Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers, 6184-6186 [E7-2167]

Download as PDF 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:http:// 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:http://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