Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment, 25622-25648 [2011-10877]
Download as PDF
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25622
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
District 6—The State of Texas.
District 7—The States of Alaska,
Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
Under this realignment: (1) The
Florida counties of Citrus, Flagler,
Hernando, Marion, Putnam, St. Johns
and Sumter are moved from District 1 to
District 2; (2) Alabama, Tennessee, and
Virginia are moved from District 2 to
District 4; (3) Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Oklahoma are moved
from District 2 to District 7; (4) Georgia
counties Early, Baker, Miller, Mitchell,
Colquitt, Thomas, Grady, Decatur, and
Seminole are moved from District 2 to
District 3, (5) South Carolina moved
from District 3 to District 2; (6) Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, and South Dakota are
moved from District 4 to District 7; (7)
Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington are moved from District 5 to
District 7; (8) The following counties in
the State of Texas: Armstrong, Bailey,
Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress,
Cochran, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby,
Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley,
Floyd, Garza, Gray, Hale, Hall,
Hanaford, Hartely, Hemphill, Hockely,
Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lamb,
Lipscomb, Lubbock, Lynn, Moore,
Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer,
Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman,
Stonewall, Swisher, Terry, Wheeler, and
Yoakum are moved from District 7 to
District 6; (9) the following counties in
California: San Bernardino, Riverside,
San Diego, and Imperial are moved from
District 7 to District 5.
Due to the re-alignment of districts,
the following vacancies are created: one
producer vacancy in District 2; one
handler vacancy in District 3, one
producer vacancy in District 7; and two
importer vacancies. Current Board
members would be affected because
their States or counties would be moved
to other districts. Nomination meetings
will be held as soon as possible in the
new districts to fill the vacancies.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed
appropriate so that the proposed
amendments, if adopted, may be
implemented to allow for the calendar
year 2012 nomination meetings to take
place before the appointments for new
Board members are due. All written
comments received in response to this
rule by the date specified would be
considered prior to finalizing this
action.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210
§ 1210.502
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Consumer
information, Marketing agreements,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Watermelon promotion.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, Part 1210, Chapter XI of Title
7 is proposed to be amended as follows:
Pursuant to § 1210.320(d) of the Plan,
there are eight importer representatives
on the Board based on the proportionate
percentage of assessments paid by
importers to the Board.
PART 1210—WATERMELON
RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN
[FR Doc. 2011–11043 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
Part 1210 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4901–4916 and 7
U.S.C. 7401.
Importer members.
Dated: April 28, 2011.
David R. Shipman,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
Subpart C—Rules and Regulations
[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029]
2. Section 1210.501 is revised to read
as follows:
RIN 1904–AC47
§ 1210.501
Realignment of districts.
Pursuant to § 1210.320(c) of the Plan,
the districts shall be as follows:
District 1—The Florida counties of
Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier,
Dade, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry,
Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River,
Lake, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe,
Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm
Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota,
Seminole, St. Lucie, and Volusia.
District 2—The Florida counties of
Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun,
Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval,
Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden,
Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando,
Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette,
Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion,
Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa,
St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor,
Union, Wakulla, Walton, and
Washington, and the States of North
Carolina and South Carolina.
District 3—The State of Georgia.
District 4—The States of Alabama,
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont,
Wisconsin, West Virginia, and
Washington, DC.
District 5—The State of California.
District 6—The State of Texas.
District 7—The States of Alaska,
Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
3. Section 1210.502 is added to read
as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning,
and Water-Heating Equipment
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability and
request for public comment.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
amended, directs the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) to establish energy
conservation standards for certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating
products. Of particular relevance here,
the statute also requires that each time
the corresponding consensus standard—
the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE)/Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America
(IESNA) Standard 90.1—is amended by
the industry, DOE must assess whether
there is a need to update the uniform
national energy conservation standards
for the same equipment covered under
EPCA. ASHRAE officially released an
amended version of this industry
standard (ASHRAE 90.1–2010) on
October 29, 2010, thereby triggering
DOE’s related obligations under EPCA.
In addition, the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007)
amended EPCA to require DOE to
review the most recently published
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 with
respect to single-package vertical air
conditioners and single-package vertical
heat pumps in accordance with the
procedures established for reviewing the
energy conservation standards for other
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ASHRAE products. As a first step in
meeting these statutory requirements,
today’s notice of data availability
(NODA) discusses the results of DOE’s
analysis of the energy savings potential
of amended energy conservation
standards for certain types of
commercial equipment covered by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, including
single-package vertical air conditioners
and single-package vertical heat pumps.
The energy savings potentials are based
upon either the efficiency levels
specified in the amended industry
standard (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010) or more stringent levels that
would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE is
publishing this NODA to: Announce the
results and preliminary conclusions of
DOE’s analysis of potential energy
savings associated with amended
standards for this equipment, and
request public comment on this
analysis, as well as the submission of
data and other relevant information.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this NODA
submitted no later than June 6, 2011.
See section IV, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of
this notice for details.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted
must identify the NODA for ASHRAE
Products and provide the docket
number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029
and/or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN) 1904–AC47. 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: ASHRAE90.1-2011-STD0029@ee.doe.gov. Include the Docket
Number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029
and/or RIN number 1904–AC47 in the
subject line of the message.
3. Postal 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
compact disc (CD), in which case 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, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see section IV of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for
review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
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: www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page contains
a link to the docket for this notice, along
with simple instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section
IV.A for further information on how to
submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Mr.
Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–7892. E-mail:
Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Mailstop GC–71, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9507.
E-mail: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or
review public comments, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2945. E-mail:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Purpose of the Notice of Data
Availability
C. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Proposed
Addenda
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25623
D. Summary of DOE’s Preliminary
Assessment of Equipment for EnergySavings Analysis
II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010
A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces
B. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning
and Heating Equipment
1. Water-Cooled Equipment
2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment
3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment
4. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps
5. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and
Through-The-Wall Equipment
6. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners
and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps
C. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units
Serving Computer Rooms
D. Test Procedures
1. Updates to AHRI 210/240 Test Method
2. Updates to AHRI 340/360 Test Method
3. Updates to UL 727 Test Method
4. Updates to ANSI Z21.47 Test Method
5. Updates to ANSI Z21.10.3 Test Method
III. Analysis of Potential Energy Savings
A. Annual Energy Use
1. Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
2. Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
3. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps
B. Shipments
C. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Site-to-Source Conversion
2. Product Lifetime
3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period
D. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or
the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C.
6311–6317, as codified), added by
Public Law 95–619, Title IV, § 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which includes the
commercial heating, air-conditioning,
and water-heating equipment that is the
subject of this rulemaking.2 In general,
this program addresses the energy
efficiency of certain types of commercial
and industrial equipment. Relevant
provisions of the Act specifically
include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labelling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313),
and the authority to require information
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law
110–140.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25624
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316).
In relevant part here, EPCA contains
mandatory energy conservation
standards for commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a))
Specifically, the statute sets standards
for small, large, and very large
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment, packaged
terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and
packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs),
warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers,
storage water heaters, instantaneous
water heaters, and unfired hot water
storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA
established Federal energy conservation
standards that generally correspond to
the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings, as in
effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e.,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1989), for each
type of covered equipment listed in 42
U.S.C. 6313(a). EISA 2007 further
amended EPCA by adding definitions
and setting minimum standards for
single-package vertical air conditioners
(SPVACs) and single-package vertical
heat pumps (SPVHPs). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(A)) The standards for
SPVACs and SPVHPs established by
EISA 2007 corresponded to the levels
contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2004, which originated as addendum
‘‘d’’ to Standard 90.1–2001.
In acknowledgement of technological
changes that yield energy efficiency
benefits, Congress directed DOE through
EPCA to consider amending the existing
Federal energy efficiency standard for
each type of equipment listed, each time
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended
with respect to such equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of
equipment, EPCA directs that if
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,3
3 Although EPCA does not explicitly define the
term ‘‘amended’’ in the context of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of
what would constitute an ‘‘amended standard’’ in a
final rule published in the Federal Register on
March 7, 2007 (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘March
2007 final rule’’). 72 FR 10038. In that rule, DOE
stated that the statutory trigger requiring DOE to
adopt uniform national standards based on
ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to change a
standard for any of the equipment listed in EPCA
section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) by
increasing the energy efficiency level for that
equipment type. Id. at 10042. In other words, if the
revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard
level unchanged or lowers the standard, as
compared to the level specified by the national
standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not
have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to
consider a higher standard for that equipment
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). DOE
subsequently reiterated this position in a final rule
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2009.
74 FR 36312, 36313.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
DOE must adopt amended standards at
the new efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless clear and
convincing evidence supports a
determination that adoption of a more
stringent level as a national standard
would produce significant additional
energy savings and be technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides
to adopt as a national standard the
minimum efficiency levels specified in
the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
DOE must establish such standard not
later than 18 months after publication of
the amended industry standard. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if
DOE determines that a more stringent
standard is justified under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), then DOE must
establish such more stringent standard
not later than 30 months after
publication of the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
Additionally, EISA 2007 amended
EPCA to require that DOE review the
most recently published ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1 with respect to singlepackage vertical air conditioners and
single-package vertical heat pumps in
accordance with the procedures
established for ASHRAE products under
paragraph 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE
believes that this requirement is
separate and independent from the
requirement described in the paragraph
above for all ASHRAE products and that
it requires DOE to evaluate potential
standards higher than the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 level for singlepackage vertical air conditioners and
heat pumps, even if the efficiency levels
for SPVACs and SPVHPs have not
changed since the last version of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
As a preliminary step in the process
of reviewing the changes to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, EPCA directs DOE to
publish in the Federal Register for
public comment an analysis of the
energy savings potential of amended
energy efficiency standards, within 180
days after ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
amended with respect to any of the
covered products specified under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE
officially released for distribution and
made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010.4 This action by ASHRAE triggered
4 This industry standard is developed with input
from a number of organizations—most prominently
ASHRAE, the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), and the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America (IESNA). Therefore, this
document may sometime be referred to more
formally as ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DOE’s obligations under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6), as outlined above. This
NODA embodies the analysis of the
energy savings potential of amended
energy efficiency standards, as required
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i). This
NODA also addresses DOE’s obligations
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B) to
consider the most recently published
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 with
respect to single-package vertical air
conditioners and single-package vertical
heat pumps in accordance with the
procedures established for ASHRAE
products under paragraph 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6).
B. Purpose of the Notice of Data
Availability
As explained above, DOE is
publishing today’s NODA as a
preliminary step pursuant to EPCA’s
requirements for DOE to consider
amended energy conservation standards
for certain types of commercial
equipment covered by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, whenever ASHRAE
amends its standard to increase the
energy efficiency level for that
equipment type. This NODA also
addresses the requirements to consider
amended energy conservation standards
for SPVACs and SPVHPs under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B). Specifically, this
NODA presents for public comment
DOE’s analysis of the potential energy
savings estimates for amended national
energy conservation standards for these
types of commercial equipment based
on: (1) The amended efficiency levels
contained within ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010,5 and (2) more stringent
efficiency levels. DOE describes these
analyses and preliminary conclusions
and seeks input from interested parties,
including the submission of data and
other relevant information.
DOE is not required by EPCA to
review additional changes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 for those equipment
types where ASHRAE did not increase
the efficiency level. For those types of
equipment for which efficiency levels
clearly did not change, DOE has
conducted no further analysis (with the
exception of SPVACs and SPVHPs, for
which EPCA requires DOE to review
standard levels regardless of whether
there was a change to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1). However, for certain
2010. See https://www.ashrae.org for more
information.
5 For SPVACs and SPVHPs, ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 did not change the efficiency levels from
the Federal standards, so DOE did not review
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for those equipment
classes for that purpose, and only estimated
potential energy savings for more stringent
efficiency levels.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
equipment classes of ASHRAE covered
equipment, DOE found that while
ASHRAE had made changes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010, it was not
immediately clear that the revisions to
Standard 90.1 would increase the
efficiency requirement in that Standard
as compared to the existing Federal
energy conservation standards. For
example, for commercial warm-air
furnaces, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
changes the efficiency metric to thermal
efficiency from combustion efficiency,
which was the metric used in the
previous version of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2007). However, as discussed in section
II.A of this NODA, the change does not
result in an increase to the required
efficiency, so DOE did not perform
additional analysis for that equipment.
Therefore, DOE carefully examined the
changes for such products in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 in order to thoroughly
evaluate the amendments in ASHRAE
90.1–2010, thereby permitting DOE to
determine what action, if any, is
required under its statutory mandate.
Section II of this notice contains a
discussion of DOE’s evaluation of each
ASHRAE equipment type for which
energy conservation standards have
been set pursuant to EPCA (‘‘covered
equipment’’), in order for DOE to
determine whether the amendments in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 have
resulted in increased efficiency levels.
For covered equipment types
determined to have increased efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010,
DOE subjected that equipment to further
analysis as discussed in section III of
this NODA.
In summary, the energy savings
analysis presented in this NODA is a
preliminary step required under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i) and
6313(a)(10)(B). After review of the
public comments on this NODA, if DOE
determines that the amended efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
have the potential for additional energy
savings for types of equipment currently
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
covered by uniform national standards,
DOE will commence a rulemaking to
consider amended standards, based
upon either the efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 or morestringent efficiency levels which would
be expected to result in significant
additional conservation of energy and
are technologically feasible and
economically justified. In conducting
such rulemaking, DOE will address the
general rulemaking requirements for all
energy conservation standards, such as
the anti-backsliding provision 6 (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)), the
criteria for making a determination that
a standard is economically justified 7 (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)–(ii)), and the
prohibition on making unavailable
existing products with performance
characteristics generally available in the
U.S.8 (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4)).
6 EPCA contains what is commonly known as an
‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) This provision mandates that the
Secretary not prescribe any amended standard that
either increases the maximum allowable energy use
or decreases the minimum required energy
efficiency of covered equipment.
7 In deciding whether a more stringent standard
is economically justified, DOE must review
comments on the proposed standard, and then
determine whether the benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens by considering the following
seven factors to the greatest extent practicable:
(1) The economic impact on manufacturers and
consumers subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the product in the type (or
class), compared to any increase in the price, initial
charges, or maintenance expenses of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings
likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of product utility or
performance likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition,
as determined in writing by the Attorney General,
likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation;
and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)–(ii)).
8 The Secretary may not prescribe an amended
standard if interested persons have established by
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25625
C. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
As noted above, ASHRAE released a
new version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1
on October 29, 2010. The ASHRAE
standard addresses efficiency levels for
many types of commercial heating,
ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC),
and water-heating equipment covered
by EPCA. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
revised the efficiency levels for certain
commercial equipment, but for the
remaining equipment, ASHRAE left in
place the preexisting levels (i.e. the
efficiency levels specified in EPCA or
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2007).
Table I.1 below shows the equipment
classes (and corresponding efficiency
levels) where ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 efficiency levels differed from the
previous version of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2007), as well as the requirements for
SPVAC and SPVHP equipment (which
were unchanged in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 but which nonetheless must
be addressed in this rulemaking for the
reasons discussed above). Table I.1 also
displays the existing Federal energy
conservation standards and the
corresponding standard levels in the
latest version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1
for those equipment classes. Section II
of this document assesses each of these
equipment types to determine whether
the amendments in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 constitute increased energy
efficiency levels, as would necessitate
further analysis of the potential energy
savings from amended Federal energy
conservation standards, the conclusions
of which are presented in the final
column of Table I.1.
a preponderance of evidence that the amended
standard would likely result in unavailability in the
U.S. of any covered product type or class of
performance characteristics, such as reliability,
features, capacities, sizes, and volumes that are
substantially similar to those generally available in
the U.S. at the time of the Secretary’s finding. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)).
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25626
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD
90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *
Energy efficiency levels
in ASHRAE standard
90.1–2007
ASHRAE equipment class **
Energy efficiency levels
in ASHRAE standard
90.1–2010
Federal energy
conservation standards
Energy-savings potential
analysis required?
Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces
Gas-Fired Commercial Warm-Air
furnace.
Ec = 80% Interrupted or
intermittent ignition device, jacket losses not
exceeding 0.75% of
input rating, power
vent or flue damper ***.
Et = 80% Interrupted or
intermittent ignition device, jacket losses not
exceeding 0.75% of
input rating, power
vent or flue damper ***.
Et = 80% .........................
No. See section II.A.
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Water-Cooled
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance Heating or
No Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h,
All Other Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance Heating or
No Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h,
All Other Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,
≥240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,
≥240,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating.
11.5 EER ........................
12.1 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.5 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.1.
11.3 EER ........................
11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.3 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.1.
11.0 EER ........................
12.5 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.1.
10.8 EER ........................
12.3 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.1.
11.0 EER ........................
12.4 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.1.
10.8 EER ........................
12.2 EER (as of 6/1/11)
10.8 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.1.
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Evaporatively-Cooled
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000
Btu/h,
Electric
Resistance
Heating or No Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000
Btu/h, All Other Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000
Btu/h,
Electric
Resistance
Heating or No Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, All Other Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 and <760,000
Btu/h,
Electric
Resistance
Heating or No Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 and <760,000
Btu/h, All Other Heating.
11.5 EER ........................
12.1 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.5 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.2.
11.3 EER ........................
11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.3 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.2.
11.0 EER ........................
12.0 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.2.
10.8 EER ........................
11.8 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.2.
11.0 EER ........................
11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.2.
10.8 EER ........................
11.7 EER† (as of 6/1/11)
10.8 EER ........................
Yes. See section II.B.2.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—VRF Systems††
VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled,
<65,000 Btu/h.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled,
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance or No Heating.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled,
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance or No Heating.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
N/A ..................................
13.0 SEER ......................
13.0 SEER ......................
No. See section II.B.3.
N/A ..................................
11.2 EER ........................
11.2 EER ........................
No. See section II.B.3.
N/A ..................................
11.0 EER ........................
11.0 EER ........................
No. See section II.B.3.
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
25627
TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD
90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued
Energy efficiency levels
in ASHRAE standard
90.1–2007
Energy efficiency levels
in ASHRAE standard
90.1–2010
Federal energy
conservation standards
VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled,
≥240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance or No Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled,
<65,000 Btu/h.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled,
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h,
without heat recovery, Electric
Resistance or No Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled,
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h,
with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating.
N/A ..................................
10.0 EER ........................
10.0 EER ........................
No. See section II.B.3.
N/A ..................................
13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF ....
13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF ....
No. See section II.B.3.
N/A ..................................
11.0 EER, 3.3 COP ........
11.0 EER, 3.3 COP ........
No. See section II.B.3.
N/A ..................................
10.8 EER, 3.2 COP ........
No. See section II.B.3.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled,
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h,
without heat recovery, Electric
Resistance or No Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled,
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h,
with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled,
≥240,000 Btu/h, without heat
recovery, Electric Resistance
or No Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled,
≥240,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or
No Heating.
N/A ..................................
10.6 EER, 3.2 COP ........
11.0 EER (electric resistance heating), 10.8
EER (no electric resistance heating)††† 3.3
COP.
10.6 EER, 3.2 COP ........
N/A ..................................
10.4 EER, 3.2 COP ........
N/A ..................................
9.5 EER, 3.2 COP ..........
N/A ..................................
9.3 EER, 3.2 COP ..........
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source,
<65,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery.
N/A ..................................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source,
<65,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery.
N/A ..................................
11.8 EER, 4.2 COP ........
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source,
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h,
without heat recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source,
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h,
with heat recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source,
≥135,000 Btu/h, without heat
recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source,
≥135,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery.
N/A ..................................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........
9.5 EER (electric resistance heating), 9.3
EER (no electric resistance heating)††† 3.2
COP.
11.2 EER (<17,000 Btu/
h)††, 12.0 EER
(≥17,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h) 4.2
COP.
11.2 EER (< 17,000 Btu/
h)†† 12.0 EER (≥
17,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h), 4.2
COP.
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........
N/A ..................................
11.8 EER, 4.2 COP ........
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........
No. See section II.B.3.
N/A ..................................
10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ........
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section
II.B.3.
N/A ..................................
9.8 EER, 3.9 COP ..........
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section
II.B.3.
ASHRAE equipment class **
10.6 EER (electric resistance heating), 10.4 (no
electric resistance
heating)††† 3.2 COP.
9.5 EER, 3.2 COP ..........
Energy-savings potential
analysis required?
No. See section II.B.3.
No. See section II.B.3.
No. See section II.B.3.
No. See section II.B.3.
Yes◊◊◊ for <17,000 Btu.
No for ≥17,000 Btu/h
and <65,000 Btu/h.
See section II.B.3.
Yes◊◊◊ for <17,000 Btu,
No for ≥17,000 Btu/h
and <65,000 Btu/h,
See section II.B.3,
No. See section II.B.3.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—PTACs and PTHPs‡‡
Package Terminal Air Conditioner, <7,000 Btu/h, Standard
Size (New Construction)‡‡.
Package Terminal Air Conditioner, ≥7,000 and <15,000
Btu/h, Standard Size (New
Construction)‡‡‡.
Package Terminal Air Conditioner, >15,000 Btu/h, Standard
Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.
Package Terminal Heat Pump,
<7,000 Btu/h, Standard Size
(New Construction)‡‡‡.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
EER = 11.0 .....................
EER = 11.7 (as of 10/8/
12).
EER = 11.7 .....................
No. See section II.B.4.
EER = 12.5—(0.213 ×
Cap◊).
EER = 13.8—(0.300 ×
Cap◊) (as of 10/8/12).
EER = 13.8—(0.300 ×
Cap◊).
No. See section II.B.4.
EER = 9.3 .......................
EER = 9.3 .......................
EER = 9.3 .......................
No. See section II.B.4.
EER = 10.8, COP = 3.0
EER = 11.9, COP = 3.3
(as of 10/8/12).
EER = 11.9, COP = 3.3
No. See section II.B.4.
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25628
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD
90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued
Energy efficiency levels
in ASHRAE standard
90.1–2007
ASHRAE equipment class **
Package Terminal Heat Pump,
≥7,000 and <15,000 Btu/h,
Standard Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.
Package Terminal Heat Pump,
>15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size
(New Construction)‡‡‡.
EER = 12.3—(0.213 ×
Cap◊), COP = 3.2—
(0.026 × Cap◊).
EER = 9.1, COP = 2.8 ...
Energy efficiency levels
in ASHRAE standard
90.1–2010
EER = 14.0—(0.300 ×
Cap◊), COP = 3.7—
(0.052 × Cap◊) (as of
10/8/12).
EER = 9.5, COP = 2.9 ...
Federal energy
conservation standards
Energy-savings potential
analysis required?
EER = 14.0—(0.300 ×
Cap◊), COP = 3.7—
(0.052 × Cap◊).
No. See section II.B.4.
EER = 9.5, COP = 2.9 ...
No. See section II.B.4.
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—SDHV and TTW
Through-the-Wall,
Air-cooled
Heat Pumps, ≤30,000 Btu/h.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Aircooled Heat Pumps, <65,000
Btu/h.
12.0 SEER, 7.4 HSPF ....
13.0 SEER, 7.4 HSPF ....
13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF ....
No. See section II.B.5.
10.0 SEER, 6.8 HSPF ....
N/A◊◊ ..............................
13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF ....
No. See section II.B.5.
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—SPVACs and SPVHPs
Single-Packaged
Vertical
Air
Conditioners, <65,000 Btu/h.
Single-Packaged
Vertical
Air
Conditioners,
≥65,000
and
<135,000 Btu/h.
Single-Packaged
Vertical
Air
Conditioners,
≥65,000
and
<240,000 Btu/h.
Single-Packaged Vertical Heat
Pumps, <65,000 Btu/h.
Single-Packaged Vertical Heat
Pumps, ≥65,000 and <135,000
Btu/h.
Single-Packaged Vertical Heat
Pumps, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h.
9.0 EER ..........................
9.0 EER ..........................
9.0 EER ..........................
Yes. See section II.B.6.
8.9 EER ..........................
8.9 EER ..........................
8.9 EER ..........................
Yes. See section II.B.6.
8.6 EER ..........................
8.6 EER ..........................
8.6 EER ..........................
Yes. See section II.B.6.
9.0 EER, 3.0 COP ..........
9.0 EER, 3.0 COP ..........
9.0 EER, 3.0 COP ..........
Yes. See section II.B.6.
8.9 EER, 3.0 COP ..........
8.9 EER, 3.0 COP ..........
8.9 EER, 3.0 COP ..........
Yes. See section II.B.6.
8.6 EER, 2.9 COP ..........
8.6 EER, 2.9 COP ..........
8.6 EER, 2.9 COP ..........
Yes. See section II.B.6.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms
Air
conditioners,
air-cooled,
<65,000 Btu/h.
Air
conditioners,
air-cooled,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.
Air
conditioners,
air-cooled,
≥240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled,
<65,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled,
≥240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled
with fluid economizer, <65,000
Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled
with fluid economizer, ≥65,000
and <240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled
with
fluid
economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,
<65,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,
≥240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled
with fluid economizer, <65,000
Btu/h.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
N/A ..................................
2.20 SCOP (downflow),
2.09 SCOP (upflow).
2.10 SCOP (downflow),
1.99 SCOP (upflow).
1.90 SCOP (downflow),
1.79 SCOP (upflow).
2.60 SCOP (downflow),
2.49 SCOP (upflow).
2.50 SCOP (downflow),
2.39 SCOP (upflow).
2.40 SCOP (downflow),
2.29 SCOP (upflow).
2.55 SCOP (downflow),
2.44 SCOP (upflow).
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
2.45 SCOP (downflow),
2.34 SCOP (upflow).
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
2.35 SCOP (downflow),
2.24 SCOP (upflow).
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
2.50 SCOP (downflow),
2.39 SCOP (upflow).
2.15 SCOP (downflow),
2.04 SCOP (upflow).
2.10 SCOP (downflow),
1.99 SCOP (upflow).
2.45 SCOP (downflow),
2.34 SCOP (upflow).
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
N/A ..................................
N/A ..................................
N/A ..................................
N/A ..................................
N/A ..................................
N/A ..................................
N/A ..................................
N/A ..................................
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
25629
TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD
90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued
Energy efficiency levels
in ASHRAE standard
90.1–2007
ASHRAE equipment class **
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled
with fluid economizer, ≥65,000
and <240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled
with
fluid
economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h.
Energy efficiency levels
in ASHRAE standard
90.1–2010
Federal energy
conservation standards
Energy-savings potential
analysis required?
N/A ..................................
2.10 SCOP (downflow),
1.99 SCOP (upflow).
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
N/A ..................................
2.05 SCOP (downflow),
1.94 SCOP (upflow).
N/A ..................................
Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C.
* ‘‘Ec’’ means combustion efficiency; ‘‘Et’’ means thermal efficiency; ‘‘EER’’ means energy efficiency ratio; ‘‘SEER’’ means seasonal energy efficiency ratio; ‘‘HSPF’’ means heating seasonal performance factor; ‘‘COP’’ means coefficient of performance; ‘‘Btu/h’’ means British thermal units
per hour; and ‘‘SCOP’’ means sensible coefficient of performance.
** ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 equipment classes may differ from the equipment classes defined in DOE’s regulations, but no loss of coverage will occur (i.e., all previously covered DOE equipment classes remained covered equipment).
*** A vent damper is an acceptable alternative to a flue damper for those furnaces that draw combustion air from conditioned space.
† ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 specifies this efficiency level as 12.2 EER. However, as explained in section II.B of this NODA, DOE believes
this level was a mistake and that the correct level is 11.7 EER.
†† Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) systems are newly defined equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. As discussed in section
II.B.3 of this NODA, DOE believes these systems are currently covered by Federal standards for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.
††† For these equipment classes, ASHRAE sets lower efficiency requirements for equipment with heat recovery systems. DOE believes systems with heat recovery and electric resistance heating would be required to meet the current Federal standard for equipment with electric resistance heating (i.e., the Federal standard level shown in the table). However, for equipment with heat recovery and no electric resistance heating,
DOE believes heat recovery would be an ‘‘other’’ heating type allowing for a 0.2 EER reduction in the Federal minimum requirement.
‡ The Federal energy conservation standards for this equipment class are specified differently for equipment with cooling capacity <17,000 Btu/
h. However, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 does not distinguish this equipment class.
‡‡ For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure, all EER values must be rated at 95 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled
products and evaporatively-cooled products, and at 85 °F entering water temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values must be rated at
47 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products, and at 70 °F entering water temperature for water-source heat pumps.
‡‡‡ ‘‘Standard size’’ refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve dimensions ≥16 inches high, or ≥42 inches wide.
◊ ‘‘Cap’’ means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95°F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
◊◊ ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 includes an efficiency level of 10.0 SEER for these products. However, as explained in section II.B.5 of this
NODA, DOE believes that ASHRAE did not intend to set an efficiency level for these products.
◊◊◊ An energy-savings analysis for this class of equipment was not conducted due to either a lack of data or because there is no equipment on
the market that would fall into this equipment class.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Proposed
Addenda
Since officially releasing ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 on October 29,
2010, ASHRAE has released three
proposed addenda relevant to today’s
NODA: Proposed Addendum h,
Proposed Addendum i, and Proposed
Addendum j. ASHRAE released all three
addenda for first public review in March
2011, and the 45-day public review
period ends May 9, 2011. Proposed
Addendum h would remove the smallduct high-velocity (SDHV) product class
from one of the tables of standards and
correct the minimum efficiencies for
through-the-wall products. In addition,
it would amend the minimum energy
efficiency standards (and change the
product class names) for water-to-air
heat pumps, including some product
classes regulated by DOE (e.g., ‘‘watersource’’ would become ‘‘water-to-air:
Water loop’’), with a proposed effective
date immediately upon publication of
the addendum.9 Proposed Addendum i
would amend the minimum energy
efficiency standards for SPVACs and
SPVHPs. It would also add a new
9 Ground water source (water to air: ground
water) and ground source (brine to air: Ground
loop) heat pumps are not covered products.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
product class designed to address
SPVACs and SPVHPs in spaceconstrained applications. These would
become effective January 1, 2012.
Proposed Addendum j would remove
SDHV from both tables of standards in
which it was listed, and would also
correct the EER for one product class of
evaporatively-cooled units, as discussed
in section II.B.5.
Because these proposed addenda have
not yet been approved, DOE is not
obligated to address these changes until
the addenda are formally adopted and
ASHRAE issues the next version of
Standard 90.1 (expected in 2013).
However, DOE acknowledges that these
proposed addenda may affect the market
which is addressed in today’s NODA.
As a result, DOE seeks comments on
what impact, if any, these proposed
addenda might have, if adopted, on the
national energy savings analysis
presented in today’s NODA. This is
Issue 1 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment’’ in section IV.B of this
NODA.
D. Summary of DOE’s Preliminary
Assessment of Equipment for EnergySavings Analysis
DOE has reached a preliminary
conclusion for each of the classes of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
commercial equipment in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 addressed in
today’s NODA. For each class of
commercial equipment addressed in
this NODA, section II presents DOE’s
initial determination as to whether
ASHRAE increased the efficiency level
for a given type of product, a change
which would require an energy-savings
potential analysis. Since DOE is not
required by EPCA to review additional
changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 for those equipment types where
ASHRAE did not increase the efficiency
level, DOE has conducted no further
analysis for those types of equipment
where efficiency levels clearly did not
change. Additionally, for equipment
where ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 has increased the level in
comparison to the previous version of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, but does not
exceed the current Federal standard
level, DOE does not have the authority
to conduct a rulemaking to consider a
higher standard for that equipment
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) and
did not perform an potential energy
savings analysis. For those equipment
classes where ASHRAE increased the
efficiency level (in comparison to the
Federal standard), DOE performed an
analysis of the energy-savings potential,
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25630
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
unless DOE found no products in the
market in that equipment class (in
which case there is no potential for
energy savings) or there was a
significant lack of data and information
available that would allow DOE to
reasonably estimate the potential for
energy savings.
Based upon DOE’s analysis discussed
in section II, DOE has determined that
ASHRAE increased the efficiency level
for the following equipment classes:
• Small, Large, and Very Large Watercooled Air Conditioners;
• Small, Large, and Very Large
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioners;
• Certain Small (only those with
cooling capacity < 17,000 Btu/h) and
Large Variable Refrigerant Flow WaterSource Heat Pumps; and
• Air Conditioners and Condensing
Units Serving Computer Rooms.
Out of those equipment classes, when
DOE found that equipment is available
on the market and adequate information
exists to reasonably estimate potential
energy savings, DOE performed the
analysis of the energy-savings potential
which is described in section III.
However, when DOE did not find
equipment available on the market
(such as for small variable refrigerant
flow water-source heat pumps with
capacities below 17,000 Btu/h), or found
that adequate efficiency and/or
shipments data was unavailable (such as
for air conditioners and condensing
units serving computer rooms), DOE did
not perform a potential energy savings
analysis.
In addition, although ASHRAE did
not increase the efficiency level for
SPVACs and SPVHPs, DOE is required
by EPCA to consider amending the
energy conservation standards for these
equipment classes using the procedures
set forth by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for
ASHRAE products. Accordingly, DOE
also performed an energy-savings
analysis for SPVACs and SPVHPs and
presents the results in section III.
II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010
Before beginning an analysis of the
potential energy savings that would
result from adopting the efficiency
levels specified by ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 or more-stringent efficiency
levels, DOE first determined whether or
not the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
efficiency levels actually represented an
increase in efficiency above the current
Federal standard levels, thereby
triggering DOE action. This section
contains a discussion of each equipment
class where the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 efficiency level differs from
the current Federal standard level, along
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
with DOE’s preliminary conclusion
regarding the appropriate action to take
with respect to that equipment. In
addition, this section contains a
discussion of DOE’s determination with
regard to newly created equipment
classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
(i.e., VRF commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment
and air conditioners serving computer
rooms), and DOE’s decisions with
regard to the requirements for analyzing
SPVACs and SPVHPs in EPCA. Finally,
this section provides a brief discussion
of the test procedure updates contained
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010.
A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces
Under 42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A), a ‘‘warm
air furnace’’ is defined as ‘‘a selfcontained oil- or gas-fired furnace
designed to supply heated air through
ducts to spaces that require it and
includes combination warm air furnace/
electric air-conditioning units but does
not include unit heaters and duct
furnaces.’’ In its regulations, DOE
defines a ‘‘commercial warm air
furnace’’ as a ‘‘warm air furnace that is
industrial equipment, and that has a
capacity (rated maximum input) of
225,000 Btu per hour or more.’’ 10 CFR
431.72.
Gas-fired commercial warm-air
furnaces are fueled by either natural gas
or propane. The Federal minimum
energy conservation standard for
commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces
corresponds to the efficiency level in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1989, which
specifies for equipment with a capacity
of 225,000 Btu/h or more, the thermal
efficiency at the maximum rated
capacity (rated maximum input) must
be no less than 80 percent. 10 CFR
431.77(a). The Federal minimum energy
conservation standard for gas-fired
commercial warm-air furnaces applies
to equipment manufactured on or after
January 1, 1994. 10 CFR 431.77.
The current Federal standard for gasfired commercial warm-air furnaces is
in terms of ‘‘thermal efficiency,’’ which
is defined as ‘‘100 percent minus
percent flue loss.’’ 10 CFR 431.72. The
previous version of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1–2007) specified
a minimum efficiency level of 80
percent combustion efficiency, but it
defined ‘‘combustion efficiency’’ as ‘‘100
percent minus flue losses’’ in the
footnote to the efficiency table for
commercial warm-air gas-fired furnaces,
which references ANSI Z21.47–2001,
‘‘Standard for Gas-Fired Central
Furnaces,’’ as the test procedure. In its
analysis for the 2009 notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) regarding standards
for ASHRAE Products in which DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
considered the updates in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2007, DOE noted that
upon reviewing the efficiency levels and
methodology specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2007, it concluded that
ASHRAE changed the efficiency metric
for gas-fired commercial warm-air
furnaces in name only, and not in the
actual test or calculation method. 74 FR
12000, 12008–09 (March 20, 2009).
Therefore, DOE stated its understanding
that despite using the term ‘‘combustion
efficiency’’ rather than ‘‘thermal
efficiency,’’ ASHRAE did not intend to
change the substance of the metric.
Consequently, DOE left the existing
Federal energy conservation standards
in place for gas-fired commercial warmair furnaces, which specify a ‘‘thermal
efficiency’’ of 80 percent using the
definition of ‘‘thermal efficiency’’
presented at 10 CFR 431.72.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
updated the tabulated requirements for
gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces
to specify a minimum efficiency level of
80 percent ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ and
references ANSI Z21.47–2006,
‘‘Standard for Gas-Fired Central
Furnaces,’’ as the test procedure. ANSI
Z21.47–2006 defines ‘‘thermal
efficiency’’ as ‘‘100 percent minus flue
losses,’’ which is the same as DOE’s
definition of ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ for
this equipment. Because of this, DOE
believes that the purpose of the
ASHRAE metric change to ‘‘thermal
efficiency’’ was to clarify the alignment
to the existing Federal standards and the
ANSI Z21.47–2006 test procedure. As a
result, DOE tentatively concluded that
this change does not constitute a
revision to the actual efficiency level for
gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces
and that no further action by the
Department is required.
B. Commercial Package AirConditioning and Heating Equipment
EPCA, as amended, defines
‘‘commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment’’ as air-cooled,
evaporatively-cooled, water-cooled, or
water source (not including ground
water source) electrically operated,
unitary central air conditioners and
central air conditioning heat pumps for
commercial use. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A);
10 CFR 431.92) EPCA also defines
‘‘small,’’ ‘‘large,’’ and ‘‘very large’’
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment based on the
equipment’s rated cooling capacity. (42
U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)–(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
‘‘Small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’
means equipment rated below 135,000
Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42
U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Large
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment’’ means
equipment rated—(i) at or above
135,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below
240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity).
(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92)
‘‘Very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’
means equipment rated—(i) at or above
240,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below
760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity).
(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Water-Cooled Equipment
The current Federal energy
conservation standards for the six
classes of water-cooled commercial
package air conditioners for which
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 amended
efficiency levels are shown in Table I.1.
The Federal energy conservation
standards for water-cooled equipment
are differentiated based on the cooling
capacity (i.e., small, large, or very large)
and heating type (i.e., electric resistance
heating/no heating or some other type of
heating). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
increased the energy efficiency levels
for all six equipment classes to
efficiency levels that surpass the current
Federal energy conservation standard
levels. Therefore, the Department
conducted an analysis of the potential
energy savings due to amended
standards for these products, which is
described in section III of this NODA.
2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment
The current Federal energy
conservation standards for the six
classes of evaporatively-cooled
commercial package air conditioners for
which ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
amended efficiency levels are shown in
Table I.1. Similar to water-cooled
equipment, Federal energy conservation
standards divide evaporatively-cooled
equipment based on the cooling
capacity (i.e., small, large, or very large)
and heating type (i.e., electric resistance
heating/no heating or some other type of
heating). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
increased the energy efficiency levels
for all six equipment classes to
efficiency levels that surpass the current
Federal energy conservation standard
levels.
DOE reviewed the market for
evaporatively-cooled equipment and
could not identify any models available
on the market in the ‘‘small’’ unit
product class (i.e., cooling capacity
< 135,000 Btu/h) and the ‘‘large’’ unit
product class (i.e., cooling capacity
≥ 135,000 and < 240,000 Btu/h). Because
there is currently no equipment in these
classes being manufactured, DOE
believes there are no energy savings
associated with these classes at this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
time; therefore, it is not possible to
assess the potential for additional
energy savings at the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 or more-stringent
levels. Thus, DOE did not perform a
potential energy-savings analysis for the
small and large equipment classes of
evaporatively-cooled commercial
package air conditioners. DOE seeks
comments from interested parties on its
assessment of the market and energy
savings potential for this equipment
type. This is Issue 2 under ‘‘Issues on
Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section
IV.B of this NODA.
For very large (i.e., cooling capacity ≥
240,000 Btu/h) evaporatively-cooled air
conditioners, DOE was able to identify
a number of models on the market, and,
therefore, DOE conducted an analysis of
the potential energy savings for these
products which is discussed in section
III. For very large evaporatively-cooled
air conditioners, ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 set the efficiency level for
equipment with electric resistance or no
heating at 11.9 EER and for equipment
with all other heating at 12.2 EER.
However, ASHRAE historically has set
the levels for equipment with other
heating at 0.2 EER points below the
efficiency levels for equipment with
electric heating or no heating, which
would make the expected efficiency
level for very large evaporatively-cooled
equipment with other heating 11.7 EER.
In February 2011, the Department
received a letter from the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) indicating that the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency
level for very large evaporatively-cooled
equipment with other heating is
incorrect, and that the correct minimum
energy efficiency standard for this
category is 11.7 EER, as would be
expected given the historical ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 efficiency levels for these
products. (AHRI, No. 0001 at p. 1)
Further, AHRI indicated that at its
winter 2011 meeting, the ASHRAE 90.1
committee approved an addendum for
public review that corrects this error. In
March 2011, ASHRAE released
proposed Addendum j to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010, which corrects the
value from 12.2 to 11.7 EER. Based on
release of the public review draft of this
addendum, the Department has
tentatively decided to analyze the
potential energy savings for this
category at an ASHRAE Standard 90.1
level of 11.7 EER.
3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment
ASHRAE 90.1–2010 created a separate
product class for variable refrigerant
flow (VRF) air-conditioning and heating
equipment. These products are
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25631
currently covered under DOE’s
standards for commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps, but they
are not broken out as a separate product
class.
In general, a VRF system will have a
single condensing unit serving multiple
evaporator coils within a building.
Specific ‘‘subclasses’’ of variable
refrigerant flow heat pumps equipped
with heat recovery capability have been
specified in ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1–2010 with lower efficiency
requirements than specified for VRF
systems without heat recovery. (Heat
recovery capability provides for
shuttling of heat from one part of the
building to another and allows for
simultaneous cooling and heating of
different zones within a building.)
Specifically, the efficiency requirements
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for aircooled VRF heat pumps with heat
recovery are equivalent to the Federal
minimum energy conservation
standards defined for air-cooled heat
pumps with ‘‘all other heating system
types that are integrated into the
equipment,’’ and the efficiency
requirements for air-cooled VRF heat
pumps without heat recovery are
equivalent to the Federal minimum
standards for air-cooled heat pumps
with electric or no heating.10 The VRF
systems with heat recovery specified by
ASHRAE may often have electric
resistance heating systems, as a back-up.
For air-cooled VRF heat pump systems
that have both electric resistance
heating and heat recovery heating
capability, the Department has
tentatively concluded that these systems
must meet the efficiency requirements
contained in EPCA for small, large, and
very large air-cooled central airconditioning heat pumps with electric
resistance heating, which are codified at
10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)–
(9)) In addition, the Department has
tentatively concluded that air-cooled
VRF systems without electric resistance
heating but with heat recovery can
qualify as having an ‘‘other’’ means of
heating and that these systems must
meet the efficiency requirements
contained in EPCA for small, large, and
very large air-cooled central airconditioning heat pumps with other
heating, which are codified at 10 CFR
431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)–(9))
Table II.1 shows the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels for
10 Section 136 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT 2005; Pub, L. 109–58) amended EPCA to
include separate minimum efficiency requirements
for commercial package air-cooled air conditioners
and heating equipment with ‘‘all other heating
system types that are integrated into the equipment’’
and with electric resistance or no heating.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25632
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VRF water-source heat pumps in
comparison to the current Federal
minimum energy conservation
standards for water-source heat pumps,
which DOE has preliminarily
determined would apply to VRF
systems. For water-source VRF heat
pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
generally maintains the existing energy
efficiency requirements that apply to
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment for the VRF
systems, with several notable
exceptions. For VRF water-source heat
pumps under 17,000 Btu/h and VRF
water-source heat pumps over 135,000
Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
raises the efficiency levels above current
Federal energy conservation standards
(or in the case of water-source heat
pumps over 135,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE
sets standards for products where DOE
did not previously have standards). As
a result, the Department conducted
further analysis for these classes. DOE
began by reviewing the current market
for VRF water-source heat pumps with
cooling capacities below 17,000 Btu/h
or above 135,000 Btu/h and less than
760,000 Btu/h. The Department did not
identify any models under 17,000 Btu/
h on the market. DOE did identify 19
models above 135,000 Btu/h on the
market and attempted to contact the
manufacturer producing most of these
models, but DOE was unable to obtain
EER information for most of the models
and has no shipment information for
this product class. Because DOE could
not identify any VRF water-source heat
pumps being manufactured with cooling
capacities below 17,000 Btu/h, DOE
believes that there are no energy savings
associated with this equipment class.
Therefore, DOE did not perform a
potential energy-savings analysis for
this equipment. In addition, due to the
lack of available information and data
on VRF water-source heat pumps with
cooling capacities above 135,000 Btu/h
at this time, the Department has not
conducted a preliminary energy saving
estimate for the additional energy
savings beyond the levels anticipated in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for this
VRF water source heat pump product
class. DOE is requesting public
comment regarding the market for this
equipment and is seeking data and
information that would allow it to
accurately characterize the energy
savings from amended energy
conservation standards for these
products. This is identified as Issue 3 in
section IV.B ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment.’’
In addition to the changes for the two
equipment classes discussed above,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 includes
efficiency levels for VRF water-source
heat pumps that provide for a 0.2 EER
reduction in the efficiency requirement
for systems with heat recovery.
However, the current Federal minimum
standards for water-source heat pumps
do not provide for any reduction in the
EER requirements for equipment with
‘‘other’’ heating types. Therefore, the 0.2
EER reduction below the current
Federal standard levels for the VRF
water-source heat pump equipment
classes in which ASHRAE did not raise
the standard from the existing Federal
minimum for water-source heat pumps
(i.e., water-source heat pumps with
cooling capacities ≥ 17,000 and < 65,000
Btu/h and ≥ 65,000 and < 135,000 Btu/
h) would result in a decrease in
stringency in comparison to current
standards. As noted in section I.A, if
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 lowers its
efficiency level as compared to the
Federal minimum standard level, DOE
does not have the authority to conduct
a rulemaking to consider a higher
standard for that equipment pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). Therefore, DOE
did not consider the lower EER
requirements for systems with heat
recovery and will not perform an
analysis of those product classes.
TABLE II.1—COMPARISON OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS TO
ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 REQUIREMENTS FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS
Existing Federal equipment class
Federal minimum energy conservation
standard
Water-source Heat Pump < 17,000 Btu/h .........
11.2 EER ..........................................................
Water-source Heat Pump ≥ 17,000 and ...........
< 65,000 Btu/h ...................................................
Water-source Heat Pump ≥ 65,000 and ...........
< 135,000 Btu/h .................................................
Water-source Heat Pump ≥ 135,000 and .........
< 760,000 Btu/h .................................................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps
EPCA defines a ‘‘packaged terminal air
conditioner’’ as ‘‘a wall sleeve and a
separate unencased combination of
heating and cooling assemblies
specified by the builder and intended
for mounting through the wall. It
includes a prime source of refrigeration,
separable outdoor louvers, forced
ventilation, and heating availability by
builder’s choice of hot water, steam, or
electricity.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(A))
EPCA defines a ‘‘packaged terminal heat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
4.2 COP ............................................................
12.0 EER ..........................................................
4.2 COP ............................................................
12.0 EER ..........................................................
4.2 COP ............................................................
N/A ....................................................................
pump’’ as ‘‘a packaged terminal air
conditioner that utilizes reverse cycle
refrigeration as its prime heat source
and should have supplementary heat
source available to builders with the
choice of hot water, steam, or electric
resistant heat.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(B))
DOE codified these definitions in 10
CFR 431.92 in a final rule published in
the Federal Register on October 21,
2004. 69 FR 61962, 61970.
DOE adopted amended energy
conservation standards for this class of
equipment in a final rule published in
the Federal Register on October 7, 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency level
for newly established VRF equipment class
12.0 EER (without heat recovery).
11.8 EER (with heat recovery).
4.2 COP.
12.0 EER (without heat recovery).
11.8 EER (with heat recovery).
4.2 COP.
12.0 EER (without heat recovery).
11.8 EER (with heat recovery).
4.2 COP.
10.0 EER (without heat recovery).
9.8 EER (with heat recovery).
3.9 COP.
73 FR 58772, 58828–30. The adopted
Federal standards exceeded the
standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2007. These Federal standards apply to
standard size equipment manufactured
on or after October 7, 2012, and nonstandard size equipment manufactured
on or after October 8, 2010. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 increased the
efficiency levels for standard size
equipment in comparison to the
efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2007. However, the efficiency
levels specified by ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 for these equipment classes
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
meet and do not exceed the Federal
standards established by DOE in the
October 2008 final rule. Because
ASHRAE seems to be harmonizing the
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
with the Federal levels rather than
increasing the minimum efficiency,
DOE has tentatively concluded that it is
not required to take action on these
products at this time.
5. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and
Through-The-Wall Equipment
EPCA does not separate small-duct
high-velocity (SDHV) or through-thewall (TTW) heat pumps from other
types of small commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment in
its definitions. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8))
Therefore, EPCA’s definition of ‘‘small
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment’’ would include
SDHV and TTW heat pumps.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
increased some of the efficiency levels
for these classes of equipment.
Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 increased the efficiency
requirements for TTW heat pumps to
13.0 SEER and 7.4 HSPF in comparison
to the efficiency levels of 12.0 SEER and
7.4 HSPF in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2007. However, in March 2011,
ASHRAE issued Proposed Addendum h
for public review that would correct the
minimum SEER for these products to
12.0 SEER. For SDHV heat pumps,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 did not
increase the cooling efficiency
requirement of 10.0 SEER beyond that
in ASHRAE 90.1–2007. In addition,
although ASHRAE 90.1–2007 specified
a heating efficiency requirement of 6.8
HSPF, ASHRAE 90.1–2010 did not
specify any heating efficiency level for
SDHV heat pumps. However, Proposed
Addenda h and j would remove the
SDHV product class from the standards
tables entirely, stating: ‘‘In addition the
small duct high velocity requirements
have been dropped by DOE and they are
only allowing such systems under
waiver clause so the addendum has also
made a change to remove the small duct
high velocity systems from table 6.8.1a
and table 6.8.1b.’’ Therefore, DOE
believes that ASHRAE did not intend to
specify any efficiency levels for these
products in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010.
The DOE standards for both TTW and
SDHV heat pumps, which are 13.0 SEER
and 7.7 HSPF, were established for the
overall equipment category of small
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment by EISA 2007,
which amended EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(7)(D)) Because the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
TTW equipment meet or do not exceed
the DOE standards and because DOE
believes that SDHV are no longer meant
to be covered separately by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010, DOE has
tentatively concluded that it is not
required to take action on these
products at this time.
6. Single-Package Vertical Air
Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps
DOE issued standards for singlepackage vertical air conditioner and
heat pump units (SPVUs) as part of the
March 23, 2009 final rule technical
amendment in response to mandated
efficiency levels for SPVUs established
in the EISA 2007 legislation. 74 FR
12058. However, SPVUs are subject to a
unique ‘‘look back’’ provision
established by EISA 2007, which
amended the applicable provisions of
EPCA such that not later than three
years after the date of this statutory
provision’s enactment (i.e., December
19, 2007), the Secretary must review the
most recently published ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1 with respect to singlepackage vertical air conditioners and
single-package vertical heat pumps
using the procedures established under
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(B))
As noted in section I.A, the
Department interprets the provision at
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B) as constituting
a separate trigger to evaluate standards
higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
level. SPVUs are considered classes
within the broader scope of small and
large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment;
however, because of their special status
(i.e., that the efficiency levels for this
equipment were statutorily prescribed
by EISA 2007), Congress intended that
DOE review them for potential energy
savings and higher standards along the
lines of the 18 month time frame review
for other products (i.e., do everything in
part (6) with regard to analysis, but
ignore the triggering requirement of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 changing its
efficiency levels). EPCA, as amended,
directs DOE to conduct a review of the
energy savings potential sometime in
the three-year interval, and DOE
believes this separate trigger is a onetime mechanism, after which SPVUs
revert to the normal ‘‘ASHRAE trigger.’’
Accordingly, DOE has commenced
analytical work on these products along
with the other equipment which is
subject to the current ‘‘ASHRAE trigger.’’
Upon review of the SPVU market,
DOE identified several models of SPVUs
in the small equipment class. However,
DOE did not identify any models of
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25633
SPVUs in the very large category or any
models of SPVHPs in the large category.
The Department identified only five
models of SPVACs in the large category,
and these were all close to the upper
size limit of the small category, at
70,000 Btu/h or less. As a result of the
apparent lack of a market for very large
SPVUs and large SPVHPs, and a lack of
shipment estimates for the large
SPVACs, DOE conducted complete
preliminary energy saving estimates for
only the small equipment classes.
Additionally, DOE used the energy
saving results for small SPVACs to
derive an estimate of the potential
energy savings for large SPVACs. DOE
requests comments regarding the market
for SPVUs, specifically on the market
for large and very large equipment. This
is identified as Issue 4 in section IV.B
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’
C. Air Conditioners and Condensing
Units Serving Computer Rooms
Air conditioners and condensing
units serving computer rooms operate
similarly to other types of commercial
packaged air conditioners in that they
provide space conditioning using a
refrigeration cycle consisting of a
compressor, condenser, expansion
valve, and evaporator. However, air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms are typically
designed to maintain the temperature in
the conditioned space at 72 degrees
Fahrenheit, and maintain a specific
relative humidity. This equipment is
commonly capable of humidifying or
dehumidifying the air and then, if
necessary, reheating it to maintain a
specific humidity.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 created
a separate product class for ‘‘air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms,’’ and set
efficiency levels using the sensible
coefficient of performance (SCOP)
metric as measured using the test
method in ASHRAE Standard 127–2007,
‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Computer
and Data Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners.’’ The product classes and
efficiency levels established in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 are shown in Table
I.1 above.
Prior to this equipment having
separate efficiency levels and test
procedures specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE discussed such
units using the terminology ‘‘computer
room air conditioners’’ in an August 9,
2000 NOPR (65 FR 48828, 48830–31)
and an October 21, 2004 direct final rule
(69 FR 61962, 61967). In the August
2000 NOPR, DOE determined that
computer room air conditioners were
not covered as part of the commercial
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25634
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
packaged air conditioning and heating
equipment classes in EPCA and
subsequently upheld this position in the
October 2004 final rule. DOE made this
determination because at the time of
passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPACT 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, which
gave DOE the authority to cover
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment), the statute
excluded this equipment, and as a
result, DOE concluded that it lacked the
authority to regulate this equipment.
The basis for DOE’s decision stemmed
from the scope of ASHRAE Standard
90.1, which at the time specified that
the standard did not cover ‘‘equipment
and portions of building systems that
use energy primarily to provide for
industrial, manufacturing, or
commercial processes.’’ (See section
2.3.c. of ASHRAE 90.1 standards prior
to ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010).
Further, the House Report on EPACT
1992 (H.R. Rep. No. 474, 102d Cong., 2d
Sess., pt. 1 at 175 (1992)) pointed out
that the efficiency standards contained
in the bill were developed by ASHRAE
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE
concluded that this indicated that the
efficiency standards for commercial
products in EPACT 1992 would have
the same scope as the version of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 current at the
time of the legislation’s enactment,
which did not cover computer room air
conditioners. As a result, DOE
concluded at the time that it did not
have the authority to cover computer
room air conditioners. However, DOE
stated in both the NOPR and final rule
that ‘‘if some of the relevant
circumstances were to change—if, for
example, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were
to incorporate efficiency standards and
test procedures for this equipment or
the equipment was to become widely
used for conventional air conditioning
applications—the Department might
revisit this issue.’’ 65 FR 48828, 48831
(August 9, 2000); 69 FR 61962, 61967
(Oct. 21, 2004).
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
expanded the scope from previous
versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 to
include process loads (e.g., computer
rooms) and created a separate product
class for ‘‘air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer
rooms.’’ EPCA generally directs DOE to
follow ASHRAE Standard 90.1 when it
is amended with respect to certain
equipment types, including commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. Thus, DOE has tentatively
concluded that because ASHRAE has
expanded the scope of Standard 90.1 to
include air conditioners and condensing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
units serving computer rooms, the scope
of DOE’s requirements with regard to
ASHRAE products in EPCA is also
expanded to encompass these products.
As such, DOE has tentatively concluded
it has the authority to review the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency
levels for air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer
rooms and to establish minimum energy
conservation standard levels for this
equipment. DOE seeks comment on how
best to establish minimum energy
conservation standards for air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms. This is
identified as Issue 5 in section IV.B,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’
Although DOE has tentatively
concluded that it has the authority to
consider adopting minimum efficiency
standards for air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer
rooms at or above the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels,
DOE did not perform a potential energy
savings analysis for these products as a
part of this NODA due to the lack of
available data. The State of California
requires manufacturers of computer
room air conditioners to certify the EER
of their computer room air conditioning
equipment (20 CCR 1605.3(c)(2)),11 and
DOE examined the information in the
California Energy Commission (CEC)
appliance database 12 for computer room
air conditioners. The CEC database
contained over 300 models, indicating
that there is a potentially significant
market for computer room air
conditioners. However, the database
only contains efficiency information in
the form of EER, and manufacturers
currently do not report SCOP in the CEC
database or in their literature. Because
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 are in SCOP, the
EER efficiency information is of little
use to DOE in analyzing the potential
energy savings of the SCOP efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010.
Since these equipment classes of air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms and the SCOP
metric specified by ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 are newly-defined
requirements, DOE was unable to obtain
reliable efficiency data for the majority
of models or shipments data that would
allow DOE to characterize the energy
11 For more information see California Code of
Regulations. Title 20, Public Utilities and Energy,
Division 2, State Energy Resources Conservation
and Development Commission (August 2008)
(Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/
2008publications/CEC–140–2008–001/CEC–140–
2008–001–REV1.PDF).
12 The CEC Appliance Efficiency Database is
available at: https://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
savings potential of this equipment in a
reasonably accurate manner. DOE is
requesting data and information from
interested parties regarding air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms that could be
used in performing an energy savings
analysis at a future stage of this
rulemaking (e.g., SCOP efficiency
ratings, shipments information). This is
identified as Issue 6 under section IV.B
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’
Lastly, although DOE addressed
computer room air conditioners in the
August 2000 NOPR and October 2004
direct final rule, DOE never formally
defined this equipment. In reviewing
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE
noted that ASHRAE does not define a
class of equipment but rather an
application (i.e., ‘‘serving computer
rooms’’). Because air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer have
the same basic components as
conventional air conditioners, there is
some difficulty in defining air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms such that they
can be clearly differentiated from
conventional commercial packaged air
conditioners and heat pumps. DOE
reviewed the definitions in both
ASHRAE 127–2007 (the test procedure
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 for air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer
rooms) and Title 20 in the California
Code of Regulations (which establishes
California’s requirements for this
equipment), and found that the
definitions in each do not contain
criteria that would allow DOE to clearly
differentiate these equipment from
conventional equipment, without
overlap between the types of equipment.
DOE seeks comment on approaches for
developing appropriate definitions for
this equipment that would not result in
overlap between ‘‘air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer
rooms’’ and the other types of
commercial packaged air-conditioning
and heating equipment covered by
EPCA. This is identified as Issue 7 in
section IV.B under ‘‘Issues for Which
DOE Seeks Comment.’’
D. Test Procedures
EPCA requires the Secretary to amend
the test procedures for ASHRAE
products to the latest version generally
accepted by industry or the rating
procedures developed or recognized by
AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced by
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the
Secretary determines by clear and
convincing evidence that the latest
version of the industry test procedure
does not meet the requirements for test
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
procedures described in paragraphs (2)
and (3) of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a).13 (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B)) ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 updated several of its test
procedures for ASHRAE products.
Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 updated to the most recent
editions of test procedures for small
commercial package air conditioners
and heating equipment (AHRI 210/240–
2008, Performance Rating of Unitary
Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat
Pump Equipment), large and very large
commercial package air conditioners
and heating equipment (AHRI 340/360–
2007, Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment), commercial warm-air
furnaces (UL 727–2006, Standard for
Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces,
and ANSI Z21.47–2006, Standard for
Gas-Fired Central Furnaces), and
commercial water heaters (ANSI
Z21.10.3–2006, Gas Water Heaters,
Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with
Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per
Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous).
Additionally, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 adopts new test procedures for
measuring the efficiency of variable
refrigerant flow equipment (AHRI 1230–
2010, Performance Rating of Variable
Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment) and air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer
rooms (ASHRAE 127–2007, Method of
Testing for Rating Computer and Data
Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners). Lastly, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 specifies ARI 390–
2003, Performance Rating of Single
Packaged Vertical Air-Conditioners and
Heat Pumps, as the test procedure for
SPVACs and SPVHPs.
DOE has preliminarily reviewed each
of the test procedures that were updated
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and
discusses the changes to the test
procedures below. For the newly
established test procedures AHRI 1230
and ASHRAE 127, DOE is in the process
of assessing the appropriateness of these
13 Specifically, the relevant provisions (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)–(3)) provide that test procedures must be
reasonably designed to produce test results that
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs of a type (or class) of industrial
equipment during a representative average use
cycle, and must not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. Moreover, if the test procedure is for
determining estimated annual operating costs, it
must provide that such costs will be calculated
from measurements of energy use in a
representative average-use cycle, and from
representative average unit costs of the energy
needed to operate the equipment during such cycle.
The Secretary must provide information to
manufacturers of covered equipment regarding
representative average unit costs of energy.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
test methods with respect to the
requirements for test procedures
specified by EPCA pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B), and will provide a
preliminary determination regarding
those test procedures in the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that will
follow this NODA. EISA 2007
established separate equipment classes
and efficiency levels for SPVACs and
SPVHPs, but the statute did not specify
test procedures for this equipment. As a
result, DOE is also considering the test
procedure for SPVACs and SPVHPs in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 (i.e.,
AHRI 390) pursuant to the requirements
in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), and will
provide a preliminary determination
regarding that test procedure in the
NOPR as well. DOE seeks comment on
the appropriateness of AHRI 1230,
ASHRAE 127, and AHRI 390 as the test
method for VRF equipment, air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms, and SPVACs
and SPVHPs, respectively. This is
identified as Issue 8 in section IV.B,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’
1. Updates to AHRI 210/240 Test
Method
In 2008, AHRI updated AHRI 210/
240, Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment, which is incorporated by
reference as the DOE test procedure for
commercial small air conditioners and
air-source heat pumps with a cooling
capacity below 65,000 Btu/h at 10 CFR
431.95. AHRI made numerous
reorganizational and additive changes to
this standard from the version currently
incorporated by reference in DOE’s test
procedures for commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps (i.e., AHRI
210/240–2003).
The AHRI 210/240–2008 test
procedure references and includes as
Appendix C the DOE test procedure for
residential central air conditioners and
heat pumps at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, Appendix M. In section 3 of AHRI
210/240–2008, Definitions, AHRI
changed the definitions of heating
seasonal performance factor (HSPF) and
seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER)
to match the definitions for those terms
that are contained in the test procedure
for residential central air conditioners
and heat pumps (which consequently
are also contained in Appendix C of
AHRI 210/240–2008). Also, AHRI added
definitions for tested combination for
multiple-split air conditioners and heat
pumps, small-duct, high-velocity
systems, space-constrained products,
and through-the-wall air conditioners
and heat pumps that match DOE’s
definitions at 10 CFR 430.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25635
In section 6, Rating Requirements,
AHRI updated the tables that specify the
standard rating conditions specified for
equipment covered by the standard.
AHRI reorganized the existing tables for
air conditioners and heat pumps, and it
created several new tables listing the
standard rating conditions for
equipment with variable air volume
fans, two-stage compressors, or variablespeed compressors. AHRI also added a
minimum external static pressure
requirement for small-duct, highvelocity systems. In addition to
updating the tables and tests in section
6, AHRI also reorganized section 6.1.3.3,
Indoor-Coil Airflow Rate, and added a
new section 6.1.4, Conditions for
Standard Rating Tests (which is the
section where tables discussed above
are located).
The updates made to AHRI 210/240–
2008 from the 2003 version of the
standard were identical to updates made
by DOE to its test procedure for
residential central air conditioners and
heat pumps at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, Appendix M. The updates discussed
in the preceding paragraph were
described in detail and previously were
evaluated by DOE in two test procedure
final rules for residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps, published
in the Federal Register on October 11,
2005 and October 22, 2007. 70 FR
59122; 72 FR 59906. In each of those
test procedure amendments, DOE
concluded that the changes did not have
a significant impact on product
efficiency as measured by the test
procedure that would cause DOE to
revise its existing energy conservation
standards. 70 FR 59122, 51932 (Oct. 11,
2005); 72 FR 59906, 59917–18 (Oct. 22,
2007). Because the major changes to
AHRI 210/240 have already been
approved for the residential central air
conditioner and heat pump test
procedure and because DOE previously
concluded that those changes do not
impact the efficiency of residential
units, DOE believes that the changes
also do not impact the energy efficiency
measurements for small commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps with a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h
(the ASHRAE equipment for which
AHRI 210/240–2008 applies). DOE seeks
comments on this tentative conclusion.
This is identified as Issue 9 in section
IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
2. Updates to AHRI 340/360 Test
Method
In 2007, AHRI updated AHRI
340/360, Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25636
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Equipment. The primary purpose of the
update was to change the part-load
rating metric from integrated part-load
value (IPLV) to integrated energy
efficiency ratio (IEER). AHRI also
expanded the scope of the test
procedure to include air-cooled
packaged unitary air-conditioners with a
cooling capacity from 250,000 Btu/h to
less than 760,000 Btu/h in addition to
equipment that was included in the
scope of the previous AHRI 340/360
standard (which covered air-cooled,
water-cooled, and evaporatively-cooled
unitary air-conditioning, air-source
unitary heat pump equipment, and airconditioning condensing units rated at
or above 65,000 Btu/h but below
250,000 Btu/h). AHRI also added a
tolerance criterion for the minimum
external static pressure test (from ¥0.0
in H2O to +0.05 in H2O). Since DOE
does not regulate or require
manufacturers to certify part-load
ratings, the change from IPLV to IEER
does not affect the Federal energy
conservation standards. Also, DOE
believes that the added tolerance
criterion does not significantly impact
the measure of energy efficiency. DOE
seeks comments on its preliminary
determination that the changes to AHRI
340/360–2007 do not significantly
impact energy efficiency ratings. This is
identified as Issue 9 in section IV.B,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Updates to UL 727 Test Method
In 2006, Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) updated its standard UL 727,
Standard for Safety for Oil-Fired Central
Furnaces. DOE’s test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of
commercial warm-air furnaces at 10
CFR 431.76 only references the
procedures pertinent to the
measurement of the steady-state
efficiency for this equipment in UL 727
(i.e., the measurements described in
sections 1 through 3, 37 through 42 (but
not 40.4 and 40.6.2 through 40.6.7),
43.2, 44, 45, and 46 of UL 727).
Therefore, when reviewing the test
procedure, DOE only looked at the
changes to these sections. Most of the
changes to UL 727 were to reorganize
the document and convert it to the
Standard Generalized Markup Language
(SGML) 14 as a way of keeping the data
consistent, reusable, shareable, and
portable. In addition, UL removed a
section from the scope that allowed a
manufacturer to propose appropriate
revisions to requirements of UL 727 if
14 SGML is a document markup language
developed by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) to allow for the sharing of
machine-readable documents in government or law.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
the product’s new features, components,
materials, or systems are unsafe to be
tested with the UL 727 Standard,
provided that the new revisions
conforms to the intent of the Standard.
DOE believes that these changes to UL
727–2006 do not significantly impact
the energy efficiency ratings and seeks
comments as to its tentative conclusion.
This is identified as Issue 9 in section
IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
4. Updates to ANSI Z21.47 Test Method
In 2006, the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) updated
ANSI Z21.47, Standard for Gas-Fired
Central Furnaces. DOE’s test procedure
for measuring the energy efficiency of
gas-fired warm air furnaces at 10 CFR
431.76 only references the procedures
contained in ANSI Z21.47 that are
relevant to the steady-state efficiency
measurement (i.e., sections 1.1, 2.1
through 2.6, 2.38, and 4.2.1 of ANSI
Z21.47). As a result, DOE focused its
test procedure review on the relevant
sections of ANSI Z21.47 that DOE’s test
procedure references. In those sections
referenced by DOE’s test procedures,
ANSI made several updates. First, ANSI
updated the scope section to include
optional special construction provisions
for furnaces designed to operate at
altitudes over 2000 feet. ANSI also
added an entirely new section for a
Proved Igniter and renumbered the
other sections to accommodate this
addition. The newly added section does
not fall under the procedures relevant
for steady-state efficiency measurement;
however, it does cause the Thermal
Efficiency section (which is relevant for
the steady-state efficiency measurement)
to move from section 2.38 to section
2.39 of the test procedure. DOE
preliminarily determined that these
changes to ANSI Z21.47–2006 do not
impact the energy efficiency ratings for
gas-fired furnaces and seeks comments
regarding this tentative conclusion. This
is identified as Issue 9 in section IV.B,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’
5. Updates to ANSI Z21.10.3 Test
Method
In 2004, ANSI updated ANSI
Z21.10.3, Gas Water Heaters, Volume
III, Storage Water Heaters with Input
Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour,
Circulating and Instantaneous. DOE’s
test procedure for gas-fired water
heaters at 10 CFR 431.106 only
references sections 2.9 (Thermal
Efficiency) and 2.10 (Standby Loss) of
the ANSI Z.21.10 test procedure.
Accordingly, DOE’s review focused on
those sections, as well as any other
sections to which sections 2.9 and 2.10
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
refer. In the updated version, ANSI
moved both of these sections to Exhibit
G. In addition, ANSI added a provision
to limit the duration of the standby loss
test to a maximum of 48 hours if there
is no cutout (i.e., the thermostat acts to
shut off the burner) after the 24-hour
mark. Currently, there is already an
additional stipulation in DOE’s test
procedure at 10 CFR 431.106 that the
standby test should last from the first
fuel and/or electric consumption
measurement until either the first cutout
after the 24-hour mark or a maximum of
48 hours, if the water heater is not in the
heating mode at that time. This
stipulation was added by a direct final
rule amending the test procedure for
commercial water heaters (which was
published on October 21, 2004) to limit
the duration of the standby test and
reduce the testing burden for
manufacturers. 69 FR 61974, 61979.
DOE notes that its provision limiting
the duration of the standby loss test is
slightly different than the provision
included in ANSI Z 21.10.3–2004. Using
DOE’s test procedure, if the water heater
is in heating mode at the 48-hour mark,
the tester is instructed to let the heating
mode complete before ending the test.
However, the updated ANSI Z21.10.3
test method directs the tester to end the
test at 48 hours regardless of whether
the water heater is in heating mode.
DOE believes that this slight difference
between the ANSI test procedure and
the current DOE test procedure may
have a very small impact on the
measured energy efficiency if the water
heater has not yet cut off after 24 hours
and is in heating mode at the 48-hour
mark. In such a situation, the DOE test
procedure would allow the water heater
to continue operating in heating mode
to continue until a cutout before ending
the test, whereas the ANSI test method
would end the test immediately and
possibly not capture the energy used
during that final heating cycle.
However, as noted above, DOE’s test
procedure already includes a provision
to address the standby mode energy loss
that is independent of the ANSI
Z21.10.3 test method. Therefore, the
update to the provision for the duration
of the standby mode test in ANSI
Z21.10.3 would be superseded by DOE’s
test requirements at 10 CFR 431.106 and
would not change the standby test
method. As a result, DOE believes that
the new changes to ANSI Z21.10.3
would not significantly affect the
measure of energy efficiency. DOE seeks
comment regarding its preliminary
conclusion that the updated ANSI
Z21.10.3–2004 does not significantly
impact energy efficiency ratings of
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
commercial gas-fired water heaters. This
is identified as Issue 9 in section IV.B,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Analysis of Potential Energy
Savings
As required under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A), DOE performed an
analysis to determine the energy-savings
potential of amending Federal minimum
energy conservation standard levels to
the efficiency levels specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, as well as
more-stringent efficiency levels than
those specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010. As explained above, DOE’s
energy-savings analysis is limited to
types of equipment covered by Federal
energy conservation standards for which
the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 increased the efficiency levels and
for which a market exists and sufficient
data are available.15 Based upon the
conclusions reached in section II, DOE
is conducting the energy-savings
analysis for eight equipment classes of
water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
products: (1) Small water-cooled air
conditioners with electric resistance or
no heating (65,000 to less than 135,000
Btu/h); (2) small water-cooled air
conditioners with other heating (65,000
to less than 135,000 Btu/h); (3) large
water-cooled air conditioners with
electric resistance or no heating
(135,000 to less than 240,000 Btu/h); (4)
large water-cooled air conditioners with
other heating (135,000 to less than
240,000); (5) very large water-cooled air
conditioners with electric resistance or
no heating (240,000 Btu/h to less than
760,000 Btu/h); (6) very large watercooled air conditioners with other
heating (240,000 Btu/h to less than
760,000 Btu/h); (7) very large
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners
with electric resistance or no heating
(240,000 Btu/h to less than 760,000 Btu/
h); and (8) very large evaporativelycooled air conditioners with other
heating (240,000 Btu/h to less than
760,000 Btu/h).
In addition, although ASHRAE did
not increase the efficiency level for
SPVACs and SPVHPs, DOE is required
by EPCA to consider amending the
energy conservation standards for these
equipment classes using the procedures
15 As discussed in section II, when no products
are available on the market or no reliable data exist
for calculating potential energy savings, DOE did
not perform an analysis. The products for which
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 increased the
efficiency level, but for which DOE did not perform
an analysis due to lack of a market or lack of data
include: (1) VRF water-source heat pumps under
17,000 Btu/h (see section II.B.3); (2) VRF watersource heat pumps over 135,000 Btu/h (see section
II.B.3); and (3) air conditioners and condensing
units serving computer rooms (see section II.C).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
set forth by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for
ASHRAE products. Accordingly, DOE
also performed an energy-savings
analysis for four equipment classes of
SPVACs and SPVHPs where there is a
market and sufficient data are available:
(1) Single-phase SPVACs under 65,000
Btu/h; (2) three-phase SPVACs under
65,000 Btu/h; (3) single-phase SPVHPs
under 65,000 Btu/h; and (4) three-phase
SPVHPs under 65,000 Btu/h.
The following discussion provides an
overview of the energy-savings analysis
conducted for these twelve classes of
products, followed by summary results
of that analysis. For each efficiency
level analyzed, DOE calculated the
potential energy savings to the Nation as
the difference between a base-case
forecast (without amended standards)
and the standards-case forecast (with
amended standards). The national
energy savings (NES) refers to
cumulative energy savings for a 30-year
period that differs by product. The
analysis is based on a stock accounting
method. In the standards case,
equipment that is more efficient
gradually replaces less-efficient
equipment over time. This affects the
calculation of the potential energy
savings, which are a function of the total
number of units in use and their
efficiencies. Savings depend on annual
shipments and equipment lifetime.
Inputs to the energy-savings analysis are
presented below, and details are
available in the ASHRAE NODA TSD on
DOE’s website.16
While DOE did not have sufficient
data to follow this analytical method for
large SPVACs, DOE approximated the
energy savings potential for this product
class based on the energy savings results
from the small SPVAC product classes.
The calculation method and results for
estimating the energy savings potential
for large SPVACs are summarized in
section III.D.
A. Annual Energy Use
DOE’s analysis of the annual unit
energy consumption (UEC) for each
class of equipment analyzed was based
on the use of building simulation
models or previously available building
simulation data for equipment at or near
the current Federal standard baseline for
each equipment class analyzed. DOE
then used a scaling process to assess the
UEC corresponding to higher efficiency
levels, including the efficiency levels
provided in ASHRAE 90.1–2010. These
UEC estimates form the basis of the
16 The ASHRAE NODA TSD is available on the
webpage for ASHRAE Products at: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/
ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25637
national energy savings estimates
discussed in section III.D.
This section describes the energy use
analysis performed for water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled products, as well
as for SPVUs. For each of these
equipment types, the Federal standard
and higher efficiency levels are
expressed in terms of an efficiency
metric or metrics (EER for cooling
efficiency, Coefficient of Performance
(COP) for heating efficiency). For each
equipment class, this section describes
how DOE developed estimates of annual
energy consumption at the baseline
efficiency level and higher levels for
each equipment type. More detailed
discussion is found in the ASHRAE
NODA TSD.
1. Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
The analysis to assess the per-unit
energy saving of water-cooled air
conditioners began with review of the
existing market, as well as the review of
historical shipments data provided by
AHRI for the period from 1989–2009.17
The review of the market for equipment
from 65,000 Btu/h to 760,000 Btu/h
suggested that most of the water-cooled
air conditioner units currently on the
market are designed for installation
inside of commercial buildings (as
opposed to on building rooftops), and
the shipments data suggested that in
recent years, shipments were dominated
by larger equipment (≥ 240,000 Btu/h
capacity), with relatively few shipments
of smaller-capacity units. Given these
findings, DOE’s analysis of energy
savings focused on typical applications
for this larger equipment. Review of
manufacturer’s literature suggested that
a common application is floor-by-floor
cooling in a multi-story building.
To provide an estimate of the energy
use of water-cooled air conditioners in
this application, DOE used annual
hourly simulation data developed from
computer simulations of a prototypical
commercial office building. The
prototype building model was a 3-story,
53,600 square foot (sf) commercial office
building developed as part of DOE’s
commercial reference building
models.18 This building has each floor
17 Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute, Historical Shipment Data Commercial Air
Conditioners Water Cooled, 2011. This information
was provided by AHRI to the U.S. Department of
Energy on March 4, 2011.
18 The commercial reference building models are
available on DOE’s website as Energy Plus input
files at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
commercial_initiative/new_construction.html.
Documentation of the model development is
provided in: Deru, M., et al. U.S. Department of
Energy Commercial Reference Building Models of
the National Building Stock. (NREL/TP–5500–
46861) (2011).
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25638
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
served by a separate packaged airconditioning unit. The hourly data used
in this analysis were previously
developed from simulations using the
DOE EnergyPlus 19 building simulation
software and reflected building
simulations in 15 climate locations in
the U.S., with each climate representing
one of 15 climate regions that have been
developed in DOE’s Building Energy
Codes Program and subsequently used
in the development of the commercial
reference building models.
The office building model selected
utilized packaged variable air volume
rooftop cooling units in the original
reference building simulations, with
each packaged unit serving one floor of
the office model. DOE determined that
the cooling thermal loads from
modeling of this type of equipment
would be representative of similar
cooling distribution systems served by
larger water-cooled equipment that also
provides floor-by-floor cooling and
serves multiple building thermal zones.
EnergyPlus does not have an equipment
simulation model developed around a
water-cooled air conditioner for this
application. For this reason, DOE relied
on using the previously developed
hourly cooling thermal load, air flow,
and system air temperature data for the
air-cooled packaged rooftop equipment
used in the medium office reference
building model. Since the thermal loads
for the specific application would be
essentially the same whether served by
air-cooled or water-cooled packaged
cooling equipment, and since the watercooled packaged air conditioner
equipment performance would be
modeled explicitly in the spreadsheet,
DOE believes this is approach provides
an accurate method of estimating energy
consumption for the water-cooled
equipment classes.
To process the hourly data into
annual equipment energy consumption
for water-cooled air conditioners, DOE
developed a spreadsheet model of the
typical equipment performance using
actual manufacturer performance data
for a 25-ton water-cooled air
conditioner. Cooling capacity and
condenser power consumption curve
fits to this data were developed using
polynomial relationships and the
independent variables recommended for
modeling of cooling efficiency for watersource heat pumps in Energy Plus. In
addition, DOE used part-load
19 For more information on EnergyPlus, refer to
DOE’s EnergyPlus documentation, available at:
https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/
energyplus_documentation.cfm. EnergyPlus
software is freely available for public download at:
https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/
energyplus_about.cfm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
performance degradation curves
previously developed for air-source air
conditioners that already existed in the
medium office reference building
model. As these part-load curves reflect
the effects of compressor cycling at part
load, it was determined that these
curves should be representative of the
compressor cycling impacts for watercooled air conditioners as well.
For each climate, DOE’s spreadsheet
model sized the equipment to reflect the
sizing in the original simulation’s
hourly load data. To accurately account
for fan power, DOE used the normalized
fan power-versus-supply air flow curves
in the original office reference building
model.
The performance equations developed
in this spreadsheet model separately
accounted for the water-cooled gross
cooling capacity and power
consumption as a function of entering
air conditions and supply water
temperature and flow rate. In addition,
the spreadsheet model requires an
hourly entering water temperature and
entering water flow rate. For this
analysis, a simple cooling tower supply
water temperature model was developed
based on a defined control profile with
minimum 70 °F return water
temperature and using a 7 °F approach
temperature (the temperature between
the return water temperature from the
cooling tower and the outdoor air wet
bulb temperature). Condenser water
flow rates were assumed to be
equivalent to the nominal rating
condition water flow rates for all
cooling hours.
For analysis of energy use at each
specific efficiency (EER) level, DOE first
developed estimates for the condenser
efficiency (condenser-only cooling COP)
based on the nominal rating conditions.
This was done by backing out the
estimated fan power at nominal rating
conditions from the input power and
separately accounting for the impact of
fan heat to arrive at the gross cooling
capacity of the equipment. DOE
developed estimates of peak fan power
at design air flow conditions and used
the fan power versus flow relationships
to adjust the fan power appropriately for
periods when air flow was not at design
air flow rates.
Using the spreadsheet model, for each
of the 15 climates, DOE first developed
the annual equipment condenser energy
consumption and blower energy
consumption for nominal 11 EER watercooled equipment, with 11 EER being
the current Federal standard for watercooled air conditioners with electric
resistance or no heating, 240,000 Btu/h
to less than 760,000 Btu/h . These were
then normalized by dividing by the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
equipment capacity in cooling tons. The
sum of the resulting condenser energy
per cooling ton and blower energy per
cooling ton represents the annual energy
consumption per cooling ton for
equipment at the 11 EER efficiency
level. The resulting per-ton energy
consumption figures were then
multiplied by the typical equipment
capacities developed for each watercooled equipment class analyzed to
establish the Unit Energy Consumption
(UEC) values for each equipment class
at that 11 EER level.
To assess the annual energy
consumption at the specific efficiency
levels analyzed, DOE developed
estimates of the condenser-only cooling
COP for each efficiency level. It then
multiplied the annual condenser energy
consumption for the 11 EER equipment
for each climate by the ratio of the
baseline condenser-only cooling COP to
the condenser-only cooling COP at the
higher efficiency levels.
The annual fan energy consumption
estimates were held constant at the
baseline level for all higher standards. A
detailed engineering analysis of higher
efficiency options might suggest a
number of different ways to improve the
EER including reducing supply fan
energy consumption. However, several
downsides to this approach were
identified. First, the supply fan accounts
for a relatively small portion of the
energy use as compared to the
condenser at the rating condition. In
addition, because it appears that much
of this equipment is installed inside the
building space, changes which reduce
fan power, such as increased case size
and lower face velocity over the
evaporator coil, would decrease the
amount of rentable space available
within the building. Accordingly, for
the assessment of energy savings in this
NODA, supply fan energy use was held
constant. The UEC for each efficiency
level analyzed is the sum of the annual
condenser energy consumption and the
fan power. From these climate-regionspecific results, DOE developed national
average UEC values at each efficiency
level using weighting factors developed
for medium and large commercial office
building floor space as part of the
development of the DOE reference
building models. A comparison of these
office weighting factors with cumulative
weighting factors developed for the
larger stock of commercial floor space is
provided in the ASHRAE NODA TSD.
Table III.1 shows the UEC estimates
for the current Federal baseline levels,
the proposed ASHRAE levels, and for
the higher efficiency levels for the six
water-cooled air conditioner classes
analyzed.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
25639
TABLE III.1—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR WATER-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS
Small watercooled air
conditioners electric or no heat
65,000–135,000
Btu/h
Small watercooled air
conditioners other
heat
65,000–135,000
Btu/h
Large watercooled air
conditioners electric or no heat
135,000–240,000
Btu/h
Large watercooled air
conditioners other
heat
135,000–240,000
Btu/h
Very large watercooled air
conditioners electric or no heat
240,000–760,000
Btu/h
Very large watercooled air
conditioners other
heat
240,000–760,000
Btu/h
8
8
15
15
35
35
Average Cooling
Capacity (tons)
Efficiency Level (EER)
Base Case—Federal Standard ....
Efficiency Level 1
Efficiency Level 2
Efficiency Level 3
Efficiency Level 4
Efficiency Level
5—‘‘MaxTech’’— ............
11.5
12.1
13.0
14.0
15.0
11.3
11.9
13.0
14.0
15.0
11.0
12.5
13.0
14.0
15.0
11.0
12.3
13.0
14.0
15.0
11.0
12.4
13.0
14.0
* NA
10.8
12.2
13.0
14.0
* NA
16.4
16.4
16.1
16.1
14.8
14.8
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)
Base Case—Federal Standard ....
Efficiency Level 1
Efficiency Level 2
Efficiency Level 3
Efficiency Level 4
Efficiency Level
5—‘‘MaxTech’’— ............
9,199
8,855
8,396
7,953
7,566
9,322
8,966
8,396
7,953
7,566
17,838
16,206
15,743
14,911
14,186
17,838
16,402
15,743
14,911
14,186
41,621
38,041
36,733
34,793
*NA
42,205
38,504
36,733
34,793
*NA
7,101
7,101
13,490
13,490
33,422
33,422
*An efficiency level 4 was not identified for very large water-cooled air conditioners.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Evaporatively-Cooled Air
Conditioners
The analysis to assess the per-unit
energy use of evaporatively-cooled air
conditioners began with review of the
existing market. DOE did not identify
any current models of evaporativelycooled air conditioners with less than
240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity. The
review of the market suggested that all
of the currently shipping units appeared
to be packaged rooftop evaporativelycooled air conditioner units. Based on
the available models, DOE estimated the
average capacity at 40 tons. Because of
this, DOE’s analysis of energy savings
focused on typical applications for the
very large equipment class. Because of
the large capacity, DOE believes that a
common system design would also be a
packaged variable air volume (VAV)
system. DOE modified the 3-story office
reference building model discussed
previously to serve as the simulation
model for the very large evaporativelycooled air conditioner equipment class.
The Energy Plus simulation tool has
the capability to model evaporativelycooled unitary air conditioners with
only minor modifications from the aircooled unitary air conditioner
equipment models that were used in the
original DOE medium office reference
building model. DOE was not able to
derive separate performance curves for
evaporatively-cooled equipment, as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:55 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
these data were not available in the
manufacturer literature reviewed.
Therefore, DOE modified the air-cooled
model using simulation defaults
provided in the Energy Plus
documentation for modeling
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners.
These modifications are discussed in
the ASHRAE NODA TSD.
DOE performed simulations of the
medium office reference building model
in the 15 climates identified previously
at an 11 EER efficiency level, because 11
EER is the current Federal standard for
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners
with electric resistance or no heating.
To do this, DOE first developed
estimates for the condenser-only cooling
COP based on the nominal rating
conditions as input for the simulation
models. DOE used the fan power
performance curves and peak fan power
assumptions in the reference building
model directly.
Using the spreadsheet model, for each
of the 15 climates, DOE developed the
annual equipment condenser energy
consumption and blower energy
consumption for the 11 EER
evaporatively-cooled equipment
simulated. These values were then
normalized by dividing by the
equipment capacity in cooling tons. The
sum of the resulting condenser energy
per cooling ton and blower energy per
cooling ton represents the annual energy
consumption per cooling ton for
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
equipment at that 11 EER efficiency
level. These per-ton energy
consumption figures were then
multiplied by the selected equipment
capacities for the evaporatively-cooled
equipment class analyzed to establish
the UEC values for each equipment class
at an 11 EER level.
To assess the annual energy
consumption at the specific efficiency
levels analyzed, DOE developed
estimates of the condenser-only cooling
COP for each efficiency level. It then
multiplied the baseline annual
condenser energy consumption
developed for each climate by the ratio
of the baseline condenser-only cooling
COP at 11 EER to the condenser-only
cooling COP at the efficiency levels
analyzed.
The annual fan energy consumption
estimates were held constant at the
baseline level for all higher standards.
As with water-cooled air conditioners, a
detailed engineering analysis might
suggest that reduction in supply fan
power might be a path to improved EER;
however, DOE did not conduct such a
detailed analysis. Because supply fan
power is a relatively small fraction of
total system power at rating conditions,
DOE concluded that improvement in
condenser efficiency is likely a
necessary path to achieve the most
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25640
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
national average UEC values at each
efficiency level using weighting factors
developed for medium and large
commercial office building floor space
as part of the development of the DOE
reference building models.
significant system efficiency
improvements. The UEC for each
efficiency level analyzed is the sum of
the annual condenser energy
consumption and the fan power. As
with water-cooled air conditioners
discussed previously, DOE developed
Table III.2 shows the unit energy
consumption estimates for the current
Federal baseline levels, the proposed
ASHRAE levels, and for the higher
efficiency levels for the very large
evaporatively-cooled air conditioner
classes.
TABLE III.2—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS
Large evaporativelycooled air conditioner
electric or no heat
240,000–760,000 Btu/h
Average Cooling Capacity (tons)
Large evaporativelycooled air conditioner
other heat 240,000–
760,000 Btu/h
40
40
11.0
11.9
12.5
13.1
10.8
11.7
12.5
13.1
47,171
44,732
43,294
41,983
47,766
45,243
43,294
41,983
Efficiency Level (EER)
Base case ................................................................................................................................
Level 1—ASHRAE ...................................................................................................................
Level 2 .....................................................................................................................................
Max Tech .................................................................................................................................
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)
Base case ................................................................................................................................
Level 1—ASHRAE ...................................................................................................................
Level 2 .....................................................................................................................................
Max Tech .................................................................................................................................
3. Single-Package Vertical Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Based on data developed during
previous analysis of SPVU equipment
by DOE,20 the Department believes that
approximately 60 percent of the SPVU
shipments go to educational facilities,
the majority of which are for space
conditioning of modular classroom
buildings. Another approximately 20
percent of the shipments go to providing
cooling for non-comfort cooling
applications such as
telecommunications and electronics
enclosures. The remainder is used in a
wide variety of commercial buildings
including offices, temporary buildings,
and some lodging facilities. In many of
these commercial building applications,
the buildings served are expected to be
of modular construction.
For its initial estimate of energy
savings for SPVAC and SPVHP, DOE
focused its analysis on the education
market, in particular, modular
classrooms, which DOE believes to
20 U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Program for
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency
Standards for Commercial Heating, AirConditioning, and Water Heating Equipment
Including Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, Small Commercial
Packaged Boiler, Three-Phase Air-Conditioners and
Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h, and Single-Package
Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h (March 2006)
(Available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/
ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:55 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
represent the majority of the usage for
this equipment. To estimate the energy
use of single-package vertical air
conditioners and heat pumps in these
educational facilities, DOE developed a
modular classroom building simulation
model using the Energy Plus software.
Schedules and load profiles were taken
from classroom-space data found in the
DOE Primary School reference building
models. Internal loads were based on
equipment power and occupancy
figures for the primary school reference
building model. Lighting power
requirements were based on levels
found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2004.
DOE believes that this is largely
representative of classroom lighting
power in the building stock.
DOE simulated this building in each
of the 15 climates as was done for watercooled air conditioners and
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners.
Simulations were done for the buildings
with SPVAC equipment and electric
resistance heating, and then a separate
set of simulations was done for
buildings with SPVHP equipment. DOE
used the current Federal standard
efficiencies of 9.0 EER for SPVAC
equipment and 9.0 EER and 3.0 COP for
SPVHP equipment in the ≤65,000 Btu/
h cooling capacity range. Fan power at
these efficiency levels was based on
manufacturers’ literature and reported
fan power consumption data. In
addition, based on DOE’s review of the
existing market, the supply air blower
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
motors for this baseline equipment used
permanent split-capacitor motors.
Using the fan power data, DOE
converted the baseline EER to condenser
cooling COP at rating conditions. DOE
converted the baseline heating COP to
condenser heating COP at the heating
rating conditions. These values were
used as inputs for the equipment
simulations. Further details of the
building model and the simulation
inputs used for modeling the energy
consumption of the SPVAC and SPVHP
equipment can be found in the ASHRAE
NODA TSD.
From the annual simulation results
for SPVAC equipment, DOE extracted
the condenser energy use for cooling,
the blower energy use, and the
equipment capacity. From these, DOE
developed the annual cooling energy
per ton and annual blower energy per
ton for the baseline efficiency
simulated. These per-ton values were
then added together and multiplied by
the average cooling capacity estimated
for SPVUs in the ≤65,000 Btu/h capacity
range to arrive at the baseline UEC for
SPVAC. This average unit capacity was
estimated at 3 tons (i.e., 36,000 Btu/h).
To estimate the UEC for higher
efficiency levels for SPVAC, DOE
multiplied the baseline condenser
cooling energy by the ratio of the
baseline condenser cooling COP to the
condenser cooling COP calculated for
higher efficiency levels. As a review of
the market indicated that ECM motors
were the norm at high efficiency levels
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25641
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(with a corresponding lower fan power),
DOE used the available market data to
establish estimates of the fraction of the
market using ECM motors at each higher
efficiency level analyzed. It then
calculated the blower energy
consumption per ton for both the
baseline fan power (PSC motor) and the
fan power assuming ECM motors. The
latter was achieved by multiplying the
baseline fan energy consumption by the
ratio of the rated fan power reported for
products using ECM motors to the rated
fan power for products using PSC
blower motors. Using the relative
market fractions of the SPVACs and
SPVHPs using each motor at
approximately the efficiency levels
analyzed, DOE developed weightedaverage annual fan energy consumption
for each higher efficiency level. The
condenser energy per ton and blower
energy per ton at each efficiency level
were then added together and the result
multiplied by the 3-ton average capacity
to develop SPVAC UEC estimates for
each higher efficiency level analyzed.
The analytical method for SPVHP was
carried out in a similar fashion;
however, for heat pumps, DOE included
the heating energy from the simulation
results. From the SPVHP simulation
results at the baseline 9.0 EER and 3.0
COP levels, DOE extracted the
compressor cooling energy, blower
energy, compressor heating energy,
backup electric resistance heating
energy, and the cooling capacity. From
these, DOE developed per-ton energy
consumption values for each of these
four electrical loads. These per-ton
energy figures were summed and
multiplied by the nominal capacity to
arrive at the baseline UEC for SPVHP.
To establish UEC estimates for higher
efficiency levels, the baseline condenser
cooling energy was scaled by
multiplying it by the ratio of the
baseline condenser-only cooling COP to
that of the condenser-only cooling COP
for each higher efficiency level.
Similarly, for the analysis of higher COP
efficiencies, the condenser heating
energy was multiplied by the ratio the
baseline condenser-only heating COP to
that of the condenser-only heating COP
calculated for the higher efficiency
levels. The annual blower energy
consumption was calculated based on
the estimated relative fractions for ECM
and PSC motors for each analyzed
efficiency levels. The backup electric
resistance heat from the baseline
simulations was not adjusted for higher
efficiency levels, because it was
assumed to be unaffected by higher
efficiency levels. These scaled electrical
consumption values for these four
energy uses were then summed to
provide the UEC estimate for each
higher efficiency level. For details of
this analysis, see the ASHRAE NODA
TSD.
DOE developed national average UEC
values at each efficiency level using
weighting factors developed for primary
and secondary school education
building floor space as part of the
development of the DOE reference
building models.
Table III.3 shows the annual UEC
estimates for SPVAC and SPVHP
corresponding to the EER and COP
levels analyzed. Note that Level 2, with
an EER of 10.0, matches the minimum
standard for SPVUs in Proposed
Addendum i to ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010. Therefore, although DOE
analyzed SPVUs under a separate
requirement from an amendment to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (as discussed in
section I.A), potential energy savings for
this level provide an estimate of the
savings that would occur should this
addendum be approved.
TABLE III.3—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR SPVAC AND SPVHP EQUIPMENT
SPVAC
1-phase
<65,000 Btu/h
SPVAC
3-phase
<65,000 Btu/h
3
3
Average Capacity (tons) ..........................
SPVHP 1-phase <65,000 Btu/h
3
SPVHP 3-phase <65,000 Btu/h
3
3
3
Efficiency Level (EER)
EER
Baseline ...................................................
Level 1 .....................................................
Level 2 .....................................................
Level 3 .....................................................
Level 4 .....................................................
Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’ ...............................
EER
9.0
9.5
10.0
11.0
12.0
12.6
EER
9.0
9.5
10.0
11.0
12.0
12.6
COP
9.0
9.5
10.0
11.0
12.0
12.5
EER
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
COP
9.0
9.5
10.0
11.0
12.0
12.5
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
6,648
6,290
5,952
5,325
5,048
4,925
6,281
6,240
6,201
6,126
6,055
6,021
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Baseline ...................................................
Level 1 .....................................................
Level 2 .....................................................
Level 3 .....................................................
Level 4 .....................................................
Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’ ...............................
6,660
6,301
5,962
5,537
5,057
4,911
DOE seeks input on its analysis of
UEC for the above equipment classes
and its use in establishing the energy
savings potential for higher standards.
Of particular interest, DOE is seeking
input on the other building applications
for SPVU equipment and the value of
incorporating them into its analysis.
DOE identified this as Issue 10 under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
6,660
6,301
5,962
5,537
5,057
4,911
6,648
6,290
5,952
5,325
5,048
4,925
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’
in section IV.B of this NODA.
B. Shipments
DOE obtained historical (1989–2009)
water-cooled commercial air
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6,280
6,234
6,189
6,105
6,026
5,988
conditioner shipment data from AHRI.21
Table III.4 exhibits the shipment data
provided for a selection of years, while
the full data set can be found in the
21 Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute, Historical Shipment Data Commercial Air
Conditioners Water Cooled, 2011. This information
was provided by AHRI to the U.S. Department of
Energy on March 4, 2011. (AHRI, No. 0002 at p. 2)
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25642
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ASHRAE NODA TSD. DOE used these
shipment data to create two shipment
scenarios: (1) Based on historical trends,
and (2) shipments held constant at 2009
levels. For small and large AC, the
historical trends are exponential
(decreasing), while for very large AC,
the closest trend is linear (decreasing).
As these trends result in few shipments
by the end of the analysis period, DOE
used the second shipment scenario to
represent more of an upper bound on
shipments.
TABLE III.4—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF WATER-COOLED AC BY EQUIPMENT CLASS
Equipment class *
1989
Small AC (65,000–134,900 Btu/h) ...............................................................................................
Large AC (135,000–249,000 Btu/h) ............................................................................................
Very Large AC (250,000 & Over Btu/h) ......................................................................................
1999
1,437
793
1,622
2009
874
477
898
152
182
585
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
* Although the Btu/h ranges AHRI uses to categorize equipment into small, large, and very large do not exactly match the definitions for those
categories provided in EPCA, in this analysis, DOE did not attempt to adjust the shipments to take into account these small differences.
DOE broke out the shipment data into
the discrete classes required for this
analysis. DOE could not identify data
that would allow the shipments
provided by AHRI to be separated into
products with electrical resistance or no
heating, and those with other types of
heating. However, DOE believes that
most small and large water-cooled
equipment does not provide heating,
and as a result, DOE assigned 90 percent
of shipments in those categories to the
no heating class, and 10 percent to the
other heating class. For very large
equipment, DOE believes that most
equipment are roof-top units that are
combined with gas furnaces, and as a
result assigned 10 percent of very large
shipments to the ‘‘no heating class’’ and
90 percent to the ‘‘other heating class.’’
DOE identified nine models of very
large evaporatively-cooled equipment,
but no shipment data were available.
For this product class, DOE used the
ratio of very large evaporatively-cooled
to water-cooled models on the market
(9:35) and applied this ratio to the
water-cooled shipments to estimate
evaporatively-cooled shipments. The
same fraction as for very large watercooled equipment was used to separate
units into the relevant heating
categories.
The complete historical data set and
the projected shipments for each
equipment class can be found in the
ASHRAE NODA TSD. DOE seeks input
on its allocation of shipments to the
eight classes of water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled equipment for
which analysis was performed, as well
as the future market and shipment
scenarios for these products. DOE
identified this as Issue 11 under ‘‘Issues
on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in
section IV.B of this NODA.
For SPVUs, DOE did not create two
shipment scenarios, but rather relied
upon SPVU shipment data from the
Technical Support Document for the
March 13, 2006 Notice of Document
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Availability on Efficiency Standards for
Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning,
and Water Heating Equipment.22 In this
document, DOE provided 2005
shipments data based on AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute
(ARI, now AHRI) estimates, as shown in
Table III.5.
TABLE III.5—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF
SPVUS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS
Equipment class
2005
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h, single-phase ..........................
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h, single-phase ..........................
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h,
three-phase .......................
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h,
three-phase .......................
31,976
13,125
14,301
6,129
As the market for SPVUs is larger and
better understood than the market for
water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
products and the estimated growth rate
over time is increasing, DOE did not
include a shipment scenario with
shipments fixed to 2009. DOE only used
that scenario for water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled products to
provide an upper bound on shipments
and energy savings, as it is unclear if the
historical trend toward extremely few
units in those product classes will
continue.
DOE projected shipments of SPVUs
according to the average growth rate of
2.18 percent noted in the 2006 TSD.
This was based on analysis of AHRI data
for commercial unitary AC products
22 U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Program for
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency
Standards for Commercial Heating, AirConditioning, and Water Heating Equipment
Including Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, Small Commercial
Packaged Boiler, Three-Phase Air-Conditioners and
Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h, and Single-Package
Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h (March 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65,000 Btu/h to 240,000 Btu/h for DOE’s
commercial unitary AC and HP
rulemaking.
DOE then reviewed the AHRI certified
products directory, as well as
manufacturer Web sites, to determine
the distribution of efficiency levels for
commercially-available models within
each equipment class of water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled products and
SPVUs. DOE bundled the efficiency
levels into ‘‘efficiency ranges’’ and
determined the percentage of models
within each range. The distribution of
efficiencies in the base case for each
equipment class can be found in the
ASHRAE NODA TSD on DOE’s Web
site.
For the standards case, DOE assumed
shipments at lower efficiencies were
most likely to roll up into higher
efficiency levels in response to morestringent energy conservation standards.
For each efficiency level analyzed
within a given equipment class, DOE
used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the
market shares by efficiency level for the
year that standards become effective
(i.e., 2012). DOE estimated that the
efficiencies of equipment in the base
case that did not meet the standard level
under consideration would roll up to
meet the standard level. Available
information also suggests that all
equipment efficiencies in the base case
that were above the standard level
under consideration would not be
affected. Table III.6 shows an example
of the distribution of efficiencies within
the base-case and the roll-up scenarios
to establish the distribution of
efficiencies in the standards cases for
very large water-cooled equipment. For
all the tables of the distribution of
efficiencies in the base case and
standards cases by equipment class, see
the ASHRAE NODA TSD.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
25643
TABLE III.6—DISTRIBUTION OF EFFICIENCIES IN THE BASE CASE AND STANDARDS CASES FOR VERY LARGE WATERCOOLED COMMERCIAL AC WITH OTHER HEAT
Efficiency ranges (EER) *
Efficiency
level
10.8–11.59
11.6–12.69
12.7–13.49
13.5–14.39
14.4–14.89
Base Case—Federal Standard (10.8 EER) .............................................
Efficiency Level 1—ASHRAE (12.2 EER) ...............................................
Efficiency Level 2—(13.0 EER) ...............................................................
Efficiency Level 3—(14.0 EER) ...............................................................
Efficiency Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—(14.8 EER) .........................................
14%
....................
....................
....................
....................
23%
37%
....................
....................
....................
29%
29%
66%
....................
....................
14%
14%
14%
80%
....................
20%
20%
20%
20%
100%
* DOE binned models into efficiency ranges surrounding the EER of each efficiency level; the specific bins were chosen to maintain the same
market average efficiency (when the number of models in each range is multiplied by the efficiency level EER) as calculated using the full distribution of models.
DOE seeks input on its determination
of the base-case distribution of
efficiencies and its prediction on how
amended energy conservation standards
affect the distribution of efficiencies in
the standards case. DOE identified this
as Issue 12 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment’’ in section IV.B of this
NODA.
Using the distribution of efficiencies
in the base case and in the standards
cases for each equipment class analyzed
in today’s NODA, as well as the UECs
for each specified EER (discussed
previously), DOE calculated marketweighted average efficiency values. The
market-weighted average efficiency
value represents the average efficiency
of the total units shipped at a specified
amended standard level. The marketweighted average efficiency values for
the base case and the standards cases for
each efficiency analyzed within the
equipment classes is provided in the
ASHRAE NODA TSD found on DOE’s
Web site.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Site-to-Source Conversion
DOE converted the annual site energy
savings into the annual amount of
energy saved at the source of electric
generation (i.e., primary energy), using
site-to-source conversion factors over
the analysis period (calculated from the
Energy Information Agency’s (EIA’s)
Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO2010)
projections).23 DOE derived the annual
conversion factors by dividing the
delivered electricity to the commercial
sector plus loss for each forecast year in
the United States, as indicated in
AEO2010, by the delivered electricity to
the commercial sector for each
forecasted year.
2. Product Lifetime
For both water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled products and
SPVUs, DOE estimated the product
23 AEO2010
can be accessed at: https://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
lifetime from the advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking on Energy
Conservation Standards for Commercial
Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps published in the Federal
Register on July 29, 2004. 69 FR 45460,
45480. The product lifetime from the
prior TSD was estimated to be a mean
of 15.4 years. More recent sources
confirm this estimate including the 2008
California Database for Energy Efficient
Resources (15 years).24 For this
preliminary analysis, DOE used a singlevalue lifetime of 15 years.
3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period
For purposes of calculating the
national energy savings (NES) for watercooled and evaporatively-cooled
equipment, DOE used an analysis
period of 2013 (the assumed compliance
date if DOE were to adopt the ASHRAE
levels as Federal standards for small
products) or 2014 (the assumed
compliance date if DOE were to adopt
the ASHRAE levels as Federal standards
for large and very large products)
through 2042 and 2043, respectively.
This is the standard analysis period of
30 years that DOE typically uses in its
NES analysis. While the analysis period
remains the same for assessing the
energy savings of Federal standard
levels higher than the ASHRAE levels,
those energy savings would not begin
accumulating until 2017 (the assumed
compliance date if DOE were to
determine that standard levels more
stringent than the ASHRAE levels are
justified).
If DOE were to propose a rule
prescribing energy conservation
standards at the efficiency levels
contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010, EPCA states that any such
standards shall become effective on or
after a date which is two or three years
(depending on equipment size) after the
effective date of the applicable
24 California Public Utility Commission 2008,
Database for Energy Efficient Resources (Available
at: https://www.deeresources.com/).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
minimum energy efficiency requirement
in the amended ASHRAE standard (i.e.,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010). (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) For all watercooled and evaporatively-cooled
equipment in this rulemaking, the
effective date in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 is June 1, 2011. Thus, if DOE
decides to adopt the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010, the rule would
apply to small equipment (two product
classes) manufactured on or after June 1,
2013, which is two years from the
effective date specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010, and to large and
very large equipment (six product
classes) manufactured on or after June 1,
2014, which is three years from the
effective date specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010.
If DOE were to propose a rule
prescribing energy conservation
standards higher than the efficiency
levels contained in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, under EPCA, any such
standard will become effective for
products manufactured four years after
the date of publication in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) Thus,
for products for which DOE might adopt
a level more stringent than the ASHRAE
efficiency level, the rule would apply to
products manufactured on or after a
date which is four years from the date
of publication of the final rule adopting
standards higher than the ASHRAE
efficiency levels (30 months after
publication of the revised ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, which was October 29,
2010). Under this timeline, compliance
with such more-stringent standards
would be required no later than April
29, 2017.
For purposes of calculating the NES
for SPVUs, DOE used a 30-year analysis
period of 2017–2046. As all efficiency
levels being considered for SPVUs are
higher than the ASHRAE efficiency
levels, any rule adopted would apply to
products manufactured on or after a
date which is four years from the date
of publication of the final rule adopting
standards higher than the ASHRAE
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25644
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
efficiency levels (30 months after
publication of the revised ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, which was October 29,
2010). Under this timeline, compliance
with such more-stringent standards
would be required no later than April
29, 2017.
For each equipment class for which
DOE developed a potential energy
savings analysis, Table III.7 exhibits the
approximate compliance dates of an
amended energy conservation standard.
TABLE III.7—APPROXIMATE COMPLIANCE DATE OF AN AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR EACH
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Approximate compliance date
for adopting the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE standard
90.1–2010
Equipment class
Approximate compliance date
for adopting more stringent
efficiency levels than those in
ASHRAE standard 90.1–2010
06/2013
06/2013
06/2014
06/2014
06/2014
06/2014
06/2014
06/2014
* N/A
* N/A
* N/A
* N/A
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
04/2017
Small Water-Cooled AC with Electric Resistance or No Heat ............................
Small Water-Cooled AC with Other Heat ............................................................
Large Water-Cooled AC with Electric Resistance or No Heat ............................
Large Water-Cooled AC with Other Heat ............................................................
Very Large Water-Cooled AC with Electric Resistance or No Heat ...................
Very Large Water-Cooled AC with Other Heat ...................................................
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled AC with Electric Resistance or No Heat .......
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled AC with Other Heat .......................................
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h, single-phase ..................................................................
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h, three-phase ...................................................................
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h, single-phase ..................................................................
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h, three-phase ...................................................................
* The efficiency levels specified for SPVACs and SPVHPs in ASHRAE 90.1–2010 are already in effect as Federal minimum energy conservation standards.
D. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
DOE estimated the potential primary
energy savings in quads (i.e., 10 15 Btu)
for each efficiency level considered
within each equipment class analyzed.
Table III.8—Table III.19 show the
potential energy savings resulting from
the analyses conducted as part of this
NODA.
TABLE III.8—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR SMALL WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO
HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate *
(quads)
Efficiency level
Historical shipment trend
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—ASHRAE—12.1 EER ................................................................................................................................
2—13 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
3—14 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
4—15 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—16.4 EER ...........................................................................................................................
0.000005
0.000018
0.000044
0.000074
0.000121
Shipments
fixed to 2009
0.000011
0.000060
0.000144
0.000238
0.000388
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted.
TABLE III.9—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate *
(quads)
Efficiency level
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Historical shipment trend
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—ASHRAE—11.9 EER ................................................................................................................................
2—13 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
3—14 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
4—15 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—16.4 EER ...........................................................................................................................
0.0000005
0.0000024
0.0000053
0.0000085
0.0000137
Shipments
fixed to 2009
0.0000013
0.0000082
0.0000174
0.0000276
0.0000441
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25645
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.10—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC
RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate *
(quads)
Efficiency level
Historical
shipment
trend
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—ASHRAE—12.5 EER ................................................................................................................................
2—13 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
3—14 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
4—15 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—16.1 EER ...........................................................................................................................
0.00014
0.00002
0.00013
0.00024
0.00039
Shipments
fixed to 2009
0.00027
0.00008
0.00032
0.00056
0.00089
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted.
TABLE III.11—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate *
(quads)
Efficiency level
Historical
shipment
trend
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—ASHRAE—12.3 EER ................................................................................................................................
2—13 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
3—14 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
4—15 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—16.1 EER ...........................................................................................................................
0.00001
0.00001
0.00002
0.00003
0.00005
Shipments
fixed to 2009
0.00003
0.00001
0.00004
0.00007
0.00010
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted.
TABLE III.12—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC
RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate *
(quads)
Efficiency level
Historical
shipment
trend
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—ASHRAE—12.4 EER ................................................................................................................................
2—13 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
3—14 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
4—‘‘Max-Tech’’—14.8 EER ...........................................................................................................................
0.0002
0.0001
0.0005
0.0008
Shipments
fixed to 2009
0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
0.0005
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted.
TABLE III.13—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER
HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate *
(quads)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Efficiency level
Historical
shipment
trend
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—ASHRAE—12.2 EER ................................................................................................................................
2—13 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
3—14 EER .....................................................................................................................................................
4—‘‘Max-Tech’’—14.8 EER ...........................................................................................................................
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.008
Shipments
fixed to 2009
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.005
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25646
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.14—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH
ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate *
(quads)
Efficiency level
Historical shipment trend
Level 1—ASHRAE—11.9 EER ................................................................................................................................
Level 2—12.5 EER ..................................................................................................................................................
Level 3—‘‘Max-Tech’’—13.1 EER ...........................................................................................................................
0.00013
0.00008
0.00017
Shipments
fixed to 2009
0.00009
0.00005
0.00011
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted.
TABLE III.15—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH
ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate*
(quads)
Efficiency level
Historical
shipment trend
Level 1—ASHRAE—11.7 EER ** ............................................................................................................................
Level 2—12.5 EER ..................................................................................................................................................
Level 3—‘‘Max-Tech’’—13.1 EER ...........................................................................................................................
0.0011
0.0010
0.0019
Shipments
fixed to 2009
0.0007
0.0007
0.0012
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted.
TABLE III.16—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL SINGLE-PHASE SPVAC
Primary energy
savings estimate
(quads)
Efficiency level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—9.5 EER ..........................................................................................................................................................................
2—10 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
3—11 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
4—12 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.6 EER .................................................................................................................................................
0.035
0.076
0.139
0.226
0.253
TABLE III.17—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL THREE-PHASE SPVAC
Primary energy
savings estimate
(quads)
Efficiency level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—9.5 EER ..........................................................................................................................................................................
2—10 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
3—11 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
4—12 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.6 EER .................................................................................................................................................
0.010
0.023
0.046
0.083
0.095
TABLE III.18—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL SINGLE-PHASE SPVHP
Primary energy
savings estimate *
(quads)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Efficiency level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—9.5 EER ..........................................................................................................................................................................
2—10 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
3—11 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
4—12 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.5 EER .................................................................................................................................................
* For SPVHPs, the primary energy savings estimates are based on both cooling savings (EER) and heating savings (COP).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
0.012
0.026
0.064
0.089
0.101
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
25647
TABLE III.19—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL THREE-PHASE SPVHP
Primary energy
savings estimate*
(quads)
Efficiency level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—9.5 EER ..........................................................................................................................................................................
2—10 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
3—11 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
4—12 EER ...........................................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.5 EER .................................................................................................................................................
0.004
0.009
0.025
0.037
0.042
* For SPVHPs, the primary energy savings estimates are based on both cooling savings (EER) and heating savings (COP).
As mentioned previously, due to the
small size of the market for large
SPVACs (five models) and a lack of
shipment estimates, DOE could not
perform a full analysis of energy savings
for this product class. However, DOE
used the results from small SPVACs to
approximate the energy savings for large
SPVACs.
DOE notes that analysis of the market
shows only a narrow range of
efficiencies for large SPVACs, with two
out of the five existing models (40
percent) at 10.0 EER and three out of the
five models (60 percent) at 9.5 EER.
DOE also estimates that the UEC for a
typical large SPVAC at a 9.5 or 10.0 EER
will be approximately twice that
calculated for a small SPVAC at the
same efficiency levels, as the equipment
capacity of the available large SPVAC
products is approximately twice that of
the average size for the small SPVAC
equipment. While DOE has no data on
shipments for large SPVACs, it notes
that the number of available models of
large SPVACs is approximately 1.4
percent of small SPVACs based on its
market analysis.
Assuming relative shipments of large
SPVACs to small SPVACs could be
characterized by the ratio of models
available, and that the per-unit energy
savings in going from 9.5 to 10.0 EER
(the highest available efficiency) is
twice that of the small SPVACs going
between these levels, DOE estimates
that the potential energy savings for
standards set at the market maximum
10.0 EER level is roughly 1.68 percent
of the difference in the energy savings
calculated for the small SPVAC
standards at 10.0 EER and at 9.5 EER
(shown in table III.16 and III.17). This
would suggest an energy savings
potential of approximately 0.0009
quads, shown in Table III.20.25
TABLE III.20—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR LARGE SPVAC
Primary energy
savings estimate
(quads)
Efficiency level
Level 1—10.0 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
A. Submission of Comments
technical difficulties and cannot contact
DOE will accept comments, data, and you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
information regarding this NODA no
later than the date provided in the DATES
However, your contact information
section at the beginning of this notice.
will be publicly viewable if you include
Interested parties may submit
it in the comment itself or in any
comments, data, and other information
documents attached to your comment.
using any of the methods described in
Any information that you do not want
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
to be publicly viewable should not be
of this notice.
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Submitting comments via
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
www.regulations.gov. The
will see only first and last names,
www.regulations.gov web page will
organization names, correspondence
require you to provide your name and
containing comments, and any
contact information. Your contact
documents submitted with the
information will be viewable to DOE
comments.
Building Technologies staff only. Your
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
contact information will not be publicly
information for which disclosure is
viewable except for your first and last
restricted by statute, such as trade
names, organization name (if any), and
secrets and commercial or financial
submitter representative name (if any).
information (hereinafter referred to as
If your comment is not processed
Confidential Business Information
properly because of technical
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
difficulties, DOE will use this
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Public Participation
25 Estimated as [60 percent of the large SPVAC
market being affected at the 10.0 EER standard level
times twice the UEC savings of the small SPVAC
products in going from 9.5 to 10.0 EER times 1.4
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
percent of the total shipments, or equal to 0.60 ×
2 × 0.014 × [(0.076+0.023)¥(.035+.01)]] quads. DOE
did not separate this product class into single-phase
and three-phase units because the savings would be
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.0009
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
Web site 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 www.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 www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery, or mail also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
even more speculative at this level, and the
breakdown is not required.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25648
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
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. Email
submissions are preferred. If you submit
via mail or hand delivery/courier,
please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case, 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
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.
Pursuant 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 email, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ that includes 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 email 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
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).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this notice, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) The impact of proposed addenda
h, i, and j to ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 on the energy savings presented in
today’s NODA;
(2) The energy savings potential of
small and large evaporatively-cooled
commercial package air conditioners;
(3) The market for VRF water-source
heat pumps with cooling capacities
below 17,000 Btu/h and above 135,000
Btu/h. DOE is seeking data and
information that would allow it to
accurately characterize the energy
savings from amended energy
conservation standards for these
products;
(4) The market for large and very large
SPVACs and SPVHPs;
(5) Approaches for establishing energy
conservation standards for covering air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms;
(6) Data and information for air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms that could be
used in performing an energy savings
analysis at a future stage of this
rulemaking;
(7) Approaches for developing
appropriate definitions for ‘‘air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms’’ that would not
result in overlap between this
equipment and the other types of
commercial packaged air conditioning
and heating equipment covered by
EPCA;
(8) The use of AHRI 1230, ASHRAE
127, and AHRI 390 as the test method
for VRF equipment, air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer
rooms, and SPVACs and SPVHPs,
respectively; and
(9) DOE’s preliminary conclusion that
the updates to the most recent versions
of AHRI 210/240, AHRI 340/360, UL
727, ANSI Z21.47, and ANSI Z21.10.3
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
do not have a substantive impact on the
measurement of energy efficiency for
the associated equipment types for each
test procedure;
(10) DOE’s analysis of UEC for the
water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled,
SVPU equipment classes and its use in
establishing the energy savings potential
for higher standards. Of particular
interest are other building applications
for SPVU equipment and the value of
incorporating these into the analysis of
UEC.
(11) DOE’s allocation of shipments to
the eight classes of water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled equipment for
which analysis was performed, as well
as the future market and shipment
scenarios for these products; and
(12) DOE’s determination of the basecase distribution efficiencies and its
prediction on how amended energy
conservation standards affect the
distribution of efficiencies in the
standards case for the twelve classes of
equipment for which analysis was
performed.
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of data
availability.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27,
2011.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Office of Technology
Development, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011–10877 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. NM454 Special Conditions No.
25–11–11–SC]
Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model
GVI Airplane; Limit Engine Torque
Loads for Sudden Engine Stoppage
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed special
conditions.
AGENCY:
This action proposes special
conditions for the Gulfstream GVI
airplane. This airplane will have novel
or unusual design features when
compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness
standards for transport category
airplanes. These design features include
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25622-25648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10877]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029]
RIN 1904-AC47
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment:
Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning,
and Water-Heating Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
amended, directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to establish
energy conservation standards for certain commercial and industrial
equipment, including commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-
heating products. Of particular relevance here, the statute also
requires that each time the corresponding consensus standard--the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA) Standard 90.1--is amended by the industry, DOE must
assess whether there is a need to update the uniform national energy
conservation standards for the same equipment covered under EPCA.
ASHRAE officially released an amended version of this industry standard
(ASHRAE 90.1-2010) on October 29, 2010, thereby triggering DOE's
related obligations under EPCA. In addition, the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) amended EPCA to require DOE to
review the most recently published ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 with
respect to single-package vertical air conditioners and single-package
vertical heat pumps in accordance with the procedures established for
reviewing the energy conservation standards for other
[[Page 25623]]
ASHRAE products. As a first step in meeting these statutory
requirements, today's notice of data availability (NODA) discusses the
results of DOE's analysis of the energy savings potential of amended
energy conservation standards for certain types of commercial equipment
covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, including single-package vertical air
conditioners and single-package vertical heat pumps. The energy savings
potentials are based upon either the efficiency levels specified in the
amended industry standard (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010) or more
stringent levels that would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE is publishing this NODA to: Announce the
results and preliminary conclusions of DOE's analysis of potential
energy savings associated with amended standards for this equipment,
and request public comment on this analysis, as well as the submission
of data and other relevant information.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NODA submitted no later than June 6, 2011. See section IV, ``Public
Participation,'' of this notice for details.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the NODA for ASHRAE
Products and provide the docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029 and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AC47. 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: ASHRAE90.1-2011-STD-0029@ee.doe.gov. Include the Docket
Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029 and/or RIN number 1904-AC47 in the subject
line of the message.
3. Postal 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 compact disc (CD), in which case 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, in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section IV of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However, 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: www.regulations.gov.
The www.regulations.gov web page contains a link to the docket for this
notice, along with simple instructions on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the docket. See section IV.A for further
information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7892. E-mail:
Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, Mailstop GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. E-mail: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact
Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. E-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Purpose of the Notice of Data Availability
C. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Proposed Addenda
D. Summary of DOE's Preliminary Assessment of Equipment for
Energy-Savings Analysis
II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces
B. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
1. Water-Cooled Equipment
2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment
3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment
4. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
5. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and Through-The-Wall Equipment
6. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps
C. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms
D. Test Procedures
1. Updates to AHRI 210/240 Test Method
2. Updates to AHRI 340/360 Test Method
3. Updates to UL 727 Test Method
4. Updates to ANSI Z21.47 Test Method
5. Updates to ANSI Z21.10.3 Test Method
III. Analysis of Potential Energy Savings
A. Annual Energy Use
1. Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
2. Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
3. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
B. Shipments
C. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Site-to-Source Conversion
2. Product Lifetime
3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period
D. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as
codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which includes the commercial heating, air-conditioning, and
water-heating equipment that is the subject of this rulemaking.\2\ In
general, this program addresses the energy efficiency of certain types
of commercial and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of the Act
specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6314), labelling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require
information
[[Page 25624]]
and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Public Law 110-140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In relevant part here, EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation
standards for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards
for small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and
packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), warm-air furnaces, packaged
boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and
unfired hot water storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA established
Federal energy conservation standards that generally correspond to the
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings, as in effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e.,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989), for each type of covered equipment listed
in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a). EISA 2007 further amended EPCA by adding
definitions and setting minimum standards for single-package vertical
air conditioners (SPVACs) and single-package vertical heat pumps
(SPVHPs). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)) The standards for SPVACs and
SPVHPs established by EISA 2007 corresponded to the levels contained in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004, which originated as addendum ``d'' to
Standard 90.1-2001.
In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy
efficiency benefits, Congress directed DOE through EPCA to consider
amending the existing Federal energy efficiency standard for each type
of equipment listed, each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with
respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of
equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,\3\ DOE
must adopt amended standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a
determination that adoption of a more stringent level as a national
standard would produce significant additional energy savings and be
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the
minimum efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard
90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 months after
publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE determines that a more stringent
standard is justified under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), then DOE
must establish such more stringent standard not later than 30 months
after publication of the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term
``amended'' in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided its
interpretation of what would constitute an ``amended standard'' in a
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2007
(hereafter referred to as the ``March 2007 final rule''). 72 FR
10038. In that rule, DOE stated that the statutory trigger requiring
DOE to adopt uniform national standards based on ASHRAE action is
for ASHRAE to change a standard for any of the equipment listed in
EPCA section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) by
increasing the energy efficiency level for that equipment type. Id.
at 10042. In other words, if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves
the standard level unchanged or lowers the standard, as compared to
the level specified by the national standard adopted pursuant to
EPCA, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to
consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A). DOE subsequently reiterated this position in a final
rule published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2009. 74 FR
36312, 36313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require that DOE review the
most recently published ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 with respect to
single-package vertical air conditioners and single-package vertical
heat pumps in accordance with the procedures established for ASHRAE
products under paragraph 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE believes that this requirement is separate
and independent from the requirement described in the paragraph above
for all ASHRAE products and that it requires DOE to evaluate potential
standards higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 level for single-
package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, even if the
efficiency levels for SPVACs and SPVHPs have not changed since the last
version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
As a preliminary step in the process of reviewing the changes to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA directs DOE to publish in the Federal
Register for public comment an analysis of the energy savings potential
of amended energy efficiency standards, within 180 days after ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to any of the covered products
specified under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE officially released for distribution
and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.\4\ This action by ASHRAE
triggered DOE's obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined
above. This NODA embodies the analysis of the energy savings potential
of amended energy efficiency standards, as required under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i). This NODA also addresses DOE's obligations under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B) to consider the most recently published ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1 with respect to single-package vertical air
conditioners and single-package vertical heat pumps in accordance with
the procedures established for ASHRAE products under paragraph 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This industry standard is developed with input from a number
of organizations--most prominently ASHRAE, the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), and the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America (IESNA). Therefore, this document may sometime be
referred to more formally as ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2010.
See https://www.ashrae.org for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Purpose of the Notice of Data Availability
As explained above, DOE is publishing today's NODA as a preliminary
step pursuant to EPCA's requirements for DOE to consider amended energy
conservation standards for certain types of commercial equipment
covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, whenever ASHRAE amends its standard to
increase the energy efficiency level for that equipment type. This NODA
also addresses the requirements to consider amended energy conservation
standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B).
Specifically, this NODA presents for public comment DOE's analysis of
the potential energy savings estimates for amended national energy
conservation standards for these types of commercial equipment based
on: (1) The amended efficiency levels contained within ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010,\5\ and (2) more stringent efficiency levels. DOE describes
these analyses and preliminary conclusions and seeks input from
interested parties, including the submission of data and other relevant
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For SPVACs and SPVHPs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 did not
change the efficiency levels from the Federal standards, so DOE did
not review ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for those equipment classes
for that purpose, and only estimated potential energy savings for
more stringent efficiency levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is not required by EPCA to review additional changes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 for those equipment types where ASHRAE did not
increase the efficiency level. For those types of equipment for which
efficiency levels clearly did not change, DOE has conducted no further
analysis (with the exception of SPVACs and SPVHPs, for which EPCA
requires DOE to review standard levels regardless of whether there was
a change to ASHRAE Standard 90.1). However, for certain
[[Page 25625]]
equipment classes of ASHRAE covered equipment, DOE found that while
ASHRAE had made changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, it was not
immediately clear that the revisions to Standard 90.1 would increase
the efficiency requirement in that Standard as compared to the existing
Federal energy conservation standards. For example, for commercial
warm-air furnaces, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 changes the efficiency
metric to thermal efficiency from combustion efficiency, which was the
metric used in the previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e.,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007). However, as discussed in section II.A of
this NODA, the change does not result in an increase to the required
efficiency, so DOE did not perform additional analysis for that
equipment. Therefore, DOE carefully examined the changes for such
products in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 in order to thoroughly evaluate the
amendments in ASHRAE 90.1-2010, thereby permitting DOE to determine
what action, if any, is required under its statutory mandate.
Section II of this notice contains a discussion of DOE's evaluation
of each ASHRAE equipment type for which energy conservation standards
have been set pursuant to EPCA (``covered equipment''), in order for
DOE to determine whether the amendments in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
have resulted in increased efficiency levels. For covered equipment
types determined to have increased efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010, DOE subjected that equipment to further analysis as
discussed in section III of this NODA.
In summary, the energy savings analysis presented in this NODA is a
preliminary step required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i) and
6313(a)(10)(B). After review of the public comments on this NODA, if
DOE determines that the amended efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010 have the potential for additional energy savings for types of
equipment currently covered by uniform national standards, DOE will
commence a rulemaking to consider amended standards, based upon either
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or more-stringent
efficiency levels which would be expected to result in significant
additional conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and
economically justified. In conducting such rulemaking, DOE will address
the general rulemaking requirements for all energy conservation
standards, such as the anti-backsliding provision \6\ (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)), the criteria for making a determination
that a standard is economically justified \7\ (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)), and the prohibition on making
unavailable existing products with performance characteristics
generally available in the U.S.\8\ (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPCA contains what is commonly known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1))
This provision mandates that the Secretary not prescribe any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered
equipment.
\7\ In deciding whether a more stringent standard is
economically justified, DOE must review comments on the proposed
standard, and then determine whether the benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens by considering the following seven factors to the
greatest extent practicable:
(1) The economic impact on manufacturers and consumers subject
to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the product in the type (or class), compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of
the products likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to
result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of product utility or performance likely to
result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)).
\8\ The Secretary may not prescribe an amended standard if
interested persons have established by a preponderance of evidence
that the amended standard would likely result in unavailability in
the U.S. of any covered product type or class of performance
characteristics, such as reliability, features, capacities, sizes,
and volumes that are substantially similar to those generally
available in the U.S. at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
As noted above, ASHRAE released a new version of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 on October 29, 2010. The ASHRAE standard addresses efficiency
levels for many types of commercial heating, ventilating, air-
conditioning (HVAC), and water-heating equipment covered by EPCA.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 revised the efficiency levels for certain
commercial equipment, but for the remaining equipment, ASHRAE left in
place the preexisting levels (i.e. the efficiency levels specified in
EPCA or the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007).
Table I.1 below shows the equipment classes (and corresponding
efficiency levels) where ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels
differed from the previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e.,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007), as well as the requirements for SPVAC and
SPVHP equipment (which were unchanged in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 but
which nonetheless must be addressed in this rulemaking for the reasons
discussed above). Table I.1 also displays the existing Federal energy
conservation standards and the corresponding standard levels in the
latest version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for those equipment classes.
Section II of this document assesses each of these equipment types to
determine whether the amendments in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
constitute increased energy efficiency levels, as would necessitate
further analysis of the potential energy savings from amended Federal
energy conservation standards, the conclusions of which are presented
in the final column of Table I.1.
[[Page 25626]]
Table I.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards and Energy Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for
Specific Types of Commercial Equipment *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy efficiency Energy efficiency Federal energy Energy-savings
ASHRAE equipment class ** levels in ASHRAE levels in ASHRAE conservation potential analysis
standard 90.1-2007 standard 90.1-2010 standards required?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-Fired Commercial Warm-Air Ec = 80% Et = 80% Et = 80%.......... No. See section
furnace. Interrupted or Interrupted or II.A.
intermittent intermittent
ignition device, ignition device,
jacket losses not jacket losses not
exceeding 0.75% of exceeding 0.75%
input rating, of input rating,
power vent or flue power vent or
damper ***. flue damper ***.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Water-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.5 EER........... 12.1 EER (as of 6/ 11.5 EER.......... Yes. See section
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 1/11). II.B.1.
Electric Resistance Heating or
No Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.3 EER........... 11.9 EER (as of 6/ 11.3 EER.......... Yes. See section
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 1/11). II.B.1.
All Other Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER........... 12.5 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER.......... Yes. See section
>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 1/11). II.B.1.
Electric Resistance Heating or
No Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 10.8 EER........... 12.3 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER.......... Yes. See section
>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 1/11). II.B.1.
All Other Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER........... 12.4 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER.......... Yes. See section
>=240,000 Btu/h, Electric 1/11). II.B.1.
Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 10.8 EER........... 12.2 EER (as of 6/ 10.8 EER.......... Yes. See section
>=240,000 Btu/h, All Other 1/11). II.B.1.
Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Evaporatively-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporatively-cooled Air 11.5 EER........... 12.1 EER (as of 6/ 11.5 EER.......... Yes. See section
Conditioner, >=65,000 and 1/11). II.B.2.
<135,000 Btu/h, Electric
Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air 11.3 EER........... 11.9 EER (as of 6/ 11.3 EER.......... Yes. See section
Conditioner, >=65,000 and 1/11). II.B.2.
<135,000 Btu/h, All Other
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air 11.0 EER........... 12.0 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER.......... Yes. See section
Conditioner, >=135,000 and 1/11). II.B.2.
<240,000 Btu/h, Electric
Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air 10.8 EER........... 11.8 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER.......... Yes. See section
Conditioner, >=135,000 and 1/11). II.B.2.
<240,000 Btu/h, All Other
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air 11.0 EER........... 11.9 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER.......... Yes. See section
Conditioner, >=240,000 and 1/11). II.B.2.
<760,000 Btu/h, Electric
Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air 10.8 EER........... 11.7 EER[dagger] 10.8 EER.......... Yes. See section
Conditioner, >=240,000 and (as of 6/1/11). II.B.2.
<760,000 Btu/h, All Other
Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--VRF Systems[dagger][dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Air Conditioners, Air- N/A................ 13.0 SEER......... 13.0 SEER......... No. See section
cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. II.B.3.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air- N/A................ 11.2 EER.......... 11.2 EER.......... No. See section
cooled, >=65,000 and <135,000 II.B.3.
Btu/h, Electric Resistance or
No Heating.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air- N/A................ 11.0 EER.......... 11.0 EER.......... No. See section
cooled, >=135,000 and <240,000 II.B.3.
Btu/h, Electric Resistance or
No Heating.
[[Page 25627]]
VRF Air Conditioners, Air- N/A................ 10.0 EER.......... 10.0 EER.......... No. See section
cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h, II.B.3.
Electric Resistance or No
Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A................ 13.0 SEER, 7.7 13.0 SEER, 7.7 No. See section
<65,000 Btu/h. HSPF. HSPF. II.B.3.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A................ 11.0 EER, 3.3 COP. 11.0 EER, 3.3 COP. No. See section
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, II.B.3.
without heat recovery,
Electric Resistance or No
Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A................ 10.8 EER, 3.2 COP. 11.0 EER (electric No. See section
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, resistance II.B.3.
with heat recovery, Electric heating), 10.8
Resistance or No Heating. EER (no electric
resistance
heating)[dagger][
dagger][dagger]
3.3 COP.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A................ 10.6 EER, 3.2 COP. 10.6 EER, 3.2 COP. No. See section
>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, II.B.3.
without heat recovery,
Electric Resistance or No
Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A................ 10.4 EER, 3.2 COP. 10.6 EER (electric No. See section
>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, resistance II.B.3.
with heat recovery, Electric heating), 10.4
Resistance or No Heating. (no electric
resistance
heating)[dagger][
dagger][dagger]
3.2 COP.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A................ 9.5 EER, 3.2 COP.. 9.5 EER, 3.2 COP.. No. See section
>=240,000 Btu/h, without heat II.B.3.
recovery, Electric Resistance
or No Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A................ 9.3 EER, 3.2 COP.. 9.5 EER (electric No. See section
>=240,000 Btu/h, with heat resistance II.B.3.
recovery, Electric Resistance heating), 9.3 EER
or No Heating. (no electric
resistance
heating)[dagger][
dagger][dagger]
3.2 COP.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A................ 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP. 11.2 EER (<17,000 Yes[diam][diam][di
<65,000 Btu/h, without heat Btu/ am] for <17,000
recovery. h)[dagger][dagger Btu. No for
], 12.0 EER >=17,000 Btu/h
(>=17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/
and <65,000 Btu/ h. See section
h) 4.2 COP. II.B.3.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A................ 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP. 11.2 EER (< 17,000 Yes[diam][diam][di
<65,000 Btu/h, with heat Btu/ am] for <17,000
recovery. h)[dagger][dagger Btu, No for
] 12.0 EER (>= >=17,000 Btu/h
17,000 Btu/h and and <65,000 Btu/
<65,000 Btu/h), h, See section
4.2 COP. II.B.3,
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A................ 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP. No. See section
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, II.B.3.
without heat recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A................ 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP. No. See section
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, II.B.3.
with heat recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A................ 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP. N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
>=135,000 Btu/h, without heat am]. See section
recovery. II.B.3.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A................ 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP.. N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
>=135,000 Btu/h, with heat am]. See section
recovery. II.B.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--PTACs and PTHPs[Dagger][Dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Package Terminal Air EER = 11.0......... EER = 11.7 (as of EER = 11.7........ No. See section
Conditioner, <7,000 Btu/h, 10/8/12). II.B.4.
Standard Size (New
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger].
Package Terminal Air EER = 12.5--(0.213 EER = 13.8--(0.300 EER = 13.8--(0.300 No. See section
Conditioner, >=7,000 and x Cap[diam]). x Cap[diam]) (as x Cap[diam]). II.B.4.
<15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size of 10/8/12).
(New
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][
Dagger].
Package Terminal Air EER = 9.3.......... EER = 9.3......... EER = 9.3......... No. See section
Conditioner, >15,000 Btu/h, II.B.4.
Standard Size (New
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][
Dagger].
Package Terminal Heat Pump, EER = 10.8, COP = EER = 11.9, COP = EER = 11.9, COP = No. See section
<7,000 Btu/h, Standard Size 3.0. 3.3 (as of 10/8/ 3.3. II.B.4.
(New 12).
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][
Dagger].
[[Page 25628]]
Package Terminal Heat Pump, EER = 12.3--(0.213 EER = 14.0--(0.300 EER = 14.0--(0.300 No. See section
>=7,000 and <15,000 Btu/h, x Cap[diam]), COP x Cap[diam]), COP x Cap[diam]), COP II.B.4.
Standard Size (New = 3.2--(0.026 x = 3.7--(0.052 x = 3.7--(0.052 x
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][ Cap[diam]). Cap[diam]) (as of Cap[diam]).
Dagger]. 10/8/12).
Package Terminal Heat Pump, EER = 9.1, COP = EER = 9.5, COP = EER = 9.5, COP = No. See section
>15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size 2.8. 2.9. 2.9. II.B.4.
(New
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][
Dagger].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--SDHV and TTW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through-the-Wall, Air-cooled 12.0 SEER, 7.4 HSPF 13.0 SEER, 7.4 13.0 SEER, 7.7 No. See section
Heat Pumps, <=30,000 Btu/h. HSPF. HSPF. II.B.5.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air- 10.0 SEER, 6.8 HSPF N/A[diam][diam]... 13.0 SEER, 7.7 No. See section
cooled Heat Pumps, <65,000 Btu/ HSPF. II.B.5.
h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--SPVACs and SPVHPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-Packaged Vertical Air 9.0 EER............ 9.0 EER........... 9.0 EER........... Yes. See section
Conditioners, <65,000 Btu/h. II.B.6.
Single-Packaged Vertical Air 8.9 EER............ 8.9 EER........... 8.9 EER........... Yes. See section
Conditioners, >=65,000 and II.B.6.
<135,000 Btu/h.
Single-Packaged Vertical Air 8.6 EER............ 8.6 EER........... 8.6 EER........... Yes. See section
Conditioners, >=65,000 and II.B.6.
<240,000 Btu/h.
Single-Packaged Vertical Heat 9.0 EER, 3.0 COP... 9.0 EER, 3.0 COP.. 9.0 EER, 3.0 COP.. Yes. See section
Pumps, <65,000 Btu/h. II.B.6.
Single-Packaged Vertical Heat 8.9 EER, 3.0 COP... 8.9 EER, 3.0 COP.. 8.9 EER, 3.0 COP.. Yes. See section
Pumps, >=65,000 and <135,000 II.B.6.
Btu/h.
Single-Packaged Vertical Heat 8.6 EER, 2.9 COP... 8.6 EER, 2.9 COP.. 8.6 EER, 2.9 COP.. Yes. See section
Pumps, >=65,000 and <240,000 II.B.6.
Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, N/A................ 2.20 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
<65,000 Btu/h. (downflow), 2.09 am]. See section
SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, air-cooled, N/A................ 2.10 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h. (downflow), 1.99 am]. See section
SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, air-cooled, N/A................ 1.90 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
>=240,000 Btu/h. (downflow), 1.79 am]. See section
SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, water-cooled, N/A................ 2.60 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
<65,000 Btu/h. (downflow), 2.49 am]. See section
SCOP (upflow). II.C
Air conditioners, water-cooled, N/A................ 2.50 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h. (downflow), 2.39 am]. See section
SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, water-cooled, N/A................ 2.40 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
>=240,000 Btu/h. (downflow), 2.29 am]. See section
SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, water-cooled N/A................ 2.55 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
with fluid economizer, <65,000 (downflow), 2.44 am]. See section
Btu/h. SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, water-cooled N/A................ 2.45 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
with fluid economizer, (downflow), 2.34 am]. See section
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h. SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, water-cooled N/A................ 2.35 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
with fluid economizer, (downflow), 2.24 am]. See section
>=240,000 Btu/h. SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, glycol- N/A................ 2.50 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. (downflow), 2.39 am]. See section
SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, glycol- N/A................ 2.15 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
cooled, >=65,000 and <240,000 (downflow), 2.04 am]. See section
Btu/h. SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, glycol- N/A................ 2.10 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h. (downflow), 1.99 am]. See section
SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled N/A................ 2.45 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
with fluid economizer, <65,000 (downflow), 2.34 am]. See section
Btu/h. SCOP (upflow). II.C.
[[Page 25629]]
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled N/A................ 2.10 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
with fluid economizer, (downflow), 1.99 am]. See section
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h. SCOP (upflow). II.C.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled N/A................ 2.05 SCOP N/A............... Yes[diam][diam][di
with fluid economizer, (downflow), 1.94 am]. See section
>=240,000 Btu/h. SCOP (upflow). II.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Ec'' means combustion efficiency; ``Et'' means thermal efficiency; ``EER'' means energy efficiency ratio;
``SEER'' means seasonal energy efficiency ratio; ``HSPF'' means heating seasonal performance factor; ``COP''
means coefficient of performance; ``Btu/h'' means British thermal units per hour; and ``SCOP'' means sensible
coefficient of performance.
** ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 equipment classes may differ from the equipment classes defined in DOE's
regulations, but no loss of coverage will occur (i.e., all previously covered DOE equipment classes remained
covered equipment).
*** A vent damper is an acceptable alternative to a flue damper for those furnaces that draw combustion air from
conditioned space.
[dagger] ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 specifies this efficiency level as 12.2 EER. However, as explained in section
II.B of this NODA, DOE believes this level was a mistake and that the correct level is 11.7 EER.
[dagger][dagger] Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) systems are newly defined equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010. As discussed in section II.B.3 of this NODA, DOE believes these systems are currently covered by
Federal standards for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.
[dagger][dagger][dagger] For these equipment classes, ASHRAE sets lower efficiency requirements for equipment
with heat recovery systems. DOE believes systems with heat recovery and electric resistance heating would be
required to meet the current Federal standard for equipment with electric resistance heating (i.e., the
Federal standard level shown in the table). However, for equipment with heat recovery and no electric
resistance heating, DOE believes heat recovery would be an ``other'' heating type allowing for a 0.2 EER
reduction in the Federal minimum requirement.
[Dagger] The Federal energy conservation standards for this equipment class are specified differently for
equipment with cooling capacity <17,000 Btu/h. However, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 does not distinguish this
equipment class.
[Dagger][Dagger] For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure, all EER values must be rated at 95
[deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products and evaporatively-cooled products, and at 85
[deg]F entering water temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values must be rated at 47 [deg]F outdoor
dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products, and at 70 [deg]F entering water temperature for water-source
heat pumps.
[Dagger][Dagger][Dagger] ``Standard size'' refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve dimensions >=16
inches high, or >=42 inches wide.
[diam] ``Cap'' means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95[deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
[diam][diam] ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 includes an efficiency level of 10.0 SEER for these products. However, as
explained in section II.B.5 of this NODA, DOE believes that ASHRAE did not intend to set an efficiency level
for these products.
[diam][diam][diam] An energy-savings analysis for this class of equipment was not conducted due to either a lack
of data or because there is no equipment on the market that would fall into this equipment class.
2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Proposed Addenda
Since officially releasing ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 on October 29,
2010, ASHRAE has released three proposed addenda relevant to today's
NODA: Proposed Addendum h, Proposed Addendum i, and Proposed Addendum
j. ASHRAE released all three addenda for first public review in March
2011, and the 45-day public review period ends May 9, 2011. Proposed
Addendum h would remove the small-duct high-velocity (SDHV) product
class from one of the tables of standards and correct the minimum
efficiencies for through-the-wall products. In addition, it would amend
the minimum energy efficiency standards (and change the product class
names) for water-to-air heat pumps, including some product classes
regulated by DOE (e.g., ``water-source'' would become ``water-to-air:
Water loop''), with a proposed effective date immediately upon
publication of the addendum.\9\ Proposed Addendum i would amend the
minimum energy efficiency standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs. It would
also add a new product class designed to address SPVACs and SPVHPs in
space-constrained applications. These would become effective January 1,
2012. Proposed Addendum j would remove SDHV from both tables of
standards in which it was listed, and would also correct the EER for
one product class of evaporatively-cooled units, as discussed in
section II.B.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ground water source (water to air: ground water) and ground
source (brine to air: Ground loop) heat pumps are not covered
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because these proposed addenda have not yet been approved, DOE is
not obligated to address these changes until the addenda are formally
adopted and ASHRAE issues the next version of Standard 90.1 (expected
in 2013). However, DOE acknowledges that these proposed addenda may
affect the market which is addressed in today's NODA. As a result, DOE
seeks comments on what impact, if any, these proposed addenda might
have, if adopted, on the national energy savings analysis presented in
today's NODA. This is Issue 1 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' in section IV.B of this NODA.
D. Summary of DOE's Preliminary Assessment of Equipment for Energy-
Savings Analysis
DOE has reached a preliminary conclusion for each of the classes of
commercial equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 addressed in today's
NODA. For each class of commercial equipment addressed in this NODA,
section II presents DOE's initial determination as to whether ASHRAE
increased the efficiency level for a given type of product, a change
which would require an energy-savings potential analysis. Since DOE is
not required by EPCA to review additional changes in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010 for those equipment types where ASHRAE did not increase the
efficiency level, DOE has conducted no further analysis for those types
of equipment where efficiency levels clearly did not change.
Additionally, for equipment where ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 has
increased the level in comparison to the previous version of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, but does not exceed the current Federal standard level,
DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a
higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)
and did not perform an potential energy savings analysis. For those
equipment classes where ASHRAE increased the efficiency level (in
comparison to the Federal standard), DOE performed an analysis of the
energy-savings potential,
[[Page 25630]]
unless DOE found no products in the market in that equipment class (in
which case there is no potential for energy savings) or there was a
significant lack of data and information available that would allow DOE
to reasonably estimate the potential for energy savings.
Based upon DOE's analysis discussed in section II, DOE has
determined that ASHRAE increased the efficiency level for the following
equipment classes:
Small, Large, and Very Large Water-cooled Air
Conditioners;
Small, Large, and Very Large Evaporatively-cooled Air
Conditioners;
Certain Small (only those with cooling capacity < 17,000
Btu/h) and Large Variable Refrigerant Flow Water-Source Heat Pumps; and
Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer
Rooms.
Out of those equipment classes, when DOE found that equipment is
available on the market and adequate information exists to reasonably
estimate potential energy savings, DOE performed the analysis of the
energy-savings potential which is described in section III. However,
when DOE did not find equipment available on the market (such as for
small variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with capacities
below 17,000 Btu/h), or found that adequate efficiency and/or shipments
data was unavailable (such as for air conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms), DOE did not perform a potential energy savings
analysis.
In addition, although ASHRAE did not increase the efficiency level
for SPVACs and SPVHPs, DOE is required by EPCA to consider amending the
energy conservation standards for these equipment classes using the
procedures set forth by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for ASHRAE products.
Accordingly, DOE also performed an energy-savings analysis for SPVACs
and SPVHPs and presents the results in section III.
II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
Before beginning an analysis of the potential energy savings that
would result from adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 or more-stringent efficiency levels, DOE first
determined whether or not the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency
levels actually represented an increase in efficiency above the current
Federal standard levels, thereby triggering DOE action. This section
contains a discussion of each equipment class where the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010 efficiency level differs from the current Federal standard
level, along with DOE's preliminary conclusion regarding the
appropriate action to take with respect to that equipment. In addition,
this section contains a discussion of DOE's determination with regard
to newly created equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (i.e.,
VRF commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment and air
conditioners serving computer rooms), and DOE's decisions with regard
to the requirements for analyzing SPVACs and SPVHPs in EPCA. Finally,
this section provides a brief discussion of the test procedure updates
contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces
Under 42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A), a ``warm air furnace'' is defined as
``a self-contained oil- or gas-fired furnace designed to supply heated
air through ducts to spaces that require it and includes combination
warm air furnace/electric air-conditioning units but does not include
unit heaters and duct furnaces.'' In its regulations, DOE defines a
``commercial warm air furnace'' as a ``warm air furnace that is
industrial equipment, and that has a capacity (rated maximum input) of
225,000 Btu per hour or more.'' 10 CFR 431.72.
Gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces are fueled by either natural
gas or propane. The Federal minimum energy conservation standard for
commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces corresponds to the efficiency
level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989, which specifies for equipment with
a capacity of 225,000 Btu/h or more, the thermal efficiency at the
maximum rated capacity (rated maximum input) must be no less than 80
percent. 10 CFR 431.77(a). The Federal minimum energy conservation
standard for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces applies to
equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1994. 10 CFR 431.77.
The current Federal standard for gas-fired commercial warm-air
furnaces is in terms of ``thermal efficiency,'' which is defined as
``100 percent minus percent flue loss.'' 10 CFR 431.72. The previous
version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-2007) specified a
minimum efficiency level of 80 percent combustion efficiency, but it
defined ``combustion efficiency'' as ``100 percent minus flue losses''
in the footnote to the efficiency table for commercial warm-air gas-
fired furnaces, which references ANSI Z21.47-2001, ``Standard for Gas-
Fired Central Furnaces,'' as the test procedure. In its analysis for
the 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) regarding standards for
ASHRAE Products in which DOE considered the updates in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2007, DOE noted that upon reviewing the efficiency levels and
methodology specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, it concluded that
ASHRAE changed the efficiency metric for gas-fired commercial warm-air
furnaces in name only, and not in the actual test or calculation
method. 74 FR 12000, 12008-09 (March 20, 2009). Therefore, DOE stated
its understanding that despite using the term ``combustion efficiency''
rather than ``thermal efficiency,'' ASHRAE did not intend to change the
substance of the metric. Consequently, DOE left the existing Federal
energy conservation standards in place for gas-fired commercial warm-
air furnaces, which specify a ``thermal efficiency'' of 80 percent
using the definition of ``thermal efficiency'' presented at 10 CFR
431.72.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated the tabulated requirements for
gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces to specify a minimum efficiency
level of 80 percent ``thermal efficiency'' and references ANSI Z21.47-
2006, ``Standard for Gas-Fired Central Furnaces,'' as the test
procedure. ANSI Z21.47-2006 defines ``thermal efficiency'' as ``100
percent minus flue losses,'' which is the same as DOE's definition of
``thermal efficiency'' for this equipment. Because of this, DOE
believes that the purpose of the ASHRAE metric change to ``thermal
efficiency'' was to clarify the alignment to the existing Federal
standards and the ANSI Z21.47-2006 test procedure. As a result, DOE
tentatively concluded that this change does not constitute a revision
to the actual efficiency level for gas-fired commercial warm-air
furnaces and that no further action by the Department is required.
B. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
EPCA, as amended, defines ``commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment'' as air-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, water-cooled,
or water source (not including ground water source) electrically
operated, unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning
heat pumps for commercial use. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92)
EPCA also defines ``small,'' ``large,'' and ``very large'' commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment based on the equipment's
rated cooling capacity. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)-(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
``Small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment''
means equipment rated below 135,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity).
(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Large
[[Page 25631]]
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'' means
equipment rated--(i) at or above 135,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below
240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR
431.92) ``Very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' means equipment rated--(i) at or above 240,000 Btu per
hour; and (ii) below 760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42
U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
1. Water-Cooled Equipment
The current Federal energy conservation standards for the six
classes of water-cooled commercial package air conditioners for which
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 amended efficiency levels are shown in Table
I.1. The Federal energy conservation standards for water-cooled
equipment are differentiated based on the cooling capacity (i.e.,
small, large, or very large) and heating type (i.e., electric
resistance heating/no heating or some other type of heating). ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 increased the energy efficiency levels for all six
equipment classes to efficiency levels that surpass the current Federal
energy conservation standard levels. Therefore, the Department
conducted an analysis of the potential energy savings due to amended
standards for these products, which is described in section III of this
NODA.
2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment
The current Federal energy conservation standards for the six
classes of evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners for
which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 amended efficiency levels are shown in
Table I.1. Similar to water-cooled equipment, Federal energy
conservation standards divide evaporatively-cooled equipment based on
the cooling capacity (i.e., small, large, or very large) and heating
type (i.e., electric resistance heating/no heating or some other type
of heating). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 increased the energy efficiency
levels for all six equipment classes to efficiency levels that surpass
the current Federal energy conservation standard levels.
DOE reviewed the market for evaporatively-cooled equipment and
could not identify any models available on the market in the ``small''
unit product class (i.e., cooling capacity < 135,000 Btu/h) and the
``large'' unit product class (i.e., cooling capacity >= 135,000 and <
240,000 Btu/h). Because there is currently no equipment in these
classes being manufactured, DOE believes there are no energy savings
associated with these classes at this time; therefore, it is not
possible to assess the potential for additional energy savings at the
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or more-stringent levels. Thus, DOE
did not perform a potential energy-savings analysis for the small and
large equipment classes of evaporatively-cooled commercial package air
conditioners. DOE seeks comments from interested parties on its
assessment of the market and energy savings potential for this
equipment type. This is Issue 2 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' in section IV.B of this NODA.
For very large (i.e., cooling capacity >= 240,000 Btu/h)
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, DOE was able to identify a
number of models on the market, and, therefore, DOE conducted an
analysis of the potential energy savings for these products which is
discussed in section III. For very large evaporatively-cooled air
conditioners, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 set the efficiency level for
equipment with electric resistance or no heating at 11.9 EER and for
equipment with all other heating at 12.2 EER. However, ASHRAE
historically has set the levels for equipment with other heating at 0.2
EER