Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers, 6184-6186 [E7-2167]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6184
*
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(3) With the result multiplied by 1.03.
*
*
*
*
Proposed by Maine Dairy Industry
Association
Proposal No. 18
This proposal seeks to incorporate a
factor to account for any monthly spread
between component price calculations
for milk and a competitive pay price for
equivalent Grade A milk.
The proposal seeks to derive a factor
by using an updated version of the
Department’s 1994–1996 simulated
analysis of a competitive pay price for
Grade A milk. The proposal would
modify the previously used survey to
adapt it to regulatory changes,
specifically related to component
pricing. The proposal seeks an outcome
whereby a survey of plants located in
nine States, including California, as
performed to develop a competitive
Grade A price series, would be used to
identify a spread, if any between the
component and competitive values of
Grade A raw milk. That spread, in
whole or in part, would be incorporated
into Federal order minimum prices.
Office of the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service,
Office of the General Counsel,
Dairy Programs, Agricultural
Marketing Service (Washington office)
and the Offices of all Market
Administrators.
Procedural matters are not subject to
the above prohibition and may be
discussed at any time.
Dated: February 5, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 07–570 Filed 2–6–07; 11:54 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EE–RM/STD–01–350]
RIN 1904–AA78
Proposal No. 19
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Proposed by Dairy Programs,
Agricultural Marketing Service
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Residential Furnaces and Boilers
AGENCY:
For all Federal Milk Marketing
Orders, make such changes as may be
necessary to make the entire marketing
agreements and the orders conform with
any amendments thereto that may result
from this hearing.
Copies of this notice of hearing and
the orders may be procured from the
Market Administrator of each of the
aforesaid marketing areas, or from the
Hearing Clerk, United States
Department of Agriculture, STOP
9200—Room 1031, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–
9200, or may be inspected there.
Copies of the transcript of testimony
taken at the hearing will not be available
for distribution through the Hearing
Clerk’s Office. If you wish to purchase
a copy, arrangements may be made with
the reporter at the hearing.
From the time that a hearing notice is
issued and until the issuance of a final
decision in a proceeding, Department
employees involved in the decisionmaking process are prohibited from
discussing the merits of the hearing
issues on an ex parte basis with any
person having an interest in the
proceeding. For this particular
proceeding, the prohibition applies to
employees in the following
organizational units:
Office of the Secretary of Agriculture,
SUMMARY: A notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the
current minimum energy conservation
standards for residential furnaces and
boilers was published in the Federal
Register on October 6, 2006. 71 FR
59204. On October 30, 2006, the
Department of Energy (DOE) held a
public meeting for interested parties to
provide comments and discuss relevant
issues. At the public meeting, DOE
indicated it would respond to two
particular questions that stakeholders
raised regarding DOE’s NOPR estimates
for potential energy savings associated
with regional standards for nonweatherized gas furnaces in Northern
regions, and regarding new installation
costs for oil-fired furnaces. This notice
both addresses the stakeholders
questions and reopens the comment
period to provide an opportunity for
public review and comment on DOE’s
response to each question.
DATES: DOE will accept comments until
February 26, 2007.
ADDRESSES: DOE will accept comments,
data, and information regarding the
proposed rule no later than the date
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:52 Feb 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability and
reopening of comment period.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
provided in the DATES section. Any
comments submitted must include the
docket number EE–RM/STD–01–350
and/or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN) 1904–AA78. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail:ResidentialFBNOPR
Comments@ee.doe.gov. Include the
docket number EE–RM/STD–01–350
and/or RIN 1904–AA78 in the subject
line of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please
submit one signed original paper copy.
4. 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.
Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please
submit one signed original paper copy.
Electronic comments must be submitted
in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word,
Portable Document Format (PDF), or
text (ASCII) file format. Avoid the use
of special characters or any form of
encryption.
Copies of public comments may be
examined in the Resource Room of the
Appliance Standards Office of the
Building Technologies Program, Room
1J–018 in the Forrestal Building at the
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
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 about visiting the Resource
Room.
Please note: the DOE’s Freedom of
Information Reading Room (formerly Room
1E–190 at the Forrestal Building) is no longer
servicing rulemakings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building,
Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121, (202) 586–7892, E-mail:
Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov; or
Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC–72,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–7432,
E-mail: Francine.Pinto@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
6185
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules
II. Discussion
A. Regional Analysis
B. Installation Cost Differences
stakeholders to review and comment on
DOE’s revised estimates.
II. Discussion
I. Background
Part B of Title III of EPCA authorizes
DOE to establish energy conservation
standards for various consumer
products including those residential
furnaces and boilers for which DOE
determines that energy conservation
standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified, and
would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)) Pursuant to
EPCA, DOE published a NOPR on
October 6, 2006, to amend the energy
conservation standards for residential
furnaces and boilers. 71 FR 59204.
Thereafter, DOE held a public meeting
on October 30, 2006, to address the
proposed rule (hereafter referred to as
the October 2006 public meeting). At
the October 2006 public meeting, the
American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project
(ASAP) questioned DOE’s estimates of
the energy savings that would likely
result from regional standards for nonweatherized gas furnaces in Northern
regions (cold states). (ASAP and ACEEE,
No. 107.6 at pp. 153–159) 1 In addition,
ACEEE requested further clarification of
new installation cost increases applied
in the proposed rule for oil-fired
furnaces that were rated between 82
percent and 83 percent for Annual Fuel
Utilization Efficiency (AFUE). (ACEEE,
No. 107.6 at p. 121) Today’s notice of
data availability and extension of the
comment period addresses both the
estimates of energy savings from
regional energy conservation standards
for non-weatherized gas furnaces and
the cost increases associated with the
installation of new oil-fired furnaces. In
addition, it provides an opportunity for
A. Regional Analysis
During the October 2006 public
meeting, ACEEE and ASAP questioned
DOE’s estimates of the energy savings
that would likely result from regional
standards for non-weatherized gas
furnaces in cold states. The estimates in
the NOPR indicated that the energy
savings would likely be much lower
where the regions were defined using
6000 Heating Degree Days (HDD),
compared to those where the regions
were defined using 5000 HDD (as listed
in Table VI.1.—Non-Regulatory
Alternatives To Standards, 71 FR
59253).
The results presented in the NOPR for
the Northern (cold states) and Southern
(warm states) regions (using either the
5000 or 6000 HDD threshold) (as listed
in Table VI.1.—Non-Regulatory
Alternatives To Standards, 71 FR 59253)
were generated by the national impact
analysis (NIA) spreadsheet, which
utilizes inputs generated by life-cycle
cost spreadsheets constructed to
separately analyze each region. DOE
performed the NIA on the basis of the
nine U.S. Census Bureau (cartographic)
divisions, plus four large states (New
York, California, Texas, and Florida),
rather than on a state-by-state basis (as
explained in section 10.5 of the NOPR
Technical Support Document (TSD)).
Based on condensing gas furnace sales
data expressed as a percentage of total
gas furnace sales, as provided by the Gas
Appliance Manufacturers Association
(GAMA), DOE was able to derive the
base case for analyzing the potential
impacts of regional energy conservation
standards. Then, DOE applied the statelevel GAMA data to the nine U.S.
Census Bureau divisions, assuming that
condensing gas furnaces were installed
in households solely on the basis of
climate (i.e., high HDDs). In other
words, within each U.S. Census Bureau
division, DOE assumed that condensing
gas furnaces were used primarily by
households that experienced high
HDDs. Thus, in the analysis, DOE
assigned condensing gas furnaces to
90.4 percent of households with greater
than 6000 HDD. It was this assumption
that led to the relatively small energy
savings estimated to result from a
condensing level standard for states or
regions with more than 6000 HDD (on
average), and the relatively large
increment of energy savings estimated
to result from the same standard when
applied to all states or regions with
more than 5000 HDD (on average). 71
FR 59253.
Upon further examination, DOE found
that its assumption, that the existing
(and future) market for condensing gas
furnaces (absent a standard) was likely
to be concentrated in the coldest states
or regions, was not consistent with the
state-by-state sales data provided by
GAMA. Consequently, DOE is
considering alternative analyses that
would reflect a distribution of
condensing gas furnaces which is more
consistent with the GAMA sales data.
Reliance on an alternative analysis
that addresses the distribution of
condensing gas furnaces will primarily
impact the regulatory impact analysis.
However, DOE does not anticipate that
changes to the distribution of
condensing gas furnaces relied upon in
the NOPR analysis, will impact the
determination of the appropriate energy
conservation standards levels.
In view of the above, Table 1 below
provides the results of one possible
alternative analysis under consideration
by DOE.
TABLE 1.—NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES TO STANDARDS
Energy savings
(quads)
Policy alternatives
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * * *:
Cold States (≥5000 HDD) (TSL 4) .....................................................................................
Warm States (<5000 HDD) (TSL 2) ...................................................................................
Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * * *:
Cold States (≥6000 HDD) (TSL 4) .....................................................................................
Warm States (<6000 HDD) (TSL 2) ...................................................................................
1 A notation in the form ‘‘ASAP and ACEEE, No.
107.6 at pp. 153–159,’’ identifies a comment in the
transcript of the Public Meeting on Standards for
Furnaces and Boilers held in Washington, DC, 10/
30/2006, which is document number 107.6 in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:55 Feb 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation
refers to a comment (1) by the American Council
for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) and the
Applicance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP),
(2) in the document number 107.6 in the docket of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Net present value
(billion $)
7% discount
rate
3% discount
rate
1.83
0.004
0.88
0.01
6.43
0.03
1.32
0.005
0.72
0.01
4.90
0.05
this rulemaking (maintained in the Resource Room
of the Building Technologies Program), and (3)
appearing on pages 153–159 of document number
107.6.
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
6186
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
The alternative assumptions for the
state or regional distribution of
condensing furnaces in the base case are
likely to have some effect on other facets
of DOE’s analysis, but none of these
other effects are likely to be significant.
While this alternative analysis of the
possible impacts of regional standards
does not have any significant effects on
DOE’s assessment of the benefits and
burdens associated with the trial
standards levels for national standards,
it could affect stakeholder assessments
of possible alternatives to a national
standard. For this reason, DOE
concluded that it should present the
alternative results for stakeholder
consideration and comment.
B. Installation Cost Differences
At the October 2006 public meeting,
ACEEE requested further clarification of
the new installation cost increases
applied in the NOPR analysis for oilfired furnaces rated between 82 percent
and 83 percent AFUE. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 107.6 at p. 121)
In the Advance Notice of Public
Rulemaking (ANOPR), DOE calculated
the installation costs for oil-fired
furnaces by assuming that upgraded
Category III venting systems would be
needed to prevent corrosion in 100
percent of the installations rated 84
percent AFUE and above (as explained
in section 6.5.5 in the ANOPR TSD).
DOE presented these installation costs
at the ANOPR public meeting and
received the following comments from
ACEEE and GAMA.
GAMA commented that Brookhaven
National Lab (BNL) had done an
extensive amount of work on oil venting
and that DOE should ask BNL for its
information as a data resource for oilfired furnace venting systems. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at p. 112.)
ACEEE commented that there are oilfired boilers rated 86 percent AFUE and
oil furnaces rated 84 percent AFUE that
have significant market share. ACEEE
recommended that DOE reexamine the
application of Category III vents at
efficiency levels rated below 84 percent
AFUE, determine at which efficiency
level Category III vents are required 100
percent of the time, and apply some
type of phase-in of the venting systems,
rather than a single-step function as
DOE had done in the ANOPR analysis.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at
p. 113.)
In response to the comments both
from GAMA and ACEEE, DOE further
examined oil-fired furnace venting
systems and consulted with BNL on
furnace installation requirements. BNL
indicated that some fraction of the
installations rated at 83 percent AFUE
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:55 Feb 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
may require Category III venting
systems. As a result of its consultations
with BNL, DOE revised its ventingmodel assumptions, which
characterized the rate of required
Category III venting systems, from using
a step function to a more linear, ‘‘phasein’’ function, which assigns a Category
III-requirement rate of 25 percent for oilfired furnaces rated at 83 percent AFUE,
and gradually increases the percentage
of installations using Category III
venting systems for oil-fired furnaces
rated above 83 percent AFUE. DOE’s
approach is further detailed and
explained in section 6.5.6 of the NOPR
TSD for oil-fired furnaces. DOE used a
per-installation cost adder for Category
III venting systems that does not change
with the AFUE level of oil-fired
furnaces. It is the change in the assumed
frequency of installations requiring
Category III venting systems which
results in the cost differences. Table 2,
below, compares the DOE’s ANOPR and
NOPR assumptions about the fraction of
the oil furnaces that require Category III
venting systems at certain efficiency
levels:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Number: EE–RM/STD–00–550]
RIN 1904–AB08
Energy Conservation Program for
Commercial Equipment: Distribution
Transformers Energy Conservation
Standards
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability and
request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE) issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) for liquid-immersed
and medium-voltage, dry-type
distribution transformers under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA). In response to this notice,
stakeholders commented that DOE’s
standard may prevent or render
impractical the replacement of
distribution transformers in certain
TABLE 2.—FRACTION OF THE OIL FUR- space-constrained (e.g., vault)
installations. Some stakeholders
NACES REQUIRING CATEGORY III
suggested that DOE’s analysis of the
VENTING SYSTEMS
benefits and burdens of the proposed
standard should take into consideration
ANOPR
NOPR
the potential impacts of replacing
Efficiency level
(percent)
(percent)
transformers in space-constrained
82% and below .....
0
0 vaults. In the Notice of Proposed
83% .......................
0
25 Rulemaking (NOPR), DOE factored
84% .......................
100
50 weight-dependent installation costs in
85% .......................
100
75 the analysis, but did not specifically
86% and above ....
100
100 address potential costs related to
transformers installed in vaults. In
today’s notice, DOE requests comment
DOE welcomes comment on its
on inclusion of potential costs related to
assumptions for use of Category III
size constraints of transformers installed
venting systems for oil-fired furnaces.
in vaults. DOE also is considering an
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2,
additional option for the final efficiency
2007.
levels for liquid-immersed distribution
transformers and by this notice invites
Alexander A. Karsner,
public comment on this additional
Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and
option.
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E7–2167 Filed 2–8–07; 8:45 am]
DATES: DOE will accept written
comments, data, and information in
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
response to this notice, but no later than
March 12, 2007. See section VI, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ of this notice for details.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted
must identify the Notice of Data
Availability for Distribution
Transformers Energy Conservation
Standards, and provide the docket
number EE–RM/STD–00–550 and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN)
1904–AB08. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following
methods:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 27 (Friday, February 9, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6184-6186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2167]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EE-RM/STD-01-350]
RIN 1904-AA78
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy
Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability and reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the current
minimum energy conservation standards for residential furnaces and
boilers was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2006. 71 FR
59204. On October 30, 2006, the Department of Energy (DOE) held a
public meeting for interested parties to provide comments and discuss
relevant issues. At the public meeting, DOE indicated it would respond
to two particular questions that stakeholders raised regarding DOE's
NOPR estimates for potential energy savings associated with regional
standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces in Northern regions, and
regarding new installation costs for oil-fired furnaces. This notice
both addresses the stakeholders questions and reopens the comment
period to provide an opportunity for public review and comment on DOE's
response to each question.
DATES: DOE will accept comments until February 26, 2007.
ADDRESSES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
the proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section.
Any comments submitted must include the docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350
and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AA78. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail:ResidentialFBNOPRComments@ee.doe.gov. Include the
docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350 and/or RIN 1904-AA78 in the subject line
of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed
original paper copy.
4. 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. Telephone: (202) 586-
2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy. Electronic comments
must be submitted in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document
Format (PDF), or text (ASCII) file format. Avoid the use of special
characters or any form of encryption.
Copies of public comments may be examined in the Resource Room of
the Appliance Standards Office of the Building Technologies Program,
Room 1J-018 in the Forrestal Building at the U.S. Department of Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 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 about visiting the Resource Room.
Please note: the DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room
(formerly Room 1E-190 at the Forrestal Building) is no longer
servicing rulemakings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal
Building, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121, (202) 586-7892, E-mail: Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov; or
Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7432, E-mail:
Francine.Pinto@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
[[Page 6185]]
II. Discussion
A. Regional Analysis
B. Installation Cost Differences
I. Background
Part B of Title III of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish energy
conservation standards for various consumer products including those
residential furnaces and boilers for which DOE determines that energy
conservation standards would be technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(e)) Pursuant to EPCA, DOE published a NOPR on October
6, 2006, to amend the energy conservation standards for residential
furnaces and boilers. 71 FR 59204. Thereafter, DOE held a public
meeting on October 30, 2006, to address the proposed rule (hereafter
referred to as the October 2006 public meeting). At the October 2006
public meeting, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
(ACEEE) and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) questioned
DOE's estimates of the energy savings that would likely result from
regional standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces in Northern regions
(cold states). (ASAP and ACEEE, No. 107.6 at pp. 153-159) \1\ In
addition, ACEEE requested further clarification of new installation
cost increases applied in the proposed rule for oil-fired furnaces that
were rated between 82 percent and 83 percent for Annual Fuel
Utilization Efficiency (AFUE). (ACEEE, No. 107.6 at p. 121) Today's
notice of data availability and extension of the comment period
addresses both the estimates of energy savings from regional energy
conservation standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces and the cost
increases associated with the installation of new oil-fired furnaces.
In addition, it provides an opportunity for stakeholders to review and
comment on DOE's revised estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A notation in the form ``ASAP and ACEEE, No. 107.6 at pp.
153-159,'' identifies a comment in the transcript of the Public
Meeting on Standards for Furnaces and Boilers held in Washington,
DC, 10/30/2006, which is document number 107.6 in the docket of this
rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a comment (1) by the
American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) and the
Applicance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), (2) in the document
number 107.6 in the docket of this rulemaking (maintained in the
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), and (3)
appearing on pages 153-159 of document number 107.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
A. Regional Analysis
During the October 2006 public meeting, ACEEE and ASAP questioned
DOE's estimates of the energy savings that would likely result from
regional standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces in cold states. The
estimates in the NOPR indicated that the energy savings would likely be
much lower where the regions were defined using 6000 Heating Degree
Days (HDD), compared to those where the regions were defined using 5000
HDD (as listed in Table VI.1.--Non-Regulatory Alternatives To
Standards, 71 FR 59253).
The results presented in the NOPR for the Northern (cold states)
and Southern (warm states) regions (using either the 5000 or 6000 HDD
threshold) (as listed in Table VI.1.--Non-Regulatory Alternatives To
Standards, 71 FR 59253) were generated by the national impact analysis
(NIA) spreadsheet, which utilizes inputs generated by life-cycle cost
spreadsheets constructed to separately analyze each region. DOE
performed the NIA on the basis of the nine U.S. Census Bureau
(cartographic) divisions, plus four large states (New York, California,
Texas, and Florida), rather than on a state-by-state basis (as
explained in section 10.5 of the NOPR Technical Support Document
(TSD)).
Based on condensing gas furnace sales data expressed as a
percentage of total gas furnace sales, as provided by the Gas Appliance
Manufacturers Association (GAMA), DOE was able to derive the base case
for analyzing the potential impacts of regional energy conservation
standards. Then, DOE applied the state-level GAMA data to the nine U.S.
Census Bureau divisions, assuming that condensing gas furnaces were
installed in households solely on the basis of climate (i.e., high
HDDs). In other words, within each U.S. Census Bureau division, DOE
assumed that condensing gas furnaces were used primarily by households
that experienced high HDDs. Thus, in the analysis, DOE assigned
condensing gas furnaces to 90.4 percent of households with greater than
6000 HDD. It was this assumption that led to the relatively small
energy savings estimated to result from a condensing level standard for
states or regions with more than 6000 HDD (on average), and the
relatively large increment of energy savings estimated to result from
the same standard when applied to all states or regions with more than
5000 HDD (on average). 71 FR 59253.
Upon further examination, DOE found that its assumption, that the
existing (and future) market for condensing gas furnaces (absent a
standard) was likely to be concentrated in the coldest states or
regions, was not consistent with the state-by-state sales data provided
by GAMA. Consequently, DOE is considering alternative analyses that
would reflect a distribution of condensing gas furnaces which is more
consistent with the GAMA sales data.
Reliance on an alternative analysis that addresses the distribution
of condensing gas furnaces will primarily impact the regulatory impact
analysis. However, DOE does not anticipate that changes to the
distribution of condensing gas furnaces relied upon in the NOPR
analysis, will impact the determination of the appropriate energy
conservation standards levels.
In view of the above, Table 1 below provides the results of one
possible alternative analysis under consideration by DOE.
Table 1.--Non-Regulatory Alternatives to Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net present value (billion $)
Energy savings -------------------------------
Policy alternatives (quads) 7% discount 3% discount
rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * * *:
Cold States (>=5000 HDD) (TSL 4)............................ 1.83 0.88 6.43
Warm States (<5000 HDD) (TSL 2)............................. 0.004 0.01 0.03
Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * * *:
Cold States (>=6000 HDD) (TSL 4)............................ 1.32 0.72 4.90
Warm States (<6000 HDD) (TSL 2)............................. 0.005 0.01 0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6186]]
The alternative assumptions for the state or regional distribution
of condensing furnaces in the base case are likely to have some effect
on other facets of DOE's analysis, but none of these other effects are
likely to be significant.
While this alternative analysis of the possible impacts of regional
standards does not have any significant effects on DOE's assessment of
the benefits and burdens associated with the trial standards levels for
national standards, it could affect stakeholder assessments of possible
alternatives to a national standard. For this reason, DOE concluded
that it should present the alternative results for stakeholder
consideration and comment.
B. Installation Cost Differences
At the October 2006 public meeting, ACEEE requested further
clarification of the new installation cost increases applied in the
NOPR analysis for oil-fired furnaces rated between 82 percent and 83
percent AFUE. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 107.6 at p. 121)
In the Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANOPR), DOE calculated
the installation costs for oil-fired furnaces by assuming that upgraded
Category III venting systems would be needed to prevent corrosion in
100 percent of the installations rated 84 percent AFUE and above (as
explained in section 6.5.5 in the ANOPR TSD). DOE presented these
installation costs at the ANOPR public meeting and received the
following comments from ACEEE and GAMA.
GAMA commented that Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) had done an
extensive amount of work on oil venting and that DOE should ask BNL for
its information as a data resource for oil-fired furnace venting
systems. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at p. 112.)
ACEEE commented that there are oil-fired boilers rated 86 percent
AFUE and oil furnaces rated 84 percent AFUE that have significant
market share. ACEEE recommended that DOE reexamine the application of
Category III vents at efficiency levels rated below 84 percent AFUE,
determine at which efficiency level Category III vents are required 100
percent of the time, and apply some type of phase-in of the venting
systems, rather than a single-step function as DOE had done in the
ANOPR analysis. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at p. 113.)
In response to the comments both from GAMA and ACEEE, DOE further
examined oil-fired furnace venting systems and consulted with BNL on
furnace installation requirements. BNL indicated that some fraction of
the installations rated at 83 percent AFUE may require Category III
venting systems. As a result of its consultations with BNL, DOE revised
its venting-model assumptions, which characterized the rate of required
Category III venting systems, from using a step function to a more
linear, ``phase-in'' function, which assigns a Category III-requirement
rate of 25 percent for oil-fired furnaces rated at 83 percent AFUE, and
gradually increases the percentage of installations using Category III
venting systems for oil-fired furnaces rated above 83 percent AFUE.
DOE's approach is further detailed and explained in section 6.5.6 of
the NOPR TSD for oil-fired furnaces. DOE used a per-installation cost
adder for Category III venting systems that does not change with the
AFUE level of oil-fired furnaces. It is the change in the assumed
frequency of installations requiring Category III venting systems which
results in the cost differences. Table 2, below, compares the DOE's
ANOPR and NOPR assumptions about the fraction of the oil furnaces that
require Category III venting systems at certain efficiency levels:
Table 2.--Fraction of the Oil Furnaces Requiring Category III Venting
Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANOPR NOPR
Efficiency level (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
82% and below................................... 0 0
83%............................................. 0 25
84%............................................. 100 50
85%............................................. 100 75
86% and above................................... 100 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE welcomes comment on its assumptions for use of Category III
venting systems for oil-fired furnaces.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E7-2167 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
