009)............................ 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
2019 trend....................................... 14 13 12 11 10 9 9
2019 constant (=2018)............................ 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
2019 regression.................................. 14 17 16 16 14 14 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did not analyze small ECUACs and
WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 77 FR 28927,
28934-28937. For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE identified a single
manufacturer of ECUACs in this capacity range, and the models offered
are single-phase equipment and appear to be predominantly marketed for
residential applications in regions of the United States with hot and
dry climates, suggesting that there are few if any shipments in other
regions of the United States. 84 FR 36480, 36485. DOE identified only
two distinct product lines of WCUACs with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h, and DOE's examination of manufacturer literature for
these WCUACs suggested that these models do not comprise a significant
share of the market for air conditioners in residential or commercial
applications. Id.
The projected trends from the May 2012 final rule and those based
on the updated data both generally show declines in shipments for small
(>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h), large and very large WCUACs, and very
large ECUACs. The shipment levels under the 2019 constant projections
are lower than the 2012 constant projections for small (>=65,000 and
<135,000 Btu/h) and large WCUACs and very large ECUACs. The 2019
constant projections for very large WCUACs are higher than the 2012
constant projections (but lower than the 2012 trend projections). The
2019 regression projections for very large WCUACs and ECUACs show a
more stable level of shipments over the analysis period than the 2019
trend models, but are lower than the 2012 trend projection.
Given that DOE did not analyze ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h for the May 2012 final rule, no
comparisons to the current projections are possible. The current
trended shipments projections for the small (cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h) equipment classes reach 10 or fewer shipments by 2045.
In response to the September 2020 NOPD, UCA stated that the
historical shipments data presented by DOE is not complete and asserted
that the shipments data does not capture dozens of manufacturers that
do not belong to
[[Page 37008]]
AHRI and do not report their shipments to AHRI. UCA further stated that
it sold 40 units in the WCUAC <64.9 kBtu/h category in 2018, while the
table shows only 39 total units shipped in that year. UCA suggested the
number could be 10 times higher and asserted similar discrepancies
could apply across all categories. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1)
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested data on shipments, and in
response to the RFI, DOE received shipments data from AHRI. In the
September 2020 NOPD, DOE presented the shipments information received
to that point. In addition, DOE requested comments and data concerning
the tentative determination and the underlying data and analyses. The
previously discussed number of shipments provided by UCA (40 units)
only applies for a single manufacturer for a single equipment class of
WCUAC (<65,000 Btu/h) equipment for a single year. Because this was a
single data point, DOE lacked sufficient context to incorporate it into
the shipment analysis (e.g., how this data point compares to UCA's
shipments in previous years, how this compares to UCA's shipments for
other WCUAC capacity ranges). Without such context DOE could not
incorporate this data point. For this Final Determination, DOE did not
identify any other sources of shipments data beyond the AHRI data
incorporated in the September 2020 NOPD analyses.
UCA also disagreed with shipment trends showing a decline in WCUACs
over the next 20-plus years, as it stated that there are thousands of
WCUACs that will be replaced over the next decade in the very large
WCUAC class. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) UCA also commented that its sales
for its main equipment line has gone down substantially, and that the
equipment capacities it now offers are more limited. (UCA, No. 11-1\12\
at p. 1) For this final determination, the three shipment projections
developed by DOE were based on the historic shipments data available
and presented in the September 2020 NOPD, and as historical data they
would include any replacement shipments that have taken place. As
additional shipments data were not provided to support UCA's assertion
regarding replacement of WCUACs over the next decade, DOE did not
modify the shipment projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A hyphenated comment number indicates that the specific
comment referenced is found in an attachment accompanying the
comment submitted by the commenter. The number following the hyphen
indicates which attachment is being referenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trane commented that there was a major drop in unitary air
conditioner shipments that also affected WCUACs and ECUACs during the
great recession of 2008(?), so looking forward 15-20 years, the market
should also reflect that drop because there will not be units to
replace. (Public Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p. 15) Daikin commented
that the need for office space likely will be declining for the
foreseeable future stating that it was informed by one office building
client that the client will only need about 70 percent of its current
square footage going forward. (Public Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p.
11)
As stated, DOE did not receive additional shipments data in
response to the September 2020 NOPD. As such, DOE relied on the
shipments data presented in the September 2020 NOPD for this final
determination. Based on the existing shipments data, DOE developed a
series of shipment projections to reflect uncertainty in the future of
ECUAC and WCUAC shipments. As presented in the September 2020 NOPD, DOE
developed three shipment projections (``2019 trend,'' ``2019
constant,'' and ``2019 regression''). DOE continued to rely on the 2019
trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 regression projections presented in
September 2020 NOPD for this final determination. Additionally, DOE
performed a sensitivity case to reflect a potential underreporting of
ECUAC and WCUAC shipments. DOE developed a sensitivity analysis by
multiplying the three shipment projections by 10 for all equipment
classes to examine an upper bound estimate for potentially unreported
shipments. The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in
section III.C.3 of this document.
2. Model Counts
Prior to receipt of updated shipments from AHRI in response to the
July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE conducted a review of the market for WCUACs and
ECUACs based on models included in the DOE CCMS database.\9\ 84 FR
36480, 36484. In the September 2020 NOPD DOE provided that the number
of ECUAC and WCUAC models on the market is substantially less than the
number of ACUAC models on the market for all capacity ranges, and that
this is consistent with the relationship between model counts
identified in the May 2012 final rule. 85 FR 57149, 57156. This initial
understanding of the ECUAC and WCUAC market as compared to the ACUAC
market was further supported by the shipments data provided by AHRI.
See discussion in section III.C.1 of this document. DOE did not receive
any comments on the model counts presented in the September 2020 NOPD.
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE examined the efficiency ratings of
ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the market and presented efficiency
distributions to reflect the current market. 85 FR 57149, 57157-57159.
Table III.4 presents the summary of statistics by equipment category
and capacity range of equipment for unique models\13\ from DOE's CCMS
Database.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The count of unique models excludes basic models that
appear to be duplicates--i.e., basic models sharing the same
manufacturer and certified cooling capacity and EER ratings. For
basic models that had multiple individual models certified with
different capacities and different EER ratings, the individual
models were considered to be unique models.
Table III.4--Current Market Efficiency Distributions for WCUACs and ECUAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average EER Current
Number of cooling --------------------------------------- Federal EER
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) unique capacity (Btu/ Standard
models h) Minimum Average Maximum Level *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000........................ 1 58,000 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.1
>=65,000 and <135,000.......... 23 99,478 12.1 12.8 15.3 12.1
>=135,000 and <240,000......... 15 175,600 13.5 14.6 16.3 12.5
>=240,000 and <760,000......... 234 493,556 12.5 13.8 16.1** 12.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37009]]
Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000........................ 8 37,950 13.2 15.0 16.0 12.1
>=65,000 and <135,000.......... 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
>=135,000 and <240,000......... 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
>=240,000 and <760,000......... 4 442,750 11.8 12.7 13.4 11.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For all capacity ranges except very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, the Federal EER standard
listed is for ``no heat or electric heat'' class. For the very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioner
class, the Federal EER standard listed is the ``all other types of heating'' class.
** As mentioned later in this section, this maximum EER value was determined to be an outlier, and thus the next
highest efficiency level (i.e., an EER of 15) was used as the ``max-tech'' value.
DOE used these efficiency distributions and the previously
described shipment projections to develop estimated energy savings and
percent of no-new-standards energy consumption for 30 years of
shipments (2020-2049).
Energy savings were estimated based on the forecasted shipments
labeled 2019 trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 regression. For the savings
estimates labeled 2019 regression, as noted in section III.C.1 of this
final determination, a regression projection was only developed for the
very large equipment class.
As mentioned in section II.B.2 of this final determination, the
cumulative site energy savings are calculated using the max-tech level,
which is the highest value of efficiency in DOE's CCMS Database within
each capacity range of ECUACs and WCUACs (i.e., <65,000 Btu/h, 65,000-
135,000 Btu/h, 135,000-240,000 Btu/h, and 240,000-760,000 Btu/h).
However, for very large WCUACs, consideration of the highest efficiency
value in DOE's CCMS database may not be appropriate for evaluating
potential amendments to the energy conservation standards. As explained
in the September 2020 NOPD, DOE considered the single model rated at
16.1 to be an outlier and subsequently calculated the energy savings
from potential amended standards for very large WCUACs using the next
highest level that was achievable across the range of capacities (i.e.,
an EER of 15). 85 FR 57149, 57158. DOE did not receive any comments on
the use of the max-tech efficiency levels in calculating the estimated
savings in the NOPD, and the same max-tech levels were used for the
final determination.
For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE did not incorporate changing
trends in shipments by efficiency over time in the no-new-standards
case. No comments were received on efficiency trends and DOE retained
this assumption in the energy savings estimates, which vary by shipment
scenario and equipment class, presented in Table III.5 of this final
determination.
Selecting the minimum and maximum estimated savings scenario for
each equipment class resulted in a range of total estimated site energy
savings for the WCUAC classes of between 0.0030 quads (8.5 percent of
estimated site energy use) and 0.0046 quads (8.6 percent of estimated
site energy use), and for the ECUAC classes of 0.00006 quads (6.2
percent of estimated site energy use) and 0.00011 quads (6.0 percent of
estimated site energy use) during the analysis period. For both
equipment categories, the resulting estimated savings ranged between
0.0031 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy consumption) and
0.0047 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy consumption) during
the analysis period depending on the combination of shipment
projections analyzed. Because DOE received no comments resulting in
changes to inputs or the analysis, the estimate savings presented in
Table III.5 are the same as those presented in the September 2020 NOPD.
Table III.5--Estimated National Site Energy Savings and Percent Energy Reductions for WCUACs and ECUACs at the
Max-Tech Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative site national energy savings Reduction in
(quads) * national site
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) ------------------------------------------------ energy
consumption
Trend Constant Regression (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000......................................... 0.00000 0.00000 .............. 0.0
>=65,000 and <135,000........................... 0.00005 0.00019 .............. 13.3
>=135,000 and <240,000.......................... 0.00011 0.00025 .............. 10.1
>=240,000 and <760,000.......................... 0.00287 0.00395 0.00413 8.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000......................................... 0.00001 0.00004 .............. 5.3
>=65,000 and <135,000........................... N/A N/A N/A N/A
>=135,000 and <240,000.......................... N/A N/A N/A N/A
[[Page 37010]]
>=240,000 and <760,000.......................... 0.00005 0.00006 0.00007 6.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cumulative national energy savings are measured over the lifetime of ECUACs and WCUACs purchased in the 30-
year analysis period (2020-2049).
As noted in section III.C.1 of this document, in response to a UCA
comment regarding the completeness of shipment data, DOE conducted a
sensitivity analysis by multiplying annual shipments in the three
shipment projections by 10 and calculating the resulting estimated
energy savings using the higher shipment projections. This sensitivity
resulted in estimated total site energy savings for the WCUAC classes
of between 0.0303 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy use of
the evaluated equipment) and 0.0456 quads (8.6 percent of estimated
site energy use of the evaluated equipment), and for the ECUAC classes
of 0.0006 quads (6.2 percent of estimated site energy use of the
evaluated equipment) and 0.0011 quads (6.0 percent of estimated site
energy use of the evaluated equipment) during the analysis period. For
both equipment categories, the resulting estimated savings ranged
between 0.0308 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy use of the
evaluated equipment) and 0.0467 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site
energy use of the evaluated equipment) during the analysis period.
IV. Final Determination
As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzes whether
amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would result in significant
conservation of energy, be technologically feasible and economically
justified. 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). DOE has determined that the
energy conservation standards for WCUACs and ECUACs do not need to be
amended, having determined that it lacks ``clear and convincing''
evidence that amended standards would result in significant additional
conservation of energy. As previously discussed, EPCA specifies that
for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including WCUACs and ECUACs, DOE may prescribe an
energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ``clear and convincing
evidence'' shows that a more stringent standard would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
IPI objected to DOE's reliance on the significance of energy
threshold established in the Process Rule. (IPI, No, 12 at p. 1) IPI
reiterated its comments regarding the significance of energy threshold
it previously submitted to the rulemaking to update the Process Rule.
(See IPI, \14\ No. 12-3) IPI stated that DOE failed to analyze the
benefit to consumers and the environment and the costs of achieving the
8.6 percent energy savings calculated using max-tech efficiency levels.
(IPI, No. 12 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In the February 14, 2020 final rule amending the Process
Rule the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's
School of Law (referred to as ``IPI'' in this document) is
abbreviated as ``NYU Law''. See 85 FR 8626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE disagrees with IPI's characterization of the statutory
requirements applicable in the present case. EPCA specifically
stipulates that the Secretary may not adopt a uniform national standard
more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless such
standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy
and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). A determination of whether energy savings would
be significant is distinct from consideration of potential consumer
cost impacts or environmental impacts, which are separate
considerations in determining whether an amended standard is
economically justified. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). In this
final determination DOE is unable to determine, with clear and
convincing evidence, that amended standards would result in significant
additional conservation of energy based on the low projected energy
savings combined with low and potentially declining product shipments
(see sections III.C.3 and III.C.1, respectively).
An analysis of shipments data, a review of the CCMS database and
the AHRI Directory, and comments received indicate that WCUACs and
ECUACs continue to be a minor portion of total commercial air-cooled
shipments with total combined shipments of less than 1,300 units in
2018. The shipments of very large WCUACs may be cyclical, linked to
investment in commercial buildings, but the shipment projections also
suggest that shipments may be continuing to decline.
DOE estimates that amended standards for ECUACs at the respective
``max-tech'' levels would result in additional site energy savings of
no more than 0.0001 quads during the analysis period. DOE has
determined the energy savings potential for ECUACs is de minimis. A
sensitivity analysis allowing for a factor of 10 increase in shipments
also resulted in an energy savings potential that is de minimis (see
Section III.C.3). Therefore, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that amended standards for ECUACs would result in
significant additional conservation of energy.
For WCUACs, DOE estimated the additional energy savings based on
the max- tech levels for small and large WCUACs, which were determined
by identifying the highest efficiency ratings in the DOE CCMS Database.
For very large WCUACs DOE determined that there is substantial doubt as
to the appropriateness of using the highest efficiency reported in the
DOE CCMS Database as the max-tech level. As discussed, there is a
substantial question of whether the combination of technologies used to
achieve the highest reported level for very large WCUACs is practicable
for basic models across the capacity range of that equipment class. As
such, DOE has determined that an energy savings calculation that would
rely on the highest reported efficiency for very large WCUACs would not
meet the ``clear and convincing evidence'' threshold required by EPCA.
Instead, DOE analyzed the next most efficient level reported in the DOE
CCMS
[[Page 37011]]
Database for very large WCUACs, which did not raise similar concerns,
as the max-tech level for very large WCUACs.
Using this next highest efficiency level for very large WCUACs and
the max-tech efficiency levels for the small and large classes of
WCUACs, DOE calculated that amended standards would result in
additional site energy savings of no more than 0.0046 quads for all
WCUAC classes during the analysis period. DOE has determined the energy
savings potential for WCUACs is de minimis. A sensitivity analysis
allowing for a factor of 10 increase in shipments also resulted an
energy savings potential that is de minimis (see Section III.C.3).
Therefore, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and convincing
evidence that amended standards for WCUACs would result in significant
additional conservation of energy. Based on the consideration of
significant additional conservation of energy and that these markets
are small and may be declining, DOE has determined that the energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This final determination has been determined to be not significant
for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result, the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') did not review this final
determination.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (<a href="https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>).
In response to the NOPD, UCA provided a number of general comments
regarding the potential impacts of efficiency regulations on equipment
and small businesses. UCA commented that small businesses are often not
members of trade associations and do not have staff reading the Federal
Register, and therefore do not get information on regulations. UCA also
stated that small businesses generally do not have the resources to
evaluate and access newer technologies at the same time as larger
companies and do not have the resources to develop an alternative
efficiency determination method. UCA further stated that small
commercial HVAC manufacturers have higher costs to fabricate units for
testing. (UCA No. 11-1, pp. 2-3)
DOE reviewed this final determination pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February
19, 2003. As stated, this final determination is not amending standards
for ECUACs and WCUACs. Further, this final determination does not amend
the certification and reporting requirements. Therefore, DOE certifies
that this final determination has no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared
a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for this final
determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of ECUACs and WCUACs must certify to DOE that their
equipment complies with any applicable energy conservation standards.
In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment
according to the DOE test procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs, including
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including
ECUACs and WCUACs. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30,
2015). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification
and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for
the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this final determination in accordance
with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021).
DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion
A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regards to an existing
regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has
determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999),
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. As this final
determination does not amend the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, there
is no impact on the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore,
no action is required by Executive Order 13132.
[[Page 37012]]
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3)
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction.
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section
3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 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)
provides 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
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this final determination meets
the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
<a href="https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf">https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf</a>.
This final determination does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditure of
$100 million or more in one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result,
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. 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 rule that may affect family well-being.
This final determination would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this final determination
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf</a>. DOE has
reviewed this final determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this final determination does not amend the current
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, it is not a significant energy action,
nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can
[[Page 37013]]
determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private sector decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR
2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer
review.\15\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at <a href="https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0">https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 7,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14837 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 14, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.