Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines, 44914-44968 [E9-19392]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44914
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Number EERE–2006–STD–0125]
RIN 1904–AB58
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Refrigerated Bottled or Canned
Beverage Vending Machines
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is adopting new energy
conservation standards for refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending
machines. DOE has determined that
energy conservation standards for these
types of equipment would result in
significant conservation of energy, and
are technologically feasible and
economically justified.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
October 30, 2009, except that the
standards in 10 CFR 431.296 are
effective August 31, 2011. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this rule was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on October 30, 2009.
ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to
read background documents, the
technical support document, transcripts
of the public meetings in this
proceeding, or comments received, visit
the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource
Room of the Building Technologies
Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th
Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202)
586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Please call Brenda Edwards at
the above telephone number for
additional information regarding
visiting the Resource Room. (Note:
DOE’s Freedom of Information Reading
Room no longer houses rulemaking
materials.) You may also obtain copies
of certain previous rulemaking
documents in this proceeding (i.e.,
framework document, advance notice of
proposed rulemaking, notice of
proposed rulemaking), draft analyses,
public meeting materials, and related
test procedure documents from the
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy’s Web site at https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/
beverage_machines.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of
Energy, Energy Efficiency and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–
2192, Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov.
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of General Counsel,
GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202)
586–9507, Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
A. The Standard Levels
B. Benefits to Customers of Beverage
Vending Machines
C. Impact on Manufacturers
D. National Benefits
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Beverage Vending Machine Equipment
2. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Issues
III. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
C. Energy Savings
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Comments on Methodology
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Definitions Related to Refrigerated
Beverage Vending Machines
2. Equipment Classes
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Approach
2. Analytical Models
D. Markups To Determine Equipment Price
E. Energy Use Characterization
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
G. Shipments Analysis
1. Split Incentives
2. Sustainability of Sales Less Than 100
Thousand Units
3. Distribution of Equipment Classes and
Sizes
4. Future Sales Decline
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Choice of Discount Rate
2. Discounting of Physical Values
I. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
K. Utility Impact Analysis
L. Employment Impact Analysis
M. Environmental Assessment
N. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other
Emissions Impacts
V. Discussion of Other Comments
A. Information and Assumptions Used in
Analyses
1. Engineering Analysis
B. Benefits and Burdens
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Significance of Energy Savings
C. Economic Justification
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1. Economic Impact on Commercial
Customers
2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
3. National Impact Analysis
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
D. Conclusion
1. Class A Equipment
2. Class B Equipment
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Need for and Objectives of the Final
Rule
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public
Comments
3. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
5. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize the
Economic Impact on Small
Manufacturers
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its
Benefits
A. The Standard Levels
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6295 et seq.;
EPCA), directs the Department of Energy
(DOE) to establish mandatory energy
conservation standards for refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending
machines. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v)(1), (2) and
(3)) These types of equipment are
referred to collectively hereafter as
‘‘beverage vending machines.’’ Any
such standard must be designed to
‘‘achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency * * * which the
Secretary determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified.’’ (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1))
Furthermore, the new standard must
‘‘result in significant conservation of
energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The
standards in today’s final rule, which
apply to all beverage vending machines,
satisfy these requirements. Currently, no
mandatory Federal energy conservation
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
standards exist for the beverage vending
machine equipment covered by this
rulemaking.
Table I.1 shows the standard levels
that DOE is adopting today. These
standards will apply to all beverage
vending machines manufactured for sale
in the United States, or imported to the
United States, starting 3 years after
publication of the final rule.
TABLE I.1—STANDARD LEVELS FOR
BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINES
Proposed standard level **
maximum daily energy
consumption (MDEC)
kWh/day ***
Equipment
class *
A ..................
B ..................
MDEC = 0.055 × V + 2.56.†
MDEC = 0.073 × V + 3.16.††
* See section IV.A.2 of the NOPR for a discussion of equipment classes.
44915
** ‘‘V’’ is the refrigerated volume (ft 3) of the
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine, as measured by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(AHAM) HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy, Performance
and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers.’’ V is the volume of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 1200–2006, Appendix C.
*** Kilowatt hours per day.
† Trial Standard Level (TSL) 6.
†† TSL 3.
B. Benefits to Customers of Beverage
Vending Machines
Table I.2 indicates the impacts on
commercial customers of today’s
standards.
TABLE I.2—IMPLICATIONS OF NEW STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS
Energy
conservation
standard
Equipment class
Class A .............................................................
Class B .............................................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
The economic impacts on commercial
customers (i.e., the average life-cycle
cost [LCC] savings) are positive for most
equipment classes. For example, fully
cooled (Class A) medium-capacity
vending machines—the most common
type currently being sold—have
installed prices of $2,625 and annual
energy costs of $188, respectively at
national average values. To meet the
new standards, DOE estimates that the
installed prices of such equipment will
be $2,864, an increase of $239, which
will be offset by annual energy savings
of approximately $69 and an increase in
maintenance and repair cost of $13.
C. Impact on Manufacturers
Using a real corporate discount rate of
7 percent, DOE estimates the industry
net present value (INPV) of the beverage
vending machine industry to be $44.1
million for Class A units, and $33.7
million for Class B units (both figures in
2008$). For Class A machines, DOE
expects the impact of today’s standards
on the INPV of manufacturers of
beverage vending machines to be a loss
of 18.0 to 25.1 percent ($7.9 million to
$11.1 million) for Class A machines and
a loss of 1.9 to 3.5 percent ($0.6 million
to $1.2 million) for Class B machines.
Based on DOE’s interviews with
manufacturers of beverage vending
machines, DOE expects minimal plant
closings or loss of employment as a
result of the standards.
D. National Benefits
DOE estimates that the standards will
save approximately 0.159 quads
(quadrillion, or 10 15) British thermal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Total installed
cost
$
TSL 6
TSL 3
Total installed
cost increase
$
2,935
2,070
units (Btu) of energy over 30 years
(2012–2042). This is equivalent to all
the energy consumed by more than 830
thousand American households in a
single year.
By 2042, DOE expects energy savings
from the standards to eliminate the need
for approximately 0.118 new 1,000megawatt (MW) power plants. These
energy savings will result in cumulative
greenhouse gas emission reductions of
approximately 9.6 million metric tons
(Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2), an amount
equal to that produced by
approximately 2.0 million cars every
year. Additionally, the standards will
help alleviate air pollution by resulting
in 3.28 kilotons (kt) of cumulative
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission
reductions and between 0 and 0.188
tons of cumulative mercury (Hg)
emission reductions from 2012–2042.
The estimated net present monetary
values of these emissions reductions
(expressed in 2007$) are between $5.5
and $266.3 million for CO2, (expressed
in 2007$), $354,000 and $3.6 million for
NOX (expressed in 2007$), and $0 and
$1.5 million for Hg (expressed in 2007$)
at a 7-percent discount rate (discounted
to 2009). At a 3 percent discount rate,
the estimated net present values of these
emissions reductions are between $11.3
and $543.5 million (2007$) for CO2,
$749,000 and $7.7 million (2007$) for
NOX, and $0 and $3.2 million (2007$)
for Hg.
The national NPV of the standards is
$0.182 billion using a 7 percent
discount rate and $0.476 billion using a
3 percent discount rate, cumulative
from 2012–2057 in 2008$. This is the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Life-cycle cost
savings
$
233
86
277
37
Payback period
years
4.1
6.8
estimated total value of future savings
minus the estimated increased
equipment costs, discounted to 2009.
The benefits and costs of today’s final
rule can also be expressed in terms of
annualized (2008$) values from 2012–
2042. Separate estimates of values for
Class A and Class B equipment are
shown in Table I.3 and Table I.4,
respectively. In each table, the
annualized monetary values are the sum
of the annualized national economic
value of operating savings benefits
(energy, maintenance and repair),
expressed in 2008$, plus the monetary
values of the benefits of carbon dioxide
emission reductions, otherwise known
as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)
expressed as $19 per metric ton of
carbon dioxide, in 2007$. The $19 value
is a central interim value from a recent
interagency process. The derivation of
this value is discussed in section VI.C.6.
Although summing the value of
operating savings to the values of CO2
reductions provides a valuable
perspective, please note the following:
(1) The national operating savings are
domestic U.S. consumer monetary
savings found in market transactions
while the CO2 value is based on a range
of estimates of imputed marginal social
cost of carbon from $1.14 to $55 per
metric ton (2007$), which are meant to
reflect, for the most part, the global
benefits of carbon dioxide reductions;
(2) the national operating savings are
measured in 2008$ while the CO2 saving
are measured in 2007$; and (3) the
assessments of operating savings and
CO2 savings are performed with
different computer models, leading to
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44916
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
different time frames for analysis. The
present value of national operating
savings is measured for the period
2012–2057 (31 years from 2012 to 2042
inclusive, plus the lifetime of the
longest-lived equipment shipped in the
31st year), then converted the
annualized equivalent for the 31 years.
The value of CO2, on the other hand is
meant to reflect the present value of all
future climate related impacts, even
those beyond 2057.
Using a 7 percent discount rate for the
annualized cost analysis, the combined
cost of the standards established in
today’s final rule for Class A and Class
B beverage vending machines is $24.0
million per year in increased equipment
and installation costs, while the
annualized benefits are $41.8 million
per year in reduced equipment
operating costs and $9.0 million in CO2
reductions, for a net benefit of $26.8
million per year. Using a 3 percent
discount rate, the cost of the standards
established in today’s final rule is $23.1
million per year in increased equipment
and installation costs, while the benefits
of today’s standards are $49.1 million
per year in reduced operating costs and
$10.3 million in CO2 reductions, for a
net benefit of $36.3 million per year.
The separate estimates of values for
Class A and Class B equipment are
shown in Table I.3 and Table I.4
respectively.
TABLE I.3—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT
Primary estimate
(AEO reference
case)
Category
Low estimate
(low growth
case)
Units
High estimate
(high growth
case)
Year
dollars
Disc
(percent)
Period
covered
Benefits
Annualized Monetized (millions$/year)
37.7 ..................
44.2 ..................
34.2 ..................
39.9 ..................
40.0 ..................
46.8 ..................
2008 ............
2008 ............
7
3
31
31
Annualized Quantified ...........................
0.25 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.07 NOX (kt) ...
0.004 Hg (t) ......
0.26 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.039 NOX (kt)
0.005 Hg (t) ......
0.25 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.07 NOX (kt) ...
0.004 Hg (t) ......
0.26 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.039 NOX (kt)
0.005 Hg (t) ......
0.25 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.07 NOX (kt) ...
0.004 Hg (t) ......
0.26 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.039 NOX (kt)
0.005 Hg (t) ......
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
7
7
7
3
3
3
31
31
31
31
31
31
CO2 Monetized Value (at $19/Metric
Ton, millions$/year).
7.9 ....................
7.9 ....................
7.9 ....................
2007 ............
7
31
9.0 ....................
9.0 ....................
9.0 ....................
2007 ............
3
31
45.5 ..................
42.1 ..................
47.9 ..................
2008 & 2007
7
31
53.2 ..................
48.9 ..................
55.8 ..................
2008 & 2007
3
31
19.6 ..................
18.8 ..................
2008 ............
2008 ............
7
3
31
31
Total Monetary
year)*.
Benefits
(millions$/
Qualitative
Costs
Annualized Monetized (millions$/year)
19.6 ..................
18.8 ..................
19.6 ..................
18.8 ..................
Qualitative
Net Benefits/Costs
Annualized Monetized, including Carbon Benefits* (million$/year).
26.0 ..................
22.6 ..................
28.4 ..................
2008 & 2007
7
31
34.4 ..................
30.1 ..................
36.9 ..................
2008 & 2007
3
31
Qualitative
* Per the above discussion, this represents a simplified estimate that includes both 2007$ and 2008$.
TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT
Primary estimate
(AEO reference
case)
Category
Low estimate
(low growth
case)
Units
High estimate
(high growth
case)
Year
dollars
Disc
(percent)
Period
covered
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Benefits
Annualized Monetized (millions$/year)
4.1 ....................
4.9 ....................
3.6 ....................
4.3 ....................
4.4 ....................
5.2 ....................
2008 ............
2008 ............
7
3
31
31
Annualized Quantified ...........................
0.03 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.01 NOX (kt) ...
0.001 Hg (t) ......
0.04 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.012 NOX (kt)
0.03 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.01 NOX (kt) ...
0.001 Hg (t) ......
0.04 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.012 NOX (kt)
0.03 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.01 NOX (kt) ...
0.001 Hg (t) ......
0.04 CO2 (Mt) ...
0.012 NOX (kt)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
7
7
3
3
31
31
31
31
31
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
44917
TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT—Continued
Units
Primary estimate
(AEO reference
case)
Benefits
(millions$/
Year
dollars
0.001 Hg (t) ......
0.001 Hg (t) ......
NA ...............
3
31
1.1 ....................
1.1 ....................
1.1 ....................
2007 ............
7
31
1.3 ....................
1.3 ....................
2007 ............
3
31
5.2 ....................
4.7 ....................
5.6 ....................
2008 & 2007
7
31
6.1 ....................
Total Monetary
year)*.
High estimate
(high growth
case)
1.3 ....................
CO2 Monetized Value (at $19/Metric
Ton, millions$/year).
Low estimate
(low growth
case)
0.001 Hg (t) ......
Category
5.5 ....................
6.5 ....................
2008 & 2007
3
31
4.4 ....................
4.3 ....................
2008 ............
2008 ............
7
3
31
31
Disc
(percent)
Period
covered
Qualitative
Costs
Annualized Monetized (millions$/year)
4.4 ....................
4.3 ....................
4.4 ....................
4.3 ....................
Qualitative
Net Benefits/Costs
Annualized Monetized, including Carbon Benefits (million$/year)*.
0.8 ....................
0.3 ....................
1.1 ....................
2008 & 2007
7
31
1.9 ....................
1.3 ....................
2.2 ....................
2008 & 2007
3
31
Qualitative
* Per the above discussion, this represents a simplified estimate that includes both 2007$ and 2008$.
II. Introduction
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
A. Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety
of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42
U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles. The amendments to EPCA
contained in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109–58,
include new or amended energy
conservation standards and test
procedures for some of these products,
and direct DOE to undertake
rulemakings to promulgate such
requirements. In particular, section
135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 amends EPCA
to direct DOE to prescribe energy
conservation standards for beverage
vending machines. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v))
Because of its placement in Part A of
Title III of EPCA, the rulemaking for
beverage vending machine energy
conservation standards is bound by the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295.
However, since beverage vending
machines are commercial equipment,
DOE intends to place the new
requirements for beverage vending
machines in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 431
(‘‘Energy Efficiency Program for Certain
Commercial and Industrial
Equipment’’), which is consistent with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
DOE’s previous action to address the
EPACT 2005 requirements for
commercial equipment. The location of
the provisions within the CFR does not
affect either their substance or
applicable procedure, so DOE is placing
them in the appropriate CFR part based
on their nature or type. DOE will refer
to beverage vending machines as
‘‘equipment’’ throughout the notice
because of their placement in 10 CFR
part 431. DOE publishes today’s final
rule pursuant to Title III, Part A of
EPCA, which provides for test
procedures, labeling, and energy
conservation standards for beverage
vending machines and certain other
equipment. The test procedures for
beverage vending machines appear at
sections 431.293 and 431.294.
EPCA provides criteria for prescribing
new or amended standards for beverage
vending machines. As indicated above,
any new or amended standard for this
equipment must be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)) Additionally, EPCA
provides specific prohibitions on
prescribing such standards. DOE may
not prescribe an amended or new
standard for any equipment for which
DOE has not established a test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Further, DOE may not prescribe an
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
amended or new standard if DOE
determines by rule that such standard
would not result in ‘‘significant
conservation of energy’’ or ‘‘is not
technologically feasible or economically
justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and
(B))
EPCA also provides that in deciding
whether such a standard is
economically justified for equipment
such as beverage vending machines,
DOE must, after receiving comments on
the proposed standard, determine
whether the benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens by considering, to
the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the
standard;
2. The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered equipment in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the
equipment likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
3. The total projected amount of
energy savings likely to result directly
from the imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the products likely to
result from the imposition of the
standard;
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
44918
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
5. The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the imposition of the
standard;
6. The need for national energy
conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of
Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))
In addition, EPCA, as amended (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)),
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that any standard for covered products
is economically justified if the Secretary
finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the
consumer of purchasing a product
complying with an energy conservation
standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy (and as
applicable, water) savings during the
first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated
under the test procedure * * *’’ in
place for that standard.
EPCA further provides that the
Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if interested persons
have established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the standard is ‘‘likely
to result in the unavailability in the
United States in any covered product
type (or class) of performance
characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes
that are substantially the same as those
generally available in the United States
at the time of the Secretary’s finding.’’
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(e)(1))
Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA is
applicable to promulgating standards for
most types or classes of equipment,
including beverage vending machines
that have two or more subcategories. (42
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1)) Under this provision, DOE
must specify a different standard level
than that which applies generally to
such type or class of equipment for any
group of products ‘‘which have the same
function or intended use, if * * *
products within such group—(A)
consume a different kind of energy from
that consumed by other covered
products within such type (or class); or
(B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
products within such type (or class) do
not have and such feature justifies a
higher or lower standard’’ than applies
or will apply to the other products. (42
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In
determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies such a different
standard for a group of products, DOE
must consider ‘‘such factors as the
utility to the consumer of such a
feature’’ and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
rule prescribing such a standard must
include an explanation of the basis on
which DOE established such a higher or
lower level. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Federal energy conservation standards
for commercial equipment generally
supersede State laws or regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6297(a)–(c); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(2)–(3))
DOE 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); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(2)–(3))
B. Background
1. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Beverage Vending Machine Equipment
As discussed in the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR), 74 FR
26022 (May 29, 2009) (the May 2009
NOPR), the EPACT 2005 amendments to
EPCA require that DOE issue energy
conservation standards for the
equipment covered by this rulemaking,
which would apply to equipment
manufactured 3 years after publication
of the final rule establishing the energy
conservation standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(v)(1), (2) and (3)) The energy use
of this equipment has not previously
been regulated by Federal law.
Section 135(a)(3) of EPACT 2005 also
amended section 321 of EPCA, in part,
by adding definitions for terms relevant
to this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291 (40))
EPCA defines ‘‘refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machine’’ as
‘‘a commercial refrigerator that cools
bottled or canned beverages and
dispenses the bottled or canned
beverages on payment.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291
(40)) Section 136(a)(3) of EPACT 2005
amended section 340 of EPCA, in part,
by adding a definition for ‘‘commercial
refrigerator, freezer, and refrigeratorfreezer.’’
During the course of this rulemaking,
Congress passed the Energy
Independence Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007), which the President signed
on December 19, 2007 (Pub. L. 110–
140). Section 310(3) of EISA 2007
amended section 325 of EPCA in part by
adding subsection 325(gg) (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)). This subsection requires any
new or amended energy conservation
standards adopted after July 1, 2010, to
incorporate ‘‘standby mode and off
mode energy use.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)) In the NOPR, DOE stated
that because any standards associated
with this rulemaking are required by
August 2009, the energy use
calculations will not include ‘‘standby
mode and off mode energy use.’’ To
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
include standby mode and off mode
energy use requirements for this
rulemaking would take considerable
analytical effort and would likely
require changes to the test procedure.
Given the statutory deadline, DOE has
decided to address these additional
requirements when the energy
conservation standards for beverage
vending machines are reviewed in
August 2015. At that time, DOE will
consider the need for possible
amendment in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(m). (74 FR 26023)
DOE commenced this rulemaking on
June 28, 2006, by publishing a notice of
a public meeting and of the availability
of its framework document for the
rulemaking. 71 FR 36715. The
framework document described the
approaches DOE anticipated using and
issues to be resolved in the rulemaking.
DOE held a public meeting in
Washington, DC on July 11, 2006, to
present the contents of the framework
document, describe the analyses DOE
planned to conduct during the
rulemaking, obtain public comment on
these subjects, and facilitate the public’s
involvement in the rulemaking. After
the public meeting, DOE also allowed
the submission of written statements in
response to the framework document.
On June 16, 2008, DOE published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANOPR) in this proceeding. 73 FR
34094 (the June 2008 ANOPR). In the
June 2008 ANOPR, DOE sought
comment on its proposed equipment
classes for the rulemaking, and on the
analytical framework, models, and tools
that DOE used to analyze the impacts of
energy conservation standards for
beverage vending machines. In
conjunction with the June 2008 ANOPR,
DOE published on its Web site the
complete ANOPR technical support
document (TSD), which included the
results of DOE’s various preliminary
analyses in this rulemaking. In the June
2008 ANOPR, DOE requested oral and
written comments on these results and
on a range of other issues. DOE held a
public meeting in Washington, DC, on
June 26, 2008, to present the
methodology and results of the ANOPR
analyses and to receive oral comments
from those who attended. The oral and
written comments DOE received
focused on DOE’s assumptions,
approach, and equipment class
breakdown, and were addressed in
detail in the May 2009 NOPR.
In the May 2009 NOPR, DOE
proposed new energy conservation
standards for beverage vending
machines. 74 FR 26020. In conjunction
with the May 2009 NOPR, DOE also
published on its Web site the complete
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TSD for the proposed rule, which
incorporated the final analyses that DOE
conducted, and contained technical
documentation for each step of the
analysis. The TSD included the
engineering analysis spreadsheets, the
LCC spreadsheet, and the national
impact analysis spreadsheet. The
standards DOE proposed for beverage
vending machines are shown in Table
II.1.
TABLE II.1—MAY 2009 PROPOSED
STANDARD LEVELS FOR BEVERAGE
VENDING MACHINES
Equipment
class *
A ..................
B ..................
Proposed standard level **
maximum daily energy
consumption (MDEC)
kWh/day ***
MDEC = 0.055 × V + 2.56.†
MDEC = 0.073 × V + 3.16.††
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
* See section IV.A.2 of the NOPR (74 FR
26027) for a discussion of equipment classes.
** ‘‘V’’ is the refrigerated volume (ft3) of the
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine, as measured by ANSI/AHAM
HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers.’’
*** Kilowatt hours per day.
† TSL 6.
†† TSL 3.
In the May 2009 NOPR, DOE
identified issues on which it was
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties. These included the magnitude
of the estimated decline in INPV and
what impact this level could have on
industry parties including small
businesses; whether the proposed linear
equation used to describe the maximum
daily energy consumption standards
should be based on a two-point, threepoint, or some other weighting strategy;
whether the proposed standard risks
industry consolidation; how small
business manufacturers will be affected
due to new energy conservation
standards; the potential compliance
costs and other impacts to small
manufacturers that do not supply the
high-volume customers of beverage
vending machines; the impacts on small
manufacturers for possible alternatives
to the proposed rule; and whether the
energy savings and related benefits
outweigh the costs, including potential
manufacturer impacts. After the
publication of the May 2009 NOPR,
DOE received written comments on
these and other issues. DOE also held a
public meeting in Washington, DC, on
June 17, 2009, to hear oral comments on
and solicit information relevant to the
proposed rule. The May 2009 NOPR
included additional background
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
information on the history of this
rulemaking. 74 FR 26023.
2. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Issues
a. Type of Standard
For the ANOPR, DOE received
comments from interested parties
regarding the type of standards it would
be developing as part of this
rulemaking. Some interested parties
recommended that DOE set prescriptive
standards, while others suggested that
the choice of technologies used to
achieve standards should be left to the
discretion of the manufacturer. (73 FR
34100)
In response, DOE noted in the ANOPR
that EPCA provides that an ‘‘energy
conservation standard’’ must be either
(A) ‘‘a * * * level of energy efficiency’’
or ‘‘a * * * quantity of energy use,’’ or
(B), for certain specified equipment, ‘‘a
design requirement.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(6))
Thus, an ‘‘energy conservation
standard’’ cannot consist of both a
design requirement and a level of
efficiency or energy use. In addition,
beverage vending machines are not one
of the specified types of equipment for
which EPCA allows a standard be set
with a design requirement. (42 U.S.C.
6291(6)(B), 6292(a)) Item (A) above also
indicates that, under EPCA, a single
energy conservation standard cannot
have measures of both energy efficiency
and energy use. Furthermore, EPCA
specifically requires DOE to base its test
procedure for this equipment on ANSI/
American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 32.1–
2004, Methods of Testing for Rating
Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned
or Other Sealed Beverages. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(15)) The test methods in ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 consist of
means to measure energy consumption,
not energy efficiency. (73 FR 34100)
During the NOPR public meeting, the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project
(ASAP), stated that DOE’s previous
decisions to not allow multi-part
standards needs to be revisited, but not
as part of this rulemaking. Multi-part
standards would allow performance
standards and design requirements to be
established. (ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 35) A notation
in the form ‘‘ASAP, No. 56 at p. 35’’
identifies an oral comment that DOE
received during the June 17, 2008,
NOPR Public Meeting. This comment
was recorded in the public meeting
transcript in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2006–
BT–STD–0125). This particular notation
refers to a comment (1) made during the
public meeting by the Appliance
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44919
Standards Awareness Project; (2)
recorded in document number 35,
which is the public meeting transcript
filed in the docket of this rulemaking;
and (3) appearing on page 35 of
document number 56. In a written
comment co-signed by Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E), Southern
California Edison, Southern California
Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas
and Electric (SDGE), ASAP, and the
National Resource Defense Council
(NRDC), hereafter the Joint Comment,
signatories urged DOE to include a
design requirement for factory set
controls in today’s final rule. (Joint
Comment, No. 67 at p. 2) For the
reasons given above, DOE maintains
that it does not have authority to
develop standards that consist of both a
design requirement and a level of
efficiency or energy use. Instead, DOE
has developed standards that would
require that each beverage vending
machine be subject to a maximum level
of energy consumption, and
manufacturers could meet these
standards with their own choice of
design methods.
In response to the NOPR, the
University of Southern Maine (USM)
recommended that DOE establish energy
consumption standards that are based
on beverage vending machines that have
no lights, with the exception of lighting
the coin slots. Or as an alternative, USM
suggested that the standards be based on
a machine that has lights controlled by
proximity sensors that turn lights on
only when prospective purchasers are
nearby. (USM, No. 52 at p. 1) USM also
supported setting a design standard that
encourages the use of refrigerant gases
that offer the lowest total life-cycle
impacts. (USM, No. 52 at p. 1) As stated
above, beverage vending machines are
not one of the specified equipment for
which EPCA allows a standard to
consist of a design requirement. (42
U.S.C. 6291(6)(B), 6292(a))
b. Combination Vending Machines
Combination vending machines have
a refrigerated volume for the purpose of
cooling and vending ‘‘beverages in a
sealed container,’’ and are therefore
covered by this rule. However, beverage
vending is not their sole function.
Combination vending machines also
have non-refrigerated volumes for the
purpose of vending other, non-‘‘sealed
beverage’’ merchandise. In the ANOPR,
DOE addressed several comments from
interested parties regarding combination
vending machines. Specifically, these
parties were concerned that regulating
vending machines that contain both
refrigerated and non-refrigerated
products could result in confusion
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
44920
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
about what this rulemaking covers, or
could result in manufacturers taking
advantage of loopholes to produce
equipment that does not meet the
standards. In response, DOE stated that
the language used in EPCA to define
beverage vending machines is broad
enough to include any vending
machine, including a combination
vending machine, as long as some
portion of that machine cools bottled or
canned beverages and dispenses them
upon payment. (42 U.S.C. 6291 (40))
DOE interprets this language to cover
any vending machine that can dispense
at least one type of refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage, regardless of the
other types of vended products (some of
which may not be refrigerated). 73 FR
34105–06.
At the NOPR public meeting, DixieNarco stated that combination vending
machines were not specifically included
in the analysis, which focused on glass
front and stack-style beverage vending
machines, and should be studied
further. (Dixie-Narco, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 204) Dixie-Narco
asserted that the existing formulas for
Class A and Class B machines create an
energy threshold that cannot be met by
combination machines. Dixie-Narco
explained that with combination
machines, the entire cabinet is
illuminated, but they typically have
smaller refrigerated volumes compared
to other vending machines with similar
exterior dimensions. Dixie-Narco
suggested creating a Class C equipment
class for zone-cooled glass front vending
machines. It proposed the following
equation: MDEC = 0.073 × V + 3.5.
Dixie-Narco also stated that it is open to
other possible solutions suggested by
DOE or other concerned parties. (DixieNarco, No. 64 at p. 3) Coca-Cola stated
that combination vending machines
may not scale down in efficiency
because refrigeration components may
not be available in small sizes. (CocaCola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56
at p. 210) Dixie-Narco noted that
combination vending machines are not
typically purchased by Coca-Cola and
PepsiCo, and are manufactured by a
group of manufacturers different from
the beverage vending machine
manufacturers. Dixie-Narco also stated
that shipments for combination vending
machines are very small. (Dixie-Narco,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at pp.
204, 212)
In the analysis for the proposed rule,
DOE did not consider combination
vending machines as a separate
equipment class. Rather, they were
considered with all other Class A and
Class B beverage vending machines.
However, based on comments received,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
DOE recognizes that the design and
manufacture of combination vending
machines may be challenged by less
component availability compared to
other beverage vending machines. DOE
concludes that combination vending
machines have a distinct utility that
limits the energy efficiency
improvement potential possible for such
beverage vending machines. While more
efficient combination vending machines
are technologically feasible, DOE does
not have the data needed to estimate
either the energy efficiency
improvement potential or the cost of
more efficient designs of combination
vending machines. Furthermore, none
of the interested parties’ comments
provided an economic analysis
demonstrating that efficiency standards
for such beverage vending machines
would be cost-justified. Without
engineering cost and efficiency data,
DOE was not able to perform an analysis
of the impacts of standards on
combination vending machines. Thus,
DOE is not able to determine whether
energy conservation standards for
combination vending machines are
economically justified and would result
in significant energy savings. Based on
the above, DOE concludes that
combination vending machines are a
class of beverage vending machines,
and, since DOE cannot determine
whether standards would meet EPCA’s
statutory criteria, DOE is not setting
standards for combination vending
machines at this time. Instead, DOE is
reserving standards for combination
vending machines. EPCA does require
that, not later than 6 years after issuance
of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, the Secretary shall
publish either a notice of determination
that standards for the product do not
need to be amended or a notice of
proposed rulemaking including new
proposed standards. 42 U.S.C. 6295(m).
So that interested parties understand
what constitutes a combination vending
machine, DOE is incorporating into
today’s final rule a definition for
combination vending machine, and is
modifying the definitions of Class A and
Class B beverage vending machines (see
section IV.A.2). DOE adopts the
following definition for combination
vending machine: ‘‘Combination
vending machine means a refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending
machine that also has non-refrigerated
volumes for the purpose of vending
other, non-‘‘sealed beverage’’
merchandise.’’
DOE notes that this definition for
combination vending machine could be
refined if DOE initiates a rulemaking
proceeding that evaluates energy
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conservation standards for combination
vending machines.
c. Installed Base
USA Technologies stated that it does
not believe that significant energy
savings will be achieved by the standard
unless the installed base is included.
(USA Technologies, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 16)
DOE acknowledges that additional
energy savings can be obtained by
regulating the installed base of beverage
vending machines. This would require
existing, used machines to be rebuilt or
refurbished to comply with the
standards. However, in the ANOPR,
DOE carefully considered its authority
to establish energy conservation
standards for rebuilt and refurbished
beverage vending machines and
concluded that its authority does not
extend to rebuilt and refurbished
equipment. (73 FR 34106–07)
As stated in the ANOPR, throughout
the history of the energy conservation
standards program, DOE has not
regulated used consumer products or
commercial equipment that has been
refurbished, rebuilt, or undergone major
repairs, since EPCA only covers new
covered equipment distributed in
commerce. Therefore, for this final rule,
DOE maintains that rebuilt or
refurbished beverage vending machines
are not new covered equipment under
EPCA and, therefore, are not subject to
DOE’s energy conservation standards or
test procedures.
d. Rating Conditions
In the ANOPR, DOE stated that it
planned to use a 75 °F/45 RH rating
condition for all beverage vending
machines covered by this rulemaking.
(73 FR 34102) In a written comment on
the NOPR, the National Automatic
Merchandising Association (NAMA)
stated that these rating conditions were
appropriate. (NAMA, No. 65 at p. 3)
Dixie-Narco also commented that it
supports the 75 °F/45 percent relative
humidity (RH) rating condition because
it is a more realistic temperature for
measuring energy efficiency compared
to the 90 °F/65 percent RH condition.
Therefore, for this final rule, DOE
continues to use the 75 °F/45 RH rating
condition for all beverage vending
machines covered by this rulemaking.
e. Certification and Enforcement
Regal Beloit asked how certification
and enforcement will be conducted for
the energy conservation standards that
DOE establishes for beverage vending
machines. (Regal Beloit, No. 59 at p. 1)
To enforce energy conservation
standards, DOE establishes both
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
generally applicable regulations that
apply to various types of products or
equipment covered by standards, as
well as a limited number of productspecific requirements. DOE has not
adopted requirements that apply to
beverage vending machines (an EPACT
2005 addition to the program). DOE is
developing enforcement regulations for
the EPACT 2005 equipment, which it
expects will be based on the existing
enforcement regulations that require
manufacturers to certify compliance
with the standards by filing two
separate documents: (1) A compliance
statement in which the manufacturer
certifies its equipment meets the
requirements; and (2) a certification
report in which the manufacturer
provides equipment-specific
information, such as the model number,
energy consumption and other model
specific information that would enable
DOE to determine which equipment
class and standard the equipment is
subject to and whether the equipment
meets the standard.
In instances where there are questions
whether equipment meets the standards,
existing regulations require DOE to
consult with the manufacturer. If DOE
remains unsatisfied with the
manufacturer’s explanation for the
alleged noncompliance, DOE may test
units of the allegedly non-complying
product or equipment, to determine
whether it meets the applicable
standard. After DOE has completed
testing, the manufacturer has the option
to conduct additional tests for DOE to
consider. DOE has never had to conduct
enforcement testing, as it has been able
to resolve all issues with manufacturers
prior to taking that step.
The beverage vending machine
standards will go into effect 3 years after
the publication of the final rule. DOE
anticipates that it will have enforcement
regulations in place, applicable to
beverage vending machines, by that
time. But if such regulations are not in
place when the standards go into effect,
manufacturers will not be required to
report to DOE. Moreover, if there is a
question regarding compliance with the
standards, DOE will confer with the
manufacturer before pursuing
enforcement action. A violation of these
standards could subject a manufacturer
to injunctive action or other relief. See
42 U.S.C. 6302–6305.
III. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
On December 8, 2006, DOE published
a final rule (the December 2006 final
rule) in the Federal Register that
incorporated by reference ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004, with two
modifications, as the DOE test
procedure for this equipment. 71 FR
71340, 71375; 10 CFR 431.294. In
44921
section 6.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1–2004, Voltage and Frequency, the
first modification specifies that
equipment with dual nameplate
voltages must be tested at the lower of
the two voltages only. 71 FR 71340,
71355 The second modification
specifies that (1) any measurement of
‘‘vendible capacity’’ of refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending
machines must be in accordance with
the second paragraph of section 5 of
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004,
Vending Machine Capacity; and (2) any
measurement of ‘‘refrigerated volume’’
of refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines must be in
accordance with the methodology
specified in section 5.2, Total
Refrigerated Volume (excluding
subsections 5.2.2.2 through 5.2.2.4) of
ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy,
Performance and Capacity of Household
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and
Freezers.’’
The current version of ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1–2004 defines standard
bottled, canned, or other sealed
beverage storage capacity; establishes
uniform methods of testing for
determining laboratory performance of
vending machines for bottled, canned,
or other sealed beverages; and defines
three tests/test conditions, as seen in
Table III.1.
TABLE III.1—ANSI/ASHRAE STANDARD 32.1–2004—STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS
Test and pretest conditions
Energy consumption tests
Vend test
Ambient Temperature ....................
Perform twice: At 90 ± 2 °F (32.2
± 1 °C) and at 75 °F ± 2 °F
(23.9 ± 1 °C).
65 ± 5% for 90 ± 2 °F test and 45
± 5% for 75 ± 2 °F test.
.......................................................
36 ± 1 °F (2.2 ± 0.5 °C) Throughout Test.
Not Applicable ..............................
90 ± 2 °F (32.2 ± 1 °C) ................
90 ± 2 °F (32.2 ± 1 °C).
65 ± 5% ........................................
65 ± 5%.
90 ± 1 °F (32.2 ± 0.5 °C) .............
40 °F or less (4.4 °C or less)
Final Temperature.
36 ± 1 °F (2.2 ± 0.6 °C) Pretest
Conditions.
90 ± 1 °F (32.2 ± 0.5 °C).
33–40 °F (0.6–4.4 °C) Final
Temperature.
36 ± 1 °F (2.2 ± 0.6 °C) Pretest
Conditions.
Relative Humidity ...........................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Reloaded Product Temperature ....
Average Beverage Temperature
(for test).
Average Beverage Temperature
(for pretest conditions).
During the NOPR public meeting,
ASAP stated that DOE’s test procedures
for beverage vending machines should
be revised to capture technologies such
as variable speed technologies and
advanced controls. ASAP stated that
there are energy savings that are not
being achieved because the test
procedure does not account for these
types of technologies. (ASAP, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 36) In
addition, Coca-Cola stated that the DOE
test procedure does not accurately
reflect actual operating conditions,
because it does not regulate or dictate
the control of the operating methods for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
all the powered elements in the
equipment. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 147) Coca-Cola
also stated that lighting controls would
not save as much energy in real world
applications as the test procedure
indicates, resulting in ‘‘artificially low’’
test results. (Coca-Cola, No. 63 at p. 1)
Coca-Cola commented that very few of
its vending machines go into
applications where they are inactive for
long periods of time. (Coca-Cola, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 193)
For these reasons, Coca-Cola and NAMA
conclude that TSL 6 for Class A
machines is not ‘‘practically feasible.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Recovery test
(Coca-Cola, No. 63 at p. 1 and NAMA,
No. 65 at p. 3) The Joint Comment
recommends that the next revision to
the current test procedure address; (1)
the limitations of steady-state testing
conditions, (2) the current test
procedure’s insufficient representation
of real world conditions, and (3) the
capture of increased energy use as a
result of future, energy intensive
beverage vending machine features,
such as interactive displays. (Joint
Comment, No. 67 at p. 4) Elstat stated
that prohibiting the use of standby and
off mode power does not support the
goal of reduced energy consumption in
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44922
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
beverage vending machines, and
recommends that DOE revisit the use of
energy management controls in 2010, or
within one year of the rule statutory
deadline (Elstat, No. 62 at p. 1) DOE
notes, however, that it is not prohibiting
the use of standby and off mode power
consumption, but rather is not including
standby mode and off mode power
consumption in its calculation of energy
use. As stated in the May 2009 NOPR,
DOE has decided to address these
additional requirements when the
energy conservation standards for
beverage vending machines are
reviewed in August 2015 (see section
II.B.1) and, as described below, must
review the test procedures by 2013.
As stated above, DOE’s test procedure
for refrigerated beverage vending
machines is based on ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1–2004. Section 302(a) of
EISA 2007 amended section 323 of
EPCA, in part, by adding new
subsection 323(b)(1). (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)) This subsection provides
that the Secretary shall review test
procedures at least once every 7 years.
Therefore, the test procedure for
refrigerated beverage vending machines
must be reviewed by December 8, 2013,
to determine whether an amendment is
necessary. In addition, DOE is aware
that ASHRAE, via its Standards Project
Committee 32.1, is working on an
update to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1–2004. While specific changes to
ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 are
unknown at this time, DOE understands
that the beverage vending machine
industry is working closely with
ASHRAE to develop an update to this
test procedure. As part of the 7-year
review of the test procedures for
refrigerated beverage vending machines,
DOE will consider any updates to
ASHRAE Standard 32.1 standard, as
well as any technologies to reduce
energy consumption and/or increase
energy efficiency and determine
whether the test procedure and/or
measure of energy efficiency warrant
revisions.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
As stated above, any standards that
DOE establishes for beverage vending
machines must be technologically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and
(o)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) DOE
considers a design option to be
technologically feasible if it is in use by
the respective industry or if research has
progressed to the development of a
working prototype. ‘‘Technologies
incorporated in commercially available
equipment or in working prototypes
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
will be considered technologically
feasible.’’ 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
This final rule considers the same
design options as those evaluated in the
May 2009 NOPR. (See chapter 4 of the
TSD.) All the evaluated technologies
have been used (or are being used) in
commercially available products or
working prototypes. Therefore, DOE has
determined that all of the efficiency
levels evaluated in this notice are
technologically feasible.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
As required by EPCA, (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) in
developing the May 2009 NOPR, DOE
identified the energy use levels that
would achieve the maximum reductions
in energy use that are technologically
feasible (‘‘max-tech’’ levels) for beverage
vending machines. 74 FR 26025. For
today’s final rule, the max-tech levels
for all classes are the levels provided in
Table III.2. DOE identified these
maximum technologically feasible
levels for the equipment classes
analyzed as part of the engineering
analysis (chapter 5 of the TSD). For both
equipment classes, DOE applied the
most efficient design options available
for energy-consuming components.
TABLE III.2—MAX-TECH ENERGY USE
LEVELS
Equipment
class
Max-tech level
kWh/day *
A ........................
B ........................
MDEC = 0.045 × V + 2.42.
MDEC = 0.068 × V + 2.63.
‘‘V’’ is the refrigerated volume of the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending
machine, as measured by ANSI/AHAM HRF–
1–2004.
* Kilowatt hours per day.
C. Energy Savings
DOE forecasted energy savings in its
national energy savings (NES) analysis
through the use of a spreadsheet tool
discussed in the May 2009 NOPR. 74 FR
26020, 26039–43, 26057.
One criterion that governs DOE’s
adoption of standards for refrigerated
beverage vending machines is the
standard must result in ‘‘significant
conservation of energy.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1))
While EPCA does not define the term
‘‘significant,’’ the U.S. Court of Appeals
in Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Herrington 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC Cir.
1985) indicated that Congress intended
‘‘significant’’ energy savings in this
context to be savings that were not
‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ DOE’s estimates of
the energy savings for energy
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conservation standards at each of the
TSLs in today’s final rule indicate that
the energy savings each would achieve
are nontrivial. Therefore, DOE considers
these savings ‘‘significant’’ within the
meaning of section 325 of EPCA.
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted earlier, EPCA provides
seven factors to evaluate in determining
whether an energy conservation
standard for refrigerated beverage
vending machines is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and
42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) The following
sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in
this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Commercial
Customers and Manufacturers
DOE considered the economic impact
of the new refrigerated beverage vending
machines standards on commercial
customers and manufacturers. For
customers, DOE measured the economic
impact as the change in installed cost
and life-cycle operating costs, i.e., the
LCC. (See sections IV.F and VI.C.1.a and
chapter 8 of the TSD.) DOE investigated
the impacts on manufacturers through
the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA).
(See sections IV.J and VI.C.2, and
chapter 13 of the TSD.) The economic
impact on commercial customers and
manufacturers is discussed in detail in
the May 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 26033–38,
26039–26044, 26044–47, 26050–53,
26053–56, 26063–67.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
DOE considered life-cycle costs of
beverage vending machines, as
discussed in the May 2009 NOPR. 74 FR
at 26033–38, 26050–53
DOE calculated the sum of the
purchase price and the operating
expense (discounted over the lifetime of
the equipment) to estimate the range in
LCC benefits that commercial customers
would expect to achieve due to the
standards.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of
energy is a separate statutory
requirement for imposing an energy
conservation standard, EPCA also
requires DOE, in determining the
economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy
savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1)) As in the May 2009 NOPR
(74 FR 26056–57), for today’s final rule,
DOE used the NES spreadsheet results
in its consideration of total projected
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
savings that are directly attributable to
the standard levels DOE considered.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Equipment
In selecting today’s standard levels,
DOE sought to avoid new standards for
beverage vending machines that would
lessen the utility or performance of that
equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1)); 74 FR 26059. Today’s
standards do not involve changes in
design or unusual installation
requirements that would reduce the
utility or performance of the equipment.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
e. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
DOE considers any lessening of
competition likely to result from
standards. Accordingly, as discussed in
the May 2009 NOPR (74 FR 26059,
26064–65, 26070–71), DOE requested
that the Attorney General transmit to the
Secretary a written determination of the
impact (if any) of lessening of
competition likely to result from today’s
standard, together with an analysis of
the nature and extent of such impact.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)
and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1))
To assist the Attorney General in
making such a determination, DOE
provided the Department of Justice
(DOJ) with copies of May 2009 proposed
rule and the NOPR TSD for review.
(DOJ, No. 61 at pp. 1–2) The Attorney
General’s response is discussed in
section VI.C.5 and is reprinted at the
end of this rule. For Class A machines,
DOJ concluded that the proposed TSL 6
could potentially lessen competition.
DOJ requested that DOE ensure that the
standard it adopts for Class A beverage
vending machines will not require
access to intellectual property owned by
an industry participant, which would
place other industry participants at a
comparative disadvantage. For Class B
machines, DOJ does not believe the
proposed standard would likely lead to
a lessening of competition. Compliance
with a lesser standard does not appear
to raise similar concerns.
f. Need of the Nation To Conserve
Energy
In considering standards for
refrigerated beverage vending machines,
the Secretary must consider the need of
the Nation to conserve energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1)) The Secretary recognizes
that energy conservation benefits the
Nation in several important ways. The
non-monetary benefits of the standards
are likely to be reflected in
improvements to the security and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
reliability of the Nation’s energy system.
Today’s standards will also result in
environmental benefits. DOE has
considered these factors in adopting
today’s standards.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether a standard is
economically justified, EPCA directs the
Secretary to consider any other factors
deemed relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1)) In adopting today’s standard,
DOE considered LCC impacts on
identifiable groups, such as customers
of different business types who may be
disproportionately affected by any
national energy conservation standard.
In particular, DOE examined the LCC on
businesses with high financing costs
and low energy prices that may not be
able to afford a significant increase in
the purchase price (‘‘first cost’’) of
beverage vending machines. Some of
these customers may retain equipment
past its useful life. Large increases in
first cost could also preclude the
purchase and use of equipment entirely.
DOE identified no factors for analysis
other than those already considered
above.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA
states that there is a rebuttable
presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified if the additional cost to the
consumer that meets the standard level
is less than three times the value of the
first-year energy (and as applicable,
water) savings resulting from the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable DOE test procedure. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1)) DOE’s LCC and payback
period (PBP) analyses generate values
that calculate the PBP for customers of
potential energy conservation standards,
which includes, but is not limited to,
the 3-year PBP contemplated under the
rebuttable presumption test discussed
above. However, DOE routinely
conducts a full economic analysis that
considers the full range of impacts,
including those to the customer,
manufacturer, Nation, and environment,
as required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis
serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate
definitively the economic justification
for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of
any preliminary determination of
economic justification).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44923
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Comments on Methodology
DOE used several previously
developed analytical tools in setting
today’s standard. Each was adapted for
this rule. One of these analytical tools
is a spreadsheet that calculates LCC and
PBP. Another calculates national energy
savings and national NPV. A third tool
is the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (GRIM), the results of which are
the basis for the MIA, among other
methods. In addition, DOE developed
an approach using the National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate
impacts of energy efficiency standards
for beverage vending machines on
electric utilities and the environment.
The TSD appendices discuss each of
these analytical tools in detail. 74 FR
26026–49.
As a basis for this final rule, DOE has
continued to use the spreadsheets and
approaches explained in the May 2009
NOPR. DOE used the same general
methodology but has revised some of
the assumptions and inputs for this final
rule in response to comments from
interested parties. The following
paragraphs discuss these revisions.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
When beginning an energy
conservation standards rulemaking,
DOE develops information that provides
an overall picture of the market for the
equipment concerned, including the
purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, and market characteristics.
This activity includes both quantitative
and qualitative assessments based
primarily on publicly available
information. DOE presented its market
and technology assessment for this
rulemaking in the May 2009 NOPR and
chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD. The
assessment included equipment
definitions, equipment classes,
manufacturers, quantities and types of
equipment offered for sale, retail market
trends, and regulatory and nonregulatory programs.
1. Definitions Related to Refrigerated
Beverage Vending Machines
a. Definition of Bottled or Canned
Beverage
EPCA defines the term ‘‘refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending
machine’’ as ‘‘a commercial refrigerator
that cools bottled or canned beverages
and dispenses the bottled or canned
beverages on payment.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6291(40)) Thus, coverage of equipment
under EPCA as a beverage vending
machine, in part, depends on whether it
cools and dispenses ‘‘bottled beverages’’
and/or ‘‘canned beverages.’’ DOE
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44924
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
tentatively decided to consider a
broader definition for the terms
‘‘bottled’’ and ‘‘canned’’ as they apply to
beverage vending machines based on
comments on the framework document.
A bottle or can in this broader definition
refers to ‘‘a sealed container for
beverages,’’ so a bottled or canned
beverage is ‘‘a beverage in a sealed
container.’’ Such a definition would
avoid unnecessary complications
regarding the material composition of
the container and eliminate the need to
determine whether a particular
container is a bottle or a can. In the
ANOPR, DOE sought comment on this
broader definition and on whether it is
consistent with the intent of EPCA. (73
FR 34103) DOE did not receive any
comments on this and thus proposed in
the NOPR that a bottled or canned
beverage mean ‘‘a beverage in a sealed
container.’’ (74 FR 26027) Because DOE
did not receive any comments in
response to the proposed definition in
the May 2009 NOPR, DOE is adopting
the definition of bottled or canned
beverage as proposed, without
modification.
2. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
generally divides covered equipment
into equipment classes by the type of
energy used, capacity, or other
performance-related features that affect
efficiency and factors such as the utility
of such feature(s). (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
DOE routinely establishes different
energy conservation standards for
different equipment classes based on
these criteria.
Certain characteristics of beverage
vending machines have the potential to
affect their energy use and efficiency.
Accordingly, these characteristics could
be the basis for separate equipment
classes for these machines. DOE
determined that the most significant
criterion affecting beverage vending
machine energy use is the method used
to cool beverages. In the NOPR, DOE
divided covered equipment into two
equipment classes according to method
of refrigeration: Class A and Class B. (74
FR 26027)
The Class A beverage vending
machine equipment class comprises
machines that cool product throughout
the entire refrigerated volume of the
machine. Class A machines generally
use ‘‘shelf-style’’ vending mechanisms
and a transparent (glass or polymer)
front. Because the next-to-be-vended
product is visible to the customer and
any product can be selected by the
customer off the shelf, all bottled or
canned beverage containers are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
necessarily enclosed within the
refrigerated volume.
In Class B beverage vending
machines, refrigerated air is directed at
a fraction (or zone) of the refrigerated
volume of the machine. This cooling
method is used to assure that the nextto-be-vended product will be the coolest
product in the machine. These
machines typically have an opaque front
and use a ‘‘stack-style’’ vending
mechanism.
Therefore, DOE defines Class A and
Class B as follows:
• Class A means a refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage vending machine
that is fully cooled, and is not a
combination vending machine.
• Class B means any refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending
machine not considered to be Class A,
and is not a combination vending
machine.
Because DOE did not receive any
comments in response to the
presentation of equipment classes in the
May 2009 NOPR, DOE is adopting the
equipment classes as proposed, with a
modification to address combination
vending machines as described in
section II.B.2.b.
B. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis
is to evaluate the technology options
identified as having the potential to
improve the efficiency of equipment, to
determine which technologies to
consider further and which to screen
out. DOE consulted with industry,
technical experts, and other interested
parties to develop a list of technologies
for consideration. DOE then applied the
following four screening criteria to
determine which technologies are
unsuitable for further consideration in
the rulemaking:
1. Technological Feasibility.
Technologies incorporated in
commercial equipment or in working
prototypes will be considered
technologically feasible.
2. Practicability to Manufacture,
Install, and Service. If mass production
and reliable installation and servicing of
a technology in commercial equipment
could be achieved on the scale
necessary to serve the relevant market at
the time of the effective date of the
standard, then that technology will be
considered practicable to manufacture,
install, and service.
3. Adverse Impacts on Equipment
Utility or Equipment Availability. If a
technology is determined to have
significant adverse impact on the utility
of the equipment to significant
subgroups of customers, or result in the
unavailability of any covered equipment
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States
at the time, it will not be considered
further.
4. Adverse Impacts on Health or
Safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse
impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, Subpart C, Appendix
A at 4(a)(4) and 5(b).
In the ANOPR market and technology
assessment, DOE developed an initial
list of technologies expected to have the
potential to reduce the energy
consumption of beverage vending
machines. In the screening analysis,
DOE screened out technologies based on
the four criteria discussed above. The
list of remaining technologies became
one of the key inputs to the engineering
analysis. (73 FR 34108–09) For the
engineering analysis each technology is
referred to as a design option.
After the ANOPR screening analysis,
DOE did not receive any comments
suggesting a change to its list of design
options. As a result, no changes were
made for the NOPR. During the NOPR
public meeting, multiple manufacturers
expressed the ability to meet today’s
standard with the use of lighting
controls. (Dixie-Narco, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 188 and Royal
Vendors, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
56 at p. 189) As a result, the signatories
of the Joint Comment suggest that DOE
consider lighting controls as a design
option for the final rule because, if not
considered, ‘‘cost-effective energysavings may be forgone.’’ (Joint
Comment, No. 67 at p. 3)
DOE disagrees with the Joint
Commenters’ assessment of lighting
controls. The Joint Comment infers that
a lighting control design option meets
the screening analysis criteria.
According to the screening criteria,
however, a technology cannot be
considered as a design option if it has
adverse impacts on equipment utility.
10 CFR part 430, Subpart C, Appendix
A at 4(a)(4) and 5(b) DOEs analysis
ensures preservation of equipment
utility by choosing design options that,
when implemented, do not lessen utility
relative to the engineering baseline unit.
The energy-savings potential of lighting
controls is realized when the control
system automatically deactivates all or a
portion of a machine’s lighting system.
While the lighting system is deactivated,
the light output of the machine is
reduced, leaving the machine’s contents
or signage less visible. If lighting
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
controls were a design option in the
engineering analysis, this reduction
would represent a loss in utility relative
to the baseline unit. Therefore, lighting
controls do not meet the screening
criteria, and DOE will not consider them
as a design option in its analysis for the
final rule.
In the ANOPR screening analysis,
variable-speed compressors were
eliminated from consideration. For the
NOPR analysis, DOE did not receive any
comments recommending that variablespeed compressors be reconsidered. For
the final rule analysis, the Joint
Comment recommended that DOE
reconsider this technology, stating that
it believes variable-speed compressors
can provide some energy-use reduction,
despite the current steady-state
conditions that are prescribed in ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 test
procedure. The Joint Comment asserted
that when DOE screened out variablespeed compressors, DOE did not
consider that beverage vending machine
manufacturers oversize their
compressors to meet purchasers’ pull
down requirements. (Joint Comment,
No. 67 at p. 2)
DOE screened out variable-speed
compressors in the ANOPR analysis
because the resulting energy efficiency
ratio of a variable-speed compressor
operating at steady state, according to
the test procedure, would not be greater
than the energy efficiency ratio of a
properly sized single-speed compressor.
DOE acknowledges that a variable-speed
compressor operating at steady state
may have energy savings compared to
an oversized single-speed compressor
operating at the same conditions.
However, DOE is unaware of any data
that quantifies and compares these
energy savings specifically for beverage
vending machines under these
conditions. DOE was also unable to
determine whether variable-speed
compressors are a cost-effective design
option. Due to a lack of any comparative
data on the performance of variable
speed compressors for these
applications and evidence of the cost
effectiveness of variable-speed
compressors, DOE did not consider
variable-speed compressors in its
analysis.
In the framework document, DOE
stated that, to the greatest extent
possible, it would base its analysis on
commercially available technologies
that have not been screened out,
including proprietary designs. DOE
stated that it would consider a
proprietary design in the subsequent
analyses only if it is not a unique path
to a given efficiency level. If the
proprietary design is the only approach
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
available to achieve a given efficiency
level, then DOE will exclude that
efficiency level from further analysis.
During the NOPR public meeting,
PepsiCo stated that the use of LED
lighting in glass front vendors is a
proprietary design patented by CocaCola, which PepsiCo is precluded from
using. (PepsiCo, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 52) In a written
comment, NAMA stated similar
concerns. (NAMA, No. 65 at p. 3) CocaCola stated that there are control
strategies used in beverage vending
machines (e.g., certain lighting controls
and certain motor controls) that are
patented and are not widely available
for use by all manufacturers. (Coca-Cola,
No. 56 at p. 149 and Coca-Cola, No. 63
at p. 1) Coca-Cola added that TSL 6 for
Class A machines cannot be achieved
without these ‘‘firmware’’ control
strategies. (Coca-Cola, No. 63 at p. 1)
According to USA Technologies, there
are patented, after-market lighting
control products widely used in the
industry. (USA Technologies, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 200) In
addition, Dixie-Narco stated that it is
not aware of any intellectual property
issues that would prevent other
manufactures from adopting lighting
strategies similar to those that it has
been using in its equipment. (DixieNarco, No. 64 at p. 3) ASAP stated that
certain patented technologies may
provide a cost-effective way to achieve
a certain efficiency level, but they do
not preclude a manufacturer from
achieving the same efficiency level in a
different manner. ASAP submits that
there are historically multiple paths to
achieve any given efficiency level.
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
56 at p. 202)
DOE recognizes that there are existing
patents that involve specific screened-in
beverage vending machine technologies.
For example, there is a U.S. patent on
a ‘‘Dispensing Apparatus with
Directional LED Lighting’’ (Patent No.
U.S. 6,550,269 B2, April 22, 2003). DOE
is not screening out proprietary
technologies such as LED lighting or
certain control strategies, solely because
they are proprietary. In contrast, DOE is
incorporating these technologies into its
analysis because DOE believes that there
are alternate pathways to achieve the
efficiency levels associated with these
technologies. Providing LED lighting in
a vending machine in a manner other
than directionally, employing an
alternative lighting type, and/or
providing various other control
strategies that are not patented, have the
potential to result in a vending machine
that meets equivalent efficiency levels.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44925
DOE notes that most patents do not
convey market power to their owners
because close substitutes for these
inventions exist. Licensors will pay no
more for patented technologies than the
cost advantage they provide over the
next best alternative pathway to
compliance with the efficiency
standard. Ultimately, the availability of
cost-effective alternate technology
pathways is what limits the ability of
the owner of a proprietary technology to
extract high fees for its use. It is DOE’s
opinion that a standard level which can
only be met with a single proprietary
technology which comes without
assurances of open and free technology
access should be rejected because it
carries great risk of resulting in an anticompetitive market. This principle has
been consistently applied in past DOE
rulemakings. If standard levels were set
based on proprietary technologies
representing a unique path to
compliance and not available to all
equipment manufacturers, the
standards-setting process itself would
convey great market power because
there would be no alternative means to
satisfy the standard. In consideration of
these factors, DOE maintains that it can
consider proprietary designs as long as
it is not a unique path to a given
efficiency level. For the reasons
discussed, DOE believes that neither
directional LED lighting nor lighting
controls represent a unique path to
compliance with TSL 6 for Class A
equipment.
C. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis develops
cost-efficiency relationships to show the
manufacturing costs of achieving
increased energy efficiency. As
discussed in the May 2009 NOPR, DOE
used the design-option approach,
involving consultation with outside
experts, review of publicly available
cost and performance information, and
modeling of equipment cost and energy
consumption. 74 FR 26027–26030.
Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD contains a
detailed discussion of the engineering
analysis methodology.
1. Approach
In this rulemaking, DOE is adopting a
design-option approach, which
calculates the incremental costs of
increased efficiency. Efficiency
increases are modeled by implementing
specific energy saving technologies,
referred to as design options, to a
baseline model. Using the design-option
approach, cost-efficiency relationship
estimates are based on manufacturer or
component supplier data or derived
from engineering computer simulation
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44926
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
models. Chapter 5 of the TSD contains
a detailed description of the equipment
classes analyzed and analytical models
used to conduct the design-option
approach based beverage vending
machine engineering analysis.
2. Analytical Models
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
a. Cost Model
DOE used a cost model to estimate the
core case cost of beverage vending
machines. The core case cost is the cost
of all non-energy-consuming
components, such as the structure,
walls, doors, shelving, and fascia. This
model was adapted from a cost model
developed for DOE’s rulemaking on
commercial refrigeration equipment
(refer to https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
commercial/
refrigeration_equipment.html for further
detail on and validation of the
commercial refrigeration equipment cost
model). The approach for commercial
refrigeration equipment involved
disassembling a self-contained
refrigerator, analyzing the materials and
manufacturing processes for each
component, and developing a
parametric spreadsheet to model the
cost to fabricate (or purchase) each
component and the cost of assembly.
Because of the similarities in
manufacturing processes between selfcontained commercial refrigeration
equipment and beverage vending
machines, DOE was able to adapt the
commercial refrigeration equipment cost
model for use in this rule. This
adaptation involved maintaining many
of the assumptions about materials and
manufacturing processes but modifying
the dimensions and types of
components specific to beverage
vending machines. To confirm the
accuracy of the cost model, DOE
obtained input from interested parties
on beverage vending machine
production cost estimates and on other
assumptions DOE used in the model.
Chapter 5 of the TSD provides details of
the cost model.
b. Energy Consumption Model
The energy consumption model
estimates the daily energy consumption
(DEC) of beverage vending machines at
various performance levels using the
previously discussed design-option
approach. The model is specific to the
categories of equipment covered under
this rulemaking, but is sufficiently
generalized to model the energy
consumption of both covered equipment
classes. For a given equipment class, the
model estimates the DEC for the
baseline design and the energy
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
consumption of several levels of
performance above the baseline design.
DOE uses the model to calculate each
performance level separately. For the
NOPR, DOE made updates to the energy
consumption model by altering Class A
can capacities (or vendible capacities)
and verifying Class B can capacities. For
both classes, DOE modified exterior case
dimensions, which resulted in changes
in infiltration loads, refrigerated
volumes, and exterior wall areas. These
alterations and their effects are detailed
in chapter 5 of the TSD. DOE did not
receive any comments in response to
these changes. Therefore, DOE
maintained these revised calculation
methodologies for the final rule. DOE
did, however, receive a comment
regarding the energy consumption
model DEC results. Royal Vendors and
NAMA commented that, without
lighting, a Class B machine will always
consume less energy than a similarly
equipped Class A machine due to
differences in their thermodynamic
properties. Royal Vendors cites the
divergence from this expected outcome
at TSL 4 as the origin of their skepticism
for DOE’s Class A analysis. (Royal
Vendors, No. 60 at pp. 1 and 2; NAMA,
No. 65 at pp. 3 and 4)
DOE’s analysis results and selected
TSLs adequately reflect the
thermodynamic differences between
Class A and Class B machines. DOE
agrees that a Class B machine stripped
of electricity consuming components
that are not essential to the refrigeration
system (i.e., lighting) will consume less
energy than a similarly equipped Class
A machine. As described in chapter 5 of
the final rule TSD, the engineering
analysis’ DEC results are modeled as the
sum of the component electricity
consumption and compressor electricity
consumption. The physical and
thermodynamic equipment differences
described by Royal affect the total
refrigeration load, which is factored into
the compressor electricity consumption
in DOE’s energy consumption model.
When comparing compressor electricity
consumption results between a Class A
and Class B machine with the same
volume, the Class B machine
compressor consumes less electricity at
all engineering efficiency levels. The
divergence in DEC described by Royal
Vendors at higher TSLs occurs because
the modeled Class A and Class B
machines being compared are no longer
‘‘similarly equipped.’’ Different design
options are implemented for each
machine class at each TSL, and each
design option has unique energy savings
potential. For instance, at TSL 4 for
Class A machines, LED lighting is
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
implemented which has an incremental
component energy savings of 0.89 kWh/
day. At TSL 4 for Class B machines, an
electronically commutated motor (ECM)
condenser fan motor is implemented
which has an incremental component
energy savings of 0.05 kWh/day. These
incremental component energy savings
manifest themselves as reductions in the
component electricity consumption
addend of the DEC. The greater energy
savings potential of some Class A design
options results in component electricity
consumption reductions significant
enough to drive the overall DEC of Class
A machines below that of Class B
machines. See chapter 5 of the TSD for
a detailed explanation of the
engineering analysis energy
consumption model.
Based on public comments, DOE
proposed to use refrigerated volume
instead of vendible capacity as the
normalization metric for setting
standards for beverage vending
machines in the NOPR. (74 FR 26029)
Following the NOPR, NAMA
commented that volume was an
appropriate normalization metric, rather
than the number of cans. (NAMA, No.
65 at p. 3) Therefore, DOE will continue
to use refrigerated volume as the
normalization metric in the standard.
D. Markups To Determine Equipment
Price
In the May 2009 NOPR, DOE
explained how it developed the
distribution channel markups used. 74
FR 26036. DOE did not receive
comments on these markups; however,
it updated the distribution channel
markups by including 2009 sales tax
data as well as the markups for
refrigerated beverage vending machines
wholesalers using 2009 financial data.
DOE used these markups, along with
sales taxes, installation costs, and
manufacturer selling prices (MSPs)
developed in the engineering analysis,
to arrive at the final installed equipment
prices for baseline and higher efficiency
refrigerated beverage vending machines.
As explained in the May 2009 NOPR (74
FR 26036), DOE defined three
distribution channels for refrigerated
beverage vending machines to describe
how the equipment passes from the
manufacturer to the customer. DOE
retained the same distribution channel
market shares described in the May
2009 NOPR.
The new overall baseline and
incremental markups for sales within
each distribution channel are shown in
Table IV.1 and Table IV.2. Chapter 6 of
the TSD provides additional details on
markups.
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
44927
TABLE IV.1—OVERALL AVERAGE BASELINE MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX
Manufacturer
direct
Markup category
Markup .......................................................................................................................
Sales tax ....................................................................................................................
Overall markup ..........................................................................................................
Wholesaler/
distributor
1.000
1.071
1.071
Overall weighted
average
1.460
1.071
1.564
1.069
1.071
1.145
TABLE IV.2—OVERALL AVERAGE INCREMENTAL MARKUPS BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL INCLUDING SALES TAX
Manufacturer
direct
Markup category
Markup .......................................................................................................................
Sales tax ....................................................................................................................
Overall markup ..........................................................................................................
E. Energy Use Characterization
The energy use characterization
estimates the annual energy
consumption of beverage vending
machines. This estimate is used in the
subsequent LCC and PBP analyses
(chapter 8 of the TSD) and NIA (chapter
11 of the TSD). DOE estimated the
energy use for machines in the two
equipment classes examined (74 FR
26027) in the engineering analysis
(chapter 5 of the TSD) based on the DOE
test procedure. DOE incorporated ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 by
reference with two modifications as the
DOE test procedure for the beverage
vending machines. 71 FR 71340, 71375
(Dec. 8, 2006); 10 CFR 431.294. DOE
assumed all Class A machines to be
installed indoors and subject to a
constant air temperature of 75 °F and
relative humidity of 45 percent,
matching test conditions in the DOE test
procedure. 73 FR 34114–15. Based on
market data and discussions with
several beverage vending machine
distributors, DOE assumed that 25
percent of Class B machines are placed
outdoors, with the remaining 75 percent
placed indoors. DOE sought but did not
receive comments on this distribution;
thus, DOE maintained the same
distribution of Class B machines for this
final rule.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
In response to the requirements of
section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA, DOE
conducted LCC and PBP analyses to
Wholesaler/
distributor
1.000
1.071
1.071
evaluate the economic impacts of
possible new beverage vending machine
standards on individual customers. DOE
used the same spreadsheet models to
evaluate the LCC and PBP as it used for
the NOPR analysis; however, DOE
updated certain specific inputs to the
models. Details of the spreadsheet
model and of all the inputs to the LCC
and PBP analyses are in TSD chapter 8.
DOE conducted the LCC and PBP
analyses using a spreadsheet model
developed in Microsoft Excel for
Windows 2003.
The LCC is the total cost for a unit of
beverage vending machine equipment
over the life of the equipment, including
purchase and installation expense and
operating costs (energy expenditures
and maintenance). To compute the LCC,
DOE summed the installed price of the
equipment and its lifetime operating
costs discounted to the time of
purchase. The PBP is the change in
purchase expense due to a given energy
conservation standard divided by the
change in first-year operating cost that
results from the standard. DOE
expresses PBP in years. DOE measures
the changes in LCC and in PBP
associated with a given energy use
standard level relative to a base case
equipment energy use. The base case
forecast reflects the market in the
absence of mandatory energy
conservation standards.
The data inputs to the PBP calculation
are the purchase expense (otherwise
known as the total installed customer
cost or first cost) and the annual
operating costs for each selected design.
Overall weighted
average
1.200
1.071
1.285
1.030
1.071
1.103
The inputs to the equipment purchase
expense were the equipment price and
the installation cost, with appropriate
markups. The inputs to the operating
costs were the annual energy
consumption, electricity price, and
repair and maintenance costs. The PBP
calculation uses the same inputs as the
LCC analysis, but because it is a simple
payback, the operating cost is for the
year the standard takes effect, assumed
to be 2012. DOE believes LCC is a better
indicator of economic impacts on
customers. For each efficiency level
analyzed, the LCC analysis required
input data for the total installed cost of
the equipment, operating cost, and
discount rate.
Table IV.3 summarizes the inputs and
key assumptions DOE used to calculate
the economic impacts of various energy
consumption levels on customers.
Equipment price, installation cost, and
baseline and standard design selection
affect the installed cost of the
equipment. Annual energy use,
electricity costs, electricity price trends,
and repair and maintenance costs affect
the operating cost. The effective date of
the standard, the discount rate, and the
lifetime of equipment affect the
calculation of the present value of
annual operating cost savings from
today’s standard. Table IV.3 also shows
how DOE modified these inputs and key
assumptions for the final rule relative to
the May 2009 NOPR. Chapter 8 of the
TSD provides the changes to the input
data and discusses the overall approach
to the LCC analysis.
TABLE IV.3—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES
Input
NOPR description
Changes for final rule
Baseline Manufacturer Selling Price
Price charged by manufacturer to either a wholesaler or large customer for baseline equipment. Developed by using industry-supplied efficiency level data and a design option analysis.
Data reflect updated engineering
analysis.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44928
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.3—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES—Continued
Input
NOPR description
Changes for final rule
Standard-Level Manufacturer Selling Price Increases.
Incremental change in manufacturer selling price for equipment at
each of the higher efficiency standard levels. Developed by using a
combination of energy consumption level and design option analyses.
Associated with converting the manufacturer selling price to a customer price (chapter 6 of TSD). Developed based on product distribution channels and sales taxes.
Cost to the customer of installing the equipment. This includes labor,
overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. The total installed cost equals the customer equipment price plus the installation price. Installation cost data provided by industry comment.
Site energy use associated with the use of beverage vending machines, which includes only the use of electricity by the equipment
itself. Taken from engineering analysis and validated in energy use
characterization. (chapter 7 of the TSD).
Established average commercial electricity price ($/kWh) from EIA
data for 2008 in 2007$. DOE then established scaling factors for
beverage vending machine customers based on the 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey.
Used the AEO2009 Reference Case to forecast future electricity
prices and extrapolated prices to 2042.
Data reflect updated engineering
analysis.
Markups and Sales Tax ..................
Installation Price ..............................
Equipment Energy Consumption ....
Electricity Prices ..............................
Electricity Price Trends ...................
Maintenance Costs .........................
Repair Costs ...................................
Equipment Lifetime .........................
Discount Rate ..................................
Rebound Effect ...............................
Analysis Period ...............................
Labor and material costs associated with maintaining the beverage
vending machines (e.g., cleaning heat exchanger coils, checking
refrigerant charge levels, lamp replacement). Based on industry
comment on the NOPR, included an updated annualized cost of
one refurbishment/remanufacturing cycle.
Labor and material costs associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed. Estimated based on replacement frequencies and costs for key components.
Age at which the beverage vending machine is retired from service.
Based on industry comment on the ANOPR, reduced average
service life to 10 years, with 15 years as a maximum.
Computed by estimating the cost of capital for companies that purchase refrigeration equipment using business financial data from
the Damodaran Online database from 2008.
A rebound effect was not taken into account in the LCC analysis .......
The time span over which DOE calculated the LCC (i.e., 2012–2042)
The changes in the input data and the
discussion of the overall approach to the
LCC analysis are provided in chapter 8
of the TSD.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
G. Shipments Analysis
The shipments analysis develops
future shipments for each class of
beverage vending machines based on
current shipments and equipment life
assumptions, and takes into account the
existing stock and expected trends in
markets that use beverage vending
machines. DOE received several
comments on the shipments analysis
and the resulting shipments during the
NOPR. Although DOE used the same
shipments model for the final rule
analysis as the NOPR, many of the
underlying assumptions concerning
future market behavior were changed as
a result of the interested party
comments.
1. Split Incentives
Coca-Cola (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 196 and CocaCola, No. 63 at p. 2) and PepsiCo
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
(PepsiCo, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 56 at p. 94) stated that if costlier
components and expensive control
schemes are necessary to produce
higher efficiency equipment, it would
purchase less equipment. While DOE
recognizes the principle that higher
costs of equipment might possibly affect
sales, neither major purchaser provided
any data that would allow a quantitative
assessment of the effect of higher prices
on overall purchases (price elasticity) to
be calculated. However, DOE notes that
for Class A equipment, the increase in
installed cost at TSL 6 is in the range
of 5 to 10 percent; for Class B machines,
the increase in installed cost is in the
range of 2 to 4 percent. Even if
shipments fell by the same percentage
that installed cost increased by (i.e.,
price elasticity equaled 1.0, a relatively
large number), neither the net present
value of TSL 6 for Class A equipment
nor the net present value of TSL 3 for
Class B equipment would be noticeably
affected, nor would the choice of
standard levels.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Markups updated based on revised data on sales tax and
wholesaler financial data.
Data reflect updated installation
costs.
Data reflect updated engineering
analysis for each efficiency
level.
No change.
All price cases revised to reflect
April 2009 update to AEO2009
values.
No change in methodology; however, reinterpreted year’s values.
No change.
No change.
Updated based on data available
in the 2009 version of the
Damodaran Web site.
No change.
No change.
2. Sustainability of Sales Less Than 100
Thousand Units
USA Technologies (USA Tech, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at pp. 78, 79,
and 85) expressed a concern that the
industry’s current number of
manufacturers could not stay in
business if total production were under
100,000 machines per year. DOE
acknowledges the concern about
industry sustainability. However, for the
final rule, DOE assumes a level of
shipments of 190,000 units per year, as
explained in section IV.G.4. This
assumption mitigates the concern about
sales declining below 100,000 units.
One major manufacturer (Dixie-Narco,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p.
86) stated that it can survive even at
today’s low sales levels (less than
100,000 units) by operating on one shift;
additionally, neither manufacturer with
a large market share believed that a
costly investment was necessary to meet
the proposed standard. (Dixie-Narco,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p.
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
186; Royal Vendors, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 188)
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
3. Distribution of Equipment Classes
and Sizes
In the analysis conducted for the
NOPR, DOE assumed based on
interested party comments that Class A
equipment would constitute 55 percent
of new sales and Class B equipment
would constitute 45 percent of new
sales. PepsiCo (PepsiCo, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 89) commented
that Class A sales would be between 50
and 60 percent and Coca-Cola (CocaCola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56
at p. 90) commented that, although they
expected Class A equipment would be
the majority of sales, currently Class B
machines are more than 50 percent of
sales. DOE has decided to shift to a ratio
of 60 percent Class A machines to 40
percent Class B sales for the final rule.
DOE also assumed in the analysis for
the NOPR that small-size units would
constitute approximately zero percent of
future sales, medium-size units at 75
percent, and large-size units at 25
percent of sales. Coca-Cola (Coca-Cola,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p.
107) confirmed the distribution used for
the NOPR. Dixie-Narco (Dixie-Narco,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p.
107) commented that the small-size unit
sales were zero, but that the large
equipment share might be higher—by as
much as 40 percent. Dixie-Narco also
recommended that the NAMA could act
as an intermediary to compile the data
on sales and provide it to DOE. DOE
asked NAMA, and NAMA was able to
provide an estimate of the distribution
between Class A and Class B units for
a subset of the manufacturers,
approximately 60 percent Class B
machines and 40 percent Class A
machines (NAMA, No. 65 at p. 2). To
take account of all of the comments
received, DOE has decided to shift to a
ratio of 50 percent Class A machines to
50 percent Class B sales for the final
rule. NAMA was not able to provide
data on the size distribution within
classes. In the absence of that data and
to account for all comments received,
DOE has modified its distribution of
sales to account for as follows for both
Class A and Class B units: Small-size
units, zero percent; medium-size units,
67 percent; and large-size units, 33
percent.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
4. Future Sales Decline
For the analysis at the NOPR stage,
DOE assumed based on comments from
interested parties on the ANOPR that
future sales would all be replacement
sales and would be flat at the thencurrent level of sales of about 90,000
units per year for the entire period of
analysis. This level of replacements
would result in a reduction in stock
from today’s level of about 2.3 million
units to about 1 million units by 2020.
The commenters agreed that the current
economic situation would result in
additional decline in the number of
deployed units (Royal Vendors, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 74;
Dixie-Narco, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 56 at p. 76); Coca-Cola, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at pp. 77 and
91), but with a possibility of a near-term
recovery based on the need to replace
older equipment as it reaches the end of
its lifetime and to continue to serve the
current customer base. (Dixie-Narco,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 p. 79–
80; Pepsi, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 56 at p. 88; Coca-Cola, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 91)
Several commenters (Dixie-Narco,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p.
76; Coca-Cola, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at pp. 77 and 83;
ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
56 at p. 87) stated that 1 million units
was too small to sustain the current
customer base and that the shipments
would therefore have to be higher than
the current level. During the public
meeting, participants estimated the
ultimate stock ranged from about 1.6
million (Dixie-Narco, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 84) to above 2
million units. (Coca-Cola, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 83) In
view of these comments that there
would be some additional shrinkage of
stock but that the eventual level of stock
in 2020 will need to be approximately
2 million units, DOE assumed that
future shipments would quickly recover
to 190,000 units per year by 2011 and
continue at that level for the foreseeable
future. This allows for some continued
stock shrinkage to about 1.6 million
units in the short run as the 1998–2000
vintage equipment retires faster than it
is replaced, but with stock recovering to
1.9 million units by 2020 and to
approximately 2 million units by 2022.
As ASAP observed (ASAP, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 87), this
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44929
change in assumptions for the final rule
significantly increases the overall
economic benefit of the rule, but its
effect is proportional to sales and does
not significantly affect the choice
between potential levels of the
standards.
H. National Impact Analysis
The national impact analysis (NIA)
assesses future NES and the national
economic impacts of different efficiency
levels. The analysis measures economic
impacts using the NPV (future amounts
discounted to the present) of total
commercial customer costs and savings
expected to result from new standards at
specific efficiency levels. For the final
rule analysis, DOE used the same
spreadsheet model used in the NOPR to
calculate the energy savings and the
national economic costs and savings
from new standards, but did so with
updates to specific input data. Unlike
the LCC analysis, the NES spreadsheet
does not use distributions for inputs or
outputs. DOE examined sensitivities by
applying different scenarios. DOE used
the NIA spreadsheet to perform
calculations of NES and NPV using; (1)
the annual energy consumption and
total installed cost data from the LCC
analysis, and (2) estimates of national
shipments and stock for each beverage
vending machine class from the
shipments analysis. DOE forecasted the
energy savings from each TSL from 2012
to 2042. DOE forecasted the energy cost
savings, equipment costs, and NPV of
benefits for all refrigerated beverage
vending machines classes from 2012 to
2057. The forecasts provided annual
and cumulative values for all four
output parameters.
DOE calculated the NES by
subtracting energy use under a
standards scenario from energy use in a
base case (no new standards) scenario.
Energy use is reduced when a unit of
refrigerated beverage vending machines
in the base case efficiency distribution
is replaced by a more efficient piece of
equipment as a result of the standard.
Energy savings for each equipment class
are the same national average values as
calculated in the LCC and PBP
spreadsheet. Table IV.4 summarizes key
inputs to the NIA analysis and the
changes DOE made in the analysis for
the final rule. Chapter 11 of the TSD
provides additional information about
the NIA spreadsheet.
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44930
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.4—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE INPUTS
Input data
Description of NOPR analysis
Changes for final rule
Shipments .......................................
No growth in shipments; based on industry comments on the NOPR,
all shipments are replacements.
2012 .......................................................................................................
Distribution of base case shipments by efficiency level ........................
Distribution of shipments by efficiency level for each standards case.
Standards case annual market shares by efficiency level remain
constant over time for the base case and each standards case.
Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy consumption level per unit, which are established in chapter 7 of the TSD.
Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy consumption level (chapter 8 of the TSD).
Shipments grow to 190,000 per
year.
No change.
No change.
No change.
Effective Date of Standard ..............
Base Case Efficiencies ...................
Standards Case Efficiencies ...........
Annual Energy Consumption per
Unit.
Total Installed Cost per Unit ...........
Repair Cost per Unit .......................
Annual weighted-average values are constant in real dollar terms for
each energy consumption level (chapter 8 of the TSD).
Maintenance Cost per Unit .............
Annual weighted-average value (chapter 8 of the TSD), plus lighting
maintenance cost.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2009
(AEO2009) forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolates beyond 2030
(chapter 8 of the TSD).
Conversion factor varies yearly and is generated by EIA’s NEMS
model. Includes the impact of electric generation, transmission, and
distribution losses based on AEO2008.
3 and 7 percent real ..............................................................................
Future costs are discounted to 2009 .....................................................
A rebound effect (due to changes in shipments resulting from standards) was not considered in the NIA.
Escalation of Electricity Prices ........
Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion.
Discount Rate ..................................
Present Year ...................................
Rebound Effect ...............................
The modifications DOE made to the
NES and NIA analyses for the final rule
primarily reflect the latest available
updates to the same data sources used
in the NOPR, but not changes in
methodology. In addition, the
underlying input data on equipment
costs and energy savings by TSL are
based on the LCC analysis results as
revised in the final rule.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Maintenance Costs Savings for LED
Lighting in Machines
At the NOPR stage, the Joint Comment
(No. 67 at p. 3) indicated that there are
maintenance costs savings and therefore
potential life-cycle cost savings when
LED lighting is used in place of the
baseline T8 fluorescent lighting for
beverage vending machines. The Joint
Comment referenced an article in the
September 3, 2008, edition of
‘‘Automatic Merchandiser,’’ Energize
Displays with LED Lighting, accessed on
Vendingmarketwatch.com for
information on LED lighting
maintenance costs versus maintenance
costs for a beverage vending machine
with a fluorescent lighting system (last
accessed July 25, 2009). DOE also
reviewed a more recent industry
publication on maintenance cost savings
for LED display lights in beverage
vending machines in the April 15, 2009,
edition of ‘‘Automatic Merchandiser,’’
Tools to Enhance Energy Savings, which
was accessed on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Vendingmarketwatch.com (last accessed
July 25, 2009).
In response to this comment, DOE
conducted a sensitivity analysis for
today’s final rule to estimate the net
economic effect of reduced maintenance
costs for using LED lighting in place of
baseline T8 fluorescent lighting in
beverage vending machine equipment.
The sensitivity analysis estimated the
annualized life cycle cost savings for
LED lighting. For machines with T8
lighting, the analysis assumes two
maintenance visits to a machine to
change out three T8 lamps and a change
out of the T8 lamps and the ballast at
refurbishment (at 5 years) DOE assumed
there was no additional labor for this
change out, since this is undertaken at
refurbishment. DOE estimated the total
cost for maintenance (labor and
materials) for machines with T8 lighting
over the machine lifetime (10 years) to
be $194.
For machines with LED lighting, no
lighting maintenance visits would be
required over the lifetime of the
machine. The cost of replacing three
LED strips at $50 each would take place
during refurbishment and would be
$150. DOE assumed there would be no
additional labor charge for this change
out since this was being undertaken at
refurbishment.
The analysis estimated that the
annualized net maintenance cost
savings is $4.68 for a LED lighting
system used to light a machine
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
No change.
No change in methodology. Installed costs reflect the updated
final rule LCC.
No change in methodology. Repair
costs reflect the updated final
rule LCC values.
No change in methodology.
All cases updated to April 2009
update to AEO2009 forecasts
(chapter 8 of the TSD).
Site-to-source ratio follows April
2009 update to AEO2009.
No change.
No change.
No change.
compared to the baseline T8 lighting
system for a machine. This net
annualized maintenance cost savings is
very small and does not significantly
affect the life cycle cost analysis and
thus does not impact the standards
levels for today’s final rule. Chapter 8 of
the TSD provides additional details of
this sensitivity analysis.
1. Choice of Discount Rate
ASAP commented that the balance of
DOE’s discussion of the choice of
proposed standard overemphasized the
7 percent discount rate when both 7
percent and 3 percent are mandated by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). (ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 144) ASAP
argued that the actual cost of capital the
Department chose for the purchase of
the machine was lower than 7 percent
so that the 3 percent rate should be
considered in the Department’s analysis,
and is required to be considered by
OMB. In response, DOE notes that it
follows the guidelines on discount
factors set forth in guidance that OMB
provides to Federal agencies on the
development of regulatory analysis
(OMB Circular A–4 (September 17,
2003), particularly section E,
‘‘Identifying and Measuring Benefits
and Costs’’). Accordingly, DOE is
continuing to use 3 percent and 7
percent real discount rates for the
relevant calculations for this final rule.
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2. Discounting of Physical Values
ASAP commented that DOE should
not be applying financial discount rates
to physical values such as energy
savings. (ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 37) It said that
doing so is an inappropriate application
of financial evaluation tools and should
be discontinued.
DOE continues to report both
undiscounted and discounted values of
energy savings and carbon emission
reductions. DOE believes this allows for
consideration of a range of policy
perspectives, one of which is the view
that a reduction in emissions today is
more valuable than one in 30 years.
I. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis
In analyzing the potential impact of
new or amended standards on
commercial customers, DOE evaluates
the impact on identifiable groups (i.e.,
subgroups) of customers, such as
different types of businesses that may be
disproportionately affected by a
National standard level. For this
rulemaking, DOE identified
manufacturing and industrial facilities
that purchase their own beverage
vending machines as a relevant subgroup. This customer subgroup is likely
to include owners of high-cost beverage
vending machines because it has the
highest capital costs. This group also
faces the lowest electricity prices of any
customer subgroup. These two
conditions make it likely that this
subgroup will have the lowest life-cycle
cost savings of any major customer subgroup.
DOE determined the impact on this
refrigerated beverage vending machines
customer subgroup using the LCC
spreadsheet model. DOE conducted the
LCC and PBP analyses for customers
represented by the subgroup. DOE did
not receive comments on its
identification of this class of customers
as the key sub-group or on the
assumptions applied to those
subgroups. DOE relied on the same
methodology outlined in the NOPR for
the final rule analysis. The results of
DOE’s LCC subgroup analysis are
summarized in section VI.C.1.b and
described in detail in chapter 12 of the
TSD.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the financial impact of energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of beverage vending
machine equipment, and to assess the
impact of such standards on
employment and manufacturing
capacity. DOE conducted the MIA for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
beverage vending machine equipment in
three phases. Phase 1, Industry Profile,
consisted of preparing an industry
characterization, including data on
market share, sales volumes and trends,
pricing, employment, and financial
structure. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow
Analysis, focused on the industry as a
whole. In this phase, DOE used the
GRIM to prepare an industry cash-flow
analysis. Using publicly available
information developed in Phase 1, DOE
adapted the GRIM’s generic structure to
perform an analysis of beverage vending
machine equipment energy conservation
standards. In Phase 3, Subgroup Impact
Analysis, DOE conducted interviews
with manufacturers representing the
majority of domestic beverage vending
machine equipment sales. This group
included large and small manufacturers,
providing a representative cross-section
of the industry. During these interviews,
DOE discussed engineering,
manufacturing, procurement, and
financial topics specific to each
company, and obtained each
manufacturer’s view of the industry.
The interviews provided valuable
information DOE used to evaluate the
impacts of an energy conservation
standard on manufacturer cash flows,
manufacturing capacities, and
employment levels.
The GRIM inputs consist of the
beverage vending machine industry’s
cost structure, shipments, and revenues.
This includes information from many of
the analyses described above, such as
manufacturing costs and selling prices
from the engineering analysis and
shipments forecasts from the NES.
The GRIM uses the manufacturer
selling prices in the engineering
analysis to calculate the manufacturer
production costs for each equipment
class at each TSL. By multiplying the
production costs by different sets of
markups, DOE derives the MSPs used to
calculate industry revenues.
The GRIM estimates manufacturer
revenues based on total-unit-shipment
forecasts and the distribution of these
shipments by efficiency. Changes in the
efficiency mix at each standard level are
a key driver of manufacturer finances.
For the final rule analysis, DOE used the
total shipments and efficiency
distribution found in the final rule NES.
DOE estimates the equipment
conversion costs and capital conversion
costs that the industry would incur at
each TSL. Equipment conversion costs
include engineering, prototyping,
testing, and marketing expenses
incurred by a manufacturer as it
prepares to comply with a standard.
Capital conversion costs are the onetime outlays for tooling and plant
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44931
changes required for the industry to
comply.
During the NOPR public meeting,
DOE asked manufacturers to discuss
their ability to meet the proposed TSLs
and describe the impacts of those
standards. Both Royal Vendors and
Dixie-Narco discussed their ability to
meet the proposed standards in terms of
the conversion costs each would incur
to develop higher efficiency equipment.
Royal Vendors stated that, in the past,
considerable costs were incurred to get
from pre-ENERGY STAR efficiency
levels to ENERGY STAR Tier I
efficiency levels. These costs included
implementation of ECM fan motors,
magnetic ballasts, and higher efficiency
compressors. (Royal Vendors, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 185)
Dixie-Narco agreed with Royal Vendors
and stated that it faced a costly
transition from ENERGY STAR Tier I to
ENERGY STAR Tier II efficiency levels.
(Dixie-Narco, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 56 at p. 186) In a written comment,
NAMA also noted the considerable
funds already spent by its members to
comply with ENERGY STAR standards.
(NAMA, No. 65 at p. 2) For Class B
machines, Royal Vendors expects
meeting TSL 3 will not require a
tremendous effort. (Royal Vendors,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p.
220) Dixie-Narco also stated that it will
be able to achieve the proposed
standard for Class B machines without
investing significant costs that would
need to be passed on to its customers.
(Dixie-Narco, No. 64 at p. 4) Dixie-Narco
noted that it achieved the TSL 6 energy
consumption level with one of its Class
A vending machines this year, using a
lighting management system. (DixieNarco, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
56 at p. 188) Royal Vendors stated that
it could meet TSL 6 for Class A
machines at relatively minor cost if it
were not precluded by proprietary
design restrictions from adopting a
lighting management system similar to
Dixie-Narco’s. (Royal Vendors, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 189)
Royal Vendors stated that implementing
an energy management system is not an
expensive addition to the machine and
that it can be passed on at essentially no
additional cost. (Royal Vendors, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 188)
Based on public comments, DOE
believes that it accurately estimated the
conversion costs for Class B vending
machines and did not make any changes
for the final rule. However, for Class A
vending machines, DOE believes that
the use of energy management systems
(e.g., lighting) could provide a method
of achieving energy savings at minimal
cost to manufacturers. To account for
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
44932
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
this possibility, DOE modified the
assumed conversion costs required for
manufacturers to meet the Class A
energy consumption levels. In the
NOPR, DOE assumed that since almost
all of the market was already reaching
TSL 1 (i.e., ENERGY STAR Tier II) for
Class A machines, the conversion costs
at TSL 1 were zero. The conversion
costs progressively increased from TSL
2 through TSL 7 (i.e., max-tech). For the
final rule, DOE accounted for the
potential use of an energy management
system by assuming there would be
negligible conversion costs through TSL
2 for all Class A machines, shifting the
conversion costs for TSLs 2 through 5
from the NOPR to TSLs 3 through 6 for
the final rule. For TSL 7, DOE
maintained the conversion costs from
the NOPR since they represent the
maximum possible conversion costs for
the max-tech level. For more
information about DOE’s manufacturer
impact assumptions, see chapter 13 of
the TSD.
In a comment submitted on the
NOPR, NAMA stated that one of its
manufacturers would have difficulty
achieving the reduction in energy
consumption required by the proposed
standard levels. The manufacturer could
only meet the standards by changing the
cabinet insulation thickness, which
would require retooling its production
lines at an estimated cost of over $1
million. (NAMA, No. 65 at p. 3)
DOE estimated the conversion costs to
manufacturers of the standard levels for
both equipment classes and reports the
values in chapter 13 of the TSD. DOE’s
total estimated costs exceed the 1
million dollars reported by the
manufacturer. Because DOE has
accounted for conversion costs of this
magnitude for the industry, DOE
maintained the conversion costs
reported in chapter 13 of the TSD.
For the final rule, DOE analyzed
manufacturer impacts under two
distinct markup scenarios: (1) The
preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage
markup scenario, and (2) the
preservation-of-operating-profit markup
scenario.
Under the first scenario, DOE applied
a single uniform ‘‘gross margin
percentage’’ markup that represents the
current markup for manufacturers in the
beverage vending machine industry.
This markup scenario implies that as
production costs increase with
efficiency, the absolute dollar markup
will also increase. DOE calculated that
the non-production cost markup—
which consists of selling, general, and
administrative (SG&A) expenses;
research and development (R&D)
expenses; interest; and profit—is 1.26.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Under the second scenario, the
implicit assumption behind the
‘‘preservation-of-operating-profit’’
scenario is that the industry can only
maintain its operating profit (earnings
before interest and taxes) from the
baseline after implementation of the
standard in 2012. The industry impacts
occur in this scenario when
manufacturers expand their capital base
and production costs to make more
expensive equipment, but the operating
profit does not change from current
conditions. DOE implemented this
markup scenario in the GRIM by setting
the manufacturer markups at each TSL
to yield approximately the same
operating profit in both the base case
and the standard case in the standards
effective year of 2012. Together, these
two markup scenarios characterize the
range of possible conditions that the
beverage vending machine market will
experience as a result of new energy
conservation standards.
In the NOPR, DOE sought comments
on whether and to what extent parties
estimate they will be able to transfer
costs of implementing TSL 6 to
consumers. 74 FR 26022. During the
NOPR public meeting, Coca-Cola stated
that, 10 years ago, it only had to sell 20
cases for a vending machine to make a
profit. Now, it has to sell 100 cases for
a vending machine to make a profit. It
continued that there are many factors
driving the profitability model of a
vending machine, and to assume that
model will not change is erroneous.
(Coca-Cola, Public Meeting transcript,
No. 56 at p. 91) Coca-Cola stated that,
historically, cost increases in equipment
could not be passed through to the
customer. It does not believe the
increased cost of manufacturing higher
efficiency equipment can be passed on
to the consumer. As a result, the profit
margin for each machine diminishes,
resulting in an overall reduction in
purchases. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 183, Coca-Cola,
No. 63 at p. 2, and NAMA, No. 65 at p.
5) As a result, Coca-Cola concluded that
any increase in cost resulting from
installing more energy-efficient
technologies into a vending machine
cannot be transferred over to consumers.
(Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 56 at p. 182 and NAMA, No. 65 at
p. 2) Coca-Cola estimates that today’s
standard will result in an overall
weighted average price markup of 141⁄2.
(Coca-Cola, No. 63 at p. 2)
The inability to pass on costs starts at
the consumer level and ultimately
travels throughout the entire
distribution chain. As stated in
comments from the NOPR public
meeting, consumers are typically
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
unwilling to incur additional costs for
more energy-efficient equipment. In
addition, end-users (e.g., bottlers) are
typically unwilling to incur additional
costs for energy-efficient equipment,
primarily due to the split-incentive
issue. The split incentive issue is
described in detail in the ANOPR. 73 FR
34101. Therefore, it is very difficult for
manufacturers to transfer any cost
increases for more energy-efficient
equipment to their customers. The
preservation-of-operating-profit scenario
models the more negative potential
impacts on the refrigerated beverage
vending machine industry, and
accounts for manufacturers’ inability to
transfer additional costs to end-users.
For additional detail on the
manufacturer impact analysis, refer to
chapter 13 of the TSD. In addition, as
stated earlier in section IV.J, multiple
major manufacturers stated that their
equipment could meet today’s standard
at little or no added cost. (Dixie-Narco,
No. 64 at p. 2 and Royal Vendors, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 189)
K. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates
the effects of reduced energy
consumption due to improved
equipment efficiency on the utility
industry. This analysis compares
forecast results for a case comparable to
the April 2009 updated AEO2009
Reference Case and forecast results for
policy cases incorporating each of the
beverage vending machines proposed
TSLs.
DOE analyzed the effects of proposed
standards on electric utility industry
generation capacity and fuel
consumption using a variant of EIA’s
NEMS model. EIA uses NEMS to
produce its AEO, a widely recognized
baseline energy forecast for the United
States. DOE used a variant known as
NEMS–BT, run similar to the April 2009
update to the NEMS, except that
refrigerated beverage vending machines
energy usage is reduced by the amount
of energy (by fuel type) saved due to the
TSLs. DOE obtained the inputs of
national energy savings from the NES
spreadsheet model. In response to the
May 2009 NOPR, DOE did not receive
comments directly on the methodology
used for the utility impact analysis. DOE
revised the final rule inputs to use the
NEMS–BT consistent with the April
2009 update to AEO2009 and to use the
NES impacts developed in the beverage
vending machines final rule analysis.
In the utility impact analysis, DOE
reported the changes in installed
capacity and generation by fuel type
that result for each TSL as well as
changes in end-use electricity sales.
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Chapter 14 of the TSD provides details
of the utility analysis methods and
results.
L. Employment Impact Analysis
DOE considers direct and indirect
employment impacts when developing a
standard. In this case, direct
employment impacts are any changes in
the number of employees for beverage
vending machines manufacturers, their
suppliers, and related service firms.
Indirect impacts are those changes in
employment in the larger economy that
occur due to the shift in expenditures
and capital investment caused by the
purchase and operation of more efficient
beverage vending machines. In this
rulemaking, the MIA addresses direct
impacts (chapter 13 of the TSD), and the
employment impact analysis addresses
indirect impacts (chapter 15 of the
TSD).
Indirect employment impacts from
beverage vending machines standards
consist of the net jobs created or
eliminated in the national economy
(other than in the manufacturing sector
being regulated) as a consequence of (1)
reduced spending by end users on
electricity (offset to some degree by the
increased spending on maintenance and
repair); (2) reduced spending on new
energy supply by the utility industry; (3)
increased spending on the purchase
price of new refrigerated beverage
vending machines; and (4) the effects of
those three factors throughout the
economy. DOE expects the net monetary
savings from standards to be redirected
to other forms of economic activity.
DOE also expects these shifts in
spending and economic activity to affect
the demand for labor.
DOE used a different methodology to
estimate indirect national employment
impacts using an input-output model of
the U.S. economy called ImSET (Impact
of Sector Energy Technologies)
developed by DOE’s Building
Technologies Program. 74 FR 26047,
26058. The new method uses the most
recent version of the U.S. input-output
table and updated sector employment
intensities. The ImSET model estimates
changes in employment, industry
output, and wage income in the overall
U.S. economy resulting from changes in
expenditures in various economic
sectors. DOE estimated changes in
expenditures using the NES
spreadsheet. ImSET then estimated the
net national indirect employment
impacts of potential refrigerated
beverage vending machines efficiency
standards on employment by sector. In
response to the May 2009 NOPR, DOE
did not receive comments directly on
the methodology used for the utility
impact analysis. DOE updated its
indirect employment impact analysis
using Version 3 of the ImSET model in
the final rule.
M. Environmental Assessment
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE
prepared an environmental assessment
(EA) of the potential impacts of the
proposed standards it considered for
today’s final rule, which it has included
as chapter 16 of the TSD for the final
rule. DOE found that the environmental
effects associated with the standards for
beverage vending machines were not
significant. Therefore, DOE is issuing a
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), pursuant to NEPA, the
regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts
1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for
compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part
1021). The FONSI is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
In the EA, DOE estimated the
reduction in total emissions of CO2 and
NOX using the NEMS–BT computer
model. DOE calculated a range of
estimates for reduction in Hg emissions
using current power sector emission
rates. The EA does not include the
estimated reduction in power sector
impacts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), because
DOE is uncertain that an energy
conservation standard would not affect
the overall level of SO2 emissions in the
United States due to the presence of
national caps on SO2 emissions. These
topics are addressed further below; see
chapter 16 of the TSD for additional
detail.
The NEMS–BT is run similarly to the
April 2009 update of NEMS, except that
the refrigeration energy use is reduced
by the amount of energy saved due to
the trial standard levels. The inputs of
national energy savings come from the
NIA analysis. For the EA, the output is
the forecasted physical emissions. The
net benefit of the standard is the
difference between emissions estimated
by NEMS–BT and the April 2009
updated AEO2009 Reference Case. The
NEMS–BT tracks CO2 emissions using a
detailed module that provides results
with a broad coverage of all sectors and
inclusion of interactive effects.
Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an
annual emissions cap on SO2 for all
affected Electric Generating Units. The
attainment of the emissions cap is
flexible among generators and is
enforced through the use of emissions
allowances and tradable permits. Thus,
DOE is not certain that there will be
reduced overall SO2 emissions from the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44933
standards. However, there may be an
economic benefit from reduced demand
for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity
savings decrease the generation of SO2
emissions from power production,
which can lessen the need to purchase
SO2 emissions allowance credits, and
thereby decrease the costs of complying
with regulatory caps on emissions.
NOX emissions from 28 eastern States
and the District of Columbia (DC) are
limited under the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), published in the Federal
Register on May 12, 2005. 70 FR 25162
(May 12, 2005). Although CAIR has
been remanded to EPA by the DC
Circuit, it will remain in effect until it
is replaced by a rule consistent with the
Court’s July 11, 2008 opinion in North
Carolina v. EPA. 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir.
2008); see also North Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). These
court positions were taken into account
in the May 2009 NOPR. Thus, the same
methodology was followed in estimating
future NOX in the May 2009 NOPR as
in the final rule. Because all States
covered by CAIR opted to reduce NOX
emissions through participation in capand-trade programs for electric
generating units, emissions from these
sources are capped across the CAIR
region.
For the 28 eastern States and DC
where CAIR is in effect, no NOX
emissions reductions will occur due to
the permanent cap. Under caps,
physical emissions reductions in those
States would not result from the energy
conservation standards under
consideration by DOE, but standards
might have produced an
environmentally related economic
impact in the form of lower prices for
emissions allowance credits, if they
were large enough. However, DOE
determined that in the present case,
such standards would not produce an
environmentally related economic
impact in the form of lower prices for
emissions allowance credits, because
the estimated reduction in NOX
emissions or the corresponding
allowance credits in States covered by
the CAIR cap would be too small to
affect allowance prices for NOX under
the CAIR. In contrast, new or amended
energy conservation standards would
reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States
not affected by the CAIR. As a result,
DOE used the NEMS–BT to forecast
emission reductions from the beverage
vending machine standards that are
considered in today’s final rule.
Similar to SO2 and NOX, future
emissions of Hg would have been
subject to emissions caps under the
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) [70 FR
28606 (May 18, 2005)], which would
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
44934
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
have permanently capped emissions of
mercury for new and existing coal-fired
power plants in all States beginning in
2010, but the CAMR was vacated by the
DC Circuit in its decision in New Jersey
v. Environmental Protection Agency
prior to publication of the May 2009
NOPR. 517 F 3d 574 (DC Cir. 2008).
After CAMR was vacated, DOE was
unable to use the NEMS–BT model to
estimate any changes in the quantity of
mercury emissions (anywhere in the
country) that would result from
standard levels it considered for the
proposed rule. Instead, DOE used a
range of Hg emissions rates (in tons of
Hg per unit energy produced) based on
the AEO2008 for the May 2009 NOPR.
Because virtually all mercury emitted
from electricity generation is from coalfired power plants, DOE based the highend emissions rate on the tons of
mercury emitted per terawatt hour
(TWh) of coal-generated electricity. To
estimate the reduction in mercury
emissions, DOE multiplied the
emissions rate by the reduction in coalgenerated electricity associated with the
standards considered. DOE’s low
estimate assumed that future standards
would displace electrical generation
only from natural gas-fired power
plants, thereby resulting in an effective
emission rate of zero. The low end of
the range of Hg emissions rates is zero
because natural gas-fired powered
power plants have virtually no Hg
emissions associated with their
operations. Because the CAMR remains
vacated, DOE continued to use the
approach it used for the May 2009
NOPR to estimate the Hg emission
reductions due to standards for today’s
final rule. To estimate the reduction in
Hg emissions, DOE multiplied the
emissions rates by the reduction in
electricity generation associated with
the standards proposed in today’s final
rule.
Earthjustice commented that DOE’s
approach to estimating mercury
emissions arbitrarily ignores the results
of the Department’s own utility impact
analysis, which models cumulative
avoided electricity from all sources and
a breakout disclosing cumulative
generation from several sources (coal,
petroleum, natural gas, and renewables).
(Earthjustice, No. 66 at pp. 1–2) Given
that DOE’s own utility impact analysis
models the energy savings from each
source of electricity generation, DOE
may not refuse to apply that information
to estimate the cumulative mercury
emissions reductions without a rational
explanation. EarthJustice added that
DOE need only refer to the AEO
Reference Case average emissions rates
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
to obtain updated projections for future
Hg emissions factors.
DOE estimates its emission factors
based on marginal emissions rates for
energy savings for the primary energy
saved by the standard. Diagnosis of
NEMS–BT model runs leaves significant
uncertainty concerning which
generating fuels would be affected at the
margin at the scale of energy savings
expected as a result of the standard. The
differences in emission rates are
particularly important for Hg because
some fuels generate almost no Hg.
Therefore, DOE has elected to keep a
range of emissions values in this rule.
DOE also notes that the average Hg
emissions values suggested by
Earthjustice fell between the two values
used by DOE.
DOE notes that neither EPCA nor
NEPA requires that the economic value
of emissions reductions be incorporated
in the LCC or NPV analysis of energy
savings. DOE has chosen to report these
benefits separately from the net benefits
of energy savings. A summary of the
monetary results is shown in section
VI.C.6 of this final rule. DOE considered
both values when weighing the benefits
and burdens of standards.
N. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and
Other Emissions Impacts
DOE also calculated the possible
monetary benefit of CO2, NOX, and Hg
reductions. Cumulative monetary
benefits discounted from the year of the
emission reduction to the present using
discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. DOE
monetized reductions in CO2 emissions
due to the standards proposed in this
final rule based on a range of monetary
values drawn from studies that attempt
to estimate the present value of the
marginal economic benefits (based on
the avoided marginal social costs of
carbon) likely to result from lowering
future atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases. The marginal social
cost of carbon is an estimate of the
monetary value to society of the
environmental damages of CO2
emissions. One comment was provided
on the economic valuation of CO2 at the
NOPR public meeting.
ASAP stated that it is important for
DOE to reevaluate its approach to
carbon valuation. (ASAP, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 37)
ASAP believes that DOE’s estimate for
the value of carbon is low, but did not
provide data for analysis. As discussed
in section VI.C.6, DOE has updated the
approach described in the May 2009
NOPR for its monetization of
environmental emissions reductions for
today’s final rule. DOE continues to
work with other Federal agencies on a
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
common approach and values to be
used in monetizing carbon and other
emissions.
Although this rulemaking may not
affect SO2 emissions nationwide and
does not affect NOX emissions in the 28
eastern States and D.C. where CAIR is
in effect, there are markets for SO2 and
NOX emissions allowances. The market
clearing price of SO2 and NOX
emissions allowances is roughly the
marginal cost of meeting the regulatory
cap, not the marginal value of the cap
itself. Further, because national SO2 and
NOX emissions are regulated by a capand-trade system, the cost of meeting
these caps is included in the price of
energy. Thus, the value of energy
savings already includes the value of
SO2 and NOX control for those
customers experiencing energy savings.
The economic cost savings associated
with SO2 and NOX emissions caps is
approximately equal to the change in
the price of traded allowances resulting
from energy savings multiplied by the
number of allowances that would be
issued each year. That calculation is
uncertain because the energy savings
from new standards for beverage
vending machines would be so small
relative to the entire electricity
generation market that the resulting
emissions savings would have almost no
impact on price formation in the
allowances market. These savings
would most likely be outweighed by
uncertainties in the marginal costs of
compliance with SO2 and NOX
emissions caps.
The current NEMS–BT model used in
projecting the environmental impacts
includes the CAIR rule, as described
above, which is projected to reduce SO2
and NOX emissions. NEMS–BT also
takes into account the current set of
State level renewable portfolio
standards, the effect of the Northeastern
states Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative (RGGI), and utility investor
reactions to the possibility of future CO2
cap and trade programs, all of which
affect electricity prices and reduce the
projected carbon intensity of generation.
The most recent Reference Case,
AEO2009, is available at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/
stimulus/, and
documentation of the AEO2009
assumptions is available at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/
index.html.
V. Discussion of Other Comments
Since DOE opened the docket for this
rulemaking, it has received more than
100 written comments from a diverse set
of parties, including manufacturers and
their representatives, wholesalers and
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
distributors, energy conservation
advocates, State officials and agencies,
and electric utilities. Section IV of this
preamble discusses comments DOE
received on the analytic methodologies
it used. Additional comments DOE
received in response to the May 2009
NOPR addressed the information DOE
used in its analyses, results of and
inferences drawn from the analyses,
impacts of standards, the merits of the
different TSLs and standards options
DOE considered, and other issues
affecting adoption of standards for
beverage vending machines. DOE
addresses these comments in this
section.
A. Information and Assumptions Used
in Analyses
1. Engineering Analysis
During the NOPR public meeting,
Royal Vendors commented that the data
used for Class A fluorescent lighting
systems in the engineering analysis is
not consistent with the specifications of
the fluorescent lighting systems it uses
in its glass-front machines. Specifically,
it stated that DOEs estimated energy
consumption of 32 watts (W) per fixture
is too high. Royal Vendors claims its
fluorescent fixtures only consume 22 W
(Royal Vendors, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 68).
DOE uses aggregate values for its
engineering analysis inputs. These
values are derived using publicly
available data or information provided
by multiple manufacturers and/or
component suppliers. Analysis inputs
are generalized so as to better represent
the industry as a whole. DOE’s estimate
of 32 W of energy consumed for T8
fluorescent fixtures in Class A machines
is adequate for the beverage vending
machine industry and it has not made
any adjustments for the final rule.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
B. Benefits and Burdens
Royal Vendors stated that the
proposed standards appeared to be
reversed for Class A machines and Class
B machines. It stated that Class A
machines typically use more energy
than Class B machines. (Royal Vendors,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p.
27) Dixie-Narco disagreed with Royal
Vendors, stating that the proposed
standards are correct and appropriate.
(Dixie-Narco, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 56 at p. 29) ASAP stated that it
generally supports DOE’s proposed
standard levels. It stated that for Class
A machines, DOE’s proposal, TSL 6, is
the maximum level that is cost effective.
However, for Class B machines, ASAP
suggested that DOE consider selecting
TSL 4 rather than TSL 3 because the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
economic results for these two levels are
very similar. (ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 31) Dixie-Narco
stated that when you consider that the
standards equations are based on
refrigerated volume and not can
capacity (or vendible capacity), the
equations for the standards are
appropriate for both equipment classes.
(Dixie-Narco, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 56 at p. 152) Dixie-Narco further
stated that it is currently achieving the
proposed efficiency level for Class A
machines but not for Class B machines,
and therefore would have to make
modifications to meet the proposed
level for Class B machines. (DixieNarco, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
56 at p. 163, 219) Royal Vendors stated
that for Class A machines, they do not
currently meet those levels, but given no
proprietary design problems, they could
meet them fairly easily. For Class B
machines, Royal Vendors stated that
they do not meet the proposed
standards currently, but could without
tremendous effort. (Royal Vendors,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p.
220) Coca-Cola commented that an
appropriate standard for Class A
equipment would be one that is ‘‘on
par’’ with the ENERGY STAR Tier II
level. (Coca-Cola, No. 63 at p. 2)
In a written comment, NAMA stated
that it received a mixed response from
its members regarding the technological
feasibility and economic benefits of the
standard levels proposed by DOE. One
manufacturer stated that it would have
difficulty achieving additional
reductions for Class A and Class B
machines, while another stated that it
could achieve the standard for both
Class A and Class B machines without
significant costs to them or their
customers. However, most responses to
NAMA’s request for information
indicated that the proposed standard for
Class B machines was appropriate and
achievable. One manufacturer
specifically stated that TSL 3 for Class
B could be reached without significant
costs. The proposed standard for Class
A, on the other hand, raised questions
among many manufacturers, although
one manufacturer stated that it already
exceeds the Class A standard without
adding significant costs. (NAMA, No. 65
at pp. 3, 4) DOE considers these
comments on its selection of the final
energy conservation standard level for
beverage vending machines. See section
VI.D.
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
DOE analyzed seven energy
consumption levels for Class A
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44935
equipment and six energy consumption
levels for Class B equipment in the LCC
and NIA analyses. For the May 2009
NOPR, DOE determined that each of
these levels should be presented as a
possible TSL and correspondingly
identified seven TSLs for Class A and
six TSLs for Class B equipment. For
each equipment class, the range of TSLs
selected includes the energy
consumption level providing the
maximum NES level for the class, the
level providing the maximum NES
while providing a positive NPV, the
level providing the maximum NPV, and
the level approximately equivalent to
ENERGY STAR Tier II. Many of the
higher levels selected correspond to
equipment designs that incorporate
specific noteworthy technologies that
can provide energy savings benefits. For
Class A machines, DOE also included
two intermediate efficiency levels to fill
in significant energy consumption gaps
between the levels identified above the
ENERGY STAR Tier II equivalent level.
For Class A equipment, the ENERGY
STAR Tier II level is equivalent to TSL
1, which allows for the highest energy
consumption. For Class B equipment,
DOE included one TSL with energy
consumption higher than that provided
by ENERGY STAR Tier II level.
For the May 2009 NOPR, four of the
TSLs for each equipment class were
based on the levels that provided
maximum energy savings, maximum
efficiency level with positive LCC
savings, maximum LCC savings, and the
highest efficiency level with a payback
of less than 3 years.
DOE preserved energy consumption
levels from the NOPR that met the same
economic criteria in the final rule but
also included the ENERGY STAR Tier II
equivalency level and several additional
TSLs. These additional levels either
provide additional intermediate
efficiency levels or include specific
noteworthy technologies examined in
the engineering analysis. Table VI.1 and
Table VI.2 show the TSL levels DOE
selected for the equipment classes and
sizes analyzed. For Class A equipment,
TSL 7 is the max-tech level for each
equipment class. TSL 6 is the maximum
efficiency level with a positive NPV at
the 7 percent discount rate, achieved by
incorporating an ECM condenser fan.
TSL 5 is the efficiency level with the
maximum NPV and maximum LCC
savings, achieved by using an advanced
refrigerant condenser design. TSL 4 is
the level that first incorporated lightemitting diode (LED) lighting as a
design feature in the engineering
analysis. TSL 3 and TSL 2 were
intermediate efficiency levels chosen to
bridge the gap between TSL 4, and the
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44936
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
ENERGY STAR Tier II equivalent level,
which is TSL 1.
TABLE VI.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF DAILY ENERGY CONSUMPTION
(KWH/DAY)
Trial standard level in order of efficiency
Size
TSL
Baseline
Small .................
Medium ..............
Large .................
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
TSL 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
5
*NA
*NA
6
7
9
11
6.10
1
5.27
5
4.75
*NA
4.25
*NA
3.95
6
3.73
7
3.58
9
3.25
11
6.53
1
5.51
4
5.25
*NA
4.75
*NA
4.19
5
3.95
6
3.79
8
3.43
10
6.75
LCC Efficiency
level.
Engineering
Level.
kWh/day ...........
Engineering
Level.
kWh/day ...........
Engineering
Level.
kWh/day ...........
TSL 1
6.21
5.75
5.25
4.89
4.60
4.41
3.94
* Not applicable. These levels established as intermediate points along the engineering cost curves.
TABLE VI.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF DAILY ENERGY CONSUMPTION
(KWH/DAY)
Trial standard level in order of efficiency
Size
TSL
Baseline
Small ............................
Medium ........................
Large ............................
LCC Efficiency Level ...
Engineering Level ........
kWh/day .......................
Engineering Level ........
kWh/day .......................
Engineering Level ........
kWh/day .......................
TSL 1
1
1
4.96
1
5.56
1
5.85
TSL 2
2
2
4.62
2
5.20
2
5.48
3
4
4.31
4
4.99
3
5.33
TSL 3
TSL 4
4
4
4.31
5
4.76
4
5.07
TSL 5
5
5
4.28
6
4.72
5
5.03
TSL 6
6
6
3.78
7
4.22
6
4.52
7
7
3.69
8
4.12
7
4.41
* Not applicable. These levels established as intermediate points along the engineering cost curves.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
For Class B equipment, TSL 6 is the
max-tech level for each equipment size.
TSL 5 is the level that first incorporated
LED lighting as a design option in the
engineering analysis. TSL 4 is the next
highest efficiency level incorporating an
ECM condenser fan motor. TSL 3 was
achieved by using an advanced
refrigerant condenser design. This TSL
provided an NPV value of essentially 0,
with total capital expenditures for new
equipment balanced by total operating
cost savings over the NIA analysis
period, based on a 7 percent discount
rate. TSL 2 is the ENERGY STAR Tier
II level for Class B machines. This TSL
provided the maximum LCC savings
and maximum NPV savings at a 7
percent discount rate. TSL 1, which
provided an energy consumption level
approximately 4 percent higher than
TSL 2, was also included in the
analysis. TSL 1 represented the first
level incorporating an evaporator fan
driven by an ECM in the engineering
analysis.
As stated in the May 2009 NOPR,
DOE chose to characterize the proposed
TSL levels in terms of equations that
establish a maximum daily energy
consumption (MDEC) limit through a
linear equation of the following form:
MDEC = A × V + B
Where:
A is expressed in terms of kWh/day/ft 3 of
measured volume,
V is the measured refrigerated volume (ft 3)
calculated for the equipment, and
B is an offset factor expressed in kWh/day.
Coefficients A and B are uniquely
derived for each equipment class based
on a linear equation passing between
the daily energy consumption values for
equipment of different refrigerated
volumes. For the A and B coefficients,
DOE used the energy consumption
values shown in Table VI.1 and Table
VI.2 for the medium and large
equipment sizes within each class of
beverage vending machine. DOE did not
use the small sizes in either equipment
class because information from the May
2009 NOPR indicated that there are no
significant shipments of this equipment
size. Results are described in more
detail in chapter 9 of the TSD.
Chapter 9 of the TSD also explains the
methodology DOE used for selecting
TSLs and developing the equations
shown in Table VI.3.
TABLE VI.3—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF EQUATIONS AND COEFFICIENTS FOR CLASS A AND
CLASS B EQUIPMENT
Trial standard level
Baseline ............................
1 ........................................
2 ........................................
3 ........................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Test metric
kWh/day
kWh/day
kWh/day
kWh/day
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Class A
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
MDEC
MDEC
MDEC
MDEC
Frm 00024
=
=
=
=
0.019
0.062
0.044
0.044
Fmt 4701
×
×
×
×
V
V
V
V
+
+
+
+
6.09
4.12
4.26
3.76
Sfmt 4700
Class B
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
MDEC
MDEC
MDEC
MDEC
31AUR2
=
=
=
=
0.068
0.066
0.080
0.073
×
×
×
×
V
V
V
V
+
+
+
+
4.07.
3.76.
3.24.
3.16.
44937
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.3—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF EQUATIONS AND COEFFICIENTS FOR CLASS A AND
CLASS B EQUIPMENT—Continued
Trial standard level
4
5
6
7
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
Test metric
kWh/day
kWh/day
kWh/day
kWh/day
Class A
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
MDEC
MDEC
MDEC
MDEC
=
=
=
=
0.062
0.058
0.055
0.045
×
×
×
×
V
V
V
V
+
+
+
+
Class B
2.80 ........................................
2.66 ........................................
2.56 ........................................
2.42. .......................................
MDEC = 0.073 × V + 3.12.
MDEC = 0.070 × V + 2.68.
MDEC = 0.068 × V + 2.63.
NA. *
* Not applicable. There is no TSL 7 for Class B equipment.
B. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings
through 2042 due to new standards,
DOE compared the energy consumption
of beverage vending machines under the
base case (no standards) to energy
consumption of this equipment under
each TSL that DOE considered. Table
VI.4 and Table VI.5 show DOE’s NES
estimates, which it based on the April
2009 update of the AEO2009 Reference
each TSL. The table also shows the
magnitude of the estimated energy
savings if the savings are discounted at
the 7 percent and 3 percent real
discount rates. Each TSL considered in
this rulemaking would result in
significant energy savings, and the
amount of savings increases with higher
energy conservation standards (ranging
from an estimated 0.007 quads to 0.170
quads, undiscounted, for TSLs 1
through 7) (see chapter 11 of the TSD).
Case, for each TSL. Chapter 11 of the
TSD describes these estimates in more
detail. DOE reports both undiscounted
and discounted values of energy
savings. Discounted energy savings
represent a policy perspective where
energy savings farther in the future are
less significant than energy savings
closer to the present. Table VI.4 shows
the forecasted aggregate national energy
savings, both discounted and
undiscounted, of Class A equipment at
TABLE VI.4—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT
[Energy savings for units sold from 2012 to 2042]
Primary national energy savings (quads)
Trial standard level
Undiscounted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
In Table VI.5, DOE reports both
undiscounted and discounted values of
energy savings for Class B equipment.
As with Class A equipment, each TSL
3% Discounted
0.007
0.031
0.069
0.107
0.127
0.139
0.170
considered would result in significant
energy savings, and the amount of
energy savings increases with higher
energy conservation standards (ranging
7% Discounted
0.004
0.018
0.040
0.061
0.073
0.080
0.097
0.002
0.010
0.021
0.032
0.038
0.042
0.051
from an estimated 0.003 quads to 0.068
quads, undiscounted, for TSLs 1
through 6.
TABLE VI.5—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT ]
[Energy savings for units sold from 2012 to 2042]
Primary national energy savings (quads)
Trial standard level
Undiscounted
1
2
3
4
5
6
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
C. Economic Justification
1. Economic Impact on Commercial
Customers
a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period
To evaluate the economic impact of
the TSLs on customers, DOE conducted
an LCC analysis for each TSL. More
efficient beverage vending machines are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
expected to affect customers in two
ways: Annual operating expense is
expected to decrease and purchase price
is expected to increase. DOE analyzed
the net effect by calculating the LCC.
Inputs used for calculating the LCC
include total installed costs (i.e.,
equipment price plus installation costs),
annual energy savings, average
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3% Discounted
0.003
0.004
0.020
0.023
0.061
0.068
0.002
0.002
0.012
0.013
0.035
0.039
7% Discounted
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.007
0.018
0.020
electricity costs by customer, energy
price trends, repair costs, maintenance
costs, equipment lifetime, and discount
rates.
DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses
provided five outputs for each TSL that
are reported in Table VI.6 through Table
VI.8 for Class A equipment. The first
three outputs are the percentages of
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44938
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
standard-compliant machine purchases
that would result in (1) a net LCC
increase, (2) no impact, or (3) a net LCC
savings for the customer. DOE used the
estimated distribution of shipments by
efficiency level for each equipment class
to determine the affected customers.
The fourth output is the average net LCC
savings from standard-compliant
equipment. The fifth output is the
average PBP for the customer
investment in standard-compliant
equipment. The PBP is the number of
years it would take for the customer
through energy savings to recover the
increased costs of higher efficiency
equipment compared to baseline
efficiency equipment.
TABLE VI.6—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT—LARGE
Trial standard level
Results
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ...
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ..
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ....
Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................
Mean Payback Period (years) .................
2
0
90
10
84
2.3
3
1
0
99
132
3.1
4
3
0
97
184
3.4
5
3
0
97
222
3.6
6
3
0
97
244
3.8
7
5
0
95
240
4.3
100
0
0
(1,481)
83.8
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
TABLE VI.7—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT—MEDIUM
Trial standard level
Results
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ...
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ..
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ....
Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................
Mean Payback Period (years) .................
2
0
90
10
162
2.1
3
0
0
100
207
2.0
4
1
0
99
235
3.1
5
1
0
99
296
3.3
6
3
0
97
305
3.6
7
5
0
95
295
4.0
100
0
0
(1,183)
71.0
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
TABLE VI.8—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT—SMALL
Trial standard level
Results
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ...
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ..
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ....
Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................
Mean Payback Period (years) .................
2
0
90
10
130
2.1
3
1
0
99
179
2.9
4
3
0
97
227
3.3
5
3
0
97
255
3.5
6
3
0
97
265
3.8
7
5
0
95
255
4.2
100
0
0
(1,153)
80.9
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
For the Class A equipment, there are
positive net LCC savings on average for
TSL 1 through 6. Only 10 percent of all
equipment purchased is expected to
achieve a net LCC savings at TSL 1,
since about 90 percent of the equipment
on the market in 2012 is expected to
meet that standard. LCC savings
consistently peak at TSL 5, but about 95
percent of purchasers of Class A
equipment are projected to achieve LCC
savings even at TSL 6. Simple average
PBPs are projected to be less than 3
years for all Class A equipment for TSL
1, and PBPs are less than 4 years from
TSL 1 through 5.
DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses
provided the same five outputs for each
TSL for Class B equipment. These
outputs are reported in Table VI.9
through Table VI.11.
TABLE VI.9—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT—LARGE
Trial standard level
Results
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ...................................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ..................................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ....................................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .................................................................
2
0
90
10
43
3.3
3
9
0
91
46
4.5
4
27
0
73
40
6.5
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
5
35
0
65
30
7.5
100
0
0
(545)
83.8
6
100
0
0
(2,414)
100.0
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
44939
TABLE VI.10—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT—MEDIUM
Trial standard level
Results
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ...................................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ..................................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ....................................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .................................................................
2
0
90
10
41
3.4
3
9
0
91
49
4.6
4
29
0
71
36
6.9
5
39
0
61
26
7.9
100
0
0
(558)
85.4
6
100
0
0
(2,230)
99.9
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
TABLE VI.11—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT—SMALL
Trial standard level
Results
1
Equipment with Net LCC Increase (%) ...................................................
Equipment with No Change in LCC (%) ..................................................
Equipment with Net LCC Savings (%) ....................................................
Mean LCC Savings ($) ............................................................................
Mean Payback Period (years) .................................................................
2
1
90
10
35
3.9
3
41
0
59
16
8.7
4
41
0
59
16
8.7
5
55
0
45
2
10.9
100
0
0
(612)
94.7
6
100
0
0
(2,129)
100.0
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
b. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis
For Class B equipment, there are
positive net LCC savings on average for
TSLs 1 through 4. Only 10 percent of all
equipment purchased is expected to
achieve a net LCC savings at TSL 1,
since about 90 percent of the equipment
on the market in 2012 is expected to
meet that standard. LCC savings
consistently peak at TSL 2, but for 26 to
65 percent of purchasers, Class B
equipment is projected to achieve LCC
savings at TSL 4. Simple average PBPs
are projected to be 3.3 to 3.4 years for
large and medium size Class B
equipment at TSL 1. PBPs are about 4.5
to 4.6 years for large and medium size
Class B equipment for TSLs 1 and 2 and
under 7 years for TSLs 1 through 3.
Using the LCC spreadsheet model,
DOE estimated the impact of the TSLs
on the following customer subgroup:
Manufacturing facilities that have
purchased their own beverage vending
machines. This is the largest component
of the 5 percent of site owners, who also
own their own beverage vending
machines, and comprises about 2
percent of all beverage vending
machines. About 95 percent of beverage
vending machines are owned by bottlers
and vendors. The manufacturing
facilities subgroup was analyzed
because, in addition to being the largest
independent block of owners, it had
among the highest financing costs
(based on weighted average cost of
capital) and faced the lowest energy
costs of any customer subgroup. The
group was therefore expected to have
the least LCC savings and longest PBP
of any identifiable customer subgroup.
DOE estimated the LCC and PBP for
the manufacturing facilities subgroup.
Table VI.12 shows the mean LCC
savings for equipment that meets the
energy conservation standards in
today’s final rule for the manufacturing
facilities subgroup, and Table VI.13
shows the mean PBP (in years) for this
subgroup. Chapter 12 of the TSD
provides more detailed discussion on
the LCC subgroup analysis and results.
TABLE VI.12—MEAN LIFE-CYCLE COST SAVINGS FOR REFRIGERATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE EQUIPMENT
PURCHASED BY THE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES LCC SUBGROUP (2008$)
Trial standard level
Equipment class
Size
1
A .....................................
B .....................................
S ..............
M ..............
L ...............
S ..............
M ..............
L ...............
2
92
115
62
28
26
28
3
4
118
148
86
24
26
24
143
154
116
8
4
8
5
158
190
137
(3)
(8)
(3)
6
159
188
146
(590)
(603)
(590)
7
142
171
134
(2,433)
(2,251)
(2,433)
(1,258)
(1,302)
(1,585)
NA
NA
NA
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. NA = not applicable.
TABLE VI.13—MEAN PAYBACK PERIOD FOR REFRIGERATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY
THE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES LCC SUBGROUP (YEARS)
Trial standard level
Equipment class
Size
1
A .........................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
S ..............
M ..............
L ...............
18:29 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
2
2.6
2.6
2.7
PO 00000
Frm 00027
3
3.6
2.4
3.8
Fmt 4701
4
4.1
3.7
4.2
Sfmt 4700
5
4.3
4.0
4.4
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
6
4.7
4.4
4.7
31AUR2
7
5.2
5.0
5.3
90.6
82.7
92.2
44940
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.13—MEAN PAYBACK PERIOD FOR REFRIGERATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY
THE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES LCC SUBGROUP (YEARS)—Continued
Trial standard level
Equipment class
Size
1
B .........................................
S ..............
M ..............
L ...............
2
4.9
4.2
4.1
3
11.9
5.8
5.7
4
5
11.9
9.0
8.4
15.5
10.5
9.9
6
99.5
94.1
93.0
7
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = not applicable.
2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
DOE determined the economic
impacts of today’s standard on
manufacturers, as described in the
proposed rule. 74 FR 26053–56. As
updated for today’s final rule, DOE
analyzed manufacturer impacts under
two distinct markup scenarios: (1) The
preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage
markup scenario, and (2) the
preservation-of-operating-profit
(absolute dollars) markup scenario.
Together, these two markup scenarios
characterize the range of possible
conditions the beverage vending
machine market will experience as a
result of new energy conservation
standards. See chapter 13 of the TSD for
additional details of the markup
scenarios and analysis.
For beverage vending machines, the
positive LCC and PBP impacts for
manufacturing facilities that own their
own beverage vending machines are less
than those of all customers. Because
they face lower energy costs, the lower
value of energy savings lengthens the
period over which the original
investment is paid back and also
reduces operating cost savings over the
lifetime of more efficient beverage
vending machines. In addition, because
they face higher financing costs, these
customers sites have a relatively high
opportunity cost for investment, so the
value of future electricity savings from
higher efficiency equipment is further
reduced. Even so, for this subgroup of
customers, LCC savings are still positive
for all but TSL 7 for Class A and is
positive at TSL 3 and below for Class B.
PBP is lengthened by about a year for
Class A and 2 years for Class B but is
still less about 5 years at TSL 6 for Class
A and less than 9 years for medium-size
Class B equipment (which is less than
the equipment lifetime) at TSL 3.
in the base case and INPV in the
standards case. INPV is the primary
metric used in the MIA, and represents
one measure of the fair value of the
industry in today’s dollars. DOE
calculated the INPV by summing all of
the net cash flows, discounted at the
beverage vending machine industry’s
cost of capital or discount rate.
Table VI.14 through Table VI.17 show
the changes in INPV that DOE estimates
would result from the TSLs DOE
considered for this final rule using the
preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage
and preservation-of-operating-profit
scenarios described above. The tables
also present the equipment conversion
costs and capital conversion costs that
the industry would incur at each TSL.
Equipment conversion costs include
engineering, prototyping, testing, and
marketing expenses incurred by a
manufacturer as it prepares to comply
with a standard. Capital conversion
costs are the one-time outlays for tooling
and plant changes required for the
industry to comply.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
Using two different markup scenarios,
DOE estimated the impact of new
standards for beverage vending
machines on the INPV of the beverage
vending machine industry. The impact
consists of the difference between INPV
TABLE VI.14—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CLASS A REFRIGERATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE
EQUIPMENT UNDER THE PRESERVATION-OF-GROSS-MARGIN-PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO
Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario
Metric
INPV ......................................
Change in INPV ....................
2008$ millions .......................
2008$ millions .......................
% ...........................................
2008$ millions .......................
2008$ millions .......................
2008$ millions .......................
Equipment Conversion Costs
Capital Conversion Costs .....
Total Investment Required ....
Trial standard level
Base
case
Units
1
3
4
5
6
7
44.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.1
............
............
............
............
............
2
44.3
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.5
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.0
0.6
42.9
(1.3)
(2.9)
0.6
2.2
2.8
42.8
(1.3)
(3.0)
1.2
2.2
3.4
36.2
(7.9)
(18.0)
2.9
9.1
11.9
41.0
(3.2)
(7.2)
3.5
14.1
17.6
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
TABLE VI.15—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CLASS A REFRIGERATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE
EQUIPMENT UNDER THE PRESERVATION-OF-OPERATING-PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO
Preservation of operating profit markup scenario
Metric
INPV ...................................
Change in INPV .................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Base
case
Units
2008$ millions ...................
2008$ millions ...................
% .......................................
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
44.1
............
............
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
44.1
(0.0)
(0.1)
43.9
(0.3)
(0.6)
43.0
(1.1)
(2.5)
40.6
(3.5)
(7.9)
40.1
(4.1)
(9.3)
33.1
(11.1)
(25.1)
15.8
(28.3)
(64.2)
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44941
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.15—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CLASS A REFRIGERATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE
EQUIPMENT UNDER THE PRESERVATION-OF-OPERATING-PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO—Continued
Preservation of operating profit markup scenario
Metric
Equipment Conversion
Costs.
Capital Conversion Costs ..
Total Investment Required
Trial standard level
Base
case
Units
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2008$ millions ...................
............
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
1.2
2.9
3.5
2008$ millions ...................
2008$ millions ...................
............
............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
2.2
2.8
2.2
3.4
9.1
11.9
14.1
17.6
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
TABLE VI.16—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CLASS B REFRIGERATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE
EQUIPMENT UNDER THE PRESERVATION-OF-GROSS-MARGIN-PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO
Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario
INPV .......................................
Change in INPV .....................
Equipment Conversion Costs
Capital Conversion Costs ......
Total Investment Required .....
Trial standard level
Base
case
Units
2008$ millions .......................
2008$ millions .......................
% ...........................................
2008$ millions .......................
2008$ millions .......................
2008$ millions .......................
1
3
4
5
6
33.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.7
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
2
33.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.1
(0.6)
(1.9)
1.7
0.0
1.7
32.7
(1.0)
(3.0)
2.6
0.0
2.6
26.3
(7.4)
(21.9)
3.5
11.0
14.5
30.5
(3.2)
(9.5)
6.9
14.7
21.6
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
TABLE VI.17—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CLASS B REFRIGERATED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINE
EQUIPMENT UNDER THE PRESERVATION-OF-OPERATING-PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO
Preservation of operating profit markup scenario
Base
case
Units
INPV .....................................
Change in INPV ...................
Equipment Conversion
Costs.
Capital Conversion Costs ....
Total Investment Required ..
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
6
2008$ millions ......................
2008$ millions ......................
% ..........................................
2008$ millions ......................
33.7
..............
..............
..............
33.7
(0.0)
(0.1)
0.0
33.7
(0.0)
(0.2)
0.0
32.5
(1.2)
(3.5)
1.7
32.0
(1.7)
(5.0)
2.6
17.2
(16.5)
(48.9)
3.5
0.2
(33.5)
(99.4)
6.9
2008$ millions ......................
2008$ millions ......................
..............
..............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
2.6
11.0
14.5
14.7
21.6
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
The May 2009 NOPR discusses the
estimated impact of new beverage
vending machine standards on INPV for
each equipment class. 74 FR 26053–55.
See chapter 13 of the TSD for details.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
While any one regulation may not
impose a significant burden on
manufacturers, the combined effects of
several regulations may have serious
consequences for some manufacturers,
groups of manufacturers, or an entire
industry. Assessing the impact of a
single regulation may overlook this
cumulative regulatory burden.
DOE recognizes that each regulation
can significantly affect manufacturers’
financial operations. Multiple
regulations affecting the same
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
manufacturer can reduce manufacturers’
profits and possibly cause
manufacturers to exit from the market.
During the public meeting, PepsiCo
stated that pending regulation would
mandate that the beverage vending
machine industry add nutrition labels to
the exterior of all machines that specify
the nutritional information for its
contents. (PepsiCo, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 178)
On May 14, 2009, the Menu
Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act, a
bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act to extend the food
labeling requirements of the Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act of 1990,
was introduced into Congress. The bill
includes a provision to require the
vending machine industry to post labels
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
on their machines containing certain
nutrition information about their
contents. While this legislation may
potentially result in an additional
labeling requirement for beverage
vending machine manufacturers, DOE
cannot consider in its cumulative
regulatory burden analysis any
legislation that has not yet been enacted.
Furthermore, DOE has not found or
received any quantitative or qualitative
information regarding the magnitude of
the financial burden that may
accompany the pending nutritional
information regulation.
DOE did not identify any other DOE
regulations that would affect the
manufacturers of beverage vending
machines or their parent companies.
DOE requested information about the
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44942
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
cumulative regulatory burden during
manufacturer interviews. In general,
manufacturers were not greatly
concerned about other Federal, State, or
international regulations. The
requirements of their major customers
have a greater impact on their business
than any of these other regulations. For
further information about the
cumulative regulatory burden, see
chapter 13 of the TSD.
c. Impacts on Employment
DOE used the GRIM to assess the
impacts of energy conservation
standards on beverage vending machine
industry employment. DOE used
statistical data from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s 2006 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers, the results of the
engineering analysis, and interviews
with manufacturers to estimate the
inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and
employment levels. Results of the U.S.
Census Bureau’s 2007 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers are not yet available.
The vast majority of beverage vending
machines are manufactured in the
United States. Based on results of the
GRIM, DOE expects that there would be
slightly positive direct employment
impacts among domestic beverage
vending machine manufacturers for
TSLs 1 through 6 for Class A equipment
and TSLs 1 through 5 for Class B
equipment. The GRIM estimates that
employment would increase by fewer
than 36 employees for Class A
equipment at TSLs 1 through 6 and
fewer than 97 employees for Class B
equipment at TSLs 1 though 5. The
employment impacts are more positive
at the max-tech levels (TSL 7 for Class
A equipment and TSL 6 for Class B
equipment) because more labor is
required and the production costs of the
most efficient equipment greatly
increase. The employment impacts
calculated in the GRIM are shown in
Table VI.35 and Table VI.36 in section
VI.D.
The results calculated in the GRIM do
not account for the possible relocation
of domestic jobs to lower-labor-cost
countries, which may occur
independently of new standards or may
be influenced by the level of
investments new standards require.
Manufacturers stated that although there
are no current plans to relocate
production facilities, higher TSLs would
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
increase pressure to cut costs, which
could result in relocation. The labor
impacts would be different if
manufacturers chose to relocate to lower
cost countries or if manufacturers
consolidated. In addition, standards
could increase pressure to consolidate
within the industry due to the low
profitability and existing excess
production capacity. Chapter 13 of the
TSD further discusses how the
employment impacts are calculated and
shows the projected changes in
employment levels by TSL.
The conclusions in this section are
independent of any conclusions
regarding employment impacts from the
broader U.S. economy estimated in the
employment impact analysis. Those
impacts are documented in chapter 15
of the TSD.
d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
According to the majority of beverage
vending machine manufacturers, new
energy conservation standards will not
affect manufacturers’ production
capacity. Within the last decade, annual
shipments of beverage vending
machines have decreased almost threefold. Due to the decline in shipments, it
is likely that any of the major
manufacturers has the capacity to meet
most of the recent market demand.
Consequently, the industry has the
capacity to make many times more units
than are currently sold each year. Thus,
DOE believes manufacturers will be able
to maintain manufacturing capacity
levels and continue to meet market
demand under new energy conservation
standards.
e. Impacts on Subgroups of
Manufacturers
As discussed in the May 2009 NOPR,
74 FR 26044–45, 26056, 26069–72, DOE
evaluated the impacts of new energy
conservation standards on small
manufacturers as defined by the U.S.
Small Business Administration (SBA).
DOE identified six small manufacturers
and requested information that would
determine if there are differential
impacts that may result from new
energy conservation standards. In the
NOPR, DOE specifically requested
comments on how small business
manufacturers will be affected by new
energy conversation standards. 74 FR
26071. However, DOE did not receive
any comments in response to this
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
request. For a discussion of the impacts
on small business manufacturers, see
chapter 13 of the TSD and section VII.B
of this preamble (‘‘Review Under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act’’).
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Amount and Significance of Energy
Savings
Because the pattern and strategies for
improving the energy performance of
beverage vending machines is somewhat
different between Class A and B
equipment, energy savings are reported
separately for each class of equipment
by TSL. The national energy savings are
between 0.003 and 0.170 quads, beyond
that achieved in ENERGY STAR Tier 1
equipment, depending on the TSL and
equipment class, an amount of energy
savings that DOE considers significant.
As stated previously, energy savings
increase as TSLs grow progressively
more stringent than the baseline
efficiency level.
To estimate the energy savings
through 2042 due to new energy
conservation standards, DOE compared
the energy consumption of beverage
vending machines under the base case
to energy consumption under a new
standard. The energy consumption
calculated in the NIA is source energy,
taking into account energy losses in the
generation and transmission of
electricity as discussed in section VI.B.
DOE tentatively determined the
amount of energy savings at each of the
seven TSLs being considered for Class A
equipment and six TSLs for Class B
equipment, then analyzed and
aggregated the results across the three
sizes for each equipment class.
Table VI.18 shows the forecasted
aggregate national energy savings, both
discounted and undiscounted, of Class
A equipment at each TSL. The table also
shows the magnitude of the estimated
energy savings if the savings are
discounted at the 7 percent and 3
percent real discount rates. Each TSL
considered in this rulemaking would
result in significant energy savings, and
the amount of savings increases with
higher energy conservation standards
(ranging from an estimated 0.007 to
0.170 quads, undiscounted, for Class A
equipment for TSLs 1 through 7). See
chapter 11 of the TSD for details of the
NIA.
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44943
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.18—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT (ENERGY SAVINGS FOR
UNITS SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042)
Primary national energy savings
quads
Trial standard level
Undiscounted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
In Table VI.19, DOE reports both
undiscounted and discounted values of
energy savings for Class B equipment.
Each TSL considered would result in
3% Discounted
0.007
0.031
0.069
0.107
0.127
0.139
0.170
significant energy savings, and the
amount of savings increases with higher
energy conservation standards (ranging
from an estimated 0.003 to 0.068 quads,
7% Discounted
0.004
0.018
0.040
0.061
0.073
0.080
0.097
0.002
0.010
0.021
0.032
0.038
0.042
0.051
undiscounted, for Class B equipment for
TSLs 1 through 6).
TABLE VI.19—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT (ENERGY SAVINGS FOR
UNITS SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042)
Primary national energy savings
quads
Trial standard level
Undiscounted
1
2
3
4
5
6
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
b. Net Present Value
The NPV analysis is a measure of the
cumulative benefit or cost of standards
to the Nation. In accordance with OMB
guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB
Circular A–4, section E, September 17,
2003), DOE calculated an estimated
NPV using both a 7 percent and 3
percent real discount rate. The 7 percent
rate is an estimate of the average beforetax rate of return to private capital in the
U.S. economy. This rate reflects the
returns to real estate and small business
capital as well as corporate capital. DOE
used this discount rate to approximate
the opportunity cost of capital in the
private sector, since recent OMB
analysis has found the average rate of
return to capital to be near this rate.
DOE also used the 3 percent discount
rate to capture the potential effects of
standards on private consumption (e.g.,
through higher prices for equipment and
purchase of reduced amounts of energy).
This rate represents the rate at which
society discounts future consumption
flows to their present value. This rate
can be approximated by the real rate of
return on long-term Government debt
(e.g., the yield on Treasury notes minus
the annual rate of change in the
3% Discounted
0.003
0.004
0.020
0.023
0.061
0.068
7% Discounted
0.002
0.002
0.012
0.013
0.035
0.039
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.007
0.018
0.020
Consumer Price Index), which has
averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax
basis for the last 30 years.
Table VI.20 shows the estimated
cumulative NPV calculated for all Class
A equipment. Table VI.20 assumes the
AEO2009 Reference Case forecast for
electricity prices. At a 7 percent
discount rate, TSLs 1 through 6 show
positive cumulative NPVs. The highest
NPV is provided by TSL 5 at $0.192
billion. TSL 6 showed an NPV at $0.185
billion. TSL 7 showed an NPV at
¥$1.449 billion, the result of negative
NPV observed in all sizes of this
equipment class.
TABLE VI.20—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT (AEO2009 REFERENCE CASE)
NPV* billion 2008$
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7% Discount
rate
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV (i.e., net cost).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
0.015
0.068
0.112
0.175
0.192
0.185
(1.449)
3% Discount
rate
0.034
0.153
0.268
0.415
0.464
0.465
(2.466)
44944
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
At a 3 percent discount rate, all but
TSL 7 showed a positive NPV, with the
highest NPV provided at TSL 6 ($0.465
billion). TSL 5 showed a near equivalent
NPV at $0.464 billion. TSL 7 showed an
NPV of ¥$2.466 billion. DOE observed
that all Class A equipment at TSL 7 has
a negative NPV at a 3 percent discount
rate.
Table VI.21 shows the estimated
cumulative NPV for beverage vending
machines resulting from the sum of the
NPV calculated for Class B equipment.
This table assumes the AEO2009
Reference Case forecast for electricity
prices. At a 7 percent discount rate,
TSLs 1 and 2 show positive cumulative
NPVs. The highest NPV is provided by
TSL 2 at $0.006 billion. TSL 3 showed
¥$0.003 billion NPV. TSLs 4 through 6
also show a negative NPV. TSL 6 has a
¥$2.452 billion NPV, the result of
negative NPV observed in all sizes of
Class B equipment.
TABLE VI.21—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT (AEO2009 REFERENCE CASE)
NPV billion 2008$
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7% Discount
rate
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
0.005
0.006
(0.003)
(0.014)
(0.621)
(2.452)
3% Discount
rate
0.011
0.014
0.011
(0.006)
(1.083)
(4.427)
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV (i.e., net cost).
At a 3 percent discount rate, TSLs 1
through 3 showed a positive NPV, with
the highest NPV of $0.014 billion
provided at TSL 2. TSL 1 and 3
provided a near equivalent NPV at
$0.009 billion. TSL 4 showed an NPV of
¥$0.006 billion. DOE observed that all
Class B equipment sizes at TSL 5 have
a negative NPV at a 3 percent discount
rate.
In addition to the Reference Case,
DOE examined the NPV under the
AEO2009 high-growth and low-growth
electricity price forecasts. Chapter 11 of
the TSD presents the results of this
examination.
c. Impacts on Employment
Besides the direct impacts on
manufacturing employment discussed
in section VI.C.2.c, DOE develops
general estimates of the indirect
employment impacts of proposed
standards on the economy. As discussed
above, DOE expects energy conservation
standards for beverage vending
machines to reduce energy bills for
commercial customers, and the resulting
net savings to be redirected to other
forms of economic activity. DOE also
realizes that these shifts in spending
and economic activity by beverage
vending machine operators and site
owners could affect the demand for
labor. The impact comes in a variety of
businesses not directly involved in the
decision to make, operate, or pay the
utility bills for beverage vending
machines. Thus, the economic impact is
‘‘indirect.’’ To estimate these indirect
economic effects, DOE used an input/
output model of the U.S. economy using
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of Economic Analysis (BEA) and Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) data (as
described in section IV.L. See chapter
15 of the TSD for details of the net
national employment impact.
In this input/output model, the
spending of the money saved on utility
bills when more efficient vending
machines are deployed is centered in
economic sectors that create more jobs
than are lost in electric utilities when
spending is shifted from electricity to
other products and services. Thus,
today’s refrigerated beverage vending
machine energy conservation standards
are likely to slightly increase the net
demand for labor in the economy.
However, the net increase in jobs is so
small that it would be imperceptible in
national labor statistics and might be
offset by other, unanticipated effects on
employment. Neither the BLS data nor
the input/output model used by DOE
includes the quality of jobs. As shown
in Table VI.22 and Table VI.23, DOE
estimates that net indirect employment
impacts from a proposed beverage
vending machine standard are likely to
be very small.
TABLE VI.22—NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT FROM CLASS A EQUIPMENT: NUMBER OF JOBS FROM
2012 TO 2042
Net national change in employment
Trial standard level
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2022
0
4
17
30
42
44
157
2032
13
67
142
221
256
286
402
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
2042
13
69
159
238
285
316
444
13
82
172
265
313
344
475
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
44945
TABLE VI.23—NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT FROM CLASS B EQUIPMENT: NUMBER OF JOBS FROM
2012 TO 2042
Net national change in employment
Trial standard level
2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2022
1
1
8
9
58
166
2032
6
9
41
47
138
193
2042
6
9
45
52
150
204
6
10
49
55
162
216
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Equipment
As indicated in section V.B.4 of the
May 2009 NOPR, the new standards
DOE is adopting today will not lessen
the utility or performance of any
beverage vending machine. 74 FR
26059.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
As discussed in the May 2009 NOPR,
74 FR 26059, and in section III.D.1.e of
this preamble, DOE considers any
lessening of competition likely to result
from standards. The Attorney General
determines the impact, if any, of any
lessening of competition.
The DOJ believes that the Class B
standards contained in the proposed
rule would not likely lead to a lessening
of competition. (DOJ, No. 61 at p. 1)
For Class A machines, DOJ concluded
that the proposed TSL 6 could
potentially lessen competition. DOJ
commented that beverage vending
machine manufacture is a highly
concentrated industry in the United
States, and compliance with the
proposed Class A standard could
require a disproportionate investment
by some manufacturers, potentially
placing them at a disadvantage with
respect to others and leading to greater
concentration. DOJ requested that DOE
take this possible competitive impact
into account and to ensure that the
standard it adopts for Class A beverage
vending machines will not require
access to intellectual property owned by
an industry participant, which would
place other industry participants at a
comparative disadvantage. (DOJ, No. 61
at pp. 1–2)
DOE agrees with DOJ that the market
is highly concentrated, with three major
manufacturers supplying the vast
majority of the U.S. market. In the May
2009 NOPR, DOE stated that it did not
believe there would be differential
impacts among manufacturers at TSL 6
for Class A equipment. At this level the
manufacturers would have to redesign
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
all their existing equipment and make
capital investments in their production
lines to comply with the standard, but
the investments would be similar for
each manufacturer at this level. (74 FR
26054)
For today’s final rule, DOE modified
the assumed conversion costs required
for manufacturers to meet the Class A
energy consumption levels by
accounting for the potential use of an
energy management system (see section
IV.J). This change mitigates the overall
impacts at TSL 6, but does not impose
disproportionate investments on some
manufacturers.
In addition, DOE received a written
comment on the NOPR from NAMA
suggesting that there could be a
differential impact among
manufacturers for part of the standards
proposed in the NOPR. NAMA stated
that it received a mixed response from
its members regarding the technological
feasibility and economic benefits of the
standard levels proposed by DOE. One
manufacturer stated that it would have
difficulty achieving additional
reductions for Class A and Class B
machines, while another stated that it
could achieve the standards for both
Class A and Class B machines without
significant costs to them or their
customers. However, most responses to
NAMA’s request for information
indicated that the proposed standard for
Class B machines was appropriate and
achievable, but the proposed standard
for Class A raised questions among
some manufacturers. (NAMA, No. 65 at
p. 3) Dixie-Narco indicated for the
NOPR that they could achieve the
proposed TSL 6 for Class A machines
without the use of intellectual property
owned by an industry participant.
Dixie-Narco stated that it is currently
achieving the proposed efficiency level
for Class A machines. (Dixie-Narco,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at pp.
163 and 219) Royal Vendors stated that
for Class A machines, they do not
currently meet those levels, but given no
proprietary design issues, they could
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
meet them fairly easily. (Royal Vendors,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p.
220; Royal Vendors, No. 60 at p. 1)
Dixie-Narco addressed the proprietary
design issue by stating that it is not
aware of any intellectual property issues
that would prevent its competitors from
achieving the levels in the proposed
standards (Dixie-Narco, No. 64 at p. 2)
The Joint Comment also stated that the
proposed standards could be met
without using LED lighting, which
addresses concerns raised by interested
parties concerning patent limitations on
LED lighting use in vending machines.
(Joint Comment, No. 67 at p. 1).
For today’s final rule, DOE did not
receive comments that indicated that
the energy conservation standards
would result in the unavailability of
standards-compliant products. DOE
recognizes that there was a mixed
response from manufacturers regarding
their ability to meet the standards for
Class A machines. However, DOE notes
that the technology options that could
be used to meet the standard are
available to all manufacturers, and DOE
does not believe manufacturers will
have to obtain proprietary technologies
to meet the energy conservation
standards set forth by today’s rule. As
stated in section IV.B, all major
manufacturers have access to alternative
technology pathways to meet the
efficiency levels in the analysis,
including TSL 6, without the use of
proprietary technology. DOE did not
receive any information or comments
that would indicate that the identified
alternative technologies that could be
used to meet energy conservation
standards set forth by today’s final rule
will lead to any lessening of
competition. Section IV.B of today’s
final rule further discusses alternative
technology pathways and proprietary
technologies.
In the NOPR, DOE requested
comment on whether the proposed
standard could result in industry
consolidation. NAMA submitted a
comment stating that the industry has
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44946
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
experienced a trend of industry
consolidation that would continue, if
not accelerate, if equipment costs
escalate due to the proposed standard.
(NAMA, No. 65 at p. 6)
DOE believes that an increase in
equipment costs due to standards would
have a comparable impact on all
manufacturers. Therefore, industry
participants would not be placed at a
comparative disadvantage.
The Attorney General’s response is
reprinted at the end of today’s
rulemaking.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve
Energy
Improving the energy efficiency of
beverage vending machines, where
economically justified, would likely
improve the security of the Nation’s
energy system by reducing overall
demand for energy, thus reducing the
Nation’s reliance on foreign sources of
energy. Reduced demand would also
likely improve the reliability of the
electricity system, particularly during
peak-load periods. As a measure of this
reduced demand, DOE expects the
energy savings from the adopted
standards to eliminate the need for
approximately 0.103 Gigawatts (GW) of
generating capacity for Class A
equipment and 0.015 GW for Class B
equipment by 2042.
Enhanced energy savings also
produces environmental benefits in the
form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases
associated with energy production.
Table VI.24 provides DOE’s estimate of
cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions
reductions that would result from the
TSLs considered in this rulemaking for
both Class A and Class B equipment.
The expected energy savings from these
standards for beverage vending
machines may also reduce the cost of
maintaining nationwide emissions
standards and constraints. In the EA
(chapter 16 of the TSD), DOE reports
estimated annual changes in CO2, NOX,
and Hg emissions attributable to each
TSL.
TABLE VI.24—CUMULATIVE CO2 NOX AND HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR CLASSES A AND B EQUIPMENT
[Cumulative reductions for equipment sold from 2012 to 2042]
Trial standard levels for Class A equipment
Results
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.18
1.43
6.45
2.20
7.63
2.60
8.40
2.87
10.22
3.49
0
0.082
0
0.127
0
0.150
0
0.165
Emissions reductions
CO2 (Mt) .................................................................
NOX (kt) .................................................................
0.40
0.13
1.89
0.65
Hg (tons)
Low .........................................................................
High ........................................................................
0
0.008
0
0.037
0
0.201
Trial standard levels for Class B equipment
Results
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.24
0.08
1.19
0.41
1.36
0.46
3.66
1.25
4.08
1.39
0
0.005
0
0.023
0
0.027
0
0.072
0
0.080
Emissions reductions
CO2 (Mt) .......................................................................................
NOX (kt) .......................................................................................
0.16
0.05
Hg (tons)
Low ...............................................................................................
High ..............................................................................................
0
0.003
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Mt = million metric tons.
kt = thousand tons.
Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
As noted in section IV.M of this final
rule, DOE does not report SO2 emissions
reductions from power plants because
DOE is uncertain that an energy
conservation standard would affect the
overall level of U.S. SO2 emissions due
to emissions caps.
NOX emissions from 28 eastern States
and the District of Columbia (DC) are
limited under the CAIR, published in
the Federal Register on May 12, 2005.
70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). Although
CAIR has been remanded to EPA by the
DC. Circuit, it will remain in effect until
it is replaced by a rule consistent with
the Court’s December 23, 2008, opinion
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
in North Carolina v. EPA. North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir.
2008). These court positions were taken
into account in the May 2009 NOPR.
Thus, the same methodology was
followed in estimating future NOX
emission reductions in the May 2009
NOPR as in the final rule. Because all
States covered by CAIR opted to reduce
NOX emissions through participation in
cap-and-trade programs for electric
generating units, emissions from these
sources are capped across the CAIR
region.
For the 28 eastern States and DC
where CAIR is in effect, no NOX
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
emissions reductions will occur due to
the permanent cap. Under caps,
physical emissions reductions in those
States would not result from the energy
conservation standards under
consideration by DOE, but standards
might have produced an
environmentally related economic
impact in the form of lower prices for
emissions allowance credits, if they
were large enough. However, DOE
determined that in the present case,
such standards would not produce an
environmentally related economic
impact in the form of lower prices for
emissions allowance credits, because
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the estimated reduction in NOX
emissions or the corresponding
allowance credits in States covered by
the CAIR cap would be too small to
affect allowance prices for NOX under
the CAIR. In contrast, new or amended
energy conservation standards would
reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States
that are not affected by the CAIR, and
these emissions could be estimated from
NEMS–BT. As a result, DOE used the
NEMS–BT to forecast emission
reductions from the beverage machine
standards in today’s final rule.
As noted in section IV.M, DOE was
able to estimate the changes in Hg
emissions associated with an energy
conservation standard as follows. DOE
notes that the NEMS–BT model used for
the NOPR, and used as an integral part
of today’s rulemaking, does not estimate
Hg emission reductions due to new
energy conservation standards, as it
assumed that Hg emissions would be
subject to EPA’s CAMR. 70 FR 28606
(May 18, 2005). CAMR would have
permanently capped emissions of
mercury for new and existing coal-fired
plants in all States by 2010. DOE
assumed that under such a system,
energy conservation standards would
have resulted in no physical effect on
these NOX emissions, but might have
resulted in an environmentally related
economic benefit in the form of a lower
price for emissions allowance credits if
those credits were large enough. DOE
estimated that the change in the Hg
emissions from energy conservation
standards would not be large enough to
influence allowance prices under
CAMR.
On February 8, 2008, the DC Circuit
issued its decision in New Jersey v.
Environmental Protection Agency to
vacate CAMR. 517 F.3d 574 (DC Cir.
2008). In light of this development and
because the NEMS–BT model could not
be used to directly calculate Hg
emission reductions, DOE used the Hg
emission rates discussed below to
calculate emissions reductions in the
NOPR. This same methodology is used
for the final rule as well due to the
continued fluid environment ‘‘* * *
with many States planning to enact new
laws or make existing laws more
stringent.’’ EIA AEO2009 (March 2009),
p. 18. The NEMS–BT has only rough
estimates of mercury emissions, and it
was felt that the range of emissions used
in the NOPR remain appropriate given
these circumstances.
Therefore, rather than using the
NEMS–BT model, DOE established a
range of Hg emission rates to estimate
the Hg emissions that could be reduced
through energy conservation standards.
The estimate should provide the full
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
range of possible outcomes and DOE has
therefore selected the low and high
values to bracket the uncertainties
associated with estimating mercury
emission reductions. DOE’s low
estimate assumed that future standards
would displace electrical generation
only from natural gas-fired power
plants, thereby resulting in an effective
emission rate of zero. (Under this
scenario, coal-fired power plant
generation would remain unaffected.)
The low-end emission rate is zero
because natural gas-fired power plants
have virtually zero Hg emissions
associated with their operation.
DOE’s high estimate, which assumed
that standards would displace only coalfired power plants, was based on a
nationwide Hg emission rate from
AEO2008. (Under this scenario, gasfired power plant generation would
remain unaffected.) Because power
plant emission rates are a function of
local regulation, scrubbers, and the
mercury content of coal, it is extremely
difficult to identify a precise high-end
emission rate. Therefore, the most
reasonable estimate is based on the
assumption that all displaced coal
generation would have been emitting at
the average emission rate for coal
generation as specified in the April
update to AEO2009. As noted
previously, because virtually all Hg
emitted from electricity generation is
from coal-fired power plants, DOE based
the emission rate on the tons of Hg
emitted per TWh of coal-generated
electricity. Based on the emission rate
for 2006, DOE derived a high-end
emission rate of 0.0255 tons per TWh.
To estimate the reduction in Hg
emissions, DOE multiplied the emission
rate by the reduction in coal-generated
electricity due to the standards
considered in the utility impact
analysis. These changes in Hg emissions
are extremely small, ranging from 0 to
0.04 percent of the national base-case
emissions forecast by NEMS–BT,
depending on the TSL.
In the May 2009 NOPR, DOE
indicated that it intended to consider
the likely monetary benefits of CO2
emission reductions associated with
standards. 74 FR 102, 26020 (May 29,
2009). To put the potential monetary
benefits from reduced CO2 emissions
into a form that would likely be most
useful to decision makers and interested
parties, DOE used methods that were
similar to those it used to calculate the
net present value of consumer cost
savings. DOE converted the estimated
yearly reductions in CO2 emissions into
monetary values that represented the
present value, in that year, of future
benefits resulting from that reduction in
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44947
emissions, which were then discounted
from that year to the present using both
3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.
In the May 2009 NOPR, DOE
proposed to use the range $0 to $20 per
ton for 2007 in 2007$. These estimates
were originally derived to represent the
lower and upper bounds of the costs
and benefits likely to be experienced in
the United States. The lower bound was
based on an assumption of no benefit
and the upper bound was based on an
estimate of the mean value of
worldwide impacts due to climate
change that was reported by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) in its ‘‘Fourth
Assessment Report.’’ For today’s final
rule, DOE is relying on a new set of
values recently developed by an
interagency process that conducted a
more thorough review of existing
estimates of the social cost of carbon
(SCC).
The SCC is intended to be a monetary
measure of the incremental damage
resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, including, but not limited to,
net agricultural productivity loss,
human health effects, property damages
from sea level rise, and changes in
ecosystem services. Any effort to
quantify and to monetize the harms
associated with climate change will
raise serious questions of science,
economics, and ethics. But with full
regard for the limits of both
quantification and monetization, the
SCC can be used to provide estimates of
the social benefits of reductions in GHG
emissions.
For at least three reasons, any single
estimate of the SCC will be contestable.
First, scientific and economic
knowledge about the impacts of climate
change continues to grow. With new
and better information about relevant
questions, including the cost, burdens,
and possibility of adaptation, current
estimates will inevitably change over
time. Second, some of the likely and
potential damages from climate
change—for example, the value society
places on adverse impacts on
endangered species—are not included
in all of the existing economic analyses.
These omissions may turn out to be
significant, in the sense that they may
mean that the best current estimates are
too low. Third, controversial ethical
judgments, including those involving
the treatment of future generations, play
a role in judgments about the SCC (see
in particular the discussion of the
discount rate, below).
To date, regulations have used a range
of values for the SCC. For example, a
regulation proposed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) in
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
44948
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2008 assumed a value of $7 per ton CO2
(2006$) for 2011 emission reductions
(with a range of $0–14 for sensitivity
analysis). Regulation finalized by DOE
used a range of $0–$20 (2007$). Both of
these ranges were designed to reflect the
value of damages to the United States
resulting from carbon emissions, or the
‘‘domestic’’ SCC. In the final Model
Year 2011 Corporate Average Fuel
Economy rule, DOT used both a
domestic SCC value of $2/tCO2 and a
global SCC value of $33/tCO2 (with
sensitivity analysis at $80/tCO2),
increasing at 2.4 percent per year
thereafter.
In recent months, a variety of agencies
have worked to develop an objective
methodology for selecting a range of
interim SCC estimates to use in
regulatory analyses until improved SCC
estimates are developed. The following
summary reflects the initial results of
these efforts and proposes ranges and
values for interim social costs of carbon
used in this rule. It should be
emphasized that the analysis described
below is preliminary. These complex
issues are of course undergoing a
process of continuing review. Relevant
agencies will be evaluating and seeking
comment on all of the scientific,
economic, and ethical issues before
establishing final estimates for use in
future rulemakings.
The interim judgments resulting from
the recent interagency review process
can be summarized as follows: (a) DOE
and other Federal agencies should
consider the global benefits associated
with the reductions of CO2 emissions
resulting from efficiency standards and
other similar rulemakings, rather
continuing the previous focus on
domestic benefits; (b) these global
benefits should be based on SCC
estimates (in 2007$) of $55, $33, $19,
$10, and $5 per ton of CO2 equivalent
emitted (or avoided) in 2007; (c) the
SCC value of emissions that occur (or
are avoided) in future years should be
escalated using an annual growth rate of
3 percent from the current values); and
(d) domestic benefits are estimated to be
approximately 6 percent of the global
values. These interim judgments are
based on the following:
1. Global and domestic estimates of
SCC. Because of the distinctive nature of
the climate change problem, estimates
of both global and domestic SCC values
should be considered, but the global
measure should be ‘‘primary.’’ This
approach represents a departure from
past practices, which relied, for the
most part, on measures of only domestic
impacts. As a matter of law, both global
and domestic values are permissible; the
relevant statutory provisions are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
ambiguous and allow the agency to
choose either measure. (It is true that
Federal statutes are presumed not to
have extraterritorial effect, in part to
ensure that the laws of the United States
respect the interests of foreign
sovereigns. But use of a global measure
for the SCC does not give extraterritorial
effect to Federal law and hence does not
intrude on such interests.)
It is true that under OMB guidance,
analysis from the domestic perspective
is required, while analysis from the
international perspective is optional.
The domestic decisions of one nation
are not typically based on a judgment
about the effects of those decisions on
other nations. But the climate change
problem is highly unusual in the sense
that it involves (a) a global public good
in which (b) the emissions of one nation
may inflict significant damages on other
nations and (c) the United States is
actively engaged in promoting an
international agreement to reduce
worldwide emissions.
In these circumstances, the global
measure is preferred. Use of a global
measure reflects the reality of the
problem and is expected to contribute to
the continuing efforts of the United
States to ensure that emission
reductions occur in many nations.
Domestic SCC values are also
presented. The development of a
domestic SCC is greatly complicated by
the relatively few region- or countryspecific estimates of the SCC in the
literature. One potential estimate comes
from the DICE (Dynamic Integrated
Climate Economy, William Nordhaus)
model. In an unpublished paper,
Nordhaus (2007) produced
disaggregated SCC estimates using a
regional version of the DICE model. He
reported a U.S. estimate of $1/tCO2
(2007 value, 2007$), which is roughly
11 percent of the global value.
An alternative source of estimates
comes from a recent EPA modeling
effort using the FUND (Climate
Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation
and Distribution, Center for Integrated
Study of the Human Dimensions of
Global Change) model. The resulting
estimates suggest that the ratio of
domestic to global benefits varies with
key parameter assumptions. With a 3
percent discount rate, for example, the
U.S. benefit is about 6 percent of the
global benefit for the ‘‘central’’ (mean)
FUND results, while, for the
corresponding ‘‘high’’ estimates
associated with a higher climate
sensitivity and lower global economic
growth, the U.S. benefit is less than 4
percent of the global benefit. With a 2
percent discount rate, the U.S. share is
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
about 2 to 5 percent of the global
estimate.
Based on this available evidence, a
domestic SCC value equal to 6 percent
of the global damages is used in this
rulemaking. This figure is in the middle
of the range of available estimates from
the literature. It is recognized that the 6
percent figure is approximate and
highly speculative and alternative
approaches will be explored before
establishing final values for future
rulemakings.
2. Filtering existing analyses. There
are numerous SCC estimates in the
existing literature, and it is legitimate to
make use of those estimates to produce
a figure for current use. A reasonable
starting point is provided by the metaanalysis in Richard Tol, ‘‘The Social
Cost of Carbon: Trends, Outliers, and
Catastrophes, Economics: The OpenAccess, Open-Assessment E-Journal,’’
Vol. 2, 2008–25. https://www.economicsejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/
2008–25 (2008). With that starting point,
it is proposed to ‘‘filter’’ existing SCC
estimates by using those that (1) are
derived from peer-reviewed studies; (2)
do not weight the monetized damages to
one country more than those in other
countries; (3) use a ‘‘business as usual’’
climate scenario; and (4) are based on
the most recent published version of
each of the three major integrated
assessment models (IAMs): FUND, DICE
and PAGE (Policy Analysis of the
Greenhouse Effect) Policy.
Proposal (1) is based on the view that
those studies that have been subject to
peer review are more likely to be
reliable than those that have not been.
Proposal (2) is based on a principle of
neutrality and simplicity; it does not
treat the citizens of one nation
differently on the basis of speculative or
controversial considerations. Proposal
(3) stems from the judgment that as a
general rule, the proper way to assess a
policy decision is by comparing the
implementation of the policy against a
counterfactual state where the policy is
not implemented. A departure from this
approach would be to consider a more
dynamic setting in which other
countries might implement policies to
reduce GHG emissions at an unknown
future date, and the United States could
choose to implement such a policy now
or in the future.
Proposal (4) is based on three
complementary judgments. First, the
FUND, PAGE, and DICE models now
stand as the most comprehensive and
reliable efforts to measure the damages
from climate change. Second, the latest
versions of the three IAMs are likely to
reflect the most recent evidence and
learning, and hence they are presumed
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
to be superior to those that preceded
them. It is acknowledged that earlier
versions may contain information that is
missing from the latest versions. Third,
any effort to choose among them, or to
reject one in favor of the others, would
be difficult to defend at this time. In the
absence of a clear reason to choose
among them, it is reasonable to base the
SCC on all of them.
The agency is keenly aware that the
current IAMs fail to include all relevant
information about the likely impacts
from greenhouse gas emissions. For
example, ecosystem impacts, including
species loss, do not appear to be
included in at least two of the models.
Some human health impacts, including
increases in food-borne illnesses and in
the quantity and toxicity of airborne
allergens, also appear to be excluded. In
addition, there has been considerable
recent discussion of the risk of
catastrophe and of how best to account
for worst-case scenarios. It is not clear
whether the three IAMs take adequate
account of these potential effects.
3. Use a model-weighted average of
the estimates at each discount rate. At
this time, there appears to be no
scientifically valid reason to prefer any
of the three major IAMs (FUND, PAGE,
and DICE). Consequently, the estimates
are based on an equal weighting of
estimates from each of the models.
Among estimates that remain after
applying the filter, the average of all
estimates within a model is derived.
The estimated SCC is then calculated as
the average of the three model-specific
averages. This approach ensures that the
interim estimate is not biased towards
specific models or more prolific authors.
4. Apply a 3 percent annual growth
rate to the chosen SCC values. SCC is
assumed to increase over time, because
future emissions are expected to
produce larger incremental damages as
physical and economic systems become
more stressed as the magnitude of
climate change increases. Indeed, an
implied growth rate in the SCC is
produced by most studies that estimate
economic damages caused by increased
GHG emissions in future years. But
neither the rate itself nor the
information necessary to derive its
implied value is commonly reported. In
light of the limited amount of debate
thus far about the appropriate growth
rate of the SCC, applying a rate of 3
percent per year seems appropriate at
this stage. This value is consistent with
the range recommended by IPCC (2007)
and close to the latest published
estimate (Hope, 2008).
For climate change, one of the most
complex issues involves the appropriate
discount rate. OMB’s current guidance
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
offers a detailed discussion of the
relevant issues and calls for discount
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. It also
permits a sensitivity analysis with low
rates for intergenerational problems. (‘‘If
your rule will have important
intergenerational benefits or costs you
might consider a further sensitivity
analysis using a lower but positive
discount rate in addition to calculating
net benefits using discount rates of 3
and 7 percent.’’) The SCC is being
developed within the general context of
the current guidance.
The choice of a discount rate,
especially over long periods of time,
raises highly contested and exceedingly
difficult questions of science,
economics, philosophy, and law. See,
e.g., William Nordhaus, ‘‘The Challenge
of Global Warming (2008); Nicholas
Stern, ‘‘The Economics of Climate
Change’’ (2007); ‘‘Discounting and
Intergenerational Equity’’ (Paul Portney
and John Weyant, eds., 1999). Under
imaginable assumptions, decisions
based on cost-benefit analysis with high
discount rates might harm future
generations—at least if investments are
not made for the benefit of those
generations. See Robert Lind, ‘‘Analysis
for Intergenerational Discounting,’’ id. at
173, 176–177. At the same time, use of
low discount rates for particular projects
might itself harm future generations, by
ensuring that resources are not used in
a way that would greatly benefit them.
In the context of climate change,
questions of intergenerational equity are
especially important.
Reasonable arguments support the use
of a 3 percent discount rate. First, that
rate is among the two figures suggested
by OMB guidance, and hence it fits with
existing National policy. Second, it is
standard to base the discount rate on the
compensation that people receive for
delaying consumption, and the 3
percent rate is close to the risk-free rate
of return, proxied by the return on long
term inflation-adjusted U.S. Treasury
Bonds. (In the context of climate
change, it is possible to object to this
standard method for deriving the
discount rate.) Although these rates are
currently closer to 2.5 percent, the use
of 3 percent provides an adjustment for
the liquidity premium that is reflected
in these bonds’ returns.
At the same time, other arguments
support use of a 5 percent discount rate.
First, that rate can also be justified by
reference to the level of compensation
for delaying consumption, because it fits
with market behavior with respect to
individuals’ willingness to trade off
consumption across periods as
measured by the estimated post-tax
average real returns to private
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44949
investment (e.g., the S&P 500). In the
climate setting, the 5 percent discount
rate may be preferable to the riskless
rate because it is based on risky
investments and the return to projects to
mitigate climate change is also risky. In
contrast, the 3 percent riskless rate may
be a more appropriate discount rate for
projects where the return is known with
a high degree of confidence (e.g.,
highway guardrails).
Second, 5 percent, and not 3 percent,
is roughly consistent with estimates
implied by reasonable inputs to the
theoretically derived Ramsey equation,
which specifies the optimal time path
for consumption. That equation
specifies the optimal discount rate as
the sum of two components. The first
reflects the fact that consumption in the
future is likely to be higher than
consumption today (even accounting for
climate impacts), so diminishing
marginal utility implies that the same
monetary damage will cause a smaller
reduction of utility in the future.
Standard estimates of this term from the
economics literature are in the range of
3 to 5 percent. The second component
reflects the possibility that a lower
weight should be placed on utility in
the future, to account for social
impatience or extinction risk, which is
specified by a pure rate of time
preference (PRTP). A conventional
estimate of the PRTP is 2 percent. (Some
observers believe that a principle of
intergenerational equity suggests that
the PRTP should be close to zero.) It
follows that discount rate of 5 percent
is within the range of values which are
able to be derived from the Ramsey
equation, albeit at the low end of the
range of estimates usually associated
with Ramsey discounting.
It is recognized that the arguments
above—for use of market behavior and
the Ramsey equation—face objections in
the context of climate change, and of
course there are alternative approaches.
In light of climate change, it is possible
that consumption in the future will not
be higher than consumption today, and
if so, the Ramsey equation will suggest
a lower figure. Some people have
suggested that a very low discount rate,
below 3 percent, is justified in light of
the ethical considerations calling for a
principle of intergenerational neutrality.
See Nicholas Stern, ‘‘The Economics of
Climate Change’’ (2007); for contrary
views, see William Nordhaus, The A
Question of Balance (2008); Martin
Weitzman, ‘‘Review of the Stern Review
on the Economics of Climate Change.’’
Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3):
703–724 (2007). Additionally, some
analyses attempt to deal with
uncertainty with respect to interest rates
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44950
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
over time; a possible approach enabling
the consideration of such uncertainties
is discussed below. Richard Newell and
William Pizer, ‘‘Discounting the Distant
Future: How Much do Uncertain Rates
Increase Valuations?’’ J. Environ. Econ.
Manage. 46 (2003) 52–71.
The application of the methodology
outlined above yields estimates of the
SCC that are reported in Table VI.25.
These estimates are reported separately
using 3 percent and 5 percent discount
rates. The cells are empty in rows 10
and 11, because these studies did not
report estimates of the SCC at a 3
percent discount rate. The modelweighted means are reported in the final
or summary row; they are $33 per tCO2
at a 3% discount rate and $5 per tCO2
with a 5% discount rate.
TABLE VI.25—GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF CARBON (SCC) ESTIMATES ($/TCO2 IN 2007 (2006$)), BASED ON 3% AND 5%
DISCOUNT RATES *
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
Study
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
Climate scenario
3%
Anthoff et al. 2009 .....................
Anthoff et al. 2009 .....................
Anthoff et al. 2009 .....................
Link and Tol 2004 ......................
Link and Tol 2004 ......................
Guo et al. 2006 ..........................
Guo et al. 2006 ..........................
Guo et al. 2006 ..........................
FUND default .............................
SRES A1b ..................................
SRES A2 ....................................
No THC ......................................
THC continues ...........................
Constant PRTP ..........................
Gollier discount 1 .......................
Gollier discount 2 .......................
5%
¥1
¥1
¥1
3
2
¥1
0
¥1
6
1
9
12
12
5
14
7
FUND Mean ...............................
0
Wahba & Hope 2006 .................
Hope 2006 .................................
Nordhaus 2008 ..........................
A2-scen ......................................
....................................................
....................................................
57
..........................
..........................
7
7
8
Summary ................................................................................................
9
10
11
8.25
Model-weighted Mean ................
PAGE .........................................
PAGE .........................................
DICE ...........................................
33
5
* The sample includes all peer reviewed, non-equity-weighted estimates included in Tol (2008), Nordhaus (2008), Hope (2008), and Anthoff et
al. (2009), that are based on the most recent published version of FUND, PAGE, or DICE and use business-as-usual climate scenarios. All values are based on the best available information from the underlying studies about the base year and year dollars, rather than the Tol (2008) assumption that all estimates included in his review are 1995 values in 1995$. All values were updated to 2007 using a 3 percent annual growth
rate in the SCC, and adjusted for inflation using GDP deflator.
Analyses have been conducted at $33
and $5 as these represent the estimates
associated with the 3 percent and 5
percent discount rates, respectively. The
3 percent and 5 percent estimates have
independent appeal and at this time a
clear preference for one over the other
is not warranted. Thus, DOE has also
included—and centered its current
attention on—the average of the
estimates associated with these discount
rates, which is $19. (Based on the $19
global value, the domestic value would
be $1.14 per ton of CO2 equivalent.)
It is true that there is uncertainty
about interest rates over long time
horizons. Recognizing that point,
Newell and Pizer have made a careful
effort to adjust for that uncertainty. See
Newell and Pizer, supra. This is a
relatively recent contribution to the
literature.
There are several concerns with using
this approach in this context. First, it
would be a departure from current OMB
guidance. Second, an approach that
would average what emerges from
discount rates of 3 percent and 5
percent reflects uncertainty about the
discount rate, but based on a different
model of uncertainty. The Newell-Pizer
approach models discount rate
uncertainty as something that evolves
over time; in contrast, one alternative
approach would assume that there is a
single discount rate with equal
probability of 3 percent and 5 percent.
Table VI.26 reports on the application
of the Newell-Pizer adjustments. The
precise numbers depend on the
assumptions about the data generating
process that governs interest rates.
Columns (1a) and (1b) assume that
‘‘random walk’’ model best describes
the data and uses 3 percent and 5
percent discount rates, respectively.
Columns (2a) and (2b) repeat this,
except that it assumes a ‘‘meanreverting’’ process. As Newell and Pizer
report, there is stronger empirical
support for the random walk model.
TABLE VI.26—GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF CARBON (SCC) ESTIMATES ($/TCO2 IN 2007 (2006$)),* USING NEWELL & PIZER
(2003) ADJUSTMENT FOR FUTURE DISCOUNT RATE UNCERTAINTY **
Random-walk model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
FUND
VerDate Nov<24>2008
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Study
Climate scenario
Anthoff et al. 2009 .........
Anthoff et al. 2009 .........
Anthoff et al. 2009 .........
Link and Tol 2004 ..........
Link and Tol 2004 ..........
Guo et al. 2006 ..............
Guo et al. 2006 ..............
Guo et al. 2006 ..............
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
3%
FUND default .................
SRES A1b ......................
SRES A2 ........................
No THC ..........................
THC continues ...............
Constant PRTP ..............
Gollier discount 1 ...........
Gollier discount 2 ...........
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5%
3%
5%
(1a)
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Model
Mean-reverting model
(1b)
(2a)
(2b)
10
2
15
20
20
9
14
7
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
0
0
0
6
4
0
0
¥1
31AUR2
7
1
10
13
13
6
14
7
¥1
¥1
¥1
4
2
¥1
0
¥1
44951
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.26—GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF CARBON (SCC) ESTIMATES ($/TCO2 IN 2007 (2006$)),* USING NEWELL & PIZER
(2003) ADJUSTMENT FOR FUTURE DISCOUNT RATE UNCERTAINTY **—Continued
Random-walk model
Model
Study
Climate scenario
Mean-reverting model
3%
5%
3%
5%
(1a)
(1b)
(2a)
(2b)
FUND Mean ...................
1
9
0
Wahba & Hope 2006 .....
Hope 2006 .....................
Nordhaus 2008 ..............
A2-scen ..........................
........................................
........................................
97
....................
....................
13
13
15
63
....................
....................
8
8
9
Summary ......................................................................
9
10
11
12
Model-weighted Mean ...
55
10
36
6
PAGE .............................
PAGE .............................
DICE ..............................
* The sample includes all peer reviewed, non-equity-weighted estimates included in Tol (2008), Nordhaus (2008), Hope (2008), and Anthoff et
al. (2009), that are based on the most recent published version of FUND, PAGE, or DICE and use business-as-usual climate scenarios. All values are based on the best available information from the underlying studies about the base year and year dollars, rather than the Tol (2008) assumption that all estimates included in his review are 1995 values in 1995$. All values were updated to 2007 using a 3 percent annual growth
rate in the SCC, and adjusted for inflation using GDP deflator.
** Assumes a starting discount rate of 3 percent. Newell and Pizer (2003) based adjustment factors are not applied to estimates from Guo et
al. (2006) that use a different approach to account for discount rate uncertainty (rows 7–8).
The resulting estimates of the social
cost of carbon are necessarily greater.
When the adjustments from the random
walk model are applied, the estimates of
the social cost of carbon are $10 and
$55, with the 3 percent and 5 percent
discount rates, respectively. The
application of the mean-reverting
adjustment yields estimates of $6 and
$36.
Since the random walk model has
greater support from the data, analyses
are also conducted with the value of the
SCC set at $10 and $55.
Based on this analysis, DOE has
concluded that it is appropriate to
consider the global benefits of reducing
CO2 emissions, while also presenting
the domestic benefits. Consequently,
DOE considered in its decision process
for this final rule the potential global
benefits resulting from reduced CO2
emissions valued at $5, $10, $19, $30
and $55 per metric ton, and has also
presented the domestic benefits derived
using a value of $1.14 per metric ton.
All of these values represent emissions
that are valued in 2007$. As indicated
in the analysis summarized above, the
value of future emissions is determined
using a 3 percent escalation rate. The
resulting range is based on current peerreviewed estimates of the value of SCC
and, DOE believes, fairly represents the
uncertainty surrounding the global
benefits resulting from reduced CO2
emissions and, at the $1.14 level, also
encompasses the likely domestic
benefits, DOE also concluded, based on
the most recent Tol analysis, that it was
appropriate to escalate these values at 3
percent per year to represent the
expected increases, over time, of the
benefits associated with reducing CO2
and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Estimates of SCC are assumed to
increase over time since future
emissions are expected to produce
larger incremental damages as physical
and economic systems become more
stressed as the magnitude of climate
change increases. Although most studies
that estimate economic damages caused
by increased GHG emissions in future
years produce an implied growth rate in
the SCC, neither the rate itself nor the
information necessary to derive its
implied value is commonly reported.
Given the limited amount of debate thus
far about the appropriate growth rate of
the SCC, applying a rate of 3 percent per
year seems appropriate at this stage.
This value is consistent with the range
recommended by IPCC (2007).
Table VI.27 and Table VI.28 present
the resulting estimates of the potential
range of NPV benefits associated with
reducing CO2 emissions for both Class A
and Class B equipment based on the
range of values used by DOE for this
final rule.
TABLE VI.27—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TSLS AND CO2 PRICES AT A 7
PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT
Estimated
cumulative
CO2 (MMt)
emission
reductions
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
TSL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
Value of estimated CO2 emission reductions (million 2007$)**
CO2 Value of
$1.14/metric
ton CO2*
$
0.40
1.89
4.18
6.45
7.63
8.40
10.22
CO2 Value of
$5/metric
ton CO2
$
0.23
1.09
2.41
3.71
4.39
4.84
5.88
CO2 Value of
$10/metric
ton CO2
$
1.00
4.77
10.56
16.28
19.25
21.21
25.80
CO2 Value of
$19/metric
ton CO2
$
1.99
9.54
21.12
32.55
38.49
42.42
51.60
3.79
18.13
40.12
61.85
73.13
80.61
98.04
* This value per ton represents the domestic negative externalities of CO2 only.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
CO2 Value of
$33/metric
ton CO2
$
6.58
31.49
69.69
107.43
127.02
140.00
170.28
CO2 Value of
$55/metric
ton CO2
$
10.97
52.48
116.14
179.04
211.70
233.34
283.80
44952
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.28—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TSLS AND CO2 PRICES AT A 3
PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT
Estimated
cumulative
CO2 (MMt)
emission
reductions
TSL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
Value of estimated CO2 emission reductions (million 2007$)**
CO2 Value of
$1.14/metric
ton CO2*
$
0.40
1.89
4.18
6.45
7.63
8.40
10.22
CO2 Value of
$5/metric
ton CO2
$
0.46
2.22
4.91
7.57
8.95
9.87
12.00
CO2 Value of
$10/metric
ton CO2
$
2.04
9.74
21.55
33.21
39.27
43.29
52.65
4.07
19.47
43.09
66.43
78.54
86.57
105.29
CO2 Value of
$19/metric
ton CO2
$
7.73
36.99
81.87
126.21
149.23
164.48
200.06
CO2 Value of
$33/metric
ton CO2
$
13.43
64.25
142.20
219.21
259.20
285.68
347.46
CO2 Value of
$55/metric
ton CO2
$
22.39
107.09
237.00
365.35
432.00
476.14
579.11
* This value per ton represents the domestic negative externalities of CO2 only.
TABLE VI.29—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TSLS AND CO2 PRICES AT A 7
PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT
Estimated
cumulative
CO2 (MMt)
emission
reductions
TSL
1
2
3
4
5
6
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
Value of estimated CO2 emission reductions (million 2007$)**
CO2 Value of
$1.14/metric
ton CO2*
$
0.16
0.24
1.19
1.36
3.66
4.08
CO2 Value of
$5/metric
ton CO2
$
0.09
0.14
0.68
0.78
2.11
2.35
CO2 Value of
$10/metric
ton CO2
$
0.40
0.60
3.00
3.43
9.24
10.29
CO2 Value of
$19/metric
ton CO2
$
0.81
1.20
6.00
6.86
18.48
20.58
1.53
2.27
11.40
13.04
35.11
39.10
CO2 Value of
$33/metric
ton CO2
$
2.66
3.95
19.81
22.65
60.98
67.91
CO2 Value of
$55/metric
ton CO2
$
4.43
6.58
33.01
37.75
101.64
113.18
* This value per ton represents the domestic negative externalities of CO2 only.
TABLE VI.30—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT ALL TSLS AND CO2 PRICES AT A 3
PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT
Estimated
cumulative
CO2 (MMt)
emission
reductions
TSL
1
2
3
4
5
6
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
Value of estimated CO2 emission reductions (million 2007$)**
CO2 Value of
$1.14/metric
ton CO2*
$
0.16
0.24
1.19
1.36
3.66
4.08
CO2 Value of
$5/metric
ton CO2
$
0.19
0.28
1.40
1.60
4.30
4.79
CO2 Value of
$10/metric
ton CO2
$
0.82
1.22
6.12
7.00
18.85
21.00
CO2 Value of
$19/metric
ton CO2
$
1.64
2.44
12.25
14.01
37.71
41.99
3.12
4.64
23.27
26.61
71.65
79.78
CO2 Value of
$33/metric
ton CO2
$
5.42
8.05
40.42
46.22
124.44
138.57
CO2 Value of
$55/metric
ton CO2
$
9.04
13.42
67.36
77.04
207.40
230.95
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
* This value per ton represents the domestic negative externalities of CO2 only.
DOE recognizes that scientific and
economic knowledge about the
contribution of CO2 and other GHG to
changes in the future global climate and
the potential resulting damages to the
world economy continues to evolve
rapidly. Thus, any value placed in this
rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions
is subject to change.
DOE, together with other Federal
agencies, will continue to review
various methodologies for estimating
the monetary value of reductions in CO2
and other greenhouse gas emissions.
This ongoing review will consider the
comments on this subject that are part
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
of the public record for this and other
rulemakings, as well as other
methodological assumptions and issues.
However, consistent with DOE’s legal
obligations, and taking into account the
uncertainty involved with this
particular issue, DOE has included in
this final rule the most recent values
and analyses resulting from the ongoing
interagency review process.
DOE also investigated the potential
monetary benefit of reduced SO2, NOX,
and Hg emissions from the TSLs it
considered. As previously stated, DOE’s
initial analysis assumed the presence of
nationwide emission caps on SO2 and
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Hg, and caps on NOX emissions in the
28 States covered by the CAIR. In the
presence of these caps, DOE concluded
that no physical reductions in power
sector emissions would occur, but that
the standards could put downward
pressure on the prices of emissions
allowances in cap-and-trade markets.
Estimating this effect is very difficult
because such factors as credit banking
can change the trajectory of prices. DOE
has concluded that the effect from
energy conservation standards on SO2
allowance prices is likely to be
negligible based on runs of the NEMS–
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
BT model. See chapter 16 of the TSD for
further details.
Because the courts have decided to
allow the CAIR rule to remain in effect,
projected annual NOX allowances from
NEMS–BT are relevant. The update to
the AEO2009-based version of NEMS–
BT includes the representation of CAIR.
As noted above, standards would not
produce an economic impact in the
form of lower prices for emissions
allowance credits in the 28 eastern
States and D.C. covered by the CAIR
cap. New or amended energy
conservation standards would reduce
NOX emissions in those 22 States that
are not affected by the CAIR. For the
area of the United States not covered by
the CAIR, DOE estimated the monetized
value of NOX emissions reductions
resulting from each of the TSLs
considered for today’s final rule based
on environmental damage estimates
from the literature. Available estimates
suggest a very wide range of monetary
values for NOX emissions, ranging from
$370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX
from stationary sources, measured in
2001$ (equivalent to a range of $432 to
$4,441 per ton in 2007$). Refer to the
OMB, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, ‘‘2006 Report to
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of
Federal Regulations and Unfunded
Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities,’’ Washington, DC, for
additional information.
For Hg emissions reductions, DOE
estimated the national monetized values
resulting from the TSLs considered for
today’s rule based on environmental
damage estimates from the literature.
DOE conducted research for today’s
final rule and determined that the
impact of mercury emissions from
power plants on humans is considered
highly uncertain. However, DOE
identified two estimates of the
environmental damage of mercury based
on two estimates of the adverse impact
of childhood exposure to methyl
mercury on intelligence quotient (IQ) for
American children, and subsequent loss
of lifetime economic productivity
resulting from these IQ losses. The highend estimate is based on an estimate of
the current aggregate cost of the loss of
IQ in American children that results
from exposure to mercury of U.S. power
plant origin ($1.3 billion per year in
year 2000$), which works out to $32.6
million per ton emitted per year
44953
(2007$). Refer to L. Trasande et al.,
‘‘Applying Cost Analyses to Drive
Policy that Protects Children,’’ 1076
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 911 (2006) for
additional information. The low-end
estimate is $0.66 million per ton emitted
(in 2004$) or $0.729 million per ton in
2007$. DOE derived this estimate from
a published evaluation of mercury
control using different methods and
assumptions from the first study but
also based on the present value of the
lifetime earnings of children exposed.
See Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn,
‘‘Designing Environmental Policy:
Lessons from the Regulation of Mercury
Emissions,’’ Regulatory Analysis 05–01,
AEI–Brookings Joint Center for
Regulatory Studies, Washington, DC
(2004). A version of this paper was
published in the Journal of Regulatory
Economics in 2006. The estimate was
derived by back-calculating the annual
benefits per ton from the net present
value of benefits reported in the study.
Table VI.31 through Table VI.34 present
the resulting estimates of the potential
range of present value benefits
associated with reducing national NOX
and Hg emissions for Class A and B
equipment.
TABLE VI.31—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM REDUCING NOX AND HG EMISSIONS AT ALL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A
7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT
Estimated
cumulative
NOX emission
reductions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Value of
estimated NOX
emission
reductions
Estimated
cumulative Hg
emission
reductions
Value of
estimated Hg
emission
reductions
kt
TSL
thousand
2007$
tons
thousand
2007$
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
0.13
0.65
1.43
2.20
2.60
2.87
3.49
15–150
70–716
154–1,584
238–2,442
281–2,888
310–3,183
377–3,871
0.008
0.037
0.082
0.127
0.150
0.165
0.201
0–61
0–293
0–649
0–1,001
0–1,183
0–1,304
0–1,586
TABLE VI.32—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM REDUCING NOX AND HG EMISSIONS AT ALL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A
7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT
Estimated
cumulative
NOX emission
reductions
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Value of
estimated
NOX emission
reductions
Estimated
cumulative
Hg emission
reductions
Value of
estimated Hg
emission
reductions
kt
TSL
thousand
2007$
tons
thousand
2007$
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
0.05
0.08
0.41
0.46
1.25
1.39
6–60
9–90
44–450
50–515
135–1,386
150–1,544
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
0.003
0.005
0.023
0.027
0.072
0.080
0–25
0–37
0–185
0–211
0–568
0–633
44954
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.33—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM REDUCING NOX AND HG EMISSIONS AT ALL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A
3 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT
Estimated
cumulative
NOX emission
reductions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Value of
estimated NOX
emission
reductions
Estimated
cumulative Hg
emission
reductions
Value of
estimated Hg
emission
reductions
kt
TSL
thousand
2007$
tons
thousand
2007$
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
0.13
0.65
1.43
2.20
2.60
2.87
3.49
31–317
148–1,516
326–3,356
503–5,174
595–6,117
656–6,742
798–8,200
0.008
0.037
0.082
0.127
0.150
0.165
0.201
0–132
0–633
0–1,401
0–2,160
0–2,554
0–2,815
0–3,424
TABLE VI.34—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM REDUCING NOX AND HG EMISSIONS AT ALL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT A
3 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT
Estimated
cumulative
NOX emission
reductions
1
2
3
4
5
6
Value of
estimated NOX
emission
reductions
Estimated
cumulative Hg
emission
reductions
Value of
estimated Hg
emission
reductions
kt
TSL
thousand
2007$
tons
thousand
2007$
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
0.05
0.08
0.41
0.46
1.25
1.39
7. Other Factors
D. Conclusion
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy,
in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, to consider any
other factors that the Secretary deems to
be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)
and (v)) Under this provision, DOE
considered LCC impacts on identifiable
groups of customers, such as customers
of different business types who may be
disproportionately affected by any
national energy conservation standard
level. DOE also considered the
reduction in generated capacity that
could result from the imposition of any
national energy conservation standard
level. DOE identified no factors other
than those already considered above for
analysis.
EPCA specifies that any new or
amended energy conservation standard
for any type (or class) of covered
equipment shall be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines
is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) In
determining whether a standard is
economically justified, the Secretary
must determine whether the benefits of
the standard exceed its burdens. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(e)(1))
The new or amended standard must
‘‘result in significant conservation of
energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and
6316(e)(1))
12–128
18–190
93–954
106–1,091
286–2,937
318–3,270
0.003
0.005
0.023
0.027
0.072
0.080
0–53
0–79
0–398
0–455
0–1,226
0–1,365
DOE established a separate set of
TSLs for Class A and B beverage
vending machines. DOE considered
seven TSLs for Class A and six TSLs for
Class B beverage vending machines. The
following discussion briefly explains
the development of the TSLs,
consideration of the TSLs (starting with
the most stringent) under the statutory
factors, and DOE’s conclusions.
Table VI.35 and Table VI.36 present
summaries of quantitative analysis
results for each TSL for Class A and B
equipment, respectively, based on the
assumptions and methodology
discussed above. These tables present
the results or, in some cases, ranges of
results, for each TSL. The ranges
reported for industry impacts represent
the results of the different markup
scenarios DOE used to estimate impacts.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
TABLE VI.35—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT BASED UPON THE AEO2009 REFERENCE CASE ENERGY
PRICE FORECAST *
Trial standard level
Results
1
Primary Energy Saved
(quads).
7% Discount Rate ...................
3% Discount Rate ...................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
2
3
4
5
6
0.007 ............
0.031 ............
0.069 ............
0.107 ............
0.127 ............
0.139 ............
0.170.
0.002 ............
0.004 ............
0.010 ............
0.018 ............
0.021 ............
0.040 ............
0.032 ............
0.061 ............
0.038 ............
0.073 ............
0.042 ............
0.080 ............
0.051.
0.097.
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
7
44955
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.35—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLASS A EQUIPMENT BASED UPON THE AEO2009 REFERENCE CASE ENERGY
PRICE FORECAST *—Continued
Trial standard level
Results
1
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **.
NPV 2008$ billion:
7% Discount Rate ...........
3% Discount Rate ...........
Industry Impacts:
Industry NPV (2008$ million).
Industry NPV (% change)
Cumulative Emissions Impacts†:
CO2 Reductions (Mt) .......
Value of CO2 Reductions
at 7% Discount Rate
(million 2007$).
Value of CO2 Reductions
at 3% Discount Rate
(million 2007$).
NOX Reductions (kt) ...............
Value of NOX Reductions at
7% Discount Rate
(thousand 2007$).
Value of NOX Reductions at
3% Discount Rate
(thousand 2007$).
Hg Reductions (tons) ..............
Value of Hg Reductions at 7%
Discount Rate (thousand
2007$).
Value of Hg reductions at 3%
Discount Rate (thousand
2007$).
Life-Cycle Cost:
Net Savings (%) ..............
Net Increase (%) .............
No Change (%) ...............
Mean LCC Savings
(2008$).
Mean PBP (years) ...........
Direct Domestic Employment
Impacts (2012) (jobs).
Indirect Domestic Employment
Impacts (2042) (jobs).
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.005 ............
0.023 ............
0.051 ............
0.079 ............
0.094 ............
0.103 ............
0.126.
0.015 ............
0.034 ............
0.068 ............
0.153 ............
0.112 ............
0.268 ............
0.175 ............
0.415 ............
0.192 ............
0.464 ............
0.185 ............
0.465 ............
(1.449).
(2.466).
0.0–(0.0) .......
0.2–(0.3) .......
0.3–(1.1) .......
(1.3)–(3.5) ....
(1.3)–(4.1) ....
(7.9)–(11.1) ..
(3.2)–(28.3).
0.1–(0.1) .......
0.5–(0.6) .......
0.7–(2.5) .......
(2.9)–(7.9) ....
(3.0)–(9.3) ....
(18.0)–(25.1)
(7.2)–(64.2).
0.4 ................
0.2 to 11 .......
1.9 ................
1.1 to 52.5 ....
4.2 ................
2.4 to 116.1 ..
6.4 ................
3.7 to 179 .....
7.6 ................
4.4 to 211.7 ..
8.4 ................
4.8 to 233.3 ..
10.2.
5.9 to 283.8.
0.5 to 22.4 ....
2.2 to 107.1 ..
4.9 to 237 .....
7.6 to 365.4 ..
9 to 432 ........
9.9 to 476.1 ..
12 to 579.1.
0.1 ................
15–150 .........
0.6 ................
70–716 .........
1.4 ................
154–1,584 ....
2.2 ................
238–2,442 ....
2.6 ................
281–2,888 ....
2.9 ................
310–3,183 ....
3.5.
377–3,871.
31–317 .........
148–1,516 ....
326–3,356 ....
503–5,174 ....
595–6,117 ....
656–6,742 ....
798–8,200.
0.008 ............
0–61 .............
0.037 ............
0–293 ...........
0.082 ............
0–649 ...........
0.127 ............
0–1,001 ........
0.150 ............
0–1,183 ........
0.165 ............
0–1,304 ........
0.201.
0–1,586.
0–132 ...........
0–633 ...........
0–1,401 ........
0–2,160 ........
0–2,554 ........
0–2,815 ........
0–3,424.
10 .................
0 ...................
90 .................
136 ...............
100 ...............
0 ...................
0 ...................
182 ...............
98 .................
2 ...................
0 ...................
218 ...............
98 .................
2 ...................
0 ...................
272 ...............
97 .................
3 ...................
0 ...................
285 ...............
95 .................
5 ...................
0 ...................
277 ...............
0.
100.
0.
(1,281).
2.2 ................
1 ...................
2.4 ................
5 ...................
3.2 ................
15 .................
3.4 ................
23 .................
3.7 ................
30 .................
4.1 ................
36 .................
75.2.
259.
13 .................
82 .................
172 ...............
265 ...............
313 ...............
344 ...............
475.
* Parentheses indicate negative values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC.
** Change in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on April 2009 update to the AEO2009 Reference Case.
† CO emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NO emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants as
2
X
well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOX emissions are subject to emissions caps.
TABLE VI.36—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT BASED ON THE AEO2009 REFERENCE CASE ENERGY
PRICE FORECAST *
Trial standard level
Results
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1
Primary Energy Saved (quads) ........................
7% Discount Rate .............................................
3% Discount Rate .............................................
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ...........
NPV (2008$ billion):
7% Discount Rate ......................................
3% Discount Rate ......................................
Industry Impacts:
Industry NPV (2008$ million) .....................
Industry NPV (% Change) .........................
Cumulative Emissions Impacts†:
CO2 Reductions (Mt) .................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.002
............
............
............
............
2
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.003
3
............
............
............
............
0.020
0.006
0.012
0.015
............
............
............
............
4
0.023
0.007
0.013
0.017
5
............
............
............
............
0.061
0.018
0.035
0.045
............
............
............
............
6
0.068.
0.020.
0.039.
0.050.
0.005 ............
0.011 ............
0.006 ............
0.014 ............
(0.003) ..........
0.011 ............
(0.014) ..........
(0.006) ..........
(0.621) ..........
(1.083. ..........
(2.452).
(4.427)
0 ...................
0.1–(0.1) .......
0 ...................
0.1–(0.2) .......
(0.6)–(1.2) ....
(1.8)–(3.5) ....
(1.0)–(1.7) ....
(3.0)–(5.0) ....
(7.4)–(16.5) ..
(21.9)–(48.9)
(3.2)–(33.5).
(9.5)–(99.4).
0.2 ................
0.2 ................
1.2 ................
1.4 ................
3.7 ................
4.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44956
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.36—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLASS B EQUIPMENT BASED ON THE AEO2009 REFERENCE CASE ENERGY
PRICE FORECAST *—Continued
Trial standard level
Results
1
Value of CO2 reductions at 7% discount
rate (million 2007$).
Value of CO2 reductions at 3% discount
rate (million 2007$).
NOX Reductions (kt) .........................................
Value of NOX reductions at 7% discount rate
(thousand 2007$).
Value of NOX reductions at 3% discount rate
(thousand 2007$).
Hg Reductions (t) ..............................................
Value of Hg reductions at 7% discount rate
(thousand 2007$).
Value of Hg reductions at 3% discount rate
(thousand 2007$).
Life-Cycle Cost:
Net Savings (%) .........................................
Net Increase (%) ........................................
No Change (%) ..........................................
Mean LCC Savings (2008$) ......................
Mean PBP (years) .....................................
Direct Domestic Employment Impacts (2012)
(jobs).
Indirect Employment Impacts (2042) (jobs) ......
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 to 4.4 ......
0.1 to 6.6 ......
0.7 to 33 .......
0.8 to 37.8 ....
2.1 to 101.6 ..
2.3 to 113.2.
0.2 to 9 .........
0.3 to 13.4 ....
1.4 to 67.4 ....
1.6 to 77 .......
4.3 to 207.4 ..
4.8 to 230.9.
0.1 ................
6–60 .............
0.1 ................
9–90 .............
0.4 ................
44–450 .........
0.5 ................
50–515 .........
1.3 ................
135–1,386 ....
1.4.
150–1,544.
12–128 .........
18–190 .........
93–954 .........
106–1,091 ....
286–2,937 ....
318–3,270.
0.003 ............
0–25 .............
0.005 ............
0–37 .............
0.023 ............
0–185 ...........
0.027 ............
0–211 ...........
0.072 ............
0–568 ...........
0.080.
0–633.
0–53 .............
0–79 .............
0–398 ...........
0–455 ...........
0–1,226 ........
0–1,365.
10 .................
0 ...................
90 .................
42 .................
3.4 ................
0 ...................
91 .................
9 ...................
0 ...................
48 .................
4.5 ................
1 ...................
72 .................
28 .................
0 ...................
37 .................
6.8 ................
8 ...................
62 .................
38 .................
0 ...................
27 .................
7.8 ................
11 .................
0 ...................
100 ...............
0 ...................
(554) .............
84.9 ..............
97 .................
0.
100.
0.
(2,291).
99.9.
316.
6 ...................
10 .................
49 .................
55 .................
162 ...............
216.
* Parentheses indicate negative values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC.
** Change in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on the April 2009 update to the AEO2009 reference case.
† CO emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NO emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants as
2
X
well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOX emissions are subject to emissions caps.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
1. Class A Equipment
First, DOE considered TSL 7, the most
efficient level for Class A beverage
vending machines that was determined
to be technologically feasible. TSL 7
would save a cumulative 0.170 quads of
energy through 2042, an amount DOE
considers significant. For the Nation as
a whole, DOE projects that TSL 7 would
result in a net decrease of $1.449 billion
in NPV using a discount rate of 7
percent and $2.47 billion discounted at
3 percent. The emissions reductions at
TSL 7 are 10.22 Mt of CO2, up to 3.49
kt of NOX, and up to 0.201 ton of Hg.
These reductions have a value in 2007$
of up to $283.8 million for CO2, up to
$3.9 million for NOX, and up to $1.6
million for Hg at a discount rate of 7
percent. These reductions have a value
in 2007$ of up to $579.1 million for
CO2, up to $8.2 million for NOX, and up
to $3.4 million for Hg at a discount rate
of 3 percent. DOE also estimates that at
TSL 7, total electric generating capacity
in 2042 will decrease compared to the
base case by 0.126 GW.
At TSL 7, DOE projects that the
average Class A beverage vending
machine customer will experience an
increase in LCC of $1,281 compared to
the baseline. At TSL 7, DOE estimates
the fraction of customers experiencing
LCC increases will be 100 percent. The
mean PBP for the average Class A
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
beverage vending machine customer at
TSL 7 compared to the baseline level is
projected to be 75.2 years.
At higher TSLs, manufacturers have a
more difficult time maintaining current
operating profit levels, as higher
standards increase recurring operating
costs such as capital expenditures,
purchased materials, and carrying
inventory. Therefore, TSL 7 is more
likely to cause impacts in the higher end
of the ranges (i.e., a drop of 64.2 percent
in INPV). Manufacturers expressed great
concern about high capital and
equipment conversion costs necessary
to convert production to standardscompliant equipment. At TSL 7, all
manufacturers would have to
completely redesign their production
lines, and the risk of very large negative
impacts on the industry from reduction
in manufacturers’ operating profits
levels is high.
After carefully considering the
analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens of TSL 7, DOE finds that the
benefits to the Nation of TSL 7 (i.e.,
energy savings and emissions
reductions, including environmental
and monetary benefits) do not outweigh
the burdens (i.e., a decrease of $1,738
million in NPV and a decrease of 64.2
percent in INPV). Because the burdens
of TSL 7 outweigh the benefits, TSL 7
is not economically justified. Therefore,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
DOE rejects TSL 7 for Class A
equipment.
DOE then considered TSL 6, which
provides for Class A equipment the
maximum efficiency level that the
analysis showed to have positive NPV to
the Nation. TSL 6 would likely save a
cumulative 0.139 quads of energy
through 2042, an amount DOE considers
significant. For the Nation as a whole,
DOE projects that TSL 6 would result in
a net increase of $185 million in NPV
using a discount rate of 7 percent and
$465 million using a discount rate of 3
percent. The estimated emissions
reductions at TSL 6 are up to 8.4 Mt of
CO2, up to 2.87 kt of NOX, and up to
0.165 tons of Hg. These reductions have
a value in 2007$ of up to $233.3 million
for CO2, up to $3.2 million for NOx, and
up to $1.3 million for Hg, at a discount
rate of 7 percent, and a value in 2007$
of up to $476.1 million for CO2, up to
$6.7 million for NOX, and up to $2.8
million for Hg, at a discount rate of 3
percent. Total electric generating
capacity in 2042 is estimated to
decrease compared to the base case by
0.103 GW under TSL 6.
At TSL 6, DOE projects that the
average beverage vending machine
customer will experience a reduction in
LCC of $277 compared to the baseline.
The mean PBP for the average beverage
vending machine customer at TSL 6 is
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
projected to be 4.1 years compared to
the purchase of baseline equipment.
At TSL 6, DOE believes the majority
of manufacturers would need to
completely redesign all Class A
equipment offered for sale. Therefore,
DOE expects beverage vending machine
manufacturers would have some
difficulty maintaining current operating
profit levels with higher production
costs. Similar to TSL 7, it is more likely
that the higher end of the range of
impacts would be reached at TSL 6 (i.e.,
a decrease of 25.1 percent in INPV).
However, the higher end of the range of
impacts at TSL 6 is lower than the
higher end of the range of impacts for
TSL 7. In addition, Class A equipment
showed significant positive LCC savings
on a national average basis and
customers did not experience an
increase in LCC with a standard at TSL
6 compared to the baseline. The PBP
calculated for Class A equipment was
less than the life of the equipment.
After carefully considering the
analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens of TSL 6, DOE finds that for
Class A equipment, TSL 6 represents the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. TSL
6 is technologically feasible because the
technologies required to achieve these
levels are already in existence. TSL 6 is
economically justified because the
benefits to the Nation [i.e., increased
energy savings of 0.139 quads,
emissions reductions including
environmental and monetary benefits of,
for example, up to 8.4 Mt of carbon
dioxide emissions reduction with an
associated value in 2007$ of up to
$233.3 million at a discount rate of 7
percent ($476.1 million at 3 percent),
and an increase in NPV of $185 million
at 7 percent discount rate to $465
million at 3 percent discount rate]
outweigh the costs (i.e., a decrease of
25.1 percent in INPV). In addition, the
carbon dioxide reductions at the central
value of $19 would further increase
NPV by $80.6 million (2007$) at 7%
discount rate and by $164 million at a
3 percent discount rate. The combined
NPV, including the value of CO2
emissions reductions, would be $265.6
million at 7 percent discount rate and
$629.0 million at a 3 percent discount
rate. There is also the added benefit of
a reduction in total electrical generating
capacity in 2042 compared to the base
case of 0.103 GW under the TSL 6
scenario. Therefore, DOE establishes
TSL 6 as the energy conservation
standard for Class A beverage vending
machines in this final rule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
2. Class B Equipment
First, DOE considered TSL 6, the most
efficient level for Class B beverage
vending machines. TSL 6 would likely
save a cumulative 0.068 quads of energy
through 2042, an amount DOE considers
significant. For the Nation as a whole,
DOE projects that TSL 6 would result in
a net decrease of $2.452 billion in NPV
using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$4.427 billion in NPV using a discount
rate of 3 percent. The emissions
reductions at TSL 6 are up to 4.08 Mt
of CO2, up to 1.39 kt of NOX, and up to
0.080 ton of Hg. These reductions have
a value in 2007$ of up to $113.2 million
for CO2, up to $1.5 million for NOX, and
up to $633,000 for Hg at a discount rate
of 7 percent and a value of up to $230.9
million for CO2, up to $3.3 million for
NOX, and up to $1.4 million for Hg at
a discount rate of 3 percent. DOE also
estimates that at TSL 6, total electric
generating capacity in 2042 will
decrease compared to the base case by
0.050 GW.
At TSL 6, DOE projects that for the
average customer, the LCC of Class B
beverage vending machines will
increase by $2,291 compared to the
baseline. At TSL 6, DOE estimates the
fraction of customers experiencing LCC
increases will be 100 percent. The mean
PBP for the average Class B beverage
vending machine customer at TSL 6
compared to the baseline is projected to
be almost 100 years.
At higher TSLs, manufacturers have
large increases in production costs,
resulting in difficulty maintaining
operating profit. Therefore, it is more
likely that the higher end of the range
of impacts would be reached at TSL 6
(i.e., a decrease of 99.4 percent in INPV).
At TSL 6, all manufacturers would have
to completely redesign their production
lines, and there is the risk of very large
negative impacts on the industry if
manufacturers’ operating profit levels
are reduced.
After carefully considering the
analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens of TSL 6, DOE finds that the
benefits to the Nation of TSL 6 (i.e.,
energy savings and emissions
reductions including environmental and
monetary benefits) do not outweigh the
burdens (i.e., a decrease of $2.45 to
$4.43 billion in NPV, a decrease of 99.4
percent in INPV, and an economic
burden on customers). DOE finds that
the burdens of TSL 6 outweigh the
benefits and TSL 6 is not economically
justified. Therefore, DOE rejects TSL 6
for Class B equipment.
TSL 5, the next most efficient level,
would likely save a cumulative 0.061
quads of energy through 2042, an
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44957
amount DOE considers significant. For
the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that
TSL 5 would result in a net decrease of
$621 million in NPV, using a discount
rate of 7 percent and $1.083 billion in
NPV, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The estimated emissions reductions at
TSL 5 are up to 3.66 Mt of CO2, up to
1.25 kt of NOX, and up to 0.072 ton of
Hg. These reductions have a value in
2007$ of up to $101.6 million for CO2,
up to $1.4 million for NOX, and up to
$568,000 for Hg at a discount rate of 7
percent, and a value in 2007$ of up to
$207.4 million for CO2, up to $2.9
million for NOX, and up to $1.2 million
for Hg at a discount rate of 3 percent.
Total electric generating capacity in
2042 is estimated to decrease compared
to the base case by 0.045 GW at TSL 5.
At TSL 5, DOE projects that the
average Class B beverage vending
machine customer will experience an
increase in LCC of $554 compared to the
baseline. The mean PBP for the average
Class B beverage vending machine
customer at TSL 5 is projected to be 84.9
years compared to the purchase of
baseline equipment.
At TSL 5, DOE believes the majority
of manufacturers would need to
completely redesign all Class B
equipment offered for sale at TSL 5.
Therefore, DOE expects that
manufacturers will have difficulty
maintaining operating profit with larger
cost increases. Though the higher end of
the range of expected impacts is lower
for TSL 5 than for TSL 6, TSL 5 would
likely cause impacts at the higher end
of the range (i.e., a decrease of 48.9
percent in INPV).
After carefully considering the
analysis and evaluating the benefits and
burdens of TSL 5, DOE finds that the
benefits to the Nation of TSL 5 (i.e.,
energy savings and emissions
reductions, including environmental
and monetary benefits) do not outweigh
the burdens (i.e., a decrease of $621 to
1.08 billion in NPV and a decrease of
48.9 percent in INPV as well as the
economic burden on customers). DOE
finds that the burdens of TSL 5
outweigh the benefits and TSL 5 is not
economically justified. Therefore, DOE
rejects TSL 5 for Class B equipment.
TSL 4 would save a cumulative 0.023
quads of energy through 2042, an
amount DOE considers significant. For
the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that
TSL 4 would result in a net decrease of
$14 million in NPV using a discount
rate of 7 percent and a net decrease of
$6 million in NPV using a discount rate
of 3 percent. The estimated emissions
reductions at TSL 4 are up to 1.36 Mt
of CO2, up to 0.46 kt of NOX, and up to
0.027 ton of Hg. Based on previously
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44958
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
developed estimates, these reductions
could have a value in 2007$ of up to
$37.8 million for CO2, up to $515,000
for NOX, and up to $211,000 for Hg at
a discount rate of 7 percent and a value
in 2007$ of up to $77.0 million for CO2,
up to $1.1 million for NOX, and up to
$455,000 for Hg at a discount rate of 3
percent. Total electric generating
capacity in 2042 is estimated to
decrease compared to the base case by
0.017 GW at TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE projects that the
average Class B beverage vending
machine customer will experience a
reduction in LCC of $27 compared to
the baseline. The mean PBP for the
average Class B beverage vending
machine customer at TSL 4 is projected
to be 7.8 years compared to the
purchase of baseline equipment.
At TSL 4, DOE believes that while a
complete redesign would not be
required, manufacturers would need to
redesign most existing Class B
equipment offered for sale. Therefore,
while perhaps to a somewhat lesser
extent than for TSL 5 and TSL 6, DOE
expects that manufacturers will have
difficulty maintaining operating profit
with high increases in production costs.
In addition, while the higher end of the
range of impacts expected from TSL 4
is less than those for TSL 5 and TSL 6,
it is still likely that the higher end of the
range of impacts would be reached at
TSL 4 (i.e., a decrease of 5.0 percent in
INPV). However, compared to the
baseline, Class B equipment showed
positive LCC savings on a national
average and most customers did not
experience an increase in LCC at TSL 4.
The PBP calculated for Class B
equipment was less than the lifetime of
the equipment.
After carefully considering the
analysis and evaluating the benefits and
burdens of TSL 4, DOE finds that the
benefits to the Nation of TSL 4 (i.e.,
energy savings and emissions
reductions, including estimates of the
monetary value of the environmental
benefits) do not outweigh the burdens
(i.e., a decrease of $6 million to $14
million in NPV and a decrease of up to
5.0 percent in INPV, primarily from
equipment redesigns). DOE finds that
the burdens, especially the likelihood of
net economic losses indicated by
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
negative NPV values at both discount
rates, of TSL 4 outweigh the benefits
and TSL 4 is not economically justified.
Therefore, DOE rejects TSL 4 for Class
B equipment.
TSL 3 would save a cumulative 0.020
quads of energy through 2042, an
amount DOE considers significant. For
the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that
TSL 3 would result in a decrease in NPV
of $3 million, using a discount rate of
7 percent. However, using a 3 percent
discount rate, DOE projects that TSL 3
would result in a net increase of $11
million in NPV. The estimated
emissions reductions at TSL 3 are up to
1.2 Mt of CO2, up to 0.41 kt of NOX, and
up to 0.023 ton of Hg. Based on
previously developed estimates, these
reductions could have a value in 2007$
of up to $33.0 million for CO2, up to
$450,000 for NOX, and up to $185,000
for Hg at a discount rate of 7 percent.
At a 3 percent discount rate, these
reductions could have a value in 2007$
of up to $67.4 million for CO2, up to
$954,000 for NOX, and up to $398,000
for Hg. Total electric generating capacity
in 2042 is estimated to decrease
compared to the base case by 0.015 GW
at TSL 3.
At TSL 3, DOE projects that the
average Class B beverage vending
machine customer will experience a
reduction in LCC of $37 compared to
the baseline. The mean PBP for the
average Class B beverage vending
machine customer at TSL 3 is projected
to be 6.8 years compared to the
purchase of baseline equipment.
At TSL 3, DOE believes manufacturers
would have to make some component
switches to comply with the standard,
but most manufacturers will not have to
significantly alter their production
process. These minor design changes
would not raise the production costs
beyond the cost of most equipment sold
today, resulting in minimal impacts on
industry value. Compared to the
baseline, Class B equipment showed
significant positive LCC savings on a
national average and customers did not
experience an increase in LCC at TSL 3.
The PBP calculated for Class B
equipment was less than the lifetime of
the equipment.
After carefully considering the
analysis and weighing the benefits and
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
burdens of TSL 3, DOE finds that for
Class B equipment, TSL 3 represents the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. TSL
3 is technologically feasible because the
technologies required to achieve these
levels are already in existence. TSL 3 is
economically justified because DOE
finds that the benefits to the Nation [i.e.,
an increase of $11 million in NPV using
a 3 percent discount rate, energy
savings, and emissions reductions,
including environmental and monetary
benefits of, for example, up to 1.2 Mt of
carbon dioxide emissions reduction
with an associated value in 2007$ of up
to $33 million at a discount rate of 7
percent and $67.4 million at a discount
rate of 3 percent, and an increase in
NPV of $11 million at 3 percent
discount rate] outweigh the costs (i.e., a
$3 million loss in NPV at a 7 percent
discount rate and a decrease of 3.5
percent in INPV, primarily from
upgraded components). In addition, the
carbon dioxide reductions at the central
value of $19 would further increase
NPV by $11.4 million (2007$) at 7%
discount rate and by $23.3 million at a
3 percent discount rate. The combined
NPV, including the value of CO2
emissions reductions, would be $8.4
million at a 7 percent discount rate and
$34.3 million at a 3 percent discount
rate. DOE finds that, while there is a
greater likelihood of net economic
losses at TSL 4 (indicated by negative
NPV values at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates), TSL 3 is more favorable
since it shows a greater possibility of a
net economic benefit (indicated by a
positive NPV value at a 3 percent
discount rate). There is also the added
benefit of a reduction in total electrical
generating capacity in 2042 compared to
the base case of 0.015 GW under the
TSL 3 scenario. Therefore, DOE
establishes TSL 3 as the energy
conservation standard for Class B
beverage vending machines in this final
rule.
DOE also calculated the annualized
values for certain benefits and costs at
the various TSLs. Table VI.37 shows the
annualized values for Class A
equipment and Table VI.38 shows the
annualized values for Class B
equipment.
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
44959
TABLE VI.37—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR CLASS A MACHINES
TSL
Category
Primary estimate
(AEO reference case)
Unit
7%
1 ...............
Low estimate
(low growth case)
7%
3%
High estimate
(high growth case)
7%
3%
3%
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ .....
1.96
2.29
1.79
2.09
2.07
2.41
CO2 (Mt)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
NOX (kT)
Hg (T) ....
0.003
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.45
0.43
0.45
0.43
1.34
1.65
1.62
1.98
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
0.45
0.43
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
1.50
2 ...............
1.86
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ .....
9.23
10.81
8.46
9.83
9.76
11.38
CO2 (Mt)
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
NOX (kT)
Hg (T) ....
0.016
0.001
0.019
0.001
0.016
0.001
0.019
0.001
0.016
0.001
0.019
0.001
2.56
2.46
2.56
2.46
5.90
7.37
7.20
8.92
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
2.56
2.46
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
6.67
3 ...............
8.34
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ .....
19.32
22.66
17.61
20.51
20.50
23.93
CO2 (Mt)
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.13
NOX (kT)
Hg (T) ....
0.035
0.002
0.041
0.002
0.035
0.002
0.041
0.002
0.035
0.002
0.041
0.002
8.33
8.02
8.33
8.02
9.29
12.50
12.17
15.92
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
8.33
8.02
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
10.99
4 ...............
14.64
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
29.80
34.96
27.18
31.65
31.62
36.92
CO2 (Mt)
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.20
NOX (kT)
Hg (T) ....
VerDate Nov<24>2008
2008$ .....
0.054
0.003
0.064
0.004
0.054
0.003
0.064
0.004
0.054
0.003
0.064
0.004
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44960
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.37—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR CLASS A MACHINES—Continued
TSL
Category
Primary estimate
(AEO reference case)
Unit
7%
Low estimate
(low growth case)
7%
3%
High estimate
(high growth case)
7%
3%
3%
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
12.74
12.26
12.74
12.26
12.74
12.26
14.44
19.39
18.89
24.66
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
17.06
5 ...............
22.70
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ .....
34.83
40.87
31.72
36.95
36.98
43.19
CO2 (Mt)
0.22
0.24
0.22
0.24
0.22
0.24
NOX (kT)
Hg (T) ....
0.064
0.004
0.036
0.004
0.064
0.004
0.036
0.004
0.064
0.004
0.036
0.004
16.10
15.50
16.10
15.50
15.63
21.46
20.88
27.69
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
16.10
15.50
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
18.73
6 ...............
25.37
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ .....
37.67
44.22
34.24
39.91
40.04
46.78
CO2 (Mt)
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.26
NOX (kT)
Hg (T) ....
0.070
0.004
0.039
0.005
0.070
0.004
0.039
0.005
0.070
0.004
0.039
0.005
19.56
18.83
19.56
18.83
14.68
21.08
20.48
27.95
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
19.56
18.83
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
18.11
7 ...............
25.40
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ .....
(0.59)
1.02
(4.76)
(4.22)
2.30
4.13
CO2 (Mt)
0.30
0.32
0.30
0.32
0.30
0.32
NOX (kT)
Hg (T) ....
0.085
0.005
0.048
0.006
0.085
0.005
0.048
0.006
0.085
0.005
0.048
0.006
141.02
135.74
141.02
135.74
(139.97)
(138.72)
(131.61)
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ .....
141.02
135.74
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
2008$ .....
PO 00000
Frm 00048
(141.61)
Fmt 4701
(134.72)
Sfmt 4700
(145.77)
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
44961
TABLE VI.38—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR CLASS B MACHINES
TSL
Category
Primary estimate
(AEO reference case)
Unit
7%
1 ...............
Low estimate
(low growth case)
7%
3%
High estimate
(high growth case)
7%
3%
3%
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ ......
0.73
0.86
0.66
0.77
0.77
0.90
CO2 (Mt) ..
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NOX (kT) ..
Hg (T) ......
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.26
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.41
0.53
0.52
0.66
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
0.26
0.25
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
0.47
2 ...............
0.61
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ ......
1.03
1.21
0.94
1.09
1.10
1.28
CO2 (Mt) ..
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
NOX (kT) ..
Hg (T) ......
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.48
0.46
0.48
0.46
0.46
0.63
0.62
0.83
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
0.48
0.46
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
0.56
3 ...............
0.76
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ ......
4.11
4.87
3.62
4.26
4.44
5.23
CO2 (Mt) ..
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
NOX (kT) ..
Hg (T) ......
0.010
0.001
0.012
0.001
0.010
0.001
0.012
0.001
0.010
0.001
0.012
0.001
4.44
4.28
4.44
4.28
(0.82)
(0.02)
(0.00)
0.95
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
4.44
4.28
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
(0.34)
4 ...............
0.59
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
4.36
5.19
3.81
4.49
4.75
5.60
CO2 (Mt) ..
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
NOX (kT) ..
Hg (T) ......
VerDate Nov<24>2008
2008$ ......
0.011
0.001
0.013
0.001
0.011
0.001
0.013
0.001
0.011
0.001
0.013
0.001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44962
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI.38—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR CLASS B MACHINES—Continued
TSL
Category
Primary estimate
(AEO reference case)
Unit
7%
Low estimate
(low growth case)
7%
3%
High estimate
(high growth case)
7%
3%
3%
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
5.72
5.51
5.72
5.51
5.72
5.51
(1.91)
(1.02)
(0.97)
0.09
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
(1.36)
5 ...............
(0.32)
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ ......
(7.83)
(8.30)
(9.32)
(10.18)
(6.80)
(7.18)
CO2 (Mt) ..
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
NOX (kT) ..
Hg (T) ......
0.031
0.002
0.036
0.002
0.031
0.002
0.036
0.002
0.031
0.002
0.036
0.002
52.84
50.86
52.84
50.86
(62.16)
(61.04)
(59.63)
(58.05)
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
52.84
50.86
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
(60.67)
6 ...............
(59.16)
Benefits
Annualized Consumer Benefits ($millions/year).
Annualized Emission Reductions.
2008$ ......
(67.78)
(76.40)
(69.44)
(78.49)
(66.63)
(75.16)
CO2 (Mt) ..
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.13
NOX (kT) ..
Hg (T) ......
0.034
0.002
0.040
0.002
0.034
0.002
0.040
0.002
0.034
0.002
0.040
0.002
171.92
165.49
171.92
165.49
(243.98)
(238.55)
(240.65)
Costs
Annualized Consumer Costs
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
171.92
165.49
Net Consumer Benefits/Costs
Net Consumer Benefits (excluding emission benefits)
($millions/year).
2008$ ......
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires that
each agency identify in writing the
problem the agency intends to address
that warrants new agency action
(including, where applicable, the
failures of private markets or public
institutions), as well as assess the
significance of that problem to
determine whether any new regulation
is necessary. Executive Order 12866,
section 1(b)(1).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
(239.70)
(241.89)
(241.36)
Because today’s regulatory action is a
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866,
section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order
requires DOE to prepare and submit for
review to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB an
assessment of the costs and benefits of
today’s rule. Accordingly, DOE
presented to OIRA for review the draft
final rule and other documents prepared
for this rulemaking, including a
regulatory impact analysis (RIA). These
documents are included in the
rulemaking record and are available for
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
public review in the Resource Room of
the Building Technologies Program, 950
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The May 2009 NOPR contained a
summary of the RIA, which evaluated
the extent to which major alternatives to
standards for beverage vending
machines could achieve significant
energy savings at reasonable cost, as
compared to the effectiveness of the
proposed rule. 74 FR 26067–69. The
complete RIA (Regulatory Impact
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Analysis for Proposed Energy
Conservation Standards for Beverage
Vending Machines) is contained in the
TSD prepared for today’s rule. The RIA
consists of: (1) A statement of the
problem addressed by this regulation
and the mandate for government action,
(2) a description and analysis of the
feasible policy alternatives to this
regulation, (3) a quantitative comparison
of the impacts of the alternatives, and
(4) the national economic impacts of
today’s standards.
The major alternatives DOE analyzed
were: (1) No new regulatory action; (2)
financial incentives, including tax
credits and rebates; (3) revisions to
voluntary energy efficiency targets; (4)
early replacement; (5) bulk government
purchases; and (6) prescriptive
standards that would mandate design
requirements. As explained in detail in
Section VI. of the May 2009 NOPR, none
of the alternatives DOE examined would
save as much energy or have an NPV as
high as the proposed standards. The
same conclusion applies to the
standards in today’s rule. Also, several
of the alternatives would require new
enabling legislation, because DOE does
not have authority to implement those
alternatives. Additional detail on the
regulatory alternatives is found in the
RIA chapter in the TSD.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment,
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency
adopts as a final rule, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis
examines the impact of the rule on
small entities and considers alternative
ways of reducing negative impacts.
Also, as required by Executive Order
13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR
53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003 to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small
entities are properly considered during
the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990.
DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of
General Counsel’s Web site: https://
www.gc.doe.gov.
For the beverage vending machine
manufacturing industry, the SBA
defines small businesses as
manufacturing enterprises with 500 or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
fewer employees. See https://
www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/
documents/sba_homepage/
serv_sstd_tablepdf. DOE used this small
business definition to determine
whether any small entities would be
required to comply with the rule. (65 FR
30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as
amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544
(September 5, 2000) and codified at 13
CFR part 121.) The size standards are
listed by North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code and
industry description. Beverage vending
machine manufacturing is classified
under NAICS 333311, ‘‘Automatic
Vending Machine Manufacturing.’’
As explained in the May 2009 NOPR,
the beverage vending machine industry
is characterized by both large and small
manufacturers that service a wide range
of customers, including large bottlers
and direct end-users. Almost all
beverage vending machines sold in the
United States are manufactured
domestically. Three major companies
supply roughly 90 percent of all
equipment sold. Most of the sales for
these companies are made to a few
major bottlers. One of the major
manufacturers with significant market
share is considered a small business.
The remaining 10 percent of industry
shipments is believed to be supplied by
five manufacturers. All of these
companies not supplying the major
bottlers are considered small businesses.
Before issuing this notice of proposed
rulemaking, DOE contacted all
identified small business manufacturers
and provided a questionnaire seeking
information to better understand the
impacts of the proposed standards on
small businesses and how these impacts
differ between large and small
manufacturers. The small business
interview questionnaire is a condensed
version of the manufacturer interview
guide described in the manufacturer
impact analysis, chapter 13 of the TSD.
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, during the NOPR stage
of this rulemaking, DOE prepared an
IRFA which describes potential impacts
on small businesses associated with
beverage vending machine design and
manufacture, and incorporates
information received in response to the
questionnaire. The IRFA addresses the
following: (1) The reasons the regulatory
action is being considered, (2) the
objectives of and legal basis for the
proposed rule, (3) a description and
estimate of the number of small entities
that would be affected by the rule, (4)
an estimate of the reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
costs for the proposed rule, (5) an
analysis of significant alternatives to the
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44963
proposed rule that could lessen any
disproportionate burdens on small
entities, and (6) a discussion of any
duplicative, overlapping, and
conflicting rules. (‘‘A Guide for
Government Agencies: How to Comply
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Chapter 2, Office of Advocacy, U.S.
Small Business Administration, 2003,’’
available at https://www.sba.gov/advo/
laws/rfaguide.pdf) DOE divided the
estimate of the compliance costs for
small businesses into two categories
representing potential impacts to small
business manufacturers with major
market shares, and potential impacts to
small business manufacturers with
small market shares. DOE also analyzed
alternatives that could reduce the
disproportionate impact of the proposed
standards on small vending machine
manufacturers. DOE provided the
complete IRFA in the May 2009 NOPR,
74 FR 26069–72, for review by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and
the public. Chapter 13 of the TSD
contains more information about the
impact of this rulemaking on
manufacturers.
For today’s final rule, DOE has
prepared a FRFA, which is presented in
the following discussion. DOE
developed this FRFA for review by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA
and the public. The FRFA below is
written in accordance with the
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
1. Need for and Objectives of the Final
Rule
Part A of subchapter III (42 U.S.C.
6291–6309) provides for the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles (this
part was originally titled Part B, but was
redesignated Part A after Part B of Title
III was repealed by Pub. L. 109–58;
similarly, Part C, Certain Industrial
Equipment, was redesignated Part A–1).
The amendments to EPCA contained in
the EPACT 2005, Public Law 109–58,
include new or amended energy
conservation standards and test
procedures for some of these products,
and direct DOE to undertake
rulemakings to promulgate such
requirements. In particular, section
135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 amends EPCA
to direct DOE to prescribe energy
conservation standards for beverage
vending machines. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v))
Hence, DOE is publishing today’s final
rule on energy conservation standards
for refrigerated bottle or canned
beverage vending machines pursuant to
Part A of EPCA. Because of its
placement in Part A of Title III of EPCA,
the rulemaking for beverage vending
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
44964
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
machine energy conservation standards
is bound by the requirements of 42
U.S.C. 6295. However, since beverage
vending machines are commercial
equipment, DOE intends to place the
new requirements for beverage vending
machines in Title 10 of the CFR, Part
431 (Energy Efficiency Program for
Certain Commercial and Industrial
Equipment), which is consistent with
DOE’s previous action to incorporate the
EPACT 2005 requirements for
commercial equipment. The location of
the provisions within the CFR does not
affect either their substance or
applicable procedure, so DOE is placing
them in the appropriate CFR part based
on their nature or type.
EPCA provides that any new or
amended standard for beverage vending
machines must be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (v)) EPCA
precludes DOE from adopting any
standard that would not result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and (v)) Moreover,
DOE may not prescribe a standard for
certain equipment if no test procedure
has been established for that equipment,
or if DOE determines by rule that the
standard is not technologically feasible
or economically justified and will not
result in significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)(B) and
(v)) To determine whether economic
justification exists, DOE reviews
comments received and conducts
analysis to determine whether the
economic benefits of the proposed
standard exceed the burdens to the
greatest extent practicable, taking into
consideration seven factors set forth in
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) and (v). (See
section II.A of this preamble.)
EPCA also states that the Secretary
may not prescribe an amended or new
standard if interested parties have
established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the standard is likely to
result in the unavailability in the United
States of any equipment type (or class)
with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as those generally
available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4) and (v))
As set forth above, DOE has
determined that the standards adopted
in today’s rule are designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. DOE
has also determined that the standards
will result in a significant conservation
of energy and will not result in the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
unavailability in the United States of
any equipment type or class with
performance characteristics that are
substantially the same as those generally
available in the United States. Chapter
1 of the TSD provides further
background information on this
rulemaking.
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public
Comments
DOE summarized comments from
interested parties, including beverage
vending machine manufacturers, in
sections IV and V of this preamble. DOE
did not receive any comments regarding
impacts specific to small business
manufacturers for the adoption of TSL
6 for Class A machines and TSL 3 for
Class B machines in today’s final rule or
the alternatives identified in section 6 of
the IRFA, ‘‘Significant Alternatives to
the Rule.’’ No changes were made to the
IRFA as a result of public comment.
3. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
To establish a list of small beverage
vending machine manufacturers, DOE
examined publicly available data and
contacted manufacturers to determine if
they meet the SBA’s definition of a
small manufacturing facility and if their
manufacturing facilities are located
within the United States. Based on this
analysis, DOE confirmed that there are
six small manufacturers of beverage
vending machines.
One of these six small manufacturers
is one of the top three major
manufacturers, who supply roughly 90
percent of all equipment sales. The full
line of products offered by this small
manufacturer and the remaining two
major manufacturers, which are
considered large businesses, are covered
under this rulemaking (i.e., equipment
that dispenses refrigerated bottled or
canned beverages). The remaining five
small manufacturers comprise
approximately 10 percent of industry
shipments for covered equipment. See
chapter 3 of the TSD for further details
on the beverage vending machine
market. In its examination of the
beverage vending machine industry,
DOE has determined that these small
business manufacturers with small
market shares differ significantly from
the major manufacturers. The primary
difference between these small business
manufacturers and the major
manufacturers is that these five small
business manufacturers produce a wide
variety of specialty and niche
equipment that are not covered under
this rulemaking, such as machines that
dispense a wide range of items
including snacks, heated drinks,
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
electronic goods, DVDs, bowling
supplies, and medical products.
Furthermore, unlike the major
manufacturers, these small business
manufacturers do not sell equipment to
the major bottlers because they do not
produce covered equipment in the
necessary volumes. Instead, these
manufacturers rely on providing
customized equipment in much smaller
volumes.
Before issuing the NOPR, requests for
interviews were delivered electronically
to the six manufacturers that met the
small business criteria. DOE received
responses from fewer than half and
conducted an on-site interview with the
single manufacturer who agreed to be
interviewed. In the questionnaire and
during the interview, DOE requested
information that would determine if
there are differential impacts on small
manufacturers that may result from new
energy conservation standards. See
chapter 13 of the TSD for further
discussion about the methodology DOE
used in its analysis of manufacturer
impacts, including small manufacturers.
4. Description and Estimate of
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
Potential impacts on manufacturers
include impacts associated with
beverage vending machine design and
manufacturing. The level of research
and development needed to meet energy
conservation standards increases with
more stringent standards. As mentioned
previously, DOE examined the level of
impacts that small manufacturers would
incur by identifying small business
manufacturers and sending them a short
questionnaire seeking information to
better understand the impacts of the
proposed standard that are unique to
small manufacturers. Because not all of
the small business manufacturers
responded to the questionnaire, it is
difficult to specifically quantify how the
impacts of the proposed standards differ
between large and small manufacturers.
However, as explained below, DOE
found that the impacts of the proposed
standard on the small business
manufacturer with a major market share
would not differ greatly from those of its
larger competitors; the impacts would
not be significant for the remaining
small business manufacturers.
a. Small Business Manufacturer With a
Major Market Share
The small business manufacturer that
has a major market share in covered
equipment will not be
disproportionately disadvantaged by the
proposed standard. It has a large
shipment volume as a major supplier to
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
the large bottlers and its access to
capital is nearly identical to its larger
competitors. Its large shipment volume
allows it to distribute the added cost of
compliance across its products, similar
to the large manufacturers.
Correspondingly, it echoed the large
manufacturers’ concerns about new
energy conservation standards,
including conversion costs needed to
meet standards, meeting customer
needs, and current market conditions.
DOE found no significant differences in
the R&D emphasis or marketing
strategies between this small business
manufacturer with a major market share
and large manufacturers. As a result,
DOE does not believe the impacts of the
proposed standard will be significantly
different for the small business
manufacturer with a large market share
when compared to those expected for
the large business manufacturers.
b. Small Business Manufacturers With
Small Market Shares
DOE does not expect the small
businesses with small market shares to
be compromised by the energy
conservation standard finalized in
today’s rule. DOE estimates that only
approximately 40 percent of their
offered vending equipment is covered
by the standard. The majority of
equipment offered is specialty or niche
equipment. As a result, the primary
source of revenue for these small
manufacturers comes from supplying a
market underserved by the major
manufacturers of covered equipment.
These small manufacturers may balance
the cost disadvantage experienced in
making their covered equipment
compliant with today’s standard by
charging premium prices for their noncovered niche equipment. As a result,
DOE believes the standard will not
affect the competitive position of the
small business manufacturers with
small market shares in covered
equipment.
DOE was able to estimate a portion of
the differential impacts of the standard
on the small manufacturers with small
market shares by evaluating costs
associated with equipment testing and
certification. Manufacturers must test
the energy performance of each basic
model it manufactures to determine
compliance with energy conservation
standards and testing requirements.
Therefore, DOE examined the number of
basic models available from each
manufacturer to determine an estimate
for the differential in overall compliance
costs. The number of basic models
attributed to each manufacturer is based
on an examination of the different
models advertised by each. DOE
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
estimates the cost of testing a piece of
covered equipment to be approximately
$2,000. A typical major manufacturer
has approximately 23 basic models,
approximately 85 percent of which are
covered and would require separate
standards compliance certifications.
Therefore, DOE estimates that a typical
major manufacturer will incur
approximately $44,013 in annual costs
for standards compliance certifications.
DOE estimates that a typical small
manufacturer with small market share
has approximately 27 basic models, 44
percent of which are covered and would
require separate standards compliance
certifications. DOE estimates that a
typical small manufacturer will incur
approximately $14,380 in annual costs
for standards compliance certifications.
According to this comparison, the cost
of certification for a small manufacturer
with small market share is significantly
lower than that of a major manufacturer.
As stated above, DOE estimated that
there would be some differential
impacts associated with beverage
vending machine design and
manufacturing on small manufacturers.
DOE requested comments on how small
business manufacturers would be
affected due to new energy conversation
standards. Specifically, DOE requested
comments on the compliance costs and
other impacts to small manufacturers
that do not supply the high-volume
customers of beverage vending
machines. However, DOE did not
receive any comments regarding
impacts specific to small business
manufacturers.
5. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize
the Economic Impact on Small
Manufacturers
In consideration of the benefits and
burdens of standards, including the
burdens posed on small manufacturers,
DOE concluded that TSL 6 for Class A
machines and TSL 3 for Class B
machines are the highest levels that can
be justified for beverage vending
machines. Therefore, while the lower
TSLs analyzed may lessen the impacts
on small entities, DOE is precluded
from adopting them based on the
requirements of EPCA.
Section VI.C.2 discusses how business
impacts, including small business
impacts, entered into DOE’s selection of
today’s standards for beverage vending
machines. DOE made its decision
regarding standards by beginning with
the highest level considered (TSL 7 for
Class A machines and TSL 6 for Class
B machines) and successively
eliminating TSLs until it found a TSL
that is both technically feasible and
economically justified, taking into
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44965
account other EPCA criteria. DOE
expects today’s standard to have little or
no differential impact on small
manufacturers of beverage vending
machines.
As explained in part 6 of the IRFA,
Significant Alternatives to the Rule,
DOE expects that the differential impact
on small beverage vending machine
manufacturers would be less severe in
moving from TSL 5 to TSL 6 for Class
A than it would be in moving from TSL
6 to TSL 7. For Class B machines, DOE
expects that the differential impact on
small beverage vending machine
manufacturers would be less significant
in moving from TSL 2 to TSL 3 than it
would be in moving from TSL 4 to TSL
5. Higher TSLs would place excessive
burdens on manufacturers, including
small manufacturers of beverage
vending machines. Such burdens would
include research and development costs
and also a potential reduction of profit
margins by limiting the flexibility of
customers to choose design options.
However, the differential impact on
small businesses is expected to be lower
at TSL 6 for Class A machines and TSL
3 for Class B machines because research
and development efforts are less at
lower TSLs. Chapter 13 of the TSD
contains additional information about
the impact of this rulemaking on
manufacturers.
The TSD includes a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) (chapter 17), which
discusses the following policy
alternatives to the standards announced
today that may lessen impacts on small
entities: (1) No new regulatory action,
(2) financial incentives including
rebates or tax credits, (3) revisions to
voluntary energy efficiency targets such
as ENERGY STAR program criteria, (4)
bulk government purchases, (5) early
replacement incentive programs, and (6)
prescriptive standards that would
mandate design requirements (e.g.,
lighting and refrigeration controls). DOE
did not consider these alternatives
further because they are either not
feasible to implement, or not expected
to result in energy savings as large as
those that would be achieved by the
standard levels under consideration.
DOE considered the following
alternatives in its IRFA in accordance
with Section 603(c) of the RFA: (1)
Establishment of different compliance
or reporting requirements for small
entities or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities, (2) clarification, consolidation,
or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements for small
entities, (3) use of performance rather
than design standards, and (4)
exemption for certain small entities
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44966
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
from coverage of the rule, in whole or
in part. For reasons described in the
May 2009 NOPR, DOE did not choose
any of these alternatives to the proposed
rule. 73 FR 26071–26072.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
DOE stated in the May 2009 NOPR
that this rulemaking would impose no
new information and recordkeeping
requirements, and that OMB clearance
is not required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
74 FR 26072. DOE received no
comments on this in response to the
May 2009 NOPR, and, as with the
proposed rule, today’s final rule
imposes no information and
recordkeeping requirements. Therefore,
DOE has taken no further action in this
rulemaking with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
DOE prepared an environmental
assessment of the impacts of today’s
standards which it published as chapter
16 within the TSD for the final rule.
DOE found the environmental effects
associated with today’s various standard
levels for beverage vending machines to
be insignificant. Therefore, DOE is
issuing a FONSI pursuant to NEPA (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality
(40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s
regulations for compliance with NEPA
(10 CFR part 1021). The FONSI is
available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
DOE reviewed this rule pursuant to
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), which
imposes certain requirements on
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have federalism
implications. In accordance with DOE’s
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
regulations that have federalism
implications, 65 FR 13735 (March 14,
2000), DOE examined the May 2009
proposed rule and determined that the
rule would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of Government. 74 FR
26072. DOE received no comments on
this issue in response to the May 2009
NOPR, and its conclusions on this issue
are the same for the final rule as they
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
were for the proposed rule. Therefore,
DOE has taken no further action in
today’s final rule with respect to
Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation, and
(3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, the final
regulations meet the relevant standards
of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
As indicated in the May 2009 NOPR,
DOE reviewed the proposed rule under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
(UMRA), which imposes requirements
on Federal agencies when their
regulatory actions will have certain
types of impacts on State, local, and
Tribal governments and the private
sector. 74 FR 26073. DOE concluded
that this rule would not contain an
intergovernmental mandate, nor result
in expenditures of $100 million or more
in one year by the private sector. Id. In
the May 2009 NOPR, DOE addressed the
UMRA requirements to prepare a
statement as to the basis, costs, benefits,
and economic impacts of the proposed
rule, and that it identify and consider
regulatory alternatives to the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rule. Id. DOE received no comments
concerning the UMRA in response to
the May 2009 NOPR, and its
conclusions on this issue are the same
for the final rule as they were for the
proposed rule. Therefore, DOE has taken
no further action in today’s final rule
with respect to the UMRA.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
DOE determined that, for this
rulemaking, it need not prepare a
Family Policymaking Assessment under
Section 654 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
(Pub. L. 105–277). Id. DOE received no
comments concerning Section 654 in
response to the May 2009 NOPR, and,
therefore, has taken no further action in
today’s final rule with respect to this
provision.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE determined under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that today’s rule
would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. 74 FR 26073. DOE
received no comments concerning
Executive Order 12630 in response to
the May 2009 NOPR, and, therefore, has
taken no further action in today’s final
rule with respect to this Executive
Order.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today’s final rule under the
OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OIRA a Statement
of Energy Effects for any significant
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
energy action. DOE determined that
today’s rule, which sets energy
conservation standards for beverage
vending machines, is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ within the meaning of
Executive Order 13211. 74 FR 26073.
Accordingly, DOE did not prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects on the
proposed rule. DOE received no
comments on this issue in response to
the May 2009 NOPR. As with the
proposed rule, DOE has concluded that
today’s final rule is not a significant
energy action within the meaning of
Executive Order 13211, and has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects
on the final rule.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
L. Review Under the Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology, issued its ‘‘Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review’’ (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664
(January 14, 2005). The purpose of the
Bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. The Bulletin
establishes that certain scientific
information shall be peer reviewed by
qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal
Government. As indicated in the May
2009 NOPR, this includes influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions, such as the analyses
in this rulemaking. 74 FR 26073–74.
As set forth in the May 2009 NOPR,
DOE held formal in-progress peer
reviews of the types of analyses and
processes that DOE has used to develop
the energy efficiency standards in
today’s rule, and issued a report on
these peer reviews. The report is
available at https://www.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
peer_review.html. Id.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
submit to Congress a report regarding
the issuance of today’s final rule prior
to the effective date set forth at the
outset of this notice. The report will
state that it has been determined that
the rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). DOE also will submit
the supporting analyses to the
Comptroller General in the U.S.
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) and make them available to each
House of Congress.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of today’s final rule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Incorporation by reference.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5,
2009.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, chapter II of title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, part 431 is
amended to read as set forth below.
■
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. In § 431.292 add, in alphabetical
order, new definitions for ‘‘bottled or
canned beverage,’’ ‘‘Class A,’’ ‘‘Class B,’’
‘‘combination vending machine,’’ and
‘‘V’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 431.292 Definitions concerning
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machines.
*
*
*
*
*
Bottled or canned beverage means a
beverage in a sealed container.
Class A means a refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage vending machine
that is fully cooled, and is not a
combination vending machine.
Class B means any refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage vending machine
not considered to be Class A, and is not
a combination vending machine.
Combination vending machine means
a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machine that also has nonrefrigerated volumes for the purpose of
vending other, non-‘‘sealed beverage’’
merchandise.
*
*
*
*
*
V means the refrigerated volume (ft3)
of the refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machine, as measured
by ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.293).
■ 3. Section 431.293 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 431.293 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) General. DOE incorporates by
reference the following standards into
Subpart Q of Part 431. The material
listed has been approved for
incorporation by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44967
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. Any subsequent
amendment to a standard by the
standard-setting organization will not
affect the DOE regulations unless and
until amended by DOE. Material is
incorporated as it exists on the date of
the approval and a notice of any change
in the material will be published in the
Federal Register. All approved material
is available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030
or visit https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html. This
material is also available for inspection
at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies Program,
6th Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, 202–586–2945,
or visit https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards.
Standards can be obtained from the
sources listed below.
(b) ANSI. American National
Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, 212–
642–4900, or visit https://www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004,
Energy, Performance and Capacity of
Household Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers and Freezers, approved July 7,
2004, IBR approved for §§ 431.292 and
431.294.
(2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–
2004, Methods of Testing for Rating
Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned,
and Other Sealed Beverages, approved
December 2, 2004, IBR approved for
§ 431.294.
4. In Subpart Q, add an undesignated
center heading and § 431.296 to read as
follows:
■
Energy Conservation Standards
§ 431.296 Energy conservation standards
and their effective dates.
Each refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machine
manufactured on or after [Insert date 3
years from the date of publication of this
final rule] shall have a maximum daily
energy consumption (in kilowatt hours
per day), when measured at the 75 °F
± 2 °F and 45 ± 5% RH condition, that
does not exceed the following:
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
44968
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Maximum daily energy consumption
(kilowatt hours per day)
Equipment class
Class A ................................................................................................................................................
Class B ................................................................................................................................................
Combination Vending Machines ..........................................................................................................
[The following letter from the
Department of Justice will not appear in
the Code of Federal Regulations.]
Appendix
Department of Justice
Antitrust Division.
Christine A. Varney
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2
Assistant Attorney General.
Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530–
0001, (202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645 (f),
E-mail: antitrust@justice.usdoj.gov, Web
site: https://www.usdoj.gov.
July 23, 2009.
Eric J. Fygi, Deputy General Counsel,
Department of Energy, Washington, DC
20585.
Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi: I am
responding to your May 22, 2009 letter
seeking the views of the Attorney General
about the potential impact on competition of
proposed energy conservation standards for
Class A and Class B refrigerated beverage
vending machines (‘‘BVMs’’). Your request
was submitted pursuant to Section
325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:24 Aug 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Attorney General to make a determination of
the impact of any lessening of competition
that is likely to result from the imposition of
proposed energy conservation standards. The
Attorney General’s responsibility for
responding to requests from other
departments about the effect of a program on
competition has been delegated to the
Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g).
In conducting its analysis the Antitrust
Division examines whether a proposed
standard may lessen competition, for
example, by substantially limiting consumer
choice, leaving consumers with fewer
competitive alternatives, placing certain
manufacturers of a product at an unjustified
competitive disadvantage compared to other
manufacturers, or by inducing avoidable
inefficiencies in production or distribution of
particular products.
We have reviewed the proposed standard
contained in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) (74 FR 26020) and
attended the June 17, 2009 public hearing on
the proposed standard. In addition, we have
conducted interviews with members of the
industry.
Based on our review of the record and
information we have gathered, we do not
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
MDEC = 0.055 × V + 2.56.
MDEC = 0.073 × V + 3.16.
[RESERVED].
believe the proposed standard for Class B
BVMs would likely lead to a lessening of
competition. We are concerned, however,
that the proposed Trial Standard Level 6 for
Class A BVMs could potentially lessen
competition. BVM manufacture is a highly
concentrated industry in the United States,
and compliance with the proposed Class A
standard could require a disproportionate
investment by some manufacturers,
potentially placing them at a disadvantage
`
vis-a-vis others and leading to greater
concentration. Compliance with a lesser
standard does not appear to raise similar
concerns.
We ask the Department of Energy to take
this possible competitive impact into
account. We further ask the Department of
Energy to ensure that the standard it adopts
for Class A BVMs will not require access to
intellectual property owned by an industry
participant, which would place other
industry participants at a comparative
disadvantage.
Sincerely,
Christine A. Varney,
Assistant Attorney General.
[FR Doc. E9–19392 Filed 8–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\31AUR2.SGM
31AUR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 167 (Monday, August 31, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44914-44968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19392]
[[Page 44913]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 44914]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Number EERE-2006-STD-0125]
RIN 1904-AB58
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is adopting new energy
conservation standards for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machines. DOE has determined that energy conservation standards
for these types of equipment would result in significant conservation
of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is October 30, 2009, except that
the standards in 10 CFR 431.296 are effective August 31, 2011. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on October 30,
2009.
ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents, the
technical support document, transcripts of the public meetings in this
proceeding, or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy,
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza,
SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call
Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional information
regarding visiting the Resource Room. (Note: DOE's Freedom of
Information Reading Room no longer houses rulemaking materials.) You
may also obtain copies of certain previous rulemaking documents in this
proceeding (i.e., framework document, advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, notice of proposed rulemaking), draft analyses, public
meeting materials, and related test procedure documents from the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/beverage_machines.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-2192,
Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov.
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121, (202) 586-9507, Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
A. The Standard Levels
B. Benefits to Customers of Beverage Vending Machines
C. Impact on Manufacturers
D. National Benefits
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. History of Standards Rulemaking for Beverage Vending Machine
Equipment
2. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Issues
III. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
C. Energy Savings
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Definitions Related to Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines
2. Equipment Classes
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Approach
2. Analytical Models
D. Markups To Determine Equipment Price
E. Energy Use Characterization
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
G. Shipments Analysis
1. Split Incentives
2. Sustainability of Sales Less Than 100 Thousand Units
3. Distribution of Equipment Classes and Sizes
4. Future Sales Decline
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Choice of Discount Rate
2. Discounting of Physical Values
I. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
K. Utility Impact Analysis
L. Employment Impact Analysis
M. Environmental Assessment
N. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
V. Discussion of Other Comments
A. Information and Assumptions Used in Analyses
1. Engineering Analysis
B. Benefits and Burdens
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Significance of Energy Savings
C. Economic Justification
1. Economic Impact on Commercial Customers
2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
3. National Impact Analysis
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
D. Conclusion
1. Class A Equipment
2. Class B Equipment
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Need for and Objectives of the Final Rule
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and
Other Compliance Requirements
5. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize the Economic Impact on Small
Manufacturers
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
A. The Standard Levels
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6295
et seq.; EPCA), directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish
mandatory energy conservation standards for refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v)(1), (2) and (3))
These types of equipment are referred to collectively hereafter as
``beverage vending machines.'' Any such standard must be designed to
``achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency * * * which the
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(e)(1)) Furthermore, the
new standard must ``result in significant conservation of energy.'' (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The standards in today's final rule, which apply
to all beverage vending machines, satisfy these requirements.
Currently, no mandatory Federal energy conservation
[[Page 44915]]
standards exist for the beverage vending machine equipment covered by
this rulemaking.
Table I.1 shows the standard levels that DOE is adopting today.
These standards will apply to all beverage vending machines
manufactured for sale in the United States, or imported to the United
States, starting 3 years after publication of the final rule.
Table I.1--Standard Levels for Beverage Vending Machines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed standard level ** maximum
Equipment class * daily energy consumption (MDEC) kWh/
day ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.............................. MDEC = 0.055 x V + 2.56.[dagger]
B.............................. MDEC = 0.073 x V +
3.16.[dagger][dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See section IV.A.2 of the NOPR for a discussion of equipment classes.
** ``V'' is the refrigerated volume (ft \3\) of the refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage vending machine, as measured by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM) HRF-1-2004, ``Energy, Performance and Capacity of
Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers.'' V is
the volume of the case, as measured in ARI Standard 1200-2006,
Appendix C.
*** Kilowatt hours per day.
[dagger] Trial Standard Level (TSL) 6.
[dagger][dagger] TSL 3.
B. Benefits to Customers of Beverage Vending Machines
Table I.2 indicates the impacts on commercial customers of today's
standards.
Table I.2--Implications of New Standards for Commercial Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
Equipment class conservation Total installed Total installed Life-cycle cost Payback period
standard cost $ cost increase $ savings $ years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class A....................................................... TSL 6 2,935 233 277 4.1
Class B....................................................... TSL 3 2,070 86 37 6.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic impacts on commercial customers (i.e., the average
life-cycle cost [LCC] savings) are positive for most equipment classes.
For example, fully cooled (Class A) medium-capacity vending machines--
the most common type currently being sold--have installed prices of
$2,625 and annual energy costs of $188, respectively at national
average values. To meet the new standards, DOE estimates that the
installed prices of such equipment will be $2,864, an increase of $239,
which will be offset by annual energy savings of approximately $69 and
an increase in maintenance and repair cost of $13.
C. Impact on Manufacturers
Using a real corporate discount rate of 7 percent, DOE estimates
the industry net present value (INPV) of the beverage vending machine
industry to be $44.1 million for Class A units, and $33.7 million for
Class B units (both figures in 2008$). For Class A machines, DOE
expects the impact of today's standards on the INPV of manufacturers of
beverage vending machines to be a loss of 18.0 to 25.1 percent ($7.9
million to $11.1 million) for Class A machines and a loss of 1.9 to 3.5
percent ($0.6 million to $1.2 million) for Class B machines. Based on
DOE's interviews with manufacturers of beverage vending machines, DOE
expects minimal plant closings or loss of employment as a result of the
standards.
D. National Benefits
DOE estimates that the standards will save approximately 0.159
quads (quadrillion, or 10 \15\) British thermal units (Btu) of energy
over 30 years (2012-2042). This is equivalent to all the energy
consumed by more than 830 thousand American households in a single
year.
By 2042, DOE expects energy savings from the standards to eliminate
the need for approximately 0.118 new 1,000-megawatt (MW) power plants.
These energy savings will result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission
reductions of approximately 9.6 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon
dioxide (CO2), an amount equal to that produced by
approximately 2.0 million cars every year. Additionally, the standards
will help alleviate air pollution by resulting in 3.28 kilotons (kt) of
cumulative nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission reductions and
between 0 and 0.188 tons of cumulative mercury (Hg) emission reductions
from 2012-2042. The estimated net present monetary values of these
emissions reductions (expressed in 2007$) are between $5.5 and $266.3
million for CO2, (expressed in 2007$), $354,000 and $3.6
million for NOX (expressed in 2007$), and $0 and $1.5
million for Hg (expressed in 2007$) at a 7-percent discount rate
(discounted to 2009). At a 3 percent discount rate, the estimated net
present values of these emissions reductions are between $11.3 and
$543.5 million (2007$) for CO2, $749,000 and $7.7 million
(2007$) for NOX, and $0 and $3.2 million (2007$) for Hg.
The national NPV of the standards is $0.182 billion using a 7
percent discount rate and $0.476 billion using a 3 percent discount
rate, cumulative from 2012-2057 in 2008$. This is the estimated total
value of future savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs,
discounted to 2009.
The benefits and costs of today's final rule can also be expressed
in terms of annualized (2008$) values from 2012-2042. Separate
estimates of values for Class A and Class B equipment are shown in
Table I.3 and Table I.4, respectively. In each table, the annualized
monetary values are the sum of the annualized national economic value
of operating savings benefits (energy, maintenance and repair),
expressed in 2008$, plus the monetary values of the benefits of carbon
dioxide emission reductions, otherwise known as the Social Cost of
Carbon (SCC) expressed as $19 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, in
2007$. The $19 value is a central interim value from a recent
interagency process. The derivation of this value is discussed in
section VI.C.6. Although summing the value of operating savings to the
values of CO2 reductions provides a valuable perspective,
please note the following: (1) The national operating savings are
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings found in market transactions
while the CO2 value is based on a range of estimates of
imputed marginal social cost of carbon from $1.14 to $55 per metric ton
(2007$), which are meant to reflect, for the most part, the global
benefits of carbon dioxide reductions; (2) the national operating
savings are measured in 2008$ while the CO2 saving are
measured in 2007$; and (3) the assessments of operating savings and
CO2 savings are performed with different computer models,
leading to
[[Page 44916]]
different time frames for analysis. The present value of national
operating savings is measured for the period 2012-2057 (31 years from
2012 to 2042 inclusive, plus the lifetime of the longest-lived
equipment shipped in the 31st year), then converted the annualized
equivalent for the 31 years. The value of CO2, on the other
hand is meant to reflect the present value of all future climate
related impacts, even those beyond 2057.
Using a 7 percent discount rate for the annualized cost analysis,
the combined cost of the standards established in today's final rule
for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines is $24.0 million per
year in increased equipment and installation costs, while the
annualized benefits are $41.8 million per year in reduced equipment
operating costs and $9.0 million in CO2 reductions, for a
net benefit of $26.8 million per year. Using a 3 percent discount rate,
the cost of the standards established in today's final rule is $23.1
million per year in increased equipment and installation costs, while
the benefits of today's standards are $49.1 million per year in reduced
operating costs and $10.3 million in CO2 reductions, for a
net benefit of $36.3 million per year. The separate estimates of values
for Class A and Class B equipment are shown in Table I.3 and Table I.4
respectively.
Table I.3--Annualized Benefits and Costs for Class A Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units
Primary estimate (AEO Low estimate (low High estimate (high -----------------------------------------------
Category reference case) growth case) growth case) Disc Period
Year dollars (percent) covered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized (millions$/ 37.7................... 34.2.................. 40.0.................. 2008.............. 7 31
year).
44.2................... 39.9.................. 46.8.................. 2008.............. 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Quantified.......... 0.25 CO2 (Mt).......... 0.25 CO2 (Mt)......... 0.25 CO2 (Mt)......... NA................ 7 31
0.07 NOX (kt).......... 0.07 NOX (kt)......... 0.07 NOX (kt)......... NA................ 7 31
0.004 Hg (t)........... 0.004 Hg (t).......... 0.004 Hg (t).......... NA................ 7 31
0.26 CO2 (Mt).......... 0.26 CO2 (Mt)......... 0.26 CO2 (Mt)......... NA................ 3 31
0.039 NOX (kt)......... 0.039 NOX (kt)........ 0.039 NOX (kt)........ NA................ 3 31
0.005 Hg (t)........... 0.005 Hg (t).......... 0.005 Hg (t).......... NA................ 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Monetized Value (at $19/ 7.9.................... 7.9................... 7.9................... 2007.............. 7 31
Metric Ton, millions$/year).
9.0.................... 9.0................... 9.0................... 2007.............. 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetary Benefits 45.5................... 42.1.................. 47.9.................. 2008 & 2007....... 7 31
(millions$/year)*.
53.2................... 48.9.................. 55.8.................. 2008 & 2007....... 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized (millions$/ 19.6................... 19.6.................. 19.6.................. 2008.............. 7 31
year).
18.8................... 18.8.................. 18.8.................. 2008.............. 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits/Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized, including 26.0................... 22.6.................. 28.4.................. 2008 & 2007....... 7 31
Carbon Benefits* (million$/
year).
34.4................... 30.1.................. 36.9.................. 2008 & 2007....... 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Per the above discussion, this represents a simplified estimate that includes both 2007$ and 2008$.
Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs for Class B Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units
Primary estimate (AEO Low estimate (low High estimate (high -----------------------------------------------
Category reference case) growth case) growth case) Disc Period
Year dollars (percent) covered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized (millions$/ 4.1.................... 3.6................... 4.4................... 2008.............. 7 31
year).
4.9.................... 4.3................... 5.2................... 2008.............. 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Quantified.......... 0.03 CO2 (Mt).......... 0.03 CO2 (Mt)......... 0.03 CO2 (Mt)......... NA................ 7 31
0.01 NOX (kt).......... 0.01 NOX (kt)......... 0.01 NOX (kt)......... NA................ 7 31
0.001 Hg (t)........... 0.001 Hg (t).......... 0.001 Hg (t).......... NA................ 7 31
0.04 CO2 (Mt).......... 0.04 CO2 (Mt)......... 0.04 CO2 (Mt)......... NA................ 3 31
0.012 NOX (kt)......... 0.012 NOX (kt)........ 0.012 NOX (kt)........ NA................ 3 31
[[Page 44917]]
0.001 Hg (t)........... 0.001 Hg (t).......... 0.001 Hg (t).......... NA................ 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Monetized Value (at $19/ 1.1.................... 1.1................... 1.1................... 2007.............. 7 31
Metric Ton, millions$/year).
1.3.................... 1.3................... 1.3................... 2007.............. 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetary Benefits 5.2.................... 4.7................... 5.6................... 2008 & 2007....... 7 31
(millions$/year)*.
6.1.................... 5.5................... 6.5................... 2008 & 2007....... 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized (millions$/ 4.4.................... 4.4................... 4.4................... 2008.............. 7 31
year).
4.3.................... 4.3................... 4.3................... 2008.............. 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits/Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized, including 0.8.................... 0.3................... 1.1................... 2008 & 2007....... 7 31
Carbon Benefits (million$/
year)*.
1.9.................... 1.3................... 2.2................... 2008 & 2007....... 3 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Per the above discussion, this represents a simplified estimate that includes both 2007$ and 2008$.
II. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309)
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
Other Than Automobiles. The amendments to EPCA contained in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109-58, include new or
amended energy conservation standards and test procedures for some of
these products, and direct DOE to undertake rulemakings to promulgate
such requirements. In particular, section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005
amends EPCA to direct DOE to prescribe energy conservation standards
for beverage vending machines. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v))
Because of its placement in Part A of Title III of EPCA, the
rulemaking for beverage vending machine energy conservation standards
is bound by the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295. However, since beverage
vending machines are commercial equipment, DOE intends to place the new
requirements for beverage vending machines in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 431 (``Energy Efficiency Program for
Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment''), which is consistent
with DOE's previous action to address the EPACT 2005 requirements for
commercial equipment. The location of the provisions within the CFR
does not affect either their substance or applicable procedure, so DOE
is placing them in the appropriate CFR part based on their nature or
type. DOE will refer to beverage vending machines as ``equipment''
throughout the notice because of their placement in 10 CFR part 431.
DOE publishes today's final rule pursuant to Title III, Part A of EPCA,
which provides for test procedures, labeling, and energy conservation
standards for beverage vending machines and certain other equipment.
The test procedures for beverage vending machines appear at sections
431.293 and 431.294.
EPCA provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for
beverage vending machines. As indicated above, any new or amended
standard for this equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)) Additionally, EPCA
provides specific prohibitions on prescribing such standards. DOE may
not prescribe an amended or new standard for any equipment for which
DOE has not established a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Further, DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if DOE
determines by rule that such standard would not result in ``significant
conservation of energy'' or ``is not technologically feasible or
economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (B))
EPCA also provides that in deciding whether such a standard is
economically justified for equipment such as beverage vending machines,
DOE must, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, determine
whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering,
to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the equipment likely to result from the imposition of the
standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result
directly from the imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
[[Page 44918]]
5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
6. The need for national energy conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))
In addition, EPCA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and
6316(a)), establishes a rebuttable presumption that any standard for
covered products is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
``the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy (and as applicable, water) savings during
the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the
standard, as calculated under the test procedure * * *'' in place for
that standard.
EPCA further provides that the Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is ``likely to result
in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type
(or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States at the time of
the Secretary's finding.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(e)(1))
Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA is applicable to promulgating standards
for most types or classes of equipment, including beverage vending
machines that have two or more subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and
42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) Under this provision, DOE must specify a
different standard level than that which applies generally to such type
or class of equipment for any group of products ``which have the same
function or intended use, if * * * products within such group--(A)
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard'' than applies or will apply to the other products. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In determining whether a performance-related
feature justifies such a different standard for a group of products,
DOE must consider ``such factors as the utility to the consumer of such
a feature'' and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which DOE established such a higher or
lower level. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Federal energy conservation standards for commercial equipment
generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c);
42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(2)-(3)) DOE 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); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(2)-(3))
B. Background
1. History of Standards Rulemaking for Beverage Vending Machine
Equipment
As discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), 74 FR
26022 (May 29, 2009) (the May 2009 NOPR), the EPACT 2005 amendments to
EPCA require that DOE issue energy conservation standards for the
equipment covered by this rulemaking, which would apply to equipment
manufactured 3 years after publication of the final rule establishing
the energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v)(1), (2) and (3))
The energy use of this equipment has not previously been regulated by
Federal law.
Section 135(a)(3) of EPACT 2005 also amended section 321 of EPCA,
in part, by adding definitions for terms relevant to this equipment.
(42 U.S.C. 6291 (40)) EPCA defines ``refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machine'' as ``a commercial refrigerator that cools
bottled or canned beverages and dispenses the bottled or canned
beverages on payment.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291 (40)) Section 136(a)(3) of
EPACT 2005 amended section 340 of EPCA, in part, by adding a definition
for ``commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer.''
During the course of this rulemaking, Congress passed the Energy
Independence Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), which the President
signed on December 19, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). Section 310(3) of EISA
2007 amended section 325 of EPCA in part by adding subsection 325(gg)
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)). This subsection requires any new or amended
energy conservation standards adopted after July 1, 2010, to
incorporate ``standby mode and off mode energy use.'' (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)) In the NOPR, DOE stated that because any standards
associated with this rulemaking are required by August 2009, the energy
use calculations will not include ``standby mode and off mode energy
use.'' To include standby mode and off mode energy use requirements for
this rulemaking would take considerable analytical effort and would
likely require changes to the test procedure. Given the statutory
deadline, DOE has decided to address these additional requirements when
the energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines are
reviewed in August 2015. At that time, DOE will consider the need for
possible amendment in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(m). (74 FR 26023)
DOE commenced this rulemaking on June 28, 2006, by publishing a
notice of a public meeting and of the availability of its framework
document for the rulemaking. 71 FR 36715. The framework document
described the approaches DOE anticipated using and issues to be
resolved in the rulemaking. DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC
on July 11, 2006, to present the contents of the framework document,
describe the analyses DOE planned to conduct during the rulemaking,
obtain public comment on these subjects, and facilitate the public's
involvement in the rulemaking. After the public meeting, DOE also
allowed the submission of written statements in response to the
framework document.
On June 16, 2008, DOE published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANOPR) in this proceeding. 73 FR 34094 (the June 2008
ANOPR). In the June 2008 ANOPR, DOE sought comment on its proposed
equipment classes for the rulemaking, and on the analytical framework,
models, and tools that DOE used to analyze the impacts of energy
conservation standards for beverage vending machines. In conjunction
with the June 2008 ANOPR, DOE published on its Web site the complete
ANOPR technical support document (TSD), which included the results of
DOE's various preliminary analyses in this rulemaking. In the June 2008
ANOPR, DOE requested oral and written comments on these results and on
a range of other issues. DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC,
on June 26, 2008, to present the methodology and results of the ANOPR
analyses and to receive oral comments from those who attended. The oral
and written comments DOE received focused on DOE's assumptions,
approach, and equipment class breakdown, and were addressed in detail
in the May 2009 NOPR.
In the May 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed new energy conservation
standards for beverage vending machines. 74 FR 26020. In conjunction
with the May 2009 NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the complete
[[Page 44919]]
TSD for the proposed rule, which incorporated the final analyses that
DOE conducted, and contained technical documentation for each step of
the analysis. The TSD included the engineering analysis spreadsheets,
the LCC spreadsheet, and the national impact analysis spreadsheet. The
standards DOE proposed for beverage vending machines are shown in Table
II.1.
Table II.1--May 2009 Proposed Standard Levels for Beverage Vending
Machines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed standard level ** maximum
Equipment class * daily energy consumption (MDEC) kWh/
day ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.............................. MDEC = 0.055 x V + 2.56.[dagger]
B.............................. MDEC = 0.073 x V +
3.16.[dagger][dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See section IV.A.2 of the NOPR (74 FR 26027) for a discussion of
equipment classes.
** ``V'' is the refrigerated volume (ft\3\) of the refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage vending machine, as measured by ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-
2004, ``Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators,
Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers.''
*** Kilowatt hours per day.
[dagger] TSL 6.
[dagger][dagger] TSL 3.
In the May 2009 NOPR, DOE identified issues on which it was
particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested
parties. These included the magnitude of the estimated decline in INPV
and what impact this level could have on industry parties including
small businesses; whether the proposed linear equation used to describe
the maximum daily energy consumption standards should be based on a
two-point, three-point, or some other weighting strategy; whether the
proposed standard risks industry consolidation; how small business
manufacturers will be affected due to new energy conservation
standards; the potential compliance costs and other impacts to small
manufacturers that do not supply the high-volume customers of beverage
vending machines; the impacts on small manufacturers for possible
alternatives to the proposed rule; and whether the energy savings and
related benefits outweigh the costs, including potential manufacturer
impacts. After the publication of the May 2009 NOPR, DOE received
written comments on these and other issues. DOE also held a public
meeting in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2009, to hear oral comments on
and solicit information relevant to the proposed rule. The May 2009
NOPR included additional background information on the history of this
rulemaking. 74 FR 26023.
2. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Issues
a. Type of Standard
For the ANOPR, DOE received comments from interested parties
regarding the type of standards it would be developing as part of this
rulemaking. Some interested parties recommended that DOE set
prescriptive standards, while others suggested that the choice of
technologies used to achieve standards should be left to the discretion
of the manufacturer. (73 FR 34100)
In response, DOE noted in the ANOPR that EPCA provides that an
``energy conservation standard'' must be either (A) ``a * * * level of
energy efficiency'' or ``a * * * quantity of energy use,'' or (B), for
certain specified equipment, ``a design requirement.'' (42 U.S.C.
6291(6)) Thus, an ``energy conservation standard'' cannot consist of
both a design requirement and a level of efficiency or energy use. In
addition, beverage vending machines are not one of the specified types
of equipment for which EPCA allows a standard be set with a design
requirement. (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)(B), 6292(a)) Item (A) above also
indicates that, under EPCA, a single energy conservation standard
cannot have measures of both energy efficiency and energy use.
Furthermore, EPCA specifically requires DOE to base its test procedure
for this equipment on ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 32.1-2004, Methods of
Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned or Other Sealed
Beverages. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(15)) The test methods in ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2004 consist of means to measure energy consumption, not
energy efficiency. (73 FR 34100)
During the NOPR public meeting, the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (ASAP), stated that DOE's previous decisions to not allow
multi-part standards needs to be revisited, but not as part of this
rulemaking. Multi-part standards would allow performance standards and
design requirements to be established. (ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 35) A notation in the form ``ASAP, No. 56 at
p. 35'' identifies an oral comment that DOE received during the June
17, 2008, NOPR Public Meeting. This comment was recorded in the public
meeting transcript in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-
2006-BT-STD-0125). This particular notation refers to a comment (1)
made during the public meeting by the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project; (2) recorded in document number 35, which is the public
meeting transcript filed in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3)
appearing on page 35 of document number 56. In a written comment co-
signed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California
Edison, Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and
Electric (SDGE), ASAP, and the National Resource Defense Council
(NRDC), hereafter the Joint Comment, signatories urged DOE to include a
design requirement for factory set controls in today's final rule.
(Joint Comment, No. 67 at p. 2) For the reasons given above, DOE
maintains that it does not have authority to develop standards that
consist of both a design requirement and a level of efficiency or
energy use. Instead, DOE has developed standards that would require
that each beverage vending machine be subject to a maximum level of
energy consumption, and manufacturers could meet these standards with
their own choice of design methods.
In response to the NOPR, the University of Southern Maine (USM)
recommended that DOE establish energy consumption standards that are
based on beverage vending machines that have no lights, with the
exception of lighting the coin slots. Or as an alternative, USM
suggested that the standards be based on a machine that has lights
controlled by proximity sensors that turn lights on only when
prospective purchasers are nearby. (USM, No. 52 at p. 1) USM also
supported setting a design standard that encourages the use of
refrigerant gases that offer the lowest total life-cycle impacts. (USM,
No. 52 at p. 1) As stated above, beverage vending machines are not one
of the specified equipment for which EPCA allows a standard to consist
of a design requirement. (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)(B), 6292(a))
b. Combination Vending Machines
Combination vending machines have a refrigerated volume for the
purpose of cooling and vending ``beverages in a sealed container,'' and
are therefore covered by this rule. However, beverage vending is not
their sole function. Combination vending machines also have non-
refrigerated volumes for the purpose of vending other, non-``sealed
beverage'' merchandise. In the ANOPR, DOE addressed several comments
from interested parties regarding combination vending machines.
Specifically, these parties were concerned that regulating vending
machines that contain both refrigerated and non-refrigerated products
could result in confusion
[[Page 44920]]
about what this rulemaking covers, or could result in manufacturers
taking advantage of loopholes to produce equipment that does not meet
the standards. In response, DOE stated that the language used in EPCA
to define beverage vending machines is broad enough to include any
vending machine, including a combination vending machine, as long as
some portion of that machine cools bottled or canned beverages and
dispenses them upon payment. (42 U.S.C. 6291 (40)) DOE interprets this
language to cover any vending machine that can dispense at least one
type of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage, regardless of the
other types of vended products (some of which may not be refrigerated).
73 FR 34105-06.
At the NOPR public meeting, Dixie-Narco stated that combination
vending machines were not specifically included in the analysis, which
focused on glass front and stack-style beverage vending machines, and
should be studied further. (Dixie-Narco, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
56 at p. 204) Dixie-Narco asserted that the existing formulas for Class
A and Class B machines create an energy threshold that cannot be met by
combination machines. Dixie-Narco explained that with combination
machines, the entire cabinet is illuminated, but they typically have
smaller refrigerated volumes compared to other vending machines with
similar exterior dimensions. Dixie-Narco suggested creating a Class C
equipment class for zone-cooled glass front vending machines. It
proposed the following equation: MDEC = 0.073 x V + 3.5. Dixie-Narco
also stated that it is open to other possible solutions suggested by
DOE or other concerned parties. (Dixie-Narco, No. 64 at p. 3) Coca-Cola
stated that combination vending machines may not scale down in
efficiency because refrigeration components may not be available in
small sizes. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 210)
Dixie-Narco noted that combination vending machines are not typically
purchased by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, and are manufactured by a group of
manufacturers different from the beverage vending machine
manufacturers. Dixie-Narco also stated that shipments for combination
vending machines are very small. (Dixie-Narco, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at pp. 204, 212)
In the analysis for the proposed rule, DOE did not consider
combination vending machines as a separate equipment class. Rather,
they were considered with all other Class A and Class B beverage
vending machines. However, based on comments received, DOE recognizes
that the design and manufacture of combination vending machines may be
challenged by less component availability compared to other beverage
vending machines. DOE concludes that combination vending machines have
a distinct utility that limits the energy efficiency improvement
potential possible for such beverage vending machines. While more
efficient combination vending machines are technologically feasible,
DOE does not have the data needed to estimate either the energy
efficiency improvement potential or the cost of more efficient designs
of combination vending machines. Furthermore, none of the interested
parties' comments provided an economic analysis demonstrating that
efficiency standards for such beverage vending machines would be cost-
justified. Without engineering cost and efficiency data, DOE was not
able to perform an analysis of the impacts of standards on combination
vending machines. Thus, DOE is not able to determine whether energy
conservation standards for combination vending machines are
economically justified and would result in significant energy savings.
Based on the above, DOE concludes that combination vending machines are
a class of beverage vending machines, and, since DOE cannot determine
whether standards would meet EPCA's statutory criteria, DOE is not
setting standards for combination vending machines at this time.
Instead, DOE is reserving standards for combination vending machines.
EPCA does require that, not later than 6 years after issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, the Secretary shall
publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product
do not need to be amended or a notice of proposed rulemaking including
new proposed standards. 42 U.S.C. 6295(m).
So that interested parties understand what constitutes a
combination vending machine, DOE is incorporating into today's final
rule a definition for combination vending machine, and is modifying the
definitions of Class A and Class B beverage vending machines (see
section IV.A.2). DOE adopts the following definition for combination
vending machine: ``Combination vending machine means a refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine that also has non-
refrigerated volumes for the purpose of vending other, non-``sealed
beverage'' merchandise.''
DOE notes that this definition for combination vending machine
could be refined if DOE initiates a rulemaking proceeding that
evaluates energy conservation standards for combination vending
machines.
c. Installed Base
USA Technologies stated that it does not believe that significant
energy savings will be achieved by the standard unless the installed
base is included. (USA Technologies, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56
at p. 16)
DOE acknowledges that additional energy savings can be obtained by
regulating the installed base of beverage vending machines. This would
require existing, used machines to be rebuilt or refurbished to comply
with the standards. However, in the ANOPR, DOE carefully considered its
authority to establish energy conservation standards for rebuilt and
refurbished beverage vending machines and concluded that its authority
does not extend to rebuilt and refurbished equipment. (73 FR 34106-07)
As stated in the ANOPR, throughout the history of the energy
conservation standards program, DOE has not regulated used consumer
products or commercial equipment that has been refurbished, rebuilt, or
undergone major repairs, since EPCA only covers new covered equipment
distributed in commerce. Therefore, for this final rule, DOE maintains
that rebuilt or refurbished beverage vending machines are not new
covered equipment under EPCA and, therefore, are not subject to DOE's
energy conservation standards or test procedures.
d. Rating Conditions
In the ANOPR, DOE stated that it planned to use a 75 [deg]F/45 RH
rating condition for all beverage vending machines covered by this
rulemaking. (73 FR 34102) In a written comment on the NOPR, the
National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) stated that these
rating conditions were appropriate. (NAMA, No. 65 at p. 3) Dixie-Narco
also commented that it supports the 75 [deg]F/45 percent relative
humidity (RH) rating condition because it is a more realistic
temperature for measuring energy efficiency compared to the 90 [deg]F/
65 percent RH condition. Therefore, for this final rule, DOE continues
to use the 75 [deg]F/45 RH rating condition for all beverage vending
machines covered by this rulemaking.
e. Certification and Enforcement
Regal Beloit asked how certification and enforcement will be
conducted for the energy conservation standards that DOE establishes
for beverage vending machines. (Regal Beloit, No. 59 at p. 1)
To enforce energy conservation standards, DOE establishes both
[[Page 44921]]
generally applicable regulations that apply to various types of
products or equipment covered by standards, as well as a limited number
of product-specific requirements. DOE has not adopted requirements that
apply to beverage vending machines (an EPACT 2005 addition to the
program). DOE is developing enforcement regulations for the EPACT 2005
equipment, which it expects will be based on the existing enforcement
regulations that require manufacturers to certify compliance with the
standards by filing two separate documents: (1) A compliance statement
in which the manufacturer certifies its equipment meets the
requirements; and (2) a certification report in which the manufacturer
provides equipment-specific information, such as the model number,
energy consumption and other model specific information that would
enable DOE to determine which equipment class and standard the
equipment is subject to and whether the equipment meets the standard.
In instances where there are questions whether equipment meets the
standards, existing regulations require DOE to consult with the
manufacturer. If DOE remains unsatisfied with the manufacturer's
explanation for the alleged noncompliance, DOE may test units of the
allegedly non-complying product or equipment, to determine whether it
meets the applicable standard. After DOE has completed testing, the
manufacturer has the option to conduct additional tests for DOE to
consider. DOE has never had to conduct enforcement testing, as it has
been able to resolve all issues with manufacturers prior to taking that
step.
The beverage vending machine standards will go into effect 3 years
after the publication of the final rule. DOE anticipates that it will
have enforcement regulations in place, applicable to beverage vending
machines, by that time. But if such regulations are not in place when
the standards go into effect, manufacturers will not be required to
report to DOE. Moreover, if there is a question regarding compliance
with the standards, DOE will confer with the manufacturer before
pursuing enforcement action. A violation of these standards could
subject a manufacturer to injunctive action or other relief. See 42
U.S.C. 6302-6305.
III. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule (the December 2006
final rule) in the Federal Register that incorporated by reference
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, with two modifications, as the DOE test
procedure for this equipment. 71 FR 71340, 71375; 10 CFR 431.294. In
section 6.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, Voltage and Frequency,
the first modification specifies that equipment with dual nameplate
voltages must be tested at the lower of the two voltages only. 71 FR
71340, 71355 The second modification specifies that (1) any measurement
of ``vendible capacity'' of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machines must be in accordance with the second paragraph of
section 5 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, Vending Machine Capacity;
and (2) any measurement of ``refrigerated volume'' of refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machines must be in accordance with
the methodology specified in section 5.2, Total Refrigerated Volume
(excluding subsections 5.2.2.2 through 5.2.2.4) of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-
2004, ``Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators,
Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers.''
The current version of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 defines
standard bottled, canned, or other sealed beverage storage capacity;
establishes uniform methods of testing for determining laboratory
performance of vending machines for bottled, canned, or other sealed
beverages; and defines three tests/test conditions, as seen in Table
III.1.
Table III.1--ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004--Standard Test Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy consumption
Test and pretest conditions tests Vend test Recovery test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambient Temperature.................. Perform twice: At 90 90 2 90 2
2 [deg]F [deg]F (32.2 1 minus> 1 [deg]C). minus> 1 [deg]C).
[deg]C) and at 75
[deg]F 2
[deg]F (23.9 1 [deg]C).
Relative Humidity.................... 65 5% for 65 5%..... 65 5%.
90 2
[deg]F test and 45
5% for 75
2 [deg]F
test.
Reloaded Product Temperature......... ....................... 90 1 90 1
[deg]F (32.2 0.5 [deg]C). minus> 0.5 [deg]C).
Average Beverage Temperature (for 36 1 40 [deg]F or less (4.4 33-40 [deg]F (0.6-4.4
test). [deg]F (2.2 0.5 [deg]C) Temperature. Temperature.
Throughout Test.
Average Beverage Temperature (for Not Applicable......... 36 1 36 1
pretest conditions). [deg]F (2.2 0.6 [deg]C) minus> 0.6 [deg]C)
Pretest Conditions. Pretest Conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the NOPR public meeting, ASAP stated that DOE's test
procedures for beverage vending machines should be revised to capture
technologies such as variable speed technologies and advanced controls.
ASAP stated that there are energy savings that are not being achieved
because the test procedure does not account for these types of
technologies. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56 at p. 36) In
addition, Coca-Cola stated that the DOE test procedure does not
accurately reflect actual operating conditions, because it does not
regulate or dictate the control of the operating methods for all the
powered elements in the equipment. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 56 at p. 147) Coca-Cola also stated that lighting
controls would not save as much energy in real world applications as
the test procedure indicates, resulting in ``artificially low'' test
results. (Coca-Cola, No. 63 at p. 1) Coca-Cola commented that very few
of its vending machines go into applications where they are inactive
for long periods of time. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 56
at p. 193) For these reasons, Coca-Cola and NAMA conclude that TSL 6
for Class A machines is not ``practically feasible.'' (Coca-Cola, No.
63 at p. 1 and NAMA, No. 65 at p. 3) The Joint Comment recommends that
the next revision to the current test procedure address; (1) the
limitations of steady-state testing conditions, (2) the current test
procedure's insufficient representation of real world conditions, and
(3) the capture of increased energy use as a result of future, energy
intensive beverage vending machine features, such as interactive
displays. (Joint Comment, No. 67 at p. 4) Elstat stated that
prohibiting the use of standby and off mode power does not support the
goal of reduced energy consumption in
[[Page 44922]]
beverage vending machines, and recommends that DOE revisit the use of
energy management controls in 2010, or within one year of the rule
statutory deadline (Elstat, No. 62 at p. 1) DOE notes, however, that it
is not prohibiting the use of standby and off mode power consumption,
but rather is not including standby mode and off mode power consumption
in its calculation of energy use. As stated in the May 2009 NOPR, DOE
has decided to address these additional requirements when the energy
conservation standards for beverage vending machines are reviewed in
August 2015 (see section II.B.1) and, as described below, must review
the test procedures by 2013.
As stated above, DOE's test procedure for refrigerated beverage
vending machines is based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. Section
302(a) of EISA 2007 amended section 323 of EPCA, in part, by adding new
subsection 323(b)(1). (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)) This subsection provides
that the Secretary shall review test procedures at least once every 7
years. Therefore, the test procedure for refrigerated beverage vending
machines must be reviewed by December 8, 2013, to determine whether an
amendment is necessary. In addition, DOE is aware that ASHRAE, via its
Standards Project Committee 32.1, is working on an update to ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. While specific changes to ASHRAE Standard
32.1-2004 are unknown at this time, DOE understands that the beverage
vending machine industry is working closely with ASHRAE to develop an
update to this test procedure. As part of the
