Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning and Water Heating Equipment, 12634-12647 [06-2381]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12634
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 71, No. 48
Monday, March 13, 2006
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Nos. EE–RM/STD–03–100, EE–RM/
STD–03–200, and EE–RM/STD–03–300]
RIN Nos. 1904–AB16, 1904–AB17, and
1904–AB44
Energy Efficiency Program for
Commercial and Industrial Equipment:
Efficiency Standards for Commercial
Heating, Air-Conditioning and Water
Heating Equipment
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of document availability
and request for comments.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended,
establishes energy efficiency standards
for various commercial equipment. The
Department of Energy (the Department
or DOE) is assessing whether to adopt,
as uniform national standards,
efficiency standards contained in
amendments to the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE)
and Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1
for certain types of commercial
equipment. Such commercial
equipment includes gas-fired
instantaneous water heaters, packaged
terminal air conditioners and heat
pumps, commercial packaged boilers,
three-phase air conditioners and heat
pumps <65,000 Btu/h, and singlepackage vertical air conditioners and
heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h, collectively
known as single-package vertical units,
covered by EPCA. This notice
announces the availability of a technical
support document (TSD) the
Department is using in making this
assessment. The Department invites
written comments on the TSD and on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
DOE’s preliminary conclusions, which
are set forth in this notice.
DATES: The Department will accept
written comments, data, and
information in response to this notice,
but no later than April 27, 2006. See
section III, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of
this notice for details.
ADDRESSES: Please submit comments,
identified by docket numbers EE–RM/
STD–03–100, EE–RM/STD–03–200, and
EE–RM/STD–03–300 and/or RIN
numbers 1904–AB16, 1904–AB17, and
1904–AB44, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail:
ASHRAE.Product.Rule@ee.doe.gov.
Include EE–RM/STD–03–100, EE–RM/
STD–03–200, and EE–RM/STD–03–300
and/or RIN 1904–AB16, 1904–AB17,
and 1904–AB44 in the subject line of
the message.
• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
ASHRAE Commercial Five-Products
Standards, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please
submit one signed original paper copy.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Room 1J–018, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
proceeding. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the proceeding, see
section III of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents and the
TSD, or comments received, go to the
U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 1J–018 (Resource Room
of the Building Technologies Program),
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, (202) 586–9127,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at
the above telephone number for
additional information regarding
visiting the Resource Room. Please note:
The Department’s Freedom of
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Information Reading Room (formerly
Room 1E–190 at the Forrestal Building)
is no longer housing rulemaking
materials. The docket will also be
posted to the Federal Docket
Management System through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://
www.regulations.gov) after the comment
period closes.
You can also obtain the report of
DOE’s screening analysis (discussed
below) and the TSD electronically from
DOE’s Building Technologies Program’s
Web site at the following URL address:
https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/.
This notice refers to industry
standards established by ASHRAE and
IESNA in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings
(Standard 90.1). The revisions of
Standard 90.1 are referred to by year of
publication. For example, the 1999
revision is referred to below as Standard
90.1–1999. This standard is available at
the Resource Room of the Building
Technologies Program at the address
stated above. Copies are also available
by mail from the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 1971
Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or
electronically from ASHRAE’s Web site,
https://www.ashrae.org/book/
bookshop.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maureen Murphy, Project Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–
9127, or e-mail:
Maureen.Murphy@ee.doe.gov.
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of General Counsel,
GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202)
586–9507, or electronic mail:
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Amendment of Standard 90.1
and DOE Response
2. Subsequent Action by the Department
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
II. Discussion
A. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
B. Small Commercial Packaged Boilers
C. Large Commercial Packaged Boilers and
Tankless, Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water
Heaters
D. Three-Phase Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
E. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners
and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps
<65,000 Btu/h
1. Background
2. Analysis of Proposed Efficiency Levels
3. Standard 90.1–2004 Addendum b
4. Potential Energy Savings and
Conclusions
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
IV. Approval by the Secretary
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part C of Title III of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (EPCA) addresses
the energy efficiency of certain types of
commercial and industrial equipment,
such as electric motors, air conditioners,
and furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) It
contains, for example, definitions, test
procedures, labeling provisions, and
energy conservation standards,
including specific mandatory energy
conservation standards for certain
tankless, gas-fired instantaneous water
heaters (IWHs), packaged terminal air
conditioners (PTACs) and packaged
terminal heat pumps (PTHPs),
commercial packaged boilers, and
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment (including threephase air conditioners (ACs) and heat
pumps (HPs) <65,000 Btu/h and singlepackage vertical air conditioners
(SPVACs) and single-package vertical
heat pumps (SPVHPs) <65,000 Btu/h).
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)–(5))
The energy conservation standards set
in EPCA for commercial and industrial
equipment generally correspond to the
levels in Standard 90.1, as in effect on
October 24, 1992 (Standard 90.1–1989).
The statute provides that if Standard
90.1 is amended after that date for any
of this equipment (and for certain other
equipment), the Secretary of Energy
must establish an amended uniform
national standard at the new minimum
level for each effective date specified in
Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary
determines, through a rulemaking
supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that a more stringent standard
is technologically feasible and
economically justified and would result
in significant additional energy
conservation. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
In any such rulemaking, the rule must
contain the amended standard, and the
Secretary must determine whether the
economic benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens, considering factors
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
specified by the statute and other factors
the Secretary considers relevant. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) The Secretary
may not prescribe an amended standard
if the Secretary finds (and publishes the
finding) that interested persons have
established by a preponderance of
evidence that the amended standard is
likely to result in unavailability in the
United States of products with
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the
United States at the time of the
Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)) Also, the Secretary
may not prescribe any amended
standard which increases maximum
allowable energy use, or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency, of
a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
Finally, Federal energy efficiency
requirements for commercial equipment
generally preempt State laws or
regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316 (a)–(b)) The
Department can, however, grant waivers
of preemption for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the
procedures and other provisions of
section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d) and 6316(b)(2)(D))
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Amendment of Standard
90.1 and DOE Response
On October 29, 1999, ASHRAE’s
Board of Directors gave final approval to
Standard 90.1–1999, which addressed
efficiency levels for 34 categories of
commercial heating, ventilating and airconditioning (HVAC) and water heating
equipment covered by EPCA. The new
Standard 90.1 (Standard 90.1–1999)
revised the efficiency levels of the
existing Standard 90.1–1989 for certain
equipment. For the remaining
equipment, ASHRAE left the preexisting
levels in place, after considering
revision of the levels for some
equipment and deferring consideration
of others.
Following the publication of Standard
90.1–1999, the Department performed a
screening analysis that covered 24 of the
categories of equipment to help decide
what action it would take with respect
to the new efficiency levels. The
Department did not specifically analyze
the other 10 categories of equipment
because there was insufficient data
describing baseline energy
consumption, a small market for these
products, a lack of product shipment
data, or an absence of a suitable
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12635
methodology to distinguish its heating
function. For each of these types of
equipment that was included in the
screening analysis, the Department
examined a range of efficiency levels
that included the levels specified in
EPCA and Standard 90.1–1999, as well
as the levels associated with the lowest
life-cycle cost (LCC). For each potential
efficiency level above the EPCA
standard, the Department estimated the
incremental national energy and carbon
emission savings and the net
nationwide direct economic benefit
(national net present value (NPV))
resulting for the period 2004 to 2030
from setting a standard at that level. The
baselines for the comparison were the
corresponding levels specified in
Standard 90.1–1999 and EPCA.
Following completion of the
screening analysis, the Department
published a notice that described the
screening analysis and announced its
public availability. For each equipment
category for which ASHRAE adopted or
considered a revised standard level, the
notice stated whether the Department
was inclined to immediately adopt the
standard level in Standard 90.1–1999, or
to undertake a more thorough analysis
to determine if a more stringent level
was warranted. For the equipment
categories that ASHRAE did not address
in revising Standard 90.1—namely,
three-phase air conditioners and heat
pumps with capacities under 65,000 Btu
per hour—DOE stated that it had
tentatively decided to take no action
until ASHRAE had amended Standard
90.1’s efficiency levels for these types of
equipment. Finally, the notice
published on May 15, 2000, announced
a public meeting and invited written
comment on the screening analysis and
DOE’s planned actions. 65 FR 30929
(May 15, 2000).
Following the public meeting on July
11, 2000, the Department adopted the
efficiency levels in Standard 90.1–1999
as Federal standards to replace existing
EPCA levels for 18 equipment categories
of commercial air conditioners, heat
pumps, furnaces, water heaters, and hot
water storage tanks. For electric water
heaters, DOE rejected the Standard
90.1–1999 level, leaving the EPCA level
in place. 66 FR 3335, 3336–37, 3349–52
(January 12, 2001) (the ‘‘January 2001
final rule’’).
For 11 of the 24 other categories of
commercial equipment analyzed in the
screening analysis, the Department
stated it would evaluate whether to
adopt more stringent standards than
those contained in Standard 90.1–1999.
66 FR 3336–38, 3349–52. The
Department selected these categories of
equipment for further evaluation
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
12636
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
because the screening analysis indicated
at least a reasonable possibility of
finding that more stringent standards
‘‘would be technologically feasible and
economically justified and would result
in significant additional conservation of
energy.’’ 66 FR 3349. These are the
criteria EPCA prescribes for the
adoption of standards more stringent
than those in Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) The Department stated
that it could discontinue its evaluation
of any of these types of equipment,
however, and adopt the Standard 90.1–
1999 efficiency level, whenever it
concluded that these criteria are not
likely to be satisfied. 66 FR 3348.
However, DOE had previously indicated
that it would take such action only after
seeking public comment. 65 FR 30932.
For the four categories of three-phase
air-conditioning equipment that
ASHRAE had not addressed in Standard
90.1–1999, the Department encouraged
ASHRAE to amend its efficiency levels
for this equipment in conjunction with
the then-pending DOE standards
rulemaking for similar, single-phase
residential products, and stated that
DOE would act once ASHRAE had
adopted such amendments. The
standard levels prescribed in EPCA and
Standard 90.1–1999 for these 15
equipment categories appear in Tables
I.1 and I.2. In addition, the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005)
included energy efficiency standards for
some of this commercial equipment,
and those new standards also appear in
the tables.
TABLE I.1.—STANDARD EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Standard efficiency level*
Type of product
Capacity/characteristics
EPCA
Small Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment.
Large Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment.
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps.
<65 kBtu/h Air-Cooled, 3 Phase, Central Split-System AC, HP.
<65 kBtu/h Air-Cooled, 3 Phase, Central Single-Package AC, HP.
≥65 kBtu/h and <135 kBtu/h AirCooled, Central AC.
≥65 kBtu/h and <135 kBtu/h AirCooled, Central HP.
≥135 kBtu/h and <240 kBtu/h AirCooled, Central AC.
≥135 kBtu/h and <240 kBtu/h AirCooled, Central HP.
Air-Cooled ............................................
ASHRAE 90.1–
1999
SEER: 10.0,
HSPF: 6.8.
SEER: 9.7, HSPF:
6.6.
EER: 8.9** .............
SEER: 10.0,
HSPF: 6.8.
SEER: 9.7, HSPF:
6.6.
EER: 10.3** ...........
None.
EER: 8.9**, COP:
3.0†.
EER: 8.5** .............
EER: 10.3**, COP:
3.2†.
EER: 9.7** .............
EER: 11.0**, COP:
3.3†.
EER: 11.0**††.
EER: 8.5**, COP:
2.9†.
EER, COP COP
vary by capacity
according to formulas for each.
EER: 9.3**, COP:
3.1†.
EER, COP vary by
capacity according to formulas
for each (different formulas
for new construction and replacement products).
EER: 10.6**, COP:
3.2†.
None.
EPACT 2005
None.
EER: 11.2**††.
* Heating
efficiency levels do not apply to cooling-only air conditioners.
95 °F dry-bulb temperature.
† At 47 °F dry-bulb temperature.
†† This EER level applies to equipment that has electric resistance heat or no heating. For units with all other heating-system types that are integrated into the unitary equipment, deduct 0.2 EER.
** At
TABLE I.2.—STANDARD EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR BOILERS AND WATER HEATERS
Standard efficiency level
Type of equipment
Capacity
EPCA
Packaged Boilers ..................................
>300 kBtu/h .........................................
≤ 2,500 kBtu/h .....................................
>2,500 kBtu/h ......................................
Tankless, Gas-Fired
Water Heaters.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
* At
Instantaneous
V<10 gal ..............................................
ASHRAE 90.1–
1999
Combustion Efficiency*: 80%
Gas, 83% Oil.
Combustion Efficiency*: 80%
Gas, 83% Oil.
Thermal Efficiency:
80%.
Thermal Efficiency*: 75%
Gas, 78% Oil.
Combustion Efficiency*: 80%
Gas, 83% Oil.
Thermal Efficiency:
80%.
EPACT 2005
None.
None.
None.
maximum rated capacity.
EPACT 2005 prescribed more
stringent standards than those contained
in Standard 90.1–1999 for commercial
package air-conditioning and heating
equipment between 65,000 and 240,000
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
Btu per hour covered in Table I.1.1 The
1 SPVACs and SPVHPs, collectively referred to as
SPVUs, are types of small and large commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment.
ASHRAE did not recognize and evaluate them as
separate equipment categories in Standard 90.1–
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Department has not initiated individual
rulemakings for the remaining
equipment covered in Tables I.1 and I.2,
1999, nor did EPCA recognize them as separate
equipment categories.
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
12637
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
which is the subject of this notice and
which the screening analysis
categorized as follows:
• Three-Phase Split-System, AirCooled Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h
• Three-Phase Single-Package, AirCooled Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h
• Three-Phase Split-System, AirCooled Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
• Three-Phase Single-Package, AirCooled Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
• Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners
• Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
• Small, Gas-fired Boilers 0.3–2.5
Million Btu/h (MMBtu/h)
• Small, Oil-fired Boilers 0.3–2.5
MMBtu/h
• Large, Gas-fired Boilers ≥2.5
MMBtu/h
• Large, Oil-fired Boilers ≥2.5
MMBtu/h
• Tankless, Gas-Fired Instantaneous
Water Heaters
• Single-Package Vertical Air
Conditioners 2
• Single-Package Vertical Heat
Pumps 3
The screening analysis results for
these equipment categories are shown in
Table I.3, except for the oil-fired
packaged boilers and SPVUs, which
DOE did not study in the screening
analysis. For each equipment category,
Table I.3 shows the efficiency level
corresponding to the lowest average
LCC and highest NPV, taking into
account both the costs of efficiency
improvements and the savings from
reduced energy consumption. Each
efficiency level is above the level
specified in Standard 90.1–1999. Table
I.3 also shows the following potential
benefits, which the screening analysis
estimates for the period from 2004 to
2030, from setting a standard at the
higher level:
• The estimated nationwide energy
savings, expressed in trillions of British
thermal units (Tbtu);
• The estimated net nationwide direct
economic benefit, represented by the
NPV; and
• The estimated reductions in
atmospheric carbon emissions, in
millions of tons.
TABLE I.3.—ENERGY SAVINGS, NET PRESENT VALUE AND CARBON EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 2004 TO 2030 AT
ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS CORRESPONDING TO LOWEST LIFE-CYCLE COST
[Source: screening analysis]
Relative to ASHRAE standard 90.1–1999
Equipment category
Efficiency level at minimum
life-cylce cost
3-Phase, Single-Package Air-Source Air Conditioners, <65
kBtu/h.
3-Phase, Split-System Air-Source Air Conditioners, <65
kBtu/h.
3-Phase, Single-Package Air-Source Heat Pumps, <65 kBtu/
h.
3-Phase, Split-System Air-Source Heat Pumps, <65 kBtu/h ..
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners** ....................................
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps** ..........................................
Small, Gas-fired Commercial Packaged Boilers, ≤2.5
MMBtu/h.
Large, Gas-fired Commercial Packaged Boilers, ≥2.5
MMBtu/h.
Tankless, Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters ................
12.0 SEER .............................
1412.7
897.7
21
11.0 SEER .............................
278.6
109.1
4
12.0 SEER .............................
183.6
91.3
3
12.0 SEER .............................
10.5 EER ...............................
9.9 EER .................................
78.7% .....................................
66.4
311.7
249.0
200.0
47.0
274.7
241.9
146.0
1
5
4
3
85.3%* ....................................
79.0
86.6
1
81.5% .....................................
102.0
45.3
2
National energy savings
(TBtu)
National total
NPV
(millions of
1998 $’s)
National carbon emission
reductions
(million tons)
* Efficiency
shown is shipment-weighted averaged value of Large, Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers (76–81 percent), and Large, Hot Water
Commercial Packaged Boilers (78–88 percent).
** PTAC/PTHP minimum LCC EER values are based on capacity-weighted shipments.
2. Subsequent Action by the Department
The Department has further reviewed
the energy savings potential and the
efficiency levels in Standard 90.1–1999
for four out of the five types of
equipment, as set forth in the TSD.
Table I.4 summarizes the Department’s
actions for each product in today’s
notice.
TABLE I.4.—SUMMARY OF DOE’S ACTIONS BY PRODUCT
Product
DOE’s action
PTACs and PTHPs ...................................................................................
Small, Commercial Packaged Boilers ......................................................
Tankless, Gas-Fired IWHs .......................................................................
Seek a more stringent standard.
Reject Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency levels.
The Department does not have authority to pursue a standard level
higher than those specified in Standard 90.1–1999.
The Department does not have authority to pursue a standard level
higher than those specified in Standard 90.1–1999.
Inclined to adopt Addendum f to Standard 90.1–2004 once ASHRAE
formally adopts this addendum.
Large, Commercial Packaged Boilers ......................................................
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Three-phase ACs and HPs <65,000 Btu/h ..............................................
2 Because of the circumstances described in
footnote 1, DOE did not address SPVACs in the
screening analysis it originally conducted.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
3 Because of the circumstances described in
footnote 1, DOE did not address SPVACs in the
screening analysis it originally conducted.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
12638
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I.4.—SUMMARY OF DOE’S ACTIONS BY PRODUCT—Continued
Product
DOE’s action
SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h ..............................................................................
Seeking stakeholder comment on the potential energy savings analysis
and the appropriateness of the levels contained in Addendum b to
Standard 90.1–2004.
Based on the review, the Department
is now inclined to reject the Standard
90.1–1999 levels and leave the EPCA
levels in place for small, commercial
packaged boilers due to backsliding as
further discussed in Section II.B. The
Department has also reconsidered its
authority to take action to pursue
standard levels higher than those
specified in Standard 90.1–1999 for
tankless, gas-fired IWHs and large,
commercial packaged boilers, and has
determined that the Department lacks
such authority as discussed in Section
II.C. The Department is also inclined to
seek a more stringent standard level
than that in Standard 90.1–1999 for
PTACs and PTHPs. The Department is
also inclined to adopt the levels in
Addendum f of Standard 90.1–2004 for
three-phase ACs and HPs <65,000 Btu/
h if ASHRAE formally adopts this
addendum as an amendment to
Standard 90.1. Finally, the Department
is deferring a final decision on SPVUs
<65,000 Btu/h until ASHRAE takes final
action on Addendum b to Standard
90.1–2004. At this time, the Department
is seeking stakeholder comments on the
potential energy savings analysis and
the appropriateness of the standard
levels incorporated in Addendum b to
Standard 90.1–2004. After considering
comments submitted in response to this
notice, the Department expects to issue
a final rule detailing the Department’s
final actions for these products.
Btu/h) commercial package air
conditioners and heat pumps. The
standards for small, large and very large
commercial package air conditioners
and heat pumps in Section 136(b) of
EPACT 2005, which amended section
342 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313), implicitly
cover SPVUs. However, since the energy
conservation standards contained in
EPACT 2005 cover SPVUs ≥65,000 Btu/
h to <760,000 Btu/h, this notice
addresses SPVUs that are <65,000 Btu/
h only.
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
II. Discussion
On August 8, 2005, EPACT 2005 (Pub.
L. 109–58) was signed into law by the
President. Section 136(b) of EPACT
2005 amended section 342(a) of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) by inserting energy
conservation standards for small
(≥65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h), large
(≥135,000 Btu/h to <240,000 Btu/h), and
very large (≥240,00 Btu/h to <760,000
A Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
Section 342(a)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(3)), and Standard 90.1–1999 set
forth energy efficiency standards for
PTACs and PTHPs (collectively referred
to as PTAC/HPs). The standards vary
based on the capacity of the equipment,
as set forth in Table II.1.
TABLE II.1.—COMPARISON OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PTACS AND PTHPS–EPCA AND ASHRAE 90.1–
1999
Efficiency levels
Category
ASHRAE 90.1–1999
EPCA
New construction
Packaged Terminal AC, Cooling Mode ...........................
Packaged Terminal HP, Cooling Mode ...........................
Packaged Terminal HP, Heating Mode ...........................
10.0¥(0.16 × EER) Cap/
1000) EER**.
10.0¥(0.16 × Cap/1000)
EER**.
1.3 + (0.16 × EER) COP†
Replacement*
12.5¥(0.213 × Cap/1000)
EER**.
12.3¥(0.213 × Cap/1000)
EER**.
3.2¥(0.026 × Cap/1000)
COP**††.
10.9¥(0.213 × Cap/1000)
EER**.
10.8¥(0.213 × Cap/1000)
EER**.
2.9¥(0.026 × Cap/1000)
COP**††.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
* Replacement efficiencies apply only to units (1) factory labeled as follows: ‘‘Manufactured for replacement applications only; Not to be installed in new construction projects’’; and (2) with existing sleeves less than 16 inches high and less than 42 inches wide.
** Cap means the rated cooling capacity of the equipment in Btu/h. If the unit’s capacity is less than 7,000 Btu/h, use 7,000 Btu/h in the calculation. If the unit’s capacity is greater than 15,000 Btu/h, use 15,000 Btu/h in the calculation.
† EER is the minimum cooling EER.
†† COP is minimum heating COP.
As shown in Table II.1, EPCA
prescribes a single formula for
computing the minimum cooling
efficiency of all PTAC/HPs, and a single
formula for computing the minimum
heating efficiency of all PTHPs. By
contrast, the minimum efficiency levels
in Standard 90.1–1999 consist of two
sets of formulas. One set is for PTAC/
HPs that have sleeves less than 16
inches high and less than 42 inches
wide and a specified label indicating
they are for replacement use, which
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
Standard 90.1–1999 classifies as
‘‘replacement’’ units. The other set is for
all other PTAC/HPs, which Standard
90.1–1999 classifies as ‘‘new
construction’’ units. The formulas result
in minimum efficiency levels slightly
higher than EPCA levels for
‘‘replacement’’ units, and substantially
higher for ‘‘new construction’’ units.
Standard 90.1–1999 also differs from
EPCA in that it has slightly different
formulas for the cooling modes of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PTACs and PTHPs, whereas EPCA
prescribes a single formula for both.
The screening analysis estimated the
potential energy savings from higher
standards for PTAC/HPs operating in
the cooling mode. The Department
subsequently used these energy savings
values in developing the summary chart
of potential energy savings in the
January 2001 final rule. 66 FR 3343. The
potential energy savings from DOE
adoption of a PTAC/HP standard at the
maximum NPV levels, over and above
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
savings that would be achieved by the
Standard 90.1–1999 levels, totaled 0.561
quads. 66 FR 3343. These values
represent the potential savings for all
packaged terminal equipment by
moving from the ASHRAE
‘‘replacement’’ efficiency level to the
maximum NPV efficiency level. The
Department now believes that these
savings are overstated because they
implicitly assume that DOE would
adopt only a single, minimum standard
equal to the ASHRAE ‘‘replacement’’
levels for all PTAC/HPs. Since the
Department used the ASHRAE
‘‘replacement’’ efficiency levels (the
lowest minimum levels ASHRAE
specified in Standard 90.1–1999 for
PTAC/HPs) and not the efficiency levels
actually prescribed in Standard 90.1–
1999 by product class (i.e., the
replacement levels and the much higher
new construction levels), these potential
energy savings are not entirely
representative of those that would result
from adoption of a higher standard. In
other words, the Department believes
that adjusting the base case would more
accurately reflect the potential energy
savings of adopting higher standards
than those contained in Standard 90.1–
1999.
In the TSD, the Department improved
its energy savings estimate for PTAC/
HPs by using both product class
efficiency levels contained in Standard
90.1. The Department used these levels
as a departure point for its revised
calculations, along with an estimate of
shipments as shown in Chapter 2,
Section 2, of the TSD. Consequently,
DOE assumed 85 percent of the
packaged terminal equipment sold
annually would be at the ‘‘new
construction’’ levels and 15 percent
would be at the ‘‘replacement’’ levels.
Using this assumption, the Department
estimated the revised potential coolingmode energy savings would be 0.103
quads if DOE adopted a standard above
Standard 90.1–1999, which is much
lower than the estimate of 0.561 in the
screening analysis as shown in Section
2.2 of the TSD. The difference in
potential energy savings between the
revised analysis and the screening
analysis can be attributed to using
different shipment assumptions, only
analyzing the space cooling load for the
lodging building category, changing the
analysis period to 2008–2030, and
calculating the savings based on market
weighted shipments as further
explained in Section 2.2 of the TSD. The
Department also estimated, in its
revised calculations, the potential
heating-mode energy savings of 0.037
quads that would result from a standard
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
above the levels in Standard 90.1–1999
as shown in Chapter 2 of the TSD. The
Department did not account for the
potential heating energy savings in the
Screening Analysis. Furthermore, the
new calculations indicate that the total
potential energy savings (both heating
mode and cooling mode) resulting from
adopting the Standard 90.1–1999
efficiency levels for the two product
classes (replacement and new
construction), when compared to the
current EPCA efficiency levels, would
be 0.499 quads. (In effect, much of the
energy savings that the screening
analysis attributed to moving from the
Standard 90.1–1999 levels to the
maximum NPV levels, is now attributed
in DOE’s revised estimate of moving
from the EPCA to the Standard 90.1–
1999 levels. This occurs because the
revised estimate uses as the Standard
90.1–1999 levels, the dual levels in
Standard 90.1–1999, whereas the
screening analysis used as the Standard
90.1–1999 levels only the relatively low
‘‘replacement’’ levels.)
Since the market has changed, in the
absence of Federal standards, to
efficiency levels at or above the levels
in Standard 90.1–1999 for PTACs and
PTHPs, the Department is inclined to
seek a more stringent standard level for
these products. An examination of the
January 2003 Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Directory
for PTAC/HPs reveals that 52 percent of
the listed PTACs are at, or above, the
Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency level for
new construction equipment, and 98
percent of the listed PTACs are at or
above the Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency
level for replacement equipment.
Furthermore, 72 percent of the listed
PTHPs are at or above the Standard
90.1–1999 efficiency level for new
construction equipment and 99 percent
of the listed PTHPs are at or above the
Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency level for
replacement equipment. Even though
the potential energy savings in the
revised analysis has been reduced, the
Department believes there is a
possibility of clear and convincing
evidence, which would warrant further
evaluation of more stringent standard
levels for PTACs and PTHPs. Therefore,
the Department is inclined to seek a
more stringent standard level than
Standard 90.1–1999 for PTACs and
PTHPs through the rulemaking process.
B. Small Commercial Packaged Boilers
EPCA prescribes a minimum
combustion efficiency of 80 percent for
gas-fired commercial packaged boilers
and 83 percent for oil-fired commercial
packaged boilers, regardless of capacity,
as detailed in Table I.2 in section I.B.1
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12639
of this document. Standard 90.1–1999
prescribes for small boilers (≤2.5 million
Btu/hr) thermal efficiency levels of 75
percent for gas-fired equipment and 78
percent for oil-fired equipment. In
January 2001, when it adopted as
Federal standards certain of the
efficiency levels in Standard 90.1–1999,
the Department stated that it would
evaluate whether standard levels higher
than those in Standard 90.1–1999 are
justified for small commercial packaged
boilers. 66 FR at 3336–38, 3349–52. The
Department has tentatively concluded
that the Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency
levels for small commercial packaged
boilers are lower than EPCA’s existing
standards for this equipment. Therefore,
the Department is inclined to reject the
Standard 90.1–1999 levels for small
commercial packaged boilers and leave
in place the existing EPCA standards.
The ‘‘combustion efficiency’’
descriptor used in EPCA for the
efficiency levels for small commercial
boilers differs from the ‘‘thermal
efficiency’’ descriptor used in Standard
90.1–1999. In general, the energy
efficiency of a product is a function of
the relationship between the product’s
output of services and its energy input.
A boiler’s output is measured in large
part by the energy content of its output
(steam or hot water). Consequently, its
efficiency is often viewed as the ratio
between its energy output and energy
input, with the energy output being
calculated as the energy input minus the
energy lost in producing the output. A
boiler’s energy losses consist of energy
that escapes through its flue (commonly
referred to as flue losses), and of energy
that escapes into the area surrounding
the boiler (commonly referred to as
jacket losses). The ‘‘combustion
efficiency’’ descriptor in EPCA takes
into account only flue losses, and
typically is defined as ‘‘100 percent
minus percent flue loss.’’ The ‘‘thermal
efficiency’’ descriptor in Standard 90.1–
1999 takes into account jacket losses as
well as flue losses, and can be
considered as combustion efficiency
minus jacket loss. Since all boilers will
have at least some jacket losses (even if
small) and because thermal efficiency
takes these losses into account, the
thermal efficiency for a particular boiler
will always be lower than its
combustion efficiency.
It is understood within the industry
that there is not a direct mathematical
correlation between these two measures
of efficiency. The factors that contribute
to jacket loss (e.g., the boiler’s design
and materials) have little or no direct
bearing on combustion efficiency. This
lack of correlation between combustion
efficiency and thermal efficiency
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
12640
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
presents some difficulties here. EPCA
provides that the Department may not
prescribe any amended standard that
‘‘increases the maximum allowable
energy use, or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency’’ of a product
covered under Section 342(a) of the
statute, such as packaged boilers. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). Therefore, in
evaluating whether to adopt Standard
90.1–1999’s thermal efficiency levels of
75 and 78 percent for small gas and oil
boilers, respectively, the Department
needed to determine whether they
decrease the 80 and 83 percent
combustion efficiencies required by
EPCA for these products. If the
percentages for the minimum thermal
efficiency levels specified by Standard
90.1–1999 were numerically at, or
above, the percentages in EPCA for the
corresponding combustion efficiency
levels, then clearly the Standard 90.1–
1999 levels would not be lower than the
EPCA levels. If Standard 90.1–1999’s
thermal efficiency levels for small
commercial boilers were only slightly
lower numerically than EPCA’s
combustion efficiency standards for
such equipment, the Standard 90–1–
1999 levels probably would also not
represent a reduction in minimum
efficiency levels. However, because the
Standard 90.1–1999 thermal efficiency
levels are five percentage points below
EPCA’s combustion efficiency levels,
DOE must address whether the
Department’s adoption of the Standard
90.1–1999 levels would represent a
reduction of existing standards.
To address this issue, the Department
reviewed the Institute of Boiler and
Radiation Manufacturers (I=B=R) ratings
directories for 2005. The I=B=R
directory provides efficiency ratings for
a majority of the commercial packaged
boilers manufactured in the United
States. For approximately 62.6 percent
of the boilers it listed in 2005, the
directory provided both the thermal
efficiency and combustion efficiency
levels. For a small portion of these
boilers (3.2 percent), the ratings appear
to be erroneous because the directory
lists a thermal efficiency rating that is
equal to or greater than its combustion
efficiency rating, which is physically
impossible.4 As explained above,
thermal efficiency includes the effects of
jacket losses whereas combustion
efficiency does not. Excluding these
boilers, the Department reviewed the
thermal and combustion efficiency
4 These anomalous ratings are likely due to
Hydronics Institutes’s (HI) de-rating procedures,
manufacturers’ interpolation of results, varying test
chambers and instrument calibration among
manufacturers, or submittal of erroneous ratings.
For more details, please see Chapter 3 of the TSD.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
ratings for the remaining 59.4 percent of
the boilers where both ratings are listed
in the 2005 I=B=R directory. Among this
equipment, small, gas-fired boilers and
small, oil-fired boilers had an average
thermal efficiency approximately 2.6
percent lower than their combustion
efficiency. For small, gas-fired boilers
with combustion efficiencies between
80 and 81 percent, the 2005 directory
showed an average thermal efficiency of
approximately 76.7 percent. For small,
oil-fired boilers with a combustion
efficiency between 83 and 84 percent,
the 2005 directory showed an average
thermal efficiency of approximately 81
percent. The Department believes it is
reasonable to assume that these
relationships between combustion and
thermal efficiency exist for small boilers
that have combustion efficiencies that
minimally comply with EPCA (80
percent and 83 percent for small gas and
oil boilers, respectively). Therefore,
minimally complying, small, gas-fired
boilers would have an average thermal
efficiency of about 76.8 percent, and
minimally complying, small, oil-fired
boilers would have an average thermal
efficiency of about 82.1 percent.
Standard 90.1–1999’s thermal
efficiencies of 75 percent for small, gasfired boilers and 78 percent for small,
oil-fired boilers are approximately 1.8
percent and 3.1 percent lower,
respectively, than the average thermal
efficiencies of boilers that minimally
comply with the EPCA energy efficiency
standards.
This analysis does not establish
directly that the small boiler efficiency
levels in Standard 90.1–1999 are lower
than those in EPCA. EPCA’s combustion
efficiency standards for this equipment
set maximum amounts of flue losses,
but do not regulate jacket losses. As
stated earlier, thermal efficiency is a
function of both flue losses (i.e.,
combustion efficiency) and jacket
losses. Since these two losses can be
independent of one another, in theory,
a small boiler could meet or exceed
EPCA’s applicable combustion
efficiency standard, but have
sufficiently large jacket losses that cause
the thermal efficiency to be lower than
the 75 percent (for small, gas-fired
boilers) or 78 percent (for small oil-fired
boilers) specified in Standard 90.1–
1999. Thus, DOE’s adoption of Standard
90.1–1999 thermal efficiency levels
would not directly decrease the
minimum combustion efficiencies
required in EPCA for small boilers.
However, the Department believes the
adoption of the Standard 90.1–1999
thermal efficiency levels for small
boilers would have the effect of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
lowering minimum combustion
efficiency levels required by EPCA by
allowing increased energy consumption.
At present, the thermal efficiency of a
small commercial boiler is a function of
(1) the manufacturer’s compliance with
the applicable EPCA combustion
efficiency standard and (2) decisions it
makes independent of EPCA concerning
the boiler’s design, materials, and other
features that affect jacket losses. For the
small boilers for which the I=B=R
directory lists both thermal and
combustion efficiencies, these decisions
by manufacturers have resulted in
production of (1) no gas-fired boiler
with a thermal efficiency below 75.4
percent, (2) gas boilers with a
combustion efficiency between 80 and
81 percent that have thermal efficiencies
averaging approximately 76.7 percent,
(3) no oil-fired boiler with a thermal
efficiency below 75.6, and (4) oil boilers
with a combustion efficiency between
83 and 84 percent that have thermal
efficiencies averaging approximately 81
percent. Although EPCA does not
regulate jacket losses, for both small,
gas- and oil-fired commercial packaged
boilers with relatively low combustion
efficiencies, manufacturers have
restricted jacket losses to levels that
have kept thermal efficiencies within an
average of 2.6 percentage points below
their combustion efficiencies. The
Department does not believe its
adoption of Standard 90.1–1999’s
thermal efficiency levels for small
commercial boilers would result in
manufacturers’ increasing the amount of
jacket losses for this equipment. No
reason is readily apparent as to why
manufacturers would alter their current
practices, and make equipment that has
greater jacket losses, even if mandatory
thermal efficiency levels were set below
the levels that equipment currently
achieves. However, setting thermal
efficiency standards at levels lower than
the thermal efficiencies of existing
equipment could result in equipment
with lower combustion efficiencies.
This allows for the possibility of
equipment having lower efficiencies
than permitted by EPCA, meaning that
the current minimum (required)
efficiency would be decreased.
For these reasons, it appears to the
Department that EPCA precludes it from
prescribing as amended Federal
standards the Standard 90.1–1999’s
thermal efficiency levels (one for gasfired and the other for oil-fired
equipment) for small commercial
packaged boilers, because each would
decrease the minimum required
efficiency of this equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
For small commercial gas-fired
boilers, the screening analysis estimated
that, in comparison with Standard 90.1–
1999’s minimum thermal efficiency
level of 75 percent, 0.2 quads of energy
would be saved by requiring a thermal
efficiency of at least 78.7 percent, the
standard level that corresponds to the
lowest average life-cycle cost and
highest NPV for this equipment as
shown in Chapter 3 of the TSD. The
estimate of 0.2 quads of energy savings
assumes that the thermal efficiency of
all small, gas-fired boilers shipped
would increase from the Standard 90.1–
1999 minimum of 75 percent to 78.7
percent. The Department’s review of the
I=B=R directories for 2005, however,
indicates that a number of small, gasfired commercial boilers with thermal
efficiencies above 75 percent are already
on the market. For example, among
small, gas-fired boilers for which the
directory included both thermal and
combustion efficiency ratings, the
lowest thermal efficiency is 75.4
percent, and the average thermal
efficiency is 79.7 percent. Thus, since
many small, gas-fired boilers are being
sold with thermal efficiencies greater
than 75 percent, less than 0.2 quads of
energy would be saved if DOE adopted
a standard of 78.7 percent thermal
efficiency instead of 75 percent. The
Department cannot estimate precisely
how much energy a new standard
would save, since it does not know the
quantities of boilers being sold at
particular efficiency levels. Clearly,
however, the savings would be less than
the potential savings shown in the
screening analysis.
For small, oil-fired commercial
boilers, the screening analysis did not
evaluate potential energy savings from a
Federal standard in excess of Standard
90.1–1999’s minimum thermal
efficiency level of 78 percent. As
explained in Chapter 3 of the TSD,
certain equipment (e.g., oil-fired
commercial boilers) was not specifically
analyzed because there was insufficient
data describing baseline energy
consumption, a small market for these
products, a lack of product shipment
data, or an absence of a suitable
methodology to distinguish its heating
function. However, the Department’s
review of the I=B=R directory for 2005
indicates that a number of small, oilfired commercial boilers already on the
market have thermal efficiencies above
78 percent. For small, oil-fired
commercial boilers, for which the
directory included both thermal and
combustion efficiency ratings, the
lowest thermal efficiency in 2005 is 75.6
percent and the average thermal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
efficiency is 82.3 percent. For models
with a combustion efficiency between
83 and 84 percent, which slightly
exceeds the EPCA standard, the average
thermal efficiency in 2005 was 81.0
percent. The screening analysis did not
evaluate small, oil-fired commercial
boilers, but the Department understands
that their market share is much smaller
than the market share for the small, gasfired commercial boilers. Consequently,
the Department believes that the
potential energy savings from a standard
higher than that specified in EPCA and
Standard 90.1–1999 is much smaller for
small, oil-fired commercial boilers than
the potential 0.2 quads of energy savings
for the small, gas-fired commercial
boilers.
Nonetheless, the Department believes
the thermal efficiency metric provides a
sound method for measuring the
efficiency of commercial boilers because
it is more inclusive and better reflects
the total energy losses in the equipment
than the combustion efficiency metric
prescribed by EPCA, and is more
consistent with the Act’s definition of
‘‘energy efficiency’’ for commercial
equipment.5 If ASHRAE were to adopt
for small boilers new thermal efficiency
levels that maintain or increase EPCA’s
existing standard levels, the Department
would give them careful consideration,
and would be favorably inclined toward
adopting levels, such as those indicated
in the screening analysis, that would
represent the lowest LCC and highest
NPV for this equipment. See Chapter 3
of the TSD. However, the Department
cannot adopt any amended thermal
efficiency standard for commercial
packaged boilers that would entail
lowering the minimum required
efficiency level for this equipment. The
Department is inclined to leave in place
the existing EPCA standards for the
small commercial packaged boilers.
C. Large Commercial Packaged Boilers
and Tankless, Gas-Fired Instantaneous
Water Heaters
EPCA specifies minimum energy
efficiency levels for certain categories of
commercial equipment including
tankless, gas-fired instantaneous water
heaters (IWHs) and large commercial
packaged boilers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(5)) These types of equipment are also
covered by ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1,
and the efficiency requirements in
EPCA correspond with the Standard
90.1 levels in effect on October 24, 1992.
5 For commercial equipment, ‘‘ ‘energy efficiency’
means the ratio of the useful output of services from
an article of industrial equipment to the energy use
by such article, determined in accordance with test
procedures under section 6314 of this title.’’ (42
U.S.C. 6311(3))
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12641
EPCA provides that, ‘‘If ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1, as in effect on October
24, 1992, is amended with respect to
any * * * packaged boilers, storage
water heaters, instantaneous water
heaters, or unfired hot water storage
tanks, the Secretary shall establish an
amended uniform national standard for
that product at the minimum level for
each effective date specified in the
amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1,
unless the Secretary determines, by rule
published in the Federal Register and
supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that adoption of a uniform
national standard more stringent than
such amended ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1 for such product would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A))
ASHRAE revised Standard 90.1 on
October 29, 1999. It changed Standard
90.1’s minimum efficiency levels for
some products but not for others. Of the
equipment for which if left levels at
their preexisting values, ASHRAE
evaluated whether to increase some of
the levels, while deferring consideration
of other levels. For tankless IWHs and
large, commercial packaged boilers,
ASHRAE left the pre-existing levels in
place after considering whether to
change them. Thus, Standard 90.1–1999
values for this equipment are the same
as the EPCA standards.
In response to ASHRAE’s actions, the
Department issued a notice of
preliminary screening analysis on
March 1, 2000. 65 FR 10984. In this
document the Department stated that it
expected to pursue, one of four courses
of action for each commercial
equipment category covered by
Standard 90.1–1999:
1. Adopt the Standard 90.1–1999
efficiency level as a uniform national
standard;
2. Reject the Standard 90.1–1999
efficiency level if it increases maximum
allowable energy use or decreases
minimum required efficiency;
3. Propose consideration of an
addendum to Standard 90.1–1999 if
ASHRAE did not consider a more
efficient level, and a more efficient level
appears warranted; or
4. Propose consideration of an
addendum to Standard 90.1–1999 and
undertake a more thorough evaluation
to determine whether a rulemaking is
justified, if ASHRAE considered
amending or amended the standard, and
a more efficient level appears warranted
than is contained in ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1–1999.
On May 15, 2000, the Department
issued a notice of document availability
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
12642
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
and public workshop announcing the
preliminary conclusions of the
screening analysis. 65 FR 30934. The
Department announced in this notice its
inclination to propose that ASHRAE
consider an addendum to Standard
90.1–1999, based on the screening
analysis, and to undertake a more
thorough evaluation to determine
whether a rulemaking was justified
under the terms of EPCA. On January
12, 2001, the Department published a
final rule adopting Standard 90.1–1999
standard levels for certain commercial
equipment, and stated it was
considering whether more stringent
standards are justified for other
equipment, including IWHs and large
commercial packaged boilers. 66 FR
3336.
In these three notices, the Department
indicated its belief that it had the
authority to consider more stringent
standard levels for tankless IWHs and
large, commercial packaged boilers
because ASHRAE had considered
adopting more stringent levels for these
types of equipment, even though
ASHRAE had not changed the Standard
90.1 levels for such equipment. The
Department did not receive any
comments in response to either the May
15, 2000, notice or the January 12, 2001,
final rule concerning its view that it had
this authority. However, in preparing
today’s notice, DOE reexamined its
authority under EPCA to amend
standards for tankless IWHs and large
commercial boilers and has concluded
its earlier view was in error. As quoted
at greater length above, EPCA states
that, if an efficiency level in Standard
90.1 ‘‘is amended,’’ then DOE may
(under certain circumstances) adopt a
standard more stringent than the
‘‘amended’’ level in Standard 90.1. The
Department now believes that this
language authorizes it to adopt a more
stringent standard than the level(s) in
Standard 90.1 only in response to a
change in such level(s) by ASHRAE.
Thus, DOE believes ASHRAE must
change the Standard 90.1 efficiency
level(s) for a type of equipment to
trigger DOE authority to pursue a
rulemaking to consider more stringent
standards for that equipment. Since
ASHRAE did not change the existing
efficiency levels in Standard 90.1 for
tankless, gas-fired IWHs and large
commercial packaged boilers when it
adopted Standard 90.1–1999, the
adoption of Standard 90.1–1999 appears
not to authorize DOE to pursue higher
standards for these types of equipment.
The Department now believes that
ASHRAE must, instead, take further
action and adopt new standard levels
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
for such equipment in order for DOE to
consider more stringent levels for these
products. In consideration of the above,
if ASHRAE considers an addendum to
Standard 90.1 for these products, DOE
will encourage it to consider the details
of the screening analysis.
D. Three-Phase Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
Energy-efficiency levels for singlepackage three-phase ACs and HPs
<65,000 Btu/h are set forth in EPCA at
a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER)
level of 9.7 for cooling (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(1)(B)) and a heating seasonal
performance factor (HSPF) level of 6.6
for heating (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(E)) (see
Table II.2). Energy-efficiency levels for
split-system three-phase HPs <65,000
Btu/h are 10.0 SEER for cooling (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(A)) and 6.8 HSPF for
heating (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(D)). These
efficiency levels are the same as those
in Standard 90.1–1989. During the
development of Standard 90.1–1999,
ASHRAE explicitly chose not to revise
standards for air-cooled three-phase ACs
and HPs <65,000 Btu/h. This decision
was based on the close relationship the
design of this equipment has to
residential, single-phase air-cooled ACs
and HPs <65,000 Btu/h, whose
efficiency is regulated under section 325
of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295), and which at
that time were the subject of a pending
DOE rulemaking for the development of
new efficiency standards.6
Subsequently, in the January 12, 2001,
final rule (66 FR 3336), DOE indicated
that it would take no action on threephase ACs and HPs since ASHRAE took
no action. As a result, the EPCA energyefficiency levels for this equipment
remained unchanged.
On January 22, 2001, the Department
published a final rule setting a 13 SEER
and 7.7 HSPF standard for residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps,
both single-package and split-system
(the ‘‘13 SEER rule’’). 66 FR 71799. ARI
requested judicial review of this rule by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit. Subsequently, on May 23, 2002,
DOE withdrew the 13 SEER rule, and set
the efficiency standards for residential,
single-phase air-cooled air conditioners
and heat pumps at a SEER rating of 12.0
and an HSPF rating of 7.4 (the ‘‘12 SEER
rule’’). 67 FR 36368. In June of 2002,
ARI proposed to ASHRAE an addendum
to Standard 90.1, Addendum i to
Standard 90.1–2001, which contained
minimum efficiency levels of 12 SEER/
7.4 HSPF for the three-phase
6 Addendum i to American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–
2001, Pg.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
commercial air-conditioning equipment
<65,000 Btu/h, and an effective date in
2006. ASHRAE adopted Addendum i on
July 3, 2003, to align the efficiency
standards for this equipment with
DOE’s standards for residential central
air conditioners and heat pumps
<65,000 Btu/h. ANSI approved
Addendum i on August 6, 2003.
In the meantime, the Natural
Resources Defense Council had
requested judicial review of the 12 SEER
rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
2nd Circuit. Natural Resources Defense
Council, et al. v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179
(2nd Cir. 2004). On January 13, 2004,
the court ruled that DOE, in adopting
the 12 SEER rule, had failed to effect a
valid amendment of the original
standard (13 SEER) effective date, and
was prohibited from amending these
standards downward. 355 F.3d 179.
Shortly after this ruling, ARI withdrew
its appeal of the 13 SEER rule. On
August 17, 2004, DOE published a
technical amendment in the Federal
Register to re-publish the 13 SEER
standard for residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps. 69 FR
50997.
Nevertheless, even though the 13
SEER standard now clearly applies to
residential ACs and HPs <65,000 Btu/h,
for three-phase equipment of this type
the 12 SEER efficiency level in
Addendum i to Standard 90.1–2001
requires action. EPCA states that DOE
must adopt as a Federal standard any
efficiency level specified in an
amendment to Standard 90.1 unless it
shows through clear and convincing
evidence that a more stringent standard,
that is technologically feasible and
economically justified, would produce
significant additional energy savings.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) EPCA also bars
DOE from adopting any standard that
would increase the maximum allowable
energy use or decrease the minimum
required efficiency for a product. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)) Therefore, at
this point, EPCA requires that DOE
either adopt the efficiency levels in
Addendum i to Standard 90.1–2001, to
increase the minimum energy efficiency
level for three-phase air-conditioning
units from the 10 SEER level established
by EPCA to a 12 SEER level, or pursue
a rulemaking to explore adoption of a
higher-energy efficiency level.
ASHRAE is now considering,
however, adoption of the 13 SEER level
for this equipment. Specifically, under
its process for continuous maintenance
of Standard 90.1, ASHRAE has
completed public review of a proposed
addendum to Standard 90.1 (Addendum
f to Standard 90.1–2004) that would
incorporate 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
12643
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
levels for three-phase ACs and HPs
<65,000 Btu/h. Under ASHRAE’s
process, if the ASHRAE Standards
Committee and ASHRAE Board approve
this addendum during the 2006
ASHRAE winter meeting, it would then
go to ANSI for approval, and its official
adoption and publication would likely
occur in the spring of 2006. Table II.2
summarizes the minimum energyefficiency standards for three-phase airconditioning units and heat pumps
<65,000 Btu/h as specified by EPCA,
Standard 90.1–1999, Addendum i to
Standard 90.1–2001, and Addendum f
to Standard 90.1–2004.
TABLE II.2.—COMPARISON OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR THREE-PHASE ACS AND HPS
Efficiency levels (SEER and HSPF)
EPCA
Category
Cooling
(SEER)
3-Phase Single-Package
AC .................................
3-Phase Single-Package
HP .................................
3-Phase Split-System AC
3-Phase Split-System HP
Heating
(HSPF)
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Heating
(HSPF)
Cooling
(SEER)
Heating
(HSPF)
Cooling
(SEER)
Heating
(HSPF)
NA
9.7
NA
12.0
NA
13.0
NA
9.7
10.0
10.0
6.6
NA
6.8
9.7
10.0
10.0
6.6
NA
6.8
12.0
12.0
12.0
7.4
NA
7.4
13.0
13.0
13.0
7.7
NA
7.7
E. Single-Package Vertical Air
Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
1. Background
In 2002, ASHRAE approved
Addendum d to Standard 90.1–2001.
Addendum d originated as an ARI
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Cooling
(SEER)
Addendum f to standard
90.1–2004
9.7
At this time the Department has
decided to postpone action on
ASHRAE’s Addendum i to Standard
90.1–2001 because the Addendum f to
Standard 90.1–2004 is currently
pending before ASHRAE and its
adoption by ASHRAE would supercede
Addendum i. The Department intends
to take action once ASHRAE has
completed consideration of Addendum
f. If ASHRAE approves this addendum,
DOE anticipates that it will adopt as
Federal standards the efficiency levels
in the addendum (13 SEER/7.7 HSPF).
The Department is following this
approach largely to achieve the original
intent of ASHRAE and DOE to align the
energy-efficiency standards for the
three-phase equipment with the
standards for residential, single-phase,
air-cooled ACs and HPs that currently
have to meet a 13 SEER/7.7 HSPF
federal energy efficiency standard as of
January 23, 2006. In addition, the
screening analysis estimated that 12
SEER was the efficiency level for threephase ACs and HPs <65,000 Btu/h
where the lowest LCC occurs. 65 FR
30929. Therefore, the Department
considers it unlikely that clear and
convincing evidence exists, as required
by EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A), that a
standard higher than the 13 SEER level
in Addendum f would save significant
additional amounts of energy, and also
be economically justified and
technologically feasible.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Addendum i to standard
90.1–2001
Standard 90.1–1999
Jkt 208001
continuous-maintenance proposal to
ASHRAE, and was intended to establish
SPVACs and SPVHPs as new categories
of commercial HVAC equipment. It
specified ARI Standard 390–2001 as the
test procedure for SPVU products and
provided minimum efficiency levels
specifically for this equipment.7 Prior to
ASHRAE’s approval of Addendum d,
DOE had indicated that SPVUs were
covered by EPCA as commercial
equipment. 65 FR 59589, 59610
(October 5, 2000). Therefore, under
EPCA, publication of Addendum d
triggered a review by DOE to determine
if it should adopt as Federal
requirements the addendum’s
amendments to Standard 90.1. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6))
The Department examined
Addendum d and determined that it
could not adopt as Federal requirements
the standards and test procedures in the
addendum for the following reasons: (1)
Taking into account the ‘‘Exclusions’’ in
the Scope section of ARI Standard 390–
2001, the Addendum appears to
prescribe requirements for few if any of
the products covered by EPCA. Neither
Addendum d nor any other provision of
Standard 90.1 defines or describes
SPVUs; (2) Assuming Addendum d did
prescribe standards and test procedures
for SPVUs covered by EPCA, the
addendum did not clearly delineate
SPVUs according to the statutory
scheme set forth in EPCA, and
disregarded EPCA’s definitions and
classifications for commercial airconditioning equipment; and (3) To the
extent it addressed equipment covered
by EPCA, the addendum appeared to
7 Air-Conditioning
and Refrigeration Institute,
Performance Rating of Single-Package Vertical AirConditioners and Heat Pumps—Standard 390, 2001.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
contain efficiency levels for some
categories of equipment that are lower
than the minimum efficiency standards
currently required under EPCA (DOE,
No. 7 at pp. 1–7).
In response to DOE’s objections, ARI
revised ARI Standard 390 and prepared
and submitted to ASHRAE a new
continuous-maintenance proposal to
correct the deficiencies DOE had
identified in Addendum d. ARI
developed these documents in
consultation with DOE. ASHRAE
accepted the continuous-maintenance
proposal, and largely incorporated its
contents into proposed Addendum b to
Standard 90.1–2004.8 At this point,
ASHRAE has completed its public
review process of Addendum b and is
in the final stages of considering
whether to approve the addendum. The
Department’s understanding, based on
discussions with ASHRAE staff, is that
ASHRAE could approve Addendum b as
an amendment to Standard 90.1 as early
as the end of 2005.
In Addendum b, ARI redefined both
SPVACs and SPVHPs as encased aircooled small or large commercial
package air-conditioning and heating
equipment. Additionally, it created
SPVU categories corresponding to the
equipment categories in EPCA. As a
result of revisions made to ARI Standard
390, any standards and test procedures
ASHRAE prescribed for SPVU
equipment would apply to equipment
covered by EPCA, and not overlap with
EPCA definitions of PTACs and PTHPs.
To correct the efficiency level, ARI
proposed a revised set of standards for
8 Public Review Draft of Proposed Addendum b
to Standard 90.1–2004, Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,
Nov. 2004.
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
12644
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
three categories of equipment size:
<65,000 Btu/h, ≥65,000 but <135,000
Btu/h, and ≥135,000 but <240,000 Btu/
h. These revised standards utilized
energy efficiency ratio (EER) and
coefficient of performance (COP)
descriptors to provide SPVU efficiency
levels in a manner consistent with other
commercial equipment, eliminating the
use of the common residential central
ACs and HPs descriptors of SEER and
HSPF for SPVUs.
The Department responded favorably
to a majority of ARI’s revisions, but
continued to voice concern regarding
the test procedures and minimum
efficiency standards proposed for
SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h (DOE, No. 11 at
pp. 1–6). The SEER/HSPF metrics
include additional performance factors
such as the changes in performance
associated with changes in various
ambient conditions and cycling losses.
Consequently, the SEER/HSPF metrics
require more complicated test
procedures than the EER/COP metrics
and could potentially allow equipment
rated with only the EER/COP metrics to
be less efficient. Despite these
differences, DOE agreed that ARI’s EER
standards provided roughly the same
level of efficiency as the SEER standards
for existing equipment (DOE, No. 11 at
pp. 1–6). The Department’s main
concern revolved around ARI’s COP
level for three-phase SPVUs below
65,000 Btu/h. The Department
recognized that one of the factors absent
from the COP metric was an assessment
of the energy used to provide electric
resistance backup heat. Electric
resistance backup heat is needed to
meet the heating load at low
temperatures and provides space
heating during periods when the heat
pump acts to defrost the outdoor coil.
This would potentially allow a SPVHP
subject to the ARI COP standard to have
a lower overall efficiency (net space
heating output over electrical input)
than is currently required.
The Department provided a single
comment to ASHRAE during the public
review on Addendum b to Standard
90.1–2004, indicating that, while
Addendum b addressed many of the
issues the Department had identified,
the Department continued to have
concerns regarding the change in
descriptors from SEER to EER and HSPF
to COP (DOE, No. 16 at pp. 1–2).
Even though Addendum b contained
recommended efficiency levels for
SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h, EPACT 2005
supercedes Addendum b requirements
for these products. The signing of
EPACT 2005 by the President divided
SPVUs into two categories: those
products with capacities <65,000 Btu/h
and those products with capacities
≥65,000 Btu/h but <760,000 Btu/h. The
Department will continue its evaluation
of products with capacities <65,000 Btu/
h, which are the subject of this notice.
However, the SPVUs with capacities
≥65,000 Btu/h but <760,000 Btu/h are
covered under the standards specified
by EPACT 2005 and are not included in
today’s notice.
2. Analysis of Proposed Efficiency
Levels
Table II.3 shows the existing and
proposed efficiency levels for SPVAC
and SPVHP equipment. The statute
requires that the Secretary may not
prescribe any amended standard which
increases maximum allowable energy
use, or decreases the minimum required
energy efficiency, of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)) The
Department has therefore reviewed the
ARI data for SPVAC and SPVHP with
cooling capacity <65,000 Btu/h and
believes that the EER levels provided in
Addendum b are equivalent to or higher
than the current SEER efficiencies in
EPCA (ARI, No. 9 at pp. 1–4 and 10–26).
TABLE II.3.—EXISTING AND PROPOSED EFFICIENCY STANDARD LEVELS FOR SPVAC AND SPVHP WITH COOLING
CAPACITY <65 KBTU/H
EPCA
Addendum d to standard
90.1–2001
None ..................................
9.7 SEER ...........................
None ..................................
8.9 EER .............................
9.0 EER.
9.0 EER.
None ..................................
9.7 SEER ...........................
None ..................................
8.9 EER .............................
9.0 EER.
9.0 EER.
None ..................................
6.6 HSPF ...........................
None ..................................
2.7 COP .............................
3.0 COP.
3.0 COP.
Category
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
SPVAC (Cooling):
Single Phase ............................................................
Three Phase .............................................................
SPVHP (Cooling):
Single Phase ............................................................
Three Phase .............................................................
SPVHP (Heating):
Single Phase ............................................................
Three Phase .............................................................
The Department examined existing
efficiency data for SPVAC equipment
with cooling capacity <65,000 Btu/hr
where the SEER rating was used (ARI,
No. 9 at pp. 1–4, 24, and 25). It
identified only one minimally
compliant (9.7 SEER) product. However,
DOE examined 11 near-minimally
compliant models at the next highest
efficiency level, 10 SEER. From this
analysis, the Department determined the
average EER rating was 0.8 points below
the SEER ratings for this near-minimally
compliant equipment. Thus, DOE
believes that an EER rating of 8.9, 0.8
points below the minimum SEER rating
of 9.7 that EPCA currently requires for
three-phase SPVUs with cooling
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
capacity <65,000 Btu/h, is equivalent to
that minimum rating.
As discussed in Chapter 5 of the TSD,
the Department also carried out a
separate analysis of the ratio between
EER and SEER minimally compliant
equipment, and the results were similar.
Both the differential analysis and the
ratio analysis reinforce the conclusion
that a 9.7 SEER efficiency level is
equivalent to an 8.9 EER level for
SPVACs with cooling capacity <65,000
Btu/h. The Department believes,
therefore, that the proposed 9.0 EER
level in Addendum b exceeds the
existing EPCA levels.
DOE identified no minimally
compliant (9.7 SEER) SPVHP equipment
with a cooling capacity <65,000 Btu/h.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Addendum b to standard
90.1–2004
However, DOE identified 14 nearminimally compliant models at 10.0
SEER. The average EER for this
equipment was 9.1, 0.9 points below the
SEER ratings for the equipment as
detailed in Chapter 5 of the TSD. Thus,
an EER rating of 8.8, 0.9 below the
EPCA minimum of 9.7 SEER for this
equipment, appears to be equivalent to
that minimum rating. The proposed
level of 9.0 EER in ASHRAE’s
Addendum b is clearly above this.
The Department’s analysis of HSPF
data for SPVHP equipment with cooling
capacity <65,000 Btu/h indicated that
there were 26 products on the market
with a minimally compliant HSPF of 6.6
as shown in Chapter 5 of the TSD. The
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
minimum COP for these products was
2.7 and the average COP was 2.9. The
Department believes that there is a
remaining issue concerning the COP
metric, but also believes that there are
reasons to suggest this issue may be
outweighed by the adoption of the 3.0
COP efficiency level proposed in
Addendum b, as detailed below and in
Chapter 5 of the TSD.
3. Standard 90.1–2004 Addendum b
For SPVHP efficiencies, Addendum b
still does not address DOE’s remaining
concern about the inability of the COP
metric to account for backup electric
heating and the energy used during the
defrost cycle. The single, hightemperature COP rating at 47 °F is less
comprehensive than the HSPF metric.
COP does not provide an indication of
the efficiency of operation at low
temperatures (e.g., like the 17 °F COP
that is used in the HSPF test procedure)
and does not include electric resistance
energy use. Electric resistance heating
energy is used to augment the heat
pump output during periods when the
space heating load exceeds the ability of
the heat pump compressor to provide
heat during reverse-cycle operation.
Electric resistance heating energy is also
used to provide continued space heating
to the building when the heat pump is
in its defrost mode.
The HSPF test procedure provides a
standard methodology for estimating the
energy consumption for electric
resistance heat. In practice, the electric
resistance heat can use a significant
portion of the total energy consumption
of a heat pump. However, the amount of
energy used by electric resistance heat
is a function of the heating space load,
the installed capacity of the heat pump,
and the relative heating capacity at
different outside air conditions. The
heating space load and equipment
sizing are effectively defined for the
HSPF test conditions, making the
electric backup estimate a function of
the capacity at low temperature relative
to nominal capacity. Changes in this
ratio are reflected in the HSPF test
procedure and rating, but not in the
COP rating.
Another concern is that the estimated
backup heat calculated and included in
the HSPF metric was developed
assuming a typical residential heat
pump application. However,
commercial building operations are
often substantially different from
residential building operations. A
common application of an SPVHP is in
a modular school classroom (similar to
a manufactured home in construction,
but with a different occupancy and use).
In that application, the heat pump is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
typically scheduled to be off during the
building’s unoccupied hours or is left in
a setback mode of operation similar to
that in a residential home during early
morning hours. During the daytime,
occupied period of the modular school
classroom, the space is actively
ventilated (increasing the heating load)
and subject to increased internal gains
(decreasing the heating load) as
compared to the space in a residence.
Since the heating load profiles used in
the HSPF calculations are more
representative of residential
applications, these heating load profiles
are not reflective of typical SPVHP
applications.
Furthermore, the accuracy of the
HSPF metric in measuring the energy
consumption of equipment in
commercial applications is a concern
because the method used in sizing the
SPVHP for commercial applications is
significantly different than the method
for residential applications. The amount
of backup electric resistance heat
provided to the conditioned space is a
function of the reverse-cycle heating
capacity of the heat pump (relative to
the space load) at different operating
temperatures. The reverse-cycle heating
capacity of a heat pump is strongly
correlated with the cooling capacity of
the heat pump. However, in a
commercial application, the internal
thermal loads and ventilation loads
during the day make sizing a heat pump
for cooling a given area of floor space
significantly different compared to a
residential application. Furthermore,
the ratio of cooling capacity to heating
capacity from a properly sized unit in a
commercial application can be quite
different than that in a residential
application.
While the Department mentions these
issues as concerns, there are also
reasons to believe that they may be
outweighed by the adoption of the 3.0
COP being proposed by ARI for SPVHP
equipment <65,000 Btu/h. With regard
to the operation of defrost mode, there
is no evidence to suggest that, in
comparison with the operation of
existing baseline equipment, the energy
consumed by equipment that complies
with ARI’s proposal during defrost
operation would be substantially
greater. Manufacturers have designed
and adopted standard defrost strategies,
and there is no evidence that they
would adopt less efficient defrost
strategies in the future under ARI’s
proposal. Therefore, the Department
does not believe there will be an
increase in energy consumption from
the impact of these strategies not being
accounted for in the COP test procedure.
See Chapter 5 of the TSD for more
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12645
details. Therefore, the Department
believes the 3.0 COP being proposed by
ARI for SPVHP equipment <65,000 Btu/
h does not constitute a lowering of the
standard nor does it allow an increase
in energy consumption.
With regard to backup electric
resistance heating in current equipment,
the control of backup resistance heat is
primarily a function of the thermostat
control design for the conditioned
space. Sometimes the amount of backup
electric heat is not controlled by the
heat pump itself, but by the wiring of
the thermostat. In practical application,
it is possible to wire a thermostat to the
heat pump controller on most heat
pumps such that the ‘‘backup’’ heat
operates as a primary heat source or in
parallel with the reverse-cycle heating at
all times. While the previous scenario is
possible, in most, typical applications, a
two-stage heating thermostat is used,
where the second stage, controlling the
electric resistance heating, does not
engage if the heat pump capacity is
sufficient to meet the space load. The
HSPF metric, as measured using the
DOE test procedure does not measure
backup heat, but estimates it based on
a theoretically calculated residential
space heating load and assumes that
such heating only augments the reversecycle heating. In light of the reasons
above, the Department believes that
COP is a more appropriate metric for
SPVHPs.
The Department notes that the final
definitions for SPVHP in Addendum b
of Standard 90.1–2004 did not precisely
match the referenced test procedure
(ARI Standard 390–2003) included in
that addendum.9 The definitions section
of Addendum b defined a SPVHP as ‘‘a
single-package vertical air conditioner
capable of using the refrigeration system
in a reverse cycle or heat pump mode
to provide heat.’’ Section 3 of ARI
Standard 390–2003 defined a SPVHP as
a ‘‘SPVAC that utilizes reverse cycle
refrigeration as its primary heat source,
with secondary supplemental heating by
means of electrical resistance, steam,
hot water or gas.’’ While the Addendum
b definition does not make it clear that
reverse-cycle refrigeration is the primary
heat source, DOE believes this is
necessary in order to maintain the
efficiency of these products. However,
as the referenced test procedure requires
a SPVHP to use reverse-cycle
refrigeration as the primary heat source
(and as section 6.4.3.4 of Standard 90.1–
2004 effectively provides for this by not
allowing the use of supplemental
9 Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute,
Performance Rating of Single-Package Vertical AirConditioners and Heat Pumps—Standard 390, 2003.
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
12646
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
electric resistance heaters for these
products when the heat pump alone can
meet the load), DOE considers the
definition in the ARI Standard 390 test
procedure as the operative definition for
this rulemaking.
The Department also notes that
current model building codes used in
the United States (Standard 90.1–1999
and later versions as well as the
International Energy Conservation
Code), contain language that requires
heat pumps to have controls that
prevent the use of supplementary
resistance heating (except during defrost
cycles). Standard 90.1–1999 allows an
exception to this requirement for
equipment where the rating includes
resistance heat in the product’s overall
efficiency rating (such as HSPF). The
Department does not see evidence of a
market for commercial heat pump
equipment designed to utilize electric
resistance heat in parallel with reversecycle heating.
4. Potential Energy Savings and
Conclusions
Even though SPVUs were not part of
the original screening analysis, the
Department examined the potential
energy savings for efficiency levels
higher than those in Addendum b to
Standard 90.1–4 for SPVU equipment.
The Department developed an estimate
of the unit energy savings for SPVUs
based on the analysis of energy
consumption performed for the
commercial unitary air-conditioning
equipment. The Department
approximated the load patterns by
assuming SPVUs are used solely in
education building applications (e.g.,
mobile classrooms) and the relative
operating hours of a fan and condenser
in an SPVU are similar to a commercial
unitary air conditioner used for the
same application. However, the
Department also recognizes that the fan
in an SPVU is smaller than the typical
fan in a rooftop unit on a horsepowerper-ton-cooling-capacity basis. To
account for these differences, the
Department approximated the fan power
consumption for a baseline SPVU by
assuming a one-third horsepower
blower and a 65 percent motor
efficiency, which in turn corresponds to
a power draw of 0.38 kW. After
accounting for the change in fan energy
consumption, DOE estimated the
resulting total cooling and fan energy
consumption for SPVUs used in mobile
classroom buildings in terms of annual
kWh/ton at each EER level analyzed.
The Department based the calculation
of national energy consumption for a
standard level on the annual energy
consumption for all the products
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
shipped for each year being studied.
The number of shipments was based on
data collected by the Department in
2005 from ARI. The resulting cooling
and fan energy consumption estimates
for all SPVACs and SPVHPs for the
study period from 2010 to 2037 are
displayed in Chapter 5 of the TSD.
Chapter 5 of the TSD also provides
details of the potential energy savings
estimates. The Department estimates the
potential energy savings in going from a
minimum standard of 9.0 EER to a 10.9
EER standard to be 0.161 quads for
cooling and fan energy consumption.
The Department did not make a
separate, detailed calculation for the
potential energy savings from improving
heating COP for SPVHP products. The
Department expects the additional
potential energy savings for heat pumps
would be unlikely to increase the energy
savings estimate shown above by more
than 20 percent, due to the relatively
small market volume for SPVHP
equipment (31 percent of total
shipments of SPVUs) and smaller
potential improvement in heating COP
compared with cooling EER.
As stated previously, the Department
recognizes there is work being done by
ASHRAE to finalize Addendum b to
Standard 90.1–2004. The Department
has determined that it is not able to take
action on Addendum b to Standard
90.1–2004 for SPVAC and SPVHP
equipment <65,000 Btu/h and has
deferred a decision at this time.
However, the Department invites
stakeholder comments on the potential
energy savings estimates for SPVU
products <65,000 Btu/h. In addition, the
Department also invites comments on
the appropriateness of the efficiency
levels for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h
contained in Addendum b of Standard
90.1–2004 for adoption by the
Department as federal standards.
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
The Department will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this notice no later than the
date provided at the beginning of the
notice. Please submit comments, data,
and information electronically. Send
them to the following e-mail address:
Brenda.Edwards-Jones@ee.doe.gov.
Submit electronic comments in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or
text (ASCII) file format and avoid the
use of special characters or any form of
encryption. Comments in electronic
format should be identified by the
docket numbers EE–RM/STD–03–100,
EE–RM/STD–03–200, and EE–RM/STD–
03–300, and/or RIN numbers 1904–
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
AB16, 1904–AB17, and 1904–AB44 and
wherever possible carry the electronic
signature of the author. Absent an
electronic signature, comments
submitted electronically must be
followed and authenticated by
submitting the signed original paper
document. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will
be accepted.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit two copies: One copy of
the document including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document with the
information believed to be confidential
deleted. The Department of Energy will
make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
Factors of interest to the Department
when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential
include: (1) A description of the items;
(2) whether and why such items are
customarily treated as confidential
within the industry; (3) whether the
information is generally known by or
available from other sources; (4)
whether the information has previously
been made available to others without
obligation concerning its
confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting
person which would result from public
disclosure; (6) when such information
might lose its confidential character due
to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be
contrary to the public interest.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
The Department is interested in
receiving comments on all aspects of
this notice. The Department especially
invites comments and views of
interested parties concerning (1) the
analysis contained in the TSD
announced in this notice and (2) any
information or evidence as to the
suitability for adoption as Federal
standards the pending amendments to
Standard 90.1 as discussed above for
SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h and three-phase
Acs and HPs <65,000 Btu/h. For
example, comments might include
additional evidence, not discussed in
the TSD or above, bearing on whether
uniform national standards more
stringent than the ones in the Standard
90.1 amendments for this equipment
would be technologically feasible and
economically justified, would result in
significant energy conservation, or
would be likely to result in the
unavailability of products with
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
characteristics substantially the same as
those generally available in the United
States now. The Department also seeks
comments on its initial conclusions for
small commercial packaged boilers and
PTACs and PTHPs. Finally, the
Department seeks specific comments on
the potential energy savings analysis
presented for SPVUs<65,000 Btu/h.
After the period for written comments,
the Department will consider the views
submitted.
IV. Approval by the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 7,
2006.
Douglas L. Faulkner,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 06–2381 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2006–23710; Airspace
Docket No. 06–AAL–03]
Proposed Revision of Class E
Airspace; Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr.
Memorial, AK
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise
Class E airspace at Atqasuk Edward
Burnell Sr. Memorial Airport, AK.,
referred to as Atqasuk Airport. Four
Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAPs) are being revised for
the Atqasuk Airport. Adoption of this
proposal would result in establishment
of Class E airspace upward from 1,200
feet (ft.) above the surface at Atqasuk,
AK.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 27, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the
proposal to the Docket Management
System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590–0001. You must identify the
docket number FAA–2006–23710/
Airspace Docket No. 06–AAL–03, at the
beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments on the Internet at
https://dms.dot.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal,
any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
1–800–647–5527) is on the plaza level
of the Department of Transportation
NASSIF Building at the above address.
An informal docket may also be
examined during normal business hours
at the office of the Manager, Safety,
Alaska Flight Service Operations,
Federal Aviation Administration, 222
West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage,
AK 99513–7587.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary
Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration,
222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; telephone
number (907) 271–5898; fax: (907) 271–
2850; e-mail: gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.
Internet address: https://
www.alaska.faa.gov/at.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to
participate in this proposed rulemaking
by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis
supporting the views and suggestions
presented are particularly helpful in
developing reasoned regulatory
decisions on the proposal. Comments
are specifically invited on the overall
regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related
aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both
docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this notice must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to
Docket No. FAA–2006–23710/Airspace
Docket No. 06–AAL–03.’’ The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned
to the commenter.
All communications received on or
before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before
taking action on the proposed rule. The
proposal contained in this notice may
be changed in light of comments
received. All comments submitted will
be available for examination in the
public docket both before and after the
closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned
with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of Notice of Proposed
Rulemakings (NPRMs)
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12647
Internet at https://dms.dot.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA’s Web
page at https://www.faa.gov or the
Superintendent of Document’s Web
page at https://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Additionally, any person may obtain
a copy of this notice by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Air Traffic
Airspace Management, ATA–400, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling
(202) 267–8783. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this
notice. Persons interested in being
placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM’s should contact the FAA’s
Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677,
to request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an
amendment to the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which
would create additional Class E airspace
at Atqasuk, AK. The intended effect of
this proposal is to create Class E
airspace upward from 1,200 ft. above
the surface to contain Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at Atqasuk, AK.
The FAA Instrument Flight
Procedures Production and
Maintenance Branch has amended four
SIAPs for the Atqasuk Airport. The
approaches are (1) Non Directional
Beacon (NDB) Runway (RWY) 06,
Amendment (Amdt) 1; (2) NDB RWY 24,
Amdt 1; (3) Area Navigation (Global
Positioning System) (RNAV (GPS)) RWY
06, Amdt 1; and (4) RNAV (GPS) RWY
24, Amdt 1. New Class E controlled
airspace extending upward from 1,200
ft. above the surface within the Atqasuk
Airport area would be established by
this action. The existing 700 ft. Class E5
airspace remains unchanged. The 1,200
ft. airspace is required as a result of two
approaches becoming Terminal Arrival
Area (TAA) procedures. These
procedures require more than the
typical amount of controlled airspace
near the associated airport. The
proposed airspace is sufficient in size to
contain aircraft executing instrument
procedures at the Atqasuk Airport.
The area would be depicted on
aeronautical charts for pilot reference.
The coordinates for this airspace docket
are based on North American Datum 83.
The Class E airspace areas designated as
700/1200 foot transition areas are
published in paragraph 6005 in FAA
Order 7400.9N, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated September
1, 2005, and effective September 15,
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12634-12647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2381]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12634]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Nos. EE-RM/STD-03-100, EE-RM/STD-03-200, and EE-RM/STD-03-300]
RIN Nos. 1904-AB16, 1904-AB17, and 1904-AB44
Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating, Air-
Conditioning and Water Heating Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of document availability and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended,
establishes energy efficiency standards for various commercial
equipment. The Department of Energy (the Department or DOE) is
assessing whether to adopt, as uniform national standards, efficiency
standards contained in amendments to the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) and
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1
for certain types of commercial equipment. Such commercial equipment
includes gas-fired instantaneous water heaters, packaged terminal air
conditioners and heat pumps, commercial packaged boilers, three-phase
air conditioners and heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h, and single-package
vertical air conditioners and heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h, collectively
known as single-package vertical units, covered by EPCA. This notice
announces the availability of a technical support document (TSD) the
Department is using in making this assessment. The Department invites
written comments on the TSD and on DOE's preliminary conclusions, which
are set forth in this notice.
DATES: The Department will accept written comments, data, and
information in response to this notice, but no later than April 27,
2006. See section III, ``Public Participation,'' of this notice for
details.
ADDRESSES: Please submit comments, identified by docket numbers EE-RM/
STD-03-100, EE-RM/STD-03-200, and EE-RM/STD-03-300 and/or RIN numbers
1904-AB16, 1904-AB17, and 1904-AB44, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: ASHRAE.Product.Rule@ee.doe.gov. Include EE-RM/STD-
03-100, EE-RM/STD-03-200, and EE-RM/STD-03-300 and/or RIN 1904-AB16,
1904-AB17, and 1904-AB44 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, ASHRAE Commercial Five-
Products Standards, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed
original paper copy.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
proceeding. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the proceeding, see section III of this
document (Public Participation).
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and
the TSD, or comments received, go to the U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building
Technologies Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,
(202) 586-9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the
above telephone number for additional information regarding visiting
the Resource Room. Please note: The Department's Freedom of Information
Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 at the Forrestal Building) is no
longer housing rulemaking materials. The docket will also be posted to
the Federal Docket Management System through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (https://www.regulations.gov) after the comment period closes.
You can also obtain the report of DOE's screening analysis
(discussed below) and the TSD electronically from DOE's Building
Technologies Program's Web site at the following URL address: https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/.
This notice refers to industry standards established by ASHRAE and
IESNA in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (Standard 90.1). The revisions of
Standard 90.1 are referred to by year of publication. For example, the
1999 revision is referred to below as Standard 90.1-1999. This standard
is available at the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program
at the address stated above. Copies are also available by mail from the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc., 1971 Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or
electronically from ASHRAE's Web site, https://www.ashrae.org/book/
bookshop.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Murphy, Project Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9127, or e-mail:
Maureen.Murphy@ee.doe.gov.
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0103, (202) 586-9507, or electronic mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Amendment of Standard 90.1 and DOE Response
2. Subsequent Action by the Department
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
II. Discussion
A. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat
Pumps
[[Page 12635]]
B. Small Commercial Packaged Boilers
C. Large Commercial Packaged Boilers and Tankless, Gas-Fired
Instantaneous Water Heaters
D. Three-Phase Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
E. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
1. Background
2. Analysis of Proposed Efficiency Levels
3. Standard 90.1-2004 Addendum b
4. Potential Energy Savings and Conclusions
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
IV. Approval by the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part C of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA) addresses the energy efficiency of certain types of commercial
and industrial equipment, such as electric motors, air conditioners,
and furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) It contains, for example,
definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, and energy
conservation standards, including specific mandatory energy
conservation standards for certain tankless, gas-fired instantaneous
water heaters (IWHs), packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and
packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), commercial packaged boilers, and
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment (including
three-phase air conditioners (ACs) and heat pumps (HPs) <65,000 Btu/h
and single-package vertical air conditioners (SPVACs) and single-
package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs) <65,000 Btu/h). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(1)-(5))
The energy conservation standards set in EPCA for commercial and
industrial equipment generally correspond to the levels in Standard
90.1, as in effect on October 24, 1992 (Standard 90.1-1989). The
statute provides that if Standard 90.1 is amended after that date for
any of this equipment (and for certain other equipment), the Secretary
of Energy must establish an amended uniform national standard at the
new minimum level for each effective date specified in Standard 90.1,
unless the Secretary determines, through a rulemaking supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that a more stringent standard is
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
significant additional energy conservation. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
In any such rulemaking, the rule must contain the amended standard,
and the Secretary must determine whether the economic benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens, considering factors specified by the
statute and other factors the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) The Secretary may not prescribe an amended standard
if the Secretary finds (and publishes the finding) that interested
persons have established by a preponderance of evidence that the
amended standard is likely to result in unavailability in the United
States of products with performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe any amended
standard which increases maximum allowable energy use, or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
Finally, Federal energy efficiency requirements for commercial
equipment generally preempt State laws or regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316 (a)-(b))
The Department can, however, grant waivers of preemption for particular
State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions of section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and
6316(b)(2)(D))
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Amendment of Standard 90.1 and DOE Response
On October 29, 1999, ASHRAE's Board of Directors gave final
approval to Standard 90.1-1999, which addressed efficiency levels for
34 categories of commercial heating, ventilating and air-conditioning
(HVAC) and water heating equipment covered by EPCA. The new Standard
90.1 (Standard 90.1-1999) revised the efficiency levels of the existing
Standard 90.1-1989 for certain equipment. For the remaining equipment,
ASHRAE left the preexisting levels in place, after considering revision
of the levels for some equipment and deferring consideration of others.
Following the publication of Standard 90.1-1999, the Department
performed a screening analysis that covered 24 of the categories of
equipment to help decide what action it would take with respect to the
new efficiency levels. The Department did not specifically analyze the
other 10 categories of equipment because there was insufficient data
describing baseline energy consumption, a small market for these
products, a lack of product shipment data, or an absence of a suitable
methodology to distinguish its heating function. For each of these
types of equipment that was included in the screening analysis, the
Department examined a range of efficiency levels that included the
levels specified in EPCA and Standard 90.1-1999, as well as the levels
associated with the lowest life-cycle cost (LCC). For each potential
efficiency level above the EPCA standard, the Department estimated the
incremental national energy and carbon emission savings and the net
nationwide direct economic benefit (national net present value (NPV))
resulting for the period 2004 to 2030 from setting a standard at that
level. The baselines for the comparison were the corresponding levels
specified in Standard 90.1-1999 and EPCA.
Following completion of the screening analysis, the Department
published a notice that described the screening analysis and announced
its public availability. For each equipment category for which ASHRAE
adopted or considered a revised standard level, the notice stated
whether the Department was inclined to immediately adopt the standard
level in Standard 90.1-1999, or to undertake a more thorough analysis
to determine if a more stringent level was warranted. For the equipment
categories that ASHRAE did not address in revising Standard 90.1--
namely, three-phase air conditioners and heat pumps with capacities
under 65,000 Btu per hour--DOE stated that it had tentatively decided
to take no action until ASHRAE had amended Standard 90.1's efficiency
levels for these types of equipment. Finally, the notice published on
May 15, 2000, announced a public meeting and invited written comment on
the screening analysis and DOE's planned actions. 65 FR 30929 (May 15,
2000).
Following the public meeting on July 11, 2000, the Department
adopted the efficiency levels in Standard 90.1-1999 as Federal
standards to replace existing EPCA levels for 18 equipment categories
of commercial air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, water heaters,
and hot water storage tanks. For electric water heaters, DOE rejected
the Standard 90.1-1999 level, leaving the EPCA level in place. 66 FR
3335, 3336-37, 3349-52 (January 12, 2001) (the ``January 2001 final
rule'').
For 11 of the 24 other categories of commercial equipment analyzed
in the screening analysis, the Department stated it would evaluate
whether to adopt more stringent standards than those contained in
Standard 90.1-1999. 66 FR 3336-38, 3349-52. The Department selected
these categories of equipment for further evaluation
[[Page 12636]]
because the screening analysis indicated at least a reasonable
possibility of finding that more stringent standards ``would be
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
significant additional conservation of energy.'' 66 FR 3349. These are
the criteria EPCA prescribes for the adoption of standards more
stringent than those in Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) The
Department stated that it could discontinue its evaluation of any of
these types of equipment, however, and adopt the Standard 90.1-1999
efficiency level, whenever it concluded that these criteria are not
likely to be satisfied. 66 FR 3348. However, DOE had previously
indicated that it would take such action only after seeking public
comment. 65 FR 30932. For the four categories of three-phase air-
conditioning equipment that ASHRAE had not addressed in Standard 90.1-
1999, the Department encouraged ASHRAE to amend its efficiency levels
for this equipment in conjunction with the then-pending DOE standards
rulemaking for similar, single-phase residential products, and stated
that DOE would act once ASHRAE had adopted such amendments. The
standard levels prescribed in EPCA and Standard 90.1-1999 for these 15
equipment categories appear in Tables I.1 and I.2. In addition, the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) included energy efficiency
standards for some of this commercial equipment, and those new
standards also appear in the tables.
Table I.1.--Standard Efficiency Levels for Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard efficiency level\*\
Type of product Capacity/ --------------------------------------------------------
characteristics EPCA ASHRAE 90.1-1999 EPACT 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Package Air- <65 kBtu/h Air-Cooled, SEER: 10.0, HSPF: SEER: 10.0, HSPF: None.
Conditioning and Heating 3 Phase, Central 6.8. 6.8.
Equipment. Split-System AC, HP.
<65 kBtu/h Air-Cooled, SEER: 9.7, HSPF: SEER: 9.7, HSPF: None.
3 Phase, Central 6.6. 6.6.
Single-Package AC, HP.
>=65 kBtu/h and <135 EER: 8.9\**\..... EER: 10.3\**\.... EER:
kBtu/h Air-Cooled, 11.2\**\[dagger]
Central AC. [dagger].
>=65 kBtu/h and <135 EER: 8.9\**\, EER: 10.3\**\, EER: 11.0\**\,
kBtu/h Air-Cooled, COP: 3.0[dagger]. COP: 3.2[dagger]. COP:
Central HP. 3.3[dagger].
Large Commercial Package Air- >=135 kBtu/h and <240 EER: 8.5\**\..... EER: 9.7\**\..... EER:
Conditioning and Heating kBtu/h Air-Cooled, 11.0\**\[dagger]
Equipment. Central AC. [dagger].
>=135 kBtu/h and <240 EER: 8.5\**\, EER: 9.3\**\, EER: 10.6\**\,
kBtu/h Air-Cooled, COP: 2.9[dagger]. COP: 3.1[dagger]. COP:
Central HP. 3.2[dagger].
Packaged Terminal Air Air-Cooled............ EER, COP COP vary EER, COP vary by None.
Conditioners and Heat Pumps. by capacity capacity
according to according to
formulas for formulas for
each. each (different
formulas for new
construction and
replacement
products).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Heating efficiency levels do not apply to cooling-only air conditioners.
\**\ At 95 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature.
[dagger] At 47 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature.
[dagger][dagger] This EER level applies to equipment that has electric resistance heat or no heating. For units
with all other heating-system types that are integrated into the unitary equipment, deduct 0.2 EER.
Table I.2.--Standard Efficiency Levels for Boilers and Water Heaters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard efficiency level
Type of equipment Capacity --------------------------------------------------------
EPCA ASHRAE 90.1-1999 EPACT 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged Boilers............... >300 kBtu/h........... Combustion Thermal None.
<= 2,500 kBtu/h....... Efficiency\*\: Efficiency\*\:
80% Gas, 83% Oil. 75% Gas, 78% Oil.
>2,500 kBtu/h......... Combustion Combustion None.
Efficiency\*\: Efficiency\*\:
80% Gas, 83% Oil. 80% Gas, 83% Oil.
Tankless, Gas-Fired V<10 gal.............. Thermal Thermal None.
Instantaneous Water Heaters. Efficiency: 80%. Efficiency: 80%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ At maximum rated capacity.
EPACT 2005 prescribed more stringent standards than those contained
in Standard 90.1-1999 for commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment between 65,000 and 240,000 Btu per hour covered in
Table I.1.\1\ The Department has not initiated individual rulemakings
for the remaining equipment covered in Tables I.1 and I.2,
[[Page 12637]]
which is the subject of this notice and which the screening analysis
categorized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SPVACs and SPVHPs, collectively referred to as SPVUs, are
types of small and large commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment. ASHRAE did not recognize and evaluate them as
separate equipment categories in Standard 90.1-1999, nor did EPCA
recognize them as separate equipment categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-Phase Split-System, Air-Cooled Air Conditioners
<65,000 Btu/h
Three-Phase Single-Package, Air-Cooled Air Conditioners
<65,000 Btu/h
Three-Phase Split-System, Air-Cooled Heat Pumps <65,000
Btu/h
Three-Phase Single-Package, Air-Cooled Heat Pumps <65,000
Btu/h
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
Small, Gas-fired Boilers 0.3-2.5 Million Btu/h (MMBtu/h)
Small, Oil-fired Boilers 0.3-2.5 MMBtu/h
Large, Gas-fired Boilers >=2.5 MMBtu/h
Large, Oil-fired Boilers >=2.5 MMBtu/h
Tankless, Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters
Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners \2\
Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Because of the circumstances described in footnote 1, DOE
did not address SPVACs in the screening analysis it originally
conducted.
\3\ Because of the circumstances described in footnote 1, DOE
did not address SPVACs in the screening analysis it originally
conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The screening analysis results for these equipment categories are
shown in Table I.3, except for the oil-fired packaged boilers and
SPVUs, which DOE did not study in the screening analysis. For each
equipment category, Table I.3 shows the efficiency level corresponding
to the lowest average LCC and highest NPV, taking into account both the
costs of efficiency improvements and the savings from reduced energy
consumption. Each efficiency level is above the level specified in
Standard 90.1-1999. Table I.3 also shows the following potential
benefits, which the screening analysis estimates for the period from
2004 to 2030, from setting a standard at the higher level:
The estimated nationwide energy savings, expressed in
trillions of British thermal units (Tbtu);
The estimated net nationwide direct economic benefit,
represented by the NPV; and
The estimated reductions in atmospheric carbon emissions,
in millions of tons.
Table I.3.--Energy Savings, Net Present Value and Carbon Emission Reductions From 2004 to 2030 at Energy
Efficiency Levels Corresponding to Lowest Life-Cycle Cost
[Source: screening analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative to ASHRAE standard 90.1-1999
-----------------------------------------------
National
Equipment category Efficiency level at National National total carbon
minimum life-cylce cost energy savings NPV (millions emission
(TBtu) of 1998 $'s) reductions
(million tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Phase, Single-Package Air-Source Air 12.0 SEER............... 1412.7 897.7 21
Conditioners, <65 kBtu/h.
3-Phase, Split-System Air-Source Air 11.0 SEER............... 278.6 109.1 4
Conditioners, <65 kBtu/h.
3-Phase, Single-Package Air-Source 12.0 SEER............... 183.6 91.3 3
Heat Pumps, <65 kBtu/h.
3-Phase, Split-System Air-Source Heat 12.0 SEER............... 66.4 47.0 1
Pumps, <65 kBtu/h.
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners\**\ 10.5 EER................ 311.7 274.7 5
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps\**\...... 9.9 EER................. 249.0 241.9 4
Small, Gas-fired Commercial Packaged 78.7%................... 200.0 146.0 3
Boilers, <=2.5 MMBtu/h.
Large, Gas-fired Commercial Packaged 85.3%\*\................ 79.0 86.6 1
Boilers, >=2.5 MMBtu/h.
Tankless, Gas-Fired Instantaneous 81.5%................... 102.0 45.3 2
Water Heaters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Efficiency shown is shipment-weighted averaged value of Large, Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers (76-81
percent), and Large, Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers (78-88 percent).
\**\ PTAC/PTHP minimum LCC EER values are based on capacity-weighted shipments.
2. Subsequent Action by the Department
The Department has further reviewed the energy savings potential
and the efficiency levels in Standard 90.1-1999 for four out of the
five types of equipment, as set forth in the TSD. Table I.4 summarizes
the Department's actions for each product in today's notice.
Table I.4.--Summary of DOE's Actions by Product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product DOE's action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTACs and PTHPs........................ Seek a more stringent standard.
Small, Commercial Packaged Boilers..... Reject Standard 90.1-1999
efficiency levels.
Tankless, Gas-Fired IWHs............... The Department does not have
authority to pursue a standard
level higher than those
specified in Standard 90.1-
1999.
Large, Commercial Packaged Boilers..... The Department does not have
authority to pursue a standard
level higher than those
specified in Standard 90.1-
1999.
Three-phase ACs and HPs <65,000 Btu/h.. Inclined to adopt Addendum f to
Standard 90.1-2004 once ASHRAE
formally adopts this addendum.
[[Page 12638]]
SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h.................... Seeking stakeholder comment on
the potential energy savings
analysis and the
appropriateness of the levels
contained in Addendum b to
Standard 90.1-2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the review, the Department is now inclined to reject the
Standard 90.1-1999 levels and leave the EPCA levels in place for small,
commercial packaged boilers due to backsliding as further discussed in
Section II.B. The Department has also reconsidered its authority to
take action to pursue standard levels higher than those specified in
Standard 90.1-1999 for tankless, gas-fired IWHs and large, commercial
packaged boilers, and has determined that the Department lacks such
authority as discussed in Section II.C. The Department is also inclined
to seek a more stringent standard level than that in Standard 90.1-1999
for PTACs and PTHPs. The Department is also inclined to adopt the
levels in Addendum f of Standard 90.1-2004 for three-phase ACs and HPs
<65,000 Btu/h if ASHRAE formally adopts this addendum as an amendment
to Standard 90.1. Finally, the Department is deferring a final decision
on SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h until ASHRAE takes final action on Addendum b to
Standard 90.1-2004. At this time, the Department is seeking stakeholder
comments on the potential energy savings analysis and the
appropriateness of the standard levels incorporated in Addendum b to
Standard 90.1-2004. After considering comments submitted in response to
this notice, the Department expects to issue a final rule detailing the
Department's final actions for these products.
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
On August 8, 2005, EPACT 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) was signed into law
by the President. Section 136(b) of EPACT 2005 amended section 342(a)
of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) by inserting energy conservation standards
for small (>=65,000 Btu/h to <135,000 Btu/h), large (>=135,000 Btu/h to
<240,000 Btu/h), and very large (>=240,00 Btu/h to <760,000 Btu/h)
commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps. The standards for
small, large and very large commercial package air conditioners and
heat pumps in Section 136(b) of EPACT 2005, which amended section 342
of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313), implicitly cover SPVUs. However, since the
energy conservation standards contained in EPACT 2005 cover SPVUs
>=65,000 Btu/h to <760,000 Btu/h, this notice addresses SPVUs that are
<65,000 Btu/h only.
II. Discussion
A Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
Section 342(a)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(3)), and Standard
90.1-1999 set forth energy efficiency standards for PTACs and PTHPs
(collectively referred to as PTAC/HPs). The standards vary based on the
capacity of the equipment, as set forth in Table II.1.
Table II.1.--Comparison of Energy Efficiency Standards for PTACs and PTHPs-EPCA and ASHRAE 90.1-1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category ASHRAE 90.1-1999
EPCA -------------------------------------------------
New construction Replacement*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged Terminal AC, Cooling Mode... 10.0-(0.16 x EER) Cap/ 12.5-(0.213 x Cap/1000) 10.9-(0.213 x Cap/1000)
1000) EER**. EER**. EER**.
Packaged Terminal HP, Cooling Mode... 10.0-(0.16 x Cap/1000) 12.3-(0.213 x Cap/1000) 10.8-(0.213 x Cap/1000)
EER**. EER**. EER**.
Packaged Terminal HP, Heating Mode... 1.3 + (0.16 x EER) 3.2-(0.026 x Cap/1000) 2.9-(0.026 x Cap/1000)
COP[dagger]. COP**[dagger][dagger]. COP**[dagger][dagger].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Replacement efficiencies apply only to units (1) factory labeled as follows: ``Manufactured for replacement
applications only; Not to be installed in new construction projects''; and (2) with existing sleeves less than
16 inches high and less than 42 inches wide.
** Cap means the rated cooling capacity of the equipment in Btu/h. If the unit's capacity is less than 7,000 Btu/
h, use 7,000 Btu/h in the calculation. If the unit's capacity is greater than 15,000 Btu/h, use 15,000 Btu/h
in the calculation.
[dagger] EER is the minimum cooling EER.
[dagger][dagger] COP is minimum heating COP.
[dagger]As shown in Table II.1, EPCA prescribes a single formula
for computing the minimum cooling efficiency of all PTAC/HPs, and a
single formula for computing the minimum heating efficiency of all
PTHPs. By contrast, the minimum efficiency levels in Standard 90.1-1999
consist of two sets of formulas. One set is for PTAC/HPs that have
sleeves less than 16 inches high and less than 42 inches wide and a
specified label indicating they are for replacement use, which Standard
90.1-1999 classifies as ``replacement'' units. The other set is for all
other PTAC/HPs, which Standard 90.1-1999 classifies as ``new
construction'' units. The formulas result in minimum efficiency levels
slightly higher than EPCA levels for ``replacement'' units, and
substantially higher for ``new construction'' units. Standard 90.1-1999
also differs from EPCA in that it has slightly different formulas for
the cooling modes of PTACs and PTHPs, whereas EPCA prescribes a single
formula for both.
The screening analysis estimated the potential energy savings from
higher standards for PTAC/HPs operating in the cooling mode. The
Department subsequently used these energy savings values in developing
the summary chart of potential energy savings in the January 2001 final
rule. 66 FR 3343. The potential energy savings from DOE adoption of a
PTAC/HP standard at the maximum NPV levels, over and above
[[Page 12639]]
savings that would be achieved by the Standard 90.1-1999 levels,
totaled 0.561 quads. 66 FR 3343. These values represent the potential
savings for all packaged terminal equipment by moving from the ASHRAE
``replacement'' efficiency level to the maximum NPV efficiency level.
The Department now believes that these savings are overstated because
they implicitly assume that DOE would adopt only a single, minimum
standard equal to the ASHRAE ``replacement'' levels for all PTAC/HPs.
Since the Department used the ASHRAE ``replacement'' efficiency levels
(the lowest minimum levels ASHRAE specified in Standard 90.1-1999 for
PTAC/HPs) and not the efficiency levels actually prescribed in Standard
90.1-1999 by product class (i.e., the replacement levels and the much
higher new construction levels), these potential energy savings are not
entirely representative of those that would result from adoption of a
higher standard. In other words, the Department believes that adjusting
the base case would more accurately reflect the potential energy
savings of adopting higher standards than those contained in Standard
90.1-1999.
In the TSD, the Department improved its energy savings estimate for
PTAC/HPs by using both product class efficiency levels contained in
Standard 90.1. The Department used these levels as a departure point
for its revised calculations, along with an estimate of shipments as
shown in Chapter 2, Section 2, of the TSD. Consequently, DOE assumed 85
percent of the packaged terminal equipment sold annually would be at
the ``new construction'' levels and 15 percent would be at the
``replacement'' levels. Using this assumption, the Department estimated
the revised potential cooling-mode energy savings would be 0.103 quads
if DOE adopted a standard above Standard 90.1-1999, which is much lower
than the estimate of 0.561 in the screening analysis as shown in
Section 2.2 of the TSD. The difference in potential energy savings
between the revised analysis and the screening analysis can be
attributed to using different shipment assumptions, only analyzing the
space cooling load for the lodging building category, changing the
analysis period to 2008-2030, and calculating the savings based on
market weighted shipments as further explained in Section 2.2 of the
TSD. The Department also estimated, in its revised calculations, the
potential heating-mode energy savings of 0.037 quads that would result
from a standard above the levels in Standard 90.1-1999 as shown in
Chapter 2 of the TSD. The Department did not account for the potential
heating energy savings in the Screening Analysis. Furthermore, the new
calculations indicate that the total potential energy savings (both
heating mode and cooling mode) resulting from adopting the Standard
90.1-1999 efficiency levels for the two product classes (replacement
and new construction), when compared to the current EPCA efficiency
levels, would be 0.499 quads. (In effect, much of the energy savings
that the screening analysis attributed to moving from the Standard
90.1-1999 levels to the maximum NPV levels, is now attributed in DOE's
revised estimate of moving from the EPCA to the Standard 90.1-1999
levels. This occurs because the revised estimate uses as the Standard
90.1-1999 levels, the dual levels in Standard 90.1-1999, whereas the
screening analysis used as the Standard 90.1-1999 levels only the
relatively low ``replacement'' levels.)
Since the market has changed, in the absence of Federal standards,
to efficiency levels at or above the levels in Standard 90.1-1999 for
PTACs and PTHPs, the Department is inclined to seek a more stringent
standard level for these products. An examination of the January 2003
Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Directory for PTAC/
HPs reveals that 52 percent of the listed PTACs are at, or above, the
Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency level for new construction equipment, and
98 percent of the listed PTACs are at or above the Standard 90.1-1999
efficiency level for replacement equipment. Furthermore, 72 percent of
the listed PTHPs are at or above the Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency
level for new construction equipment and 99 percent of the listed PTHPs
are at or above the Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency level for replacement
equipment. Even though the potential energy savings in the revised
analysis has been reduced, the Department believes there is a
possibility of clear and convincing evidence, which would warrant
further evaluation of more stringent standard levels for PTACs and
PTHPs. Therefore, the Department is inclined to seek a more stringent
standard level than Standard 90.1-1999 for PTACs and PTHPs through the
rulemaking process.
B. Small Commercial Packaged Boilers
EPCA prescribes a minimum combustion efficiency of 80 percent for
gas-fired commercial packaged boilers and 83 percent for oil-fired
commercial packaged boilers, regardless of capacity, as detailed in
Table I.2 in section I.B.1 of this document. Standard 90.1-1999
prescribes for small boilers (<=2.5 million Btu/hr) thermal efficiency
levels of 75 percent for gas-fired equipment and 78 percent for oil-
fired equipment. In January 2001, when it adopted as Federal standards
certain of the efficiency levels in Standard 90.1-1999, the Department
stated that it would evaluate whether standard levels higher than those
in Standard 90.1-1999 are justified for small commercial packaged
boilers. 66 FR at 3336-38, 3349-52. The Department has tentatively
concluded that the Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency levels for small
commercial packaged boilers are lower than EPCA's existing standards
for this equipment. Therefore, the Department is inclined to reject the
Standard 90.1-1999 levels for small commercial packaged boilers and
leave in place the existing EPCA standards.
The ``combustion efficiency'' descriptor used in EPCA for the
efficiency levels for small commercial boilers differs from the
``thermal efficiency'' descriptor used in Standard 90.1-1999. In
general, the energy efficiency of a product is a function of the
relationship between the product's output of services and its energy
input. A boiler's output is measured in large part by the energy
content of its output (steam or hot water). Consequently, its
efficiency is often viewed as the ratio between its energy output and
energy input, with the energy output being calculated as the energy
input minus the energy lost in producing the output. A boiler's energy
losses consist of energy that escapes through its flue (commonly
referred to as flue losses), and of energy that escapes into the area
surrounding the boiler (commonly referred to as jacket losses). The
``combustion efficiency'' descriptor in EPCA takes into account only
flue losses, and typically is defined as ``100 percent minus percent
flue loss.'' The ``thermal efficiency'' descriptor in Standard 90.1-
1999 takes into account jacket losses as well as flue losses, and can
be considered as combustion efficiency minus jacket loss. Since all
boilers will have at least some jacket losses (even if small) and
because thermal efficiency takes these losses into account, the thermal
efficiency for a particular boiler will always be lower than its
combustion efficiency.
It is understood within the industry that there is not a direct
mathematical correlation between these two measures of efficiency. The
factors that contribute to jacket loss (e.g., the boiler's design and
materials) have little or no direct bearing on combustion efficiency.
This lack of correlation between combustion efficiency and thermal
efficiency
[[Page 12640]]
presents some difficulties here. EPCA provides that the Department may
not prescribe any amended standard that ``increases the maximum
allowable energy use, or decreases the minimum required energy
efficiency'' of a product covered under Section 342(a) of the statute,
such as packaged boilers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). Therefore, in
evaluating whether to adopt Standard 90.1-1999's thermal efficiency
levels of 75 and 78 percent for small gas and oil boilers,
respectively, the Department needed to determine whether they decrease
the 80 and 83 percent combustion efficiencies required by EPCA for
these products. If the percentages for the minimum thermal efficiency
levels specified by Standard 90.1-1999 were numerically at, or above,
the percentages in EPCA for the corresponding combustion efficiency
levels, then clearly the Standard 90.1-1999 levels would not be lower
than the EPCA levels. If Standard 90.1-1999's thermal efficiency levels
for small commercial boilers were only slightly lower numerically than
EPCA's combustion efficiency standards for such equipment, the Standard
90-1-1999 levels probably would also not represent a reduction in
minimum efficiency levels. However, because the Standard 90.1-1999
thermal efficiency levels are five percentage points below EPCA's
combustion efficiency levels, DOE must address whether the Department's
adoption of the Standard 90.1-1999 levels would represent a reduction
of existing standards.
To address this issue, the Department reviewed the Institute of
Boiler and Radiation Manufacturers (I=B=R) ratings directories for
2005. The I=B=R directory provides efficiency ratings for a majority of
the commercial packaged boilers manufactured in the United States. For
approximately 62.6 percent of the boilers it listed in 2005, the
directory provided both the thermal efficiency and combustion
efficiency levels. For a small portion of these boilers (3.2 percent),
the ratings appear to be erroneous because the directory lists a
thermal efficiency rating that is equal to or greater than its
combustion efficiency rating, which is physically impossible.\4\ As
explained above, thermal efficiency includes the effects of jacket
losses whereas combustion efficiency does not. Excluding these boilers,
the Department reviewed the thermal and combustion efficiency ratings
for the remaining 59.4 percent of the boilers where both ratings are
listed in the 2005 I=B=R directory. Among this equipment, small, gas-
fired boilers and small, oil-fired boilers had an average thermal
efficiency approximately 2.6 percent lower than their combustion
efficiency. For small, gas-fired boilers with combustion efficiencies
between 80 and 81 percent, the 2005 directory showed an average thermal
efficiency of approximately 76.7 percent. For small, oil-fired boilers
with a combustion efficiency between 83 and 84 percent, the 2005
directory showed an average thermal efficiency of approximately 81
percent. The Department believes it is reasonable to assume that these
relationships between combustion and thermal efficiency exist for small
boilers that have combustion efficiencies that minimally comply with
EPCA (80 percent and 83 percent for small gas and oil boilers,
respectively). Therefore, minimally complying, small, gas-fired boilers
would have an average thermal efficiency of about 76.8 percent, and
minimally complying, small, oil-fired boilers would have an average
thermal efficiency of about 82.1 percent. Standard 90.1-1999's thermal
efficiencies of 75 percent for small, gas-fired boilers and 78 percent
for small, oil-fired boilers are approximately 1.8 percent and 3.1
percent lower, respectively, than the average thermal efficiencies of
boilers that minimally comply with the EPCA energy efficiency
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These anomalous ratings are likely due to Hydronics
Institutes's (HI) de-rating procedures, manufacturers' interpolation
of results, varying test chambers and instrument calibration among
manufacturers, or submittal of erroneous ratings. For more details,
please see Chapter 3 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis does not establish directly that the small boiler
efficiency levels in Standard 90.1-1999 are lower than those in EPCA.
EPCA's combustion efficiency standards for this equipment set maximum
amounts of flue losses, but do not regulate jacket losses. As stated
earlier, thermal efficiency is a function of both flue losses (i.e.,
combustion efficiency) and jacket losses. Since these two losses can be
independent of one another, in theory, a small boiler could meet or
exceed EPCA's applicable combustion efficiency standard, but have
sufficiently large jacket losses that cause the thermal efficiency to
be lower than the 75 percent (for small, gas-fired boilers) or 78
percent (for small oil-fired boilers) specified in Standard 90.1-1999.
Thus, DOE's adoption of Standard 90.1-1999 thermal efficiency levels
would not directly decrease the minimum combustion efficiencies
required in EPCA for small boilers. However, the Department believes
the adoption of the Standard 90.1-1999 thermal efficiency levels for
small boilers would have the effect of lowering minimum combustion
efficiency levels required by EPCA by allowing increased energy
consumption.
At present, the thermal efficiency of a small commercial boiler is
a function of (1) the manufacturer's compliance with the applicable
EPCA combustion efficiency standard and (2) decisions it makes
independent of EPCA concerning the boiler's design, materials, and
other features that affect jacket losses. For the small boilers for
which the I=B=R directory lists both thermal and combustion
efficiencies, these decisions by manufacturers have resulted in
production of (1) no gas-fired boiler with a thermal efficiency below
75.4 percent, (2) gas boilers with a combustion efficiency between 80
and 81 percent that have thermal efficiencies averaging approximately
76.7 percent, (3) no oil-fired boiler with a thermal efficiency below
75.6, and (4) oil boilers with a combustion efficiency between 83 and
84 percent that have thermal efficiencies averaging approximately 81
percent. Although EPCA does not regulate jacket losses, for both small,
gas- and oil-fired commercial packaged boilers with relatively low
combustion efficiencies, manufacturers have restricted jacket losses to
levels that have kept thermal efficiencies within an average of 2.6
percentage points below their combustion efficiencies. The Department
does not believe its adoption of Standard 90.1-1999's thermal
efficiency levels for small commercial boilers would result in
manufacturers' increasing the amount of jacket losses for this
equipment. No reason is readily apparent as to why manufacturers would
alter their current practices, and make equipment that has greater
jacket losses, even if mandatory thermal efficiency levels were set
below the levels that equipment currently achieves. However, setting
thermal efficiency standards at levels lower than the thermal
efficiencies of existing equipment could result in equipment with lower
combustion efficiencies. This allows for the possibility of equipment
having lower efficiencies than permitted by EPCA, meaning that the
current minimum (required) efficiency would be decreased.
For these reasons, it appears to the Department that EPCA precludes
it from prescribing as amended Federal standards the Standard 90.1-
1999's thermal efficiency levels (one for gas-fired and the other for
oil-fired equipment) for small commercial packaged boilers, because
each would decrease the minimum required efficiency of this equipment.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
[[Page 12641]]
For small commercial gas-fired boilers, the screening analysis
estimated that, in comparison with Standard 90.1-1999's minimum thermal
efficiency level of 75 percent, 0.2 quads of energy would be saved by
requiring a thermal efficiency of at least 78.7 percent, the standard
level that corresponds to the lowest average life-cycle cost and
highest NPV for this equipment as shown in Chapter 3 of the TSD. The
estimate of 0.2 quads of energy savings assumes that the thermal
efficiency of all small, gas-fired boilers shipped would increase from
the Standard 90.1-1999 minimum of 75 percent to 78.7 percent. The
Department's review of the I=B=R directories for 2005, however,
indicates that a number of small, gas-fired commercial boilers with
thermal efficiencies above 75 percent are already on the market. For
example, among small, gas-fired boilers for which the directory
included both thermal and combustion efficiency ratings, the lowest
thermal efficiency is 75.4 percent, and the average thermal efficiency
is 79.7 percent. Thus, since many small, gas-fired boilers are being
sold with thermal efficiencies greater than 75 percent, less than 0.2
quads of energy would be saved if DOE adopted a standard of 78.7
percent thermal efficiency instead of 75 percent. The Department cannot
estimate precisely how much energy a new standard would save, since it
does not know the quantities of boilers being sold at particular
efficiency levels. Clearly, however, the savings would be less than the
potential savings shown in the screening analysis.
For small, oil-fired commercial boilers, the screening analysis did
not evaluate potential energy savings from a Federal standard in excess
of Standard 90.1-1999's minimum thermal efficiency level of 78 percent.
As explained in Chapter 3 of the TSD, certain equipment (e.g., oil-
fired commercial boilers) was not specifically analyzed because there
was insufficient data describing baseline energy consumption, a small
market for these products, a lack of product shipment data, or an
absence of a suitable methodology to distinguish its heating function.
However, the Department's review of the I=B=R directory for 2005
indicates that a number of small, oil-fired commercial boilers already
on the market have thermal efficiencies above 78 percent. For small,
oil-fired commercial boilers, for which the directory included both
thermal and combustion efficiency ratings, the lowest thermal
efficiency in 2005 is 75.6 percent and the average thermal efficiency
is 82.3 percent. For models with a combustion efficiency between 83 and
84 percent, which slightly exceeds the EPCA standard, the average
thermal efficiency in 2005 was 81.0 percent. The screening analysis did
not evaluate small, oil-fired commercial boilers, but the Department
understands that their market share is much smaller than the market
share for the small, gas-fired commercial boilers. Consequently, the
Department believes that the potential energy savings from a standard
higher than that specified in EPCA and Standard 90.1-1999 is much
smaller for small, oil-fired commercial boilers than the potential 0.2
quads of energy savings for the small, gas-fired commercial boilers.
Nonetheless, the Department believes the thermal efficiency metric
provides a sound method for measuring the efficiency of commercial
boilers because it is more inclusive and better reflects the total
energy losses in the equipment than the combustion efficiency metric
prescribed by EPCA, and is more consistent with the Act's definition of
``energy efficiency'' for commercial equipment.\5\ If ASHRAE were to
adopt for small boilers new thermal efficiency levels that maintain or
increase EPCA's existing standard levels, the Department would give
them careful consideration, and would be favorably inclined toward
adopting levels, such as those indicated in the screening analysis,
that would represent the lowest LCC and highest NPV for this equipment.
See Chapter 3 of the TSD. However, the Department cannot adopt any
amended thermal efficiency standard for commercial packaged boilers
that would entail lowering the minimum required efficiency level for
this equipment. The Department is inclined to leave in place the
existing EPCA standards for the small commercial packaged boilers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For commercial equipment, `` `energy efficiency' means the
ratio of the useful output of services from an article of industrial
equipment to the energy use by such article, determined in
accordance with test procedures under section 6314 of this title.''
(42 U.S.C. 6311(3))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Large Commercial Packaged Boilers and Tankless, Gas-Fired
Instantaneous Water Heaters
EPCA specifies minimum energy efficiency levels for certain
categories of commercial equipment including tankless, gas-fired
instantaneous water heaters (IWHs) and large commercial packaged
boilers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)-(5)) These types of equipment are also
covered by ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, and the efficiency requirements in
EPCA correspond with the Standard 90.1 levels in effect on October 24,
1992.
EPCA provides that, ``If ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in effect on
October 24, 1992, is amended with respect to any * * * packaged
boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, or unfired
hot water storage tanks, the Secretary shall establish an amended
uniform national standard for that product at the minimum level for
each effective date specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1,
unless the Secretary determines, by rule published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption
of a uniform national standard more stringent than such amended ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1 for such product would result in significant
additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and
economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
ASHRAE revised Standard 90.1 on October 29, 1999. It changed
Standard 90.1's minimum efficiency levels for some products but not for
others. Of the equipment for which if left levels at their preexisting
values, ASHRAE evaluated whether to increase some of the levels, while
deferring consideration of other levels. For tankless IWHs and large,
commercial packaged boilers, ASHRAE left the pre-existing levels in
place after considering whether to change them. Thus, Standard 90.1-
1999 values for this equipment are the same as the EPCA standards.
In response to ASHRAE's actions, the Department issued a notice of
preliminary screening analysis on March 1, 2000. 65 FR 10984. In this
document the Department stated that it expected to pursue, one of four
courses of action for each commercial equipment category covered by
Standard 90.1-1999:
1. Adopt the Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency level as a uniform
national standard;
2. Reject the Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency level if it increases
maximum allowable energy use or decreases minimum required efficiency;
3. Propose consideration of an addendum to Standard 90.1-1999 if
ASHRAE did not consider a more efficient level, and a more efficient
level appears warranted; or
4. Propose consideration of an addendum to Standard 90.1-1999 and
undertake a more thorough evaluation to determine whether a rulemaking
is justified, if ASHRAE considered amending or amended the standard,
and a more efficient level appears warranted than is contained in
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1999.
On May 15, 2000, the Department issued a notice of document
availability
[[Page 12642]]
and public workshop announcing the preliminary conclusions of the
screening analysis. 65 FR 30934. The Department announced in this
notice its inclination to propose that ASHRAE consider an addendum to
Standard 90.1-1999, based on the screening analysis, and to undertake a
more thorough evaluation to determine whether a rulemaking was
justified under the terms of EPCA. On January 12, 2001, the Department
published a final rule adopting Standard 90.1-1999 standard levels for
certain commercial equipment, and stated it was considering whether
more stringent standards are justified for other equipment, including
IWHs and large commercial packaged boilers. 66 FR 3336.
In these three notices, the Department indicated its belief that it
had the authority to consider more stringent standard levels for
tankless IWHs and large, commercial packaged boilers because ASHRAE had
considered adopting more stringent levels for these types of equipment,
even though ASHRAE had not changed the Standard 90.1 levels for such
equipment. The Department did not receive any comments in response to
either the May 15, 2000, notice or the January 12, 2001, final rule
concerning its view that it had this authority. However, in preparing
today's notice, DOE reexamined its authority under EPCA to amend
standards for tankless IWHs and large commercial boilers and has
concluded its earlier view was in error. As quoted at greater length
above, EPCA states that, if an efficiency level in Standard 90.1 ``is
amended,'' then DOE may (under certain circumstances) adopt a standard
more stringent than the ``amended'' level in Standard 90.1. The
Department now believes that this language authorizes it to adopt a
more stringent standard than the level(s) in Standard 90.1 only in
response to a change in such level(s) by ASHRAE. Thus, DOE believes
ASHRAE must change the Standard 90.1 efficiency level(s) for a type of
equipment to trigger DOE authority to pursue a rulemaking to consider
more stringent standards for that equipment. Since ASHRAE did not
change the existing efficiency levels in Standard 90.1 for tankless,
gas-fired IWHs and large commercial packaged boilers when it adopted
Standard 90.1-1999, the adoption of Standard 90.1-1999 appears not to
authorize DOE to pursue higher standards for these types of equipment.
The Department now believes that ASHRAE must, instead, take further
action and adopt new standard levels for such equipment in order for
DOE to consider more stringent levels for these products. In
consideration of the above, if ASHRAE considers an addendum to Standard
90.1 for these products, DOE will encourage it to consider the details
of the screening analysis.
D. Three-Phase Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
Energy-efficiency levels for single-package three-phase ACs and HPs
<65,000 Btu/h are set forth in EPCA at a seasonal energy efficiency
ratio (SEER) level of 9.7 for cooling (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(B)) and a
heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF) level of 6.6 for heating (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(E)) (see Table II.2). Energy-efficiency levels for
split-system three-phase HPs <65,000 Btu/h are 10.0 SEER for cooling
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(A)) and 6.8 HSPF for heating (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(1)(D)). These efficiency levels are the same as those in
Standard 90.1-1989. During the development of Standard 90.1-1999,
ASHRAE explicitly chose not to revise standards for air-cooled three-
phase ACs and HPs <65,000 Btu/h. This decision was based on the close
relationship the design of this equipment has to residential, single-
phase air-cooled ACs and HPs <65,000 Btu/h, whose efficiency is
regulated under section 325 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295), and which at that
time were the subject of a pending DOE rulemaking for the development
of new efficiency standards.\6\ Subsequently, in the January 12, 2001,
final rule (66 FR 3336), DOE indicated that it would take no action on
three-phase ACs and HPs since ASHRAE took no action. As a result, the
EPCA energy-efficiency levels for this equipment remained unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Addendum i to American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2001, Pg.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 22, 2001, the Department published a final rule setting
a 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF standard for residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps, both single-package and split-system (the
``13 SEER rule''). 66 FR 71799. ARI requested judicial review of this
rule by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Subsequently, on
May 23, 2002, DOE withdrew the 13 SEER rule, and set the efficiency
standards for residential, single-phase air-cooled air conditioners and
heat pumps at a SEER rating of 12.0 and an HSPF rating of 7.4 (the ``12
SEER rule''). 67 FR 36368. In June of 2002, ARI proposed to ASHRAE an
addendum to Standard 90.1, Addendum i to Standard 90.1-2001, which
contained minimum efficiency levels of 12 SEER/7.4 HSPF for the three-
phase commercial air-conditioning equipment <65,000 Btu/h, and an
effective date in 2006. ASHRAE adopted Addendum i on July 3, 2003, to
align the efficiency standards for this equipment with DOE's standards
for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h.
ANSI approved Addendum i on August 6, 2003.
In the meantime, the Natural Resources Defense Council had
requested judicial review of the 12 SEER rule in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al.
v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179 (2nd Cir. 2004). On January 13, 2004, the
court ruled that DOE, in adopting the 12 SEER rule, had failed to
effect a valid amendment of the original standard (13 SEER) effective
date, and was prohibited from amending these standards downward. 355
F.3d 179. Shortly after this ruling, ARI withdrew its appeal of the 13
SEER rule. On August 17, 2004, DOE published a technical amendment in
the Federal Register to re-publish the 13 SEER standard for residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps. 69 FR 50997.
Nevertheless, eve
