Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-07873

Rule2024-07873

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

May 20, 2024

Effective

August 5, 2024

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. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") to periodically determine whether more-stringent, standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting new energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. It has determined that the energy conservation standards for this equipment would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 98 (Monday, May 20, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44464-44537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07873]

[[Page 44463]]

Vol. 89

Monday,

No. 98

May 20, 2024

Part V

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 431

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

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 44464]]

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

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: Final rule.

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

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. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') to
periodically determine whether more-stringent, standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting new
energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. It has determined
that the energy conservation standards for this equipment would result
in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible
and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is August 5, 2024. Compliance
with the standards established for circulator pumps in this final rule
is required on and after May 22, 2028.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
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">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ffbe8f8f93969e919c9aac8b9e919b9e8d9b8cae8a9a8c8b9690918cbf9a9ad19b909ad1989089">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

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#58192828343139363b3d0b2c39363c392a3c2b092d3d2b2c3137362b183d3d763c373d763f372e">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Mr. Uchechukwu ``Emeka'' Eze, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 961-8879. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1c4d2d9d4d2d9c4dac6c49fd4cbd4f1d9c09fd5ded49fd6dec7">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
III. General Discussion
A. November 2016 CPWG Recommendations
1. Energy Conservation Standard Level
2. Labeling Requirements
3. Certification Reports
B. General Comments
C. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
1. CPWG Recommendations
a. Scope
b. Definitions
c. Equipment Classes
d. Small Vertical In-Line Pumps
D. Test Procedure
1. Control Mode
E. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
F. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
G. 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 Equipment
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
H. Compliance 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
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
4. Load Profiles
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Equipment 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. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
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
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. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment

[[Page 44465]]

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 Equipment
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 Pump
Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Need for, and Objectives of, Rule
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected
4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
5. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To
Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
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
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 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 rulemaking, are a category of pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 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 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
standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (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
equipment 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. 6295(m))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of four trial
standard levels (``TSLs'') for circulator pumps. The TSLs and their
associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A
through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this
document, DOE has determined that TSL 2 represents the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. The adopted standards, which are expressed in
in terms of a maximum circulator energy index (``CEI''), are shown in
Table I.1. These standards apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1
and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on
May 22, 2028.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.000

As stated in section III.D.1 of this document, the established
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 \2\ with
section 41.5.3.2 of HI 41.5-2022, ``Hydraulic Institute Program
Guideline for Circulator Pump Energy Rating Program.'' \3\ 87 FR 57264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 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.
\3\ 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] TR20MY24.001

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

[[Page 44466]]

September 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 57264.
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 10 CFR 431.465.
87 FR 57264.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
the adopted standards on consumers of circulator pumps, as measured by
the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback
period (``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC savings are positive for all
equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of
circulator pumps, which is estimated to be 10.5 years (see section
IV.F.6 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 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 standards (see section
IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to
compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the
baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.002

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted 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 (2024-2057). Using a real discount rate of
9.6 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of
circulator pumps in the case without new standards is $347.1 million in
2022$. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to
range from -19.9 percent to 3.2 percent, which is approximately -$69.2
million to $11.1 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance
with new standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total
conversion costs of $81.2 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on
manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022
dollars. and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps would save a significant amount of
energy. Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy
savings for circulator pumps purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new standards
(2028-2057), amount to 0.55 quadrillion British thermal units
(``Btu''), or quads.\6\ This represents a savings of 32.6 percent
relative to the energy use of these equipment in the case without new
standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ 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 standards for circulator pumps ranges from 0.95 billion
in 2022$ (at a 7-percent discount rate) to 2.34 billion in 2022$ (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
2028-2057.
In addition, the adopted standards for circulator pumps are
projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates
that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over
the same period as for energy savings) of 10.04 million metric tons
(``Mt'') \7\ of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 2.95 thousand tons
of sulfur dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 18.65 thousand tons of nitrogen
oxides (``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 83.84 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.10 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.02 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\8\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022,
including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this
document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect
air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\9\ The derivation of
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $0.59
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. DOE notes, however,
that the adopted standards would be economically justified even without
inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG 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 estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates
from the Environmental

[[Page 44467]]

Protection Agency,\10\ as discussed in section IV.L of this document.
DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.51
billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.16 billion using a 3-
percent discount rate.\11\ DOE is currently only monetizing health
benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) concentrations from two precursors (SO<INF>2</INF>
and NO<INF>X</INF>), and from changes in ambient ozone from one
precursor (for NO<INF>X</INF>), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
Directly Emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors">www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors</a>.
\11\ 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 monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the new standards for circulator pumps. There are other
important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate
benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of
toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security
benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 44468]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.003

[[Page 44469]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.004

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 equipment purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, 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., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from
each year to 2024. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost 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 2028-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions
achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based
on the lifetime of circulator pumps shipped in 2028-2057. Total
benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using
the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of
SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section
V.B.6 of this document.
Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions,\13\ the estimated cost of the standards
adopted in this rule is $113.9 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $207.5 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $32.7 million in climate benefits,
and $50.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $177.0 million per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this document, DOE agrees
with the IWG that using consumption-based discount rates (e.g., 3
percent) is appropriate when discounting the value of climate
impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an appropriate
consumption-based discount rate with other costs and benefits
discounted at a capital-based rate (i.e., 7 percent) is reasonable
because of the different nature of the types of benefits being
measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the standards is $109.4 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $239.7 million
in reduced operating costs, $32.7 million in climate benefits, and
$64.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $227.7 million per year.

[[Page 44470]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.005

[[Page 44471]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.006

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule
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
is already commercially available for all equipment in the single
product class covered by this final rule. As for economic
justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the standards
exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the 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
standards for circulator pumps is $113.9 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $207.5 million
in reduced equipment operating costs, $32.7 million in climate
benefits, and $50.7 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts
to $177.0 million per year. DOE notes that the net benefits are
substantial even in the absence of the climate benefits \14\ and DOE
would adopt the same standards in the absence of such benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ The information on climate benefits is provided in
compliance with Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The significance of energy savings offered by a new energy
conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\15\ For example,
some covered equipment have most of their energy consumption occur
during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these equipment on
the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than equipment with
relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance
of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 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 standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 0.55 quad FFC, the equivalent of
the primary annual energy use of 5.9 million homes. In addition, they
are projected to reduce CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 10.04 Mt. Based on
these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard
levels adopted in this final rule are ``significant'' within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the
basis for these conclusions is contained in the remainder of this
document and the accompanying TSD.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final 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),
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
rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
equipment do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') including new proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four

[[Page 44472]]

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).
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 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular
State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(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 all covered equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (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)). 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
standards for covered equipment, including circulator pumps. Any new
standard for 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)) 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 equipment, 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)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a
proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether
the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. Id. 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 equipment 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, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment 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, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any new 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 a 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 equipment that has the same function or intended use if DOE
determines that equipment within such group (A) consumes a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within
such type (or class); or (B) has a capacity or other performance-
related feature which other equipment within such type (or class) does
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 equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the
consumer of such a 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,'' definitions associated with pumps, 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 this
definition. The specific pump categories subject to the test procedures
described in the January 2016 TP Final Rule are referred to as
``general pumps'' in this document. Circulator pumps were not included
as general pumps.
In general, and relative to pumps at-large, circulator pumps tend
to be toward the smaller end of the range of both power and hydraulic
head. Circulated fluid would not require a net elevation gain, and thus
the required

[[Page 44473]]

head is that associated with the resistance of the hydraulic circuit. A
circulator pump, by definition, is a pump that is either a wet rotor
circulator pump; a dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump; or a dry
rotor, three-piece circulator pump. A circulator pump may be
distributed in commerce with or without a volute.
The January 2016 TP 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 and ASRAC
approved a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE that 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 a
working group to negotiate a 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''), which was established under the ASRAC, 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.007

The CPWG commenced negotiations at an open meeting on March 29,
2016, and held six additional meetings to discuss scope, metric, 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 were held November 3-4,
2016, and November 29-30, 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. In a meeting held December 22, 2016, ASRAC
voted unanimously to approve the September 2016 and November 2016 CPWG
Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 91 at p. 2)
\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ 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. X,
Recommendation #Y at p. Z). 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, the 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) DOE took no actions regarding circulator pumps between 2017
and 2020. In response to an early assessment review request for
information (``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) The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (``NEEA'')
also referenced 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
and received comments from the interested parties. 86 FR 24516 (``May
2021 RFI'').
DOE published a NOPR for the test procedure on December 20, 2021,
presenting DOE's proposals to establish

[[Page 44474]]

a circulator pump test procedure (``December 2021 TP NOPR''). 86 FR
72096. 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.
DOE published an energy conservation standard NOPR on December 6,
2022. 87 FR 74850 (``December 2022 NOPR''). DOE held a public meeting
related to the December 2022 NOPR on January 19, 2023 (``NOPR public
meeting'').
DOE received comments in response to the December 2022 NOPR from
the interested parties listed in Table II.2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.008

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\17\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the NOPR public meeting, DOE cites the written comments
throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during the NOPR
public meeting that are not substantively addressed by written comments
are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. (Docket No.
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this final rule 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 of this document, the CPWG approved
two term sheets which represented the group's consensus
recommendations. The second term sheet, referred to in this final rule
as the ``November 2016 CPWG Recommendations'' contained the CPWG's
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 standards
established in this final rule closely mirror the November 2016 CPWG
Recommendations, which are summarized in this section.
In response to the December 2022 NOPR, the CA IOUs provided
comments that supported DOE's alignment of the proposed regulations and
the CPWG's consensus November term sheet. (CA IOUs, No. 133 at pp. 1-2)
HI stated they support the recommendations agreed upon by the CPWG.
(HI, No. 135 at p.

[[Page 44475]]

1) HI acknowledged DOE has incorporated the appropriate sections for
the testing and rating of circulator pumps. Id.
1. Energy Conservation Standard Level
The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations recommended that each
circulator pump be required to meet an applicable minimum efficiency
standard. Specifically, the recommendation was that each pump must have
a CEI \18\ of less than or equal to 1.00. Among the numbered efficiency
levels (``ELs'') considered by the CPWG as potential standard levels,
the agreed level was EL 2, i.e., a CEI less than or equal to 1.00
(``Recommendation #1'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The November 2016 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
based, in part, on comments received, to remain consistent with
terminology used in HI 41.5 and to avoid potential confusion. After
receiving favorable comments on its proposal, DOE adopted the CEI
nomenclature in the September 2022 TP Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the December 2022 NOPR, NEEA/NWPCC supported the
proposed rulemaking, specifically the proposed adoption of TSL 2.
(NEEA/NWPCC, No. 134 at pp. 3-4) In the December 2022 NOPR DOE defined
EL 2 and TSL 2 at the same standard level, which is consistent with
this final rule, as discussed in section V.B.2 of this document. 87 FR
74850, 74895. NYSERDA supported the proposed adoption of TSL 2 as well,
due to the number of multifamily buildings in New York City being
higher than the national average. (NYSERDA, No. 130 at p. 4) NYSERDA
commented that circulator pumps likely operate more in any given year
in places such as New York City and they may see more energy savings
than the NOPR proposed. Id. The CA IOUs also supported DOE's
development of energy conservation standards based on the consensus
recommendations and supported adoption of the proposed TSL 2
recommendation. (CA IOUs, No. 133 at p. 1)
DOE did not receive any comments that did not support the CPWG-
recommended standard level for circulator pumps in response to the
December 2022 NOPR. Accordingly, and as described in section V.C.1 of
this document, DOE, in this final rule, is adopting energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps at TSL 2.
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] TR20MY24.009

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 as the
tested pump.

The value of CER varies according to the circulator pump control
variety of the tested pump, 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 hypothetical
circulator pump, as a function of hydraulic power, that is minimally
compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards, as determined in
accordance with the specifications at paragraph (i) of Sec. 431.465.
87 FR 57264. Conceptually, it is a curve that provides a value of pump
input power for any hydraulic output power. Energy conservation
standards could equivalently have been formulated to direct that a
circulator pump must carry a CER less than the value of
CER<INF>STD</INF> at its particular hydraulic output power. Defining
CEI as a ratio of CER and CER<INF>STD</INF> serves to normalize the
energy conservation standard, allowing it to assume a fixed numerical
value regardless of hydraulic output power, which has the advantage of
simplicity and better comparability among different pump models.
The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations contained a proposed method
for calculating CER<INF>STD</INF>.\19\ The equation represents a
summation of weighted input powers at each part load test point. The
part load test points are set at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at
best efficiency point (``BEP''). Each test point is weighted based on
the controls used for testing. This equation is shown in equation (3):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The November 2016 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 of ``PER<INF>CIRC,STD</INF>'' because DOE
believed that CER<INF>STD</INF> was more reflective of Federal
energy conservation standards. After receiving no opposition on its
proposal, DOE adopted the CER<INF>STD</INF> nomenclature in the
September 2022 TP Final Rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.010

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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; and
i = test point(s), defined as 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at
BEP.

Recommendation #2B of the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations
specified a weighting factor of 25% for each respective test point i.
(``Recommendation #2B'').
The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included
(``Recommendation #2C'') a

[[Page 44476]]

recommended reference input power, P<INF>i</INF>\in,STD\, as described
in equation (4).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.011

Where:

P<INF>u,i</INF> = tested hydraulic power output of the pump being
rated at test point i, in hp;
[eta]<INF>WTW,100</INF><not-eq> = 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; and
i = test point(s), defined as 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at
BEP.

The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included a reference
efficiency at BEP at the CPWG-recommended standard level,
[eta]<INF>WTW,100</INF><not-eq> (``Recommendation #2D''), which varies
by circulator pump hydraulic output power.
Specifically, for circulator pumps with BEP hydraulic output power
P<INF>u,100</INF><not-eq> <1 hp, the reference efficiency at BEP
([eta]<INF>WTW,100</INF><not-eq>) should be determined using equation
(5):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.012

Where:

[eta]<INF>WTW,100</INF><not-eq> = reference BEP pump efficiency at
the recommended standard level (%); and
P<INF>u,100</INF><not-eq> = tested hydraulic power output of the
pump being rated at BEP (hp).

For the CPWG-recommended standard level, the constants A, B, and C
used in equation 5 would have the values listed in Table III.1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.013

For circulator pumps with BEP hydraulic output power
P<INF>u,100</INF><not-eq> >=1 hp, the reference efficiency at BEP
([eta]<INF>WTW,100</INF><not-eq>) 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 the values listed in
Table III.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 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 [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><not-eq> from Recommendation #2E to reflect
that i=100% corresponds to full-load, and thus implies 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><not-eq> = 1 explicit by including it in this
table, which is otherwise identical to that of Recommendation #2E.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.014

This CPWG-recommended equation structure is used to characterize
the standard level established in this final rule, with certain
inconsequential changes to variable names.
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 to include both model number and CEI \21\ on
the circulator nameplate. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98,
Recommendation #3 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The CPWG recommended that ``PEI'' be included in a
potential labeling requirement which, as described previously, is
analogous to CEI.

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

[[Page 44477]]

In response to the December 2022 NOPR, HI recommended that DOE
establish label requirements for circulator pumps in this rulemaking
that only include the basic model number and CEI, as agreed to by the
CPWG. (HI, No. 135 at p. 6) DOE did not receive any other comments
regarding the establishment of labeling requirements for circulator
pumps.
DOE is considering establishing labeling requirements for
circulator pumps in a separate rulemaking and is carefully evaluating
the potential benefits of establishing labeling requirements as
explained by HI. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is not
establishing 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 Compliance Certification
Management System (``CCMS'') database:

<bullet> Manufacturer name
<bullet> Model number
<bullet> CEI \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ 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 aforementioned CPWG recommendation also included 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. 4) These
additional options are: true root mean square (``RMS'') current, true
RMS voltage, real power, and resultant power factor at measured data
points. Id.
In response to the December 2022 NOPR proposal to require a pump
operating in the least consumptive control mode when meeting compliance
with energy conservation standards for circulator pumps, the CA IOUs
noted that the most consumptive performance of circulator products
indicates the product's combined motor and hydraulic efficiency without
controls, providing helpful information to consumers and the regulatory
process. (CA IOUs, No. 133 at p. 2) They encouraged DOE to support
voluntary reporting of this performance data to inform future
rulemakings. Id.
DOE is not establishing certification or reporting, voluntary or
mandatory, requirements for circulator pumps in this final rule.
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.
Further information on this voluntary reporting of performance in
various control modes is discussed in section III.D.1 of this document.

B. General Comments

DOE received a single general comment from an interested party
regarding rulemaking timing and process. Specifically, ASAP et al.
commented in response to the December 2022 NOPR that they supported
DOE's proposed rulemaking for circulator pumps. (ASAP et al., No. 131
at p. 1)

C. 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 determining 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))
This final rule covers equipment that meets the definition of
``circulator pumps,'' as codified at 10 CFR 431.462, which is
consistent with the September 2016 CPWG Recommendations. DOE identified
no basis to change the scope of energy conservation standards for
circulator pumps relative to the scope of test procedures adopted in
the September 2022 Final Rule. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is
aligning the scope of energy conservation standards for circulator
pumps with that of the circulator pumps test procedure. 87 FR 57264.
Specifically, this final rule is applying 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. 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 pp. 1-2) As
previously stated, the scope of this rule 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 the September 2022 TP Final Rule, 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. 82 FR 36858, 36922 (Aug. 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.
In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE established a number of
definitions related to circulator pumps. 87 FR

[[Page 44478]]

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.'' Id.
``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. Id.
DOE is maintaining these definitions from the September 2022 TP
Final Rule in the standards for circulator pumps.
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.b 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 (not
circulator) pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58,
Recommendation #1B at pp. 1-2) The CPWG recommended 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.
Consistent with the CPWG recommendation, DOE extended the
commercial and industrial pump test procedures to SVILs in a separate
final rule published March 24, 2023. 88 FR 17934 (``March 2023 Final
Rule''). That test procedure allows evaluation of energy conservation
standards for SVILs as part of a commercial and industrial pumps
rulemaking process.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined to maintain
its approach to address energy conservation standards for circulator
pumps only in this rulemaking, separately from SVILs. 87 FR 74850,
74862. DOE did not receive adequate data or information to suggest that
DOE should address standards for SVILs along with the circulator pumps
within the scope of the December 2022 NOPR. Id. Accordingly, DOE did
not propose to include SVILs within the scope of the energy
conservation standards considered in the December 2022 NOPR. Id.
Relatedly, the September 2022 TP Final Rule did not adopt test
procedures for SVILs. 87 FR 57264.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its approach to
exclude SVILs from the scope of the NOPR, and whether DOE should
consider standards for any SVILs as part of this rulemaking. 87 FR
74850, 74862.
HI and NEEA/NWPCC agreed with DOE's decision to exclude SVIL pumps
from the circulators scope. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 134 at pp. 4-5; HI, No.
135 at p. 4) HI also commented that according to ASRAC negotiations,
SVILs should instead be addressed under the commercial and industrial
pumps rulemaking. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4)
Due to stakeholders providing comment supporting SVILs to be
evaluated in the commercial and pumps rulemaking in both this
rulemaking and the commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking, DOE has
determined to maintain its approach to address energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps only in this rulemaking, separately from
SVILs. Accordingly, DOE is not including SVILs within the scope of the
energy conservation standards considered in this final rule.

D. 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 equipment complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for circulator pumps are
expressed in terms of 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. \23\ (See 10 CFR
431.464(c).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ The performance of a comparable pump that has a specified
minimum performance level is referred to as the circulator energy
rating (``CER<INF>std</INF>'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 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).\24\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some circulator pumps operate in only a single control mode,
whereas others are capable of operating in any of several control
modes. As discussed in the September 2022 TP Final Rule, circulator
pump energy consumption typically varies by control mode, for
circulator pumps equipped with more than one control mode. 87 FR 57264,
57273-57275. 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. Id. Ultimately,
DOE determined not to restrict active control variety during testing.
Id. To not limit application of a particular control mode, the test
procedure for circulator pumps states ``if a given circulator pump
model is distributed in commerce with multiple control varieties
available, the manufacturer may select a control variety (or varieties)
among those available with which to test the circulator pump, including
the test method for circulator pumps at full speed or circulator pumps
without external input signal, manual, pressure, or temperature
controls).'' Section 2.2 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 any standards would be based on a specific
control mode (or no controls) would be addressed in an energy
conservation standard rulemaking. 87 FR 57264, 57275. It further
explains that a future energy conservation standard rulemaking could
determine whether certain information related to the control mode used
for testing would be required as part of certification. Id.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to require compliance with

[[Page 44479]]

energy conservation standards for circulator pumps while operated in
the least consumptive control mode in which it is capable of operating.
87 FR 74850, 74862. Because many circulator pumps equipped with control
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 pump's most consumptive control mode
may reduce the ability of rated CEI to characterize the degree of
energy savings possible across circulator pump models. 87 FR 74850,
74862-74863. 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. 87 FR 74850, 74863.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment regarding
circulator pump control variety for the purposes of demonstrating
compliance with energy conservation standards. 87 FR 74850, 74863.
HI, ASAP et al., and the CA IOUs all supported using the least
consumptive operating mode as the CEI rating metric. (HI, No. 135 at p.
4; ASAP et al., No. 131 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 133 at p. 2) The CA IOUs
also noted that variable-speed control demonstrated potential savings
relative to maximum-speed-only circulator pumps. (CA IOUs, No. 133 at
p. 2) Therefore, the CA IOUs recommended DOE support voluntary
reporting of performance data of variable-speed control as well as
account for variable-speed control savings in future circulator pump
test methods and conservation standards. Id.
Further, ASAP et al. encouraged DOE to require additional reporting
of ratings with the most consumptive method. (ASAP et al., No. 131 at
p. 2) ASAP et al. commented that specifying CEI ratings based only on
the least consumptive model may not accurately reflect the energy usage
of fixed-speed-mode circulator pumps. Id.
DOE agrees that performance data obtained from a circulator pump
operated in one mode may not reflect performance when operated in a
different mode, including the fixed-speed mode cited by ASAP. While DOE
is not adopting certification requirements, mandatory or voluntary, in
this final rule, as stated in section III.A.3 of this document, it may
do so as part of a separate rulemaking.
NEEA/NWPCC recommended DOE require circulator pumps to be tested
and to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards in the
most consumptive control mode because: (1) they ``are concerned that
manufacturers will meet the standard through an optional speed control
setting rather than hydraulic redesign or addition of an efficient
motor, meaning that the circulator will often function in a control
setting that delivers performance below what is required by the
standard. In some cases, such as three speed circulator pumps, the
speed controls are intended to serve different sizes of systems, and
the least-consumptive mode will not be representative of larger
systems.'' (2) ``Least-consumptive testing will increase testing
burden, as manufacturers will have to test multiple settings to first
determine which setting is the least-consumptive. Conversely, DOE has
asserted (and we agree) that the most-consumptive control is the full
speed setting, meaning there is no additional testing required to
determine the most-consumptive setting.'' (3) ``Non-guaranteed
performance will discourage utility programs, as they will not be able
to determine the current practice baseline because many circulators
will operate below the actual standard.'' (4) ``The market will be
confused about the performance of circulators in the field, because
least-consumptive control does not equate to the most representative
control. While we agree with DOE's assertion in this NOPR that testing
in the least-consumptive control mode will better communicate the range
of controls available to the market and their relative energy
consumption, consumers may be confused as to why the expected energy
performance fails to materialize.'' (5) ``Manufacturers already support
testing in most-consumptive control setting as they test and submit
ratings to the Hydraulic Institute (HI) circulator Energy Rating (ER)
database.'' (6) '' Least-consumptive testing impedes future rulemakings
that could strengthen the standard. Least-consumptive testing will
allow for a range of performance, with some circulators operating in
modes that perform worse than the DOE standard. Tightening that
standard in the future may simply widen the gap of tested versus actual
performance. Conversely, most-consumptive testing would establish a
clear minimum performance standard that DOE can build upon in future
rulemakings.'' (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 134 at pp. 2-3) NEEA/NWPCC also
explained that the most-consumptive testing ensures that any tightening
of the standard will remove equipment with low performance, but least-
consumptive testing may not if their lowest consumptive method is in
standards and the rest are not. Id. NEEA/NWPCC stated that the revised
standard would only achieve the energy conservation goals if using most
consumptive testing, and NEEA/NWPCC recommend that DOE revisit this
issue in future circulator pump rulemakings. Id.
Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's first point that manufacturers may comply
with a standard based on the least consumptive operating mode by
incorporating controls, DOE recognizes the possibility but not that it
would necessarily be detrimental. Speed reduction is a legitimate means
of reducing circulator pump energy consumption, far outstripping the
savings potential of other technology options for certain applications.
Even in nominally fixed-speed applications, which call for no flow
variability, speed adjustment can be used to match the circulator pump
output to load imposed by the actual hydraulic circuit at hand. The
potential for manufacturers of noncompliant circulator pumps adding
manual speed controls as a way to reduce CEI to reach compliance is not
expected to be significant. Analysis of submitted manufacturer model
data indicates that adding manual speed controls reduces a circulator
pump's CER metric by an average of 6.5%. DOE's analysis of the market
shows that less than 2% of circulator pumps that would not be compliant
with the standard levels adopted in this final rule are single-speed
models that could attain compliance by introducing manual speed
controls. Further, because there would likely be significant conversion
cost associated with modifying circulator pump models, manufacturers
may be hesitant to develop them unless confident of strong demand that
would enable recovery of those costs. Further, the products themselves
would cost more to manufacture due to multispeed motors' costing more
to purchase or construct than single-speed motors, which would reduce
their appeal to first-cost-motivated consumers. Finally, while NEEA/
NWPCC identifies a potential case in which manual speed controls reduce
the energy savings achievable by an energy conservation standard, so
too can manual speed controls be used to save energy in applications
that do not require the circulator pumps' full output. In view of the
relatively small fraction of the market that could feasibly function as
NEEA/NWPCC describes, the additional equipment costs and conversion
costs associated with multi-speed products relative to single-speed,
and the potential for manual-speed control to

[[Page 44480]]

help as well as hinder the objective of energy savings, the potential
of manual speed control to undermine the anticipated energy savings of
this final rule appears minimal.
Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's second point that least consumptive testing
may increase testing burden, industry standard HI 41.5-2022, section
41.5.3.4 ``Determination of CER'' directs that circulator pumps already
be rated at both the most and least consumptive control methods.
Accordingly, DOE finds incremental testing burden to be minimized to
the extent that computing both methods is already widespread industry
practice.
Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's third point that non-guaranteed performance
may discourage utility programs, DOE does not have information to
evaluate the size of potential energy savings arising from utility
programs concerning circulator pumps relative to the magnitude of the
energy savings estimated to be associated with the energy conservation
standards adopted in this final rule. Further, a least-consumptive-
based compliance requirement does not necessarily obscure differences
in full-load performance, as more-efficient motors will tend to perform
better at both full and reduced speeds.
Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's fourth point that the market may be confused
about the performance of circulators in the field, DOE observes that
the ``field'' would include an array of applications, some of which
would realize greater or lesser savings than a single CEI value in
isolation could convey. One factor which may tend to make the former
less likely than the latter is cost--because variable-speed circulator
pumps tend to cost more, purchasers may be more likely to have
developed enough understanding of the product to justify paying a
premium.
It is possible that a circulator pump purchaser may wind up with
less savings than anticipated if purchasing a variable-speed circulator
pump for an application that truly requires single-speed operation.
However, even in an application with truly constant demand, variable-
speed circulator pumps may still offer energy savings relative to a
single-speed circulator pump. Such savings could arise from the fact
that, while circulator pump applications exist over a continuous
spectrum of hydraulic power requirements, circulator pump models are
offered only at certain, discrete hydraulic power levels. Thus, even
purchasers who accurately estimate their demand would likely end up
with some amount of unnecessary hydraulic power. A variable-speed
circulator pump may save energy by operating closer to the necessary
hydraulic power level, even if that level does not vary over time.
DOE cannot be certain of how electric utilities might design future
incentive programs for circulator pumps but does not see that they
would necessarily dismiss the potential of variable-speed circulator
pumps to save energy, even while purchase of a variable-speed
circulator pump does not guarantee that every individual installation
would realize savings relative to a hypothetical alternative of a
single-speed circulator pump with less full-speed power consumption.
One potential mitigating factor, in the case of a utility unwilling to
consider an incentive program that could not guarantee savings at every
circulator pump installation using the CEI metric alone, is that full-
speed pump performance data may be published for those pumps and
subsequently used as basis for incentive qualification provided that
such data was generated consistently with the test procedure for
circulator pumps. (See 10 CFR 431.464(c).)
Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's fifth point that manufacturers already
support testing in the most-consumptive setting, as evidenced by their
testing and submission of corresponding ratings to HI's circulator
Energy Rating database, those manufacturers also submit ratings
corresponding to the least consumptive setting. As stated, this is a
voluntary directive of industry standard HI 41.5-2022, Sec. 41.5.3.4
``Determination of CER''.
Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's sixth point that least consumptive testing
may impede future rulemakings that could otherwise have strengthened
standards, DOE observes that more-stringent standards in a hypothetical
future rulemaking would not be prohibited, or even materially impeded,
by this final rule's adoption of requirements to base compliance on the
least-consumptive operating mode. Improved motors and hydraulic
assemblies, which are the sources of improved performance in the fixed-
speed evaluation scenario supported by NEEA/NWPCC's arguments, would
still carry potential to improve under any choice of required operating
mode for compliance.
Several commenters argue that testing in the least consumptive
control mode may provide a less representative CEI value in certain
situations, but do not openly consider that the same must be true of a
requirement to test in the most consumptive control mode. Testing and
certifying performance using the most consumptive mode would also
generate results that are not accurate in all individual situations.
Because there are multiple control modes on some circulator pumps,
testing at one load profile could not represent every potential
circulator pump application. For the purpose of estimating energy
savings that would be realized by consumers at various potential
standard levels, DOE does not assume a pump would consume energy in
direct proportion to its CEI value, but instead relies on energy use
assumption as discussed in section IV.E of this document.
The energy conservation standards evaluated in this final rule are
based on wire-to-water efficiency, which is influenced by both
hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency. Because circulator pump
efficiency is measured on a wire-to-water basis, it is difficult to
entirely disentangle performance differences due to motor efficiency
from those due to hydraulic efficiency. In redesigning a pump model to
meet the standard established in this final rule, manufacturers would
likely consider both hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency. Speed
reduction is a legitimate means of reducing energy consumption and
likely offers greater potential energy savings than hydraulic
optimization would alone due to pump affinity laws, which are described
in section IV.A.2.c of this document. If compliance with energy
conservation standards were based on the most consumptive control mode,
circulator pumps with energy-saving controls would be unlikely to
receive benefit to their CEI score, as essentially all circulator pumps
would be evaluated at full speed.
In view of the foregoing discussion and the support of HI, ASAP et
al., and the CA IOUs, DOE is adopting the requirement that circulator
pumps comply with energy conservation standards while operated in their
least consumptive mode.
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 final rule, but may be addressed in a
potential future rulemaking.

E. 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 equipment that is the subject of the rulemaking. As
the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology
options for

[[Page 44481]]

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 equipment or in
working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4;
sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 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 equipment utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR 431.4; sections 7(b)(2)-(5). 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 final rule technical support document
(``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a new 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 equipment. (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 equipment available on the market or in working
prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking
are described in section IV.C.2 of this final rule and in chapter 5 of
the final rule TSD.

F. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each 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 new standards (2028-2057).\25\ The
savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in
the 30-year analysis 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for equipment shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models
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 equipment at the
locations where it is used. For electricity, DOE reports national
energy savings 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 full-fuel-cycle
(``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.\26\ DOE's
approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of
the energy types used by covered equipment. For more information on FFC
energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new 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 energy
conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\27\ For example,
some covered equipment has most of its energy consumption occur during
periods of peak energy demand. The impact of this equipment on the
energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than equipment with
relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance
of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, considering the significance
of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions
reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among
other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this final rule are
projected to result in national energy savings of 0.55 quad, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 5.9 million homes. Based
on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions,
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined
the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule
are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B). Even without considering the need to confront the global
climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard
levels adopted in this rule are ``significant'' under EPCA.

G. 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 potential new standards 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

[[Page 44482]]

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 considers 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 payback period (``PBP'') associated with new
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 equipment (including
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates
appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability
in specific inputs, such as equipment 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 more-efficient equipment 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
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 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 IV.H of this document,
DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
In establishing equipment 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 equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the equipment 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 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 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)) To assist the Department of Justice (``DOJ'')
in making such a determination, DOE transmitted copies of its proposed
rule and the NOPR TSD to the Attorney General for review, with a
request that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. In its
assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed
energy conservation standards for circulator pumps are unlikely to have
a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the
Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new 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 adopted 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 capacity,
as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE has determined 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 adopted 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 of this document; 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.

[[Page 44483]]

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to
calculate the effect potential new 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 IV.F of this final rule.

H. Compliance 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 energy conservation standard
(``effective date'') and the date on which manufacturers must comply
with the new standard. The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations specified
a compliance date of four years following publication of the final
rule.
In response to the May 2021 RFI, DOE received two comments
regarding the compliance date. Grundfos recommended a 2-year compliance
date and NEEA recommended a 3-year compliance date. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, Grundfos, No. 113, at p. 1; Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, NEEA, No. 115, at p. 3) Neither Grundfos nor NEEA provided
additional comments regarding the compliance date in response to the
December 2022 NOPR.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed a 2-year compliance date
for energy conservation standards due to the industry being more mature
than when the CPWG made its recommendation. 87 FR 74850, 74865. DOE
requested comment on its proposal. Id. DOE also noted 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. Id.
In response to the December 2022 NOPR, HI and Xylem recommended DOE
adopt a 4-year compliance lead time for manufacturers to meet the
proposed standard. (HI, No. 135 at p. 1; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 1) HI and
Xylem stated that the proposed 2-year compliance lead time conflicts
with the 4-year time negotiated by the CPWG and that the existing
equipment on the market meeting EL 2 does not cover the breadth of
utility required by the market. Id. Xylem explained that implementing a
2-year compliance timeline for pumps would delay, rather than
accelerate, manufacturer compliance. (Xylem, No. 136 at p. 1) Xylem
recommended that DOE make recourse to the European Union's method of
implementing regulations to decrease circulator pump energy consumption
by providing manufacturers the necessary time to comply with the
regulations. (Xylem, No. 136 at p. 2)
HI and Xylem commented that, as stated in the December 2022 NOPR,
66 percent of circulator pumps on the market need to be redesigned to
meet the proposed standard, and manufacturers will benefit from a 4-
year compliance lead time to engineer, develop, and test equipment to
meet the standard. (HI, No. 135 at p. 2; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 2) HI and
Xylem commented that, due to supply chain issues, it is not uncommon
for an 18-month lead time for manufacturers to obtain materials to
leave just 6 months for all engineering, development, and third-party
agency testing; meaning this timeline is not feasible for
manufacturers. (HI, No. 135 at pp. 2-3; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 3). HI and
Xylem also stated that much of the development, sourcing, testing, and
equipment line implementation is linear, with each step dependent on
prior steps being completed. Id. HI and Xylem commented that much
equipment will require an EL 3 effort to be compliant and meet market
competitiveness requirements, which will extend the timeline of
equipment development and testing well beyond 2 years. Id. In addition,
HI added that manufacturers are required to obtain safety and drinking
water approvals via third party agency testing for all new/redesigned
equipment. (HI, No. 135 at p. 3)
HI and Xylem further commented that manufacturers, including Xylem
itself, anticipate struggling to meet capacity, for instance regarding
lead times for electronically commutated motors (``ECMs''), production
test equipment, and other assets that will delay the compliance lead
time. (HI, No. 135 at p. 3; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 3) HI noted that ECM
component suppliers have been unable to meet demand and will continue
to fall behind as the circulator market transitions to ECMs. (HI, No.
135 at p. 4) Xylem commented that manufacturers will see similar lead
time issues when developing new production lines as seen with materials
in the supply chain. (Xylem, No. 136 at pp. 3-4) Xylem stated it will
take 12-18 months to source and implement production lines, which will
delay the compliance lead time. Id. Xylem commented that manufacturers'
inability to meet the aggressive compliance timeline will result in a
gap of pumps available in the market and potentially lead to
overinflated pricing, substitution of older and less efficient
equipment, and costly conversions to alternative systems. Id.
In the NOPR public meeting, Taco commented that the proposed
implementation period is extremely short and requires a lot of changes.
(Taco, Inc., Public Meeting Transcript, No. 129 at pp. 65-66) Taco
stated it is nearly impossible to get anything electronic in a two-year
period to go through this testing. Id. Taco further commented that
everything would need to be redesigned with no way to get the parts in
house to make that happen. Id. Taco stated that, at the time of the
public meeting, it was receiving two-year quotes to get in new
electronic products. Id.
HI and Xylem commented that a 2-year lead time will pose an
additional financial burden on manufacturers due to conversion-cost
impacts with a quick turnaround. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4; Xylem, No. 136
at p. 4) Xylem commented that even large companies may not be able to
justify achieving the extremely short investment-to-launch period
proposed by DOE. (Xylem, No. 136 at p. 4) Xylem believes manufacturers
will redesign to be competitive, which likely means redesigning past
the minimal compliance CEI of 1.0, which will include additional costs
and time needed. Id. Xylem agreed that basic model counts would
decrease with a transition to ECMs due to the greater range of
applications served. Id. However, Xylem recommended DOE consider the
additional incremental cost to transition these models to EL 3 levels.
Id. Xylem commented that capital investment is likely to increase when
going from EL 2 to EL 4 and that DOE has underestimated the capital
investment and time commitment needed to reach EL 3 and EL 4. Id. HI
and Xylem recommended that DOE follow up with manufacturers to qualify
the lead times to acquire and commission manufacturing assets. (HI, No.
135 at p. 4; Xylem, No. 136 at pp. 3-4).
Further, HI and Xylem disagreed with DOE's assertion that
manufacturers

[[Page 44484]]

affected by this rulemaking are not affected by other rulemakings and
recommended that DOE consider the cumulative burden of rulemakings
currently in progress, such as those regarding commercial and
industrial pumps and electric motors. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4; Xylem, No.
136 at p. 5) HI also recommended DOE consider that the ECM technology
used in CP2- and CP3-style circulator pumps is under consideration in
the electric motor rulemakings. (HI, No. 135 at p. 6) HI commented that
the timing and outcome of the electric motor rulemakings would impact
circulator manufacturers' ability to redesign CP2 and CP3 equipment
within the 2-year compliance lead time. Id.
Wyer commented that the manufacturing industry has seen an increase
in the number of ECM circulator pumps in recent years and this increase
has proven problematic. (Tom Wyer, No. 128 at pp. 1-2) Wyer commented
that the pump manufacturers listed by the CPWG do not currently have
the ability to produce ECM pumps in sufficient quantities to satisfy a
growing market. Id. Wyer commented that several manufacturers are
substituting permanent split capacitor ``''PSC'') motor pumps for ECMs
to make up for the insufficient availability of ECM pumps, which is due
to: (1) international supply chain shortages; (2) plant capacity in the
facilities that manufacturer ECM circulators, all of which are located
in Europe; and (3) the rapid adoption of hydronic heat pumps in Europe
caused by the war in Ukraine, natural gas supply constraints, and
rising prices. Id. Wyer commented that U.S. manufacturing
infrastructure cannot support the level of production needed to satisfy
the hydronics market with ECM circulators. (Tom Wyer, No. 128 at p. 2)
Wyer stated that ECM pumps with the performance curves necessary for
the geothermal HVAC industry are only manufactured in Europe, while the
majority of PSC pumps currently used in the geothermal HVAC industry
are made in the United States. Id. Wyer commented that U.S.-based
manufacturers are more likely to shut down domestic facilities and
continue importing ECM circulators rather than invest to upgrade their
plants to produce ECM pumps. Id. Wyer recommended that DOE consider the
impact of the proposed rulemaking on domestic manufacturer employment
and the potential of plant closures. Id. Wyer commented that 3 years is
not enough time for pump manufacturers to upgrade their capacity to
supply the entire hydronics market in the U.S. and recommended that DOE
delay the implementation of the standard until the domestic supply of
ECM pumps is sufficient to meet current and future demand. Id. Wyer
recommended that if DOE continues with the proposed rulemaking, the
compliance time should be increased to a minimum of 6 years. Id.
In response, DOE notes that, as stated by manufacturers, the
redesign process for circulator pumps contains multiple, sequential
steps dependent on completion of the preceding step. Third-party water
testing, which is necessary after the redesign process but before the
circulator pumps go to market, adds further time constraints to pump
manufacturers. These reasons make a 2-year compliance date hard for
manufacturers to reach EL 2 levels, but some manufacturers will use the
redesigning process as an opportunity for further energy savings. HI
and Xylem also noted that they feel the cumulative regulatory burden
from other rulemakings, including commercial industrial pumps and small
electric motors, put further strain on manufacturers who expect a 2-
year compliance date for circulator pumps to add significant financial
burden. Cumulative regulatory burden from other rulemakings is
discussed in section V.B.2.e of this document.
As discussed previously, in the December 2022 NOPR DOE did not
follow the CPWG's recommendation of a 4-year compliance date, instead
proposing a 2-year compliance date due to the market maturing since the
2016 CPWG meetings. However, as discussed by stakeholders, the natural
growth of ECMs in the market has been slow, with only around 1 percent
of the market switching to ECMs annually, leaving the majority of the
market in need of redesign to reach EL 2. As such, DOE agrees that a
longer compliance period than proposed in the DOE 2022 NOPR is
warranted. However, although the natural market share growth of ECMs
has been slow, the market is closer to EL 2 on average now than when
the CPWG initially recommended a 4-year compliance date, which has led
DOE to conclude that no additional time past the 4-year recommendation,
such as a 6-year compliance date, is necessary. Accordingly, in this
final rule, DOE is adopting a 4-year compliance date for energy
conservation standards.

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 considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential 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://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004</a>. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of
the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual Energy
Outlook (``AEO'') 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 equipment
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the equipment. 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 equipment 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 final rule TSD for further discussion of
the market and technology assessment.
In response to the December 2022 NOPR, HI requested that DOE
provide its market assessment of basic model information as a
supplemental publication, including the estimated number of models left
for conversion and the percentage they make up of the market. (HI, No.
126 at p. 1) HI requested that DOE allow manufacturers time to review
the market assessment data and provide comments. Id.
DOE responded to this comment by publishing a supplementary
document

[[Page 44485]]

with the estimated number of models at or above EL 2 and the number of
models below EL 2 on January 31, 2023. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-
0004-0127) This information is reflected in Table IV.14 in section
IV.J.2.c of this document.
1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
a. Scope
As stated in the December 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to align the
scope of these proposed energy conservation standards with that of the
circulator pumps test procedure. 87 FR 74850, 74865; 87 FR 57264. In
that document, DOE finalized the scope of the circulator pumps test
procedure such that it applies to circulator pumps that are clean water
pumps, including circulators-less-volute and on-demand circulator
pumps, and excluding header pumps and submersible pumps. 87 FR 74850,
74865-74866. That scope is consistent with the recommendations of the
CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58)
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to apply energy
conservation standards to all circulator pumps included in the CWPG
recommendations, which excluded submersible pumps and header pumps. 87
FR 74850, 74866. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58) The
September 2022 TP Final Rule also excluded submersible pumps and header
pumps. 87 FR 57264, 57272. Any future evaluation of energy conservation
standards would require a corresponding test procedure.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment regarding the
proposed scope of energy conservation standards for circulator pumps.
87 FR 74850, 74866.
HI agreed with DOE's proposal to apply standards to all circulator
pumps included in the CWPG recommendations, which excluded submersible
pumps and header pumps. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4)
Equipment Diagrams
In general, DOE establishes written definitions to designate which
equipment falls 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.
DOE adopted the definitions that distinguish various circulator
pumps 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 U.S. hydraulic industry; a trade
association representing plumbing, heating, and cooling contractors;
and other manufacturers of equipment that either use or are used by
circulator pumps as components.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that 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 as
sufficiently clear at the time of their recommendation. 87 FR 74850,
74866.
Additionally, in the December 2022 NOPR, DOE explained that the
development of diagrams to support the definitions could create
confusion if interpretations of such diagrams differ from those of the
corresponding written definitions. For this reason, and in the absence
of any evidence of ambiguity in the definitions, DOE did not propose to
establish equipment diagrams in the December 2022 NOPR, but requested
comments on the definitions and whether any clarification was needed.
87 FR 74850, 74866.
HI agreed that the proposed definitions are sufficiently clear and
consistent with the diagrams provided in ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2. (HI, No.
135 at p. 4)
Accordingly, DOE is not establishing equipment diagrams in this
final rule.
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)
As stated in section III.C.1 of this document, 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 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 a 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 that do not
strictly require them.
As discussed in the December 2022 NOPR, although a difference in
utility exists across circulator pump housing materials, no such
difference exists in ability to reach higher efficiencies. 87 FR 74850,
74866. All housing materials can reach all efficiency levels analyzed
in this final rule. Id. Accordingly, no

[[Page 44486]]

apparent basis exists to warrant establishing separate equipment
classes by circulator pump housing material. Id.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment regarding the
proposal to analyze all circulator pumps within a single equipment
class. 87 FR 74850, 74866.
In response, ASAP et al. and HI supported DOE's proposal of a
single equipment class and standard for all circulator pumps, as it is
consistent with the CPWG recommendations. (ASAP et al., No. 131 at pp.
1-2; HI, No. 135 at p. 4)
Based on the foregoing analysis and the support of stakeholders,
DOE is establishing circulator pumps in a single equipment class.
Strauch commented that while DOE regularly considers the cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers, DOE does not address an equivalent
burden on consumers, for whom regulatory processes result in diminished
equipment choices. (Mark Strauch, No. 123 at p. 2)
As discussed by Strauch, DOE evaluated cumulative regulatory burden
on manufacturers in this rulemaking. See section V.B.2.e of this
document. In response to Strauch's comment regarding diminishing
equipment choices, DOE notes that some circulator pump models with
induction motors also come equipped with automatic continuous variable
speed controls and therefore not all induction motors will be removed
from the market. Further, DOE analyzes burden on consumers in section
IV.I of this document.
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.
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 equipment categories for standards
for on-demand circulator pumps in a separate energy conservation
rulemaking.
As stated in section III.C of this document, DOE is aligning 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.
As discussed in the December 2022 NOPR, 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. 87 FR 74850, 74867. (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
in that it does not impede the ability of on-demand circulator pumps to
reach the same performance levels as any other circulator pumps. Id.
On that basis, DOE proposed not to establish a separate equipment
class for on-demand circulator pumps in the December 2022 NOPR. Id.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal
not to establish a separate equipment class for on-demand circulator
pumps. 87 FR 74850, 74867.
In response to the December 2022 NOPR, HI and NEEA/NWPCC stated
their support of DOE's proposal to refrain from creating a separate
equipment class for on-demand circulators. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4; NEEA/
NWPCC, No. 134 at p. 4) NEEA/NWPCC also recommended that, due to the
associated energy savings, DOE adopt a CEI credit for on-demand
circulator pumps, recognizing that the necessary data collection may
delay implementing such a credit until the next circulator pumps
rulemaking. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 134 at p. 4)
On-demand circulator pumps have access to the same technology
options as circulator pumps at-large. Thus, it is not clear that on-
demand function relates to efficiency, as measured by the test
procedure for circulator pumps. (See 10 CFR 431.464(c)) In certain
applications, on-demand circulator pumps may conceivably save energy if
used to replace an equivalent non-on-demand circulator pump through
reduced aggregate operating duration rather the improved energy
efficiency during operation. DOE expects the energy efficiency during
operation to be the same. DOE does not have data to determine the
extent to which on-demand circulator pumps are replacing more
traditional circulator pumps. However, such energy savings during the
life of the operation would be highly variable based on used and would
not materialize if the on-demand circulator pump were installed where
none had existed previously (i.e., a newly added on-demand circulator
pump). DOE already accounts for operating duration of on-demand
circulator pumps in the energy use analysis, which is described in
section IV.E of this final rule. In summary, on-demand circulator pumps
neither obviously provide additional utility to consumers relative to
non-on-demand circulator pumps nor face any impediment to achieving the
same performance levels as circulator pumps at-large. Accordingly, DOE
is not able to conclude that on-demand function would meet the
statutory requirements for establishment of a separate equipment class
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)).
Based on the foregoing analysis and consistent with commenters, DOE
is not establishing a separate equipment class for on-demand
circulators. If DOE receives data regarding a potential CEI credit for
on-demand circulator pumps, DOE may consider a CEI credit at that time.
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; and

[[Page 44487]]

<bullet> Increased number of motor speeds.

Chapter 3 of the final rule TSD details each of these technology
options. Section IV.C.2.c of this document provides examples of which
technology options may be used to reach various efficiency levels.
a. Hydraulic Design
The performance characteristics of a pump, such as flow, head, and
efficiency, are influenced by the pump's hydraulic design. For the
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.
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. In manufacturer interviews, DOE, using
confidentially submitted manufacturer data, found 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 drive losses and mechanical designs lead
to a range of ECM efficiencies.
The energy conservation standard in 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 of this document), 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 redesigning a pump model to meet the standard
established in this final rule, 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ 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="http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf">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 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] TR20MY24.015

[[Page 44488]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.017

Where:

Q<INF>1</INF> and Q<INF>2</INF> = volumetric flow rate at two
operating points;
H<INF>1</INF> and H<INF>2</INF> = pump total head at two operating
points;
N<INF>1</INF> and N<INF>2</INF> = pump rotational speed at two
operating points; and
P<INF>1</INF> and P<INF>2</INF> = 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.\29\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ 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 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 they
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
make 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 ECMs. 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 modulate 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 the December 2022 NOPR, DOE concluded that the technology
options identified were sufficient to conduct the engineering analysis,
which is discussed in section IV.C of this document.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four 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 equipment or in commercially viable,
existing prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it
is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial
equipment and reliable installation and servicing of the technology
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 equipment utility. If a technology is determined
to have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment
to subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any
covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as equipment generally available in the
United States at the time, it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. 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 technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving
a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to
the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix I6(c)(3) and 7(b).
In sum, 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

[[Page 44489]]

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 December 2022 NOPR DOE received comment from stakeholders
regarding the potential of screening out ECMs. HI responded to the May
2021 RFI by commenting 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004,
HI, No. 112, at p. 7) DOE interpreted HI's comment to be discussing a
hypothetical future scenario, and not to be stating that ECMs are
unavailable at this time. 87 FR 74850, 74870. Accordingly in the
December 2022 NOPR, DOE retained ECMs as a design option for the
analysis. Id.
In the December 2022 NOPR DOE requested comment regarding the
current and anticipated forward availability of ECMs and components
necessary for their manufacture. 87 FR 74850, 74870.
HI responded stating the suppliers of ECM components, such as
chips, electronic components, and rare earth metals, have not been able
to meet demand and that some manufacturers have been seeing lead times
of 18 months. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4)
Subsequent private interview of a well-known circulator pump
manufacturer concluded that, although certain components had realized
shortages following the COVID-19 pandemic, the market appeared to be
equilibrating and there was no reason to expect the shortage would
persist.
DOE has found ECMs available in a range of sizes needed to support
the circulator pumps market and commercially and readily available
today. Further, the U.S. government is investing in domestic
manufacturing of semiconductor microchips in programs such as the CHIPS
and Science Act. Semiconductors are an integral part of ECMs and are
often the limiting factor in the motor's production. CHIPS for America
is a program that offers $52 billion of financial incentives for
domestic manufacturing and development of semiconductors and was signed
into law on August 9, 2022. Therefore, domestic microchip production
may be expected to grow.
DOE did not receive any comments requesting that ECMs be screened
out in this analysis. Therefore, DOE is retaining ECMs as a design
option for the analysis.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of
this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as
design options in DOE's final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not
screen out the following technology options:

<bullet> Improved hydraulic design;
<bullet> Improved motor efficiency; or
<bullet> Increased number of motor speeds.

DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially available equipment 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, equipment
availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4
of the final rule 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 equipment cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
equipment 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 pumps 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 44490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.018

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 equipment (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 equipment on the market) may be
extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define
``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 rulemaking, DOE applied 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 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 a common, low-efficiency 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 type of equipment.
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 parameters 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 ECMs. 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.

[[Page 44491]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.019

DOE set 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 are found using the same base
logarithmic function that was 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] TR20MY24.020

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><not-eq> = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow at
maximum speed (gpm); and
H<INF>100</INF><not-eq> = 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 EL 3, the wire-to-water efficiencies are found using the alpha
values for variable speed ECMs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.021

For pumps that do not fit exactly into a representative unit, 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 a
logarithmic function based on hydraulic power represented in equation
(11) and fit to each pump's specific performance data. A logarithmic
curve form was selected based on apparent fit over a wide power range
to manufacturer-submitted pump performance data. 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. See TSD Chapter 5 for additional detail on the
engineering analysis.

[[Page 44492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.023

Where:

[eta]<INF>WTW</INF> = wire-to-water efficiency
P<INF>hydro</INF> = hydraulic power (hp);
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.024

Table IV.4 contains a summary of the motor type and control scheme
associated with each EL.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.025

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
equipment, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the equipment
on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
[ballot] Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles commercially available equipment, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the equipment.
[ballot] Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing
equipment, 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 equipment.
[ballot] Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated equipment 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.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed
an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed by publicly traded
manufacturers primarily engaged in machinery and equipment-industrial
pumps, except hydraulic fluid power pumps, not seasonally adjusted
manufacturing, and whose combined equipment range includes circulator
pumps.

[[Page 44493]]

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.5, Table IV.6, Table IV.7, and Table IV.8 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 of this document. See TSD Chapter
5 for additional detail on the engineering analysis.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.026

[[Page 44494]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.028

[[Page 44495]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.029

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
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
\30\ 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 2018 to 2022 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Annual 10-K
Reports (Various Years) available at <a href="http://sec.gov">sec.gov</a> (Last accessed Sept.
19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 final rule 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, wholesaler 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 the price of the
equipment to cover business costs and profit.
For circulator pumps, the main parties in the distribution channel
are (1) sales representatives (reps); (2) wholesalers; (3) contractors;
and (4) original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). For each actor in the
distribution channel, 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 standards.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant
equipment is typically higher than the price of baseline equipment,
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.9.

[[Page 44496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.030

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.
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested 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. 87 FR 74850,
74875. Specifically, DOE requested comment and data on online sales of
circulator pumps and the appropriate channel to characterize them. Id.
HI commented that it generally agreed with the distribution
channels presented in Table IV.9 and noted that online sales would be
split between line 2 (Sales Rep [rarr] Distributor [rarr] Contractor
[rarr] End User) and line 4 (Sales Rep [rarr] Distributor [rarr] End
User) (HI, No. 135 at p. 5)
DOE acknowledges that the online sales of circulator pumps may have
increased in the past few years. However, there is currently no
sufficient data supporting a notable price difference between online
sales and conventional sales, namely channel 2 and channel 4. Hence,
DOE assumed that circulator pumps sold through online channels have the
same prices as those through conventional channels and that online
sales have been included in the shares of channel 2 and channel 4.
To estimate average baseline and incremental markups, DOE relied on
several sources, including: (1) U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual
Wholesale Trade Survey \32\ (for sales representatives and circulator
wholesalers), (2) U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Economic Census data \33\ on
the residential and commercial building construction industry (for
contractors), and (3) the Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration
Distributors International (``HARDI'') 2013 Profit Report \34\ (for
equipment wholesalers). In addition to markups of distribution channel
costs, DOE applied state and local sales tax provided by the Sales Tax
Clearinghouse to derive the final consumer purchase prices for
circulator pumps.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey
(Available at: <a href="http://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/awts/">www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/awts/</a>) (Last
accessed February 07, 2023).
\33\ 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
February 07, 2023).
\34\ Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors
International (``HARDI''), 2013 HARDI Profit Report, available at
<a href="http://hardinet.org/">hardinet.org/</a> (last accessed February 07, 2023). Note that the 2013
HARDI Profit Report is the latest version of the report.
\35\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax Rates Along
with Combined Average City and County Rates, 2023 (Available at:
<a href="http://thestc.com/STrates.stm">thestc.com/STrates.stm</a>) (Last accessed September. 11, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 6 of the final rule 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). The energy use analysis provides the
basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the
energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could
result from adoption of new standards.
Following the same approach as in the December 2022 NOPR, 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, DOE estimated the market share of circulator pumps used in
hydronic heating and hot water recirculation applications at 66.6, and
33.4 percent, respectively.

[[Page 44497]]

2. Consumer Samples
To estimate the energy use of circulator pumps in field operating
conditions, DOE developed 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) 2018 Commercial Buildings
Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) \36\ and the 2015 residential energy
consumption survey (RECS) \37\. 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. As discussed in
chapter 7 of the final rule TSD, the majority of consumers (73.7%) of
circulator pumps are in the residential sector, and the rest (26.3%)
are in the commercial sector. The following paragraphs describe how DOE
developed the consumer samples by application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information
Administration. 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS). 2018. (Last accessed September 29, 2023.) <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/">www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/</a>.
\37\ U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information
Administration. 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).
2015. (Last accessed September 29, 2023.) <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/">www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For hydronic heating, because there is 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, according to
feedback from the CPWG.\38\ (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, according to
feedback from the CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 67 at
pp. 157-163) For the commercial sector, DOE first selected buildings in
CBECS with water heaters. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ As discussed during the CPWG, a hot water recirculation
pump is more likely to be available in a building where the distance
from a water heater to outlets (e.g., bathrooms) is such that the
benefits of a HWR system are more pronounced. (Docket No. EERE-2016-
BT-STD-0004, No. 46 at pp. 180-181,184)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For details on the consumer sample methodology, see chapter 7 of
the final rule 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 field metering data from Vermont, and a 2012-
2013 residential metering study in Ithaca, NY.\39\ DOE used the data
from these metering data to establish a relationship between heating
degree days (HDDs) \40\ 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, derived from the consumer sample based on RECS and CBECS in
correlation to the presence of hot water boilers, as described in
section IV.E.2, 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 at pp. 122-123). The
weighted average operating hours per year for the hydronic heating
application were estimated at approximately 1,970 and 2,200 for the
residential and commercial sector, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Arena, L. and O. Faakye. Optimizing Hydronic System
Performance in Residential Applications. 2013. U.S. Department of
Energy Building Technologies Office. Last accessed July 21, 2022.
<a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60200.pdf">www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60200.pdf</a>.
\40\ Heating Degree Day (HDD) is a measure of how cold a
location was over a period of time, relative to a base temperature.
In RECS and CBECS, the base temperature used is 65 [deg]F and the
period of time is one year. The heating degree-days for a single day
is the difference between the base temperature and the day's average
outside temperature if the daily average is less than the base, and
zero if the daily average outside temperature is greater than or
equal to the base temperature. The heating degree-days for a longer
period of time are the sum of the daily heating degree-days for days
in that period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Hot Water Recirculation
For circulator pumps used in hot water recirculation applications,
DOE developed operating hour and consumer fractions estimates based on
their associated control types, according to feedback from the CPWG
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 60 at p. 74; Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 67 at pp. 194-195; Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-
0004, No. 68 at p. 184), as shown in Table IV.10.

[[Page 44498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.031

With regard to Table IV.10, Strauch commented that DOE
overestimates operating hours for circulator pumps in the residential
sector and cited personal experience with using a circulator pump with
an integrated timer. (Strauch, No. 123 at p. 1) In response, while DOE
acknowledges that the estimates in Table IV.10 are averages and do not
cover all use cases, it also notes that these estimates were discussed
in the CPWG and supported by stakeholders following the May 2021 RFI.
(NEEA, No. 115 at pp. 5-6); (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 9); (HI, No. 112
at p. 9)
NYSERDA commented that DOE's assumed average operating hours across
technology options are nationally representative but may be higher when
high-rise multi-family buildings due to longer pipes with increased
heat loss, as well as larger household sizes and water usage. (NYSERDA,
No.130 at p. 4)
DOE agrees with NYSERDA that multi-family buildings may consume
more water and experience more heat loss than other types of buildings.
However, DOE is not aware of data relating circulator pump hours of
operation to building type. DOE also notes that its analysis does
consider purchasers with the characteristics related to high-rise
multi-family buildings. For example, half of the purchasers in the hot
water recirculation application are estimated to use their circulator
pump 24 hours per day. Further, DOE considers a wide range of piping
configurations in its calculation of load profiles as described in the
section IV.E.4, including systems curves related to longer pipes.
4. Load Profiles
To estimate the power consumption of each representative unit at
each efficiency level, DOE used the following methodology: For each
representative unit, DOE defined a range of typical system curves
representing different piping and fluid configurations and bounded the
representative unit's pump curve derived in the engineering analysis
within those system curves. The upper and lower boundaries of this
range of system curves correspond to a maximum (Qmax) and minimum
(Qmin) value of volumetric flow. The value of Qmax is capped to 150% of
BEP flow at most, while the value of the value of Qmin is capped to at
least 25% of BEP flow.
For single speed circulator pumps (ELs 0-2) in single zone
applications, DOE randomly selects a single operating point
(Q<INF>0</INF>) within the boundaries of a uniform distribution defined
by the system curves such that Q<INF>0</INF> is between Qmin and Qmax.
The AEU is then calculated by multiplying the power consumption at the
volumetric flow Q<INF>0</INF>, as derived in the engineering analysis,
by the annual operating hours. DOE notes that while a random operating
point is assigned to each purchaser of an analyzed representative unit,
as discussed in the previous paragraph, the boundaries Qmin and Qmax
are selected such that they correspond to appropriate operating ranges
specifically for each of those representative units.
For variable-speed circulator pumps (ELs 3-4) in single-zone
applications, similarly, DOE randomly selects a single operating point
(Q<INF>0</INF>) within the boundaries of the system curves, such that
Q<INF>0</INF> is between Qmin and Qmax. After the operating point is
selected, the procedure to determine the AEU varies depending on the
value of Q<INF>0</INF>: If the selected operating point (Q<INF>0</INF>)
has a flow that is equal or higher than Q<INF>BEP</INF>, the method is
the same as the one for single speed circulator pumps in single zones.
For operating points where Q<INF>0</INF> <QBEP, DOE assumes that the
circulator pump reduces its speed and operates at the intersection of
the corresponding system curve and the control curve of each EL (dP or
dT), at a flow Qx. The AEU is then calculated by multiplying the power
consumption at the volumetric flow Qx, as derived in the engineering
analysis, by the annual operating hours, after adjusting the hours to
maintain the same heat as Q<INF>0</INF>.
For circulator pumps in multi-zone applications DOE modeled their
operation by assuming that representative multi-zone systems have three
zones, resulting in two additional operating points (Q<INF>-</INF> and
Q<INF>+</INF>), which are equidistant from a randomly selected
operating point, Q<INF>0</INF>, and are within the allowable operating
flow (between Qmin and Qmax), as defined by the representative unit's
characteristic system curves. (Docket #0004, No. 61 at p. 88)
In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that its energy use analysis
assumes that all purchasers of variable-speed equipment with controls
(ELs 3 and 4) are installed in systems that benefit from such control
capabilities. However, this assumption may differ from the reality of
installations in the field, where a fraction of purchasers may not
benefit from such control capabilities due to system characteristics or
improper installation. In such cases, the energy use of EL 3 and EL 4
equipment would be at similar levels to EL 2 equipment. The CA IOUs
commented that they agree with DOE's

[[Page 44499]]

assertion that a portion of purchasers do not benefit from controls in
the field, in which case energy savings of variable speed controls
compared to EL 2 may not be fully realized. However, they noted that
occurrences of ineffective installed controls should decrease over time
as integrated controls and automatic-operating-point adjustments become
simpler to set-up and more widely adopted (CA IOUs, No. 133 at p. 3)
ASAP requested that DOE determine the fraction of circulator pump
installations in the field that are indeed capable of benefiting from
speed control. (ASAP, No. 131 at p. 2)
In response to these comments, DOE conducted further research but
found no data on the fraction of circulator pump installations in the
field that are indeed capable of benefiting from speed controls. In
turn, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis to estimate the impact in
the LCC analysis of varying the fraction of purchasers that benefit
from controls in the field. Results showed that the fraction of
purchasers experiencing a net cost at EL 3 and EL 4 would linearly
increase from 42.7% to 60.7% and 45.9% to 74.8%, respectively, when the
fraction of purchasers who do benefit from controls in the field varies
from 100% to 0%. The remaining ELs (EL0 and EL1) do not include
controls and were not affected. See chapter 8 of the final rule TSD and
appendix 8D for more details on this sensitivity analysis.
Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD provides details on DOE's energy
use analysis.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual purchasers of potential energy conservation standards for
circulator pumps. The effect of new energy conservation standards on
individual purchasers usually involves a reduction in operating cost
and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to
measure consumer impacts:
[ballot] The LCC is the total consumer expense of an equipment over
the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost
(manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and
installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the equipment.
[ballot] The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes purchasers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of circulator pumps in the absence of
new energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline equipment.
For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
commercial and residential purchasers. As stated previously, DOE
developed purchaser samples from the 2015 RECS and the 2018 CBECS, for
the residential and commercial sectors, respectively. For each sampled
purchaser, DOE determined the energy consumption for the circulator
pumps and the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative
sample of purchasers, the analysis captured the variability in energy
consumption and energy prices associated with the use of circulator
pumps.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the equipment--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer
and distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs.
Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for equipment lifetime, discount rates, and
sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for
their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from
the probability distributions and circulator pumps user samples. The
model calculated the LCC and PBP for a sample of 75,000 purchasers per
simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 75,000
data points showing the range of LCC savings. In performing an
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, equipment
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. By accounting for
purchasers who already purchase more-efficient equipment, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from increasing efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for purchasers of circulator pumps
as if each were to purchase a new equipment in the first year of
required compliance with new standards. As discussed in section III.G,
new standards would apply to circulator pumps manufactured 4 years
after the date on which any new or amended standard is published. DOE
is publishing this final rule in 2024. Therefore, for purposes of its
analysis, DOE used 2028 as the first year of compliance with standards
for circulator pumps.
Table IV.11 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the model, and of all the inputs
to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the final
rule TSD and its appendices.

[[Page 44500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY24.032

1. Equipment Cost
To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline equipment and higher-efficiency equipment because DOE applies
an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency equipment. Due to lack of historical price data and
uncertainty on the factors that may affect future circulator pump
prices, such as price declines on certain equipment components, DOE
assumed a constant price over the analysis period. However, DOE
developed a sensitivity analysis accounting for future price declines
of electronic components in circulator pumps with ECMs. See chapter 8
of the final rule TSD and appendix 8D for more details on this
sensitivity analysis.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts associated with installing a circulator pump in the
place of use. DOE derived installation costs for circulator pumps based
on data from RSMeans and input from the CPWG.\41\ (Docket #0004, No. 67
at p. 266)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ RSMeans. 2021 RSMeans Plumbing Cost Data. Rockland, MA.
<a href="http://www.rsmeans.com">http://www.rsmeans.com</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE assumed that circulator pumps without variable speed controls
(ELs 0-2) require a labor time of 3 hours and an additional 30 minutes
for circulators with electronic controls (ELs 3 and 4). (Docket #0004,
No. 67 at p. 266) RSMeans provides estimates on the labor hours and
labor costs required to install equipment. In the NOPR, DOE derived the
installation cost for circulator pumps as the product of labor hours
and time required to install a circulator pump. Installation costs vary
by geographic location and efficiency level. During the 2022
manufacturer interviews, manufacturers agreed with DOE's approach to
estimate installation costs.
In the December 2022 NOPR, the CA IOUs acknowledged DOE's
installation cost assumptions regarding additional set-up time for
circulator pumps with controls due to commissioning challenges.
However, they noted that, in a future rulemaking evaluation cycle, DOE
should not consider incremental set-up time for circulator pumps at EL
3 and EL 4 that have automatic-operating-point selection functionality.
(CA IOUs, No.133 at p. 2-3) In response to the CA IOUs comment, DOE
states that is not aware of data quantifying the fraction of circulator
pumps purchasers that have automatic-operating-point selection
functionality. Therefore, DOE maintained its installation cost
assumptions, which are based on what was agreed by the CWPG, as
previously described.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled purchaser, DOE determined the AEU for a circulator
pump at different efficiency levels using the approach described
previously in section IV.E.3 of this document.
4. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. DOE generally
applies average electricity prices for the energy use of the equipment
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other
efficiency levels considered. In this final rule, DOE only used
marginal electricity prices due to the calculated annual electricity
cost for some regions and efficiency levels being negative when using
average electricity prices for the energy use of the equipment
purchased in the no-new-standards case. Negative costs can occur in
instances where the marginal electricity cost for the region and the
energy savings relative to the baseline for the given efficiency level
are large enough that the incremental cost savings exceed the baseline
cost.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 using data from EEI Typical
Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-
wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric
bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by
investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated

[[Page 44501]]

electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and
Beraki (2018).\42\ For the commercial sector, DOE calculated
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and
Beraki (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki.2018. Residential Electricity
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169.
<a href="http://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review">ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector,
region, and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices
is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and
energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2022
regional energy prices by the projection of annual change in national-
average residential or commercial energy price from AEO2023, which has
an end year of 2050.\43\ For each purchaser sampled, DOE applied the
projection for the geographic location in which the consumer was
located. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE assumed that the
regional prices would remain at the 2050 value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023. Available at <a href="http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/">www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/</a> (last accessed September, 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used the electricity price trends associated with the AEO
Reference case, which is a business-as-usual estimate, given known
market, demographic, and technological trends. DOE also included AEO
High Economic Growth and AEO Low Economic Growth scenarios in the
analysis. The high- and low-growth cases show the projected effects of
alternative economic growth assumptions on energy prices.
For a detailed discussion of the development of electricity prices,
see chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing equipment
components that have failed in an equipment; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. Typically,
small incremental increases in equipment efficiency entail no, or only
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline
efficiency equipment.
As in the December 2022 NOPR, DOE assumed that only certain types
of CP3 circulators require annual maintenance through oil lubrication.
Based on CPWG feedback, DOE assumed that 50 percent of commercial
purchasers have a maintenance cost of $10 per year and 25 percent of
residential purchasers have a maintenance cost of $20 per year, which
result in an overall $5 annual maintenance cost for CP3 circulators in
each of the two applications. (Docket #0004, No. 47 at pp. 324-327)
Repair costs consist of both labor and replacement part costs. DOE
assumed that repair costs for CP1 circulators are negligible because
purchasers tend to discard such equipment when they fail. For CP2 and
CP3 circulator pumps, DOE assumed that 50 percent of purchasers will
incur repairs once in the equipment lifetime, that repair cost does not
vary with efficiency level, and that cost is spread over the
equipment's lifetime. Rather than assuming a specific repair year, the
cost of a single repair is divided over the lifetime of the equipment
and added to its annual operating expenses. According to CPWG feedback
and manufacturer interview input, typical repairs for CP2 and CP3
include seal replacements and coupler plus motor mount replacements,
respectively. DOE assumed consistent labor time with installation
costs, which is 3 hours for seal replacement and 1.5 hours for coupler
and motor mount replacement. Additionally, DOE assumes there is no
variation in repair costs between a baseline efficiency circulator and
a higher efficiency circulator. During the 2022 manufacturer
interviews, manufacturers agreed with DOE's approach to estimate
maintenance and repair costs. DOE maintained its assumptions in this
final rule.
6. Equipment Lifetime
Equipment lifetime is the age when a unit of circulator equipment
is retired from service. DOE estimated lifetimes and developed lifetime
distributions for

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on May 20, 2024.

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.