Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners, 22324-22335 [2011-9041]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22324
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 76, No. 77
Thursday, April 21, 2011
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EERE–2007–BT–STD–
0010]
RIN 1904–AA89
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Dryers and Room
Air Conditioners
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes
energy conservation standards for
various consumer products and
commercial and industrial equipment,
including residential clothes dryers and
room air conditioners. EPCA also
requires the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) to determine if amended
standards for these products are
technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would save
a significant amount of energy. In this
proposed rule, DOE proposes energy
efficiency standards for residential
clothes dryers and room air conditioners
identical to those set forth in a direct
final rule published elsewhere in
today’s Federal Register. If DOE
receives adverse comment and
determines that such comment may
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE
will publish a notice withdrawing the
final rule and will proceed with this
proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding the proposed
standards no later than August 9, 2011.
ADDRESSES: See section III, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for details. If DOE
withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in today’s Federal
Register, DOE will hold a public
meeting to allow for additional
comment on this proposed rule. DOE
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
will publish notice of any meeting in
the Federal Register.
Any comments submitted must
identify the proposed rule for Energy
Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Dryers and Room Air
Conditioners, and provide docket
number EERE–2007–BT–STD–0010
and/or regulatory information number
(RIN) number 1904–AA89. Comments
may be submitted using any of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: home_
appliance2.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number and/or RIN
in the subject line of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
CD. It is not necessary to include
printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 950
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202) 586–2945. If possible, please
submit all items on a CD. It is not
necessary to include printed copies.
For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see section
III of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for
review at regulations.gov, including
Federal Register notices, framework
documents, public meeting attendee
lists and transcripts, comments, and
other supporting documents/materials.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the regulations.gov index. Not all
documents listed in the index may be
publicly available, such as information
that is exempt from public disclosure. A
link to the docket Web page can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to
submit or review public comments or
view hard copies of the docket in the
Resource Room, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or e-mail:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202)
586–7463, e-mail: stephen.witkowski@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of General Counsel,
GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121,
(202) 586–7796, e-mail:
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Legal Authority
II. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Clothes Dryers
B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Room Air Conditioners
C. Summary of Benefits and Costs
(Annualized) of the Standards
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction and Legal Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety
of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. Part B of title III (42
U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products other than
Automobiles.1 The program covers
consumer products and certain
commercial equipment (referred to
hereafter as ‘‘covered products’’),
including clothes dryers and room air
conditioners (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(2) and
(8)), and EPCA prescribes energy
conservation standards for certain
clothes dryers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)) and
for room air conditioners (42 U.S.C.
6295(c)(1)). EPCA further directs DOE to
conduct two cycles of rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(2) and
(g)(4)) This rulemaking represents the
second round of amendments to both
the clothes dryer and room air
conditioner standards.
DOE notes that this rulemaking is one
of the required agency actions in the
consolidated Consent Decree in State of
New York, et al. v. Bodman et al., 05
Civ. 7807 (LAP), and Natural Resources
Defense Council, et al. v. Bodman, et al.,
05 Civ. 7808 (LAP), DOE is required to
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A.
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
complete a final rule for amended
energy conservation standards for room
air conditioners and clothes dryers that
must be sent to the Federal Register by
June 30, 2011.
The Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub.
L. 110–140) amended EPCA, in relevant
part, to grant DOE authority to issue a
final rule (hereinafter referred to as a
‘‘direct final rule’’) establishing an
energy conservation standard for a
covered product on receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by
interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view
(including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates) as
determined by the Secretary, that
contains recommendations with respect
to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with the provisions of
42 U.S.C. 6295(o). EPCA also requires
that a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) that proposes an identical
energy efficiency standard be published
simultaneously with the direct final
rule, and DOE must provide a public
comment period of at least 110 days on
this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Not
later than 120 days after issuance of the
direct final rule, if one or more adverse
comments or an alternative joint
recommendation are received relating to
the direct final rule, the Secretary must
determine whether the comments or
alternative recommendation may
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or
other applicable law. If the Secretary
makes such a determination, DOE must
withdraw the direct final rule and
proceed with the simultaneously
published notice of proposed
rulemaking. DOE must also publish in
the Federal Register the reason why the
direct final rule was withdrawn. Id.
In response to the preliminary
analysis conducted during DOE’s
consideration of amended standards for
room air conditioners and clothes
dryers, 75 FR 7987 (Feb. 23, 2010), DOE
received the ‘‘Agreement on Minimum
Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart
Appliances, Federal Incentives and
Related Matters for Specified
Appliances’’ (hereinafter, the ‘‘Joint
Petition’’) 2, a comment submitted by
groups representing manufacturers (the
Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool
Corporation (Whirlpool), General
Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG
Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home
Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry
Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-Zero
Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U–Line, Samsung,
Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat
Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove,
Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group,
Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice,
Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and
DeLonghi); energy and environmental
advocates (American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE),
Appliance Standards Awareness Project
(ASAP), Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save
Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water
Efficiency (AWE), Northwest Power and
Conservation Council (NPCC), and
Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer
groups (Consumer Federation of
America (CFA) and the National
Consumer Law Center (NCLC))
(collectively, the ‘‘Joint Petitioners’’).
The Joint Petitioners recommended
specific energy conservation standards
for residential clothes dryers and room
air conditioners that they believed
would satisfy the EPCA requirements in
42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
DOE has considered the
recommended energy conservation
standards and believes that they meet
the EPCA requirements for issuance of
a direct final rule. As a result, DOE has
published a direct final rule establishing
energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers and room air conditioners
elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. If
DOE receives adverse comments that
may provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal and withdraws the direct
final rule, DOE will consider those
comments and any other comments
received in determining how to proceed
with today’s proposed rule.
For further background information
on these proposed standards and the
supporting analyses, please see the
direct final rule published elsewhere in
today’s Federal Register. That
document includes additional
discussion on the EPCA requirements
for promulgation of energy conservation
standards, the current standards for
room air conditioners and clothes
dryers, and the history of the standards
rulemakings establishing such
standards, as well as information on the
test procedures used to measure the
energy efficiency of clothes dryers and
room air conditioners. The document
also contains an in-depth discussion of
the analyses conducted in support of
this rulemaking, the methodologies DOE
used in conducting those analyses, and
the analytical results.
II. Proposed Standards
When considering proposed
standards, the new or amended energy
conservation standard that DOE adopts
for any type (or class) of covered
product shall be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a
standard is economically justified, DOE
must determine whether the benefits of
the standard exceed its burdens to the
greatest extent practicable, in light of
the seven statutory factors set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The
new or amended standard must also
result in a significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The Department considered the
impacts of standards at each trial
standard level considered by DOE,
beginning with maximum
technologically feasible level, to
determine whether that level was
economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not economically
justified, DOE then considered the next
most efficient level and undertook the
same evaluation until it reached the
highest efficiency level that is both
technologically feasible and
economically justified and saves a
significant amount of energy.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses
the benefits and burdens of each trial
standard level, DOE has included tables
that present a summary of the results of
DOE’s quantitative analysis for each
trial standard level (TSL). In addition to
the quantitative results presented in the
tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect
economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of
consumers, such as low-income
households and seniors, who may be
disproportionately affected by a national
standard. Section V.B.1 of the direct
final rule published elsewhere in
today’s Federal Register presents the
estimated impacts of each TSL for these
subgroups.
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Clothes Dryers
Table II.1 and Table II.2 present a
summary of the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for clothes
dryers. The efficiency levels contained
in each TSL are described in section
V.A of the direct final rule.
2 DOE Docket No. EERE–2007–BT–STD–0010,
Comment 35.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22325
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
22326
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLOTHES DRYER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
National Energy Savings (quads) ..........
NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion):
3% discount rate .............................
7% discount rate .............................
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (million metric tons) ................
NOX (thousand tons) ......................
Hg (ton) ...........................................
Value of Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (2009$ million) * ......................
NOX—3% discount rate (2009 million) ..............................................
NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ million) ..............................................
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **
Employment Impacts:
Total Potential Change in Domestic
Production Workers in 2014
(thousands) .................................
Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) ** ...
0.00
0.062
0.37
0.39
1.45
3.14
0.00
0.01
0.62
0.25
3.00
1.10
3.01
1.08
0.22
(2.60)
(1.53)
(6.72)
0.119
0.097
0.000
2.99
2.41
0.009
17.75
14.26
0.053
18.67
15.14
0.051
70.47
57.26
0.188
186.6
151.3
0.569
1 to 10
15 to 239
88 to 1,417
93 to 1,490
351 to 5,626
929 to 14,902
0.031 to 0.314
0.759 to 7.8
4.49 to 46.2
4.77 to 49.0
18.0 to 185
47.6 to 490
0.013 to 0.136
0.002
0.328 to 3.37
0.060
1.94 to 20.0
0.358
2.06 to 21.2
0.345
7.8 to 80.2
1.27
20.6 to 212
2.27
0.00 to (3.96)
0.01
0.00 to (3.96)
0.01
0.41 to (3.96)
1.82
0.46 to (3.96)
1.75
1.08 to (3.96)
4.25
2.26 to (3.96)
9.30
Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2043.
TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLOTHES DRYER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND MANUFACTURER
IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
(303.9) to
(730.0)
(30.3) to (72.7)
Manufacturer Impacts
Industry NPV (2009$ million) ...................
(2.5) to (2.5)
(3.6) to (4.9)
(41.1) to (55.5)
(64.5) to (80.6)
Industry NPV (% change) ........................
(0.3) to (0.3)
(0.4) to (0.5)
(4.1) to (5.5)
(6.4) to (8.0)
(176.5) to
(397.4)
(17.6) to (39.6)
$14
$14
$8
$2
$0
$0
($30)
($99)
($99)
($100)
($42)
$73
($146)
($264)
($246)
($100)
($177)
($166)
5.3
0.9
0.9
11.7
n/a
n/a
19.1
36.1
45.1
49.5
25.3
5.3
22.1
40.1
38.2
49.5
26.9
22.4
Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$)
Electric Standard ......................................
Compact 120V .........................................
Compact 240V .........................................
Gas ...........................................................
Ventless 240V ..........................................
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer .......
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
$14
$8
$2
$20
$73
$14
$14
$8
$2
$20
$73
Consumer Median PBP (years) **
Electric Standard ......................................
Compact 120V .........................................
Compact 240V .........................................
Gas ...........................................................
Ventless 240V ..........................................
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer .......
3.9
n/a
0.0
2.2
n/a
n/a
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.9
5.3
5.3
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.9
5.3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
Electric Standard:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
Compact 120V:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
Compact 240V:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
Gas:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
1%
98%
2%
0%
79%
21%
19%
25%
56%
19%
25%
56%
75%
1%
24%
81%
0%
19%
0%
100%
0%
4%
0%
96%
4%
0%
96%
4%
0%
96%
95%
0%
5%
95%
0%
5%
0%
100%
0%
2%
41%
56%
2%
41%
56%
2%
41%
56%
93%
4%
3%
95%
0%
5%
1%
93%
0%
85%
0%
85%
32%
42%
95%
1%
95%
1%
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
22327
TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CLOTHES DRYER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND MANUFACTURER
IMPACTS—Continued
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
Net Benefit (%) .................................
Ventless 240V:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
7%
15%
15%
26%
4%
4%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
92%
0%
8%
88%
0%
12%
0%
100%
0%
21%
0%
79%
21%
0%
79%
0%
100%
0%
21%
0%
79%
82%
0%
18%
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.
* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a
payback period is not applicable.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which
represents the max-tech efficiency
levels. TSL 6 would save 3.14 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be ¥$6.72
billion, using a discount rate of 7
percent, and ¥$1.53 billion, using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 6 are 186.6 Mt of CO2, 151.3
thousand tons of NOX, and 0.569 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 6
ranges from $929 million to $14,902
million. Total generating capacity in
2043 is estimated to decrease by 2.27
GW under TSL 6.
At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is
a cost (LCC increase) of $146 for electric
standard clothes dryers, a cost of $264
for 120V compact clothes dryers, a cost
of $246 for 240V compact clothes
dryers, a cost of $100 for gas clothes
dryers, a cost of $177 for ventless 240V
clothes dryers, and a cost of $166 for
combination washer/dryers. The median
payback period is 22.1 years for electric
standard clothes dryers, 40.1 years for
120V compact clothes dryers, 38.2 years
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 49.5
years for gas clothes dryers, 26.9 years
for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and
22.4 years for combination washer/
dryers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing an LCC benefit is 19
percent for electric standard clothes
dryers, 5 percent for 120V compact
clothes dryers, 5 percent for 240V
compact clothes dryers, 4 percent for
gas clothes dryers, 12 percent for
ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 18
percent for combination washer/dryers.
The fraction of consumers experiencing
an LCC cost is 81 percent for electric
standard clothes dryers, 95 percent for
120V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95
percent for gas clothes dryers, 88
percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
and 82 percent for combination washer/
dryers.
At TSL 6, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $303.9
million to a decrease of $730.0 million.
TSL 6 would effectively require heat
pump clothes dryers for all electric
clothes dryer product classes. Changing
all electric models to use heat pump
technology would be extremely
disruptive to current manufacturing
facilities and would require substantial
product and capital conversion costs. In
addition, the large cost increases would
greatly harm manufacturer profitability
if they were unable to earn additional
operating profit on these additional
costs. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the risk
of very large negative impacts if
manufacturers’ expectations concerning
reduced profit margins and large
conversion costs are realized. If the high
end of the range of impacts is reached
as DOE expects, TSL 6 could result in
a net loss of 72.6 percent in INPV to
clothes dryer manufacturers.
DOE concludes that at TSL 6 for
residential clothes dryers, the benefits of
energy savings, generating capacity
reductions, emission reductions, and
the estimated monetary value of the CO2
emissions reductions would be
outweighed by the negative NPV of
consumer benefits, the economic burden
on a significant fraction of consumers
due to the large increases in product
cost, and the conversion costs and profit
margin impacts that could result in a
very large reduction in INPV for the
manufacturers. Consequently, the
Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is
not economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5
would save 1.45 quads of energy, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be ¥$2.60 billion, using
a discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.22
billion, using a discount rate of 3
percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 5 are 70.47 Mt of CO2, 57.26
thousand tons of NOX, and 0.188 tons of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 5
ranges from $351 million to $5,626
million. Total generating capacity in
2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.27
GW under TSL 5.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is
a cost (LCC increase) of $30 for electric
standard clothes dryers, a cost of $99 for
120V compact clothes dryers, a cost of
$99 for 240V compact clothes dryers, a
cost of $100 for gas clothes dryers, a cost
of $42 for ventless 240V clothes dryers,
and a savings of $73 for combination
washer/dryers. The median payback
period is 19.1 years for electric standard
clothes dryers, 36.1 years for 120V
compact clothes dryers, 45.1 years for
240V compact clothes dryers, 49.5 years
for gas clothes dryers, 25.3 years for
ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 5.3
years for combination washer/dryers.
The fraction of consumers experiencing
an LCC benefit is 24 percent for electric
standard clothes dryers, 5 percent for
120V compact clothes dryers, 3 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 4
percent for gas clothes dryers, 8 percent
for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 79
percent for combination washer/dryers.
The fraction of consumers experiencing
an LCC cost is 75 percent for electric
standard clothes dryers, 95 percent for
120V compact clothes dryers, 93 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95
percent for gas clothes dryers, 92
percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers,
and 21 percent for combination washer/
dryers.
At TSL 5, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $176.5
million to a decrease of $397.4 million.
While most changes at TSL 5 could be
made within existing product design,
redesigning units to the most efficient
technologies on the market today would
take considerable capital and product
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
22328
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
conversion costs. At TSL 5, DOE
recognizes the risk of very large negative
impacts if manufacturers are not able to
earn additional operating profit from the
additional production costs to reach
TSL 5. If the high end of the range of
impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL
5 could result in a net loss of 39.6
percent in INPV to clothes dryer
manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL
5 for residential clothes dryers, the
benefits of energy savings, generating
capacity reductions, emission
reductions, and the estimated monetary
value of the CO2 emissions reductions
would be outweighed by the negative
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic
burden on a significant fraction of
consumers due to the large increases in
product cost, and the conversion costs
and profit margin impacts that could
result in a large reduction in INPV for
the manufacturers. Consequently, the
Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is
not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4
would save 0.39 quads of energy, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $1.08 billion, using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $3.01
billion, using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 4 are 18.67 Mt of CO2, 15.14
thousand tons of NOX, and 0.051 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4
ranges from $93 million to $1,490
million. Total generating capacity in
2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.345
GW under TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE projects that the
average LCC impact is a savings (LCC
decrease) of $14 for electric standard
clothes dryers, a savings of $14 for
120Vcompact clothes dryers, a savings
of $8 for 240V compact clothes dryers,
a savings of $2 for gas clothes dryers,
and no change for ventless 240V clothes
dryers and combination washer/dryers.
The median payback period is 5.3 years
for electric standard clothes dryers, 0.9
years for 120V compact clothes dryers,
0.9 years for 240V compact clothes
dryers, 11.7 years for gas clothes dryers,
and is not applicable for ventless 240V
clothes dryers and combination washer/
dryers.3 The fraction of consumers
experiencing an LCC benefit is 56
percent for electric standard clothes
dryers, 96 percent for 120V compact
clothes dryers, 56 percent for 240V
compact clothes dryers, 26 percent for
gas clothes dryers, zero percent for
ventless 240V clothes dryers, and zero
percent for combination washer/dryers.
The fraction of consumers experiencing
an LCC cost is 19 percent for electric
standard clothes dryers, 4 percent for
120V compact clothes dryers, 2 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 32
percent for gas clothes dryers, zero
percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers,
and zero percent for combination
washer/dryers.
At TSL 4, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $64.5
million to a decrease of $80.6 million.
The design changes required at TSL 4
for the most common standard-size gas
and electric products are incremental
improvements that are well known in
the industry but would still require
moderate product and capital
conversion costs to implement. At TSL
4, DOE recognizes the risk of negative
impacts if manufacturers’ expectations
concerning reduced profit margins are
realized. If the high end of the range of
impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL
4 could result in a net loss of 8.0 percent
in INPV to clothes dryer manufacturers.
DOE concludes that at TSL 4 for
residential clothes dryers, the benefits of
energy savings, generating capacity
reductions, emission reductions and the
estimated monetary value of the CO2
emissions reductions, and positive NPV
of consumer benefits outweigh the
economic burden on some consumers
due to the increases in product cost and
the profit margin impacts that could
result in a reduction in INPV for the
manufacturers.
In addition, the efficiency levels in
TSL 4 correspond to the recommended
levels in the consensus agreement,
which DOE believes sets forth a
statement by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points
of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates) and
contains recommendations with respect
to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged
the submission of consensus agreements
as a way to get diverse stakeholders
together, to develop an independent and
probative analysis useful in DOE
standard setting, and to expedite the
rulemaking process. DOE also believes
that standard levels recommended in
the consensus agreement may increase
the likelihood for regulatory
compliance, while decreasing the risk of
litigation.
After considering the analysis,
comments on the preliminary TSD, and
the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE
concludes that this trial standard level
will offer the maximum improvement in
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and
will result in the significant
conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE
today adopts TSL 4 for clothes dryers.
The proposed energy conservation
standards for clothes dryers, expressed
as combined energy factor (CEF) in
pounds (lb) per kilowatt-hour (kWh), are
shown in Table II.3.
TABLE II.3—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CLOTHES DRYERS
Residential clothes dryers
Minimum CEF
levels
lb/kWh
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Product class
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) ............................................................................................................
Vented Electric, Compact (120 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) ................................................................................................
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) ................................................................................................
Vented Gas ................................................................................................................................................................................
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) ..............................................................................................
Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer ...........................................................................................................................
3 For these product classes, the efficiency level at
TSL 4 is the same as the baseline efficiency level,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
so no consumers are impacted and therefore
calculation of a payback period is not applicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
3.73
3.61
3.27
3.30
2.55
2.08
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Room Air Conditioners
Table II.4 and Table II.5 present a
summary of the quantitative impacts
22329
estimated for each TSL for room air
conditioners. The efficiency levels
contained in each TSL are described in
section V.A of the direct final rule.
TABLE II.4—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
National Energy Savings (quads) ............
NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion):
3% discount rate ...............................
7% discount rate ...............................
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (million metric tons) ..................
NOX (thousand tons) ........................
Hg (ton) .............................................
Value of Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (2009$ million) * ........................
NOX—3% discount rate (2009$ million) ................................................
NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ million) ................................................
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ..
Employment Impacts:
Total Potential Changes in Domestic
Production Workers in 2014
(thousands) ...................................
Indirect
Domestic
Jobs
(thousands) ** ................................
0.105
0.205
0.218
0.305
0.477
0.665
0.75
0.35
1.30
0.57
1.51
0.71
1.47
0.57
1.46
0.33
(5.62)
(4.44)
9.83
8.02
0.012
11.9
9.69
0.015
12.5
10.2
0.017
17.4
14.2
0.022
26.9
21.9
0.032
37.7
30.7
0.044
43 to 648
52 to 790
55 to 826
77 to 1164
118 to 1803
166 to 2541
2.34 to 24.0
2.83 to 29.1
2.99 to 30.7
4.16 to 42.7
6.40 to 65.8
8.96 to 92.1
1.25 to 12.9
0.348
1.50 to 15.4
0.429
1.61 to 16.6
0.436
2.2 to 22.6
0.632
3.35 to 34.4
1.01
4.64 to 47.7
1.46
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.74
0.73
0.74
1.16
1.94
3.07
Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2043.
TABLE II.5—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND
MANUFACTURER IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
(111.3) to
(177.6)
(11.6) to (18.6)
(86.6) to
(184.4)
(9.1) to (19.3)
(80.2) to
(344.5)
(8.4) to (36.0)
$7
22
6
1
13
11
$7
22
0
0
20
11
($58)
(38)
(214)
(227)
(66)
(64)
8.6
2.8
4.3
10.1
2.1
3.7
8.6
7.1
n/a
n/a
4.9
3.7
20.9
14.7
73.8
107.7
25.2
25.9
Manufacturer Impacts
Industry NPV (2009$ million) ...................
(44.2) to (84.9)
Industry NPV (% change) ........................
(4.6) to (8.9)
(65.4) to
(112.7)
(6.8) to (11.8)
(65.7) to
(112.4)
(6.9) to (11.8)
Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$)
< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers .....................
8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers ...........
20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers .........
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers ...................
8,000–10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers ......
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers ..............
$9
16
6
1
4
5
$11
16
6
1
4
5
$9
22
0
0
13
11
Consumer Median PBP (years) **
< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers .....................
8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers ...........
20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers .........
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers ...................
8,000–10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers ......
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers ..............
4.1
0.0
4.3
10.3
1.5
2.6
5.8
0.0
4.3
10.3
1.5
2.6
4.1
2.8
n/a
n/a
2.1
3.7
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
21%
31%
48%
33%
31%
37%
21%
31%
48%
65%
1%
34%
65%
1%
34%
90%
0%
10%
9%
60%
30%
9%
60%
30%
34%
2%
64%
34%
2%
64%
56%
1%
43%
77%
0%
22%
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
22330
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.5—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: CONSUMER AND
MANUFACTURER IMPACTS—Continued
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
8,000–10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers:
Net Cost (%) .....................................
No Impact (%) ...................................
Net Benefit (%) .................................
5%
85%
10%
5%
85%
10%
0%
0%
0%
5%
85%
10%
0%
0%
0%
98%
2%
0%
11%
85%
4%
11%
85%
4%
0%
0%
0%
9%
88%
4%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
1%
90%
9%
1%
90%
9%
12%
25%
62%
12%
25%
62%
38%
6%
56%
92%
2%
6%
2%
90%
8%
2%
90%
8%
23%
31%
47%
23%
31%
47%
23%
31%
47%
93%
0%
7%
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.
* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a
payback period is not applicable.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which
represents the max-tech efficiency
levels. TSL 6 would save 0.665 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be ¥$4.44
billion, using a discount rate of 7
percent, and ¥$5.62 billion, using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 6 are 37.7 Mt of CO2, 30.7
thousand tons of NOX, and 0.044 tons of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 6
ranges from $166 million to $2,541
million. Total generating capacity in
2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.46
GW under TSL 6.
At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is
a cost (LCC increase) of $58 for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; a cost of $38 for room air
conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; a cost of $214 for room air
conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; a cost of $227 for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; a cost of $66 for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and a cost of $64 for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers. The median payback
period is 20.9 years for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; 14.7 years for room air
conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; 73.8 years for room air
conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; 107.7 years for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; 25.2 years for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and 25.9 years for room
air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
louvers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing an LCC benefit is 10
percent for room air conditioners
< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 22 percent
for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999
Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners 20,000–24,999
Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h,
with louvers; 6 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and 7 percent for room
air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without
louvers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing an LCC cost is 90 percent
for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h,
with louvers; 77 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; 98 percent for room air
conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; 100 percent for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; 92 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and 93 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers.
At TSL 6, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $80.2
million to a decrease of $344.5 million.
At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the risk of
large negative impacts if manufacturers’
expectations concerning reduced profit
margins are realized. If the high end of
the range of impacts is reached as DOE
expects, TSL 6 could result in a net loss
of 36.0 percent in INPV to room air
conditioner manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL
6 for room air conditioners, the benefits
of energy savings, generating capacity
reductions, emission reductions, and
the estimated monetary value of the CO2
emissions reductions would be
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
outweighed by the negative NPV of
consumer benefits, the economic burden
on a significant fraction of consumers
due to the large increases in product
cost, and the capital conversion costs
and profit margin impacts that could
result in a large reduction in INPV for
the manufacturers. Consequently, the
Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is
not economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5
would save 0.477 quads of energy, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $0.33 billion, using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.46
billion, using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 5 are 26.9 Mt of CO2, 21.9
thousand tons of NOX, and 0.032 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 5
ranges from $118 million to $1,803
million. Total generating capacity in
2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.01
GW under TSL 5.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is
a savings (LCC decrease) of $7 for room
air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; a savings of $22 for room air
conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; a savings of $0 for room air
conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; a savings of $0 for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; a savings of $20 for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and a savings of $11 for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers. The median payback
period is 8.6 years for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; 7.1 years for room air
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; not applicable for room air
conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with
louvers or for room air conditioners
> 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 4 4.9 years
for room air conditioners 8,000–10,999
Btu/h, without louvers; and 3.7 years for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit
is 34 percent for room air conditioners
< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 43 percent
for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999
Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners 20,000–24,999
Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h,
with louvers; 56 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and 47 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is
65 percent for room air conditioners
< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 56 percent
for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999
Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners 20,000–24,999
Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h,
with louvers; 38 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and 23 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers.
At TSL 5, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $86.6
million to a decrease of $184.4 million.
At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the risk of
moderately negative impacts if
manufacturers’ expectations concerning
reduced profit margins are realized. If
the high end of the range of impacts is
reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could
result in a net loss of 19.3 percent in
INPV to room air conditioner
manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL
5 for room air conditioners, the benefits
of energy savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, generating capacity
reductions, emission reductions, and
the estimated monetary value of the CO2
emissions reductions would be
outweighed by the economic burden on
a significant fraction of consumers in
some product classes due to the large
increases in product cost, and the
capital conversion costs and profit
margin impacts that could result in a
moderate reduction in INPV for the
manufacturers. In particular, the
fraction of consumers experiencing an
LCC cost is 56 percent for room air
4 In these cases the standard level is the same as
the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are
impacted and therefore calculation of a payback
period is not applicable.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
conditioners with 8,000–13,999 Btu/h,
with louvers, which is the product class
with the largest market share. Based on
the above findings, the Secretary has
concluded that TSL 5 is not
economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4
would save 0.305 quads of energy, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $0.57 billion, using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.47
billion, using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 4 are 17.4 Mt of CO2, 14.2
thousand tons of NOX, and 0.022 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4
ranges from $77 million to $1,164
million. Total generating capacity in
2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.632
GW under TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE projects that the
average LCC impact is a savings (LCC
decrease) of $7 for room air conditioners
< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of
$22 for room air conditioners 8,000–
13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of
$6 for room air conditioners 20,000–
24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of
$1 for room air conditioners > 25,000
Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $13 for
room air conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/
h, without louvers; and a savings of $11
for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/
h, without louvers. The median payback
period is 8.6 years for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; 2.8 years for room air
conditioners 8,000–13,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; 4.3 years for room air
conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h, with
louvers; 10.1 years for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; 2.1 years for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and 3.7 years for room
air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without
louvers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing an LCC benefit is 34
percent for room air conditioners
< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 64 percent
for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999
Btu/h, with louvers; 10 percent for room
air conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h,
with louvers; 4 percent for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; 62 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and 47 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is
65 percent for room air conditioners
< 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 34 percent
for room air conditioners 8,000–13,999
Btu/h, with louvers; 5 percent for room
air conditioners 20,000–24,999 Btu/h,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22331
with louvers; 9 percent for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; 12 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000–10,999 Btu/h,
without louvers; and 23 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers.
At TSL 4, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $111.3
million to a decrease of $177.6 million.
DOE recognizes the risk of moderately
negative impacts if manufacturers’
expectations concerning reduced profit
margins are realized. If the high end of
the range of impacts is reached as DOE
expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss
of 18.6 percent in INPV to room air
conditioner manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL
4 for room air conditioners, the benefits
of energy savings, generating capacity
reductions, emission reductions and the
estimated monetary value of the CO2
emissions reductions, positive NPV of
consumer benefits and positive average
consumer LCC savings outweigh the
economic burden on some consumers (a
significant fraction for one product class
but small to moderate fractions for the
other product classes) due to the
increases in product cost, and the
capital conversion costs and profit
margin impacts that could result in a
moderate reduction in INPV for the
manufacturers.
In addition, the efficiency levels in
TSL 4 correspond to the recommended
levels in the consensus agreement,
which DOE believes sets forth a
statement by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points
of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates) and
contains recommendations with respect
to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged
the submission of consensus agreements
as a way to get diverse stakeholders
together, to develop an independent and
probative analysis useful in DOE
standard setting, and to expedite the
rulemaking process. DOE also believes
that standard levels recommended in
the consensus agreement may increase
the likelihood for regulatory
compliance, while decreasing the risk of
litigation.
After considering the analysis,
comments on the preliminary TSD, and
the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE
concludes preliminarily that this trial
standard level would offer the
maximum improvement in efficiency
that is technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in the significant conservation of
energy. Therefore, DOE proposes to
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
22332
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
adopt TSL 4 for room air conditioners.
The proposed energy conservation
standards for room air conditioners,
expressed as combined energy
efficiency ratio (CEER) in Btu per watthour (Wh), are shown in Table II.6.
TABLE II.6—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
Room air conditioners
Minimum CEER
levels
Btu/Wh
Product class
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h ...................................................................................
2. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h ....................................................................................
3. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h ..................................................................................
4. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h ................................................................................
5a. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 to 24,999 Btu/h ..............................................................................
5b. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 25,000 Btu/h or more .................................................................................
6. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h ..............................................................................
7. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h ...............................................................................
8a. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h ...........................................................................
8b. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h .........................................................................
9. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h ...........................................................................
10. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more ............................................................................
11. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 20,000 Btu/h ....................................................................................
12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 14,000 Btu/h ...............................................................................
13. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more ......................................................................................
14. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 Btu/h or more .................................................................................
15. Casement-only .........................................................................................................................................................................
16. Casement-slider .......................................................................................................................................................................
11.0
11.0
10.9
10.7
9.4
9.0
10.0
10.0
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.4
9.8
9.3
9.3
8.7
9.5
10.4
C. Summary of Benefits and Costs
(Annualized) of the Standards
The benefits and costs of today’s
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The annualized
monetary values are the sum of (1) the
annualized national economic value,
expressed in 2009$, of the benefits from
operating products that meet the
proposed standards (consisting
primarily of operating cost savings from
using less energy, minus increases in
equipment purchase costs, which is
another way of representing consumer
NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the
benefits of emission reductions,
including CO2 emission reductions.5
The value of the CO2 reductions,
otherwise known as the Social Cost of
Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a
range of values per metric ton of CO2
developed by a recent interagency
process. The monetary costs and
benefits of cumulative emissions
reductions are reported in 2009$ to
permit comparisons with the other costs
and benefits in the same dollar units.
Although combining the values of
operating savings and CO2 reductions
provides a useful perspective, two
issues should be considered. First, the
national operating savings are domestic
U.S. consumer monetary savings that
occur as a result of market transactions
while the value of CO2 reductions is
based on a global value. Second, the
assessments of operating cost savings
and CO2 savings are performed with
different methods that use quite
different time frames for analysis. The
national operating cost savings is
measured for the lifetime of products
shipped in 2014–2043. The SCC values,
on the other hand, reflect the present
value of future climate-related impacts
resulting from the emission of one ton
of carbon dioxide in each year. These
impacts go well beyond 2100.
Table II.7 and Table II.8 show the
annualized values for clothes dryers and
room air conditioners, respectively.
Using a 7-percent discount rate and the
SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in
2009$), the cost of the standards for
clothes dryers in today’s rule is $52.3
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the annualized benefits are
$139.1 million per year in reduced
equipment operating costs, $25.0
million in CO2 reductions, and $0.9
million in reduced NOX emissions. In
this case, the net benefit amounts to
$112.7 million per year. Using a
3-percent discount rate and the SCC
value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$),
the cost of the standards for clothes
dryers in today’s rule is $55.4 million
per year in increased equipment costs,
while the benefits are $209.1 million per
year in reduced operating costs, $25.0
million in CO2 reductions, and $1.4
million in reduced NOX emissions. In
this case, the net benefit amounts to
$180.1 million per year.
Using a 7-percent discount rate and
the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in
2009$), the cost of the standards for
room air conditioners in today’s rule is
$107.7 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the annualized
benefits are $153.7 million per year in
reduced equipment operating costs,
$19.5 million in CO2 reductions, and
$0.999 million in reduced NOX
emissions. In this case, the net benefit
amounts to $66.4 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate and the
SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in
2009$), the cost of the standards for
room air conditioners in today’s rule is
$111.0 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the benefits are
$186.2 million per year in reduced
operating costs, $19.5 million in CO2
reductions, and $1.20 million in
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the
net benefit amounts to $95.9 million per
year.
5 DOE used a two-step calculation process to
convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present
value in 2011, the year used for discounting the
NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the
time-series of costs and benefits using discount
rates of three and seven percent for all costs and
benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For
the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as
shown in Table II.7. From the present value, DOE
then calculated the fixed annual payment over a
30-year period, starting in 2011, that yields the
same present value. The fixed annual payment is
the annualized value. Although DOE calculated
annualized values, this does not imply that the
time-series of costs and benefits from which the
annualized values were determined would be a
steady stream of payments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
22333
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.7—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 4) FOR CLOTHES DRYERS SOLD IN
2014–2043
Monetized (million 2009$/year)
Discount rate
Primary estimate *
Low estimate *
High estimate *
120.6
177.4
6.0
25.0
39.8
76.0
0.9
1.4
127.6 to 197.6
146.5
203.7
184.8 to 254.8
158.3
241.3
6.0
25.0
39.8
76.0
0.9
1.4
165.3 to 235.3
184.3
267.6
248.7 to 318.7
48.8
51.2
55.9
59.6
78.7 to 148.7
97.7
152.5
133.6 to 203.6
109.4 to 179.4
128.3
208.1
189.1 to 259.1
Benefits
Operating Cost Savings ...................
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t ** ...............
CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t ** .............
CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t ** .............
CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t ** .............
NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton ** ......
Total † .......................................
7%
3%
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
7%
3%
7% plus CO2 range
7%
3%
3% plus CO2 range
139.1
209.1
6.0
25.0
39.8
76.0
0.9
1.4
146.1 to 216.1
165.0
235.4
216.5 to 286.5
Costs
Incremental Product Costs ..............
7%
3%
52.3
55.4
Total Net Benefits
Total † .......................................
7% plus CO2 range
7%
3%
3% plus CO2 range
93.7 to 163.7
112.7
180.1
161.1 to 231.1
* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9,
$22.1, and $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for
NOX (in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.
† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is
$22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are
calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.
TABLE II.8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 4) FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS SOLD
IN 2014–2043
Monetized (million 2009$/year)
Discount rate
Primary estimate *
Low estimate *
High estimate *
145.1
174.2
5.0
19.5
30.7
59.4
0.999
1.197
151.1 to 205.5
165.5
194.9
180.4 to 234.8
161.9
197.3
5.0
19.5
30.7
59.4
0.999
1.197
167.9 to 222.3
182.4
218.0
203.5 to 257.9
107.7
111.0
107.7
111.0
43.4 to 97.8
57.8
83.9
60.2 to 114.6
74.7
107.0
Benefits
Operating Cost Savings ...................
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t ** ...............
CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t ** .............
CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t ** .............
CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t ** .............
NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton ** ......
Total † .......................................
7%
3%
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
7%
3%
7% plus CO2 range
7%
3%
3% plus CO2 range
153.7
186.2
5.0
19.5
30.7
59.4
0.999
1.197
159.6 to 214.0
174.1
206.8
192.3 to 246.7
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Costs
Incremental Product Costs ..............
7%
3%
107.7
111.0
Total Net Benefits
Total † .......................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
7% plus CO2 range
7%
3%
PO 00000
Frm 00010
51.9 to 106.3
66.4
95.9
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
22334
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 4) FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS SOLD
IN 2014–2043—Continued
Monetized (million 2009$/year)
Discount rate
Primary estimate *
3% plus CO2 range
Low estimate *
High estimate *
81.4 to 135.8
69.4 to 123.8
92.5 to 146.9
* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9,
$22.1, and $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for
NOX (in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.
† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is
$22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are
calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule until the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information
using any of the methods described in
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this notice.
Submitting comments via
regulations.gov. The regulations.gov
web page will require you to provide
your name and contact information.
Your contact information will be
viewable to DOE Building Technologies
staff only. Your contact information will
not be publicly viewable except for your
first and last names, organization name
(if any), and submitter representative
name (if any). If your comment is not
processed properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
regulations.gov cannot be claimed as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section below.
DOE processes submissions made
through regulations.gov before posting.
Normally, comments will be posted
within a few days of being submitted.
However, if large volumes of comments
are being processed simultaneously,
your comment may not be viewable for
up to several weeks. Please keep the
comment tracking number that
regulations.gov provides after you have
successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via e-mail,
hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery, or mail also
will be posted to regulations.gov. If you
do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do
not include it in your comment or any
accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a
cover letter. Include your first and last
names, e-mail address, telephone
number, and optional mailing address.
The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include
any comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. E-mail
submissions are preferred. If you submit
via mail or hand delivery/courier,
please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible. It is not necessary to submit
printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes)
will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential business information.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit via e-mail, postal mail, or
hand delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
non-confidential with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via e-mail or
on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its
own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include:
(1) A description of the items;
(2) whether and why such items are
customarily treated as confidential
within the industry; (3) whether the
information is generally known by or
available from other sources; (4)
whether the information has previously
been made available to others without
obligation concerning its
confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting
person which would result from public
disclosure; (6) when such information
might lose its confidential character due
to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be
contrary to the public interest.
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
22335
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
Register. Please see the direct final rule
for further details.
B. Public Meeting
As stated previously, if DOE
withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in today’s Federal
Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public
meeting to allow for additional
comment on this proposed rule. DOE
will publish notice of any meeting in
the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for
this proposed rule are identical to those
conducted for the direct final rule
published elsewhere in today’s Federal
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of today’s proposed rule.
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Small
businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8,
2011.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Office of Technology
Development, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Revise § 430.32 paragraphs (b) and
(h) to read as follows:
§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation
standards and effective dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Room air conditioners.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend
Product class
Energy efficiency
ratio, effective
from Oct. 1, 2000
to April 20, 2014
Combined energy
efficiency ratio, effective as of
April 21, 2014
1. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h .................................................
2. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h ..................................................
3. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h ................................................
4. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h ..............................................
5a. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 to 24,999 Btu/h ............................................
5b. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 25,000 Btu/h or more ...............................................
6. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 6,000 Btu/h ............................................
7. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h .............................................
8a. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h .........................................
8b. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h .......................................
9. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h .........................................
10. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more ..........................................
11. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less than 20,000 Btu/h ..................................................
12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and less than 14,000 Btu/h .............................................
13. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h or more ....................................................
14. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 14,000 Btu/h or more ...............................................
15. Casement-Only ......................................................................................................................................
16. Casement-Slider ....................................................................................................................................
9.7
9.7
9.8
9.7
8.5
..............................
9.0
9.0
8.5
..............................
8.5
8.5
9.0
8.5
8.5
8.0
8.7
9.5
11.0
11.0
10.9
10.7
9.4
9.0
10.0
10.0
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.4
9.8
9.3
9.3
8.7
9.5
10.4
*
*
*
*
(h) Clothes dryers. (1) Gas clothes
dryers manufactured after January 1,
1988 shall not be equipped with a
constant burning pilot.
(2) Clothes dryers manufactured on or
after May 14, 1994 and before [DATE 3
YEARS AFTER FINAL RULE FEDERAL
REGISTER PUBLICATION], shall have
an energy factor no less than:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
Product class
Energy factor
(lbs/kWh)
i. Electric, Standard (4.4
ft3 or greater capacity)
ii. Electric, Compact
(120V) (less than 4.4
ft3 capacity) .................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Apr 20, 2011
Energy factor
(lbs/kWh)
Product class
iii. Electric, Compact
(240V) (less than 4.4
ft3 capacity) .................
iv. Gas ............................
(3) Clothes dryers manufactured on or
after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER FINAL
RULE FEDERAL REGISTER
PUBLICATION], shall have a combined
energy factor no less than:
Combined energy
factor
(lbs/kWh)
Product class
3.01
3.13
Jkt 223001
2.90
2.67
i. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater
capacity) ......................
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Combined energy
factor
(lbs/kWh)
Product class
ii. Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than
4.4 ft3 capacity) ...........
iii. Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than
4.4 ft3 capacity) ...........
iv. Vented Gas ................
v. Ventless Electric,
Compact (240V) (less
than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ...
vi. Ventless Electric,
Combination WasherDryer ...........................
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–9041 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am]
3.73
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
3.61
3.27
3.30
2.55
2.08
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22324-22335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9041]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 22324]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010]
RIN 1904-AA89
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes
energy conservation standards for various consumer products and
commercial and industrial equipment, including residential clothes
dryers and room air conditioners. EPCA also requires the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) to determine if amended standards for these
products are technologically feasible and economically justified, and
would save a significant amount of energy. In this proposed rule, DOE
proposes energy efficiency standards for residential clothes dryers and
room air conditioners identical to those set forth in a direct final
rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. If DOE receives
adverse comment and determines that such comment may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE will
publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and will proceed with this
proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the
proposed standards no later than August 9, 2011.
ADDRESSES: See section III, ``Public Participation,'' for details. If
DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of
any meeting in the Federal Register.
Any comments submitted must identify the proposed rule for Energy
Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air
Conditioners, and provide docket number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010 and/or
regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AA89. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: home_appliance2.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. Include the
docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed
copies.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see section III of this document
(Public Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Not all documents listed in the index may be
publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public
disclosure. A link to the docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to submit or review public comments
or view hard copies of the docket in the Resource Room, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or e-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-
7463, e-mail: stephen.witkowski@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121, (202) 586-7796, e-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Legal Authority
II. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Clothes Dryers
B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Room Air
Conditioners
C. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction and Legal Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part B of title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309)
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
other than Automobiles.\1\ The program covers consumer products and
certain commercial equipment (referred to hereafter as ``covered
products''), including clothes dryers and room air conditioners (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(2) and (8)), and EPCA prescribes energy conservation
standards for certain clothes dryers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)) and for
room air conditioners (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(1)). EPCA further directs DOE
to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend
these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(2) and (g)(4)) This rulemaking
represents the second round of amendments to both the clothes dryer and
room air conditioner standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was re-designated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that this rulemaking is one of the required agency
actions in the consolidated Consent Decree in State of New York, et al.
v. Bodman et al., 05 Civ. 7807 (LAP), and Natural Resources Defense
Council, et al. v. Bodman, et al., 05 Civ. 7808 (LAP), DOE is required
to
[[Page 22325]]
complete a final rule for amended energy conservation standards for
room air conditioners and clothes dryers that must be sent to the
Federal Register by June 30, 2011.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub.
L. 110-140) amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to
issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a ``direct final rule'')
establishing an energy conservation standard for a covered product on
receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary, that contains
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). EPCA also
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an
identical energy efficiency standard be published simultaneously with
the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of
at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Not later
than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if one or more
adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation are received
relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether
the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable
basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.
If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the
direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published notice
of proposed rulemaking. DOE must also publish in the Federal Register
the reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn. Id.
In response to the preliminary analysis conducted during DOE's
consideration of amended standards for room air conditioners and
clothes dryers, 75 FR 7987 (Feb. 23, 2010), DOE received the
``Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances,
Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances''
(hereinafter, the ``Joint Petition'') \2\, a comment submitted by
groups representing manufacturers (the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General
Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home
Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-
Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele,
Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell
Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch,
Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards
Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE),
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer groups (Consumer
Federation of America (CFA) and the National Consumer Law Center
(NCLC)) (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners''). The Joint
Petitioners recommended specific energy conservation standards for
residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners that they believed
would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010, Comment 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has considered the recommended energy conservation standards
and believes that they meet the EPCA requirements for issuance of a
direct final rule. As a result, DOE has published a direct final rule
establishing energy conservation standards for clothes dryers and room
air conditioners elsewhere in today's Federal Register. If DOE receives
adverse comments that may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal and
withdraws the direct final rule, DOE will consider those comments and
any other comments received in determining how to proceed with today's
proposed rule.
For further background information on these proposed standards and
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. That document includes
additional discussion on the EPCA requirements for promulgation of
energy conservation standards, the current standards for room air
conditioners and clothes dryers, and the history of the standards
rulemakings establishing such standards, as well as information on the
test procedures used to measure the energy efficiency of clothes dryers
and room air conditioners. The document also contains an in-depth
discussion of the analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking, the
methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the analytical
results.
II. Proposed Standards
When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of
covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining
whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine
whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to the greatest
extent practicable, in light of the seven statutory factors set forth
in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must
also result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))
The Department considered the impacts of standards at each trial
standard level considered by DOE, beginning with maximum
technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was
economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not economically
justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and
undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency
level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified
and saves a significant amount of energy.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and burdens of each
trial standard level, DOE has included tables that present a summary of
the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each trial standard
level (TSL). In addition to the quantitative results presented in the
tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect
economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable
subgroups of consumers, such as low-income households and seniors, who
may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section
V.B.1 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these
subgroups.
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Clothes Dryers
Table II.1 and Table II.2 present a summary of the quantitative
impacts estimated for each TSL for clothes dryers. The efficiency
levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct
final rule.
[[Page 22326]]
Table II.1--Summary of Results for Clothes Dryer Trial Standard Levels: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings (quads).................. 0.00 0.062 0.37 0.39 1.45 3.14
NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion):
3% discount rate............................. 0.00 0.62 3.00 3.01 0.22 (1.53)
7% discount rate............................. 0.01 0.25 1.10 1.08 (2.60) (6.72)
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (million metric tons).................... 0.119 2.99 17.75 18.67 70.47 186.6
NOX (thousand tons).......................... 0.097 2.41 14.26 15.14 57.26 151.3
Hg (ton)..................................... 0.000 0.009 0.053 0.051 0.188 0.569
Value of Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (2009$ million) *........................ 1 to 10 15 to 239 88 to 1,417 93 to 1,490 351 to 5,626 929 to 14,902
NOX--3% discount rate (2009 million)......... 0.031 to 0.314 0.759 to 7.8 4.49 to 46.2 4.77 to 49.0 18.0 to 185 47.6 to 490
NOX--7% discount rate (2009$ million)........ 0.013 to 0.136 0.328 to 3.37 1.94 to 20.0 2.06 to 21.2 7.8 to 80.2 20.6 to 212
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **............ 0.002 0.060 0.358 0.345 1.27 2.27
Employment Impacts:
Total Potential Change in Domestic Production 0.00 to (3.96) 0.00 to (3.96) 0.41 to (3.96) 0.46 to (3.96) 1.08 to (3.96) 2.26 to (3.96)
Workers in 2014 (thousands).................
Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) **............ 0.01 0.01 1.82 1.75 4.25 9.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2043.
Table II.2--Summary of Results for Clothes Dryer Trial Standard Levels: Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2009$ million)...................... (2.5) to (2.5) (3.6) to (4.9) (41.1) to (64.5) to (176.5) to (303.9) to
(55.5) (80.6) (397.4) (730.0)
Industry NPV (% change)........................... (0.3) to (0.3) (0.4) to (0.5) (4.1) to (5.5) (6.4) to (8.0) (17.6) to (30.3) to
(39.6) (72.7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard................................. $0 $2 $14 $14 ($30) ($146)
Compact 120V...................................... $0 $14 $14 $14 ($99) ($264)
Compact 240V...................................... $0 $8 $8 $8 ($99) ($246)
Gas............................................... $0 $2 $2 $2 ($100) ($100)
Ventless 240V..................................... $0 $20 $20 $0 ($42) ($177)
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer................. $0 $73 $73 $0 $73 ($166)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Median PBP (years) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard................................. 3.9 0.2 5.3 5.3 19.1 22.1
Compact 120V...................................... n/a 0.9 0.9 0.9 36.1 40.1
Compact 240V...................................... 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 45.1 38.2
Gas............................................... 2.2 0.5 0.5 11.7 49.5 49.5
Ventless 240V..................................... n/a 0.9 0.9 n/a 25.3 26.9
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer................. n/a 5.3 5.3 n/a 5.3 22.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard:
Net Cost (%).................................. 1% 0% 19% 19% 75% 81%
No Impact (%)................................. 98% 79% 25% 25% 1% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 2% 21% 56% 56% 24% 19%
Compact 120V:
Net Cost (%).................................. 0% 4% 4% 4% 95% 95%
No Impact (%)................................. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 0% 96% 96% 96% 5% 5%
Compact 240V:
Net Cost (%).................................. 0% 2% 2% 2% 93% 95%
No Impact (%)................................. 100% 41% 41% 41% 4% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 0% 56% 56% 56% 3% 5%
Gas:
Net Cost (%).................................. 1% 0% 0% 32% 95% 95%
No Impact (%)................................. 93% 85% 85% 42% 1% 1%
[[Page 22327]]
Net Benefit (%)............................... 7% 15% 15% 26% 4% 4%
Ventless 240V:
Net Cost (%).................................. 0% 0% 0% 0% 92% 88%
No Impact (%)................................. 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 0% 100% 100% 0% 8% 12%
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer:
Net Cost (%).................................. 0% 21% 21% 0% 21% 82%
No Impact (%)................................. 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 0% 79% 79% 0% 79% 18%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a payback
period is not applicable.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. TSL 6 would save 3.14 quads of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefit would
be -$6.72 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$1.53
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 186.6 Mt of
CO2, 151.3 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.569 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 6 ranges from $929 million to $14,902 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 2.27 GW under
TSL 6.
At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $146
for electric standard clothes dryers, a cost of $264 for 120V compact
clothes dryers, a cost of $246 for 240V compact clothes dryers, a cost
of $100 for gas clothes dryers, a cost of $177 for ventless 240V
clothes dryers, and a cost of $166 for combination washer/dryers. The
median payback period is 22.1 years for electric standard clothes
dryers, 40.1 years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 38.2 years for 240V
compact clothes dryers, 49.5 years for gas clothes dryers, 26.9 years
for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 22.4 years for combination
washer/dryers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is
19 percent for electric standard clothes dryers, 5 percent for 120V
compact clothes dryers, 5 percent for 240V compact clothes dryers, 4
percent for gas clothes dryers, 12 percent for ventless 240V clothes
dryers, and 18 percent for combination washer/dryers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 81 percent for electric standard
clothes dryers, 95 percent for 120V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent for gas clothes dryers, 88
percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 82 percent for
combination washer/dryers.
At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$303.9 million to a decrease of $730.0 million. TSL 6 would effectively
require heat pump clothes dryers for all electric clothes dryer product
classes. Changing all electric models to use heat pump technology would
be extremely disruptive to current manufacturing facilities and would
require substantial product and capital conversion costs. In addition,
the large cost increases would greatly harm manufacturer profitability
if they were unable to earn additional operating profit on these
additional costs. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the risk of very large
negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced
profit margins and large conversion costs are realized. If the high end
of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 6 could result
in a net loss of 72.6 percent in INPV to clothes dryer manufacturers.
DOE concludes that at TSL 6 for residential clothes dryers, the
benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of
consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction of
consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a very
large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the
Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5 would save 1.45 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be -$2.60 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent,
and $0.22 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 70.47 Mt of
CO2, 57.26 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.188 tons
of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $351 million to $5,626 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.27 GW under
TSL 5.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $30
for electric standard clothes dryers, a cost of $99 for 120V compact
clothes dryers, a cost of $99 for 240V compact clothes dryers, a cost
of $100 for gas clothes dryers, a cost of $42 for ventless 240V clothes
dryers, and a savings of $73 for combination washer/dryers. The median
payback period is 19.1 years for electric standard clothes dryers, 36.1
years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 45.1 years for 240V compact
clothes dryers, 49.5 years for gas clothes dryers, 25.3 years for
ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 5.3 years for combination washer/
dryers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 24
percent for electric standard clothes dryers, 5 percent for 120V
compact clothes dryers, 3 percent for 240V compact clothes dryers, 4
percent for gas clothes dryers, 8 percent for ventless 240V clothes
dryers, and 79 percent for combination washer/dryers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 75 percent for electric standard
clothes dryers, 95 percent for 120V compact clothes dryers, 93 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent for gas clothes dryers, 92
percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 21 percent for
combination washer/dryers.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$176.5 million to a decrease of $397.4 million. While most changes at
TSL 5 could be made within existing product design, redesigning units
to the most efficient technologies on the market today would take
considerable capital and product
[[Page 22328]]
conversion costs. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the risk of very large
negative impacts if manufacturers are not able to earn additional
operating profit from the additional production costs to reach TSL 5.
If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL
5 could result in a net loss of 39.6 percent in INPV to clothes dryer
manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for residential clothes
dryers, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions,
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction
of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large
reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary
has concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 0.39 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $1.08 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$3.01 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 18.67 Mt of
CO2, 15.14 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.051 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $93 million to $1,490 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.345 GW under
TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average LCC impact is a savings
(LCC decrease) of $14 for electric standard clothes dryers, a savings
of $14 for 120Vcompact clothes dryers, a savings of $8 for 240V compact
clothes dryers, a savings of $2 for gas clothes dryers, and no change
for ventless 240V clothes dryers and combination washer/dryers. The
median payback period is 5.3 years for electric standard clothes
dryers, 0.9 years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 0.9 years for 240V
compact clothes dryers, 11.7 years for gas clothes dryers, and is not
applicable for ventless 240V clothes dryers and combination washer/
dryers.\3\ The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 56
percent for electric standard clothes dryers, 96 percent for 120V
compact clothes dryers, 56 percent for 240V compact clothes dryers, 26
percent for gas clothes dryers, zero percent for ventless 240V clothes
dryers, and zero percent for combination washer/dryers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 19 percent for electric standard
clothes dryers, 4 percent for 120V compact clothes dryers, 2 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 32 percent for gas clothes dryers,
zero percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and zero percent for
combination washer/dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For these product classes, the efficiency level at TSL 4 is
the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are
impacted and therefore calculation of a payback period is not
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$64.5 million to a decrease of $80.6 million. The design changes
required at TSL 4 for the most common standard-size gas and electric
products are incremental improvements that are well known in the
industry but would still require moderate product and capital
conversion costs to implement. At TSL 4, DOE recognizes the risk of
negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced
profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of impacts is
reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 8.0 percent
in INPV to clothes dryer manufacturers.
DOE concludes that at TSL 4 for residential clothes dryers, the
benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission
reductions and the estimated monetary value of the CO2
emissions reductions, and positive NPV of consumer benefits outweigh
the economic burden on some consumers due to the increases in product
cost and the profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in
INPV for the manufacturers.
In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 4 correspond to the
recommended levels in the consensus agreement, which DOE believes sets
forth a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged
the submission of consensus agreements as a way to get diverse
stakeholders together, to develop an independent and probative analysis
useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process.
DOE also believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus
agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while
decreasing the risk of litigation.
After considering the analysis, comments on the preliminary TSD,
and the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes that this trial
standard level will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in
the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today adopts TSL
4 for clothes dryers. The proposed energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers, expressed as combined energy factor (CEF) in pounds
(lb) per kilowatt-hour (kWh), are shown in Table II.3.
Table II.3--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Clothes
Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential clothes dryers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum CEF
Product class levels lb/kWh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft \3\ or greater 3.73
capacity)...........................................
2. Vented Electric, Compact (120 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3.61
\3\ capacity).......................................
3. Vented Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3.27
\3\ capacity).......................................
4. Vented Gas........................................ 3.30
5. Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 2.55
ft \3\ capacity)....................................
6. Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer........ 2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22329]]
B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Room Air Conditioners
Table II.4 and Table II.5 present a summary of the quantitative
impacts estimated for each TSL for room air conditioners. The
efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of
the direct final rule.
Table II.4--Summary of Results for Room Air Conditioner Trial Standard Levels: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings (quads)................... 0.105 0.205 0.218 0.305 0.477 0.665
NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion):
3% discount rate.............................. 0.75 1.30 1.51 1.47 1.46 (5.62)
7% discount rate.............................. 0.35 0.57 0.71 0.57 0.33 (4.44)
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (million metric tons)..................... 9.83 11.9 12.5 17.4 26.9 37.7
NOX (thousand tons)........................... 8.02 9.69 10.2 14.2 21.9 30.7
Hg (ton)...................................... 0.012 0.015 0.017 0.022 0.032 0.044
Value of Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (2009$ million) *......................... 43 to 648 52 to 790 55 to 826 77 to 1164 118 to 1803 166 to 2541
NOX--3% discount rate (2009$ million)......... 2.34 to 24.0 2.83 to 29.1 2.99 to 30.7 4.16 to 42.7 6.40 to 65.8 8.96 to 92.1
NOX--7% discount rate (2009$ million)......... 1.25 to 12.9 1.50 to 15.4 1.61 to 16.6 2.2 to 22.6 3.35 to 34.4 4.64 to 47.7
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **............. 0.348 0.429 0.436 0.632 1.01 1.46
Employment Impacts:
Total Potential Changes in Domestic Production N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Workers in 2014 (thousands)..................
Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) **......... 0.74 0.73 0.74 1.16 1.94 3.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2043.
Table II.5--Summary of Results for Room Air Conditioner Trial Standard Levels: Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2009$ million)...................... (44.2) to (65.4) to (65.7) to (111.3) to (86.6) to (80.2) to
(84.9) (112.7) (112.4) (177.6) (184.4) (344.5)
Industry NPV (% change)........................... (4.6) to (8.9) (6.8) to (11.8) (6.9) to (11.8) (11.6) to (9.1) to (19.3) (8.4) to (36.0)
(18.6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers....................... $9 $11 $9 $7 $7 ($58)
8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers.................. 16 16 22 22 22 (38)
20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers................. 6 6 0 6 0 (214)
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers...................... 1 1 0 1 0 (227)
8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers............... 4 4 13 13 20 (66)
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers................... 5 5 11 11 11 (64)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Median PBP (years) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers....................... 4.1 5.8 4.1 8.6 8.6 20.9
8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers.................. 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 7.1 14.7
20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers................. 4.3 4.3 n/a 4.3 n/a 73.8
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers...................... 10.3 10.3 n/a 10.1 n/a 107.7
8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers............... 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.1 4.9 25.2
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers................... 2.6 2.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 25.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 21% 33% 21% 65% 65% 90%
No Impact (%)................................. 31% 31% 31% 1% 1% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 48% 37% 48% 34% 34% 10%
8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 9% 9% 34% 34% 56% 77%
No Impact (%)................................. 60% 60% 2% 2% 1% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 30% 30% 64% 64% 43% 22%
20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers:
[[Page 22330]]
Net Cost (%).................................. 5% 5% 0% 5% 0% 98%
No Impact (%)................................. 85% 85% 0% 85% 0% 2%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 10% 10% 0% 10% 0% 0%
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 11% 11% 0% 9% 0% 100%
No Impact (%)................................. 85% 85% 0% 88% 0% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 4% 4% 0% 4% 0% 0%
8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 1% 1% 12% 12% 38% 92%
No Impact (%)................................. 90% 90% 25% 25% 6% 2%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 9% 9% 62% 62% 56% 6%
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 2% 2% 23% 23% 23% 93%
No Impact (%)................................. 90% 90% 31% 31% 31% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 8% 8% 47% 47% 47% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a payback
period is not applicable.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. TSL 6 would save 0.665 quads of energy, an amount
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefit
would be -$4.44 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$5.62
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 37.7 Mt of
CO2, 30.7 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.044 tons of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 6 ranges from $166 million to $2,541 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.46 GW under
TSL 6.
At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $58
for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a cost of $38
for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a cost of
$214 for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a
cost of $227 for room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a
cost of $66 for room air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without
louvers; and a cost of $64 for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers. The median payback period is 20.9 years for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 14.7 years for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 73.8 years for room air
conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 107.7 years for room
air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 25.2 years for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 25.9 years for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 10 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 22 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 6 percent for room
air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 7 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 90 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 77 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 98 percent for room air
conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 100 percent for room
air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 92 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 93 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers.
At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$80.2 million to a decrease of $344.5 million. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes
the risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 6 could result in a net
loss of 36.0 percent in INPV to room air conditioner manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 6 for room air conditioners,
the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions,
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction
of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the
capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in
a large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the
Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5 would save 0.477 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $0.33 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$1.46 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 26.9 Mt of
CO2, 21.9 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.032 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $118 million to $1,803 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.01 GW under
TSL 5.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of $7
for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $22
for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings
of $0 for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a
savings of $0 for room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a
savings of $20 for room air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without
louvers; and a savings of $11 for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers. The median payback period is 8.6 years for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 7.1 years for room air
[[Page 22331]]
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; not applicable for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers or for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; \4\ 4.9 years for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 3.7 years for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 34 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 43 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 56 percent for room
air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 47 percent
for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 65 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 56 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 38 percent for room
air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 23 percent
for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In these cases the standard level is the same as the
baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and
therefore calculation of a payback period is not applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$86.6 million to a decrease of $184.4 million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes
the risk of moderately negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could result in a net
loss of 19.3 percent in INPV to room air conditioner manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for room air conditioners,
the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits,
generating capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be
outweighed by the economic burden on a significant fraction of
consumers in some product classes due to the large increases in product
cost, and the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that
could result in a moderate reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. In
particular, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 56
percent for room air conditioners with 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with
louvers, which is the product class with the largest market share.
Based on the above findings, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is
not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 0.305 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $0.57 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$1.47 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 17.4 Mt of
CO2, 14.2 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.022 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $77 million to $1,164 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.632 GW under
TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average LCC impact is a savings
(LCC decrease) of $7 for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; a savings of $22 for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h,
with louvers; a savings of $6 for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999
Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $1 for room air conditioners > 25,000
Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $13 for room air conditioners 8,000-
10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and a savings of $11 for room air
conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The median payback period
is 8.6 years for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 2.8
years for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 4.3
years for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 10.1
years for room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 2.1 years
for room air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 3.7
years for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 34 percent for
room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 64 percent for room
air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 10 percent for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 4 percent for room
air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 62 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 47 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 65 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 34 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 5 percent for room air
conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 9 percent for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 12 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 23 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$111.3 million to a decrease of $177.6 million. DOE recognizes the risk
of moderately negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net
loss of 18.6 percent in INPV to room air conditioner manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for room air conditioners,
the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions,
emission reductions and the estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions, positive NPV of consumer benefits
and positive average consumer LCC savings outweigh the economic burden
on some consumers (a significant fraction for one product class but
small to moderate fractions for the other product classes) due to the
increases in product cost, and the capital conversion costs and profit
margin impacts that could result in a moderate reduction in INPV for
the manufacturers.
In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 4 correspond to the
recommended levels in the consensus agreement, which DOE believes sets
forth a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged
the submission of consensus agreements as a way to get diverse
stakeholders together, to develop an independent and probative analysis
useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process.
DOE also believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus
agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while
decreasing the risk of litigation.
After considering the analysis, comments on the preliminary TSD,
and the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes preliminarily that
this trial standard level would offer the maximum improvement in
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Therefore,
DOE proposes to
[[Page 22332]]
adopt TSL 4 for room air conditioners. The proposed energy conservation
standards for room air conditioners, expressed as combined energy
efficiency ratio (CEER) in Btu per watt-hour (Wh), are shown in Table
II.6.
Table II.6--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air
Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room air conditioners
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum CEER
Product class levels Btu/Wh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 11.0
less than 6,000 Btu/h...............................
2. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 11.0
6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h................................
3. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 10.9
8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h...............................
4. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 10.7
14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h..............................
5a. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 9.4
20,000 to 24,999 Btu/h..............................
5b. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 9.0
25,000 Btu/h or more................................
6. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 10.0
less than 6,000 Btu/h...............................
7. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 10.0
6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h................................
8a. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, 9.6
and 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h...........................
8b. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, 9.5
and 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h..........................
9. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 9.3
14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h..............................
10. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, 9.4
and 20,000 Btu/h or more............................
11. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less 9.8
than 20,000 Btu/h...................................
12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 9.3
less than 14,000 Btu/h..............................
13. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 9.3
20,000 Btu/h or more................................
14. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 8.7
14,000 Btu/h or more................................
15. Casement-only.................................... 9.5
16. Casement-slider.................................. 10.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards
The benefits and costs of today's standards can also be expressed
in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the
sum of (1) the annualized national economic value, expressed in 2009$,
of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed
standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using
less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is
another way of representing co
