Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-25953

Proposed Rule2022-25953

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps

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

December 6, 2022

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including circulator pumps. In this notice of proposed rulemaking ("NOPR"), DOE proposes energy conservation standards for circulator pumps, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74850-74913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25953]

[[Page 74849]]

Vol. 87

Tuesday,

No. 233

December 6, 2022

Part III

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Part 431

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Circulator Pumps; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 74850]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004]
RIN 1904-AD61

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Circulator Pumps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including circulator
pumps. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), DOE proposes
energy conservation standards for circulator pumps, and also announces
a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and
associated analyses and results.

DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than February 6, 2023.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Thursday,
January 19, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., in Washington, DC.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before February 6, 2023.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, under docket number
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, by any of the following
methods:
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#195a706b7a696c74696a2b29282f6a6d7d2929292d597c7c377d767c377e766f">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket number
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">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="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004/document</a>. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how
to submit comments through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2d7dcd7c0d5cb9cc1c6d3dcd6d3c0d6c1f2c7c1d6ddd89cd5ddc4">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, 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) 586-9870. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#226352524e4b434c41477156434c464350465173574751564b4d4c516247470c464d470c454d54">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2555. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#480627242926660a3a212b233f27272c082039662c272d662f273e">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e4a59494888d858a8781b790858a8085968097b5918197908d8b8a97a48181ca808b81ca838b92">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. November 2016 CPWG Recommendations
1. Energy Conservation Standard Level
2. Labeling Requirements
3. Certification Reports
B. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
1. CPWG Recommendations
a. Scope
b. Definitions
c. Equipment Classes
d. Small Vertical In-Line Pumps
C. Test Procedure
a. Control Mode
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
G. Effective Date
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
a. Scope
b. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Options
a. Hydraulic Design
b. More Efficient Motors
c. Speed Reduction
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Representative Equipment

[[Page 74851]]

a. Circulator Pump Varieties
2. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
c. EL analysis
3. Cost Analysis
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
5. Manufacturer Markup and Manufacturer Selling Price
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Circulator Pump Applications
2. Consumer Samples
3. Operating Hours
a. Hydronic Heating
b. Hot Water Recirculation
4. Load Profiles
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
a. Residential
b. Commercial
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
1. No-New-Standards Case Shipments Projections
2. Standards-Case Shipment Projections
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Cost Increases and Component Shortages
b. Motor Availability
c. Timing of Standard
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
O. Other Topics
a. Acceptance Test Grades
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Circulator Pumps
Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
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
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes pumps. Circulator pumps, which are the
subject of this proposed rulemaking, are a category of pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes energy conservation standards for
circulator pumps. The proposed standards, which are expressed in terms
of a maximum circulator energy index (``CEI''), are shown in Table I.1.
CEI represents the weighted average electric input power to the driver
over a specified load profile, normalized with respect to a circulator
pump serving the same hydraulic load that has a specified minimum
performance level.\3\ These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply
to all circulator pumps listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States starting on the date 2 years after the
publication of the final rule for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The performance of a comparable pump that has a specified
minimum performance level is referred to as the circulator energy
rating (``CER'').

Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Maximum CEI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(All Circulator Pumps)..................................... 1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 74852]]

As stated in section III.C.a of this document, the proposed
standards apply to circulator pumps when operated using the least
consumptive control variety with which they are equipped.
CEI is defined as shown in equation (1), and consistent \4\ with
section 41.5.3.2 of HI 41.5-2022, ``Hydraulic Institute Program
Guideline for Circulator Pump Energy Rating Program.'' \5\ 87 FR 57264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ HI 41.5-2022 uses the term CER<INF>REF</INF> for the
analogous concept. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE
discussed this decision to instead use CER<INF>STD</INF> in the
context of Federal energy conservation standards.
\5\ HI 41.5-2022 provides additional instructions for testing
circulator pumps to determine an Energy Rating value for different
circulator pump control varieties.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.000

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:

CEI = the circulator energy index (dimensionless);
CER = circulator energy rating (hp); and
CER<INF>STD</INF> = for a circulator pump that is minimally
compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards with the same
hydraulic horsepower as the tested pump, as determined in accordance
with the specifications at paragraph (i) of Sec. 431.465.

The specific formulation for CER, in turn, varies according to
circulator pump control variety, but in all cases is a function of
measured pump input power when operated under certain conditions, as
described in the September 2022 TP Final Rule.
Relatedly, CER<INF>STD</INF> represents CER for a circulator pump
that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards
with the same hydraulic horsepower as the tested pump, as determined in
accordance with the specifications at paragraph (i) of Sec. 431.465.
87 FR 57264.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards on consumers of circulator pumps, as measured by the
average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\6\ The average LCC savings are positive, and the PBP is less
than the average lifetime of circulator pumps, which is estimated to be
approximately 10.5 years (see section IV.F.6 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards.
The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency
levels, is measured relative to the baseline product. See section
IV.F of this document).

Table I.2--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Circulator Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC savings Simple payback period
Equipment class (2021$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Circulator Pumps...................................... 103.2 4.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2022-2055). Using a real discount rate of
9.6 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of
circulator pumps in the case without standards is $325.9 million in
2021$. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to
range from -19.7 percent to 6.6 percent, which is approximately
equivalent to a decrease of $64.3 million to an increase of 21.4
million. In order to bring products into compliance with standards, it
is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of
$77.0 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in [2021]
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps would save a significant amount of
energy. Relative to the case without standards, the lifetime energy
savings for circulator pumps purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2026-
2055) amount to 0.45 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or
quads.\8\ This represents a savings of 34 percent relative to the
energy use of these products in the case without standards (referred to
as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for circulator pumps ranges from
$0.73 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $1.77 billion (at a 3-
percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of
future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment
and installation costs for circulator pumps purchased in 2026-2055.
In addition, the proposed standards for circulator pumps are
projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates
that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission
reductions (over the same

[[Page 74853]]

period as for energy savings) of 15.8 million metric tons (``Mt'') \9\
of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 7.7 thousand tons of sulfur
dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 23.8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 102 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.2 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.05 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\10\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases
(GHG) using four different estimates of the social cost of
CO<INF>2</INF> (``SCCO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of methane
(``SCCH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SCN<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of GHG
(SCGHG).\11\ DOE used interim SCGHG values developed by an Interagency
Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG),\12\ as
discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational
purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SCGHG at a
3-percent discount rate are $0.80 billion. (DOE does not have a single
central SCGHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value
of considering the benefits calculated using all four SCGHG estimates.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible under law.
\12\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021 (``February 2021 SCGHG TSD'').
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also estimates health benefits from SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions.\13\ DOE estimates the present
value of the health benefits would be $0.65 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate, and $1.45 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\14\
DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF>) PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor health benefits and (for
NO<INF>X</INF>) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to
assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits
from reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ DOE estimated the monetized value of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions associated with electricity
savings using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific
literature. See section IV.L.2 of this document for further
discussion.
\14\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for circulator pumps. In the table,
total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented
using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate, but
the Department emphasizes the importance and value of considering the
benefits calculated using all four SCGHG cases. The estimated total net
benefits using each of the four cases are presented in section V.C.1 of
this document.

Table I.3--Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps [TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion
($2020)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate:
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.......................... 3.41
Climate Benefits*........................................ 0.80
Health Benefits**........................................ 1.45
Total Benefits[dagger]............................... 5.65
----------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs[Dagger]........... 1.64
Net Benefits......................................... 4.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate:
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.......................... 1.68
Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate)..................... 0.80
Health Benefits**........................................ 0.65
Total Benefits[dagger]............................... 3.12
----------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs[Dagger]........... 0.95
----------
Net Benefits......................................... 2.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product
name shipped in 2026-2055. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the
Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and
it emphasizes the importance of considering the benefits calculated
using all four SC-GHG estimates.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of
3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details.

[[Page 74854]]

[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health
benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both
the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-
GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a
single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance
and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG
estimates. See Table V.18 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG
estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result
of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer
in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of
that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further
intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the
injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and
permissible under law.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of GHG and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions, all
annualized.\15\ The national operating savings are domestic private
U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of circulator pumps
shipped in 2026-2055. The benefits associated with reduced emissions
achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated
based on the lifetime of circulator pumps shipped in 2026-2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g.,2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to
2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual
payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that
yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed
standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary
estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, and the
3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG
emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is
$93.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $165.8 in reduced equipment operating
costs, $44.4 million in climate benefits, and $63.9 million in health
benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $180.5 million
per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $91.2 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$189.9 million in reduced operating costs, $44.4 million in climate
benefits, and $80.8 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $224.0 million per year.

Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million (2021$/year)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
Primary estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate:
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.............. 189.9 185.7 194.0
Climate Benefits*............................ 44.4 44.4 44.4
Health Benefits**............................ 80.8 80.8 80.8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits[dagger]................... 315.2 311.0 319.3
Consumer Incremental Product 91.2 91.2 91.2
Costs[Dagger]...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits............................. 224.0 219.8 228.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate:
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.............. 165.8 162.6 168.7
Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate)......... 44.4 44.4 44.4
Health Benefits**............................ 63.9 63.9 63.9
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits[dagger]................... 274.1 271.0 277.0
Consumer Incremental Product 93.5 93.5 93.5
Costs[Dagger]...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits............................. 180.5 177.4 183.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with circulator pumps shipped in 2026-2055. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SCGHG (see section IV.L of this
document. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SCGHG at
a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SCGHG point estimate,
and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SCGHG
estimates.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.

[[Page 74855]]

[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SCGHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SCGHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SCGHG estimates. See Table V.18
for net benefits using all four SCGHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-
30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022,
preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the
Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal
government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary
injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency
Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its
approach prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility, equipment achieving these standard levels
are already commercially available. As for economic justification,
DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed,
to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards. Using a 7-
percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for circulator pumps is $93.5 million per year in
increased circulator pumps costs, while the estimated annual benefits
are $165.8 million in reduced circulator pumps operating costs, $44.4
million in climate benefits and $63.9 million in health benefits. The
net benefit amounts to $180.5 million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\16\
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the proposed standards are projected to
result in estimated national energy savings of 0.45 quad, the
equivalent of the electricity use of 4.4 million homes in one year. The
NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $0.73
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.77 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions
associated with these energy savings are 15.8 Mt of CO<INF>2</INF>,
23.8 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 7.7 thousand tons of
NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.05 tons of Hg, 102.0 thousand tons of CH<INF>4</INF>,
and 0.18 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated monetary value
of the climate benefits from the reduced GHG emissions (associated with
the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $0.80 billion. The
estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions is $0.65 billion using a 7-
percent discount rate and $1.45 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these
tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document
and the accompanying TSD.
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels
(``ELs'') as potential standards, and is still considering them in this
rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential
burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh
the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
circulator pumps.

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, section 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 equipment
includes pumps, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)))
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 include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency 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 for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions
of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered
equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)).

[[Page 74856]]

Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the
equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
The DOE test procedures for circulator pumps appear at title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, subpart Y, appendix
D.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including circulator pumps.
Any new or amended standard for a covered equipment must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary
of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would
not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain
equipment, including circulator pumps, if no test procedure has been
established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the
standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any
covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within
such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-
related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not
have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

B. Background

As stated, EPCA includes ``pumps'' among the industrial equipment
listed as ``covered equipment'' for the purpose of Part A-1, although
EPCA does not define the term ``pump.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) In a
final rule published January 25, 2016, DOE established a definition for
``pump,'' associated definitions, and test procedures for certain
pumps. 81 FR 4086, 4090. (``January 2016 TP final rule''). ``Pump'' is
defined as equipment designed to move liquids (which may include
entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical
or mechanical action and includes a bare pump and, if included by the
manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver, and
controls. 10 CFR 431.462. Circulator pumps fall within the scope of
this definition.
While DOE has defined ``pump'' broadly, the test procedure
established in the January 2016 TP final rule is applicable only to
certain categories of clean water pumps,\17\ specifically those that
are end suction close-coupled; end suction frame mounted/own bearings;
in-line (``IL''); radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line
diffuser casing; and submersible turbine (``ST'') pumps with the
following characteristics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ A ``clean water pump'' is a pump that is designed for use
in pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of
0.016 pounds per cubic foot, and with a maximum dissolved solid
content of 3.1 pounds per cubic foot, provided that the total gas
content of the water does not exceed the saturation volume, and
disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the water from
freezing at a minimum of 14 [deg]F. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> 25 gallons per minute (``gpm'') and greater (at best
efficiency point (``BEP'') at full impeller diameter);
<bullet> 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter
and the number of stages specified for testing);
<bullet> design temperature range from 14 to 248 [deg]F;
<bullet> designed to operate with either (1) a 2- or 4-pole
induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation
operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and
4,320 revolutions per minute (``rpm'') and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and
in either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the same speed;
<bullet> 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for ST pumps;
<bullet> A specific speed less than or equal to 5,000 for ESCC and
ESFM pumps;
<bullet> Except for: fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist
pumps, magnet driven pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear
facility subject to 10

[[Page 74857]]

CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities''; and pumps meeting the design and construction
requirements set forth in any relevant military specifications.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ E.g., MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous
Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended); MIL-P-17881D, ``Pumps,
Centrifugal, Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)'' (as amended); MIL-P-
17840C, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Close-Coupled, Navy Standard (For
Surface Ship Application)'' (as amended); MIL-P-18682D, ``Pump,
Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating, Naval Shipboard'' (as
amended); and MIL-P-18472G, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Condensate, Feed
Booster, Waste Heat Boiler, And Distilling Plant'' (as amended).
Military specifications and standards are available at <a href="https://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS">https://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR 431.464(a)(1). The pump categories subject to the current
test procedures are referred to as ``general pumps'' in this document.
As stated, circulator pumps are not general pumps.
DOE also published a final rule establishing energy conservation
standards applicable to certain classes of general pumps. 81 FR 4368
(Jan. 26, 2016) (``January 2016 ECS final rule''); see also, 10 CFR
431.465.
The January 2016 TP final rule and the January 2016 ECS final rule
implemented the recommendations of the Commercial and Industrial Pump
Working Group (``CIPWG'') established through the Appliance Standards
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') to negotiate
standards and a test procedure for general pumps. (Docket No. EERE-
2013-BT-NOC-0039) The CIPWG approved a term sheet containing
recommendations to DOE on appropriate standard levels for general
pumps, as well as recommendations addressing issues related to the
metric and test procedure for general pumps (``CIPWG
recommendations''). (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92)
Subsequently, ASRAC approved the CIPWG recommendations. The CIPWG
recommendations included initiation of a separate rulemaking for
circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92,
Recommendation #5A at p. 2)
On February 3, 2016, DOE issued a notice of intent to establish the
circulator pumps working group to negotiate a notice of proposed
rulemaking (``NOPR'') for energy conservation standards for circulator
pumps to negotiate, if possible, Federal standards and a test procedure
for circulator pumps and to announce the first public meeting. 81 FR
5658. The members of the Circulator Pump Working Group (``CPWG'') were
selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of interested parties and
expertise, including representatives from efficiency advocacy
organizations and manufacturers. Additionally, one member from ASRAC
and one DOE representative were part of the CPWG. Table II.1 lists the
15 members of the CPWG and their affiliations.

Table II.1--ASRAC Circulator Pump Working Group Members and Affiliations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles White................ Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors
Association.
Gabor Lechner................ Armstrong Pumps, Inc.
Gary Fernstrom............... California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Joanna Mauer................. Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
Joe Hagerman................. U.S. Department of Energy.
Laura Petrillo-Groh.......... Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute.
Lauren Urbanek............... Natural Resources Defense Council.
Mark Chaffee................. TACO, Inc.
Mark Handzel................. Xylem Inc.
Peter Gaydon................. Hydraulic Institute.
Richard Gussert.............. Grundfos Americas Corporation.
David Bortolon............... Wilo Inc.
Russell Pate................. Rheem Manufacturing Company.
Don Lanser................... Nidec Motor Corporation.
Tom Eckman................... Northwest Power and Conservation Council
(ASRAC member).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CPWG commenced negotiations at an open meeting on March 29,
2016, and held six additional meetings to discuss scope, metrics, and
the test procedure. The CPWG concluded its negotiations for test
procedure topics on September 7, 2016, with a consensus vote to approve
a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on scope, definitions,
metric, and the basis of the test procedure (``September 2016 CPWG
Recommendations''). The September 2016 CPWG Recommendations are
available in the CPWG docket. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No.
58)
The CPWG continued to meet to address potential energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps. Those meetings began on November 3-4,
2016 and concluded on November 30, 2016, with approval of a second term
sheet (``November 2016 CPWG Recommendations'') containing CPWG
recommendations related to energy conservation standards, applicable
test procedure, labeling and certification requirements for circulator
pumps (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98). Whereas the September
2016 CPWG Recommendations are discussed in the September 2022 TP Final
Rule, the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations are summarized in section
III.A of this document. ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously to approve
the September and November 2016 CPWG Recommendations during a December
meeting. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 91 at p.2) \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ All references in this document to the approved
recommendations included in 2016 Term Sheets are noted with the
recommendation number and a citation to the appropriate document in
the CPWG docket (e.g., Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. #,
Recommendation #X at p. Y). References to discussions or suggestions
of the CPWG not found in the 2016 Term Sheets include a citation to
meeting transcripts and the commenter, if applicable (e.g., Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, [Organization], No. X at p. Y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a letter dated June 9, 2017, Hydraulic Institute (``HI'')
expressed its support for the process that DOE initiated regarding
circulator pumps and encouraged the publishing of a NOPR and a final
rule by the end of 2017. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, HI, No.103
at p. 1) In response to an early assessment review RFI published
September 28, 2020 regarding the existing test procedures for general
pumps (85 FR 60734, ``September 2020 Early Assessment RFI''), HI
commented that it continues to support the recommendations from the
CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, HI, No. 6 at p. 1) NEEA also
referenced

[[Page 74858]]

the September 2016 CPWG Recommendations and recommended that DOE adopt
test procedures for circulator pumps in the pumps rulemaking or a
separate rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, NEEA, No. 8 at
p. 8)
On May 7, 2021, DOE published a request for information related to
test procedures and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps.
86 FR 24516 (``May 2021 RFI'').
DOE received comments in response to the May 2021 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table II.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The Anonymous comment did not substantively address the
subject of this rulemaking.

Table II.2--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the May 2021 RFI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule Docket No. Commenter type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People's Republic of China......... China........................ EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0111.................... Country.
Hydraulic Institute................ HI........................... EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0112.................... Trade Association.
Grundfos Americas Corporation...... Grundfos..................... EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0113.................... Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Advocates.................... EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0114.................... Efficiency Organization.
Project, American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA......................... EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0115.................... Efficiency Organization.
Alliance.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, CA IOUs...................... EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0116.................... Utility.
San Diego Gas and Electric, and
Southern California Edison;
collectively, the California
Investor-Owned Utilities.
Anonymous Commenter................ N/A.......................... EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0117.................... Anonymous.\20\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for circulator pumps. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033 (Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, which is maintained at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references are arranged as follows:
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the test
procedure on December 20, 2021, presenting DOE's proposals to establish
a circulator pump test procedure (86 FR 72096) (hereafter, the
``December 2021 TP NOPR''). DOE held a public meeting related to this
NOPR on February 2, 2022. DOE published a final rule for the test
procedure on September 19, 2022 (``September 2022 TP Final Rule''). The
test procedure final rule established definitions, testing methods and
a performance metric, requirements regarding sampling and
representations of energy consumption and certain other metrics, and
enforcement provisions for circulator pumps.

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``Appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from two
provisions in appendix A regarding the NOPR stage for an energy
conservation standard rulemaking. First, section 6(f)(2) of appendix A
specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will
vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking but
will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE is providing
a 60-day comment period, as required by EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(p). Second, section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if
DOE determines in is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, then the
preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue an energy conservation
standard would include either a framework document and preliminary
analysis or, alternatively, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
According to section 6(a)(2) of appendix A, DOE may also optionally
issue requests for information and notices of data availability.
As stated in section II.B of this document, DOE established a
working group (the CPWG) to negotiate potential energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps, which culminated at a consensus
agreement (the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations) recommending that
energy conservation standards for circulator pumps be adopted at TSL2,
the level proposed in this NOPR. The CPWG held a series of formal and
informal meetings, minutes and supporting material for which are posted
in Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004.
Additionally, as stated in section II.B of this document, on May 7,
2021, DOE published a request for information related to test
procedures and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps in
which it initially provided a 60-day comment period. 86 FR 24516 (``May
2021 RFI''). Subsequently, in response to requests, DOE provided a 24-
day extension to that initial comment period, for a total comment
period of 84 days. 86 FR 28298.
DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and
approaches as used in developing analysis supporting the standard level
of TSL2 which was the consensus recommendation of the CWPG and which
was supported by several commenters and which no commenters opposed.
(HI, No. 112 at p. 6; Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6; NEEA, No. 115 at p. 3;
Advocates, No. 114 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 116 at p. 5)
Considering the opportunity for comment and input afforded the CWPG
by the negotiation process, including the opportunity to vote on a
consensus level for energy conservation standards, the 84-day comment
period of the May 2021 RFI in which the CPWG-recommended standard level
was discussed, and the close adherence of the methods and analysis used
in this NOPR to support a proposed standard level of TSL 2, interested
parties have been provided substantial opportunity to provide input.
Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate and will
provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on
the proposed rule.
Regarding the provision in section 6(a)(2) of appendix A to issue
either a framework document and preliminary analysis or, alternatively,
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking as the preliminary rulemaking
documents, the function of these documents is to lay out for interested
parties and the public DOE's planned approach and provide opportunity
for comment had already been performed by the CPWG meeting process.
Interested parties were offered opportunity to not only observe and
comment on but even participate in that process. As discussed in
section II.B of this document, many did. Table II.1 lists the 15
members of the CPWG and their

[[Page 74859]]

affiliations. The proceedings of the working group and related ASRAC
activities have been documented and available for review respectively
in the rulemaking docket (EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004) and non-rulemaking,
ASRAC docket (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005).
As discussed in section II.B, the CPWG approved two term sheets
which represented the group's consensus recommendations. The second
term sheet, referred to in this NOPR as the ``November 2016 CPWG
Recommendations'' contained the CPWG recommendations related to energy
conservation standards, applicable test procedure, labeling and
certification requirements for circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-
BT-STD-0004, No. 98) The proposals in this NOPR closely mirror the
November 2016 CPWG Recommendations, which are accordingly summarized in
this section.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.

A. November 2016 CPWG Recommendations

As discussed in section II.B, the CPWG approved two term sheets
which represented the group's consensus recommendations. The second
term sheet, referred to in this NOPR as the ``November 2016 CPWG
Recommendations'' contained the CPWG recommendations related to energy
conservation standards, applicable test procedure, labeling and
certification requirements for circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-
BT-STD-0004, No. 98) The proposals in this NOPR closely mirror the
November 2016 CPWG Recommendations, which are accordingly summarized in
this section.
1. Energy Conservation Standard Level
The CPWG recommendation that each circulator pump be required to
meet an applicable minimum efficiency standard. Specifically, the
recommendation was that each pump must have a CEI \22\ of less than or
equal to 1.00. Among the numbered efficiency levels considered by the
CPWG as potential standard levels, the agreed level was EL2 (i.e., CEI
less than or equal to 1.00).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ The CPWG recommendations predated establishment of the
current metric, called ``CEI'', and instead used the analogous term
``PEI<INF>CIRC</INF>''. In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed
to adopt the ``CEI'' nomenclature instead ``PEI<INF>CIRC</INF>'' to
``CEI'' based, in part, on comments received, to remain consistent
with terminology used in HI 41.5, and to avoid potential confusion
with the nomenclature. After receiving favorable comments on its
proposal, DOE adopted the CEI nomenclature in the September 2022 TP
Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the May 2021 RFI, several stakeholders commented in
support of the CPWG's recommendation of energy conservation standards
at EL2. HI commented that it supported the work and recommendations of
the CPWG. (HI, No. 112 at p. 6) Grundfos recommended DOE adopt EL2, the
recommended standard level of the CPWG. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6)
NEEA commented it believes EL 2 is still appropriate and will result in
significant energy savings nationally. (NEEA, No. 115 at p. 3) The
Advocates commented that DOE should quickly adopt energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps in accordance with the CPWG
recommendations. (Advocates, No. 114 at p. 1) The CA IOUs commented
that they support adopting the provisions of the CPWG term sheets,
including the recommended energy conservation standard level of EL2. CA
IOUs (CA IOUs, No. 116 at p.5)
No comments were received arguing against adoption of the CPWG-
recommended standard level.
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether any changes
in the market since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets could make the
CPWG's recommendation for EL 2 no longer valid. Grundfos, HI, NEEA
responded stating there were little to no changes and the CPWG's
recommendation of EL2 is still appropriate. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p.
10; HI, No. 112 at p. 11; NEEA, No. 115 at p. 2) HI estimated that
standards at EL 2 would eliminate all permanent-split capacitor
(``PSC'') motor circulator pumps which is the predominant product sold
today. (Id.) Grundfos recommended that DOE adopt EL 2 as the standard,
which would force the market to electronically commutated motor (ECM)
products and remove 4% of ECMs currently available (based on CPWG
data). (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 7)
Overall, the CPWG-recommended standard level appears well supported
by commenters. As described in section V.C.1, DOE is proposing in this
NOPR to adopt energy conservation standards for circulator pumps at TSL
2, which
As stated in section I, CEI was defined in the September 2022 TP
Final Rule consistent with the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations as
shown in equation (2), and consistent with Section 41.5.3.2 of HI 41.5-
2022. (87 FR 57264).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.001

Where:

CER = circulator energy rating (hp); and
CER<INF>STD</INF> = circulator energy rating for a minimally
compliant circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load.

The specific formulation CER, in turn, varies according to
circulator pump control variety, but in all cases is a function of
measured pump input power when operated under certain conditions, as
described in the September 2022 TP Final Rule.
Relatedly, CER<INF>STD</INF> represents CER for a circulator pump
that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards
with the same hydraulic horsepower as the tested pump, as determined in
accordance with the specifications at paragraph (i) of Sec. 431.465.
(87 FR 57264)
The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations contained a proposed method
for calculating CER<INF>STD</INF> \23\ as shown in Equation (3):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ The CPWG recommendations predated establishment of the
current term ``CER<INF>STD</INF>'' and instead used the analogous
term ``PER<INF>CIRC,STD</INF>''. In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE
proposed to adopt the ``CER<INF>STD</INF>'' nomenclature instead
``PER<INF>CIRC,STD</INF>'' because DOE believed that the terminology
CER<INF>STD</INF> is more reflective of Federal energy conservation
standards. After receiving no opposition on its proposal, DOE
adopted the CEI nomenclature in the September 2022 TP Final Rule.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 74860]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.002

Where:

[omega]<INF>i</INF> = weight at each test point i, specified in
Recommendation #2B
P<INF>i</INF>\in,STD\ = reference power input to the circulator pump
driver at test point i, calculated using the equations and method
specified in Recommendation #2C
i = test point(s), defined as 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at
best efficiency point (BEP).

The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included a recommended
weighting factor of 25% for each respective test point, i.
(``Recommendation #2B'').
The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included
(``Recommendation #2C'') a recommended reference input power,
P<INF>i</INF>\in,STD\ as described in equation (4).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.003

Where:

Pu,i = tested hydraulic power output of the pump being rated at test
point i, in HP
[eta]<INF>WTW,100%</INF> = reference BEP circulator pump efficiency
at the recommended standard level (%), calculated using the
equations and values specified in Recommendation #2D
[alpha]<INF>i</INF> = part load efficiency factor at each test point
i, specified in Recommendation #2E
i = test point(s), defined as 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at
best efficiency point (BEP).

The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included a reference
efficiency at BEP at the CPWG-recommended standard level,
[eta]<INF>WTW,100</INF>%, (``Recommendation #2D'') which varies by
circulator pump hydraulic output power.
Specifically, for circulator pumps with BEP hydraulic output power
P<INF>u,100</INF>% <1 HP, the reference efficiency at BEP
([eta]WTW,100%) should be determined using equation (5):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.004

Where:

[eta]<INF>WTW,100</INF>% = reference BEP pump efficiency at the
recommended standard level (%),
Pu,<INF>100</INF>% = tested hydraulic power output of the pump being
rated at BEP, in HP

For the CPWG-recommended standard level, the constants A, B, and C
used in equation would have the following values:

Table III.1--CPWG-Recommended Reference Pump WTW,100% Constants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A B C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.00 .001141 67.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For circulator pumps with BEP hydraulic output power
P<INF>u,100</INF>% >=1 HP, the reference efficiency at BEP
([eta]WTW,100%) would have a constant value of 67.79.
Additionally, the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations included a
part-load efficiency factor ([alpha]<INF>i</INF>, as appears in
equation (4)), which varies according to test point (``Recommendation
#2E). Specifically, [alpha]<INF>i</INF> would have values as listed in
Table III.2.

Table III.2--CPWG-Recommended Part-Load Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding
i [alpha]i
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25%.................................................... 0.4843
50%.................................................... 0.7736
75%.................................................... 0.9417
100% \24\.............................................. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This CPWG-recommended equation structure is used to characterize
the standard level proposed in this NOPR, with certain inconsequential
changes to variable names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations did not explicitly
include a value for the part-load efficiency factor,
[alpha]<INF>i</INF>, in Recommendation #2E. Nonetheless,
Recommendation #2C makes clear that a value for the part-load
efficiency factor, [alpha]<INF>i</INF>, is required to calculate
reference input power, which calls for a value at test point i =
100%. DOE infers the omission of [alpha]<INF>100</INF>% from
Recommendation #2E to reflect that i = 100% corresponds to full-
load, and thus imply no part-load-driven reduction in efficiency
and, by extension, a load coefficient of unity. DOE is making this
assumption that [alpha]<INF>100</INF>% = 1 explicit by including it
in this table, which is otherwise identical to that of CPWG
Recommendation #2E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Labeling Requirements
Under EPCA, DOE has certain authority to establish labeling
requirements for covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6315) The November 2016
CPWG Recommendations contained one recommendation regarding labeling
requirements, which was that both model number and CEI \25\ be included
on the circulator nameplate (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98
Recommendation #3 at p. 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The CPWG recommended that ``PEI'' be included in a
potential labeling requirement which, as described previously, is
analogous to CEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the May 2021 RFI, the Advocates commented in support
of establishing labeling requirements for

[[Page 74861]]

circulator pumps (Advocates, No. 114 at p. 1). No commenters argued
against establishing labeling requirements for circulator pumps.
DOE is reviewing the potential benefits of establishing labeling
requirements for circulator pumps and may share the results of such
evaluation in a separate notice. Accordingly, in this NOPR, DOE is not
proposing specific labeling requirements for circulator pumps, but DOE
may consider such requirements for circulator pumps, including those
recommended by the CPWG, in a separate rulemaking.
3. Certification Reports
Under EPCA, DOE has the authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers with respect to the energy efficiency or
energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations contained one recommendation
regarding certification reporting requirements. Specifically, the CPWG
recommended that the following information should be included in both
certification reports and the public CCMS database:

<bullet> Manufacturer name
<bullet> Model number
<bullet> CEI \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ CEI had not been established at the time of the November
2016 CPWG Recommendations, which instead referred to this value as
``PEI<INF>CIRC</INF>''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Flow (in gallons per minute) and Head (in feet) at BEP
<bullet> Tested control setting
<bullet> Input power at measured data points

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation #4 at p.
4)
The CPWG also recommended that certain additional information be
permitted but not mandatorily included in both certification reports
and the public CCMS database. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98
Recommendation 4 at p. 1) The recommended optional information
consisted of: true RMS current, true RMS voltage, real power, and the
resultant power factor at measured data points. (Docket No. EERE-2016-
BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation #4 at p. 4)
DOE is not proposing certification or reporting requirements for
circulator pumps in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to
address amendments to the certification requirements and reporting for
circulator pumps under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification.

B. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to align the scope of energy
conservation standards for circulator pumps with that of the circulator
pumps test procedure. 87 FR 57264. Specifically, this NOPR proposes to
apply energy conservation standards to all circulator pumps that are
also clean water pumps, including on-demand circulator pumps and
circulators-less-volute, and excluding submersible pumps and header
pumps.
This scope is consistent with the recommendations of the CPWG. DOE
identified no basis to change the scope of energy conservations
standard for circulator pumps relative to the scope of test procedures
adopted in the September 2022 Final Rule. Accordingly, the scope of
proposed energy conservation standards aligns with that of the test
procedure. Comments related to scope are discussed and considered in
the test procedure final rule.
Both of these proposals--scope and equipment classes--match the
recommendations of the CPWG, which are summarized in this section. They
are discussed further in section IV.A.1 of this document.
1. CPWG Recommendations
a. Scope
The September 2016 CPWG Recommendations addressed the scope of a
circulator pumps rulemaking. Specifically, the CPWG recommended that
the scope of a circulator pumps test procedure and energy conservation
standards cover clean water pumps (as defined at 10 CFR 431.462)
distributed in commerce with or without a volute and that are one of
the following categories: wet rotor circulator pumps, dry rotor close-
coupled circulator pumps, and dry rotor mechanically coupled circulator
pumps. The CPWG also recommended that the scope exclude submersible
pumps and header pumps. 86 FR 24516, 24520; (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendations #1A, 2A and 2B at p. 1-2) In response
to the May 2021 RFI, HI and Grundfos stated that they believed all
circulator pumps are included in the scope defined by the CPWG in the
term sheets. (HI, No. 112 at p. 8; Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 7). DOE's
proposal aligns with the scope recommended by the CPWG, consistent with
the September 2022 TP Final Rule.
b. Definitions
The CPWG also recommended several definitions relevant to scope.
DOE notes that, generally, definitions recommended by the CPWG rely on
terms previously defined in the January 2016 TP final rule, including
``close-coupled pump,'' ``mechanically-coupled pump,'' ``dry rotor
pump,'' ``single axis flow pump,'' and ``rotodynamic pump.'' 81 FR
4086, 4146-4147; 10 CFR 431.462. In addition, the recommended
definition for ``submersible pump'' is the same as that already defined
in a 2017 test procedure final rule for dedicated-purpose pool pumps
(``August 2017 DPPP TP final rule''). 82 FR 36858, 36922 (August 7,
2017); 10 CFR 431.462.
In the September 19, 2022 TP Final Rule DOE established a number of
definitions related to circulator pumps as follows. 87 FR 57264.
Specifically, DOE defined: ``circulator pump'', ``wet rotor circulator
pump'', ``dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump'', ``dry rotor, three-
piece circulator pump'', ``horizontal motor'', ``header pump'', and
``circulator-less-volute.'' (87 FR 57264)
``Circulator pump'' was defined to include both wet- and dry-rotor
designs and to include circulators-less-volute, which are distributed
in commerce without a volute and for which a paired volute is also
distributed in commerce. Header pumps, by contrast, are those without
volutes and for which no paired volute is available in commerce. (87 FR
57264)
In the September 2022 TP Final Rule (87 FR 57264) DOE did not
propose a new definition for submersible circulator pumps, instead
signaling applicability of an established term, ``submersible pump'',
which was defined in the 2017 test procedure final rule for dedicated-
purpose pool pumps (``August 2017 DPPP TP final rule''). 82 FR 36858,
36922 (August 7, 2017):
Submersible pump means a pump that is designed to be operated with
the motor and bare pump fully submerged in the pumped liquid. 10 CFR
431.462.
DOE proposes to maintain these definitions from the September 2022
TP Final Rule in the standards for circulator pumps.

[[Page 74862]]

c. Equipment Classes
The CPWG recommended that all circulator pumps be analyzed in a
single equipment class. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98,
Recommendation #1 at p. 1) DOE's proposal aligns with the
recommendation of the CPWG. Equipment classes are discussed further in
section IV.A.1 of this document.
d. Small Vertical In-Line Pumps
The CPWG recommended that DOE analyze and establish energy
conservation standards for small vertical in-line pumps (``SVILs'')
with a compliance date equivalent to the previous energy conservation
standards final rule (81 FR 4367, Jan. 26, 2016) for general (and not
circulator) pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58,
Recommendation #1B at p. 1-2) The recommendation was that the standards
for SVILs be similar in required performance to those of general pumps.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #1B at p. 2)
In addition to energy conservation standards for SVILs, the CPWG
recommended SVILs be evaluated using the same test metric as general
pumps. Id.
In their response to the May 2021 RFI, Advocates requested that
standards for small vertical in-line pumps (``SVILs'') be established
that are comparable to those of commercial and industrial inline pumps,
as the CPWG recommended in 2016 (Advocates, No. 114 at p. 1).
Consistent with those sentiments, DOE proposed to extend commercial and
industrial pump test procedures to SVILs in a separate notice of
proposed rulemaking. 87 FR 21268 (Apr. 11, 2022) (April 2022 NOPR).
That test procedure, if finalized, may allow evaluation of energy
conservation standards for SVILs as part of a commercial and industrial
pumps rulemaking process. However, subsequent to the April 2022 NOPR,
DOE published a notice of data availability (NODA) in which DOE noted
that during interviews conducted after the April 2022 NOPR,
manufacturers provided conflicting suggestions for how DOE should
conduct its SVIL analysis, including that some manufacturers suggested
that potential SVIL standards should be equivalent to any future
standards for circulator pumps. DOE received conflicting feedback on
whether circulator pumps and SVILs would compete with, or act as
substitutes for, each other. Some manufacturers stated that an SVIL
would never be substituted for a circulator pump, while others said
that it was possible. 87 FR 49537 (Aug. 11, 2022). In that NODA, DOE
request comment on specific applications for which SVILs could be used
instead of circulator pumps and how an SVIL would need to be modified
for use in these applications, and potential benefits and drawbacks of
setting standards for SVILs that align with circulator pumps versus
setting standards for SVILs that align with in-line pumps. Id.
At this time, DOE has tentatively determined to maintain its
approach to address energy conservation standards for circulator pumps
only in this rulemaking, separately from SVILs. DOE has not received
adequate data or information at this time to suggest that DOE should
address standards for SVILs along with the circulator pumps within the
scope of this NOPR. Accordingly, DOE is proposing not to include SVILs
within the scope of the energy conservation standards considered in
this NOPR. Relatedly, the September 2022 TP Final Rule did not adopt
test procedures for SVILs. DOE will continue to evaluate manufacturer
and stakeholder feedback related to this issue and take any additional
information into consideration as it may relate to including SVILs, or
a subset of SVILs, within the scope of this rulemaking.
DOE requests comment on its approach to exclude SVILs from the
scope of this NOPR, and whether DOE should consider standards for any
SVILs as part of this rulemaking.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for circulator pumps are
expressed in terms of circulator energy index (``CEI''). CEI represents
the weighted average electric input power to the driver over a
specified load profile, normalized with respect to a circulator pump
serving the same hydraulic load that has a specified minimum
performance level. \27\ (See 10 CFR 431.464(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The performance of a comparable pump that has a specified
minimum performance level is referred to as the circulator energy
rating (``CER'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Control Mode
Circulator pumps may be equipped with speed controls that govern
their response to settings or signals. DOE's test procedure contains
definitions and test methods applicable to pressure controls,
temperature controls, manual speed controls, external input signal
controls, and no controls (i.e., full speed operation only). \28\
Section B.1 of appendix D to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431 specifies
that circulator pumps without one of the identified control varieties
(i.e., pressure control, temperature control, manual speed control or
external input signal control) are tested at full speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ In this document, circulator pumps with ``no controls'' are
also inclusive of other potential control varieties that are not one
of the specifically identified control varieties. See section
III.D.7 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some circulator pumps operate in only a single control mode (i.e.,
selected variety), whereas others are capable of operating in any of
several control modes. As discussed in the September 2022 TP Final
Rule, circulator pump energy performance typically varies by control
variety, for circulator pumps equipped with more than one control
variety. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE summarized and
responded to a variety of stakeholder comments which discussed
advantages and disadvantages of various potential requirements
regarding the control variety activated during testing. Ultimately, DOE
determined not to restrict active control variety during testing. 87 FR
57264. The test procedure for circulator pumps allows the manufacturer
of a circulator pump to does not require a particular control variety
to limit application to a particular control variety. Section B.2 of
appendix D to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431.
In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE stated that although the
test procedure does not restrict active control variety during testing,
whether compliance with a potential future energy conservation standard
would be based on a specific control mode (or no controls), or whether
certain information related to the control mode used for testing would
be required as part of certification, would be addressed in an energy
conservation standard rulemaking.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to require compliance with energy
conservation standards for circulator pumps while operated in the least
consumptive control mode in which it is capable of operating. Because
many circulator pumps equipped with control

[[Page 74863]]

modes designed to reduce energy consumption relate to full-speed
operating also include the ability to operate at constant-speed, to
require testing using a circulator pumps' most consumptive control mode
may reduce the ability of rated CEI to characterize the degree of
energy savings possible across circulator pump models. Circulator pump
basic models equipped with a variety of control modes would receive the
same rating as an otherwise identical basic model which could operate
only at full speed, even though in practice the former may consume
considerably less energy in many applications.
As stated in section III.A.3 of this document, certification
requirements, including those related to active control variety, are
not being proposed in this NOPR, but may be addressed in a potential
future rulemaking.
DOE requests comment regarding circulator pump control variety for
the purposes of demonstrating compliance with energy conservation
standards.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A
to 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (``Process Rule'').
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process
Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for circulator pumps, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the
standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the
screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR
technical support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or
class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is
technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'')
improvements in energy efficiency for circulator pumps, using the
design parameters for the most efficient products available on the
market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this
proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to circulator pumps purchased in
the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the
proposed standards (2026-2055).\29\ The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of circulator pumps purchased in the previous 30-year
period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as
the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and
the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for
equipment would likely evolve in the absence of new energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Typically, each TSL is composed of specific efficiency
levels for each equipment class. In the case of circulator pumps,
because there is only one equipment class, each TSL is the same as
its corresponding efficiency level. DOE conducted a sensitivity
analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential new
standards for circulator pumps. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in
section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in
terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy
that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also
calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes
the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a
more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation
standards.\30\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC
multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or
equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section
IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for covered equipment, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\31\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the
significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary
energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment
when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy
and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture
of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis. As mentioned previously, the proposed standards are
projected to result in estimated national FFC energy savings of 0.45
quads, the equivalent of the electricity use of 4.4 million homes

[[Page 74864]]

in one year. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC
and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance
of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy
of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this
issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's
determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public
regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this
proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments
separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES
section for information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards
are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of
the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation

[[Page 74865]]

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of
this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section
IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)). DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate
values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation
standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These
analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period
contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE
routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range
of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the
environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for
DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard
level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary
determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption
payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1 of this proposed
rule.

G. Effective Date

EPCA does not prescribe a compliance lead time for energy
conservation standards for pumps, i.e., the number of years between the
date of publication of a final standards rule and the date on which
manufacturers must comply with the new standard. And, while 42 U.S.C.
62959(m)(4)(B) states that manufacturers shall not be required to apply
new standards to a product with respect to which other new standards
have been required during the prior 6-year period, the standards
proposed in this document would be the first energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps. The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations
specified a compliance date of four years following publication of the
final rule.
Two parties commented in response to the May 2021 RFI regarding
effective date of potential energy conservation standards.
Grundfos recommended a 2-year compliance date due to the effort
already made by the circulator pump industry to test circulator pumps.
(Grundfos, No.113, at p. 1) NEEA, which recommended a 3-year compliance
date, also mentioned the testing efforts and experience made by the
circulator pump industry to test circulator pumps and argued that the
industry is mature and capable of meeting the standard level
recommended by the CPWG (which would have gone into effect by the end
of 2021) at an earlier date. (NEEA, No. 115, at p. 3)
DOE agrees with commenters' arguments that the circulator pump
industry is now more mature compared to 2016, and in this NOPR is
proposing a 2-year compliance date for energy conservation standards.
DOE is requesting comment on this proposal and notes that, depending on
stakeholder comment, DOE may also consider a 3-year compliance date in
the final rule.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ DOE notes that, due to projected market trends, a change in
the rulemaking's compliance date may lead to a small but non-
negligible change in consumer and manufacturer benefits or impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to circulator pumps. Separate subsections
address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: <a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=66">www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=66</a>.
Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy
Information Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual Energy Outlook
(``AEO''), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for
the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of circulator pumps. The key
findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following
sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the
market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
a. Scope
As stated in section III.B, DOE is proposing to align the scope of
these proposed energy conservation standards with that of the
circulator pumps test procedure. 87 FR 57264. In that notice, DOE
finalized the scope of the circulator pumps test procedure such that it
applies to circulator pumps that are

[[Page 74866]]

clean water pumps, including circulators-less-volute and on-demand
circulator pumps, and excluding header pumps and submersible pumps.
That scope is consistent with the recommendations of the CPWG (Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58).
In response to the May 2021 RFI, HI and Grundfos stated that they
believed all circulator pumps are included in the scope defined by the
CPWG in the term sheets. (HI, No. 112 at p. 8; Grundfos, No. 113 at p.
7).
DOE is proposing to apply energy conservation standards to all
circulator pumps included in the CWPG recommendations, which excluded
submersible pumps and header pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004,
No. 58). The September 2022 TP Final Rule also excluded submersible
pumps and header pumps. Any future evaluation of energy conservation
standards would require a corresponding test procedure.
DOE requests comment regarding the proposed scope of energy
conservation standards for circulator pumps.
Equipment Diagrams
In general, DOE establishes written definitions to designate which
products or equipment fall within the scope of a test procedure or
energy conservation standard. In the specific case of circulator pumps,
certain scope-related definitions were adopted by the September 2022 TP
Final Rule and codified at 10 CFR 431.462.
In response to the May 2021 RFI, China requested that DOE add
schematic diagrams for each product in addition to the text definition
to avoid misunderstandings (China, No. 111 at p. 1).
The definitions which serve to distinguish various varieties of
circulator pumps were adopted nearly unchanged from those recommended
by the CPWG at meeting 2. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0021, p.
22) 10 CFR 431.462. CPWG membership included five manufacturers of
circulator pumps, a trade association representing the US hydraulic
industry, a trade association representing plumbing, heating, and
cooling contractors, and other manufacturers of equipment which either
use or are used by circulator pumps as components.
Given the strong representation of entities with deep experience in
circulator pump design and for whom definitional ambiguity could be
burdensome, it is reasonable to expect the CPWG-proposed definitions
were viewed at least at the time of their recommendation as
sufficiently clear.
Additionally, the development of diagrams which effectively serve
as parallel equipment definitions creates the possibility of
introducing confusion insofar as interpretations of such diagrams
differ from those of the corresponding written definitions.
In view of the absence of identification of a specific definitional
ambiguity and of the potential resulting confusion from a diagram that
could be interpreted differently from corresponding written definitions
at 10 CFR 431.462, DOE is not proposing to establish equipment diagrams
in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment regarding the present circulator pump-related
definitions, and in particular whether any clarifications are
warranted.
b. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of
energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that
justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In
making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related
feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors
as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE
deems appropriate. (Id.)
For circulator pumps, there are no current energy conservation
standards and, thus, no preexisting equipment classes. However, the
November 2016 Term Sheets contained a recommendation related to
establishing equipment classes for circulator pumps. Specifically,
``Recommendation #1'' of the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations
suggests grouping all circulator pumps into a single equipment class,
though with numerical energy conservation standard values that vary as
a function of hydraulic output power. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-
0004, No. 98 Recommendation #1 at p. 1)
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment regarding the CPWG
recommendation to include all circulator pumps within a single
equipment class.
HI agreed with the CPWG that circulator pumps should be evaluated
within a single equipment class and no design options are known that
are incompatible or that would necessitate an additional equipment
class. (HI, No. 112 at p. 8). Grundfos also agreed with the CPWG
recommendation of a single circulator pump class as long as
C[hyphen]values are defined based on motor size. (Grundfos, No. 113 at
p. 6).
As stated in section III.B.1, circulator pumps may be offered in
wet- or dry-rotor configurations, and if dry-rotor, in either close-
coupled or mechanically coupled construction. Minor differences in
attributes may exist across configurations. For example, during
interviews with manufacturers DOE learned that wet-rotor pumps tended
to be quieter, whereas dry-rotor pumps may be easier to service. In
general, however, each respective pump variety serves similar
applications. Similarly, data provided to DOE as part of the
confidential submission process indicates that each variety may reach
similar efficiency levels when operated with similar motor technology.
Accordingly, no apparent basis exists to warrant establishing separate
equipment classes by circulator pump configuration.
One additional salient design attribute of circulator pumps is
housing material. Generally, circulator pumps are built using cast
iron, bronze, or stainless-steel housing. Bronze and stainless steel
(sometimes discussed collectively with the descriptor ``nonferrous'')
carry greater corrosion resistance and are thus suitable for use in
applications in which they will be exposed to corrosive elements.
Typically, corrosion resistance is most important in ``open loop''
applications in which new water is constantly being replaced.
By contrast, cast iron (sometimes described as ``ferrous'' to
distinguish from the ``nonferrous'' descriptor applied to bronze and
stainless steel) pump housing is less resistant to corrosion than
bronze or stainless steel, and as a result is generally limited to
``closed loop'' applications in which the same water remains in the
hydraulic circuit, in which it will eventually become deionized and
less able to corrode metallic elements of circulator pumps. Cast iron
is generally less expensive to manufacture than bronze or stainless
steel, and as a result bronze or stainless-steel circulator pumps are
less commonly selected by consumers for applications which do not
strictly require them.
Although a difference in utility exists across circulator pump
housing materials, no such difference exists in ability to reach higher
efficiencies. All housing materials are able to reach all efficiency
levels analyzed in this NOPR. Accordingly, no apparent basis exists to
warrant establishing separate equipment classes by circulator pump
housing material.
DOE requests comment regarding the proposal to analyze all
circulator pumps within a single equipment class.

[[Page 74867]]

On-Demand Circulator Pumps
On-demand circulator pumps respond to actions of the user, rather
than other factors such as pressure, temperature, or time. In the
September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE adopted the following definition for
on-demand circulator pumps, which is consistent with that recommended
by the CPWG (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation 4
at p. 5):
On-demand circulator pump means a circulator pump that is
distributed in commerce with an integral control that:
<bullet> Initiates water circulation based on receiving a signal
from the action of a user [of a fixture or appliance] or sensing the
presence of a user of a fixture and cannot initiate water circulation
based on other inputs, such as water temperature or a pre-set schedule.
<bullet> Automatically terminates water circulation once hot water
has reached the pump or desired fixture.
<bullet> Does not allow the pump to operate when the temperature in
the pipe exceeds 104 [deg]F or for more than 5 minutes continuously.
10 CFR 431.462.
In response to the May 2021 RFI, HI commented that greater energy
savings could be achieved through demand-based variable speed controls
than would arise from redesign of a circulator pump's hydraulic
components. (HI, No. 112 at p. 7). DOE interprets this comment to refer
to other controls than user-reacting, both because of the specific
naming of variable-speed (which is not necessary for user-triggered
controls) and because of the context in which the comment was made.
Nonetheless, it is logically possible that on-demand circulator pumps
may indeed save energy relative to non-on-demand circulator pumps in
certain applications.
The TP final rule (87 FR 57264) responded to a number of comments
received in response to the December 2021 TP NOPR, which were discussed
therein. Several commenters encouraged DOE to develop an adjustment to
the CEI metric that accounted for the potential of on-demand circulator
pumps to save energy in certain contexts. (EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 10
at p. 5; EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 11 at pp. 4-5). Other commenters did
not support an adjusted CEI metric for on-demand circulator pumps in
the test procedure final rule, but recommended evaluation of such in a
potential future rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 9 at
p.3; EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 7 at p. 1).
DOE ultimately did not adopt any modification to the CEI metric for
on-demand circulator pumps in the final rule but stated that it would
consider the appropriate scope and product categories for standards for
on-demand circulator pumps in a separate energy conservation
rulemaking.
As stated in section III.B, DOE is proposing to align the scope of
energy conservation standards for circulator pumps consistently with
that of the test procedure for circulator pumps, which includes on-
demand circulator pumps. 87 FR 57264.
In developing the equipment class structure, DOE is directed to
consider, among other factors, performance-related features that
justify a different standard and the utility of such features to the
consumer. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In the specific case
of on-demand circulator pumps, the primary distinguishing feature
(i.e., ability to react to user action or presence) is not obviously
performance related. It does not impede the ability of circulator pumps
to reach the same performance levels as any other circulator pumps. On
that basis, DOE is proposing not to establish a separate equipment
class for on-demand circulator pumps in this NOPR.
It remains true, as observed by commenters, that in certain
applications on-demand circulator pumps may save energy relative to
non-on-demand circulator pumps through reduced aggregate operating
durations. Operating duration of on-demand circulator pumps is
considered in the energy use analysis, which is described in section
IV.E.3 of this document.
DOE requests comment on its proposal not to establish a separate
equipment class for on-demand circulator pumps.
2. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified 3 technology options that would be expected to improve the
efficiency of circulator pumps, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

<bullet> Improved hydraulic design
<bullet> More efficient motors
<bullet> Increase number of motor speeds

Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD details each of these technology options.
The following sections summarize the stakeholder comments on these
technology option by variety.
a. Hydraulic Design
The performance characteristics of a pump, such as flow, head, and
efficiency, are influenced by the pump's hydraulic design. For purposes
of DOE's analysis, ``hydraulic design'' is a broad term used to
describe the system design of the wetted components of a pump. Although
hydraulic design focuses on the specific hydraulic characteristics of
the impeller and the volute/casing, it also includes design choices
related to bearings, seals, and other ancillary components.
Impeller and volute/casing geometries, clearances, and associated
components can be redesigned to a higher efficiency (at the same flow
and head) using a combination of techniques including historical best
practices and modern computer-aided design (CAD) and analysis methods.
The wide availability of modern CAD packages and techniques now enables
pump designers to reach designs with improved vane shapes, flow paths,
and cutwater designs more quickly, all of which work to improve the
efficiency of the pump as a whole.
In response to the May 2021 RFI, Grundfos stated there are only
small efficiency gains to be gained through hydraulic design.
(Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6). HI responded to the May 2021 RFI
explaining the savings gained through improved hydraulic design is not
sufficient to meet EPCA requirements. Additionally, the energy savings
does not offset the cost of modifying the hydraulic design. (HI, No.
112 at p. 7)
b. More Efficient Motors
Different constructions of motors have different achievable
efficiencies. Two general motor constructions are present in the
circulator pump market: induction motors, and ECMs. Induction motors
include both single-phase and three-phase configurations. Single-phase
induction motors may be further differentiated and include split phase,
capacitor-start induction-run (CSIR), capacitor-start capacitor-run
(CSCR), and PSC motors. HI stated that the majority of circulator pumps
currently available on the market use PSC motors, which is a variety of
induction motor (HI, No. 112 at p. 11). DOE confirmed using
confidentially submitted manufacturer data that induction motor
circulator pumps account for the majority of the circulator pump
market.
The efficiency of an induction motor can be increased by
redesigning the motor to reduce slip losses between the rotor and
stator components, as well as reducing mechanical losses at seals and
bearings. ECMs are generally more efficient than induction motors
because their construction minimizes slip losses between the rotor and
stator components. Unlike induction motors, however, ECMs require an
electronic drive to function. This electronic drive consumes
electricity, and variations in

[[Page 74868]]

drive losses and mechanical designs lead to a range of ECM
efficiencies. In response to the May 2021 RFI HI and NEEA stated ECMs
are experiencing a slow growth in the market, with faster growth in
areas where there are utility incentives. (HI, No. 112 at p. 10; NEEA,
No. 115 at p. 4).
The performance standard for this rule is based upon wire-to-water
efficiency, which is defined as the hydraulic output power of a
circulator pump divided by its line input power and is expressed as a
percentage. The achievable wire-to-water efficiency of circulator pumps
is influenced by both hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency. As
part of the engineering analysis (Section IV.C), DOE assessed the range
of attainable wire-to-water efficiencies for circulator pumps with
induction motors, and those with ECMs, over a range of hydraulic power
outputs. Because circulator pump efficiency is measured on a wire-to-
water basis, it is difficult to fully separate differences due to motor
efficiency from those due to hydraulic efficiency. In response to the
May 2021 RFI, HI stated that improved motor efficiency and demand-based
variable speed controls can achieve greater energy savings than from
improved hydraulic efficiency. (HI, No. 112 at p. 7). However, in
redesigning a pump model to meet today's proposed standard,
manufacturers could consider both hydraulic efficiency and motor
efficiency.
Higher motor capacities are generally required for higher hydraulic
power outputs, and as motor capacity increases, the attainable
efficiency of the motor at full load also increases. Higher horsepower
motors also operate close to their peak efficiency for a wider range of
loading conditions.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ U.S. DOE Building Technologies Office. Energy Savings
Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in
Residential and Commercial Equipment. December 2013. Prepared for
the DOE by Navigant Consulting. pp. 4. Available at <a href="https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf">https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf</a> DFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Circulator pump manufacturers either manufacture motors in-house or
purchase complete or partial motors from motor manufacturers and/or
distributors. Manufacturers may select an entirely different motor or
redesign an existing motor in order to improve a pump's motor
efficiency.
c. Speed Reduction
Circulator pumps with the variable speed capability can reduce
their energy consumption by reducing pump speed to match load
requirements. As discussed in the September 2022 TP Final Rule, the CER
metric is a weighted average of input powers at each test point
relative to BEP flow. The circulator pump test procedure allows CER
values for multi- and variable-speed circulator pumps to be calculated
as the weighted average of input powers at full speed BEP flow, and
reduced speed at flow points less than BEP; CER for single-speed
circulator pumps is calculated based only on input power at full speed.
10 CFR 431.464(c)(2). Due to pump affinity laws, variable-speed
circulator pumps will achieve reduced power consumption at flow points
less than BEP by reducing their rotational speed to more closely match
required system head. As such, the CER metric grants benefits on
circulator pumps capable of variable speed operation.
Specifically, pump affinity laws describe the relationship of pump
operating speed, flow rate, head, and hydraulic power. According to the
affinity laws, flow varies proportionally with the pump's rotational
speed, as described in equation (6). The affinity laws also establish
that pump total head is proportional to speed squared, as described in
equation (7), and pump hydraulic power is proportional to speed cubed,
as described in equation (8)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.005

Where:

Q1 and Q2 = volumetric flow rate at two operating points
H1 and H2 = pump total head at two operating points
N1 and N2 = pump rotational speed at two operating points
P1 and P2 = pump hydraulic power at two operating points

This means that a pump operating at half speed will provide one
half of the pump's full-speed flow and one eighth of the pump's full-
speed power.\34\ However, pump affinity laws do not account for changes
in hydraulic and motor efficiency that may occur as a pump's rotational
speed is reduced. Typically, hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency
will be reduced at lower operating speeds. Consequently, at reduced
speeds, power consumption is not reduced as drastically as hydraulic
output power. Even so, the efficiency losses at low-speed operation are
typically outweighed by the

[[Page 74869]]

exponential reduction in hydraulic output power at low-speed operation;
this results in a lower input power at low-speed operation at flow
points lower than BEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ A discussion of reduced-speed pump dynamics is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0099">www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0099</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Circulator pump speed controls may be discrete or continuous, as
well as manual or automatic. Circulator pumps with discrete speed
controls vary the circulator pump's rotational speed in a stepwise
manner. Discrete controls are found mostly on circulator pumps with
induction motors and have several speed settings that are can be used
to allow contractors greater installation flexibility with a single
circulator pump model. For these circulator pumps, the speed is set
manually with a dial or buttons by the installer or user and operate at
a constant speed once the installation is complete.
Circulator pumps equipped with automatic speed controls can adjust
the circulator pump's rotational speed based on a signal from
differential pressure or temperature sensors, or an external input
signal from a boiler. The variable frequency drives required for ECMs
makes them fairly amenable to the addition of variable speed control
logic; currently the vast majority of circulator pumps with automatic
continuously variable speed controls also have ECM motors. However,
some circulator pump models with induction motors also come equipped
with automatic continuous variable speed controls. While automatic
controls can reduce energy consumption by allowing circulator pump
speed to dynamically respond to changes in system conditions, these
controls can also reduce energy consumption by reducing speed to a
single, constant value that is optimized based on system head at the
required flow point. Automatic controls can be broadly categorized into
two groups: pressure-based controls, and temperature-based controls.
Pressure-based controls vary the circulator pump speed based on
changes in the system pressure. These pressure changes are typically
induced by a thermostatically controlled zone valve that monitors the
space temperature in different zones and calls for heat (i.e., opens
the valve) when the space/zone temperature is below the set-point,
similar to a thermostat. In this type of control, a pressure sensor
internal to the circulator pump determines the amount of pressure in
the system and adjusts the circulator pump speed to achieve the desired
system pressure.
Temperature-based controls monitor the supply and return
temperature to the circulator pump and modulates the circulator pump's
speed to maintain a fixed temperature drop across the system.
Circulator pumps with temperature-based controls are able to serve the
heat loads of a conditioned space at a lower speed, and therefore lower
input power, than the differential pressure control because it can
account for the differential temperature between the space and supplied
hot water, delivering a constant BTU/hr load to the space when less
heat is needed even in a given zone or zones.
In response to the 2021 RFI, Grundfos stated the ability to reduce
speed is the most important criteria for achieving higher efficiency in
circulator products. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6). Reducing performance
according to system need can achieve 50-60% savings (Id.). Grundfos
explains further that the ability to run at reduced speeds is the
costliest solution, but the larger savings can offset the higher costs
and to help offset conversion to this technology (Id.). Understanding
the lifetime energy saving compared to the higher initial cost is
important for market adoption (Id.). The largest concern for the
implementation is that optimization of the control mode can be
problematic for an end user and requires higher level knowledge to gain
maximum efficiencies (Id.). NEEA responded with data showing that
currently, fewer than one-fifth of circulator pumps are equipped with
speed control technology. (NEEA, No. 115 at p. 6). This shows the
significant potential the market has for energy savings by using more
pumps with the ability to operate at reduced speeds.
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on increasing circulator
pump efficiency using improved hydraulic design, more efficient motors,
and/or increased number of motor speeds.
HI responded stating they are not aware of other design option that
increase efficiency. (HI, No. 112 at p. 7). HI stated that the market
is focused on improved motors and demand-based variable speed control
and does not believe any other design changes, so far discovered, would
occur (Id.). HI believes ECM circulator pumps with variable speed
controls represent the maximum technology option. (Id.). The initial
cost for these techniques is higher to consumers due to the higher cost
of the efficient motor and incorporation of controls; however, the
total life cycle cost to the consumer should be lower due to energy
savings (Id.). The addition of ECMs and controls adds complexity to
manufacturing due to scarcity of materials, reliance on non-domestic
sources, automated assembly, and special tooling. Further complexity
associated with ECMs are disposal and recycling programs (Id.). HI
recommends DOE conduct manufacturer interviews to get additional
updated information such as costs for design options to update the
previous data request from 2016 (HI, No. 112 at p. 8). DOE received
this data in the 2022 manufacturer interviews.
Grundfos responded stating the technology described is a fair
description of the current state of the market. (Grundfos, No. 113 at
p. 6). Grundfos explained that the most advanced products in the market
are approaching the maximum possible efficiency values and any further
energy use reductions would only be realized through more efficient
system designs (piping/valves/etc.) and adoption of more efficient
system interaction (interconnectivity to appliances, smart homes, etc.)
(Id.).
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether certain
design options may not be applicable to specific equipment classes.
Grundfos responded stating it does not see any limitations in design
options for equipment classes. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 8). HI
responded stating that no design options are known that are
incompatible or that would necessitate an additional equipment class.
(HI, No. 112 at p. 8).
Based on comments, DOE concludes that the technology options
identified are sufficient to conduct the engineering analysis, which is
discussed in section IV.C.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or
would result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics

[[Page 74870]]

(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as products generally available in the
United States at the time, it will not be considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections
6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment regarding the screening
criteria and on what impact they may have on currently identified and
potential future possible technology options for circulator pumps. 86
FR 24516, 24530 (May 26, 2021).
In response, HI commented that ECMs and controls could potentially
become a problem due to scarcity of necessary component materials,
reliance on foreign sources, and the degree of automation and
specialized tooling involved in the manufacture of ECMs. (HI, No. 112
at p. 7)
DOE interprets HI's comment to be discussing a hypothetical future
scenario, and not to be stating that ECMs are unavailable today.
Accordingly, ECMs have been retained as a design option for the
analysis of this NOPR. DOE will monitor the market for circulator pumps
with ECMs and consider removing ECMs as a design option in a future
revision to the analysis if availability declines to the degree that
circulator pump manufacturers are unable to obtain them, or unable to
obtain them at a price level that would create a positive estimated
economic proposition for purchasers of ECM-equipped circulator pumps.
DOE requests comment regarding the current and anticipated forward
availability of ECMs and components necessary for their manufacture.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 met all
five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in
DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following
technology options:

<bullet> Improved hydraulic design
<bullet> More efficient motors
<bullet> Increase number of motor speeds

DOE has initially determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE
also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and
service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility,
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of circulator pumps. There
are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection
of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
circulator pumps, DOE considers technologies and design option
combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each
circulator pump class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the
incremental cost for the circulator pump at efficiency levels above the
baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Representative Equipment
To assess MPC-efficiency relationships for all circulator pumps
available on the market, DOE selected a set of representative units to
analyze. These representative units exemplify capacities and hydraulic
characteristics typical of circulator pumps currently found on the
market. In general, to determine representative capacities and
hydraulic characteristics, DOE analyzed the distribution of all
available models and/or shipments and discussed its findings with the
CPWG. The analysis focused on single speed induction motors as they
represent the bulk of the baseline of the market.
To start the selection process, nominal horsepower targets based on
CPWG feedback of 1/40, 1/25, 1/12,1/6, and 1 HP were selected for
representative units (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0061, p. 9). At
each horsepower target, pump curves were constructed from manufacturer
data. Near identical pump curves were consolidated into single curves
and curves that represent circulator pumps with low shipments were
filtered out to remove the impact of low-selling pumps. These high
sales consolidated pump curves were then grouped with similar curves to
form clusters of similar circulator pumps. A representative curve was
then constructed from this cluster of pumps by using the mean flow and
head at each test point. Eight of these curves were constructed to form
the eight representative units used in further analyses.
a. Circulator Pump Varieties
Circulator pumps varieties are used to classify different pumps in
industry. Wet rotor circulator pump are commonly referred to as CP1,
dry rotor, two-piece circulator pumps are commonly referred to as CP2,
and dry rotor, three-piece circulator pumps are commonly referred to as
CP3. The distinction of circulator varieties does not have a large
impact on performance with all circulator pump varieties being capable
of achieving any particular performance curve. Due to the performance
similarities, the groups of pump curves used to generate representative
units contain a mix of all three circulator varieties. Although DOE
analyzed CP1, CP2, and CP3 circulator varieties as a single equipment
class, representative units were selected such that all circulator
varieties were captured in the analysis.
The parameters of each of the representative units used in this
analysis are provided in Table IV.1.

[[Page 74871]]

Table IV.1--Representative Unit Parameters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal power Flow at BEP Head at BEP Phydro at BEP
Representative unit (hp) (GPM) (ft) (hp) Variety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................ 1/40 3.073 3.043 0.002 CP1.
2............................................ 1/40 5.759 6.628 0.010 CP1.
3............................................ 1/25 10.065 9.282 0.024 CP1.
4............................................ 1/25 10.525 6.064 0.016 CP1.
5............................................ 1/12 17.941 6.510 0.030 CP1, CP2, CP3.
6............................................ 1/6 19.521 20.254 0.100 CP1, CP2, CP3.
7............................................ 1/6 36.531 10.601 0.098 CP1, CP2, CP3.
8............................................ 1 61.200 36.782 0.569 CP1, CP3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on
the market).
In this proposed rulemaking, DOE relies on an efficiency-level
approach due to the availability of robust data characterizing both
performance and selling price at a variety of efficiency levels.
a. Baseline Efficiency
For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as
a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics
of an equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
For all representative units, DOE modeled a baseline circulator
pump as one with a PSC motor.
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum
possible efficiency for a given product.
For all representative units, DOE modeled a max-tech circulator
pump as one with an ECM and operated on a differential temperature-
based control scheme.
c. EL Analysis
DOE examined the influence of different paraments on wire-to-water
efficiency including hydraulic power. Hydraulic power has a significant
impact on wire to water efficiency as seen in the different
representative units. To find the correlation, the relationship of
power and wire to water efficiency were evaluated for both single speed
induction and single speed ECM motors. Multiple relationships were
tested with a logarithmic relationship being the most accurate. This
logarithmic relationship can be used to set efficiency levels inclusive
of all representative units across the ranges of horsepower.
To calculate wire to water efficiency at part-load conditions,
wire-to-water efficiency at full-load conditions is multiplied by a
part-load coefficient, represented by alpha ([alpha]). As instructed by
the CPWG, a mean fit was developed for each part load test point across
representative units to find a single value to use for alpha for each
test point. This methodology was conducted independently for single
speed induction, single speed ECM, and variable speed ECM to find
unique alphas at each point for each motor type. The unique alpha
values are provided in Table IV.2.

Table IV.2--Mean Alpha Values by Test Point and Motor Configuration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test
Motor configuration point Mean
load alpha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Speed Induction............................ 25 0.4671
50 0.7674
75 0.9425
110 0.9835
Single Speed ECM.................................. 25 0.4845
50 0.7730
75 0.9408
110 0.9841
Variable Speed ECM................................ 25 0.5914
50 0.8504
75 0.9613
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE sets EL 0 as the baseline configuration of circulator pumps
representing the minimum efficiency available on the market. DOE used
the logarithmic function developed when finding the relationship
between hydraulic power and wire-to-water efficiency to find the lower
second percentile of single speed induction circulator pumps to set as
EL 0. DOE finds single speed circulator pumps with induction motors
have the lowest wire-to-water efficiency and are being set as EL 0, as
agreed on at CPWG meeting 8. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0061, p.
15)
DOE set EL 1 to correspond approximately to single-speed induction
motors with improved wire-to-water efficiency. EL 1 is an intermediate
efficiency level between the baseline EL 0 and more efficient ECMs
defined in higher efficiency levels. EL 1 was defined as the halfway
between the most efficient single speed induction motors and the
baseline used as EL 0.
EL 2 is set to correspond approximately to single-speed ECMs. The
values for these circulator pumps

[[Page 74872]]

are found using the same base logarithmic function that were used when
finding the relationship between hydraulic power and wire-to-water
efficiency. EL 2 corresponds to a CEI of 1.00, which is the level
recommended by the CPWG in the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations.
EL 3 is set to correspond approximately to variable-speed ECMs with
automatic proportional pressure control. The effect of a 50 percent
proportional pressure control is applied using equation (9) for each
part load test point. The wire-to-water efficiency at each test point
is found using the alpha values for variable speed ECM values for
alpha.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.006

Where:

H<INF>i</INF> = total system head at each load point i (ft);
Q<INF>i</INF> = flow rate at each load point i (gpm);
Q<INF>100</INF>% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow at maximum
speed (gpm); and
H<INF>100</INF>% = total pump head at 100 percent of BEP flow at
maximum speed (ft).
EL 4 is the max-tech efficiency level, which represents the
circulator pumps with the maximum possible efficiency. EL 4 is set as
variable speed ECMs with automatic differential temperature control.
The effects of the controls are calculated using equation (10). Similar
to EL3, the wire-to-water efficiencies are found using the alpha values
for variable speed ECMs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.007

In response to the May 2021 RFI, Grundfos stated they do not
believe there are any new technologies for DOE to consider and the
maximum efficiency levels are appropriate for consideration. (Grundfos,
No. 113 at p. 7).
For pumps that do not fit exactly into a representative unit, the
DOE developed a continuous function for wire-to-water efficiency at
BEP. The technique extends the representative units for each EL to
compute wire-to-water efficiency at BEP for all circulator pumps by
using the logarithmic function based on hydraulic power represented in
equation (11). Variable d can be solved by using equation (12) and the
variables for a and b are presented in Table IV.3 which contains
different values for each efficiency level.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE22.009

Where:

[eta]<INF>WTW</INF> = wire-to-water efficiency
P<INF>hydro</INF> = hydraulic power (HP);

[[Page 74873]]

Table IV.3--Parameters Used To Solve for Wire-to-Water Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL a b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................................... 7.065278 0.003958
1............................................... 8.727971 0.003223
2............................................... 10.002583 0.001140
3............................................... 10.002583 0.001140
4............................................... 10.002583 0.001140
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the circulator
pumps on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
<bullet> Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
<bullet> Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
<bullet> Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using a combination
of physical teardowns and price surveys. The resulting bill of
materials provides the basis for the manufacturer production cost
(``MPC'') estimates.
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-
efficiency data (or ``curves'') in the form of wire-to-water efficiency
versus MPC (in dollars). DOE developed 15 curves representing the 15
representative units in the analysis. The methodology for developing
the curves started with determining the energy consumption for baseline
equipment and MPCs for this equipment. Above the baseline, DOE
implemented design options using the ratio of cost to savings, and
implemented only one design option at each level. Design options were
implemented until all available technologies were employed (i.e., at a
max-tech level).
Table IV.4, Table IV.5, Table IV.6 contain cost-efficiency results
of the engineering analysis. MPCs are presented for circulator pumps
with both ferrous and nonferrous housing material. Housing material
does not significantly affect the energy consumption of circulator
pumps, but does alter production cost. Housing material is discussed
further in section IV.A.1.b. See TSD Chapter 5 for additional detail on
the engineering analysis and TSD Appendix 5B for complete cost-
efficiency results.

Table IV.4--Engineering Results--CP1, Rep. Units 1-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPC-- MPC--
Rep unit HP Description Construction EL Ferrous Nonferrous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................... 1/40 Single Speed, CP1.................... 0 $31.34 $35.61
Induction.
1..................... 1/40 Improved Single CP1.................... 1 31.34 35.61
Speed, Induction.
1..................... 1/40 Single Speed, ECM.... CP1.................... 2 47.91 51.87
1..................... 1/40 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 3 59.23 63.18
dP.
1..................... 1/40 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 4 68.28 72.24
dT.
1..................... 1/40 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 5 68.28 72.24
dT.
2..................... 1/40 Single Speed, CP1.................... 0 34.44 39.13
Induction.
2..................... 1/40 Improved Single CP1.................... 1 34.44 39.13
Speed, Induction.
2..................... 1/40 Single Speed, ECM.... CP1.................... 2 53.57 57.92
2..................... 1/40 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 3 64.88 69.23
dP.
2..................... 1/40 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 4 73.94 78.28
dT.
2..................... 1/40 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 5 73.94 78.28
dT.
3..................... 1/25 Single Speed, CP1.................... 0 40.82 54.57
Induction.
3..................... 1/25 Improved Single CP1.................... 1 40.82 54.57
Speed, Induction.
3..................... 1/25 Single Speed, ECM.... CP1.................... 2 65.65 78.41
3..................... 1/25 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 3 76.96 89.72
dP.
3..................... 1/25 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 4 86.02 98.78
dT.
3..................... 1/25 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 5 86.02 98.78
dT.
4..................... 1/25 Single Speed, CP1.................... 0 40.82 54.57
Induction.
4..................... 1/25 Improved Single CP1.................... 1 40.82 54.57
Speed, Induction.
4..................... 1/25 Single Speed, ECM.... CP1.................... 2 65.65 78.41
4..................... 1/25 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 3 76.96 89.72
dP.
4..................... 1/25 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 4 86.02 98.78
dT.
4..................... 1/25 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 5 86.02 98.78
dT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.5--Engineering Results--CP1, Rep. Units 5-8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPC--
Rep unit HP Description Construction EL MPC-- Nonferrous
Ferrous ($) ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5..................... 1/12 Single Speed, CP1.................... 0 46.89 62.69
Induction.
5..................... 1/12 Improved Single CP1.................... 1 46.89 62.69
Speed, Induction.
5..................... 1/12 Single Speed, ECM.... CP1.................... 2 84.51 99.17
5..................... 1/12 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 3 95.83 110.48
dP.
5..................... 1/12 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 4 104.88 119.54
dT.
5..................... 1/12 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 5 104.88 119.54
dT.

[[Page 74874]]

6..................... 1/6 Single Speed, CP1.................... 0 58.59 78.32
Induction.
6..................... 1/6 Improved Single CP1.................... 1 58.59 78.32
Speed, Induction.
6..................... 1/6 Single Speed, ECM.... CP1.................... 2 135.61 153.92
6..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 3 146.93 165.24
dP.
6..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 4 155.98 174.29
dT.
6..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 5 155.98 174.29
dT.
7..................... 1/6 Single Speed, CP1.................... 0 58.59 78.32
Induction.
7..................... 1/6 Improved Single CP1.................... 1 58.59 78.32
Speed, Induction.
7..................... 1/6 Single Speed, ECM.... CP1.................... 2 135.61 153.92
7..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 3 146.93 165.24
dP.
7..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 4 155.98 174.29
dT.
7..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 5 155.98 174.29
dT.
8..................... 1 Single Speed, CP1.................... 0 246.65 314.15
Induction.
8..................... 1 Improved Single CP1.................... 1 246.65 314.15
Speed, Induction.
8..................... 1 Single Speed, ECM.... CP1.................... 2 353.43 416.06
8..................... 1 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 3 364.75 427.38
dP.
8..................... 1 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 4 373.80 436.43
dT.
8..................... 1 Variable Speed, ECM, CP1.................... 5 373.80 436.43
dT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.6--Engineering Results--CP2 and CP3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPC--
Rep unit HP Description Construction EL MPC-- Nonferrous
Ferrous ($) ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5..................... 1/12 Single Speed, CP2.................... 0 70.68 95.00
Induction.
5..................... 1/12 Improved Single CP2.................... 1 70.68 95.00
Speed, Induction.
5..................... 1/12 Single Speed, ECM.... CP2.................... 2 116.64 139.20
5..................... 1/12 Variable Speed, ECM, CP2.................... 3 127.95 150.52
dP.
5..................... 1/12 Variable Speed, ECM, CP2.................... 4 137.00 159.57
dT.
5..................... 1/12 Variable Speed, ECM, CP2.................... 5 137.00 159.57
dT.
6..................... 1/6 Single Speed, CP2.................... 0 110.21 142.23
Induction.
6..................... 1/6 Improved Single CP2.................... 1 110.21 142.23
Speed, Induction.
6..................... 1/6 Single Speed, ECM.... CP2.................... 2 166.86 196.57
6..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP2.................... 3 178.17 207.88
dP.
6..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP2.................... 4 187.22 216.94
dT.
6..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP2.................... 5 187.22 216.94
dT.
7..................... 1/6 Single Speed, CP2.................... 0 110.21 142.23
Induction.
7..................... 1/6 Improved Single CP2.................... 1 110.21 142.23
Speed, Induction.
7..................... 1/6 Single Speed, ECM.... CP2.................... 2 166.86 196.57
7..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP2.................... 3 178.17 207.88
dP.
7..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP2.................... 4 187.22 216.94
dT.
7..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP2.................... 5 187.22 216.94
dT.
5..................... 1/12 Single Speed, CP3.................... 0 103.19 130.25
Induction.
5..................... 1/12 Improved Single CP3.................... 1 103.19 130.25
Speed, Induction.
5..................... 1/12 Single Speed, ECM.... CP3.................... 2 157.00 182.10
5..................... 1/12 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 3 168.31 193.41
dP.
5..................... 1/12 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 4 177.36 202.47
dT.
5..................... 1/12 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 5 177.36 202.47
dT.
6..................... 1/6 Single Speed, CP3.................... 0 160.89 246.28
Induction.
6..................... 1/6 Improved Single CP3.................... 1 160.89 246.28
Speed, Induction.
6..................... 1/6 Single Speed, ECM.... CP3.................... 2 224.59 303.82
6..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 3 235.91 315.13
dP.
6..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 4 244.96 324.19
dT.
6..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 5 244.96 324.19
dT.
7..................... 1/6 Single Speed, CP3.................... 0 160.89 246.28
Induction.
7..................... 1/6 Improved Single CP3.................... 1 160.89 246.28
Speed, Induction.
7..................... 1/6 Single Speed, ECM.... CP3.................... 2 224.59 303.82
7..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 3 235.91 315.13
dP.
7..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 4 244.96 324.19
dT.
7..................... 1/6 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 5 244.96 324.19
dT.
8..................... 1 Single Speed, CP3.................... 0 472.16 697.64
Induction.
8..................... 1 Improved Single CP3.................... 1 472.16 697.64
Speed, Induction.
8..................... 1 Single Speed, ECM.... CP3.................... 2 604.20 813.41
8..................... 1 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 3 615.52 824.73
dP.
8..................... 1 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 4 624.57 833.78
dT.
8..................... 1 Variable Speed, ECM, CP3.................... 5 624.57 833.78
dT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 74875]]

5. Manufacturer Markup and Manufacturer Selling Price
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the full MPC. The resulting MSP is the price at which the
manufacturer can recover production and non-production costs. To
calculate the manufacturer markups, DOE used data from 10-K reports
\35\ submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'')
by the publicly-owned circulator pump manufacturers. DOE then averaged
the financial figures spanning the years 2019 to 2021 to calculate the
initial estimate of markups for circulator pumps for this rulemaking.
During the 2022 manufacturer interviews, DOE discussed the manufacturer
markup with manufacturers and used the feedback to modify the
manufacturer markup calculated through review of SEC 10-K reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Annual 10-K
Reports (Various Years) available at <a href="http://sec.gov">sec.gov</a> (Last accessed June
15th, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To calculate the MSP for circulator pump equipment, DOE multiplied
the calculated MPC at each efficiency level by the manufacturer markup.
See chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for more details about the manufacturer
markup calculation and the MSP calculations.

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step
in the distribution channel, companies mark up equipment prices to
cover business costs and profit margin.
For circulator pumps, the main parties in the distribution chain
are (1) sales representatives (reps); (2) distributors; (3)
contractors; and (4) original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). For each
actor in the distribution chain, DOE developed baseline and incremental
markups. Baseline markups are applied to the price of equipment with
baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the
difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the
incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less
than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit
operating profit before and after new or amended standards.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible in the short run, DOE maintains that in markets that are
reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE identified distribution channels for circulator pumps and
estimated their respective shares of shipments by sector (residential
and commercial) based on feedback from manufacturers and the CPWG
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 49 at p. 51), as shown in Table
IV.7.

Table IV.7--Circulator Pumps Distribution Channels and Respective Market
Shares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Commercial
Channel: from manufacturer shipments shipments
share (%) share (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Rep [rarr] Contractor [rarr] End .............. 37
User...................................
Sales Rep [rarr] Distributor [rarr] 73 36
Contractor [rarr] End User.............
Distributor [rarr] End User............. .............. 2
Sales Rep [rarr] Distributor [rarr] End 2 ..............
User...................................
OEM [rarr] Contractor [rarr] End User... 12 12
OEM [rarr] Distributor [rarr] Contractor 13 13
[rarr] End User........................
-------------------------------
Total............................... 100 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sales representative in the distribution chain serves the role
of a wholesale distributor, as they do not take commission from the
sale, but buy the equipment and take title to it. The OEM channels
represent sales of circulator pumps, which are included in other
equipment, such as hot water boilers.
To estimate average baseline and incremental markups, DOE relied on
several sources, including: (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual
Wholesale Trade Survey (for sales representatives and circulator
wholesalers), (2) U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Economic Census data \37\ on
the residential and commercial building construction industry (for
contractors), and (3) the Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration
Distributors International (``HARDI'') 2013 Profit Report \38\ (for
equipment wholesalers). In addition to markups of distribution channel
costs, DOE applied state and local sales tax to derive the final
consumer purchase prices for circulator pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census Data. available at
<a href="http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census.html">www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census.html</a> (last accessed
April 15, 2021).
\38\ Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors
International (``HARDI''), 2013 HARDI Profit Report, available at
<a href="http://hardinet.org/">hardinet.org/</a> (last accessed April 15, 2021). Note that the 2013
HARDI Profit Report is the latest version of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether there have
been market changes since the CPWG that would affect the distribution
channels and the percentage of circulator pump shipments in each
channel and sector, as shown in Table IV.7 of this document. HI
commented that there have not been any market changes to warrant a
different estimate (HI, No. 112 at p. 9), while Grundfos recommended
manufacturer interviews for collection of relevant data (Grundfos, No.
113 at p. 8). During the 2022 manufacturer interviews, the general
feedback from manufacturers was that there have not been significant
market changes to justify any changes to the distribution channels
shown in Table IV.7 of this document.
DOE requests comment on whether the distribution channels described
above and the percentage of equipment sold through the different
channels are appropriate and sufficient to describe the distribution
markets for circulator pumps. Specifically, DOE requests comment and
data on online sales of circulator pumps and the appropriate channel to
characterize them.

[[Page 74876]]

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of
markups for circulator pumps.

E. Energy Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of circulator pumps at different efficiencies in
representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and
commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of
increased circulator pump efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates
the range of energy use of circulator pumps in the field (i.e., as they
are actually used by consumers). It also provides the basis for other
analyses DOE performs, particularly assessments of the energy savings
and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from
adoption of amended or new standards.
To calculate the annual energy use (``AEU'') for circulator pumps,
DOE multiplied the annual operating hours by the line input power
(derived in the engineering analysis) at each operating point. The
following sections describe how DOE estimated circulator pump energy
use in the field for different applications, geographical areas, and
use cases.
1. Circulator Pump Applications
DOE identified two primary applications for circulator pumps:
Hydronic heating, and hot water recirculation. Hydronic heating systems
are typically characterized by the use of water to move heating from
sources such as hot water boilers to different rooms through pipes and
radiating surfaces. Hot water recirculation systems serve the purpose
of moving hot water from sources such as water heaters, through pipes,
to water fixture outlets. For each of these applications, DOE developed
estimates of operating hours and load profiles to characterize
circulator pump energy use in the field.
Circulator pumps used in hydronic heating applications typically
have cast iron housings, while those used in hot water recirculation
applications have housings made of stainless steel or bronze. DOE
collected sales data for circulator pumps, including their housing
materials, through manufacturer interviews, and was able to estimate
the market share of each application by horsepower and efficiency
level. To estimate market shares by sector and horsepower rating, DOE
relied primarily on industry expert input.
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether the
breakdowns of circulator pumps by sector and application have changed
since the CPWG proceedings. HI commented that there have not been any
market changes to warrant a different estimate. (HI, No. 112 at p. 9)
During the 2022 manufacturer interviews, DOE collected recent data and
updated the estimated market shares by application. According to these
data, the market share of circulator pumps used in hydronic heating
applications is estimated at 66.6 percent, while that for hot water
recirculation applications is 33.4 percent.
For details on the market breakdowns by sector and horsepower
rating, for each application, see chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Consumer Samples
To estimate the energy use of circulator pumps in field operating
conditions, DOE typically develops consumer samples that are
representative of installation and operating characteristics of how
such equipment is used in the field, as well as distributions of annual
energy use by application and market segment.
To develop a sample of circulator pump consumers, DOE used the
Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 2012 commercial buildings
energy consumption survey (CBECS) \39\ and the 2015 residential energy
consumption survey (RECS) \40\. For the commercial sector, DOE selected
commercial buildings from CBECS and apartment buildings with five or
more units from RECS. For the residential sector, DOE selected single
family attached or detached buildings from RECS.\41\ The following
sections describe how DOE developed the consumer samples by
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information
Administration. 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS). 2012. (Last accessed June 1, 2022.) <a href="https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/">https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/</a>.
\40\ U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information
Administration. 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).
2015. (Last accessed June 22, 2022.) <a href="https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015">https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015</a>/.
\41\ For the final rule, DOE anticipates using the 2018 CBECS
and the 2020 RECS to develop the consumer sample, for the commercial
and residential sectors, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For hydronic heating, because there are no data in RECS and CBECS
specifically on the use of circulator pumps, DOE used data on hot water
boilers to develop its consumer sample. DOE adjusted the selection
weight associated with the representative RECS and CBECS buildings
containing boilers to effectively exclude steam boilers, which are not
used with circulator pumps. To estimate the distribution of circulator
pumps by geographical region, DOE also used information on each
building's heated area by boilers to correlate it to circulator
horsepower rating.
For hot water recirculation, there is limited information in RECS
and CBECS. In the residential sector, DOE selected consumers based on
building square footage and assumed that buildings greater than 3,000
square feet have a hot water recirculation system. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 67 at pp. 171,172) DOE also assumed that only
small (<1/12 hp) circulator pumps are installed in residential
buildings. For the commercial sector, DOE first selected buildings in
CBECS with instant hot water. Further, DOE assigned a circulator pump
size category based on the number of floors in each building. The
commercial segment of the RECS sample was defined as multi-family
buildings with more than four units. Similar to the hydronic heating
application, to determine a distribution by region by representative
unit, DOE assigned circulator pump sizes (i.e., horsepower ratings) to
building types based on the number of floors in each building.
The CA IOUs commented that, specific to California, a 2017
workpaper report \42\ estimates that 93 percent of the California
market is hot water circulator pumps (as opposed to hydronic) (CA IOUs,
No. 116 at p. 6). DOE reviewed the report cited by the CA IOUs and
notes that this estimate is based on market data from a subset of
circulator pump manufacturers compared to the one analyzed by DOE,
which may lead to different market share estimates by application.
Regardless, DOE's estimate for circulator pumps used in hot water
recirculation systems in California is approximately 80 percent, which
is generally consistent with the estimate cited by the CA IOUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Workpaper PGECOPUM107, High Performance Circulator Pumps,
S. Putnam, 2017. Last accessed July 21, 2022. Available at <a href="https://deeresources.net/workpapers">https://deeresources.net/workpapers</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For details on the consumer sample methodology, see chapter 7 of
the NOPR TSD.
3. Operating Hours
DOE developed annual operating hour estimates by sector
(commercial, residential) and application (hydronic heating, hot water
recirculation).
a. Hydronic Heating
For hydronic heating applications in the residential sector,
operating hours per year were estimated based on two sources: 2015
confidential residential

[[Page 74877]]

field metering data from Vermont, and a 2012-2013 residential metering
study in Ithaca, NY.\43\ DOE used the data from these metering data to
establish a relationship between heating degree days (HDDs) and
circulator pump operating hours. DOE correlated monthly operating hours
with corresponding HDDs to annual operating hours. DOE then used the
geographic distribution of consumers, as derived from the consumer
sample, to estimate weighted-average HDDs for each region. For the
residential sector, this scaling factor was 0.33 HPY/HDD. For the
commercial sector, the CPWG recommended a scaling factor of 0.45 HPY/
HDD. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 100 a

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 6, 2022.

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.