Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment, 2356-2433 [2012-327]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2356
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 and Test
Procedures for Commercial Heating,
Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating
Equipment
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and announcement of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is proposing to amend its
energy conservation standards for
several classes of commercial heating,
air-conditioning, and water-heating
equipment. Pursuant to the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(EPCA), as amended, DOE must assess
whether the uniform national standards
for these covered equipment need to be
updated each time the corresponding
industry standard—the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)/
American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America
(IESNA) Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE
Standard 90.1)—is amended, which
most recently occurred on October 29,
2010. Based upon its analysis of the
energy savings potential of amended
energy conservation standards and the
lack of clear and convincing evidence to
support more-stringent standards, DOE
is proposing to adopt the amended
standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for
small, large, and very large water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled commercial
package air conditioners; variable
refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat
pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h; VRF
water-source heat pumps at or greater
than 135,000 Btu/h; and computer room
air conditioners. DOE is also proposing
updates to the current Federal test
procedures to incorporate by reference
the most current versions of the
following relevant industry test
procedures specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1: Air-conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI) 210/240 (small commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment); AHRI 340/360 (large and
very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment);
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727 and
ANSI Z21.47 (commercial warm-air
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
furnaces); and ANSI Z21.10.3
(commercial water heaters).
Furthermore, DOE is proposing to adopt
AHRI 1230 for newly-created classes of
variable refrigerant flow air conditioners
and heat pumps, ASHRAE 127 for
computer room air conditioners, and
AHRI 390 for single package vertical air
conditioners and single package vertical
heat pumps. In addition, DOE is
announcing a public meeting to receive
comment on its proposal and related
issues.
DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting on February 14, 2012, from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The
meeting will also be broadcast as a
webinar. See section X, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for webinar information,
participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the
public meeting, but no later than April
2, 2012. For details, see section X,
‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this NOPR.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be
held at the U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. To attend,
please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202) 586–2945. Please note that foreign
nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are
subject to advance security screening
procedures. Any foreign national
wishing to participate in the meeting,
should advise DOE as soon as possible
by contacting Ms. Edwards at the phone
number above to initiate the necessary
procedures. Please also note that any
person wishing to bring a laptop
computer into the Forrestal Building
will be required to obtain a property
pass. Visitors should avoid bringing
laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes.
Persons may also attend the public
meeting via webinar. For more
information, refer to section X, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ of this NOPR.
Any comments submitted must
identify the NOPR on Energy
Conservation Standards and Test
Procedures for ASHRAE Standard 90.1
Products, and provide 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:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: ASHRAE90.1-2011-STD0029@ee.doe.gov. Include docket
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029
and/or RIN 1904–AC47 in the subject
line of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
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 X of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for
review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices,
public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, 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. This
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 X, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for further information
on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting, 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. Email:
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.
Email: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
2. Notice of Data Availability
III. General Discussion of Comments
Regarding the ASHRAE Process and
DOE’s Interpretation of EPCA’s
Requirements With Respect to ASHRAE
Equipment
A. The ASHRAE Process
B. The Definition of ‘‘Amendment’’ With
Respect to the Efficiency Levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1
C. DOE’s Review of ASHRAE Equipment
Independent of the ASHRAE Standards
Process
IV. General Discussion of the Changes in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and
Determination of Scope for Further
Rulemaking Activity
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. Coverage of Commercial Package Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
That Are Exclusively Used as Part of
Industrial or Manufacturing Processes
E. Test Procedures
1. Small (<65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity)
Commercial Package Air Conditioners
and Heating Equipment
2. Small (≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h
Cooling Capacity), Large (≥135,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) and
Very Large (≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/
h Cooling Capacity) Commercial Package
Air Conditioners and Heating Equipment
3. Commercial Oil-Fired Warm-Air
Furnaces
4. Commercial Gas-Fired Warm-Air
Furnaces
5. Commercial Water Heaters
6. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units
Serving Computer Rooms
7. Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems
8. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners
and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps
9. Additional Specifications for Testing of
Commercial Package Air Conditioning
and Heating Equipment, Including VRF
Systems
10. Sampling Plans for Commercial
Heating, Ventilating, and AirConditioning Equipment
F. Definitional Changes
V. Methodology for VRF Water-Source Heat
Pumps
A. Definitions of ‘‘VRF Multi-Split Air
Conditioners’’ and ‘‘VRF Multi-Split
Heat Pumps’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
B. Annual Energy Use
C. Shipments
D. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Site-to-Source Conversion
2. Product Lifetime
3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period
VI. Methodology for Computer Room Air
Conditioners
A. Market Assessment
1. Definitions of ‘‘Computer Room Air
Conditioners’’
2. Equipment Classes
3. Review of Current Market for Computer
Room Air Conditioners
a. Trade Association Information
b. Manufacturer Information
c. Market Data
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Approach
2. Representative Input Capacities for
Analysis
3. Baseline Equipment
4. Identification of Efficiency Information
and Efficiency Levels for Analysis
5. Pricing Data
6. Equipment Classes for Analysis and
Extrapolation to Unanalyzed Equipment
Classes
7. Engineering Analysis Results
C. Markups To Determine Equipment Price
D. Energy Use Characterization
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
1. Approach
2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs
a. Equipment Prices
b. Installation Costs
c. Annual Energy Use
d. Electricity Prices
e. Maintenance Costs
f. Repair Costs
g. Equipment Lifetime
h. Discount Rate
3. Payback Period
F. National Impact Analysis—National
Energy Savings and Net Present Value
Analysis
1. Approach
2. Shipments Analysis
3. Base-Case and Standards-Case
Forecasted Distribution of Efficiencies
4. National Energy Savings and Net Present
Value
G. Other Issues
1. Compliance Date of the Proposed
Amended Energy Conservation
Standards
VII. Methodology for Emissions Analysis and
Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other
Emissions Impacts
A. Emissions Analysis
B. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other
Emissions Impacts
1. Social Cost of Carbon
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in
Past Regulatory Analyses
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
2. Valuation of Other Emissions
Reductions
VIII. Analytical Results
A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled
Products
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2357
B. Energy Savings and Economic
Justification
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled
Equipment
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Economic Impacts on Commercial
Customers
b. National Impact Analysis
C. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
D. Proposed Standards
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled
Equipment
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
IX. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review
X. Public Participation
A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Request To
Speak and Prepared General Statements
for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
XI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), as
amended, requires DOE to consider
amending the existing Federal energy
conservation standard for certain types
of listed commercial and industrial
equipment (generally, commercial water
heaters, commercial packaged boilers,
commercial air conditioning and
heating equipment, and packaged
terminal air conditioners and heat
pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard
90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,
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,1 DOE must adopt amended
1 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
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
Continued
17JAP2
2358
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
energy conservation standards at the
new efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless clear and
convincing evidence supports a
determination that adoption of a morestringent efficiency 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
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)) If DOE determines
that a more-stringent standard is
appropriate under the statutory criteria,
DOE must establish such more-stringent
standard not later than 30 months after
publication of the revised ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 on October 29,
2010, thereby triggering DOE’s abovereferenced obligations pursuant to EPCA
to determine for those equipment with
efficiency level changes beyond the
current Federal standard, whether: (1)
the amended industry standard should
be adopted; or (2) clear and convincing
evidence exists to justify more-stringent
standard levels.
Accordingly, this NOPR sets forth
DOE’s determination of scope for
consideration of amended energy
conservation standards with respect to
certain heating, ventilating, airconditioning, and water-heating
equipment addressed in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010. Such inquiry is
necessary to ascertain whether the
revised ASHRAE efficiency levels have
become more stringent, thereby
ensuring that any new amended
national standard would not result in
prohibited ‘‘backsliding.’’ For those
equipment classes for which ASHRAE
set more-stringent or new efficiency
levels (i.e., small, large, and very large
water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
air conditioners; variable refrigerant
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
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
flow water-source heat pumps with a
cooling capacity either less than 17,000
Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000
Btu/h with and without heat recovery;
and computer room air conditioners),
where possible,2 DOE analyzed the
energy savings potential of amended
national energy conservation standards
(at both the new ASHRAE Standard 90.1
efficiency levels and more-stringent
efficiency levels). For the classes of
water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
air conditioning and heating equipment,
as well as the VRF equipment classes,
DOE determined that the potential for
energy savings from adopting more
stringent levels than the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 levels was not significant,
and, thus, DOE is proposing to adopt the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels without
further analysis. (See section IV.B for
further details.) For computer room air
conditioners, DOE also analyzed the
economic justification of amended
national energy conservation standards
at more-stringent efficiency levels, in
addition to the energy savings potential.
DOE did not identify any equipment on
the market for evaporatively-cooled air
conditioners with a capacity less than
240,000 Btu/h (small and large product
classes) or VRF water-source heat
pumps with a cooling capacity less than
17,000 Btu/h. As a result, DOE did not
analyze the economic or energy savings
potential of these amended national
energy conservation standards, because
there are currently no energy savings
associated with these product classes,
nor is there any available equipment
information.
In light of the above, DOE has
tentatively concluded that for twelve
classes of water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners,
four classes of VRF water-source heat
pumps, and thirty classes of computer
room air conditioners: (1) The revised
efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1–
2010 3 are more stringent than current
national standards or represent new
standards; and (2) their adoption as
Federal energy conservation standards
would result in energy savings where
models exist below the revised
efficiency levels. DOE has also
tentatively concluded that there is not
clear and convincing evidence as would
2 If DOE found there were no models available on
the market for any equipment class, DOE did not
perform an analysis of the energy savings potential
of that equipment class.
3 To obtain a copy of ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010, visit www.ashrae.org/technology/page/548 or
contact the ASHRAE publications department by email at orders@ashrae.org or by telephone at (800)
527–4723.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
justify adoption of more-stringent
efficiency levels for this equipment.
Thus, in accordance with the criteria
discussed elsewhere in this notice, DOE
is proposing to amend its existing
energy conservation standards for
twelve equipment classes of watercooled and evaporatively-cooled
equipment and VRF water-source heat
pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h (with and
without heat recovery), and to establish
new energy conservation standards for
VRF water-source heat pumps at or
greater than 135,000 Btu/h (with and
without heat recovery) and thirty classes
of computer room air conditioners by
adopting the efficiency levels specified
by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010.
The proposed standards for small
water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
commercial package air conditioners,
VRF water-source heat pumps less than
17,000 Btu/h, and computer room air
conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h
would apply to equipment
manufactured on or after the date two
years after the effective date specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 (i.e., by
June 1, 2013 for small water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled commercial
package air conditioners, and by
October 29, 2012 for VRF water-source
heat pump less than 17,000 Btu/h and
computer room air conditioners less
than 65,000 Btu/h). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(D)(i)) The proposed standards
for large and very large water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled commercial
package air conditioners, VRF watersource heat pumps equal to or greater
than 135,000 Btu/h, and computer room
air conditioners equal to or greater than
65,000 Btu/h would apply to such
equipment manufactured on or after the
date three years after the effective date
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 (i.e., by June 1, 2014 for large and
very large water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled commercial
package air conditioners, and by
October 29, 2013 for VRF water-source
heat pumps equal to or greater than
135,000 Btu/h and computer room air
conditioners equal to or greater than
65,000 Btu/h). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(D)(ii))
In addition, when the test procedures
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
are updated, EPCA requires DOE to
amend the test procedures for those
ASHRAE equipment (which
manufacturers are required to use in
order to certify compliance with energy
conservation standards mandated under
EPCA) to be consistent with the
amended industry test procedure. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) Specifically, these
amendments would update the citations
and incorporations by reference in
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DOE’s regulations to the most recent
version of the following industry
standards: (1) AHRI 210/240–2008
(Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment); (2) AHRI 340/360–2007
(Performance Rating of Unitary
Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment); (3) UL 727–2006 (Standard
for Safety for Oil-Fired Central
Furnaces); (4) ANSI Z21.47–2006
(Standard for Gas-Fried Central
Furnaces); and (5) 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). DOE is also proposing to
adopt three new test procedures for VRF
equipment (AHRI 1230–2010), computer
room air conditioners (ASHRAE 127–
2007), and single package vertical units
(AHRI 390–2003). In addition to
harmonizing the test procedures with
the latest versions in ASHRAE Standard
90.1, DOE also reviewed each of these
test procedures in their totality as part
of DOE’s seven-year review required by
EPCA.
DOE is also proposing to include an
optional ‘‘break-in’’ provision in its test
procedures for commercial air
conditioning and heating equipment, in
order to provide the manufacturer with
the option of running the test unit for a
set amount of time prior to testing the
equipment. Such a provision could
allow components within the unit to
warm-up to conditions that are more
characteristic of typical operation and
more accurately reflect efficiencies
achieved in the field. Lastly, DOE has
identified a number of issues associated
with its test procedures for which it is
seeking comments from interested
parties.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying today’s proposal, as well as
some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners,
variable refrigerant flow water-source
heat pump systems, and computer room
air conditioners.
A. Authority
Title III, Part C 4 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
4 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
2359
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which includes the
commercial heating, air-conditioning,
and water-heating equipment that is the
subject of this rulemaking.5 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),
energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C.
6314), labelling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), and the authority to require
information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
EPCA contains mandatory energy
conservation standards for commercial
heating, air-conditioning, and waterheating 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, 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). The Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007) amended EPCA by adding
definitions and setting minimum energy
conservation standards for singlepackage vertical air conditioners
(SPVACs) and single-package vertical
heat pumps (SPVHPs). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(A)) The efficiency standards
for SPVACs and SPVHPs established by
EISA 2007 correspond to the levels
contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2004, which originated as addendum
‘‘d’’ to ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2001.
In acknowledgement of technological
changes that yield energy efficiency
benefits, Congress further directed DOE
through EPCA to consider amending the
existing Federal energy conservation
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, DOE must publish in the
Federal Register an analysis of the
energy savings potential of amended
energy efficiency standards within 180
days of the amendment of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs
that 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 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
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 it 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))
(In addition, DOE notes that pursuant to
the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA,
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), the
agency must periodically review its
already-established energy conservation
standards for ASHRAE products. Under
this requirement, the next review that
DOE would need to conduct must occur
no later than six years from the issuance
of a final rule establishing or amending
a standard for a covered product.)
EISA 2007 also amended EPCA to
require that DOE review the most
recently published ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010)
with respect to SPVACs and SPVHPs in
accordance with the procedures
established for ASHRAE equipment
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE believes
that this one-time 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 90.1.6 DOE is
conducting a separate rulemaking to
further evaluate the efficiency levels for
this equipment class.
5 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.
6 Once DOE has completed its rulemaking
obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B), SPVACs
and SPVHPs will be treated similar to other
ASHRAE equipment going forward.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2360
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
EPCA also requires that if a test
procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must
update its test procedure to be
consistent with the amended test
procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
unless DOE determines that the
amended test procedure is not
reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
operating costs of the ASHRAE product
during a representative average use
cycle. In addition, DOE must determine
that the amended test procedure is not
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4))
Additionally, EISA 2007 amended
EPCA to require that at least once every
7 years, DOE must conduct an
evaluation of the test procedures for all
covered equipment and either amend
test procedures (if the Secretary
determines that amended test
procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements of
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(3)) or publish
notice in the Federal Register of any
determination not to amend a test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A))
Under this requirement, DOE must
review the test procedures for the
various types of ASHRAE equipment
not later than December 19, 2014 (i.e.,
7 years after the enactment of EISA
2007). Thus, the final rule resulting
from this rulemaking will satisfy the
requirement to review the test
procedures for the certain types of
ASHRAE equipment included in this
rule (i.e., those equipment for which
DOE has been triggered) within seven
years.
On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE
officially released and made public
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. This
action triggered DOE’s obligations under
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined above.
When considering the possibility of a
more-stringent standard, DOE’s more
typical rulemaking requirements under
EPCA apply (i.e., a determination of
technological feasibility, economic
justification, and significant energy
savings). For example, EPCA provides
that in deciding whether such a
standard is economically justified, DOE
must determine, after receiving
comments on the proposed standard,
whether the benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens by considering, to
the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the
standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 the utility or the
performance of the products likely to
result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)–(ii); 42
U.S.C. 6316(a))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what
is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision, which prevents the Secretary
from prescribing any amended standard
that either increases the maximum
allowable energy use or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency of
a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard
if interested persons have established by
a preponderance of the evidence that
such standard would likely result in the
unavailability in the United States of
any covered product type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the
United States at the time of the
Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
Further, EPCA, as codified,
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a
product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the energy
(and, as applicable, water) savings
during the first year that the consumer
will receive as a result of the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)
and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Additionally, when a type or class of
covered equipment such as ASHRAE
equipment, has two or more
subcategories, DOE often specifies more
than one standard level. DOE generally
will adopt a different standard level
than that which applies generally to
such type or class of products for any
group of covered products that have the
same function or intended use if DOE
determines that products within such
group: (A) Consume a different kind of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
energy from that consumed by other
covered products within such type (or
class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
products within such type (or class) do
not have and which justifies a higher or
lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6316(a)) In determining whether
a performance-related feature justifies a
different standard for a group of
products, DOE generally considers such
factors as the utility to the consumer of
the feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. In a rule prescribing such
a standard, DOE includes an
explanation of the basis on which such
higher or lower level was established.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2); 6316(a)) DOE
plans to follow a similar process in the
context of today’s rulemaking.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation
pursuant to Executive Order 13563,
issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281
(Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563
is supplemental to and explicitly
reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866.
To the extent permitted by law, agencies
are required by Executive Order 13563
to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden
on society, consistent with obtaining
regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the
extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that
Executive Order 13563 requires agencies
to use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
emphasized that such techniques may
include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2361
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, DOE believes
that today’s NOPR is consistent with
these principles, including the
requirement that, to the extent
permitted by law, benefits justify costs
and that net benefits are maximized.
Consistent with EO 13563, and the
range of impacts analyzed in this
rulemaking, the energy efficiency
standard proposed herein by DOE
achieves maximum net benefits.
B. 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 its efficiency levels for certain
commercial equipment and revised its
scope to include additional 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 II.1 below presents the
equipment classes for which ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels
differed from those in the previous
version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e.,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 2007). Table
II.1 also presents the existing Federal
energy conservation standards and the
corresponding standard levels in both
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2007 and
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for those
equipment classes. Section IV 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 II.1.
TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD
90.1–2007 AND 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
DOE review triggered?
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
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
11.3 EER
11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.3 EER
Yes
11.0 EER
12.5 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER
Yes
10.8 EER
12.3 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER
Yes
11.0 EER
12.4 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER
Yes
10.8 EER
12.2 EER (as of 6/1/11)
10.8 EER
Yes
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Evaporatively-Cooled
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
11.3 EER
11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.3 EER
Yes
11.0 EER
12.0 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER
Yes
10.8 EER
11.8 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER
Yes
11.0 EER
11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11)
11.0 EER
Yes
10.8 EER
11.7 EER† (as of 6/1/11)
10.8 EER
Yes
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.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance or No Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
N/A
N/A
13.0 SEER
11.2 EER
13.0 SEER
11.2 EER
No
No
N/A
11.0 EER
11.0 EER
No
N/A
10.0 EER
10.0 EER
No
N/A
13.0 SEER
7.7 HSPF
13.0 SEER
7.7 HSPF
No
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2362
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD
90.1–2007 AND ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued
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
DOE review triggered?
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
11.0 EER
3.3 COP
11.0 EER
3.3 COP
No
N/A
10.8 EER
3.3 COP
No
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.
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
No
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
9.5 EER
3.2 COP
10.6 EER (electric resistance heating)
10.4 (no electric resistance heating)†††
3.2 COP
9.5 EER
3.2 COP
N/A
9.3 EER
3.2 COP
No
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
11.8 EER
4.2 COP
10.0 EER
3.9 COP
9.8 EER
3.9 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
12.0 EER
4.2 COP
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
No
Yes✧✧✧
for <17,000 Btu
No
for ≥17,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h
Yes✧✧✧
for <17,000 Btu
No
for ≥17,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h
No
No
Yes✧✧✧
Yes✧✧✧
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)‡‡‡.
EER = 11.0
EER = 12.5—(0.213 x
Cap✧)
EER = 9.3
EER = 10.8
COP = 3.0
Package Terminal Heat Pump, ≥7,000 and <15,000
Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.
EER = 12.3—(0.213 x
Cap✧)
COP = 3.2—(0.026 x
Cap✧)
Package Terminal Heat Pump, >15,000 Btu/h,
Standard Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.
EER = 9.1
COP = 2.8
EER = 11.7
(as of 10/8/12)
EER = 13.8—(0.300 x
Cap✧)
(as of 10/8/12)
EER = 9.3
EER = 11.9
COP = 3.3
(as of 10/8/12)
EER = 14.0—(0.300 x
Cap✧)
COP = 3.7—(0.052 x
Cap✧)
(as of 10/8/12)
EER = 9.5
COP = 2.9
EER = 11.7
No
EER = 13.8—(0.300 x
Cap✧)
No
EER = 9.3
No
EER = 11.9
COP = 3.3
No
EER = 14.0—(0.300 x
Cap✧)
COP = 3.7—(0.052 x
Cap✧)
No
EER = 9.5
COP = 2.9
No
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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, Air-cooled Heat Pumps,
<65,000 Btu/h.
12.0 SEER
7.4 HSPF
10.0 SEER
6.8 HSPF
13.0 SEER
7.4 HSPF
N/A✧✧
13.0 SEER
7.7 HSPF
13.0 SEER
7.7 HSPF
No
No
Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms
Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................
N/A
Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ..............
N/A
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
2.20
2.09
2.10
1.99
1.90
1.79
N/A
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
Sfmt 4702
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2363
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD
90.1–2007 AND 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, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ...........
N/A
Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h .........
N/A
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.
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
2.60
2.49
2.50
2.39
2.40
2.29
2.55
2.44
2.45
2.34
2.35
2.24
2.50
2.39
2.15
2.04
2.10
1.99
2.45
2.34
2.10
1.99
2.05
1.94
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
SCOP
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
(downflow)
(upflow)
Federal energy
conservation standards
DOE review triggered?
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
N/A
Yes✧✧✧
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
* ‘‘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 IV.B.2 of this NOPR, 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 IV.B.3 of this NOPR,
DOE believes these systems are currently covered by Federal energy conservation 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 95ß F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products and evaporatively-cooled products, and at 85ß F entering water temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values must be rated at 47ß F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for
air-cooled products, and at 70ß 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 95ß 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 IV.B.5 of this NOPR, 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 for the notice of data availability published on May 5, 2011 due to either a lack of
data or because there is no equipment on the market that would fall into this equipment class.
2. Notice of Data Availability
On May 5, 2011, DOE published a
notice of data availability (May 2011
NODA) in the Federal Register and
requested public comment as a
preliminary step required pursuant to
EPCA when DOE considers amended
energy conservation standards for
certain types of commercial equipment
covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 76
FR 25622. Specifically, the May 2011
NODA presented for public comment
DOE’s analysis of the potential energy
savings estimates for amended national
energy conservation standards for types
of commercial equipment based on: (1)
The modified efficiency levels
contained within ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010; and (2) more-stringent
efficiency levels. Id. at 25637. DOE has
described these analyses and
preliminary conclusions and sought
input from interested parties, including
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
the submission of data and other
relevant information. Id.
In addition, DOE presented a
discussion in the May 2011 NODA of
the changes found in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010. Id. at 25630–37. The May
2011 NODA includes a description of
DOE’s evaluation of each ASHRAE
equipment type in order for DOE to
determine whether the amendments in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 have
increased efficiency levels. As an initial
matter, DOE sought to determine which
requirements for covered equipment in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if any, have
been revised solely to reflect the level of
the current Federal energy conservation
standard (where ASHRAE is merely
‘‘catching up’’ to the current national
standard), have been revised but
lowered, have been revised to include
design requirements without changes to
the efficiency level, or have had any
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
other revisions made that do not
increase the standard level, in which
case, DOE is not triggered to act under
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for that particular
product type. For those types of
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
for which ASHRAE actually increased
efficiency levels above the current
Federal standard, DOE subjected that
equipment to the potential energy
savings analysis discussed above and
presented the results in the May 2011
NODA for public comment. 76 FR
25622, 25644–47 (May 5, 2011).
Additionally, for single package vertical
air conditioners and heat pumps,
although the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 were unchanged,
DOE performed an analysis of their
potential energy savings as required by
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B). Lastly, DOE
presented an initial assessment of the
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2364
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
test procedure changes included in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010.
As a result of the preliminary
determination of scope set forth in the
May 2011 NODA, DOE found that there
were equipment types for which
ASHRAE increased the efficiency levels
(thereby triggering further analysis)
including: (1) Water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners;
(2) two classes of VRF water-source heat
pumps with and without heat recovery;
and (3) computer room air conditioners
(which were not previously covered). 76
FR 25622, 25644–47 (May 5, 2011). DOE
presented its methodology, data, and
results for the preliminary energy
savings analysis developed for the
water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
equipment classes in the May 2011
NODA for public comment. 76 FR
25622, 25637–46 (May 5, 2011). For the
remaining equipment classes, DOE
requested data and information that
would allow it to accurately assess the
energy savings potential of those
equipment classes.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
III. General Discussion of Comments
Regarding the ASHRAE Process and
DOE’s Interpretation of EPCA’s
Requirements With Respect to ASHRAE
Equipment
In response to its request for comment
on the May 2011 NODA, DOE received
seven comments from manufacturers,
trade associations, utilities, and energy
efficiency advocates. As discussed
above, these comments are available in
the docket for this rulemaking and are
available for review by following the
instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
The following section summarizes the
issues raised in these comments, along
with DOE’s responses.
A. The ASHRAE Process
In response to the preliminary
determination of scope and analyses set
forth in the May 2011 NODA, DOE
received several comments regarding
the ASHRAE process for considering
revised efficiency levels for certain
commercial heating, ventilating, airconditioning, and water heater
equipment.
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) stated
that it supported the efficiency levels for
equipment shown in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, because the efficiency levels
were created through a consensus-based
process, DOE’s analysis shows energy
savings for all ASHRAE values
analyzed, and adopting ASHRAE values
would ensure a streamlined approach.
(EEI, No. 7 at p. 1–2) 7 The Air7 ‘‘EEI, No. 7 at p. 2’’ refers to: (1) To a statement
that was submitted by the Edison Electric Institute
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) stated that AHRI and its
members were participants in the
development of ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, and that revisions to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are developed
through a consensus process. AHRI
encouraged DOE to adopt the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
as Federal minimum efficiency
standards. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 1, 3)
DOE maintains its position expressed
in the March 20, 2009 NOPR, as restated
below. While DOE recognizes that
efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 are the result of a consensus
process, EPCA clearly sets forth DOE’s
obligations in terms of considering
amendments when ASHRAE revises
Standard 90.1. Specifically, EPCA
directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
amended, DOE must adopt amended
energy conservation standards at the
new efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless clear and
convincing evidence supports a
determination that adoption of a morestringent 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)) In order to
determine if more-stringent efficiency
levels would meet EPCA’s criteria, DOE
must review the efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and morestringent efficiency levels for their
energy savings and economic potentials
irrespective of whether the efficiency
levels were part of a consensus
standard. 74 FR 12000, 12006.
B. The Definition of ‘‘Amendment’’ With
Respect to the Efficiency Levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1
The Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (ASAP), the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and
the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council (NPCC) submitted a joint
comment (hereafter referred to as ‘‘The
Advocates’’ comment), which argued
that although efficiency levels did not
change for warm-air furnaces, ASHRAE
90.1–2010 contains design requirements
(interrupted or intermittent ignition
device, jacket losses not exceeding 0.75
percent of the input rating, and either
power venting or a flue damper) that
qualify as an amendment that triggers
DOE’s review. (The Advocates, No. 8 at
and is recorded in the docket under ‘‘Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and WaterHeating Equipment,’’ Docket Number EERE–2011–
BT–STD–0029, as comment number 7; and (2) a
passage that appears on pages 1–2 of that statement.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
p. 2–3) The Advocates stated in
previous comments attached as Exhibit
B, ‘‘The plain language of EPCA ties
DOE’s duty to review and update
Federal standards to ASHRAE’s
amendment of its own standards
regardless of the direction or nature of
the ASHRAE change.’’ (The Advocates,
No. 8 at Exhibit B, p. 3) The Advocates
further note that the prescriptive
requirements for warm-air furnaces
meet DOE’s own definition of
‘‘amendment,’’ because it increases the
level of efficiency for this equipment
type. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit
B p. 4, referring to 73 FR 40771) Even
if DOE decides it cannot adopt multimetric standards, the Advocates believe
that ASHRAE’s action triggers a DOE
review of the warm-air furnaces
standard. (The Advocates, No. 8 at
Exhibit B p. 4)
DOE does not agree with the
Advocates’ assertion that DOE is
required to review changes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 that do not increase
the efficiency level when compared to
the current Federal energy conservation
standards for a given type of equipment.
As it did in the July 2009 Final Rule,
DOE views the trigger as attached to an
increased efficiency level. 74 FR 36312,
36320 (July 22, 2009). Further, since
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. 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))
by increasing the energy efficiency level
for that equipment type. Id. at 10042.
The section cited above refers to ‘‘the
minimum level * * * specified in the
amended ASHRAE standard,’’ which
DOE interprets as referring to an energy
efficiency level.
The Advocates also argued that EPCA
authorizes DOE to adopt a multi-metric
standard. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3)
DOE has previously noted that Congress
intended 42 U.S.C. 6313 to result in
DOE ‘‘maintain[ing] uniform national
standards consistent with those set in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.’’ (The
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3, referring to 72
FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 2007)) The
Advocates, therefore, contend that DOE
must read the statute as permitting
sufficient authority to harmonize
standards with ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) The
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Advocates also state that several
products (commercial storage water
heaters, instantaneous water heaters,
and commercial heat pumps) are
already subject to multiple efficiency
requirements, some of which are based
on multi-part requirements in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (The Advocates
Comment, No. 8 at p. 3) The Advocates
asserted that DOE’s position that it lacks
legal authority to apply more than one
requirement in a standard for a given
product was developed by DOE during
the Bush administration in the
residential furnaces rulemaking, and
that it reversed the agency position
taken previously in the central air
conditioner docket. Therefore, the
Advocates urged DOE to reconsider the
policy. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit
C p. 2)
In response, if ASHRAE adds a
prescriptive requirement for equipment
where an efficiency level is already
specified, DOE does not believe it has
the authority to use a dual descriptor for
a single equipment type. EPCA
authorizes the Secretary to amend the
energy conservation standards for
specified equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)), but under 42 U.S.C.
6311(18), the statute’s definition of the
term ‘‘energy conservation standard’’ is
limited to: (A) A performance standard
that prescribes a minimum level of
energy efficiency or a maximum
quantity of energy use for a product; or
(B) a design requirement for a product.
The language of EPCA authorizes DOE
to establish a performance standard or a
single design standard. As such, DOE
maintains its position stated in the July
2009 Final Rule that a standard that
establishes both a performance standard
and a design requirement is beyond the
scope of DOE’s legal authority, as would
be a standard that included more than
one design requirement. 74 FR 36312,
36322 (July 22, 2009). In this case,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
recommends three design requirements,
which goes beyond EPCA’s limit of one
design requirement for the specified
covered equipment.
In light of the above, DOE maintains
its position (stated in the July 2008
notice of data availability) that 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). 73 FR 40770,
40771 (July 16, 2008).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
C. DOE’s Review of ASHRAE Equipment
Independent of the ASHRAE Standards
Process
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Southern California Gas Company, and
San Diego Gas and Electric submitted a
joint comment in response to the May
2011 NODA, with Southern California
Edison (SCE) submitting an identical
comment (hereafter referred to together
as the CA IOU comment). Both the CA
IOU comment and the Advocates
comment argued that DOE should
expand the scope of the rulemaking to
include additional product classes. (CA
IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; The
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1) Both comments
specifically recommended considering
amended standards for commercial aircooled unitary air conditioners and heat
pumps and commercial water heaters,
arguing that higher efficiency levels
would be technologically feasible and
that potential national energy savings
would be significant (commercial aircooled unitary air conditioners and heat
pumps) or would likely be significant
(commercial water heaters). (CA IOU,
Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 2; The Advocates,
No. 8 at p. 5, 9) The Advocates also
requested that DOE evaluate whether
there are potentially significant savings
for unitary water-source heat pumps.
(The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 6) In
addition, EEI recommended that if DOE
reviews products for higher efficiency
standards, it should take a fuel-neutral
approach and analyze the energy
savings potential from increasing energy
efficiency standards for gas and oil-fired
furnaces and boilers in addition to the
electric products triggered by ASHRAE
90.1–2010. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 2)
The Advocates also argued that the
six-year look back provision in the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA 2007) 8 compels DOE to
review standards for all product classes,
including those specifically mentioned
above, that are more than five years old.
(The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1, 5–6, 9)
The Advocates stated that the plain
language of the provision applies to all
final rules setting standards, including
those issued prior to EISA 2007. (The
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) These
commenters also stated that it would be
unreasonable to read the provision to
exclude the most out-of-date standards,
because the purpose of the provision is
to keep standards up-to-date. (The
8 The Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 incorporated a provision commonly known as
the ‘‘six-year look back,’’ requiring DOE to review
‘‘any final rule establishing or amending a
standard’’ every six years and either publish a
notice indicating that new standards are not
required or begin a rulemaking proposing new
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2365
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) Further, it was
noted that the U.S. Department of
Energy May 2011 Strategic Plan
commits the Department to reviewing
minimum appliance efficiency
standards at least every 5 years. (The
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1)
The Advocates argued that EISA 2007
does not provide a temporal limitation
on what is included in the ‘‘any final
rule’’ language used. (The Advocates,
No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 7) The Advocates
also cited several Supreme Court cases
in which ‘‘any’’ is interpreted to have an
expansive meaning encompassing all
species of the category in question. (The
Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 6–7)
Therefore, the Advocates contend that
the six-year review must be applied to
all products that have a final rule
regardless of when it was issued (i.e.,
including those issued prior to
December 19, 2007, the enactment date
of EISA 2007). (The Advocates, No. 8 at
Exhibit A p. 7) These commenters use
this rationale to support their
recommendation above for DOE to
expand the scope of the present
rulemaking to include additional
product classes.
In response, DOE previously
addressed similar comments in a March
20, 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
related to ASHRAE products. 74 FR
12000. In that document, DOE
acknowledged that EISA 2007 directs
DOE to assess whether there is a need
to update Federal energy conservation
standards for certain commercial
equipment (i.e., ASHRAE equipment)
after a certain amount of time has
elapsed. However, DOE also noted that
it did not believe it was Congress’s
intention to apply these requirements
retroactively, so that DOE would
immediately be in violation of its legal
obligations upon passage of the statute,
thereby failing from its inception. DOE
did not agree that it was late or that it
should immediately initiate review of
certain commercial equipment. Id. at
12007.
DOE largely reiterated its position in
the July 22, 2009 Final Rule related to
ASHRAE products. 74 FR 36312, 36321.
In response to DOE’s previously stated
position, the Advocates acknowledged
that the provision is not retroactive, but
rather is prospective as it requires
reviews going forward. (The Advocates,
No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 8–9) The
Advocates also acknowledged that some
final rules were already more than six
years old when the amendment was
enacted, and that Congress did not
specifically provide a transition period.
(The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 9)
However, the Advocates contend that
this does not mean DOE was out of
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2366
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
compliance at the time of enactment,
but rather that DOE must begin the
process of reviewing standards more
than six years old. (The Advocates, No.
8 at Exhibit A p. 9)
In response, DOE notes that it has
determined previously that it plans to
implement the six-year look back
provision prospectively and believes
that the clock for the six-year look back
does not commence until a final rule is
published for a given product or
equipment after the enactment of EISA
2007 (which occurred on December 19,
2007). As the products in question (i.e.,
commercial air-cooled unitary air
conditioners and heat pumps,
commercial water heaters, and unitary
water-source heat pumps) have not been
the subject of a final rule since before
the enactment of EISA 2007, review
under the look back provision will not
be required until after the next update
of standards is completed following a
trigger by updates to the corresponding
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency
levels. After that point, if ASHRAE does
not update standards within six years,
DOE will be compelled to review the
standards under the six-year look back
provision. However, as a matter of
policy, DOE’s May 2011 Strategic Plan
expressed a goal of reviewing appliance
standards at least every five years, and,
accordingly, DOE will make an effort to
review standards for ASHRAE products
on a similar schedule, consistent with
statutory mandates and available
resources.
IV. General Discussion of the Changes
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and
Determination of Scope for Further
Rulemaking Activity
As discussed above, before beginning
an analysis of the potential economic
impacts and energy savings that would
result from adopting the efficiency
levels specified by ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 or more-stringent efficiency
levels, DOE first sought to determine
whether or not the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 efficiency levels actually
represented an increase in efficiency
above the current Federal standard
levels. This section discusses 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 as to the action
DOE is taking with respect to that
equipment.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 gasfired commercial 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 Standard 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 NOPR regarding
standards for ASHRAE equipment 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, ASHRAE
changed the efficiency metric for gasfired 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 in the
May 2011 NODA 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.
In response to the preliminary review
set forth in the May 2011 NODA, the
Advocates commented that DOE must
review requirements for warm-air
furnaces because ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 contains new design
requirements that are not included in
the Federal standards, which they view
as constituting an amendment that
triggers DOE review. (The Advocates,
No. 8 at p. 2–3) Further, the Advocates
urged DOE to adopt all the requirements
for gas-fired and oil-fired warm-air
furnaces included in ASHRAE 90.1–
2010 (i.e., efficiency level and design
requirements) as Federal standards, as
these requirements are included as part
of the Implementation of National
Consensus Appliance Agreements Act
(INCAAA, S. 398). (The Advocates, No.
8 at p. 2) In addition, the CA IOUs urged
DOE to adopt all requirements,
including prescriptive (design)
requirements, for warm-air furnaces.
(CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12, at p. 2)
For the reasons explained in section
III.B, DOE does not view the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 design requirements for
warm-air furnaces as triggering DOE
review of the efficiency levels for those
products. Further, DOE has determined
that incorporation of the design
requirements in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 for commercial warm-air
furnaces is beyond the scope of its legal
authority, because the language of EPCA
authorizes DOE to establish a
performance standard or a single design
standard and does not permit DOE to
adopt both a performance standard and
design standard. The fact that pending
legislation, if passed, may convey such
authority does not have any bearing on
DOE’s current authority. Thus, DOE has
not changed its preliminary view set
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
forth in the May 2011 NODA, and
consequently, DOE proposes to leave
the existing Federal energy conservation
standards in place for commercial
warm-air furnaces.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
6311(8)(B)–(D); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Small
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment’’ means
equipment rated less than 135,000 Btu
per hour (cooling capacity). (42
6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment’’ means
equipment rated at or above 135,000 Btu
per hour and less than 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 at or above 240,000 Btu
per hour and less than 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 II.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 in the May
2011 NODA.
In response to the May 2011 NODA,
the Advocates, the CA IOUs, and EEI
recommended that DOE adopt the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency
levels for water-cooled equipment,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
given that the potential national energy
savings from efficiency levels above
those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
are very small. (The Advocates, No. 8 at
p. 5; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1;
EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) Upon reviewing the
results of the potential energy savings
analysis in the May 2011 NODA, DOE
agrees with the submitted comments.
Because of the minimal energy savings
available from this equipment (see
section VIII.B.1), DOE has not
conducted further analyses on these
products and is proposing in today’s
NOPR to adopt the energy efficiency
levels contained in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 for water-cooled commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment.
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 II.1 above. 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.
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 in the May
2011 NODA. For very large
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2367
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 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 the
winter 2011 ASHRAE 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 tentatively decided in the
May 2011 NODA to analyze the
potential energy savings for this
category at an ASHRAE Standard 90.1
level of 11.7 EER.
In response to the May 2011 NODA,
the Advocates, CA IOUs, and EEI
recommended that DOE adopt the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 levels for
evaporatively-cooled equipment, given
that the potential national energy
savings from efficiency levels above
those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
are very small. (The Advocates, No. 8 at
p. 5; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1;
EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) In addition, AHRI
agreed that overall energy savings for
evaporatively-cooled units less than
240,000 Btu/h cannot be estimated
because none exist on the market, but
that DOE should still adopt ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 levels for those
product classes. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2)
AHRI also agreed with DOE’s
recognition of Proposed Addendum j in
regards to the EER correction for very
large evaporatively-cooled equipment.
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 1)
DOE agrees with these comments, and
because of the minimal energy savings
associated with more-stringent levels for
very large equipment (see section
VIII.B.1) and the lack of models on the
market for small and large equipment,
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2368
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DOE has not conducted further analyses
on these products. Accordingly, DOE is
proposing to adopt the energy efficiency
levels contained in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 for evaporatively-cooled
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment.
3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 created
a separate product class for variable
refrigerant flow (VRF) air-conditioning
and heating equipment. These products
are 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 Standard 90.1–
2010 with less-stringent 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 resistance or no heating.9
The VRF systems with heat recovery
specified by ASHRAE may also be
provided with electric resistance
heating systems as a back-up. For aircooled 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 aircooled central air-conditioning 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 air-conditioning heat pumps
with other heating, which are codified
at 10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(7)–(9)) The proposed changes to
the Code of Federal Regulations can be
found at the end of this NOPR.
Table IV.1 shows the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels for
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 (water-source)
for the VRF systems, with several
notable exceptions. For VRF watersource heat pumps under 17,000 Btu/h,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 raises the
efficiency levels above current Federal
energy conservation standards. For VRF
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 in the May 2011
NODA. DOE began by reviewing the
current market for VRF water-source
heat pumps with cooling capacities
either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to
or greater than 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 greater than 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 had no shipment information for
this product class. Because DOE could
not identify any VRF water-source heat
pumps being manufactured with cooling
capacities less than 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. Due to the lack of
information and data on VRF watersource heat pumps with cooling
capacities greater than 135,000 Btu/h
available at the time of the NODA, the
Department did not conduct a
preliminary energy saving estimate for
the additional energy savings beyond
the levels anticipated in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 for these VRF
water-source heat pumps.
TABLE IV.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
Federal minimum energy
conservation standard
Existing federal equipment class
11.2 EER
Water-source Heat Pump ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h ....
4.2 COP
12.0 EER
Water-source Heat Pump ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ..
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water-source Heat Pump <17,000 Btu/h .........................
4.2 COP
12.0 EER
Water-source Heat Pump ≥135,000 and <760,000 Btu/h
4.2 COP
N/A
9 Section 136 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT 2005; Pub. L. 109–58) amended EPCA to
include separate minimum efficiency requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
for commercial package air-cooled air conditioners
and heating equipment with ‘‘all other heating
system types that are integrated into the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
equipment’’ and with electric resistance or no
heating.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
In addition to the changes for the
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 greater than or equal
to 17,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000
Btu/h and for water-source heat pumps
with cooling capacities greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than
135,000 Btu/h) would result in a
decrease in stringency in comparison to
current standards. As noted in section
III.B, 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. The
proposed changes to the Code of Federal
Regulations to clarify which energy
conservation standards VRF watersource heat pumps must meet can be
found at the end of this NOPR.
In response to the May 2011 NODA,
AHRI agreed that there are no products
available on the market in the category
of less than 17,000 Btu/h water-source
VRF heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3)
AHRI also commented that VRF watersource heat pumps with a cooling
capacity greater than 135,000 Btu/h
comprise a new equipment class, and as
such, DOE should accept that an
analysis to estimate energy savings
cannot be done because of the
unavailability of data. (AHRI, No. 11 at
p. 3) AHRI encouraged DOE to adopt the
efficiency standards for these products
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 3)
With regard to the 0.2 EER reduction
for systems with heat recovery, AHRI
noted that DOE should consider this
requirement because non-VRF watersource heat pumps are not a proper
comparative product for determining
appropriate VRF water-source heat
pump efficiency levels (in regard to
backsliding) because: (1) Non-VRF
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
water-source heat pumps do not use the
type of heating components used by
VRF systems, and (2) the components
that require the 0.2 EER reduction
provide overall energy savings in the
system that are not reflected in EER
calculations. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5)
Mitsubishi also submitted a comment in
which it also noted that DOE’s
comparison of VRF water-source heat
pumps to non-VRF water-source heat
pumps is not appropriate because the
non-VRF water-source heat pumps do
not contain gas-fired heat exchangers
like the unitary systems, which
Mitsubishi believes would be a better
comparison to the VRF system.
(Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 3) Mitsubishi
further noted that regardless of the
comparison, DOE should adopt the 0.2
EER reduction because DOE is not
legally prohibited from adopting an
amendment that is a reduction of EER
levels. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 2,
referring to 42 USC 6313(a)(6)(A))
Mitsubishi stated that the 0.2 EER
reduction is necessary due to the
increased pressure drop in the
refrigerant levels due to the BC (branch
circuit) controller, which works in
unison with the outdoor unit to provide
simultaneous cooling and heating
needs. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 2)
In response to comments from AHRI
and from Mitsubishi regarding the 0.2
EER deduction for water-source heat
pumps with heat recovery, DOE has
determined that while there may be
certain additional efficiency penalties
for the incorporation of heat recovery in
VRF water-source heat pumps, DOE
believes that under the statutory scheme
for commercial equipment standards,
the corresponding existing product class
is a water-source heat pump in which
condenser heat is rejected to water, not
air. As such, DOE is prohibited from
adopting an efficiency level lower than
the current Federal standards for watersource heat pumps less than 135,000
Btu/h cooling capacity under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a),
regardless of the provision in 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) providing for adoption of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency
levels. For VRF water-source heat
pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 levels
with or without heat recovery exceed
the current Federal standards. For VRF
water-source heat pumps at or greater
than 135,000 Btu/h, no current Federal
standards exist. In both cases, DOE may
adopt the ASHRAE 90.1–2010 efficiency
levels for VRF water-source heat pumps
with and without heat recovery.
Since the May 2011 NODA, AHRI
released a certified product directory for
VRF water-source heat pumps, thereby
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2369
allowing DOE to perform an energy use
analysis for VRF water-source heat
pumps equal to or greater than 135,000
Btu/h similar to those presented for
other products in the May 2011 NODA.
This analysis is discussed in detail in
section V. The preliminary analysis
showed that only minimal energy
savings are available for surpassing
ASHRAE efficiency levels for these
products (see section VIII.B.2), so DOE
did not conduct any further energy or
economic analysis for these products.
DOE agrees with AHRI’s suggestion to
adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
level for these products and is
proposing to do so for VRF water-source
heat pumps either less than 17,000 Btu/
h or equal to or greater than 135,000
Btu/h with and without heat recovery.
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
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 at 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.
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 8, 2012, and to nonstandard size equipment manufactured
on or after October 7, 2010. The CFR
currently states that the compliance
dates are September 30, 2012, and
September 30, 2010, for standard size
and non-standard size equipment,
respectively. 10 CFR 431.97(c). The
compliance dates currently included in
the CFR for package terminal air
conditioners and heat pumps were
calculated from the date of issuance of
the final rule for those products (i.e.,
September 29, 2008), but should have
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2370
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
been calculated from the publication
date in the Federal Register (i.e.,
October 7, 2008). Therefore, DOE is
proposing in today’s notice to correct
the compliance dates to October 8, 2012
and October 7, 2010 for compliance
with standards for standard size and
non-standard size package terminal air
conditioners and heat pumps,
respectively.
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 meet but 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 tentatively concluded in the May
2011 NODA that it is not required to
take action on these products at this
time. DOE did not receive any
comments on this subject and is
maintaining its position in this NOPR.
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. (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(B))
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.10 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
10 Proposed
Addendum h to Standard 90.1–2010,
Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings (First Public Review, March
2011) (Last accessed March 2011) (Available at :
https://osr.ashrae.org/default.aspx).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
HSPF, ASHRAE 90.1–2010 did not
specify any heating efficiency level for
SDHV heat pumps.
In the May 2011 NODA, DOE noted
that Proposed Addendum h and another
Proposed Addendum j,11 would both
remove the SDHV product class from
the standards tables entirely, with
Addendum j 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.’’ 76 FR 25622, 25633
(May 5, 2011) (quoting ASHRAE
Addenda h and j). Therefore, DOE
concluded that ASHRAE did not intend
to specify any efficiency levels for these
products in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010. Id.
In response, DOE notes that the
Federal energy conservation standards
for commercial types of 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
TTW equipment meet or do not exceed
the DOE standards and because DOE
believed that through the issuance of
Addenda h and j, ASHRAE was
removing requirements for this
equipment from within ASHRAE 90.1
(and thus also not proposing new,
higher efficiency requirements), DOE
tentatively concluded in the May 2011
NODA that it was not required to take
action on these products at this time. 76
FR 25622, 25633 (May 5, 2011).
In response to the May 2011 NODA,
AHRI commented that DOE is incorrect
in assuming that Addendum j removes
SDHV systems from the scope of
coverage of ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) It stated that the
current minimum SEER requirement for
SDHV units in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 applies to all models, both singlephase and three-phase electrical power
with a cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI
stated that three-phase SDHV with a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h
are still covered by ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 despite the omission in
Addendum j (which AHRI believed
deals only with single-phase SDHV
systems covered under the National
11 Proposed
Addendum j to Standard 90.1–2010,
Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings (First Public Review, March
2011) (Last accessed March 2011) (Available at:
https://osr.ashrae.org/default.aspx).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Appliance Energy Conservation Act
(NAECA)). (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI
stated that DOE must consider the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 SEER
requirement for three-phase SDHVs and
adopt it as the Federal standard or
propose an alternate requirement. AHRI
recommended that DOE consider
establishing the minimum requirements
for three-phase SDHV models at 11
SEER and 6.8 HSPF. (AHRI, No. 11 at
p. 2)
In addition, Unico requested that
SDHV be retained as a product class
with a minimum efficiency of 11 SEER/
6.8 HSPF and that the product
manufacturer must have an exception
for this as granted by DOE. (Unico, No.
14 at p. 2) (Currently, three
manufacturers of SDHV products have
been granted exception relief by DOE’s
Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)
allowing for the sale of SDHV products
meeting efficiency of 11 SEER and 6.8
HSPF.12) Unico recommended that DOE
create a commercial SDHV product class
that mirrors the consumer single-phase
product class due to similar operating
conditions. (Unico, No. 14 at p. 2)
In response to the AHRI and Unico
comments, DOE did not intend to imply
that SDHV are removed from the scope
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, but notes
that the removal of an efficiency
requirement for a covered product
within ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
indicative that ASHRAE is not
proposing a higher standards for the
equipment and that DOE, thus, has no
requirement or legal ability to react to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels
for the equipment. In both the case of
the published ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 efficiency levels for SDHV, or the
removal of published values as a result
of Addendum j, the minimum Federal
efficiency standards for three-phase, less
than 65,000 Btu/h small commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, at 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF,
are higher than the levels originally
proposed for SDHV in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010. DOE cannot adopt
lower efficiency levels due to the
prohibition against ‘‘backsliding’’ found
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(a). As such, DOE is prohibited
from adopting the original ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2007 SEER requirement
for three-phase SDHVs as the Federal
standard, and DOE has no requirement
to consider higher levels for three-phase
SDHV equipment.
12 Department of Energy: Office of Hearings and
Appeals, Decision and Order, Case #TEE 0010
(2004) (Available at: https://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/
ee/tee0010.pdf) and Case #TEE 0026 (2005)
(Available at: https://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/ee/
tee0026.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding TTW heat pumps and is
maintaining its position in today’s
NOPR. The efficiency levels shown in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 or in
Addendum h, meet or do not exceed the
current Federal standard for 3-phase,
less than 65,000 Btu/h small package
cooling and heating equipment, and,
thus, DOE is not required to take action
on these products at this time. DOE has
no authority to set standards for any
products of this type lower than the
current Federal minimum.
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, 12073–74. However, SPVUs are
subject to a 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 Standard 90.1 with
respect to single-package 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))
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, large, and very
large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment.
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 one-time mechanism, after
which SPVUs revert to the normal
‘‘ASHRAE trigger.’’ Accordingly, DOE
commenced analytical work on these
products along with the other
equipment that is subject to the current
‘‘ASHRAE trigger’’ in the May 2011
NODA.
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
SPVUs in the very large category or any
models of single package vertical heat
pumps (SPVHPs) in the large category.
The Department identified only five
models of single package vertical air
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
conditioners (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 (as
demonstrated by the small size of the
market (five models) and accompanying
lack of shipment estimates for the large
SPVACs), for the May 2011 NODA, 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.
In response to the May 2011 NODA,
the CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
conduct additional analysis for SPVUs
above the current ASHRAE levels due to
DOE’s preliminary analysis of higher
levels showing potential reduction of
national energy consumption of 0.5
quads over 30 years. (CA IOU, Nos. 10
and 12 at p. 2) The Advocates also
agreed that the amendments to EISA
2007 compel review of the existing
standards for SPVUs and consideration
of levels above those contained in
ASHRAE 90.1–2010. (The Advocates,
No. 8 at p. 7)
DOE concurs with these comments.
As a result of the potential for high
energy savings from increasing the
efficiency levels for SPVUs, and the fact
that any of these levels would be higher
than the ASHRAE levels, DOE is
conducting additional analysis for these
products along the 30-month timeline
for more-stringent standards, as allowed
by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) No
further results regarding these products’
efficiency are presented in today’s
NOPR, and the results of the additional
analysis for SPVUs will be presented in
a separate NOPR in the future,
consistent with that timeline. However,
DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 390 as
the DOE test procedure for this
equipment.
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 within a narrow
range (i.e., minimizing temperature
swings) and to maintain a specific
relative humidity. This equipment is
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2371
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 set forth in
Table II.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
packaged air conditioning and heating
equipment classes in EPCA and
subsequently upheld this position in the
October 2004 direct 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; cited
at 65 FR 48828, 48830 (August 9, 2000)).
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 (i.e.,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–89), which did
not cover computer room air
conditioners. As a result, DOE
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2372
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 direct 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) (supporting this point);
69 FR 61962, 61967 (Oct. 21, 2004)
(making the quotation).
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
experienced expanded scope as
compared to previous versions of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, including
process loads (e.g., computer rooms)
and creation of 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
units serving computer rooms, the scope
of DOE’s obligations pursuant to EPCA
with regard to ASHRAE products has
similarly expanded to encompass these
products. As such, DOE tentatively
concluded in the May 2011 NODA that
it had 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. 76 FR 25622, 25634 (May 5,
2011). However, DOE did not perform a
potential energy savings analysis for this
equipment as a part of the NODA due
to the lack of available data, and
instead, DOE requested data and
information from interested parties that
would allow it to conduct a potential
energy savings analysis as part of this
proceeding.
Lastly, although DOE addressed
computer room air conditioners in the
August 2000 NOPR and October 2004
direct final rule, DOE never formally
defined this term. In reviewing
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE
noted that ASHRAE does not define a
class of equipment in terms of physical
characteristics, but rather an application
(i.e., ‘‘serving computer rooms’’).
Because air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer
rooms have the same basic components
as conventional air conditioners, there
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
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, Method of Testing
for Rating Computer and Data
Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners, (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 in the May 2011
NODA that the definitions in each of the
above sources do not contain criteria
that would allow DOE to clearly
differentiate this type of equipment
from conventional equipment, without
overlapping. 76 FR 25622, 25634 (May
5, 2011). DOE revisited the issue of
defining ‘‘computer room air
conditioners’’ for this NOPR, and it is
discussed further in section VI.A.1
below.
In response to the May 2011 NODA,
the Advocates supported DOE’s
determination that it has the authority
to review the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 efficiency levels for computer
room air conditioners and establish
energy conservation standards. (The
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7) AHRI
suggested that DOE should adopt the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 approach for
computer room air conditioners. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 3) The Advocates stated that
potential energy savings for computer
room air conditioners may be
significant, and the CA IOUs also noted
that computer room air conditioners
have high potential energy savings,
particularly given their market
penetration. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p.
7; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 3–4)
The Advocates and the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE ensure that any
standards established for computer
room air conditioners be at least as
stringent as the current California
standards. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p.
7; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 3–4)
In response to the suggestions from
stakeholders, DOE undertook an
analysis to estimate the potential energy
savings associated with computer room
air conditioners, and to perform a costbenefit analysis of standard levels above
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 levels.
DOE has obtained additional
information for this equipment and
conducted an energy and economic
savings analysis, which is discussed in
Section VI. However, as discussed in
that section, DOE believes that clear and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
convincing evidence does not exist as
would justify standards beyond those in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. As a
result, DOE is proposing to adopt energy
efficiency standards for computer room
air conditioners at the levels set forth in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. See
sections VI and VIII for a summary of
DOE’s analysis, results, and conclusions
for computer room air conditioners.
D. Coverage of Commercial Package Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
That Are Exclusively Used as Part of
Industrial or Manufacturing Processes
DOE received an inquiry from an
interested party regarding the
applicability of DOE’s regulatory
program for commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment in
terms of equipment that is used
exclusively for industrial or
manufacturing processes. Specifically,
Engineered Air asked the Department to
clarify it’s position on the following
three issues: (1) In units where
centrifugal condenser fans are required,
the specified EERs cannot be met due to
the motor horsepower required on the
condenser fan; (2) applicability of the
regulatory program in applications
where the DX unit functions without
ANY regard to the comfort of the
occupants, the EERs may not be met;
and (3) DOE’s position on enforcing its
regulations since DOE’s regulations are
broader than the scope of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (Engineered Air, No. 15
at p. 1)
As mentioned above with regard to air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 expanded the scope
of its coverage as compared to previous
versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
Previous versions of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 did not apply to equipment and
portions of building systems that use
energy primarily to provide for
industrial, manufacturing, or
commercial processes (see ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2007, section 2.3(c)).
While DOE still believes it is ASHRAE’s
intent to continue to exclude most of
those equipment types that are used
solely for manufacturing and industrial
processes, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
now applies to new equipment or
building systems used in manufacturing
or industrial processes that are
specifically identified in the standard.
In order to aid regulated entities in
determining whether their equipment
falls within the scope of DOE’s
definition of ‘‘commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’
and, thus, is subject to DOE’s regulatory
requirements, DOE is providing the
following guidance. If the equipment
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
meets the definition of ‘‘commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment’’ in 10 CFR 431.92, is used
exclusively for manufacturing and/or
industrial processes, and is not listed as
one of the equipment types specifically
added to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, then
DOE also believes it is not covered
under DOE’s regulatory program. Just
like manufacturers, DOE will make this
determination on a case-by-case basis
after considering the facts of the
particular model in question. In making
such a determination, DOE will
consider factors such as how the model
is advertised, marketed, and/or sold for
use in buildings, the extent to which the
equipment provides comfort
conditioning to occupants, and how the
equipment is designed and
manufactured. For equipment that is
used in commercial or industrial
buildings, that has a design similar to
that of equipment used in
manufacturing processes, but provides
comfort conditioning, DOE considers
such equipment to meet the definition
of ‘‘commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’
and consequently to be covered under
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. DOE
notes that the fact that equipment may
be advertised, marketed, and/or sold as
part of industrial or manufacturing
processes is not a mutually exclusive
determination that the models are
exempt them from coverage by DOE’s
standards for equipment in buildings.
DOE seeks comments on ways
manufacturers currently differentiate
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment used solely for
manufacturing and industrial processes
from that equipment of the same type
that is used in buildings. This is
identified as issue 1 in section X.E,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
With respect to Engineered Air’s
specific questions, DOE believes the
above guidance will help manufacturers
like Engineered Air evaluate the
applicability of the Department’s
regulatory equipment to the specific
basic models it manufactures. All
equipment distributed in commerce in
the U.S. that meets DOE’s definition of
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment that is not
subject to the Department’s exclusion
guidance set forth above must meet the
Federal energy conservation standards
regardless of technology or design. DOE
actively enforces all of its energy
conservation standards for all covered
products and equipment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
E. Test Procedures
EPCA requires DOE to amend any test
procedures for ASHRAE products to the
latest version generally accepted by the
industry or the rating procedures
developed or recognized by industry, as
referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1, unless the Secretary determines
that clear and convincing evidence
exists that the latest version of the
industry test procedure does not meet
the requirements for test procedures
described under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–
(3).13 (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)–(B)) The
latest version of the ASHRAE Standard
90.1, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010,
updated its referenced test procedures
to the latest generally accepted industry
test procedures for small commercial
package air conditioners and heating
equipment (AHRI 210/240–2008,
Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & 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
Z21.10.3–2004, Gas Water Heaters,
Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with
Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per
Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous). In
the May 2011 NODA, DOE reviewed
each of these test procedures and
described the changes in comparison to
the previous version of the test
procedure. 76 FR 25622, 25634–37 (May
5, 2011). These changes are described
further in the sections below.
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). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
13 The relevant statutory provisions at 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)–(3) state that test procedure shall be
reasonably designed to produce test results which
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs of a type of industrial equipment
and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. If
the test procedure is a procedure for determining
estimated annual operating costs, such costs shall
be calculated from measurements of energy use in
a representative average-use cycle.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2373
2010 also lists AHRI 390–2003,
Performance Rating of Single Package
Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat
Pumps, as the test procedure for
SPVACs and SPVHPs, for which there
are currently no DOE test procedures.
An initial assessment of these test
procedures is presented below.
Lastly, DOE is required to review the
test procedures for covered ASHRAE
equipment at least once every seven
years. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) In
addition to the updates to the referenced
standards (which are discussed in the
subsections below), DOE is seeking
comments on any other relevant issues
that would affect the test procedures for
the ASHRAE equipment addressed in
today’s NOPR (i.e., those equipment for
which DOE has been triggered).
Interested parties are welcome to
comment on any aspect of these test
procedures as part of this
comprehensive 7-year-review. This is
identified as issue 2 in section X.E,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
1. Small 14 (<65,000 Btu/h Cooling
Capacity) Commercial Package Air
Conditioners and Heating Equipment
For small commercial package air
conditioners and heating equipment,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 updated
its referenced test procedure from AHRI
210/240–2003 to AHRI 210/240–2008.
Between the 2003 and 2008 versions of
AHRI 210/240, AHRI made several
updates, which are summarized here
and discussed in further detail in the
May 2011 NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25635
(May 5, 2011). AHRI 210/240–2008
references DOE’s test procedure for
residential central air conditioners and
heat pumps contained at 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, Appendix M. AHRI
updated the 210/240 test procedure for
small commercial air conditioners and
air-source heat pumps with a cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h to
reflect the recent updates the DOE made
to its test procedure for residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix
M. In doing so, AHRI updated the
definitions for ‘‘heating seasonal
14 EPCA defines ‘‘small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’ as
commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment that are rated below 135,000 Btu/h
(cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)) ASHRAE
90.1–2010 generally divides covered commercial
package air conditioners into the following class
sizes: (1) <65,000 Btu/h; (2) ≥65,000 and <135,000
Btu/h; (3) ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h; and (4)
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. Thus, ‘‘small’’
commercial package air conditioners, as defined by
EPCA, are split into two size classes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010: (1) <65,000 Btu/h and
(2) ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2374
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
performance factor’’ and ‘‘seasonal
energy efficiency ratio’’ to match the
definitions for those terms in DOE’s
residential central air conditioner and
heat pump test procedure. AHRI also
added definitions for ‘‘tested
combination, ‘‘small duct, high velocity
system,’’ ‘‘space-constrained product,’’
and ‘‘through-the-wall air conditioner
and heat pump,’’ that match the DOE’s
definitions at 10 CFR 430.2. Further,
AHRI reorganized and added tables
specifying the criteria for the standard
rating conditions for the various types of
equipment to be identical to those
contained in the DOE test procedure for
residential central air conditioners and
heat pumps at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, Appendix M.
In the NODA, DOE tentatively
concluded that these changes did not
significantly impact the energy
efficiency metric of small commercial
air conditioners and heat pumps with a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
In response, DOE received comment
from AHRI agreeing with DOE’s
tentative conclusion in the NODA.
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not
receive any comments or information
that would cause it to reconsider the
adoption of the updated AHRI 210/240–
2008 test method. As a result, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference
AHRI 210/240–2008 into the Federal
test procedure for small commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps with a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
Additionally, through review of the
AHRI certification program for
commercial unitary equipment, DOE
has discovered that the use of a
compressor ‘‘break-in’’ period is
common when testing commercial
unitary equipment. By way of
explanation, the AHRI certification
program provides for an optional
‘‘break-in’’ period, which allows a
manufacturer to have the testing
laboratory run the equipment for a
period of time before beginning the test.
This break-in period is particularly
important for scroll compressors, which
may be less efficient when first started
and may require time to warm up to
achieve optimal performance. Once the
compressor is broken in, the
performance should be more
representative of the actual field
performance. EPCA requires that test
procedures be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs for a typical type of
equipment (or class thereof) during a
representative use cycle, and shall not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
DOE believes that allowing for an
optional break-in period will provide
manufacturers more flexibility to
produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency of their units in a manner that
is representative of their average use. At
the same time, DOE recognizes that
requiring the break-in period may add
significant testing costs and burden,
and, thus, DOE believes the break-in
period should be optional to allow
manufacturers to use this period at their
discretion. Therefore, DOE is proposing
to create a provision in its test
procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 that would
allow manufacturers the option of a
‘‘break-in’’ period not to exceed 16
hours to warm up the equipment’s
compressor and components. This 16hour time limit of the ‘‘break-in’’ period
that DOE is proposing matches the
period used by AHRI in its Operations
Manual for Unitary Large Equipment
Certification Program.15 DOE believes
that this limit is likely common practice
in industry. Lastly, if manufacturers
choose to use a break-in period when
testing their equipment, DOE will be
proposing to require that in addition to
reporting to DOE the efficiency rating
for their products, manufacturers must
also report the amount of time (up to 16
hours) used to break in their equipment
to achieve the efficiency being
represented. Note, DOE will update the
certification provisions pending the
outcome of this proposal in the
upcoming certification, compliance, and
enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks
comments on all aspects of this
proposal, including the need for an
optional break-in period and the length
of time that should be allowed for such
a period. This is identified as issue 3 in
section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment.’’
2. Small (≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h
Cooling Capacity), Large (≥135,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) and
Very Large (≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/
h Cooling Capacity) Commercial
Package Air Conditioners and Heating
Equipment
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
updated its referenced test procedure for
small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioners and heating
equipment with a cooling capacity
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
(AHRI 340/360) from the 2004 version
(currently referenced in DOE’s test
procedures) to the 2007 version.
Between these two versions of AHRI
340/360, AHRI expanded the scope of
15 See: https://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/
files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/
ULE%20OM%20December%202010.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the standard to include air-cooled
packaged unitary air-conditioners with a
cooling capacity from 250,000 Btu/h to
less than 760,000 Btu/h. AHRI also
added a tolerance to the minimum
external static pressure measurement
(from 0.0 inches of H2O to 0.05 inches
of H2O).
In the May 2011 NODA, DOE
concluded that these changes did not
significantly impact the measurement of
energy efficiency of small (≥65,000 Btu/
h), large, and very large commercial
package air conditioners and heat
pumps. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5,
2011). In response to this conclusion,
DOE received comment from AHRI
agreeing with DOE’s position in the
NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did
not receive any other comments on this
topic. As a result, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360–
2007 into the DOE test procedure for
small, large, and very large commercial
air conditioners and heat pumps with a
cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h but less than 760,000
Btu/h.
For small (≥65,000 Btu/h), large, and
very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment,
DOE is also proposing to add the
optional ‘‘break-in’’ time of no more
than 16 hours, as discussed in the small
(<65,000 Btu/h) commercial package air
conditioners and heating equipment
subsection above (section IV.E.1). DOE
believes that adding this option will
allow the test procedure to be more
representative of the actual performance
characteristics of small (≥65,000 Btu/h),
large, and very large commercial
package air conditioners and heating
equipment, while not increasing the
burden on manufacturers. Note, DOE
will update the certification provisions
pending the outcome of this proposal in
the upcoming certification, compliance,
and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks
comment on the need for an optional
break-in period for small, large, and
very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment,
and the length of time that should be
allowed for such a period. This is
identified as issue 4 in section X.E,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
3. Commercial Oil-Fired Warm-Air
Furnaces
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
updated its reference test procedure for
commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces
(UL 727) from the 1994 version of the
standard to the 2006 version of the
standard. The DOE test procedure for
determining the energy efficiency of
commercial warm-air furnaces
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
references part of UL 727 for
commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces.
10 CFR 431.76. Within the sections of
UL 727 referenced by the DOE test
procedure, the only substantive change
from the 1994 version to the 2006
version of UL 727 was the removal of a
passage from the scope section that
allowed manufacturers to propose
alternate revisions to the requirements
of UL 727 if their product’s features,
components, materials, or systems are
unsafe when used with the UL 727 test
procedure.
In the May 2011 NODA, DOE
concluded that this change did not
significantly impact the energy
efficiency metric for commercial oilfired warm-air furnaces. 76 FR 25622,
25636 (May 5, 2011). In response, DOE
received comment from AHRI agreeing
with DOE’s tentative conclusion. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any
other comments on this topic. Thus,
DOE is proposing to amend its test
procedures at 10 CFR 431.76 to
reference UL 727–2006 for commercial
oil-fired warm-air furnaces.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Commercial Gas-Fired Warm-Air
Furnaces
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
updated its referenced test procedure for
commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces
(ANSI Z21.47) from the 1998 version
(currently referenced in DOE’s test
procedure) to the 2006 version. Between
the two versions of ANSI Z21.47, ANSI
updated the sections that DOE
references in its test procedure for
determining the energy efficiency of
commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces.
In the relevant sections, ANSI expanded
the scope to include optional special
construction provisions for furnaces
designed to operate at altitudes over
2000 feet. ANSI also added a new
section, which is not part of the
referenced DOE test procedure but
caused the Thermal Efficiency section
(which is relevant) to move from section
2.38 to section 2.39. In the May 2010
NODA, DOE summarized these updates
and stated its tentative conclusion that
they do not substantively impact the
measurement of energy efficiency for
commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces.
76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011).
In response, DOE received comment
from AHRI agreeing with DOE’s
conclusion in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11
at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other
comments from interested parties
pertaining to this issue. Thus, DOE is
proposing to amend its test procedure at
10 CFR 431.76 to reference ANSI
Z21.47–2006 for commercial gas-fired
furnaces warm-air furnaces.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
5. Commercial Water Heaters
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
updated its referenced test procedure for
commercial gas-fired water heaters
(ANSI Z21.10.3) from the 1998 version
to the 2004 version. Between these two
versions, ANSI moved the relevant
sections for thermal efficiency test and
standby loss test to Exhibit G and 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. This addition
closely matches the additional
stipulation in DOE’s test procedure for
commercial gas-fired water heaters at 10
CFR 431.106, which references the
ANSI Z21.10.3–1998 test procedure, but
adds that the maximum duration of the
test should be 48 hours if the water
heater is not in heating mode at that
time. The difference between the two
tests is the ANSI version ends the test
immediately at the 48-hour mark,
whereas the DOE test procedure would
allow time after the 48-hour mark for
the water heater to finish its heating
cycle. Because DOE’s test procedure
already includes a provision regarding
the duration of the standby test, the
provision will supersede this update to
ANSI Z21.10.3.
In the May 2010 NODA, DOE
tentatively concluded that these updates
would not significantly affect the
measurement of energy efficiency for
commercial gas-fired water heaters. 76
FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011). In
response, DOE received comment from
AHRI agreeing with DOE’s conclusion
in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4)
However, the American Gas Association
(AGA) expressed concern that water
heaters that comply with the version of
ANSI Z21.10.3 currently referenced by
DOE’s test procedure may be found in
non-compliance under the revised test
method and suggested that DOE do
testing in order to provide data on the
impact of this change. (AGA, No. 9 at
p. 1)
In response, DOE again reviewed the
changes to the ANSI Z21.10.3 test
procedure for commercial water heating
equipment. DOE notes that the only
change in the relevant sections of the
ANSI Z21.10.3–1998 test procedure is
the duration limit for the standby loss
test in the event that a cutout does not
occur. As noted above, this duration
limit is superseded by DOE’s duration
limit specified in 10 CFR 431.106,
which has been in place since the
October 21, 2004 direct final rule. 69 FR
61974, 61984. As a result, the standby
loss test changes in ANSI Z21.10.3–2004
would similarly be superseded by DOE’s
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2375
requirements for the standby loss test;
and for all practical purposes, the test
will continue to be required to be
conducted in the same manner as before
this proposed rule. Thus, DOE does not
believe that the new changes to the test
procedure will cause any currentlycompliant water heaters to be found in
noncompliance. Because DOE believes
that the incorporated provisions of the
water heater test procedure in ANSI
Z21.10.3–2004 will be conducted in the
same manner as those referenced in the
previous test procedure, DOE does not
believe that testing is required to
support its tentative conclusion that
there will be no difference in equipment
efficiency as determined by the updated
test procedure.
AGA also requested clarification on
the current DOE efficiency requirement
for electric and oil-fired commercial
storage water heaters and was
concerned that the standby loss test
changes in ANSI Z21.10.3–2004 would
also affect the ratings for these
equipment classes. AGA stated its
interpretation that the current standby
loss requirements for these products
stem from the 1989 version of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 and that editions of the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 since then
contain standby loss requirements that
are less stringent for commercial electric
water heaters and, accordingly, are not
adoptable by DOE. (AGA, No. 9 at p.1)
In response, the efficiency requirements
for electric and oil-fired commercial
storage water heaters are listed at 10
CFR 431.110. Oil-fired storage water
heaters must have a minimum thermal
efficiency of 78 percent and a maximum
standby loss of Q/800+110(Vr)1/2 (Btu/h),
where Q is the nameplate input rate in
Btu/h and Vr is the rated volume.
Electric water heaters do not currently
have a minimum thermal efficiency but
have a maximum standby loss of
0.30+27/Vm (%/hr), where Vm is the
measured storage volume. The
standards for oil-fired commercial
storage water heaters were promulgated
in a final rule published in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2001, which
adopted the efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1999 (66 FR
3336), and the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (EPACT 1992) set the standards for
electric commercial water heaters
(EPACT 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, Oct. 24,
1992). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1999 did
revise the efficiency level for electric
water heaters; however, DOE
determined that the revised level was a
less stringent standard than the current
Federal standard (66 FR 3336, 3350 (Jan.
12, 2001)). Subsequent editions of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 still contain this
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2376
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
revised efficiency level, but DOE still
maintains that the current Federal
standard set by EPACT 1992 is more
stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency
level.
DOE is proposing to amend its test
procedure at 10 CFR 431.106 to
incorporate by reference ANSI
Z21.10.3–2006 for commercial gas-fired
water heaters. DOE seeks additional
comment on this proposal to adopt
ANSI Z21.10.3–2006, which is
identified as issue 5 in section X.E,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
6. Air Conditioners and Condensing
Units Serving Computer Rooms
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
specifies ASHRAE 127–2007, Method of
Testing for Rating Computer and Data
Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners, as the test procedure for
determining the sensible coefficient of
performance (SCOP) of air conditioners
and condensing units serving computer
rooms. ASHRAE 127–2007 defines and
establishes a test method for computer
room air conditioners. As noted above,
EPCA directs DOE to prescribe the
generally accepted industry testing
procedures or rating procedures
developed or recognized by ASHRAE, as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
unless there is clear and convincing
evidence that to do so would not
produce test results which reflect the
energy efficiency or energy use during
an representative average use cycle or
that the test procedure would be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)–(4) DOE reviewed ASHRAE
127–2007 to determine whether it meets
the requirements of EPCA for
incorporation by reference as part of the
Federal test method for determining
compliance with minimum energy
conservation standards.
ASHRAE 127–2007 contains
provisions that make it better suited for
computer room air conditioners than the
current commercial packaged air
conditioner test procedures (i.e., AHRI
210/240 and AHRI 340/360). The
ASHRAE 127–2007 test procedure
places an emphasis on sensible
cooling 16 by establishing the SCOP
metric, which is a measure of the
sensible cooling output divided by the
electrical input of all components,
excluding reheaters and humidifiers
(e.g., the input of the compressors, fans,
16 ‘‘Sensible cooling’’ is the cooling effect that
causes a decrease in the dry-bulb temperature,
which is the actual temperature of the air. ‘‘Latent
cooling’’ is the cooling effect that causes a decrease
in the wet-bulb temperature or the moisture content
of the air, which is similar to the temperature one
feels.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
controls, air-cooled condenser, or aircooled fluidcooler fans if used).
Sensible cooling is important in
computer room air conditioners because
the cooling load in most server and
computer rooms deals almost
exclusively with a sensible heat load,
meaning that there is very little
moisture removed from the air inside
the room. There is a very low latent heat
load (i.e., heat load associated with the
removal of moisture in the air) because
very little outside air actually reaches
the room, and there is almost no outside
water in the room, which would alter
the humidity of the computer room. A
typical air conditioner used for space
conditioning will encounter both a
latent load and a sensible load.
However, unlike other types of air
conditioners, a computer room air
conditioner will have an almost
exclusively sensible cooling load, so it
is reasonable that the metric for
measuring energy efficiency would
place an emphasis on sensible cooling.
DOE believes that the SCOP metric
under ASHRAE 127–2007 is a useful
metric for measuring the energy
efficiency of computer rooms and data
rooms due to its emphasis on sensible
cooling.
In addition, ASHRAE 127–2007
contains a standard rating test for
reheating/dehumidification/
humidification systems, which are
important functions of computer room
air conditioners. The humidity of a
computer room is an important aspect to
control, as too much humidity can cause
condensation on the electronic
equipment (which has the potential to
render the equipment inoperable) and
too little humidity may cause
potentially hazardous static discharges.
Because ASHRAE 127–2007 is
tailored to computer room air
conditioners, DOE believes it will
provide a more representative efficiency
rating, which is more reflective of the
actual efficiency of the unit. DOE
believes that ASHRAE 127–2007 is
reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect the energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating
costs during a representative average
use cycle and is not unduly burdensome
to conduct, as outlined in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)). In response to the
May 2011 NODA, AHRI encouraged
DOE to adopt ASHRAE 127 as the test
procedure for air conditioners and
condensing units serving computer
rooms. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did
not receive any other comments from
interested parties pertaining to this
issue. For the reasons above, DOE is
proposing to adopt ASHRAE 127–2007
as the test method for computer room
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
air conditioners; however, DOE notes
several possible issues with the test
procedure in the paragraphs below. DOE
seeks comment on this proposal, as well
as the need for potential modifications
for the computer room air conditioner
test procedures, and this is identified as
issue 6 in section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which
DOE Seeks Comment.’’
DOE notes that on July 14, 2011,
ASHRAE published a public draft
review of a revision to ASHRAE 127. A
preliminary review of this draft revealed
that ASHRAE created four different
application classes to meet the industry
need to modify equipment to accept
higher return temperatures. Each
application class has a different
standard rating condition. ASHRAE also
changed the water temperature
conditions for water-cooled direct
expansion units to match the conditions
in AHRI 340/360 plus a typical cooling
tower approach. This update also
renames the SCOP and adjusted sensible
coefficient of performance (ASCOP)
metrics as Net Sensible Coefficient of
Performance Rating (NSenCOP) and
Integrated Net Sensible Rating
(iNSenCOP), respectively. The
NSenCOP is to be published at five
rating conditions as opposed to four for
SCOP (the four rating test conditions A–
D in addition to iNSenCOP). The public
comment period for the review of this
draft has closed. DOE is not proposing
to adopt the draft revisions to ASHRAE
127 because they have not been
finalized yet, but DOE seeks comments
about how to treat the revisions. This is
identified as issue 6 in section X.E,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
Lastly, DOE notes that the SCOP
metric in ASHRAE 127–2007 does not
measure part-load performance, and
may not properly account for efficiency
features that improve the part-load
performance, such as variable speed fan
motors and multi-stage compressors.
Computer room air conditioners operate
virtually all year round with a varying
load, depending on how active the
computer room is and the outdoor
conditions. DOE requests comments on
the shortcomings of this test procedure
and the SCOP metric, and further
improvements that could be made. See
Section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment.’’
For computer room air conditioners,
DOE is also requesting comment on the
appropriateness of allowing an optional
‘‘break-in’’ time of no more than 16
hours, similar to those being proposed
for other commercial air conditioning
and heating equipment in this notice (as
discussed in section IV.E.1). DOE
believes that adding this option could
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
allow the test procedure to be more
representative of the actual performance
characteristics of computer room air
conditioners, while not increasing the
burden on manufacturers. DOE seeks
comment on the need for an optional
break-in period for computer room air
conditioners, and the length of time that
should be allowed for such a period, if
it is needed. This is identified as issue
17 in section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which
DOE Seeks Comment.’’
7. Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
specifies AHRI 1230, Performance
Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow
(VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment, as the test
procedure for variable refrigerant flow
systems. As noted previously, EPCA
directs DOE to prescribe the ‘‘generally
accepted industry testing procedures or
rating procedures developed or
recognized by the Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute or by the
American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers, as referenced in ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1’’ unless there is clear
and convincing evidence that to do so
would not produce test results which
reflect the energy efficiency or energy
use during an representative average use
cycle or that the test procedure would
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(4)) DOE reviewed
AHRI 1230–2010 to determine whether
it meets the requirements of EPCA for
incorporation by reference as part of the
Federal test method for determining
compliance with minimum energy
conservation standards.
DOE first addressed the issue of AHRI
1230 in the October 22, 2007 test
procedure final rule for residential air
conditioners and heat pumps. 72 FR
59906. In that final rule, DOE decided
not to adopt ARI 1230 at the time for
residential VRF products, because ARI
1230 had not been finalized yet. DOE
also noted that the draft test procedure
lacked information on: (1) How to
conduct intermediate speed tests; (2)
whether any indoor units are to be
turned off for part-load test; and (3) how
to interpolate EER and COP in the
intermediate speed range. Id. at 59909.
Since 2008, DOE has issued 13
waivers to 5 different manufacturers
exempting them from the commercial
air conditioning and heat pump test
procedures (AHRI 210/240 or AHRI 340/
360).17 In all 13 cases, the equipment in
17 Daikin AC (Americas) Inc. (73 FR 39680 (July
10, 2008); 74 FR 15955 (April 8, 2009); 74 FR 16373
(April 10, 2009); 75 FR 22581 (April 29, 2010); 75
FR 25224 (May 7, 2010); 76 FR 34685 (June 14,
2011)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
question was a multi-split variable
refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat
pump. For these types of equipment,
there are multiple indoor units that are
paired with a single outdoor unit, and
the indoor and outdoor units can be
mixed and matched to create different
systems with a wide array of possible
combinations. For example, one major
manufacturer has a product line that can
have as many as 38 different interior
units connected to a single outdoor unit.
Those 38 interior units can be selected
in any combination from a pool of 43
unique indoor models. Then, when
considering that the indoor units in the
system could also be paired with any
one of 7 unique outdoor models, the
number of possible combinations
becomes astronomical. DOE recognized
that the vast number of combinations of
units that would need to be tested
would overwhelm any testing
laboratory, so it granted test procedure
waivers for these units and required
these units to be tested using an
alternative test procedure that DOE
developed. The only restriction in terms
of the number of interior units is that
the total capacity of all the indoor units
must be comparable to the capacity of
the outdoor unit. This alternate test
procedure (which is outlined in each
test procedure waiver granted by DOE
for this equipment) permits the
manufacturer to designate a ‘‘tested
combination’’ for each outdoor unit.
Each ‘‘tested combination’’ must have
between two and five indoor units and
must be tested using according to the
applicable DOE test procedure.
Manufacturers must release the test
results for those ‘‘tested combinations,’’
and for the non-tested combinations,
manufacturers can represent the energy
use as equal to the tested combination,
provided that the outdoor units are the
same.
In addition, manufacturers brought up
several other issues in the petitions for
test procedure waivers that related to
applying the commercial air
conditioning test procedure to VRF
systems. Manufacturers asserted that: (1)
There is no provision to accommodate
having indoor units operating at
different static pressures; (2) there is no
precise number of part-load tests for
fully variable speed; and (3) it does not
account for simultaneous heating and
cooling. DOE notes that the fact that
Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. (74
FR 35860 (July 21, 2009); 74 FR 66311 (Dec. 15,
2009); 74 FR 66315 (Dec. 15, 2009); 76 FR 40714
(July 11, 2011)).
LG (74 FR 66330 (Dec. 15, 2009)).
Sanyo North America Corporation (75 FR 41845
(July 19, 2010)).
Carrier Corporation (76 FR 31951 (June 2, 2011)).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2377
multi-split systems can simultaneously
heat and cool a building does not
impact the efficiency rating, because the
efficiency metric (i.e., EER) is a single
point rating metric and does not
measure seasonal energy use.
AHRI 1230–2010 contains the same
definition and procedures for rating the
efficiency of a ‘‘tested combination’’ as
the alternative DOE test procedure that
DOE developed in response to the
waivers. AHRI 1230–2010 also contains
specific language on how to test
multiple indoor units, the number of
tests for variable speed compressors,
and how to test for simultaneous
cooling and heating efficiency, which
should mitigate manufacturer
complaints regarding the existing DOE
test procedure for commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment
as it applies to VRF systems. AHRI
1230–2010 also tests for EER and COP
at the same rating conditions as AHRI
210/240 and AHRI 340/360. Thus, these
systems should test for EER in the same
way as other commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps once the
systems are set up according to AHRI
1230–2010.
In February 2011, AHRI amended the
test procedure in Addendum 1 to AHRI
1230 to modify the definition of ‘‘tested
combination’’ to contain between 2 and
12 indoor units as opposed to between
2 and 5 indoor units. DOE believes this
change merely extends the range of a
tested combination and has no effect on
the efficiency metric of the system. DOE
believes this test procedure properly
addresses all the concerns of testing
VRF systems, results in a rating that
reasonably reflects the energy efficiency
of these systems, and would not be
unduly burdensome to conduct.
In response, DOE received a comment
from AHRI which encouraged DOE to
adopt AHRI 1230–2010, stating that a
deliberate and open process was used to
develop this test procedure and that it
incorporates the alternative test
procedure initially developed by DOE to
cover VRF equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at
p. 4) The Advocates and CA IOUs,
however, encouraged DOE to conduct a
test procedure rulemaking for VRF
equipment in order to eliminate the
need for manufacturers to seek test
procedure waivers for this equipment.
(Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5, CA IOUs, No.
10,12 at p. 3) DOE believes that AHRI
1230–2010 incorporates all of the
alternative test procedure that DOE
developed through its waiver process, is
a comprehensive test procedure for VRF
systems, and would not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. Manufacturers
of VRF systems should not need to seek
a test procedure waiver from AHRI
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2378
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1230–2010 with Addendum 1. Further,
DOE notes that EPCA generally directs
DOE to prescribe the industry testing
procedures as referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that to do so would
not produce test results consistent with
the requirements of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)–(4)). DOE believes AHRI
1230 meets the requirements of EPCA,
and, therefore, is proposing to adopt
AHRI 1230–2010 with Addendum 1 as
the test procedure for VRF systems. DOE
seeks comment on this proposal, and
this issue is identified as issue 7 in
section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment.’’
For VRF systems, DOE is also
proposing to add the optional ‘‘breakin’’ time of no more than 16 hours, as
discussed in the small (<65,000 Btu/h)
commercial package air conditioners
and heating equipment subsection
above (section IV.E.1). DOE believes that
adding this option will allow the test
procedure to be more representative of
the actual performance characteristics of
VRF systems, while not increasing the
burden on manufacturers. Note, DOE
will update the certification provisions
pending the outcome of this proposal in
the upcoming certification, compliance,
and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks
comment on the need for an optional
break-in period for VRF systems, and
the length of time that should be
allowed for such a period. This is
identified as issue 7 in section X.E,
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
8. Single Package Vertical Air
Conditioners and Single Package
Vertical Heat Pumps
For single package vertical air
conditioners and single package vertical
heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 lists AHRI 390–2003,
‘‘Performance Rating of Single Packaged
Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat
Pumps,’’ as the referenced test
procedure. Commercial SPVACs and
SPVHPs were not distinguished as
separate classes of commercial air
conditioning and heating equipment in
DOE’s regulations until EISA 2007
amended EPCA to set efficiency
standards specifically for this
equipment (codified at 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)), which DOE subsequently
codified in its regulations through a
final rule published on March 23, 2009.
74 FR 12058. Although EISA 2007
specified minimum energy conservation
standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs, it
did not specify the applicable test
procedure for measuring the energy
efficiency of SPVACs and SPVHPs. As
discussed previously, according to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
EPCA, the test procedures for ASHRAE
products shall be those generally
accepted industry testing procedures or
rating procedures developed or
recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE, as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
and shall be reasonably designed to
product test results which reflect energy
efficiency or energy use of those
products. Further, when a test
procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
amended, EPCA directs DOE to amend
its test procedure for the product as
necessary to be consistent with the
amended industry test procedure,
unless doing so would not meet the
requirements for test procedures
described in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and
(3). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)–(B))
DOE reviewed AHRI 390–2003 and
believes the procedure is reasonably
designed to produce test results which
reflect energy efficiency of SPVACs and
SPVHPs. In the May 2011 NODA, DOE
requested comment about the adoption
of AHRI 390–2003 as the test method for
SPVACs and SPVHPs. 76 FR 25622,
25635 (May 5, 2011). DOE received a
comment from AHRI encouraging DOE
to adopt AHRI 390–2003, in which
AHRI remarked that this test procedure
was developed with input from DOE.
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not
receive any other comments on this
topic. As a result, DOE is proposing to
adopt AHRI 390–2003 as its test
procedure for SPVACs and SPVHPs.
In addition, for this equipment DOE is
proposing to add the optional ‘‘breakin’’ time of no more than 16 hours, as
discussed in the small (<65,000 Btu/h)
commercial package air conditioners
and heating equipment subsection
above (section IV.E.1). DOE believes that
adding this option will allow the test
procedure to be more representative of
the actual performance characteristics of
SPVACs and SPVHPs, while not
increasing the burden on manufacturers.
Note, DOE will update the certification
provisions pending the outcome of this
proposal in the upcoming certification,
compliance, and enforcement
rulemaking. DOE seeks comment on the
need for an optional break-in period for
small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, and the length of time that
should be allowed for such a period.
This is identified as issue 8 in section
X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
9. Additional Specifications for Testing
of Commercial Package Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment,
Including VRF Systems
As part of its ongoing testing efforts in
support of DOE’s regulatory program,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOE has encountered situations where
the Department has received ad hoc
requests from manufacturers regarding
the need for tailored modifications to
the testing set-up or operating
conditions for a basic model. The
Department is reiterating that DOE will
use only the conditions specified in the
DOE test procedure for a given covered
equipment, along with any additional
guidance that is presented in the
installation and/or operating manuals
shipped with those units for any DOEinitiated testing. For example, the
Department typically uses the optimal
charge settings in the installation
manuals of commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment
when they are specified for a given basic
model. No additional information (i.e.,
additional specificity for the placement
or types of specific testing sensors) will
be used for any DOE verification or
enforcement testing that are not part of
the aforementioned documents.
DOE does not intend for this
clarification to change the way
manufacturers currently test their
products for the purposes of
determining their certified ratings for
each basic model. Instead, DOE wishes
to harmonize the way it conducts its
testing with the testing done by
manufacturers. Consequently, DOE
seeks comments generally on whether
there are additional settings beyond the
tolerances in the test procedure or
additional specifications for the test setup that DOE should consider for testing
of all types of commercial air
conditioning and heating equipment as
part of this rulemaking. If such settings
are basic-model specific, DOE could, for
example, come up with a way for
manufacturers to disclose these
instructions as part of their initial
certifications for a given basic model.
With the separation of VRF systems as
a separate equipment class and the
complexity inherent in testing this type
of equipment, DOE specifically seeks
comment on the testing conditions, the
basic model operating points, and set-up
for this equipment. This is identified as
issue 9 in section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which
DOE Seeks Comment.’’
10. Sampling Plans for Commercial
Heating, Ventilating, and AirConditioning Equipment
For purposes of certification testing,
the determination that a basic model
complies with the applicable
conservation standard must be based on
testing conducted using DOE’s testing
procedures and the sampling
procedures, which are found in 10 CFR
Part 429.43 for commercial heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
equipment. The sampling procedures
provide that ‘‘a sample of sufficient size
shall be tested to insure [compliance].’’
A minimum of two units must be tested
to certify a basic model as compliant.
This minimum is implicit in the
requirement to calculate a mean—an
average—which requires at least two
values. Under no circumstances is a
sample size of one (1) authorized.
Manufacturers may need to test more
than two samples depending on the
variability of their sample. Therefore,
the sample size can be an important
element when evaluating the
compliance of a basic model.
DOE uses statistically meaningful
sampling procedures for selecting test
specimens of commercial and industrial
equipment, which would require the
manufacturer to select a sample at
random from a production line and,
after each unit or group of units is
tested, either accept the sample or
continue sampling and testing
additional units until a rating
determination can be made. DOE did
not propose a specific sample size for
each product because the sample size is
determined by the validity of the sample
and how the mean compares to the
standard, factors which cannot be
determined in advance.
In this proposed rule, DOE is
proposing that the existing sampling
procedures in 10 CFR part 429.43 be
applied to any new covered equipment
being addressed by testing procedures
in this NOPR, including VRF systems,
SPVUs, and CRACs. DOE believes this
type of equipment is similar to the other
types of commercial heating,
ventilating, and air-conditioning
equipment subject to DOE’s existing
sampling procedures for certification
testing and does not warrant differential
treatment.
F. Definitional Changes
As discussed in the preceding
sections, DOE is proposing to include in
its regulations separate standards and
test procedures for VRF systems, and
new standards and test procedures for
computer room air conditioners.
Additionally, after the enactment of
EISA 2007, DOE created separate
standards for single package vertical air
conditioners and heat pumps in its
regulations at 10 CFR 431.97 (74 FR
12058, 12073–74 (March 23, 2009)), and
is proposing to adopt a test procedure
for those equipment in today’s notice.
Further, DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR
431.97 also include ‘‘very large’’
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment. To be consistent
with the treatment of other commercial
HVAC equipment and to reduce
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
ambiguity, DOE is proposing to modify
the definition of ‘‘Commercial HVAC &
WH product’’ that was added to 10 CFR
431.2 by a March 7, 2011 final rule for
certification, compliance, and
enforcement for consumer products and
commercial and industrial equipment.
76 FR 12422, 12503. DOE proposes to
modify the definition so that it
explicitly includes very large
commercial package air conditioners
and heating equipment, single package
vertical air conditioners, single package
vertical heat pumps, computer room air
conditioners, variable refrigerant flow
multi-split air conditioners, and variable
refrigerant flow multi-split heat pumps.
V. Methodology for VRF Water-Source
Heat Pumps
This section addresses the analysis
DOE has performed for this rulemaking
with respect to VRF water-source heat
pumps. As mentioned in section IV.B.3,
DOE performed a preliminary National
Energy Savings analysis for VRF watersource heat pumps greater than 135,000
Btu/h, equivalent to that performed for
the May 2011 NODA for other product
categories. DOE was unable to perform
this analysis at the time of the NODA
because AHRI had not yet released a
database of efficiency information for
these products, and DOE was unable to
obtain sufficient EER information from
a review of manufacturer Web sites. As
a result of the minimal energy savings
demonstrated by DOE’s analysis for the
NOPR (the results of which are
summarized in section VIII.B.2), DOE
did not conduct further energy savings
or economic analyses. In addition, in
response to the May 2011 NODA, AHRI
confirmed that there are no VRF watersource heat pumps being manufactured
with cooling capacities below 17,000
Btu/h, so DOE did not perform a
potential energy-savings analysis for
this product class.
A. Definitions of ‘‘VRF Multi-Split Air
Conditioners’’ and ‘‘VRF Multi-Split
Heat Pumps’’
VRF water-source heat pumps are part
of the larger VRF system equipment
class. VRF systems are a subset of
commercial air conditioning and
heating equipment, which ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 placed into separate
equipment classes. As a result, in
today’s NOPR, DOE is proposing to
separate the VRF equipment classes
from the other classes of commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. Neither EPCA nor DOE’s
regulations in the CFR define ‘‘variable
refrigerant flow system.’’ DOE examined
the definitions for VRF systems in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and AHRI
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2379
Standard 1230, the proposed test
procedure for this equipment.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 defines
a ‘‘variable refrigerant flow system’’ as
‘‘an engineered direct expansion (DX)
multi-split system incorporating at least
one variable capacity compressor
distributing refrigerant through a piping
network to multiple indoor fan coil
units each capable of individual zone
temperature control, through integral
zone temperature control devices and
common communications network.
Variable refrigerant flow utilizes three
or more steps of control on common,
interconnecting piping.’’ AHRI Standard
1230, the test procedure cited by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for use
with this equipment, uses the term
‘‘variable refrigerant flow multi-split
system’’ and defines it as ‘‘a split system
air-conditioner or heat pump
incorporating a single refrigerant circuit,
with one or more outdoor units, at least
one variable speed compressor or an
alternative compressor combination for
varying the capacity of the system by
three or more steps, multiple indoor fan
coil units, each of which is individually
metered and individually controlled by
a proprietary control device and
common communications network. The
system shall be capable of operating as
an air conditioner or a heat pump.
Variable refrigerant flow implies three
or more steps of control on common,
inter-connecting piping.’’
In both cases, the definitions use the
term ‘‘multi-split’’ to distinguish such
units from ‘‘mini-split,’’ with the indoor
units of the latter systems only being
able to be controlled by one thermostat
(as opposed to multi-split, which can be
controlled by multiple thermostats).
Because DOE believes that it is
important to distinguish VRF systems as
multi-split systems, DOE is proposing to
formulate these definitions with the
term ‘‘multi-split’’ in the title for this
equipment class based on the
definitions above. DOE believes that
these proposed definitions incorporate
all the unique features of this equipment
class, most notably the individuallycontrolled indoor units which operate
independently from other indoor units.
DOE proposes the definitions of
‘‘variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioner’’ and ‘‘variable refrigerant
flow multi-split heat pump’’ to read as
follows:
Variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioner means a unit of commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment that is configured as a split
system air-conditioner incorporating a single
refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor
units, at least one variable-speed compressor
or an alternate compressor combination for
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2380
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
varying the capacity of the system by three
or more steps, and multiple indoor fan coil
units, each of which is individually metered
and individually controlled by an integral
control device and common communications
network and which can operate
independently in response to multiple indoor
thermostats. Variable refrigerant flow implies
three or more steps of capacity control on
common, inter-connecting piping.
Variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat
pump means a unit of commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment that
is configured as a split system heat pump
that uses reverse cycle refrigeration as its
primary heating source and which may
include secondary supplemental heating by
means of electrical resistance, steam, hot
water, or gas. The equipment incorporates a
single refrigerant circuit, with one or more
outdoor units, at least one variable-speed
compressor or an alternate compressor
combination for varying the capacity of the
system by three or more steps, and multiple
indoor fan coil units, each of which is
individually metered and individually
controlled by a control device and common
communications network and which can
operate independently in response to
multiple indoor thermostats. Variable
refrigerant flow implies three or more steps
of capacity control on common, interconnecting piping.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
These definitions clearly delineate
VRF air conditioners and heat pumps as
a sub-category of commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment
and are structured in such a way to
ensure that there are no overlaps with
any other covered equipment class.
There is also a subcategory of VRF
systems that have heat recovery;
therefore, DOE is also proposing to
define ‘‘heat recovery’’ in the context of
variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioners or variable refrigerant flow
multi-split heat pumps to read as
follows:
Heat recovery (in the context of variable
refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners
or variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat
pumps) means that the air conditioner or
heat pump is also capable of providing
simultaneous heating and cooling operation,
where recovered energy from the indoor
units operating in one mode can be
transferred to one or more other indoor units
operating in the other mode. A variable
refrigerant flow multi-split heat recovery heat
pump is a variable refrigerant flow multisplit heat pump with the addition of heat
recovery capability.
DOE is requesting comment on its
proposed definitions of ‘‘variable
refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioner,’’ ‘‘variable refrigerant flow
multi-split heat pump,’’ and ‘‘heat
recovery.’’ This is identified as issue 10
in section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
B. Annual Energy Use
Annual per-unit energy use estimates
for VRF water-source heat pumps at or
greater than 135,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity were developed based on
whole building energy simulation of a
medium-sized prototype office building
in 15 locations around the U.S, with
each location representing one of 15
unique climate zones within the U.S.18
The prototype office building model
used two water-source VRF systems in
conjunction with a gas-fired boiler and
a single cooling tower to serve the
condensing water loop for the VRF
systems. The simulation tool was a
commercial version of the DOE2.1E
building simulation tool, with the
capability to model water-source VRF
equipment using custom DOE2.1E
functions. This simulation tool also
provides actual performance curves
obtained from equipment manufacturers
for a number of specific equipment
models, including many water-source
VRF condensing units and indoor
sections.
DOE simulated the medium office
building using actual equipment
selections corresponding to three
different efficiency levels identified in
the AHRI certified product directory for
VRF multi-split air conditioners and
heat pumps.19 These efficiency levels
corresponded to: (1) The lowest
efficiency level identified in the
directory and close to the ASHRAE
baseline; (2) an efficiency level
corresponding to the highest efficiency
level identified for ducted systems; and
(3) an efficiency level near the highest
efficiency identified for ductless
systems. The AHRI 1230–2010 test
procedure provides that each
condensing unit be tested as both a
ducted system (representing equipment
using indoor units that are connected to
short distribution ducts) and as a
ductless system (representing
equipment using ductless indoor
sections that provide conditioned air
directly to the building space served).
Because of a higher external static
pressure when testing ducted units, the
rated efficiency (EER and COP) of a
given condensing unit is lower when
tested as a ducted system than when
tested as a ductless system. The two
18 Briggs, R.L., R.G. Lucas, and Z.T. Taylor,
Climate Classification for Building Energy Codes
and Standards: Part 1—Development Process and
Part 2—Zone Definitions, Maps, and Comparisons,
ASHRAE Transactions (2003) (1) pp. 4610–4611.
19 Directory of Certified Variable Refrigerant Flow
(VRF) Multi-Split Air Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment: 2011 Edition (Effective Date: Sept. 16,
2011) (Last accessed on Sept. 26, 2011) (Available
at: https://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/
pages/home.aspx).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
higher efficiency levels simulated
utilized the same condensing unit but
represent ratings as a ducted and as a
ductless system respectively. The lowest
EER level simulated was represented by
a lower-performing condensing unit in a
ducted system configuration.
DOE performed simulations of the
prototype office building at these three
VRF efficiency levels in each climate for
systems with and without heat recovery.
As the ratings data do not identify the
indoor units used, DOE selected a
representative ducted indoor section
and developed supply fan power
estimates based on that unit for ducted
systems representing the first two
efficiency levels simulated. For nonducted systems where there was a large
variety of indoor sections available,
DOE developed an average fan power
estimate based on average supply fan
power data for five different ductless
indoor section designs. DOE then used
that average ductless fan power estimate
in simulating the building with VRF
systems at this third, highest, efficiency
level.
The annual electrical energy use for
the VRF equipment, including each
condensing unit and all associated
evaporator units, was extracted from the
simulation results for each building
simulated and normalized by cooling
capacity to provide estimates of annual
VRF cooling, heating, and fan energy
consumption at the average cooling
capacities estimated by DOE for the two
VRF product classes. For water-source
VRF systems greater than 135,000
Btu/h without heat recovery, DOE
estimated the average cooling capacity
at 216,000 Btu/h based on the average
for available equipment found in the
2011 AHRI certified products
directory.20 For water-source VRF
systems with heat recovery, DOE
estimated the average cooling capacity
at 192,000 Btu/h using the same data
source.
DOE calculated the national average
energy use for VRF systems with and
without heat recovery at each efficiency
level using commercial building
construction weights previously
developed by DOE and assigned to each
of the 15 U.S. climate zones. For each
equipment class, DOE developed linear
relationship between the national
average cooling energy use and the
reciprocal of the cooling EER for each
consecutive pair of three efficiencies
modeled. DOE also developed a linear
relationship between the national
average heating energy use and the
20 See: https://www.ahridirectory.org/
ahridirectory/pages/vrf/
VRFDirectory_20110916.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
reciprocal of the heating COP for each
consecutive pair of efficiencies
modeled. DOE then used these
relationships to estimate the annual
average cooling and heating energy use
at the ASHRAE baseline efficiency level
and at four higher efficiency levels,
including the highest EER and COP
levels found in the AHRI certified
product directory for each product class
(identified as max-tech levels for this
analysis). Level 2 corresponded to the
highest efficiency found for ducted VRF
equipment in the AHRI directory. DOE
held the fan energy use constant for
levels at and below level 2 to that
estimated based on the ducted VRF
simulations. DOE determined that the
max-tech level corresponded to a
ductless system and estimated the
energy use at the max-tech level using
the linear relationship between the
higher two efficiencies simulated.
Annual energy use at level 3 was
calculated based on interpolation
between level 2 and the max-tech level.
In all, DOE developed annual energy
consumption estimates for efficiency
levels at EER values of 10.0, 11.0, 12.0,
13.0, and 14.5 for water-source VRF heat
pumps without heat recovery. DOE
developed annual energy consumption
estimates for efficiency levels at EER
values of 9.8, 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, and 14.5
for water-source VRF heat pumps with
heat recovery.
C. Shipments
DOE obtained historical (1989–2009)
water-source heat pump shipment data
from the U.S. Census.21 Table V.1
exhibits the shipment data provided for
a selection of years, while the full data
set can be found in chapter 7 of the
NOPR TSD.22 DOE used these shipment
2381
shipments can be found in chapter 7 of
the NOPR TSD.
DOE then reviewed the AHRI
TABLE V.1—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF
Certified Product Directory to determine
the distribution of efficiency levels for
WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS
commercially-available models of VRF
Units
water-source heat pumps greater than
Year
shipped
135,000 Btu/h. DOE bundled the
efficiency levels into ‘‘efficiency ranges’’
1990 ............................................
139,864
1994 ............................................
99,321 and determined the percentage of
2000 ............................................
133,654 models within each range. The
2005 ............................................
141,410 distribution of efficiencies in the base
2009 ............................................
180,101 case can be found in chapter 8 of the
NOPR TSD. It is important to note that
As these shipment data represent
DOE did not identify any models on the
water-source heat pumps generally and
market for either class of equipment
not VRF water-source heat pumps
with an EER below those specified in
specifically, DOE undertook research to ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010.
ascertain the number of models of
For the standards case, DOE assumed
water-source heat pumps in total, and
shipments at lower efficiencies were
VRF water-source heat pumps
most likely to roll up into higher
specifically. DOE used AHRI’s
efficiency levels in response to moreDirectories of Certified Product
stringent energy conservation standards.
Performance for Water-to-Air and
For each efficiency level analyzed
Water-to-Water Heat Pumps (excluding
within a given equipment class, DOE
groundwater loop and ground loop) and used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish
VRF Multi-Split Water-to-Air Heat
the market shares by efficiency level for
Pumps for this purpose.23 DOE
the year in which compliance with
supplemented the AHRI Directory for
amended standards is required (i.e.,
VRF systems with information from
2013). DOE estimated that the
manufacturers’ Web sites to capture as
efficiencies of equipment in the base
much of the market as possible. DOE
case that did not meet the standard level
used the ratio of VRF water-source heat
under consideration would roll up to
pump greater than 135,000 Btu/h
meet the standard level. Available
models to all water-source heat pump
information also suggests that all
models on the market (164:4277) to
equipment efficiencies in the base case
estimate VRF water-source heat pump
that were above the standard level
shipments. DOE also used the ratio of
under consideration would not be
VRF water-source heat pumps greater
affected. As an example, Table V.2
than 135,000 Btu/h without heat
shows the distribution of efficiencies
recovery to all VRF water-source heat
within the base-case and the roll-up
pumps greater than 135,000 Btu/h to
scenarios to establish the distribution of
allocate shipments into the two product efficiencies in the standards cases for
classes (106:164). The complete
VRF water-source heat pumps without
historical data set and the projected
heat recovery.
data to extrapolate shipments into the
future based on the historical trend.
TABLE V.2—DISTRIBUTION OF EFFICIENCIES IN THE BASE CASE AND STANDARDS CASES FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT
PUMPS >135 KBtu WITHOUT HEAT RECOVERY
Efficiency ranges (EER)*
Efficiency level
9.5–9.7
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Market Baseline ...........................................................................
Efficiency Level 1—ASHRAE (10.0 EER) ...................................
Efficiency Level 2—(11.0 EER) ...................................................
Efficiency Level 3—(12.0 EER) ...................................................
Efficiency Level 4—(13.0 EER) ...................................................
Efficiency Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—(14.5 EER) ............................
9.8–10.4
10.5–11.5
11.6–12.5
12.6–13.4
0%
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
3%
3%
..................
..................
..................
..................
73%
73%
76%
..................
..................
..................
15%
15%
15%
92%
..................
..................
3%
3%
3%
3%
95%
..................
13.5+
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
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.
Using the distribution of efficiencies
in the base case and in the standards
cases, as well as the unit energy
consumption (UEC) for each specified
21 https://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/
historical_data/ma333m/, https://
permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps38720/.
22 https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/
ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
EER (discussed previously), DOE
calculated market-weighted average
23 See:
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
www.ahridirectory.org.
17JAP2
2382
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
efficiency values. The market-weighted
average efficiency value represents the
average efficiency of the total units
shipped at a specified amended
standard level. The market-weighted
average efficiency values for the base
case and the standards cases for each
efficiency level analyzed are provided
in chapter 8 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD.
D. 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 2011 (AEO2011)
projections).24 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
AEO2011, by the delivered electricity to
the commercial sector for each
forecasted year.
2. Product Lifetime
DOE used a product lifetime of 19
years for VRF water-source heat pumps
based on the ASHRAE 2011 HVAC
Applications Handbook.25
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period
For purposes of calculating the
national energy savings (NES), DOE
used an analysis period of 2013 (the
assumed compliance date if DOE were
to adopt the ASHRAE levels as Federal
standards for large and very large
products) through 2042. 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
24 AEO2011 can be accessed at: https://
www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
25 2011 ASHRAE Handbook HVAC Applications.
ASHRAE, 2011. Atlanta GA (Available at
www.ashrae.org). ASHRAE’s handbook does not list
a service life for VRF equipment specifically, but it
does provide service life estimates for water-source
heat pumps generally. In this regard, ASHRAE cites
two different studies for equipment service life. The
first study of this type of equipment reported a
service life of 19 years. The second, more-recent
study cited suggests a service life of 24 years for all
classes of direct expansion cooling systems. This
second study relies heavily on extrapolation of a
survival curve based on a sample of 1907 DX
equipment observations from various equipment
classes from which 284 units had actually been
replaced and most were still in service. (ASHRAE
Research Project 1237–TRP Interactive Web-based
Owning and Operating Cost Database Final Report,
July 2005. Available at www.ashrae.org) However,
as VRF products are new to the U.S. with relatively
little data on lifetime, DOE has relied on the older,
more conservative, 19-year service life estimate for
its analysis.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
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 VRF watersource heat pumps in this rulemaking,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 does not
specify an effective date; therefore, the
effective date is assumed to be the
publication date of ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, or October 29, 2010. Thus, if
DOE decides to adopt the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, the rule
would apply to large and very large
equipment (the product class analyzed
here) manufactured on or after October
29, 2013, 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 would apply to for products
manufactured four years after the date of
publication of the final rule 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.
VI. Methodology for Computer Room
Air Conditioners
This section addresses the analyses
DOE has performed for this rulemaking
with respect to computer room air
conditioners. A separate subsection
addresses each analysis. In overview,
DOE used a spreadsheet to calculate the
life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback
periods (PBPs) of potential energy
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
conservation standards. DOE used
another spreadsheet to provide
shipments forecasts and then calculate
national energy savings and net present
value impacts of potential amended
energy conservation standards.
A. Market Assessment
To begin its review of the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels,
DOE developed information that
provides an overall picture of the
market for the equipment concerned,
including the purpose of the equipment,
the industry structure, and market
characteristics. This activity included
both quantitative and qualitative
assessments based primarily on
publicly-available information. The
subjects addressed in the market
assessment for this rulemaking include
equipment classes, manufacturers,
quantities, and types of equipment sold
and offered for sale. The key findings of
DOE’s market assessment are
summarized below. For additional
detail, see chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD.
1. Definitions of ‘‘Computer Room Air
Conditioners’’
As discussed in the May 2011 NODA,
the 2010 version of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 modified the scope of the standard
to include air conditioning equipment
used for process cooling and set
efficiency levels for computer room air
conditioners. 76 FR 25622, 25633–34
(May 5, 2011). Given this expansion of
scope, DOE tentatively determined that
it has the authority to consider and
adopt standards for this equipment. Id.
However, DOE currently does not have
a definition for ‘‘computer room air
conditioner,’’ because DOE’s regulations
do not currently cover this equipment
class. Because ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 expanded its scope to include air
conditioners and condensing units
serving computer rooms and DOE has
decided to consider standards for this
equipment, DOE must now define this
equipment.
As noted in section IV.C, computer
room air conditioners operate in a
similar manner to other commercial air
conditioners, in that they provide space
conditioning using a refrigeration cycle
with a compressor, condenser,
expansion valve, and an evaporator.
However, computer room air
conditioners are designed to maintain
the temperature in a narrow range, to
minimize temperature swings, and to
maintain a specific relative humidity
(usually between 40 and 55 percent).
The equipment usually must be able to
both humidify and dehumidify the air to
maintain humidity at desired levels, and
they are sometimes called ‘‘precision air
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2383
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
conditioners’’ because of this
requirement. However, although the
characteristics listed above are common
among computer room air conditioners,
not all computer room air conditioners
are equipped with humidity control
options; DOE found that typically, such
features are optional, as much of the
equipment is custom-built for a specific
application.
DOE is not aware of any components
in computer room air conditioners that
are exclusive to only computer room air
conditioners and not to commercial air
conditioners used for comfort
conditioning (or vice versa) that could
be used to effectively differentiate the
two types of units on the basis of their
construction. Further, DOE notes that
the class of computer room air
conditioners is defined in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 as an application (i.e.,
units that serve computer rooms), rather
than based on a specific physical
characteristic or component that
differentiates the equipment from other
commercial package air conditioning
equipment. DOE also examined the
definitions in ASHRAE Standard 127–
2007 (Method of Testing for Rating
Computer and Data Processing Room
Unitary Air Conditioners). Specifically,
DOE reviewed the definition of
‘‘computer and data processing room
(CDPR) unitary air conditioner’’
contained in that standard and found
that there are no distinct physical
characteristics used to differentiate
computer room air conditioners from
other commercial air conditioning and
heating equipment. DOE believes,
therefore, that this equipment is
typically identified in the marketplace
based on its intended application (i.e.,
how the equipment is marketed), rather
than on differentiating physical
components.
In the NODA, DOE requested
comment on an appropriate approach
for establishing a definition for
‘‘computer room air conditioner.’’ 76 FR
25622, 25634 (May 5, 2011). In
response, AHRI suggested that DOE use
the product’s rated performance and the
relevant rating standard (SCOP and
ASHRAE 127, respectively) to
distinguish air conditioners and
condensing units designed for serving
computer rooms from other types of
commercial packaged air conditioning
and heating equipment covered by
EPCA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did
not receive any other comments on this
issue.
As noted above, DOE found that the
operating conditions for computer room
air conditioners are different from those
for air conditioners used for comfort
conditioning. Different humidity and
temperature conditions and a higher
sensible load could lead manufacturers
of computer room air conditioners to
optimize their equipment to perform
best at the rating conditions found in
ASHRAE Standard 127 (a test method
specifically for computer and data
processing room air conditioners),
rather than AHRI Standard 210/240 or
340/360 (test methods for commercial
package air conditioning equipment
used for comfort conditioning). Because
of this, DOE believes that manufacturers
of computer room air conditioners
would likely test those units according
to ASHRAE Standard 127, while
manufacturers of commercial package
air conditioners intended for use in
comfort conditioning applications
would test those units according to
either AHRI Standard 210/240 or AHRI
Standard 340/360, depending on the
cooling capacity of the unit.
As a result, DOE is proposing in
today’s NOPR to define a ‘‘computer
room air conditioner’’ based on how the
equipment is marketed exclusively for
use and which test standard is used to
rate the performance of the equipment.
DOE proposes the following definition
of ‘‘computer room air conditioner’’:
Computer room air conditioner means a
unit of commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment that is advertised,
marketed, and/or sold specifically for use in
computer rooms, data processing rooms, or
other precision cooling applications, and is
rated for performance using ASHRAE
Standard 127. Such equipment may not be
marketed or advertised as equipment for any
other space conditioning applications, and
may not be rated for performance using AHRI
Standard 210/240 or AHRI Standard 340/360.
DOE seeks comment on its proposed
definition of ‘‘computer room air
conditioner,’’ as well as on alternatives
to this proposed definition. DOE is
particularly interested in information on
physical characteristics or features that
could possibly be used to differentiate
between computer room air
conditioners and other types of
commercial package air conditioners.
This is identified as issue 11 in Section
X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
2. Equipment Classes
As noted above, there are currently no
Federal energy conservation standards
for computer room air conditioners.
Different classes of computer room air
conditioners are distinguished by
several factors in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, which include the net
sensible cooling capacity (i.e., small,
large, or very large), orientation of
airflow through the equipment (i.e.,
upflow or downflow), heat rejection
method (i.e., air-cooled, water-cooled, or
glycol-cooled), and whether a fluid
economizer is used.26 Using these
characteristics, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 divided computer room air
conditioners into thirty equipment
classes and set the efficiency levels
shown in Table VI.1.
TABLE VI.1—ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Minimum SCOP
efficiency
Equipment type
Net sensible cooling capacity
Downflow
units
Upflow
units
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled .................................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h .......................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......
≥240,000 Btu/h .....................................
2.20
2.10
1.90
2.09
1.99
1.79
Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled ...........................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h .......................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......
2.60
2.50
2.49
2.39
26 A ‘‘fluid economizer’’ is a system configuration
potentially available where an external fluid cooler
is utilized for heat rejection (i.e., for glycol-cooled
or water-cooled equipment). The fluid economizer
utilizes a separate liquid-to-air cooling coil within
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
the CRAC unit and the cooled water or glycol fluid
returning from the external fluid cooler to cool
return air directly, much like a chilled water air
handling unit (i.e., without the use of compressors).
The ‘‘economizer’’ cooling can either augment or
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
can take the place of compressor cooling, but only
when returning water or glycol fluid temperatures
are low enough to provide for significant direct
coiling from the liquid-to-air cooling coil
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2384
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.1—ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS EFFICIENCY LEVELS—Continued
Minimum SCOP
efficiency
Equipment type
Net sensible cooling capacity
Downflow
units
Upflow
units
≥240,000 Btu/h .....................................
2.40
2.29
Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer ...................................
<65,000 Btu/h .......................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......
≥240,000 Btu/h .....................................
2.55
2.45
2.35
2.44
2.34
2.24
Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled (rated at 40% propylene glycol) .......................
<65,000 Btu/h .......................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......
≥240,000 Btu/h .....................................
2.50
2.15
2.10
2.39
2.04
1.99
Air Conditioner, Glycol-Cooled (rated at 40% propylene glycol) with a Fluid
Economizer.
<65,000 Btu/h .......................................
2.45
2.34
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......
≥240,000 Btu/h .....................................
2.10
2.05
1.99
1.94
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
In general, DOE divides equipment
classes by the type of energy used or by
capacity or other performance-related
features that affect efficiency. Different
energy conservation standards may
apply to different equipment classes. (42
U.S.C. 6295(q)) In the context of the
present rulemaking, DOE believes net
sensible cooling capacity (i.e., small,
large, or very large), orientation (i.e.,
upflow or downflow), heat rejection
method (i.e., air-cooled, water-cooled, or
glycol-cooled), and use of a fluid
economizer are all performance-related
features that affect computer room air
conditioner efficiency (i.e., SCOP). By
examining the characteristics of
equipment available on the market, DOE
found computer room air conditioners
in a wide range of efficiencies
depending on their design and features.
Consequently, DOE is proposing to use
the same thirty equipment classes in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 to
differentiate between types of computer
room air conditioners.
3. Review of Current Market for
Computer Room Air Conditioners
In order to obtain the information
needed for the market assessment for
this rulemaking, DOE consulted a
variety of sources, including
manufacturer literature, manufacturer
Web sites, and the California Energy
Commission (CEC) Appliance Efficiency
Database. The information DOE
gathered serves as resource material
throughout the rulemaking. The sections
below provide an overview of the
computer room air conditioner market
assessment, and chapter 2 of the NOPR
27 For more information see: https://
www.ahrinet.org/ahri+members.aspx.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
TSD provides additional detail on the
market assessment, including citations
to relevant sources.
a. Trade Association Information
There is no trade association that
represents computer room air
conditioner manufacturers. AHRI is the
trade association representing most
manufacturers of commercial air
conditioning and heating equipment;
however, AHRI does not have a
subsection for computer room air
conditioners, and the major
manufacturers of computer room air
conditioners that DOE identified are not
AHRI members.27
b. Manufacturer Information
DOE initially identified
manufacturers of computer room air
conditioners through conversations with
industry experts and by examining the
California Energy Commission (CEC)
appliance efficiency database.28
Manufacturers that DOE identified
include American Power Conversion,
Compu-Aire, Data Aire, Liebert, and
Stulz. DOE reviewed manufacturer
literature to gain insight into product
availability, technologies used to
improve efficiency, and product
characteristics (e.g., cooling capacities)
of the models in each equipment class.
c. Market Data
Using the CEC database and
manufacturer literature gathered from
manufacturer Web sites, DOE compiled
a database of 1,364 computer room air
conditioner models from the five
manufacturers it identified. These units
28 See:
PO 00000
included 452 air-cooled units, 248
water-cooled units without a fluid
economizer, 174 water-cooled units
with a fluid economizer, 237 glycolcooled units without a fluid
economizer, and 253 glycol-cooled units
with a fluid economizer. These units
can also be divided by size categories
and orientation, and a full breakdown of
the number of units in each equipment
class can be found in chapter 2 of the
NOPR TSD. Of the 1,364 computer room
air conditioners in DOE’s database, DOE
was only able to obtain efficiency data
for 208 units, which accounts for
approximately 15 percent of the
database (see section VI.B.4 of this
NOPR for information about how DOE
estimated efficiency data). Because
computer room air conditioner
manufacturers are not currently
required to report efficiency information
to DOE, most manufacturers do not
publish efficiency information in their
product literature. DOE gathered
available efficiency information for two
manufacturers from the CEC database
(where manufacturers are required to
report efficiency information in if they
sell models in California) and one other
manufacturer’s product literature
(which was the only manufacturer that
provided efficiency information in their
product literature). DOE did not find
any efficiency information for
equipment from two of the five
manufacturers of computer room air
conditioners.
The average SCOP for each equipment
class where DOE had adequate data is
shown in the Table VI.2.
https://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/.
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2385
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.2—AVERAGE SCOP FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONER EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Upflow
orientation
average
SCOP
Downflow
orientation
average
SCOP
Equipment class
Size category
Air-Cooled ..................................................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h ..................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h ................................
2.49
2.64
(1)
2.61
2.64
2.25
Water-Cooled .............................................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h ..................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h ................................
2.76
2.76
(1)
2.90
2.78
2.45
Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer .....................................................
<65,000 Btu/h ..................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h ................................
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Glycol-Cooled ............................................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h ..................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h ................................
2.66
(1)
(1)
2.71
2.62
2.49
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer ....................................................
<65,000 Btu/h ..................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h ................................
(1)
(1)
(1)
2.43
2.48
2.38
1 No
information.
Chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD contains
additional information drawn from the
data that was used to inform DOE’s
analysis, such as the average sensible
capacities for each equipment class.
DOE used the information gathered in
the market assessment as the foundation
for developing the price-efficiency
relationship in the engineering analysis.
Additionally, DOE used the market data,
along with other sources, to estimate the
shipments of computer room air
conditioners. Further details regarding
the development of shipments estimates
and forecasts can be found in section
VI.F of this NOPR.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes
the relationship between the cost and
efficiency of a piece of equipment DOE
is evaluating for potential amended
energy conservation standards. This
relationship serves as the basis for costbenefit calculations for individual
consumers and the Nation. The
engineering analysis identifies
representative baseline equipment,
which is the starting point for analyzing
possible energy efficiency
improvements. For covered ASHRAE
equipment, DOE sets the baseline at the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level,
because by statute, DOE cannot adopt
any level below the revised ASHRAE
level. The engineering analysis then
identifies higher efficiency levels and
the incremental increase in product cost
associated with achieving the higher
efficiency levels. After identifying the
baseline models and cost of achieving
increased efficiency, DOE estimates the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
additional costs to the customer through
an analysis of contractor costs and
markups, and uses that information in
the downstream analyses to examine the
costs and benefits associated with
increased equipment efficiency.
DOE typically structures its
engineering analysis around one of three
methodologies: (1) The design-option
approach, which calculates the
incremental costs of adding specific
design options to a baseline model; (2)
the efficiency-level approach, which
calculates the relative costs of achieving
increases in energy efficiency levels
without regard to the particular design
options used to achieve such increases;
and/or (3) the reverse-engineering or
cost-assessment approach, which
involves a ‘‘bottom-up’’ manufacturing
cost assessment based on a detailed bill
of materials derived from tear-downs of
the product being analyzed.
1. Approach
For this analysis, DOE used an
efficiency-level approach in conjunction
with a pricing survey to develop the
price-efficiency relationships for the
various classes of computer room air
conditioners. An efficiency-level
approach allowed DOE to estimate the
cost of achieving different SCOP levels
in a timely manner (which was
necessary to allow DOE to meet the
statutorily-required deadlines for
ASHRAE equipment in EPCA). The
efficiency-level approach allowed DOE
to capture a variety of designs available
on the market and focused on the price
of units at different SCOP ratings. The
efficiency levels that DOE considered in
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the engineering analysis were
representative of computer room air
conditioners currently produced by
manufacturers at the time the
engineering analysis was developed.
DOE relied on data collected from
equipment distributors of three large
computer room air conditioner
manufacturers to develop its costefficiency relationship for computer
room air conditioners. (See chapter 3 of
the NOPR TSD for further detail.)
Although there are certain benefits to
using an efficiency-level approach with
a pricing survey (namely the ability to
conduct an analysis in a limited amount
of time that spans a variety of
equipment and technologies), DOE
notes there are also drawbacks to this
approach. The most significant
drawback of such an approach is that
equipment pricing is not always based
solely on equipment cost and is often
influenced by a variety of other factors.
Factors such as whether the unit is a
high-volume seller, whether the unit has
premium features (such as more
sophisticated controls or a longer
warranty), and the differences in
markup between different
manufacturers all have an effect on the
prices of computer room air
conditioners. In certain instances, this
can make it difficult to compare prices
across manufacturers because of the
number of different ways that
manufacturers can decide to set pricing
based on features that are not part of the
basic equipment costs. As a result, the
relationship between price and
efficiency could be different from the
relationship between manufacturer cost
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2386
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
and efficiency that might be revealed
through other engineering methods such
as a design-option approach or using
reverse-engineering. However, given the
limited analysis time allowed by EPCA,
DOE proceeded with an efficiency-level
approach in which it gathered the price
of equipment at various efficiency
levels. Nonetheless, DOE believes this
approach provides a reasonable
approximation of the cost increases
associated with efficiency increases and
could be conducted in a timely manner
that would allow DOE to meet the
deadlines specified in EPCA for
ASHRAE products. The approach
allowed DOE to provide an estimate of
equipment prices at different
efficiencies and spanned a range of
technologies currently on the market
that are used to achieve the increased
efficiency levels.
2. Representative Input Capacities for
Analysis
Computer room air conditioners are
separated into three size categories
based upon the equipment’s net sensible
cooling capacity: (1) <65,000 Btu/h; (2)
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; and
(3) ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h.
For each equipment size category, DOE
chose a representative capacity for
analysis. The representative capacity
chosen was the average sensible
capacity (rounded to the nearest ton 29)
of all models that DOE found on the
market in a given product class. DOE
collected pricing data as close to the
representative capacity as possible;
however, given the limited amount of
data available, it was not always
possible for DOE to obtain pricing
information for models exactly at the
representative capacity. Consequently,
DOE obtained pricing for units as close
as possible to the representative
capacity (generally within 15 percent of
the representative capacity) and then
normalized the price in order to
estimate the price at the representative
capacity by calculating the price based
on the price per Btu per hour and
adjusting it accordingly.
For computer room air conditioners
with a sensible cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE collected data
at the representative size of 36,000 Btu/
h and normalized the cost to that
capacity. For computer room air
conditioners with a sensible cooling
capacity greater than 65,000 Btu/h and
less than 240,000 Btu/h, DOE collected
data at the representative size of 132,000
Btu/h and normalized the cost to that
capacity. For computer room air
conditioners with a sensible cooling
capacity greater than 240,000 Btu/h,
DOE collected data for five total units
with efficiency data in these equipment
classes and normalized it to a
representative capacity of 288,000 Btu/
h. See chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD for
information about the capacity
information that DOE found for
equipment on the market and chapter 3
of the TSD for more detail about the
representative capacities selected.
3. Baseline Equipment
DOE selected baseline efficiency
levels as reference points for each
equipment class, against which it
measured changes resulting from
potential amended energy conservation
standards. DOE defined the baseline
efficiency levels in the engineering
analysis and the LCC and PBP analyses
as reference points to compare the
technology, energy savings, and cost of
equipment with higher energy efficiency
levels. A baseline piece of equipment
refers to a model having features and
technologies typically found in
equipment currently offered for sale.
The baseline model in each equipment
class represents the typical
characteristics of equipment in that
class. Typically, units at the baseline
efficiency level just meet Federal energy
conservation standards and provide
basic consumer utility. However, since
computer room air conditioners are a
new equipment class, there are no
current Federal standards for these
units. Further, EPCA requires that DOE
must adopt either the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 levels or more
stringent levels. Therefore, because the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 levels
were the lowest levels that DOE could
adopt, DOE used those levels as the
baseline efficiency level for the
purposes of its analysis. Table VI.3
shows the baseline efficiency level for
each computer room air conditioner
equipment class in the downflow
orientation.30
TABLE VI.3—BASELINE SCOP EFFICIENCY LEVEL
Downflow
orientation
baseline
SCOP
Size category
Air-Cooled .....................................................................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h ...........................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ..........
≥240,000 Btu/h .........................................
2.2
2.1
1.9
Water-Cooled ...............................................................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h ...........................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ..........
≥240,000 Btu/h .........................................
2.6
2.5
2.4
Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer .......................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h ...........................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ..........
≥240,000 Btu/h .........................................
2.55
2.45
2.35
Glycol-Cooled ...............................................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Equipment class
<65,000 Btu/h ...........................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ..........
≥240,000 Btu/h .........................................
2.5
2.15
2.1
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer .......................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h ...........................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ..........
≥240,000 Btu/h .........................................
2.45
2.1
2.05
29 One ton of cooling capacity is equivalent to
12,000 Btu/h.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
30 As discussed in section VI.B.6, DOE focused its
analysis on downflow models to reduce the total
number of product classes requiring analysis. The
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
SCOP for upflow models were reduced by 0.11
SCOP, and the upflow class was combined with the
downflow class.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2387
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
4. Identification of Efficiency
Information and Efficiency Levels for
Analysis
Since DOE does not currently regulate
computer room air conditioners,
manufacturers are not required to report
or rate the efficiency of their equipment.
Therefore, DOE relied on efficiency
information found in manufacturer
literature (for those manufacturers who
voluntarily rate their equipment
efficiency) and in the CEC database (as
CEC does require manufacturers to
certify the efficiency ratings for their
computer room air conditioners being
sold in California). Because SCOP is a
new efficiency metric in ASHRAE 127–
2007, all efficiency data DOE gathered
were in the form of EER, as measured by
the previous version of ASHRAE 127
(i.e., ASHRAE 127–2001). DOE only
found EER data for three of the five
manufacturers. ASHRAE 127–2007
contains a ‘‘rule-of-thumb’’ method for
determining SCOP using the EER as
measured by ASHRAE 127–2001 and
the sensible heat ratio (SHR).31 DOE
used the ‘‘rule-of-thumb’’ method to
approximate SCOP ratings based on EER
information contained in the CEC
database and manufacturer literature, as
well as SHR information found in
manufacturer specification sheets. As
noted above, this method allowed DOE
to estimate SCOP ratings for 15 percent
of the total units in its database, for
which this information was available.
Upon examining the market, DOE
concluded that only four equipment
classes contained enough models with
efficiency information to adequately
select efficiency levels based on the
efficiency of models on the market. For
the equipment classes where DOE did
not have enough SCOP data to select
efficiency levels, DOE translated the
efficiency levels from one of the four
previously mentioned equipment
classes based on the SCOP differences
between the different equipment classes
as specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010. The efficiency levels selected for
analysis for each equipment class are
shown in Table VI.4. Chapter 3 of the
NOPR TSD shows additional details on
the efficiency levels selected for
analysis.
TABLE VI.4—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR ANALYSIS OF COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
Efficiency levels (SCOP)
Equipment
Baseline
level
Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ...........................................................................................
Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ..........................................................
Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........................................................
Water-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ......................................................................................
Water-Cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .....................................................
Water-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...................................................
Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, <65,000 Btu/h ..............................................
Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............
Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...........
Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ......................................................................................
Glycol-Cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .....................................................
Glycol-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...................................................
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, <65,000 Btu/h ..............................................
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...........
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
5. Pricing Data
Once DOE identified representative
capacities and baseline units, and
selected equipment classes and
efficiency levels to analyze, DOE
contacted three of the manufacturers of
computer room air conditioners 32 to
obtain pricing information for
individual models in quantities of 10
units. DOE used 10 as a standard
request that would be typical of a
contractor installing the units in an
office space. DOE received pricing
information for 32 models total. DOE
then used the pricing information in
conjunction with the SCOP data
(estimated from EER data) to build
price-efficiency curves. See chapter 3 of
the NOPR TSD for additional details
about the pricing data DOE received.
31 ‘‘Sensible heat ratio’’ is the ratio of a unit’s
sensible cooling capacity to its total (i.e., sensible
and latent) cooling capacity.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
Level 1
2.20
2.10
1.90
2.60
2.50
2.40
2.55
2.45
2.35
2.50
2.15
2.10
2.45
2.10
2.05
2.40
2.35
2.15
2.80
2.70
2.60
2.75
2.65
2.55
2.70
2.35
2.30
2.65
2.30
2.25
Level 2
2.60
2.60
2.40
3.00
2.90
2.80
2.95
2.85
2.75
2.90
2.55
2.50
2.85
2.50
2.45
Level 3
2.80
2.85
2.65
3.20
3.10
3.00
3.15
3.05
2.95
3.10
2.75
2.70
3.05
2.70
2.65
Level 4
3.00
3.10
2.90
3.40
3.30
3.20
3.35
3.25
3.15
3.30
2.95
2.90
3.25
2.90
2.85
Due to a lack of efficiency data and
small number of models on the market
for certain equipment classes, DOE did
not analyze each of the 30 equipment
classes created by ASHRAE Standard
90.1 separately. Rather, DOE analyzed
the equipment classes with the largest
numbers of models on the market (and
as a result the most data available) and
used a variety of assumptions to
extrapolate that analysis to the
equipment classes with less information
available.
DOE only considered downflow units
in its engineering analysis. In reviewing
the models available in its database,
DOE found that each given equipment
model (characterized by a product line
and model number) was generally
available in both an upflow and
downflow configuration, and review of
specific equipment indicated that the
internal components could be
optionally arranged by the manufacturer
for either an upflow or downflow
orientation. Therefore, DOE assumed
that downflow units and upflow units
generally have the same major
components, but that those components
are arranged differently. DOE assumed
that the price of the units would likely
be nearly the same and that the
incremental cost of increasing efficiency
would also be the same. However, DOE
observed the 0.11 SCOP reduction in the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency
levels for upflow units as compared to
downflow units. DOE believes this
difference is a result of the additional
static pressure that the blower fan must
overcome in the upflow orientation, as
required in the ASHRAE 127 test
32 As noted in section VI.B.4, only three
manufacturers provided efficiency data. DOE
obtained pricing from all manufacturers for which
it had efficiency data.
6. Equipment Classes for Analysis and
Extrapolation to Unanalyzed Equipment
Classes
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2388
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
procedure. By assuming that the results
of a cost-benefit analysis for the upflow
classes for a given incremental change
in SCOP would have the same results as
the downflow class (because the
incremental cost and efficiency gains
would be the same), DOE was able to
focus on the downflow equipment
classes where more data were available.
Among the downflow equipment
classes, DOE found there was only
enough efficiency information to
analyze four equipment classes: (1)
Small (i.e., sensible capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h) air-cooled; (2) large (i.e.,
sensible capacity greater than or equal
to 65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000
Btu/h) air-cooled; (3) small (i.e., sensible
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) watercooled; and (4) large (i.e., sensible
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000
Btu/h but less than 240,000 Btu/h)
water-cooled. For the other 11
downflow equipment classes, DOE had
to extrapolate the analysis based on
these four primary equipment classes
due to a lack of efficiency and pricing
data for those equipment classes.
To extrapolate the data and generate
a price-efficiency relationship for the
very large (i.e., sensible capacity greater
than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h but less
than 760,000 Btu/h) air-cooled and very
large water-cooled equipment classes,
DOE modified the price-efficiency
curves for the large air-cooled and large
water-cooled equipment classes,
respectively. In each case, DOE shifted
the relationship down by the difference
in SCOP specified between the
equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010. Then, using the limited
pricing data collected in the very large
equipment classes, DOE found the
percent difference between a large unit
and very large unit for a given
manufacturer (or manufacturers if
multiple points were available). DOE
multiplied the prices by the average
percentage difference between a very
large unit and a large unit of the same
model line to estimate the priceefficiency relationship for the very large
equipment classes.
For the three glycol-cooled equipment
classes (i.e., small, large, and very large),
DOE was able to collect a limited
amount of pricing data, and DOE found
that the prices of glycol-cooled units
were identical to those for water-cooled
units in the same product line.
Therefore, DOE modeled the costefficiency curves for glycol-cooled units
after the water-cooled equipment by
maintaining the same pricing, but
shifting the curves to account for the
decrease in SCOP that DOE believes
results from a decrease in heat transfer
for glycol-cooled units as compared to
water-cooled units. DOE shifted the
curves by the same amount as the
difference in the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 efficiency levels between
each respective equipment class.
For the six computer room air
conditioner equipment classes with a
fluid economizer (i.e., small, large, and
very large water-cooled, and small,
large, and very large glycol-cooled),
DOE translated the efficiency data and
prices from the corresponding watercooled or glycol-cooled equipment
classes. Because a fluid economizer
adds additional external static pressure
that must be overcome by the blower
fan, DOE believes these units generally
will require more fan power and have
lower SCOP ratings than equivalent
models without an economizer.
Therefore, DOE shifted the efficiency
down 0.05 SCOP, which was the
efficiency difference for computer room
air conditioners with fluid economizers
versus those without an economizer in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. From the
limited pricing data that DOE was able
to collect for units with fluid
economizers, DOE found the percentage
difference in price for equipment with
a fluid economizer compared to the
same model without a fluid economizer.
DOE then increased the pricing in the
price-efficiency relationships for each
equipment class by the percentage
difference found for adding a fluid
economizer to generate the priceefficiency relationship for the
equipment classes with fluid
economizers.
7. Engineering Analysis Results
The result of the engineering analysis
is a set of price-efficiency curves.
Creating the price-efficiency curves
involved plotting the manufacturer
price versus efficiency and using an
exponential regression analysis to fit a
curve that best defines the aggregated
data. When DOE examined the pricing
data for each individual manufacturer,
DOE found there was no correlation
between pricing and efficiency. Only
when the manufacturer data points were
aggregated across all manufacturers for
each equipment class did a correlation
appear. Generally, there were
manufacturers who sold lower-priced,
lower-SCOP equipment and those who
sold higher-priced, higher-SCOP
equipment. DOE used an exponential
regression to determine the relationship
between price and efficiency across the
three manufacturers. Table VI.5 and
Table VI.6 below show the priceefficiency data for the four primary
equipment classes, for which DOE had
enough information to do a regression
analysis. The results for the equipment
classes where DOE had to extrapolate
the price-efficiency relationship are
contained in chapter 3 of the NOPR
TSD.
TABLE VI.5—AIR-COOLED COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS PRICE-EFFICIENCY DATA
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
<65,000 Btu/h
SCOP
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Price
.........................................................................
.........................................................................
.........................................................................
.........................................................................
.........................................................................
$6,681.09
7,853.51
9,231.68
10,851.69
12,755.99
SCOP
2.10
2.35
2.60
2.85
3.10
Price
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
$22,621.45
24,383.30
26,282.38
28,329.36
30,535.77
TABLE VI.6—WATER-COOLED COMPUTER AIR CONDITIONERS PRICE-EFFICIENCY DATA
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
<65,000 Btu/h
SCOP
Price
2.60 .........................................................................
2.80 .........................................................................
3.00 .........................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
$14,232.84
11,527.69
9,336.69
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
SCOP
Price
2.50 ........................................................................
2.70 ........................................................................
2.90 ........................................................................
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
$12,883.01
17,315.28
23,272.43
2389
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.6—WATER-COOLED COMPUTER AIR CONDITIONERS PRICE-EFFICIENCY DATA—Continued
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
<65,000 Btu/h
SCOP
Price
3.20 .........................................................................
3.40 .........................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE notes that the results for the
small (< 65,000 Btu/h) water-cooled
equipment class are counter-intuitive,
because the correlation between price
and efficiency showed a decrease in
price for increased efficiency for that
equipment class. This result is likely the
result of not having enough data points
to develop a statistically significant
trend between price and efficiency. In
addition, as discussed above,
manufacturers might have different
reasons for pricing the different features
other than equipment efficiency, and,
thus, there would be no correlation
between efficiency and price for
individual manufacturers. In DOE’s
experience, an inverse correlation
between price and efficiency is not
typical, and thus, DOE believes
additional data and analysis would
possibly reveal a different relationship
than the pricing analysis. DOE seeks
comment on the results of the pricing
analysis and requests information and
data regarding price-efficiency trends
for computer room air conditioners.
This is identified as issue 12 in section
X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comments.’’
C. Markups To Determine Equipment
Price
DOE understands that the price of
CRAC equipment depends on the
distribution channel the customer uses
to purchase the equipment. Typical
distribution channels for most
commercial HVAC equipment include
shipments which may pass through
manufacturers’ national accounts, or
through entities including wholesalers,
mechanical contractors, and/or general
contractors; however, DOE understands
that the typical distribution channel for
CRAC equipment for either new
construction or replacement is that a
mechanical contractor orders the
equipment from a manufacturer or
distributor who provides the equipment
at a price delivered to the job site. The
mechanical contractor then adds his
own markup and provides installation
services. Because of the specialized
nature of the equipment, general
contractors are not involved in the
transaction, nor did DOE find any
evidence of wholesaler involvement or
national accounts for distribution of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
7,562.12
6,124.84
SCOP
3.10 ........................................................................
3.30 ........................................................................
specialized CRAC equipment. DOE
developed equipment costs for
mechanical contractors directly in the
engineering analysis and estimated cost
to customers using a markup chain
beginning with the mechanical
contractor cost. Because of the
complexity of installation, DOE
estimated most sales of CRAC
equipment involved mechanical
contractors. Consequently, DOE did not
develop separate markups for other
distribution chains.
DOE developed supply chain
markups in the form of multipliers that
represent increases above the
mechanical contractor cost. DOE
applied these markups (or multipliers)
to the mechanical contractor costs it
developed from the engineering
analysis. DOE then added sales taxes
and installation costs to arrive at the
final installed equipment prices for
baseline and higher-efficiency
equipment. See chapter 5 of the
ASHRAE NOPR TSD for additional
details on markups. DOE identified two
separate distribution channels for CRAC
equipment to describe how the
equipment passes from the mechanical
contractor to the customer (Table VI.7).
TABLE VI.7—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
FOR CRAC EQUIPMENT
Channel 1
(replacements)
Mechanical Contractor.
Customer ...................
Channel 2
(New construction)
Mechanical Contractor
Customer
DOE estimated a baseline markup and
an incremental markup. DOE defined a
‘‘baseline markup’’ as a multiplier that
converts the mechanical contractor cost
of equipment with baseline efficiency to
the customer purchase price for the
equipment at the same baseline
efficiency level. An ‘‘incremental
markup’’ is defined as the multiplier to
convert the incremental increase in
mechanical contractor cost of higherefficiency equipment to the customer
purchase price for the same equipment.
Both baseline and incremental markups
are independent of the CRAC equipment
efficiency levels.
DOE developed the markups based on
available financial data. DOE based the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Price
Sfmt 4702
31,279.07
42,040.32
mechanical contractor markups on data
from the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau
financial data 33 for the plumbing,
heating, and air conditioning industry.
The overall markup is the product of
all the markups (baseline or
incremental) for the different steps
within a distribution channel plus sales
tax. DOE calculated sales taxes based on
2010 State-by-State sales tax data
reported by the Sales Tax
Clearinghouse.34 Because both
contractor costs and sales tax vary by
State, DOE developed distributions of
markups within each distribution
channel by State. No information was
available to develop State-by-State
distribution of CRAC equipment by
building type or business type, so the
percentage distribution of sales by
business type are assumed to be the
same in all States. The National
distribution of the markups varies
among business types. Chapter 5 of the
ASHRAE NOPR TSD provides
additional detail on markups.
D. Energy Use Characterization
DOE’s building energy use
characterization assesses the annual
energy use for each of the 15 classes of
computer room air conditioners at the
efficiency levels established in the
engineering analysis. Because of the
fixed 0.11 EER difference between
upflow and downflow CRAC units
established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 and presumed in the engineering
analysis for all higher efficiency levels,
DOE determined that the per-unit
energy savings benefits for
corresponding upflow computer room
air conditioners at higher efficiency
levels could be adequately represented
using these 15 downflow equipment
classes. The energy use characterization
assessed the energy use of computer
room air conditioners using a purposebuilt spreadsheet which estimates the
annual energy consumption for each
33 The 2007 U.S. Census Bureau financial data for
the plumbing, heating, and air conditioning
industry is the latest version data set and was
issued in August 2009. Available at: https://
factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&geo_id=&-ds_name=EC0723I1&-_lang=en.
34 The Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Table of State
sales tax rates along with combined city and county
rates. (Last accessed Nov. 2, 2011) (Available at:
https://thestc.com/STRates.stm).
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2390
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
equipment class at each efficiency level.
The spreadsheet uses a modified outside
temperature bin analysis. For each aircooled equipment class, the spreadsheet
calculates fan energy and condensing
unit power consumption at each 5 °F
outdoor air dry bulb temperature bin.
For water-cooled and glycol-cooled
equipment, the spreadsheet first
estimates the condensing water supply
temperature from either an evaporative
cooling tower or a dry cooler for watercooled and for glycol-cooled CRAC
equipment, respectively, based on
binned weather data. Using these
results, DOE then estimates the
condensing unit power consumption
and adds to this the estimated fan
power. The sum of the CRAC
condensing unit power and the CRAC
fan power is the estimated average
CRAC total power consumption for each
temperature bin. Annual estimates of
energy use are developed by
multiplying the power consumption at
each temperature bin by the number of
hours in that bin for each climate
analyzed.
To implement DOE’s analysis
methodology, DOE estimated the
average heat load on each type and size
of CRAC equipment based on an average
thermal load set at 65 percent of the
nominal sensible capacity based on an
estimate provided in an Australian
energy performance standards report.35
As CRAC equipment is used to cool
internally-generated thermal loads and
is generally not climate dependent, DOE
believes that this figure would also
apply to CRAC equipment in the U.S.
DOE did not have manufacturer
efficiency or performance data as a
function of the outdoor temperature or
the fraction of full load. Accordingly,
DOE used an example of the variation
in full-load performance as a function of
ambient air temperature (for air-cooled
equipment) or entering fluid
temperature (for water-cooled and
glycol-cooled equipment) provided in
the ASHRAE 127–2007 test procedure
and based on computer simulations to
adjust full-load performance from the
SCOP rating condition. A part-load
performance degradation was also
included, based on the methodology
outlined for unitary direct-expansion air
conditioning equipment presented in
the DOE EnergyPlus simulation tool
documentation.36 For water-cooled and
35 EnergyConsult Pty Ltd., Equipment Energy
Efficiency Committee Regulatory Impact Statement
Consultation Draft: Minimum Energy Performance
Standards and Alternative Strategies for Close
Control Air Conditioners, Report No 2008/11 (Sept.
2008) (Available at: www.energyrating.gov.au).
36 EnergyPlus Engineering Reference included
with EnergyPlus simulation software version 6.0
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
glycol-cooled equipment with
economizer coils, DOE reduced the
thermal load on the condensing unit
during hours when the economizer
would be expected to meet some or all
of the sensible cooling load. Because the
primary heat load met for computer
room air conditioners is a sensible load
and because DOE did not have data to
adequately estimate the relative sensible
load versus latent load during the year
for computer rooms, DOE did not
separately examine the latent load on
the equipment as a function of
conditions, but determined that the total
energy use could be based on the SCOP
performance.
DOE estimated the annual energy
consumption for each equipment class
at each efficiency level for 239 climate
locations using typical meteorological
year (TMY3) weather data.37 DOE relied
on population-based climate location
weights to map the results for
individual TMY locations to State-level
annual energy consumption estimates
for each U.S. State. DOE used the
resulting State-by-State annual energy
consumption estimates for each
efficiency level in the subsequent lifecycle cost analysis.
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
DOE conducted the life-cycle cost
(LCC) and payback period (PBP)
analyses to estimate the economic
impacts of potential standards on
individual customers of CRAC
equipment. DOE first analyzed these
impacts for CRAC equipment by
calculating the change in customers’
LCCs likely to result from higher
efficiency levels compared with the
ASHRAE baseline efficiency levels for
the 15 downflow CRAC classes
discussed in the engineering analysis.
DOE determined that the LCC benefits
for higher efficiency levels for each
downflow class of CRAC equipment
would adequately represent LCC
benefits for the corresponding upflow
class. The LCC calculation considers
total installed cost (contractor cost, sales
taxes, distribution chain markups, and
installation cost), operating expenses
(energy, repair, and maintenance costs),
equipment lifetime, and discount rate.
DOE calculated the LCC for all
customers as if each would purchase a
new CRAC unit in the year the standard
takes effect. Since DOE is considering
both the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2007 and more-stringent
(Available at: https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/energyplus).
37 S. Wilcox and W. Marion, Users Manual for
TMY3 Data Sets, NREL/TP–581–43156 (May 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
efficiency levels, the compliance date
for a new DOE energy conservation
standard for any equipment class would
depend upon the efficiency level
adopted. This is because the statutory
lead times for DOE adoption of the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency
levels and the adoption of morestringent efficiency levels are different.
(See section V.H.1 below for additional
explanation regarding compliance
dates.) However, the LCC benefits to the
customer of standards higher than those
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 can
only begin to accrue after the
compliance date for such higher
standard once adopted by DOE. To
account for this difference and to
facilitate comparison, DOE presumes
that the purchase year for all CRAC
equipment for purposes of the LCC
calculation is 2017, the earliest year in
which DOE can establish an amended
energy conservation level at an
efficiency level more stringent than the
ASHRAE efficiency level. To compute
LCCs, DOE discounted future operating
costs to the time of purchase and
summed them over the lifetime of the
equipment.
Next, DOE analyzed the effect of
changes in installed costs and operating
expenses by calculating the PBP of
potential standards relative to baseline
efficiency levels. The PBP estimates the
amount of time it would take the
customer to recover the incremental
increase in the purchase price of moreefficient equipment through lower
operating costs. The PBP is the change
in purchase price divided by the change
in annual operating cost that results
from the energy conservation standard.
DOE expresses this period in years.
Similar to the LCC, the PBP is based on
the total installed cost and the operating
expenses. However, unlike the LCC,
DOE only considers the first year’s
operating expenses in the PBP
calculation. Because the PBP does not
account for changes in operating
expense over time or the time value of
money, it is also referred to as a simple
PBP.
DOE conducted the LCC and PBP
analyses using a commercially-available
spreadsheet tool and a purpose-built
spreadsheet model, available online.38
This spreadsheet model developed by
DOE accounts for variability in energy
use and prices, installation costs, repair
and maintenance costs, and energy
costs. It uses weighting factors to
account for distributions of shipments
38 DOE’s Life-Cycle Cost spreadsheet model can
be found on the DOE’s ASHRAE Products Web site
at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/
ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
to different building types and States to
generate national LCC savings by
efficiency level. The results of DOE’s
LCC and PBP analyses are summarized
in section VI and described in detail in
chapter 6 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD.
1. Approach
Recognizing that each business that
uses CRAC equipment is unique, DOE
analyzed variability and uncertainty by
performing the LCC and PBP
calculations assuming a correspondence
between business types and market
segments (characterized as building
types) for customers located in three
types of commercial buildings (health
care, education, and office). DOE
developed financial data appropriate for
the customers in each building type.
Each type of building has typical
customers who have different costs of
financing because of the nature of the
business. DOE derived the financing
costs based on data from the Damodaran
Online site.39
The LCC analysis used the estimated
annual energy use for each CRAC
equipment unit described in section
V.D. Because energy use of CRAC
equipment is sensitive to climate,
energy use varies by State. Aside from
energy use, other important factors
influencing the LCC and PBP analyses
are energy prices, installation costs,
equipment distribution markups, and
sales tax. All of these are assumed to
vary by State. At the national level, the
LCC spreadsheets explicitly modeled
both the uncertainty and the variability
in the model’s inputs, using probability
distributions based on the shipment of
CRAC equipment to different States.
As mentioned above, DOE generated
LCC and PBP results by building type
and State and used developed weighting
factors to generate national average LCC
savings and PBP for each efficiency
level. As there is a unique LCC and PBP
2391
for each calculated value at the building
type and State level, the outcomes of the
analysis can also be expressed as
probability distributions with a range of
LCC and PBP results. A distinct
advantage of this type of approach is
that DOE can identify the percentage of
customers achieving LCC savings or
attaining certain PBP values due to an
increased efficiency level, in addition to
the average LCC savings or average PBP
for that efficiency level.
2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs
For each efficiency level DOE
analyzed, the LCC analysis required
input data for the total installed cost of
the equipment, its operating cost, and
the discount rate. Table VI.8
summarizes the inputs and key
assumptions DOE used to calculate the
customer economic impacts of all
energy efficiency levels analyzed in this
rulemaking. A more detailed discussion
of the inputs follows.
TABLE VI.8—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES
Inputs
Description
Affecting Installed Costs
Equipment Price .......................................................................................
Installation Cost ........................................................................................
Equipment price was derived by multiplying manufacturer sales price or
MSP (distributor’s price delivered to a mechanical contractor at the
job site, calculated in the engineering analysis) by mechanical contractor markups, as needed, plus sales tax from the markups analysis.
Installation cost includes installation labor, installer overhead, and any
miscellaneous materials and parts, derived from RS Means
CostWorks 2011.40
Affecting Operating Costs
Annual Energy Use ..................................................................................
Electricity Prices .......................................................................................
Maintenance Cost .....................................................................................
Repair Cost ...............................................................................................
Annual unit energy consumption for each class of equipment at each
efficiency level estimated in a per-State basis using a spreadsheet
model and a population-based mapping of climate locations to
States.
DOE developed average electricity prices based on EIA’s Form 861
data for 2010.41
DOE estimated annual maintenance costs based on RS Means
CostWorks 2011 for CRAC equipment. Annual maintenance cost did
not vary as a function of efficiency.
DOE estimated the annualized repair cost for baseline efficiency CRAC
equipment based on cost data from RS Means CostWorks 2011
(2010 data). DOE assumed that the materials components portion of
the repair costs would vary in direct proportion with the MSP at higher efficiency levels because it generally costs more to replace components that are more efficient.
Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Equipment Lifetime ...................................................................................
Discount Rate ...........................................................................................
39 Damodaran Online, Leonard N. Stern School of
Business, New York University (Jan. 2011)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
DOE estimated CRAC equipment lifetime ranged between 10 and 25
years, with an average lifespan of 15 years, based on estimates
cited in available CRAC literature.
Mean real discount rates for all buildings range from 2.7 percent for
education buildings to 4.5 percent for office building owners.
(Available at: www.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/
New_Home_Page/data.html).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2392
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.8—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES—Continued
Inputs
Description
Analysis Start Year ...................................................................................
Start year for LCC is 2017, which is the earliest compliance date that
DOE can set for new standards if it adopts any efficiency level for
energy conservation standards higher than that shown in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010.
Analyzed Efficiency Levels
Analyzed Efficiency Levels .......................................................................
DOE analyzed the baseline efficiency levels (ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010) and four higher efficiency levels for all 15 equipment classes.
See the engineering analysis for additional details on selections of
efficiency levels and cost.
40 RS
Means CostWorks 2011, R.S. Means Company, Inc. (2011) (Available at: https://www.meanscostworks.com/).
Sales, Revenue, and Average Price 2009 (Data accessed on May 10, 2011 at https://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/
esr_sum.html). Inflator—2009 to 2010 dollars from EIA AEO 2011 GDP Price Index (Accessed on 4/27/2011 at https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011&subject=0-AEO2011&table=18-AEO2011®ion=0-0&cases=ref2011-d020911a).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
41 Electric
a. Equipment Prices
The price of CRAC equipment reflects
the application of distribution channel
markups (mechanical contractor
markups) and sales tax to the
manufacturer sales price (distributor’s
price, delivered to the job site), which
is the cost established in the engineering
analysis. As described in section VI.B,
DOE determined mechanical contractor
costs and markup for air conditioning
equipment. For each equipment class,
the engineering analysis provided
contractor costs for the baseline
equipment and up to four higher
equipment efficiencies.
The markup is the percentage increase
in price as the CRAC equipment passes
through the distribution channel. As
explained in section VI.C, all CRAC
equipment is assumed to be delivered
by the manufacturer through a
distributor to the mechanical contractor
at the job site for installation without
the involvement of a general contractor.
This is assumed to happen whether the
equipment is being purchased for the
new construction market or to replace
existing equipment.
To forecast a price trend for the
NOPR, DOE derived an inflationadjusted index of the PPI for
miscellaneous refrigeration and airconditioning equipment over 1990–
2010. These data show a general price
index decline from 1990 to 2004,
followed by a sharp increase, primarily
due to rising prices of copper and steel
products that go into this equipment.
Given the slowdown in global economic
activity in 2011, DOE believes that the
extent to which the trends of the past
couple of years will continue is very
uncertain and that the observed data
provide a firm basis for projecting future
costs trends for CRAC equipment.
Therefore DOE used a constant price
assumption as the default price factor
index to project future computer room
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
air conditioner prices in 2017. Thus,
prices forecast for the LCC and PBP
analysis are equal to the 2011 values for
each efficiency level in each equipment
class. Appendix 8–D of the NOPR TSD
describes the historic data and the
derivation of the price forecast.
DOE requests comments on the most
appropriate trend to use for real
(inflation-adjusted) computer room air
conditioner prices.
b. Installation Costs
DOE derived national average
installation costs for CRAC equipment
from data provided in RS Means
CostWorks 2011 (RS Means) specifically
for CRAC equipment.42 RS Means
provides estimates for installation costs
for CRAC units by equipment capacity,
as well as cost indices that reflect the
variation in installation costs for 295
cities in the United States. The RS
Means data identifies several cities in
all 50 States and the District of
Columbia. DOE incorporated locationbased cost indices into the analysis to
capture variation in installation cost,
depending on the location of the
customer.
For more-stringent efficiency levels,
DOE recognized that installation costs
could potentially be higher with larger
units and higher-efficiency CRAC
equipment due to larger sizes and more
complex setup requirements. DOE
utilized RS Means installation cost data
from RS Means CostWorks 2011 to
derive installation cost curves by size of
unit for the base-efficiency unit. DOE
did not have data to calibrate the extent
to which installation cost might change
as efficiency increased. For purposes of
the NOPR LCC analysis, DOE assumed
that installation cost would not increase
as a function of increased efficiency.
42 RS Means CostWorks 2011, R.S. Means
Company, Inc. 2011, Kingston, Massachusetts
(Available at: https://www.meanscostworks.com/).
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
This is identified as Issue 13 under
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’
in section X.E of today’s NOPR.
c. Annual Energy Use
DOE estimated the annual electricity
consumed by each class of CRAC
equipment, by efficiency level, based on
the energy use characterization
described in section V.D and in chapter
4 of the NOPR TSD.
d. Electricity Prices
Electricity prices are used to convert
the electric energy savings from higherefficiency equipment into energy cost
savings. Because of the variation in
annual electricity consumption savings
and equipment costs across the country,
it is important to consider regional
differences in electricity prices. DOE
used average effective commercial
electricity prices at the State level from
Energy Information Administration
(EIA) data for 2010. This approach
captured a wide range of commercial
electricity prices across the United
States. Furthermore, different kinds of
businesses typically use electricity in
different amounts at different times of
the day, week, and year, and therefore,
face different effective prices. To make
this adjustment, DOE used EIA’s 2003
CBECS 43 data set to identify the average
prices the three building types paid and
compared them with the average prices
all commercial customers paid.44 DOE
used the ratios of prices paid by the
three types of businesses to the national
average commercial prices seen in the
2003 CBECS as multipliers to adjust the
43 EIA’s Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey, Energy Information Agency
(Public use microdata available at: https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/
public_use_2003/cbecs_pudata2003.html).
44 EIA’s 2003 CBECS is the most recent version
of the data set.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
average commercial 2010 State price
data.
DOE weighted the prices each
building type paid in each State by the
estimated sales of CRAC equipment to
each building type to obtain a weightedaverage national electricity price for
2010. The State/building type weights
reflect the probabilities that a given unit
of CRAC equipment shipped will
operate with a given fuel price. The
original State-by-State average
commercial prices (adjusted to 2011$)
range from approximately $0.066 per
kWh to approximately $0.216 per kWh.
(See chapter 6 of the ASHRAE NOPR
TSD for further details.)
The electricity price trends provide
the relative change in electricity costs
for future years. DOE applied the
AEO2011 reference case as the default
scenario and extrapolated the trend in
values at the Census Division level from
2025 to 2035 of the forecast to establish
prices in 2030 to 2060. This method of
extrapolation is in line with methods
the EIA uses to forecast fuel prices for
the Federal Energy Management
Program. DOE provides a sensitivity
analysis of the LCC savings and PBP
results to different fuel price scenarios
using both the AEO2011 high-price and
low-price forecasts in the ASHRAE
NOPR TSD.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
e. Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs are the costs to the
customer of maintaining equipment
operation. Maintenance costs include
services such as cleaning heatexchanger coils and changing air filters.
DOE estimated annual routine
maintenance costs for CRAC equipment
as $84 per year for capacities up to 288
kBtu per hr and $102 per year for larger
capacities, reported in the RS Means
CostWorks 2011 database. Because data
were not available to indicate how
maintenance costs vary with equipment
efficiency, DOE decided to use
preventive maintenance costs that
remain constant as equipment efficiency
increases.
f. Repair Costs
The repair cost is the cost to the
customer of replacing or repairing
components that have failed in the
CRAC equipment. DOE estimated the
one-time repair cost in RS Means
CostWorks 2011 as a percentage of MSP
for capacities between 5 tons (T) (60,000
Btu/hr) and 15 T (180,000 Btu/hr), with
the curve flattening at the 15 T
percentage thereafter. DOE applied the
percentage to the MSP for more-efficient
equipment at each capacity for the onetime repair, then annualized the
resulting repair costs. DOE determined
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
that annualized repair costs would
increase in direct proportion with
increases in equipment prices. Because
the price of CRAC equipment increases
with efficiency, the cost for component
repair will also increase as the
efficiency of equipment increases. See
chapter 6 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD for
details on the development of repair
costs.
g. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defines ‘‘equipment lifetime’’ as
the age when a unit of CRAC equipment
is retired from service. DOE reviewed
available literature to establish typical
equipment lifetimes. The literature
offered a wide range of typical
equipment lifetimes ranging from 10
years to 25 years. The data did not
distinguish between classes of CRAC
equipment. Consequently, DOE used a
distribution of lifetimes between 10 and
25 years, with an average of 15 years
based on review of a range of CRAC
lifetime estimates found in published
studies and online documents and
applied this distribution to all classes of
CRAC equipment analyzed. Chapter 6 of
the ASHRAE NOPR TSD contains a
discussion of equipment lifetime.
h. Discount Rate
The discount rate is the rate at which
future expenditures are discounted to
establish their present value. DOE
determined the discount rate by
estimating the cost of capital for
purchasers of CRAC equipment. Most
purchasers use both debt and equity
capital to fund investments. Therefore,
for most purchasers, the discount rate is
the weighted-average cost of debt and
equity financing, or the weightedaverage cost of capital (WACC), less the
expected inflation.
To estimate the WACC of CRAC
equipment purchasers, DOE used a
sample of over 2000 companies grouped
to be representative of operators of each
of three commercial building types
(health care, education, and office)
drawn from a database of 7,369 U.S.
companies presented on the Damodaran
Online Web site.45 This database
includes most of the publicly-traded
companies in the United States. For
most educational buildings and a
portion of the office buildings occupied
by public schools, universities, and
State and local government agencies,
DOE estimated the cost of capital based
on composite tax exempt bond rates for
45 Damodaran financial data used for determining
cost of capital available at: https://
pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/ for commercial
businesses. Data for determining financing for
public buildings available at: https://
finance.yahoo.com/bonds/composite_bond_rates.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2393
AA-rated municipal bonds. Federal
office space was assumed to use the
Federal bond rate, derived as the 40year geometric average of long term (>
10 years) U.S. government securities.
When one or more of the variables
needed to estimate the discount rate in
the Damodaran dataset were missing or
could not be obtained, DOE discarded
the firm from the analysis. DOE further
reduced the sample to exclude firms
that were unlikely to use the computer
rooms served by CRAC equipment. The
WACC approach for determining
discount rates accounts for the current
tax status of individual firms on an
overall corporate basis. DOE did not
evaluate the marginal effects of
increased costs, and, thus, depreciation
due to more expensive equipment, on
the overall tax status.
DOE used the final sample of
companies to represent purchasers of
CRAC equipment. For each company in
the sample, DOE derived the cost of
debt, percent debt financing, and
systematic company risk from
information on the Damodaran Online
Web site. Damodaran estimated the cost
of debt financing from the long-term
Federal government bond rate (6.74
percent) and the standard deviation of
the stock price. DOE then determined
the weighted average values for the cost
of debt, range of values, and standard
deviation of WACC for each category of
the sample companies. Deducting
expected inflation from the cost of
capital provided estimates of real
discount rate by ownership category.
Based on this database, DOE calculated
the weighted average after-tax discount
rate for CRAC equipment purchases,
adjusted for inflation, in each of the
three building types used in the
analysis. Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE
NOPR TSD contains the detailed
calculations on the discount rate.
3. Payback Period
DOE also determined the economic
impact of potential amended energy
conservation standards on customers by
calculating the PBP of more-stringent
efficiency levels relative to a baseline
efficiency level. The PBP measures the
amount of time it takes the commercial
customer to recover the assumed higher
purchase expense of more-efficient
equipment through lower operating
costs. Similar to the LCC, the PBP is
based on the total installed cost and the
operating expenses for each building
type and State, weighted on the
probability of shipment to each market.
Because the simple PBP does not take
into account changes in operating
expense over time or the time value of
money, DOE considered only the first
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2394
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
year’s operating expenses to calculate
the PBP, unlike the LCC which is
calculated over the lifetime of the
equipment. Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE
NOPR TSD provides additional details
about the PBP.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
F. National Impact Analysis—National
Energy Savings and Net Present Value
Analysis
The national impact analysis (NIA)
evaluates the effects of a proposed
energy conservation standard from a
national perspective rather than from
the customer perspective represented by
the LCC. This analysis assesses the net
present value (NPV) (future amounts
discounted to the present) and the
National Energy Savings (NES) of total
commercial customer costs and savings,
which are expected to result from
amended standards at specific efficiency
levels. For each efficiency level
analyzed, DOE calculated the NPV and
NES for adopting more-stringent
standards than the efficiency levels
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010. The NES refers to cumulative
energy savings from 2012 through 2041
or 2013 through 2042, depending on the
product class. DOE calculated new
energy savings in each year relative to
a base case, defined as DOE adoption of
the efficiency levels specified by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. DOE also
calculated energy savings from adopting
efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 compared to the
current market base case. The NPV
refers to cumulative monetary savings.
DOE calculated net monetary savings in
each year relative to the base case
(ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010) as the
difference between total operating cost
savings and increases in total installed
cost. Cumulative savings are the sum of
the annual NPV over the specified
period. DOE accounted for operating
cost savings until 2055 or 2056, when
the equipment installed in the 30th year
after the compliance date of the
amended standards should be retired.
1. Approach
The NES and NPV are a function of
the total number of units in use and
their efficiencies. Both the NES and
NPV depend on annual shipments and
equipment lifetime. Both calculations
start by using the shipments estimate
and the quantity of units in service
derived from the shipments model.
With regard to estimating the NES,
because more-efficient computer room
air conditioners are expected to
gradually replace less-efficient ones, the
energy per unit of capacity used by the
computer room air conditioners in
service gradually decreases in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
standards case relative to the base case.
DOE calculated the NES by subtracting
energy use under a standards-case
scenario from energy use in a base-case
scenario.
Unit energy savings for each
equipment class are taken from the LCC
spreadsheet for each efficiency level and
weighted based on market efficiency
distributions. To estimate the total
energy savings for each efficiency level,
DOE first calculated the national site
energy consumption (i.e., the energy
directly consumed by the units of
equipment in operation) for each class
of computer room air conditioners for
each year of the analysis period. The
NES and NPV analysis periods begin
with the earliest expected compliance
date of amended Federal energy
conservation standards (i.e., 2012 or
2013), assuming DOE adoption of the
baseline ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
efficiency levels. For the analysis of
DOE’s potential adoption of morestringent efficiency levels, the earliest
compliance date would be 2017, four
years after DOE would likely issue a
final rule requiring such standards.
Second, DOE determined the annual site
energy savings, consisting of the
difference in site energy consumption
between the base case and the standards
case for each class of computer room air
conditioner. Third, DOE converted the
annual site energy savings into the
annual amount of energy saved at the
source of electricity generation (the
source energy), using a site-to-source
conversion factor. Finally, DOE summed
the annual source energy savings from
2012 to 2041 or 2013 to 2042 to
calculate the total NES for that period.
DOE performed these calculations for
each efficiency level considered for
computer room air conditioners in this
rulemaking.
DOE considered whether a rebound
effect is applicable in its NES analysis.
A rebound effect occurs when an
increase in equipment efficiency leads
to an increased demand for its service.
EIA in its National Energy Modeling
System (NEMS) model assumes a
certain elasticity factor to account for an
increased demand for service due to the
increase in cooling (or heating)
efficiency.46 EIA refers to this as an
efficiency rebound. For the computer
room air conditioning equipment
market, there are two ways that a
rebound effect could occur: (1)
increased use of the air conditioning
equipment within the commercial
buildings they are installed in; and (2)
46 An overview of the NEMS model and
documentation is found at https://www.eia.doe.gov/
oiaf/aeo/overview/.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
additional instances of air conditioning
computer rooms where it was not being
cooled before.
The first instance does not occur often
because computer rooms are generally
cooled to the level required for safe
operation of the servers and other
equipment. As inanimate objects,
computers have no desire for further
cooling, and persons maintaining the
equipment have no reason to deviate
from the optimal range of environmental
conditions. With regard to the second
instance, computer room air
conditioners are unlikely to be installed
in previously uncooled computer
rooms, because servers and other
equipment that need to be cooled or
otherwise space conditioned to the
degree of precision that requires a
computer room air conditioner already
would be. Given the potential for
computer equipment damage or
diminished performance, running a
computer room without the appropriate
environmental controls from the outset
is highly unlikely. Therefore, DOE did
not assume a rebound effect in the
present NOPR analysis. DOE seeks input
from interested parties on whether there
will be a rebound effect for
improvements in the efficiency of
computer room air conditioners. If
interested parties believe a rebound
effect would occur, DOE is interested in
receiving data quantifying the effects, as
well as input regarding how should
DOE quantify this in its analysis. This
is identified as Issue 14 under ‘‘Issues
on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in
section X.E of today’s NOPR.
To estimate NPV, DOE calculated the
net impact as the difference between
total operating cost savings (including
electricity cost savings) and increases in
total installed costs (including customer
prices). DOE calculated the NPV of each
considered standard level over the life
of the equipment using the following
three steps. First, DOE determined the
difference between the equipment costs
under the standard-level case and the
base case in order to obtain the net
equipment cost increase resulting from
the higher standard level. As noted in
section VI.E.2.a, DOE used a constant
price assumption as the default price
forecast. Second, DOE determined the
difference between the base-case
operating costs and the standard-level
operating costs in order to obtain the net
operating cost savings from each higher
efficiency level. Third, DOE determined
the difference between the net operating
cost savings and the net equipment cost
increase in order to obtain the net
savings (or expense) for each year. DOE
then discounted the annual net savings
(or expenses) to 2012 for computer room
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
air conditioners bought on or after 2012
or 2013, depending on product class,
and summed the discounted values to
provide the NPV of an efficiency level.
An NPV greater than zero shows net
savings (i.e., the efficiency level would
reduce customer expenditures relative
to the base case in present value terms).
An NPV that is less than zero indicates
that the efficiency level would result in
a net increase in customer expenditures
in present value terms.
To make the analysis more
transparent to all interested parties,
DOE used a commercially-available
spreadsheet tool to calculate the energy
savings and the national economic costs
and savings from potential amended
standards. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD
explains the models and how to use
them. Interested parties can review
DOE’s analyses by changing various
input quantities within the spreadsheet.
Unlike the LCC analysis, the NES
spreadsheet does not use distributions
for inputs or outputs, but relies on
national average first costs and energy
costs developed from the LCC
spreadsheet. DOE used the NES
spreadsheet to perform calculations of
energy savings and NPV using the
annual energy consumption and total
installed cost data from the LCC
analysis. DOE forecasted the energy
savings, energy cost savings, equipment
costs, and NPV of benefits for
equipment sold in each computer room
air conditioner class from 2012 through
2041 or 2013 through 2042, depending
on the product class. The forecasts
provided annual and cumulative values
for all four output parameters described
above.
2. Shipments Analysis
Equipment shipments are an
important element in the estimate of the
future impact of a potential standard.
DOE developed shipment projections
and, in turn, calculated equipment stock
by assuming that in each year, each
existing computer room air conditioner
either ages by one year or breaks down
after a 15-year equipment life. DOE used
2395
the shipments projection and the
equipment stock to determine the NES.
The shipments portion of the
spreadsheet model forecasts computer
room air conditioner shipments from
2012 or 2013 to 2041 or 2042,
depending on the product class.
Data on computer room air
conditioner shipments in the U.S. were
not available. To estimate U.S.
shipments, DOE obtained historical and
projected (2000–2020) computer room
air conditioner shipment data from an
Australian energy performance
standards report.47 DOE then used the
ratio of business establishments in the
United States compared to Australia to
inflate Australia shipments to the U.S.
market. The inflator used was 13.2.
Table VI.9 exhibits the shipment data
provided for a selection of years, while
the full data set and the complete
discussion of energy use indicators can
be found in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE used these shipments data to
extend a shipments trend into the
future.
TABLE VI.9—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS (UNITS)
Units shipped
(Australian data)
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
DOE allocated overall shipments into
product classes using a two-step
process. First, DOE used Australian
market share to allocate shipments to
six broad product classes. DOE then
used the relative fraction of models for
each equipment class reflected in DOE’s
market database to allocate shipments
further into the 15 product classes
analyzed. The complete discussion of
shipment allocation can be found in
chapter 7 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD.
Table VI.10 shows the forecasted
shipments for the different equipment
classes of computer room air
conditioners for selected years from
2012 to 2042 (with start and end years
dependent on the product class), as well
as the cumulative shipments. As
equipment purchase price and repair
costs increase with efficiency, DOE
recognizes that higher first costs and
repair costs can result in a drop in
shipments. However, DOE had no basis
for estimating the elasticity of
shipments for computer room air
conditioners as a function of first costs,
repair costs, or operating costs. In
850
985
1140
1320
1526
Units shipped
(U.S. estimate)
11,228
13,011
15,058
17,436
20,157
addition, because computer room air
conditioners are necessary for their
application, DOE believes shipments
would not change as a result of higher
first costs and repair costs. Therefore,
DOE presumed that the shipments
projection does not change with higher
standard levels. DOE seeks input on this
assumption. This is identified as Issue
15 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment’’ in section X.E of today’s
NOPR. Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD
provides additional details on the
shipments forecasts.
TABLE VI.10—SHIPMENTS FORECAST FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
Units shipped by year and equipment class
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Equipment
2012/
2013
Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .........
Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000
Btu/h .................................................................
47 EnergyConsult Pty Ltd., Equipment Energy
Efficiency Committee Regulatory Impact Statement
Consultation Draft: Minimum Energy Performance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2041/
2042
Cumulative
shipments
(2012/2013–
2041/2042)
671
732
847
922
1,015
1,109
1,202
1,221
28,518
7,499
7,951
9,192
10,009
11,023
12,038
13,052
13,457
315,793
Standards and Alternative Strategies for Close
Control Air Conditioners, Report No 2008/11 (Sept.
2008) (Available at: www.energyrating.gov.au).
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2396
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.10—SHIPMENTS FORECAST FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued
Units shipped by year and equipment class
Equipment
2012/
2013
2041/
2042
Cumulative
shipments
(2012/2013–
2041/2042)
2025
2030
2035
2040
1,778
81
2,056
94
2,239
102
2,466
112
2,693
122
2,919
133
3,010
135
70,636
3,152
1,233
470
1,308
498
1,512
576
1,646
627
1,813
690
1,980
754
2,147
817
2,213
843
51,940
19,780
46
50
58
63
70
76
82
84
1,954
1,036
1,098
1,270
1,383
1,523
1,663
1,803
1,859
43,628
180
69
190
75
220
87
240
95
264
104
288
114
313
124
322
126
7,563
2,935
1,233
387
1,308
410
1,512
474
1,646
516
1,813
569
1,980
621
2,147
673
2,213
694
51,940
16,288
69
75
87
95
104
114
124
126
2,935
1,431
1,517
1,754
1,910
2,103
2,297
2,490
2,567
60,250
345
366
423
461
508
554
601
620
14,542
16,420
Total ..............................................................
2020
1,677
74
Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ........
Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .....
Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 to
<240,000 Btu/h .................................................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ......................................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ..................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ....................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ....
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to
<240,000 Btu/h .................................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ..
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ......................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ..................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ....................................
2015
17,437
20,162
21,954
24,177
26,403
28,627
29,490
691,854
Note: Total shipments shown in this table may not exactly match those in Table VI.9 as a result of rounding during allocation to product
classes.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Base-Case and Standards-Case
Forecasted Distribution of Efficiencies
DOE reviewed the distribution of
efficiency levels for commerciallyavailable models within each equipment
class in order to develop base-case
efficiency distributions. DOE bundled
the efficiency levels into ‘‘efficiency
ranges’’ and determined the percentage
of models within each range. DOE
applied the percentages of models
within each efficiency range to the total
unit shipments for a given equipment
class to estimate the distribution of
shipments within the base case. Then,
from those market shares and
projections of shipments by equipment
class, DOE extrapolated future
equipment efficiency trends both for a
base-case scenario and for standardscase scenarios. The difference in
equipment efficiency between the base
case and standards cases was the basis
for determining the reduction in perunit annual energy consumption that
could result from amended standards.
For the base case, DOE had no basis
to estimate potential change in
efficiency market shares. Therefore,
DOE assumed that, absent amended
standards, forecasted market shares
would remain frozen until the end of
the forecast period (30 years after the
compliance date). This prediction could
cause DOE to overestimate the savings
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
associated with the higher efficiency
levels discussed in this notice because
computer room air conditioner
efficiencies or relative efficiency class
preferences may change voluntarily over
time.
For each efficiency level analyzed,
DOE used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to
establish the market shares by efficiency
level for the year that compliance would
be required with amended standards
(i.e., 2017 if DOE adopts more-stringent
efficiency levels than those in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010). DOE collected
information that suggests 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. This
information also suggests that
equipment efficiencies in the base case
that were above the standard level
under consideration would not be
affected.
The base-case efficiency distributions
for each equipment class are presented
in chapter 7 of the TSD. DOE seeks
input on its basis for the NES-forecasted
base-case distribution of efficiencies and
its prediction of how amended energy
conservation standards would affect the
distribution of efficiencies in the
standards case. This is identified as
Issue 16 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment’’ in section X.E of
today’s NOPR.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4. National Energy Savings and Net
Present Value
The computer room air conditioner
equipment stock is the total number of
computer room air conditioners in each
equipment class purchased or shipped
from previous years that have survived
until the point at which stock is taken.
The NES spreadsheet,48 through use of
the shipments model, keeps track of the
total number of computer room air
conditioners shipped each year. For
purposes of the NES and NPV analyses,
DOE assumes that shipments of CRAC
units survive for 15 years, at the end of
which time they are removed from
stock.
The national annual energy
consumption is the product of the
annual unit energy consumption and
the number of computer room air
conditioner units of each vintage in the
stock, summed over all vintages. This
approach accounts for differences in
unit energy consumption from year to
year. In determining national annual
energy consumption, DOE calculated
the annual energy consumption at the
site (i.e., million kWh consumed by
computer room air conditioners) and
48 The NES spreadsheet can be found on the
DOE’s ASHRAE Products Web site at: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/
ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
multiplied that by a conversion factor to
account for generation and distribution
losses, resulting in annual energy
consumption at the source (or primary
energy). DOE then summed the source
or primary energy savings over a 30-year
period to arrive at NES.
Table VI.11 summarizes the inputs to
the NES spreadsheet model along with
a brief description of the data sources.
2397
The results of DOE’s NES and NPV
analysis are summarized in section
VIII.B.3.b below and described in detail
in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.
TABLE VI.11—SUMMARY OF NES AND NPV MODEL INPUTS
Inputs
Description
Shipments .......................................
Compliance Date of Standard ........
Annual shipments based on Australian data adjusted to the U.S. (see chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD).
2017 for adoption of a more-stringent efficiency level than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010.
2012 or 2013 for adoption of the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010.
Distribution of base-case shipments by efficiency level.
Distribution of shipments by efficiency level for each standards case. Standards-case annual shipmentweighted market shares remain the same as in the base case and each standard level for all efficiencies
above the efficiency level being analyzed. All other shipments are at the efficiency level.
Annual national weighted-average values are a function of efficiency level. (See chapter 4 of the NOPR
TSD.)
Annual weighted-average values are a function of efficiency level. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.)
Annual weighted-average values are a function of efficiency level. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.)
Base-Case Efficiencies ...................
Standards-Case Efficiencies ...........
Annual Energy Use per Unit ...........
Total Installed Cost per Unit ...........
Annualized Maintenance and Repair Costs per Unit.
Escalation of Fuel Prices ................
Site-Source Conversion ..................
Discount Rate .................................
Present Year ...................................
AEO2011 forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for beyond 2035. (See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.)
AEO2011 forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for beyond 2035. (See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.)
3 percent and 7 percent real.
Future costs are discounted to 2012.
G. Other Issues
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Compliance Date of the Proposed
Amended Energy Conservation
Standards
Generally, covered equipment to
which a new or amended energy
conservation standard applies must
comply with the standard if such
equipment is manufactured or imported
on or after a specified date. In today’s
NOPR, DOE is evaluating whether morestringent efficiency levels than those in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 would be
technologically feasible, economically
justified, and result in a significant
amount of energy savings. 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 compliance
with any such standards shall be
required on or after a date which is two
or three years (depending on equipment
size) after the compliance date of the
applicable minimum energy efficiency
requirement in the amended ASHRAE/
IES standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D))
DOE has applied this two-year or threeyear implementation period to
determine the compliance date of any
energy conservation standard equal to
the efficiency levels specified by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 proposed
by this rulemaking. Thus, if DOE
decides to adopt the efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, the
compliance date of the rulemaking
would be dependent upon the date
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
2010 or its publication date, if none is
specified.
The rule would apply to equipment
<65,000 Btu/h (10 product classes 49)
manufactured on or after October 29,
2012, which is two years after the
publication date of ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, and to equipment ≥65,000
Btu/h (20 product classes 50)
manufactured on or after October 29,
2013, which is three years after the
publication date of ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010. Typically, equipment equal
to or greater than 65,000 Btu/h and less
than 135,000 Btu/h would have a
compliance date two years after the
publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
However, because ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 established a product class
for computer room air conditioners that
combines traditional small and large
categories, DOE has decided to assign
the later compliance date of three years
after the publication of ASHRAE 90.1–
2010 to all computer room air
conditioner product classes that cover
49 The analysis only shows five product classes
for this equipment size because DOE was able to
analyze downflow and upflow units in
combination. These units are nearly identical, but
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 identifies a 0.11
SCOP reduction in efficiency levels for upflow
units as compared to downflow units (likely as a
result of the additional static pressure that the
blower fan must overcome in the upflow
orientation). By adjusting the upflow units by 0.11
SCOP, DOE could analyze upflow and downflow
units in combination.
50 The analysis only shows ten product classes for
this equipment size for the same reasons mentioned
for equipment <65,000 Btu/h.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
products between 65,000 Btu/h and
240,000 Btu/h.
If DOE were to propose a rule
prescribing energy conservation
standards higher than the efficiency
levels contained in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, EPCA states that compliance
with any such standards is required for
products manufactured on or after a
date which is four years after the date
the rule is published in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) DOE
has applied this 4-year implementation
period to determine the compliance date
for any energy conservation standard
higher than the efficiency levels
specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 that might be prescribed in a
future rulemaking. Thus, for products
for which DOE might adopt a level more
stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency
levels, the rule would apply to products
manufactured on or after a date four
years from the date of publication of the
final rule, which the statute requires to
be completed by April 29, 2013 (thereby
resulting in a compliance date no later
than April 29, 2017).51
Table VI.12 presents the anticipated
compliance dates of an amended energy
conservation standard for each
equipment class for which DOE
51 Since ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 on October 29, 2010, EPCA requires that
DOE publish a final rule adopting more-stringent
standards than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010, if warranted, within 30 months of ASHRAE
action (i.e., by April 2013). Thus, four years from
April 2013 would be April 2017, which would be
the anticipated complaince date for DOE adoption
of more-stringent standards.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2398
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
developed a potential energy savings
analysis.
TABLE VI.12—COMPLIANCE DATES OF AN AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR EACH EQUIPMENT CLASS
OF COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
Compliance date for
adopting the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE
standard 90.1–2010
Equipment class
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .....................................................................................
air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .................................................................
air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...................................................................................
water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................................................
water-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ............................................................
water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................................................................
water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...........................................
water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .......................
water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h .........................................
glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................................................
glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ............................................................
glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................................................................
glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...........................................
glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .......................
glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h .........................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
VII. Methodology for Emissions
Analysis and Monetizing Carbon
Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
A. Emissions Analysis
In the emissions analysis, DOE
estimated the reduction in power sector
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and mercury
(Hg) from amended energy conservation
standards for ASHRAE equipment. DOE
used the NEMS–BT computer model,52
which is run similarly to the AEO
NEMS, except that equipment energy
use is reduced by the amount of energy
saved (by fuel type) at each efficiency
level. The inputs of national energy
savings come from the NIA spreadsheet
model, while the output is the
forecasted physical emissions. The net
benefit of each efficiency level in
today’s proposed rule is the difference
between the forecasted emissions
estimated by NEMS–BT at each
efficiency level and the AEO 2011
Reference case, which incorporates
projected effects of all emissions
regulations promulgated as of January
31, 2011. NEMS–BT tracks CO2
emissions using a detailed module that
provides results with broad coverage of
all sectors and inclusion of interactive
52 EIA approves the use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ to
describe only an AEO version of the model without
any modification to code or data. Because the
present analysis entails some minor code
modifications and runs the model under various
policy scenarios that deviate from AEO
assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the
model as used here. (BT stands for DOE’s Building
Technologies Program.)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
effects. For today’s NOPR, DOE used the
version of NEMS–BT based on AEO
2011. For the final rule, DOE intends to
revise the emissions analysis using the
most current version of NEMS–BT,
which may be based on AEO 2012.
SO2 emissions from affected electric
generating units (EGUs) are subject to
nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs, and DOE has
preliminarily determined that these
programs create uncertainty about the
impact of energy conservation standards
on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean
Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on
SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48
contiguous States and the District of
Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28
eastern States and DC are also limited
under the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)),
which created an allowance-based
trading program. Although CAIR was
remanded to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) (see North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir.
2008)), it remained in effect temporarily,
consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s earlier
opinion in North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 6,
2010, EPA issued the Transport Rule
proposal, a replacement for CAIR (75 FR
45210 (Aug. 2, 2010)), and on July 6,
2011, EPA issued the final Transport
Rule, titled the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (See
https://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/).
Because the AEO 2011 NEMS used for
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Compliance date for
adopting more-stringent efficiency levels
than those in
ASHRAE standard
90.1–2010 (no later
than)
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
2012
2013
2013
2012
2013
2013
2012
2013
2013
2012
2013
2013
2012
2013
2013
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
2017.
today’s NOPR assumes the
implementation of CAIR, DOE has not
been able to take into account the effects
of the Transport Rule for this
rulemaking.53
The attainment of emissions caps
typically is flexible among EGUs and is
enforced through the use of emissions
allowances and tradable permits. Under
existing EPA regulations, any excess
SO2 emissions allowances resulting
from the lower electricity demand
caused by the imposition of an energy
conservation standard could be used to
permit offsetting increases in SO2
emissions by any regulated EGU.
However, if the new and amended
standards resulted in a permanent
increase in the quantity of unused
emissions allowances, there would be
an overall reduction in SO2 emissions
from the standards. While there remains
some uncertainty about the ultimate
effects of energy conservation standards
on SO2 emissions covered by the
existing cap-and-trade system, the
NEMS–BT modeling system that DOE
uses to forecast emissions reductions
currently indicates that no physical
reductions in power sector emissions
would occur for SO2.
As discussed above, the AEO 2011
NEMS used for today’s NOPR assumes
the implementation of CAIR, which
established a cap on NOX emissions in
28 eastern States and the District of
Columbia. With CAIR in effect, the
53 DOE notes that future iterations of the NEMS–
BT model will incorporate any changes necessitated
by issuance of the Transport Rule.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
energy conservation standards that are
the subject of today’s NOPR are
expected to have little or no physical
effect on NOX emissions in those States
covered by CAIR, for the same reasons
that they may have little effect on SO2
emissions. However, the proposed
standards would be expected to reduce
NOX emissions in the 22 States not
affected by CAIR. For these 22 States,
DOE is using the NEMS–BT to estimate
NOX emissions reductions from the
standards considered in today’s NOPR.
In the absence of caps, a DOE energy
conservation standard could reduce Hg
emissions, and DOE used NEMS–BT to
estimate these reductions. Although at
present there are no national, Federally
binding regulations for mercury from
EGUs, on March 16, 2011, EPA
proposed national emissions standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs)
for mercury and certain other pollutants
emitted from coal and oil-fired EGUs. 76
FR 24976. The NESHAPs do not include
a trading program and, as such, DOE’s
energy conservation standards would
likely reduce Hg emissions. However,
for the emissions analysis for this
rulemaking, DOE estimated mercury
emissions reductions using NEMS–BT
based on AEO2011, which does not
incorporate the NESHAPs. DOE expects
that future versions of the NEMS–BT
model will reflect the implementation of
the NESHAPs.
B. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and
Other Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of this
proposed rule, DOE considered the
estimated monetary benefits likely to
result from the reduced emissions of
CO2 and NOX that are expected to result
from each of the considered efficiency
levels. In order to make this calculation
similar to the calculation of the NPV of
customer benefit, DOE considered the
reduced emissions expected to result
over the lifetime of products shipped in
the forecast period for each efficiency
level. This section summarizes the basis
for the monetary values used for each of
these emissions and presents the values
considered in this rulemaking.
For today’s NOPR, DOE is relying on
a set of values for the social cost of
carbon (SCC) that was developed by an
interagency process. A summary of the
basis for those values is provided below,
and a more detailed description of the
methodologies used is provided as an
appendix to chapter 10 of the NOPR
TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive
Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
agencies must, to the extent permitted
by law, assess both the costs and the
benefits of the intended regulation and,
recognizing that some costs and benefits
are difficult to quantify, propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs. The
purpose of the SCC estimates presented
here is to allow agencies to incorporate
the monetized social benefits of
reducing CO2 emissions into costbenefit analyses of regulatory actions
that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ impacts
on cumulative global emissions. The
estimates are presented with an
acknowledgement of the many
uncertainties involved and with a clear
understanding that they should be
updated over time to reflect increasing
knowledge of the science and
economics of climate impacts.
As part of the interagency process that
developed the SCC estimates, technical
experts from numerous agencies met on
a regular basis to consider public
comments, explore the technical
literature in relevant fields, and discuss
key model inputs and assumptions. The
main objective of this process was to
develop a range of SCC values using a
defensible set of input assumptions
grounded in the existing scientific and
economic literatures. In this way, key
uncertainties and model differences
transparently and consistently inform
the range of SCC estimates used in the
rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
The SCC is an estimate of the
monetized damages associated with an
incremental increase in carbon
emissions in a given year. It is intended
to include (but is not limited to) changes
in net agricultural productivity, human
health, property damages from
increased flood risk, and the value of
ecosystem services. Estimates of the
SCC are provided in dollars per metric
ton of carbon dioxide.
When attempting to assess the
incremental economic impacts of carbon
dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a
number of serious challenges. A recent
report from the National Research
Council 54 points out that any
assessment will suffer from uncertainty,
speculation, and lack of information
about: (1) Future emissions of
greenhouse gases; (2) the effects of past
and future emissions on the climate
system; (3) the impact of changes in
climate on the physical and biological
54 National Research Council, ‘‘Hidden Costs of
Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy
Production and Use,’’ National Academies Press:
Washington, DC (2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2399
environment; and (4) the translation of
these environmental impacts into
economic damages. As a result, any
effort to quantify and monetize the
harms associated with climate change
will raise serious questions of science,
economics, and ethics and should be
viewed as provisional.
Despite the serious limits of both
quantification and monetization, SCC
estimates can be useful in estimating the
social benefits of reducing carbon
dioxide emissions. Consistent with the
directive in Executive Order 12866
discussed above, the purpose of the SCC
estimates presented here is to make it
possible for agencies to incorporate the
social benefits from reducing carbon
dioxide emissions into cost-benefit
analyses of regulatory actions that have
small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ impacts on
cumulative global emissions. Most
Federal regulatory actions can be
expected to have marginal impacts on
global emissions.
For such policies, the agency can
estimate the benefits from reduced (or
costs from increased) emissions in any
future year by multiplying the change in
emissions in that year by the SCC value
appropriate for that year. The net
present value of the benefits can then be
calculated by multiplying each of these
future benefits by an appropriate
discount factor and summing across all
affected years. This approach assumes
that the marginal damages from
increased emissions are constant for
small departures from the baseline
emissions path, an approximation that
is reasonable for policies that have
effects on emissions that are small
relative to cumulative global carbon
dioxide emissions. For policies that
have a large (non-marginal) impact on
global cumulative emissions, there is a
separate question of whether the SCC is
an appropriate tool for calculating the
benefits of reduced emissions. This
concern is not applicable to this notice,
and DOE does not attempt to answer
that question here.
At the time of the preparation of this
notice, the most recent interagency
estimates of the potential global benefits
resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in
2010, expressed in 2010$, were $4.9,
$22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton
avoided. For emissions reductions that
occur in later years, these values grow
in real terms over time. Additionally,
the interagency group determined that a
range of values from 7 percent to 23
percent should be used to adjust the
global SCC to calculate domestic
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2400
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
effects,55 although preference is given to
consideration of the global benefits of
reducing CO2 emissions.
It is important to emphasize that the
interagency process is committed to
updating these estimates as the science
and economic understanding of climate
change and its impacts on society
improves over time. Specifically, the
interagency group has set a preliminary
goal of revisiting the SCC values within
2 years or at such time as substantially
updated models become available, and
to continue to support research in this
area. In the meantime, the interagency
group will continue to explore the
issues raised by this analysis and
consider public comments as part of the
ongoing interagency process.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in
Past Regulatory Analyses
To date, economic analyses for
Federal regulations have used a wide
range of values to estimate the benefits
associated with reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. In the model year 2011 CAFE
final rule, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) used both a
‘‘domestic’’ SCC value of $2 per ton of
CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of $33 per
ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions
(in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4
percent per year. It also included a
sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of
CO2. See Average Fuel Economy
Standards Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 FR 14196
(March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final
Environmental Impact Statement
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90
(Oct. 2008) (Available at: https://
www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A
domestic SCC value is meant to reflect
the value of damages in the United
States resulting from a unit change in
carbon dioxide emissions, while a
global SCC value is meant to reflect the
value of damages worldwide.
A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT
assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per
ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission
reductions (with a range of $0 to $14 for
sensitivity analysis), also increasing at
2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel
Economy Standards, Passenger Cars
and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011–
55 It is recognized that this calculation for
domestic values is approximate, provisional, and
highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why
domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of
net global damages over time.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008)
(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental
Impact Statement Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2011–2015 at 3–58 (June 2008)
(Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/
fuel-economy). A regulation for
packaged terminal air conditioners and
packaged terminal heat pumps finalized
by DOE in October of 2008 used a
domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton
CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in
2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7,
2008). In addition, EPA’s 2008 Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the Clean Air Act identified what
it described as ‘‘very preliminary’’ SCC
estimates subject to revision. 73 FR
44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA’s global
mean values were $68 and $40 per ton
CO2 for discount rates of approximately
2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in
2006$ for 2007 emissions).
In 2009, an interagency process was
initiated to offer a preliminary
assessment of how best to quantify the
benefits from reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. To ensure consistency in
how benefits are evaluated across
agencies, the Administration sought to
develop a transparent and defensible
method, specifically designed for the
rulemaking process, to quantify avoided
climate change damages from reduced
CO2 emissions. The interagency group
did not undertake any original analysis.
Instead, it combined SCC estimates from
the existing literature to use as interim
values until a more comprehensive
analysis could be conducted. The
outcome of the preliminary assessment
by the interagency group was a set of
five interim values: global SCC
estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55,
$33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2.
These interim values represent the first
sustained interagency effort within the
U.S. government to develop an SCC for
use in regulatory analysis. The results of
this preliminary effort were presented in
several proposed and final rules and
were offered for public comment in
connection with proposed rules,
including the joint EPA–DOT fuel
economy and CO2 tailpipe emission
proposed rules.
c. Current Approach and Key
Assumptions
Since the release of the interim
values, the interagency group
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reconvened on a regular basis to
generate improved SCC estimates,
which were considered for this
proposed rule. Specifically, the group
considered public comments and
further explored the technical literature
in relevant fields. The interagency group
relied on three integrated assessment
models (IAMs) commonly used to
estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and
PAGE models.56 These models are
frequently cited in the peer-reviewed
literature and were used in the last
assessment of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Each model
was given equal weight in the SCC
values that were developed.
Each model takes a slightly different
approach to model how changes in
emissions result in changes in economic
damages. A key objective of the
interagency process was to enable a
consistent exploration of the three
models while respecting the different
approaches to quantifying damages
taken by the key modelers in the field.
An extensive review of the literature
was conducted to select three sets of
input parameters for these models:
climate sensitivity, socio-economic and
emissions trajectories, and discount
rates. A probability distribution for
climate sensitivity was specified as an
input into all three models. In addition,
the interagency group used a range of
scenarios for the socio-economic
parameters and a range of values for the
discount rate. All other model features
were left unchanged, relying on the
model developers’ best estimates and
judgments.
The interagency group selected four
SCC values for use in regulatory
analyses. Three values are based on the
average SCC from three integrated
assessment models, at discount rates of
2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent.
The fourth value, which represents the
95th-percentile SCC estimate across all
three models at a 3-percent discount
rate, is included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature
change further out in the tails of the
SCC distribution. For emissions (or
emission reductions) that occur in later
years, these values grow in real terms
over time, as depicted in Table VII.1.
56 The models are described in appendix 15–A of
the NOPR TSD.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2401
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VII.1—SOCIAL COST OF CO2, 2010–2050
[In 2007 dollars per metric ton]
Discount rate (%)
Year
3
2.5
3
Average
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
5
Average
Average
95th percentile
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
4.7
5.7
6.8
8.2
9.7
11.2
12.7
14.2
15.7
21.4
23.8
26.3
29.6
32.8
36.0
39.2
42.1
44.9
35.1
38.4
41.7
45.9
50.0
54.2
58.4
61.7
65.0
64.9
72.8
80.7
90.4
100.0
109.7
119.3
127.8
136.2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
It is important to recognize that a
number of key uncertainties remain, and
that current SCC estimates should be
treated as provisional and revisable
since they will evolve with improved
scientific and economic understanding.
The interagency group also recognizes
that the existing models are imperfect
and incomplete. The National Research
Council report mentioned above points
out that there is tension between the
goal of producing quantified estimates
of the economic damages from an
incremental ton of carbon and the limits
of existing efforts to model these effects.
There are a number of concerns and
problems that should be addressed by
the research community, including
research programs housed in many of
the Federal agencies participating in the
interagency process to estimate the SCC.
DOE recognizes the uncertainties
embedded in the estimates of the SCC
used for cost-benefit analyses. As such,
DOE and others in the U.S. Government
intend to periodically review and
reconsider those estimates to reflect
increasing knowledge of the science and
economics of climate impacts, as well as
improvements in modeling. In this
context, statements recognizing the
limitations of the analysis and calling
for further research take on exceptional
significance.
In summary, in considering the
potential global benefits resulting from
reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the
most recent values identified by the
interagency process, adjusted to 2010$
using the GDP price deflator. For each
of the four cases specified, the values
used for emissions in 2010 were $4.9,
$22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton
avoided (values expressed in 2010$).57
To monetize the CO2 emissions
reductions expected to result from new
or amended standards for the product
classes in today’s NOPR, DOE used the
values identified in Table A1 of the
‘‘Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order
12866,’’ which is reprinted in appendix
16–A of the NOPR TSD, appropriately
escalated to 2010$. To calculate a
present value of the stream of monetary
values, DOE discounted the values in
each of the four cases using the specific
discount rate that had been used to
obtain the SCC values in each case.
accordance with OMB guidance, DOE
conducted two calculations of the
monetary benefits derived using each of
the economic values used for NOX, one
using a real discount rate of 3 percent
and the other using a real discount rate
of 7 percent.59
DOE is aware of multiple agency
efforts to determine the appropriate
range of values used in evaluating the
potential economic benefits of reduced
Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await
further guidance regarding consistent
valuation and reporting of Hg emissions
before it once again monetizes Hg in its
rulemakings.
2. Valuation of Other Emissions
Reductions
DOE investigated the potential
monetary benefit of reduced NOX
emissions from the efficiency levels it
considered. As noted above, DOE has
taken into account how new or
amended energy conservation standards
would reduce NOX emissions in those
22 States not affected by the CAIR. DOE
estimated the monetized value of NOX
emissions reductions resulting from
each of the efficiency levels considered
for today’s NOPR based on
environmental damage estimates found
in the relevant scientific literature.
Available estimates suggest a very wide
range of monetary values, ranging from
$370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX
from stationary sources, measured in
2001$ (equivalent to a range of $450 to
$4,623 per ton in 2010$).58 In
A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
57 Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050.
For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050
using the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by
the interagency group.
58 For additional information, refer to U.S. Office
of Management and Budget, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on
the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and
Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities, Washington, DC.
59 OMB, Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept.
17, 2003).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
VIII. Analytical Results
1. Water-Cooled and EvaporativelyCooled Products
The methodology for water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled products was
presented in the May 2011 NODA. 76
FR 25622, 25637–40 (May 5, 2011).
Table VIII.1 presents the baseline
efficiency level and the higher
efficiency levels analyzed for each
equipment class of water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled products subject to
today’s proposed rule. The baseline
efficiency levels correspond to the
lowest efficiency levels currently
available on the market. The efficiency
levels above the baseline represent
efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 and higher
efficiency levels where equipment is
currently available on the market.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2402
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.1—EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED PRODUCTS
Efficiency
levels
analyzed
(EER)
Representative
capacity
(tons)
Equipment class
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners Electric or No Heat ≥65,000–<135,000 Btu/h .................................
8
Baseline—11.5
ASHRAE—12.1
13.0
14.0
15.0
Max-Tech—16.4
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other Heat, ≥65,000–<135,000 Btu/h ............................................
8
Baseline—11.3
ASHRAE—11.9
13.0
14.0
15.0
Max-Tech—16. 4
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric or No Heat, ≥135,000–<240,000 Btu/h .............................
15
Baseline—11.0
ASHRAE—12.5
13.0
14.0
15.0
Max-Tech—16.1
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other Heat, ≥135,000–<240,000 Btu/h ..........................................
15
Baseline—11.0
ASHRAE—12.3
13.0
14.0
15.0
Max-Tech—16.1
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric or No Heat, ≥240,000–<760,000 Btu/h ....................
35
Baseline—11.0
ASHRAE—12.4
13.0
14.0
Max-Tech—14.8
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other Heat, ≥240,000–<760,000 Btu/h .................................
35
Baseline—10.8
ASHRAE—12.2
13.0
14.0
Max-Tech—14.8
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioner, Electric or No Heat, ≥240,000–<760,000 Btu/h ..........
40
Baseline—11.0
ASHRAE—11.9
12.5
Max-Tech—13.1
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioner, Other Heat, ≥240,000–<760,000 Btu/h .......................
40
Baseline—10.8
ASHRAE—11.7
12.5
Max-Tech—13.1
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table VIII.2 presents the baseline
efficiency level and the higher
efficiency levels analyzed for each
equipment class of VRF water-source
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
heat pumps subject to today’s proposed
rule and with equipment on the market.
The baseline efficiency levels
correspond to the lowest efficiency
levels currently available on the market.
The efficiency levels above the baseline
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
represent efficiency levels specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and
higher efficiency levels where
equipment is currently available on the
market.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
2403
TABLE VIII.2—EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS
Representative
capacity
kBtu/h
Equipment class
Efficiency
levels
analyzed
(EER)
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps, ≥135,000 Btu/h without heat recovery ...................................................
242
Baseline—9.5
ASHRAE—10
11
12
13
Max-Tech—14.5
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps, ≥135,000 Btu/h with heat recovery ........................................................
215
Baseline—9.5
ASHRAE—9.8
11
12
13
Max-Tech—14.5
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
Table VIII.3 presents the market
baseline efficiency level and the higher
efficiency levels analyzed for each
equipment class of computer room air
conditioners subject to today’s proposed
rule. The market baseline efficiency
levels correspond to the lowest
efficiency levels currently available on
the market. The efficiency levels above
the baseline represent efficiency levels
specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 and efficiency levels above those
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 where equipment is currently
available on the market. Note that for
the economic analysis, efficiency levels
above those specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 are compared to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 as the
baseline rather than the market baseline.
TABLE VIII.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
Representative
capacity
kBtu/h
Equipment class
Efficiency
levels
analyzed
(SCOP–127)
40
Market Baseline—
2.00
ASHRAE—2.20
2.40
2.60
Max-Tech—2.80
Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .............................................................................
100
Market Baseline—
2.10
ASHRAE—2.10
2.35
2.60
2.85
Max-Tech—3.10
Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ................................................................................................
280
Market Baseline—
1.90
ASHRAE—1.90
2.15
2.40
2.65
Max-Tech—2.90
Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .............................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................................
30
Market Baseline—
2.40
ASHRAE—2.60
2.80
3.00
3.10
Max-Tech—3.30
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2404
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued
Representative
capacity
kBtu/h
Equipment class
Efficiency
levels
analyzed
(SCOP–127)
106
Market Baseline—
2.30
ASHRAE—2.50
2.70
2.90
3.10
Max-Tech—3.30
Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...........................................................................................
260
Market Baseline—
2.20
ASHRAE—2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Max-Tech—3.20
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................................
30
Market Baseline—
2.35
ASHRAE—2.55
2.75
2.95
3.15
Max-Tech—3.35
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ...................................
118
Market Baseline—
2.25
ASHRAE—2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
Max-Tech—3.25
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ......................................................
280
Market Baseline—
2.15
ASHRAE—2.35
2.55
2.75
2.95
Max-Tech—3.15
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................................................
32
Market Baseline—
2.30
ASHRAE—2.50
2.70
2.90
3.10
Max-Tech—3.30
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ........................................................................
100
Market Baseline—
1.95
ASHRAE—2.15
2.35
2.55
2.75
Max-Tech—2.95
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...........................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ........................................................................
260
Market Baseline—
1.90
ASHRAE—2.10
2.30
2.50
2.70
Max-Tech—2.90
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2405
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued
Representative
capacity
kBtu/h
Equipment class
Efficiency
levels
analyzed
(SCOP–127)
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h .......................................................
20
Market Baseline—
2.25
ASHRAE—2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
Max-Tech—3.25
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ...................................
118
Market Baseline—
1.90
ASHRAE—2.10
2.30
2.50
2.70
Max-Tech—2.90
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ......................................................
280
Market Baseline—
1.85
ASHRAE—2.05
2.25
2.45
2.65
Max-Tech—2.85
B. Energy Savings and Economic
Justification
1. Water-Cooled and EvaporativelyCooled Equipment
DOE estimated the potential primary
energy savings in quads (i.e., 1015 Btu)
for each efficiency level considered
within each equipment class analyzed.
Table VIII.4 to Table VIII.11 show the
potential energy savings resulting from
the analyses conducted as part of the
May 2011 NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25637
(May 5, 2011). As mentioned in section
IV.B.1 and IV.B.2, DOE did not conduct
an economic analysis for this equipment
category, because of the minimal energy
savings.
TABLE VIII.4—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 VIII.5—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate * (quads)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Efficiency level
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
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2406
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.6—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 VIII.7—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 VIII.8—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 ...................................................................................................................
Shipments
fixed to 2009
0.0002
0.0001
0.0005
0.0008
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 VIII.9—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER
HEAT
Primary energy savings
estimate * (quads)
Efficiency level
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2407
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.10—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 VIII.11—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH
OTHER 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.
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
DOE estimated the potential primary
energy savings in quads (i.e., 1015 Btu)
for each efficiency level considered
within the two equipment classes of
VRF water-source heat pumps at or
greater than 135,000 Btu/h. Table
VIII.12 and Table VIII.13 show the
potential energy savings resulting from
the analyses conducted as part of
today’s NOPR (see section V). Because
there appear to be no models on the
market below ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 levels, there are no energy savings
from adopting ASHRAE. However, there
are also extremely minimal energy
savings from adopting a higher
standard. As mentioned in section
IV.B.3, DOE did not conduct an
economic analysis for this equipment
category.
TABLE VIII.12—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS >135,000 BTU/H WITHOUT HEAT
RECOVERY
Primary
energy savings
estimate *
(quads)
Efficiency level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—ASHRAE—10.0 EER ........................................................................................................................................................
2—11 EER .............................................................................................................................................................................
3—12 EER .............................................................................................................................................................................
4—13 EER .............................................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—14.5 EER ...................................................................................................................................................
............................
0.0009
0.0174
0.0416
0.0761
* 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 VIII.13—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS >135,000 BTU/H WITH HEAT
RECOVERY
Primary
energy savings
estimate *
(quads)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Efficiency level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1—ASHRAE—9.8 EER ..........................................................................................................................................................
2—11 EER .............................................................................................................................................................................
3—12 EER .............................................................................................................................................................................
4—13 EER .............................................................................................................................................................................
5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—14.5 EER ...................................................................................................................................................
............................
0.0008
0.0083
0.0195
0.0358
* 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
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2408
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Economic Impacts on Commercial
Customers
i. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
To evaluate the economic impact of
the efficiency levels on commercial
customers, DOE conducted an LCC
analysis for each efficiency level. Moreefficient computer room air conditioners
would affect these customers in two
ways: (1) Annual operating expense
would decrease; and (2) purchase price
would increase. Inputs used for
calculating the LCC include total
installed costs (i.e., equipment price
plus installation costs), operating
expenses (i.e., annual energy savings,
energy prices, energy price trends,
repair costs, and maintenance costs),
equipment lifetime, and discount rates.
The output of the LCC model is a
mean LCC savings (or cost 60) for each
equipment class, relative to the baseline
computer room air conditioner
efficiency level. The LCC analysis also
provides information on the percentage
of customers that are negatively affected
by an increase in the minimum
efficiency standard.
DOE also performed a PBP analysis as
part of the LCC analysis. The PBP is the
number of years it would take for the
customer to recover the increased costs
of higher-efficiency equipment as a
result of energy savings based on the
operating cost savings. The PBP is an
economic benefit-cost measure that uses
benefits and costs without discounting.
Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides
detailed information on the LCC and
PBP analyses.
DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses
provided five key outputs for each
efficiency level above the baseline (i.e.,
efficiency levels more stringent than
those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010),
as reported in Table VIII.14 through
Table VIII.23 below. These outputs
include the proportion of computer
room air conditioner purchases in
which the purchase of a computer room
air conditioner that is compliant with
the amended energy conservation
standard creates a net LCC increase, no
impact, or a net LCC savings for the
customer. Another output is the average
net LCC savings from standardcompliant equipment, as well as the
average PBP for the customer
investment in standard-compliant
equipment.
TABLE VIII.14—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AIR-COOLED, <65,000
BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Discounted
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
11,982
13,471
15,222
17,281
19,700
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
32,039
29,822
28,140
26,756
25,623
44,021
43,294
43,362
44,037
45,323
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
......................
809
212
(587)
(1,761)
....................
3
17
65
90
....................
89
68
23
5
....................
8
14
12
6
....................
8.5
10.2
12.1
14.5
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
TABLE VIII.15—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AIR-COOLED, ≥65,000 TO
<240,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Baseline ...........................
1 .......................................
2 .......................................
3 .......................................
4 .......................................
Installed
cost
Discounted
operating
cost
39,412
41,651
44,063
46,664
49,467
121,532
110,885
102,936
96,523
91,289
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
160,945
152,536
146,999
143,187
140,756
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
....................
9,334
6,406
5,895
6,437
....................
0
0
0
1
....................
98
78
33
2
....................
2
22
67
97
....................
2.6
3.0
3.5
4.0
TABLE VIII.16—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AIR-COOLED, ≥240,000
BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Efficiency level
Baseline ...........................
1 .......................................
2 .......................................
3 .......................................
4 .......................................
Installed
cost
Discounted
operating
cost
56,879
60,102
63,577
67,322
71,358
286,458
258,403
237,739
221,326
208,099
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
343,337
318,505
301,316
288,648
279,458
% of consumers that experience
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
....................
27,198
19,713
19,071
22,152
....................
0
0
0
0
....................
98
78
33
2
....................
2
22
67
98
....................
1.4
1.7
1.9
2.2
60 An LCC cost is shown as a negative savings in
the results presented.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Payback
period
(years)
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
2409
TABLE VIII.17—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED, <65,000
BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
Baseline ...........................
1 .......................................
2 .......................................
3 .......................................
4 .......................................
23,748
20,311
17,527
15,273
13,447
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
Discounted
operating
cost
LCC
29,266
27,237
25,621
24,215
22,984
53,014
47,548
43,148
39,488
36,430
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
....................
5,455
7,389
8,003
10,213
....................
0
0
0
0
....................
72
49
13
3
....................
28
51
87
97
....................
(21.5)
(20.9)
(20.3)
(19.7)
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.
TABLE VIII.18—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED, ≥65,000
TO <240,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
Baseline ...........................
1 .......................................
2 .......................................
3 .......................................
4 .......................................
22,983
28,614
36,183
46,355
60,027
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
Discounted
operating
cost
LCC
109,615
104,631
101,867
100,831
101,734
132,598
133,245
138,049
147,186
161,761
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
....................
(672)
(5,118)
(12,844)
(25,278)
....................
20
54
79
96
....................
72
42
20
4
....................
8
4
1
0
....................
15.4
22.4
35.9
64.6
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
TABLE VIII.19—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED,
≥240,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
42,217
52,902
67,262
86,562
112,498
Discounted
operating
cost
239,903
227,027
219,010
214,580
214,030
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
282,120
279,929
286,272
301,142
326,528
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
......................
2,133
(5,292)
(18,696)
(40,964)
....................
13
49
77
96
....................
72
42
20
4
....................
15
9
3
0
....................
11.1
15.4
22.4
36.0
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
TABLE VIII.20—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED WITH FLUID ECONOMIZERS,
<65,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
25,059
21,422
18,476
16,090
14,158
Discounted
operating
cost
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
19,565
18,442
17,541
16,763
16,086
44,624
39,864
36,017
32,853
30,244
% of consumers that experience
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
....................
4,759
6,459
6,960
8,832
....................
0
0
0
0
....................
72
49
13
3
....................
28
51
87
97
......................
(40.3)
(39.3)
(38.3)
(37.3)
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Payback
period
(years)
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2410
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.21—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED WITH
FLUID ECONOMIZERS, ≥65,000 TO <240,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
24,169
30,129
38,138
48,903
63,372
Discounted
operating
cost
73,475
71,967
71,937
73,290
76,298
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
97,645
102,095
110,075
122,193
139,669
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
....................
(4,439)
(10,105)
(19,437)
(33,672)
....................
25
58
80
96
....................
72
42
20
4
....................
3
0
0
0
......................
41.5
34.1
(66.1)
(75.0)
* Numbers in parentheses indicate either negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs.
TABLE VIII.22—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED WITH
FLUID ECONOMIZERS, ≥240,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
44,469
55,777
70,973
91,397
118,844
Discounted
operating
cost
157,416
152,704
151,095
152,234
156,568
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
201,886
208,481
222,068
243,631
275,412
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
....................
(6,568)
(16,717)
(33,664)
(59,831)
....................
25
57
80
96
....................
72
42
20
4
....................
3
1
0
0
......................
30.5
40.7
43.1
(57.8)
* Numbers in parentheses indicate either negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs.
TABLE VIII.23—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED,
<65,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
24,353
20,916
18,132
15,878
14,052
Discounted
operating
cost
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
29,757
27,643
25,962
24,509
23,241
54,110
48,559
44,094
40,387
37,293
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
....................
5,540
7,501
8,117
10,350
....................
0
0
0
0
....................
72
49
13
3
....................
28
51
87
97
......................
(20.2)
(19.7)
(19.2)
(18.6)
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.
TABLE VIII.24—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED,
≥65,000 TO <240,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
24,377
30,001
37,559
47,717
61,368
Discounted
operating
cost
123,088
116,846
113,489
112,428
113,891
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
147,465
146,847
151,048
160,145
175,258
% of consumers that experience
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
......................
594
(3,901)
(11,921)
(25,047)
....................
15
52
78
96
....................
72
42
20
4
....................
13
6
2
0
....................
11.9
17.8
29.1
50.4
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Payback
period
(years)
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2411
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.25—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED,
≥240,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Discounted
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
42,217
52,902
67,262
86,562
112,498
266,128
250,960
242,073
238,019
239,151
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
308,345
303,862
309,336
324,581
351,650
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
......................
4,429
(3,308)
(17,633)
(41,761)
....................
10
44
76
95
....................
72
42
20
4
....................
18
14
4
1
....................
9.2
13.2
20.2
35.1
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
TABLE VIII.26—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED WITH FLUID
ECONOMIZERS, <65,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Discounted
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
25,664
22,027
19,081
16,695
14,763
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
24,815
23,156
21,851
20,727
19,751
50,479
45,183
40,932
37,422
34,514
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
......................
5,295
7,159
7,717
9,808
....................
0
0
0
0
....................
72
49
13
3
....................
28
51
87
97
....................
(28.2)
(27.6)
(26.9)
(26.3)
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.
TABLE VIII.27—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED WITH
FLUID ECONOMIZERS, ≥65,000 TO <240,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Discounted
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
25,563
31,514
39,512
50,261
64,708
102,580
98,451
96,813
97,235
99,990
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
128,143
129,965
136,325
147,496
164,697
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
......................
(1,802)
(7,200)
(16,388)
(30,857)
....................
23
55
79
96
....................
72
42
20
4
....................
5
3
1
0
....................
21.0
33.4
40.8
22.4
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
TABLE VIII.28—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED WITH
FLUID ECONOMIZERS, ≥240,000 BTU/H
Life-cycle cost (2011$)
Efficiency level
Discounted
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline ...........................
1 .......................................
2 .......................................
3 .......................................
4 .......................................
44,469
55,777
70,973
91,397
118,844
220,328
209,958
204,967
204,265
208,311
Life-cycle cost savings (2011$)
LCC
264,797
265,735
275,941
295,662
327,156
% of consumers that experience
Payback
period
(years)
Average
savings
Net cost
No impact
Net benefit
Median
....................
(891)
(10,569)
(27,375)
(54,306)
....................
21
53
77
95
....................
72
42
20
4
....................
7
5
3
1
....................
15.4
23.3
32.3
34.8
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
b. National Impact Analysis
i. Amount and Significance of Energy
Savings
To estimate the energy savings
through 2041 or 2042 due to amended
energy conservation standards, DOE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
compared the energy consumption of
computer room air conditioners under
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
efficiency levels to energy consumption
of computer room air conditioners
under higher efficiency standards. DOE
also compared the energy consumption
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of computer room air conditioners
under the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
efficiency levels to energy consumption
of computer room air conditioners
under the current market base case. DOE
examined up to four efficiency levels
higher than those of ASHRAE Standard
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2412
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
90.1–2010. Table VIII.29 shows the
forecasted national energy savings at
each of the considered standard levels.
(See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.) As
mentioned in section VI.B, DOE
adjusted the efficiency rating (SCOP)
upward for all upflow units in order to
analyze the energy savings from only 15
classes of computer room air
conditioners, with upflow and
downflow units combined.
TABLE VIII.29—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
[Energy savings for units sold from 2012 to 2041 or 2013 to 2042]
National energy savings (quads) *
Equipment class
ASHRAE
level
Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .............................................
Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <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 to <240,000 Btu/h ....................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h .......................................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to
<240,000 Btu/h .....................................................................................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ..
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ....................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ......................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to
<240,000 Btu/h .....................................................................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h
Efficiency
level 1
Efficiency
level 2
Efficiency
level 3
Efficiency
level 4
0.00018
¥**
¥**
0.00003
0.0009
0.0008
0.00001
0.0006
0.006
0.004
0.0001
0.0088
0.0079
0.00004
0.0021
0.059
0.034
0.0003
0.0246
0.0220
0.00011
0.0052
0.196
0.112
0.0007
0.0435
0.0388
0.00021
0.0086
0.364
0.206
0.0010
0.0634
0.0565
0.00031
0.0004
0.0002
0.00003
0.001
0.0008
0.00002
0.0038
0.0016
0.00013
0.011
0.0080
0.0001
0.0106
0.0043
0.00033
0.031
0.0220
0.0002
0.0187
0.0076
0.00063
0.054
0.0384
0.0005
0.0273
0.0111
0.00092
0.078
0.0554
0.0007
0.001
0.0005
0.010
0.0054
0.027
0.0147
0.047
0.0257
0.067
0.0369
* All energy savings from efficiency levels above ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 are calculated with those ASHRAE levels as a baseline.
** For these equipment classes, no models were identified below the efficiency levels shown in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, so there are no
energy savings for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels.
ii. Net Present Value
The NPV analysis is a measure of the
cumulative benefit or cost of standards
to the Nation. In accordance with
OMB’s guidelines on regulatory analysis
(OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17,
2003)), DOE calculated NPV using both
a 7-percent and a 3-percent real
discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an
estimate of the average before-tax rate of
return on private capital in the U.S.
economy, and reflects the returns to real
estate and small business capital, as
well as corporate capital. DOE used this
discount rate to approximate the
opportunity cost of capital in the private
sector, because recent OMB analysis has
found the average rate of return on
capital to be near this rate. DOE also
used the 3-percent rate to capture the
potential effects of standards on private
customers’ consumption (e.g., reduced
purchasing of equipment due to higher
prices for equipment and purchase of
reduced amounts of energy). This rate
represents the rate at which society
discounts future consumption flows to
their present value. This rate can be
approximated by the real rate of return
on long-term government debt (e.g.,
yield on Treasury notes minus annual
rate of change in the Consumer Price
Index), which has averaged about 3
percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 30
years. Table VIII.30 and Table VIII.31
provide an overview of the NPV results.
(See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for
further detail.)
TABLE VIII.30—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
[Discounted at seven percent]
Net present value (billion 2011$)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Equipment class
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Efficiency
level 1
($)
air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .............................................................
air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .........................................
air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...........................................................
water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................................
water-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ....................................
water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h .......................................................
water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...................
water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h
water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ..................
glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................................
glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ....................................
glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ......................................................
glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...................
glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Efficiency
level 2
($)
0.0003
0.01
0.01
0.001
(0.008)
(0.001)
0.001
(0.02)
(0.005)
0.001
(0.003)
0.002
0.001
(0.01)
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
(0.0005)
0.10
0.07
0.003
(0.053)
(0.026)
0.002
(0.08)
(0.023)
0.003
(0.044)
(0.017)
0.003
(0.08)
17JAP2
Efficiency
level 3
($)
(0.0060)
0.29
0.22
0.006
(0.166)
(0.097)
0.003
(0.20)
(0.061)
0.006
(0.157)
(0.077)
0.005
(0.24)
Efficiency
level 4
($)
(0.0174)
0.44
0.37
0.009
(0.377)
(0.239)
0.005
(0.41)
(0.127)
0.008
(0.375)
(0.200)
0.008
(0.53)
2413
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.30—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued
[Discounted at seven percent]
Net present value (billion 2011$)
Equipment class
Efficiency
level 1
($)
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h .................
Efficiency
level 2
($)
(0.004)
Efficiency
level 3
($)
(0.031)
Efficiency
level 4
($)
(0.10)
(0.23)
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV.
TABLE VIII.31—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
(Discounted at three percent)
Net present value (Billion 2011$)
Equipment class
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
conditioners,
* Numbers
Efficiency
level 1
($)
air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .....................................................................
air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .................................................
air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...................................................................
water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................................
water-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ............................................
water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................................................
water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...........................
water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .......
water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ..........................
glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................................
glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ............................................
glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................................................
glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...........................
glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .......
glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h .........................
Efficiency
level 2
($)
0.001
0.03
0.02
0.003
(0.006)
0.006
0.001
(0.03)
(0.008)
0.002
0.004
0.01
0.002
(0.02)
(0.003)
0.002
0.26
0.18
0.006
(0.079)
(0.028)
0.003
(0.14)
(0.039)
0.006
(0.058)
(0.01)
0.006
(0.14)
(0.047)
Efficiency
level 3
($)
(0.004)
0.76
0.54
0.012
(0.280)
(0.150)
0.006
(0.37)
(0.110)
0.011
(0.258)
(0.12)
0.011
(0.43)
(0.17)
Efficiency
level 4
($)
(0.021)
1.25
0.93
0.017
(0.671)
(0.407)
0.009
(0.77)
(0.235)
0.016
(0.665)
(0.34)
0.015
(0.97)
(0.41)
in parentheses indicate negative NPV.
C. Need of the Nation to Conserve
Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where
economically justified, improves the
Nation’s energy security, strengthens the
economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts or costs of
energy production. Reduced electricity
demand from energy conservation
standards is also likely to reduce the
cost of maintaining the reliability of the
electricity system, particularly during
peak-load periods. As a measure of this
reduced demand, Table VIII.32 presents
the estimated reduction in generating
capacity in 2042 attributable to the
efficiency levels that DOE considered in
this rulemaking.
TABLE VIII.32—REDUCTION IN NATIONAL ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY IN 2042 UNDER EVALUATED EFFICIENCY
LEVELS
Efficiency level
ASHRAE
(baseline)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products .................................
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps .............................................................
Computer Room Air Conditioners ............................................................
Energy savings from standards for the
product classes covered in today’s
NOPR could also produce
environmental benefits in the form of
reduced emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases associated with
electricity production. Table VIII.33
provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative
CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions
projected to result from the efficiency
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
1
0.00
0.00
0.01
levels considered in this rulemaking.
DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg
emissions reductions for each efficiency
level in chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.
As discussed in section VII.A, DOE
did not report SO2 emissions reductions
from power plants because there is
uncertainty about the effect of energy
conservation standards on the overall
level of SO2 emissions in the United
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2
0.01
0.00
0.12
3
0.01
0.05
0.47
4
0.02
0.12
1.09
0.02
0.23
1.81
States due to SO2 emissions caps. DOE
also did not include NOX emissions
reduction from power plants in States
subject to CAIR, because an energy
conservation standard would not affect
the overall level of NOX emissions in
those States due to the emissions caps
mandated by CAIR.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2414
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.33—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR PRODUCT EFFICIENCY LEVELS
[Cumulative in 2012 or 2013 through 2042 or 2043]
Efficiency level
ASHRAE
(baseline)
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products:
CO2 (million metric tons) ..................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................................
Hg (tons) ...........................................................................................
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps:
CO2 (million metric tons) ..................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................................
Hg (tons) ...........................................................................................
Computer Room Air Conditioners:.
CO2 (million metric tons) ..........................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ...............................................................................
Hg (tons) ..................................................................................................
As part of the analysis for this
proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary
benefits likely to result from the
reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that
DOE estimated for each of the efficiency
levels considered. As discussed in
section VII.B, DOE used values for the
SCC developed by an interagency
process. The four values for CO2
emissions reductions resulting from that
process (expressed in 2010$) are $4.9/
ton (the average value from a
distribution that uses a 5-percent
1
2
3
4
0.10
0.08
0.001
0.10
0.08
0.001
0.25
0.21
0.003
0.36
0.30
0.004
0.37
0.31
0.004
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.05
0.04
0.001
0.82
0.68
0.009
1.96
1.60
0.022
3.58
2.93
0.040
0.18
0.14
0.001
2.14
1.76
0.023
8.06
6.62
0.087
18.7
15.4
0.203
31.1
25.6
0.337
discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average
value from a distribution that uses a 3percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the
average value from a distribution that
uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and
$67.6/ton (the 95th-percentile value
from a distribution that uses a 3-percent
discount rate). These values correspond
to the value of emission reductions in
2010; the values for later years are
higher due to increasing damages as the
magnitude of climate change increases.
Table VIII.34 presents the global value
of CO2 emissions reductions at each
efficiency level. For each of the four
cases, DOE calculated a present value of
the stream of annual values using the
same discount rate as was used in the
studies upon which the dollar-per-ton
values are based. DOE calculated
domestic values as a range from 7
percent to 23 percent of the global
values, and these results are presented
in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
TABLE VIII.34—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER PRODUCT EFFICIENCY
LEVELS
5% Discount rate,
average
Eff level
3% Discount rate,
average
2.5% Discount
rate, average
3% Discount rate,
95th percentile
Million 2011$
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products:
ASHRAE (baseline) ..........................................................
1 ........................................................................................
2 ........................................................................................
3 ........................................................................................
4 ........................................................................................
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps:
ASHRAE (baseline) ..........................................................
1 ........................................................................................
2 ........................................................................................
3 ........................................................................................
4 ........................................................................................
Computer Room Air Conditioners:
ASHRAE (baseline) ..........................................................
1 ........................................................................................
2 ........................................................................................
3 ........................................................................................
4 ........................................................................................
DOE is well aware that scientific and
economic knowledge about the
contribution of CO2 and other GHG
emissions to changes in the future
global climate and the potential
resulting damages to the world economy
continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any
value placed in this rulemaking on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
0.5
0.5
1.2
1.8
1.8
2.4
2.5
6.3
9.0
9.2
4.1
4.3
10.6
15.2
15.6
7.4
7.7
19.1
27.4
28.1
0.0
0.3
4.3
10.3
18.9
0.0
1.4
22.5
53.7
98.1
0.0
2.3
38.1
91.1
166.5
0.0
4.2
68.4
163.4
298.5
0.9
11.2
48.2
119.9
214.6
4.7
57.5
246.7
613.9
1099.0
7.9
97.4
417.5
1038.7
1859.6
14.4
175.2
751.4
1869.3
3346.6
reducing CO2 emissions is subject to
change. DOE, together with other
Federal agencies, will continue to
review various methodologies for
estimating the monetary value of
reductions in CO2 and other GHG
emissions. This ongoing review will
consider the comments on this subject
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that are part of the public record for this
and other rulemakings, as well as other
methodological assumptions and issues.
However, consistent with DOE’s legal
obligations, and taking into account the
uncertainty involved with this
particular issue, DOE has included in
this NOPR the most recent values and
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2415
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
analyses resulting from the ongoing
interagency review process.
DOE also estimated a range for the
cumulative monetary value of the
economic benefits associated with NOX
emissions reductions anticipated to
result from amended standards for the
equipment that is the subject of today’s
NOPR. The low and high dollar-per-ton
values that DOE used are discussed in
section VII.B.2. Table VIII.35 presents
the cumulative present values of NOX
emissions reductions for each efficiency
level calculated using seven-percent and
three-percent discount rates.
TABLE VIII.35—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN 2012–2042 UNDER PRODUCT
EFFICIENCY LEVELS
3% Discount
rate
Efficiency level
7% Discount
rate
Million 2011$
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products:
ASHRAE (baseline) ....................................................................................................................................
1 ..................................................................................................................................................................
2 ..................................................................................................................................................................
3 ..................................................................................................................................................................
4 ..................................................................................................................................................................
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps:
ASHRAE (baseline) ....................................................................................................................................
1 ..................................................................................................................................................................
2 ..................................................................................................................................................................
3 ..................................................................................................................................................................
4 ..................................................................................................................................................................
Computer Room Air Conditioners:
ASHRAE (baseline) ....................................................................................................................................
1 ..................................................................................................................................................................
2 ..................................................................................................................................................................
3 ..................................................................................................................................................................
4 ..................................................................................................................................................................
D. Proposed Standards
1. Water-Cooled and EvaporativelyCooled Equipment
EPCA specifies that, for any
commercial and industrial equipment
addressed under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an
energy conservation standard more
stringent than the level for such
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
as amended, only if ‘‘clear and
convincing evidence’’ shows that a
more-stringent standard would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent
efficiency levels for water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled equipment than
those specified by ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, DOE reviewed the results in
terms of the significance of their energy
savings. For the reasons discussed in
section IV.B, DOE agrees with
commenters that the energy savings
from increasing national energy
conservation standards for water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled equipment
above the levels specified by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 would be very
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.09
0.09
to
to
to
to
to
0.25
0.24
0.64
0.92
0.95
......
......
......
......
......
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.04
to
to
to
to
to
0.12.
0.10.
0.28.
0.40.
0.42.
0.0 to 0.0 ..........
0.01 to 0.13 ......
0.2 to 2.2 ..........
0.5 to 5.2 ..........
0.9 to 9.5 ..........
0.0 to 0.0.
0.01 to 0.05.
0.1 to 0.9.
0.2 to 2.2.
0.4 to 4.0.
0.04 to 0.46 ......
0.6 to 6.1 ..........
2.4 to 24.6 ........
6.0 to 61.4 ........
10.7 to 109.8 ....
0.02 to 0.22.
0.3 to 2.7.
1.0 to 10.7.
2.6 to 26.6.
4.6 to 47.6.
minimal. As such, DOE does not have
‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ that
significant additional conservation of
energy would result from adoption of
more-stringent standard levels.
Therefore, DOE did not examine
whether the levels are economically
justified, and DOE is proposing to adopt
the energy efficiency levels for these
products as set forth in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010. Table VIII.36
presents the proposed energy
conservation standards and compliance
dates for water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled equipment.
TABLE VIII.36—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED
EQUIPMENT
Efficiency
level
(EER)
Compliance
date
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Equipment type
Subcategory
Size category (input)
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners.
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners.
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners.
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners.
Electric or No Heat ..........................
Other Heat .......................................
Electric or No Heat ..........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
12.1
11.9
12.5
June 1, 2013.
June 1, 2013.
June 1, 2014.
Other Heat .......................................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
12.3
June 1, 2014.
Electric or No Heat ..........................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
12.4
June 1, 2014.
Other Heat .......................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
12.2
June 1, 2014.
Electric or No Heat ..........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
12.1
June 1, 2013.
Other Heat .......................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
11.9
June 1, 2013.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2416
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.36—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED
EQUIPMENT—Continued
Efficiency
level
(EER)
Compliance
date
Equipment type
Subcategory
Size category (input)
Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners.
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air
Conditioners.
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air
Conditioners.
Electric or No Heat ..........................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
12.0
June 1, 2014.
Other Heat .......................................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
11.8
June 1, 2014.
Electric or No Heat ..........................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
11.9
June 1, 2014.
Other Heat .......................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
*11.7
June 1, 2014.
* ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 specifies this efficiency level as 12.2 EER. However, as explained in section IV.B.2 of this NOPR, DOE has
determined that this level was mistakenly reported and that the correct level is 11.7 EER.
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
As noted previously, EPCA specifies
that, for any commercial and industrial
equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an
energy conservation standard more
stringent than the level for such
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
as amended, only if ‘‘clear and
convincing evidence’’ shows that a
more-stringent standard would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent
efficiency levels for VRF water-source
heat pumps than those specified by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE
reviewed the results in terms of the
significance of their energy savings. For
the reasons discussed in section
VIII.B.2, the energy savings for morestringent efficiency levels for VRF
water-source heat pumps greater than
135,000 Btu/h would be minimal. In
addition, there are no models on the
market of VRF water-source heat pumps
less than 17,000 Btu/h, so there are no
energy savings predicted for this
product class. As such, DOE does not
have ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’
that significant additional conservation
of energy would result from adoption of
more-stringent efficiency levels than
those specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010. Therefore, DOE did not
examine whether the levels are
economically justified, and DOE is
proposing to adopt the energy efficiency
levels for these products as set forth in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010.61 Table
VIII.37 presents the proposed amended
energy conservation standards and
compliance dates for VRF water-source
heat pumps.
TABLE VIII.37—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS
Equipment type
VRF Water-Source
Pumps.
VRF Water-Source
Pumps.
VRF Water-Source
Pumps.
VRF Water-Source
Pumps.
Subcategory
Size category (input)
Efficiency level
Compliance date **
Heat
Without Heat Recovery ........
<17,000 Btu/h .......................
12.0 EER 4.2 COP * ............
October 29, 2012.
Heat
With Heat Recovery .............
<17,000 Btu/h .......................
11.8 EER 4.2 COP * ............
October 29, 2012.
Heat
Without Heat Recovery ........
≥135,000 Btu/h .....................
10.0 EER 3.9 COP ..............
October 29, 2013.
Heat
With Heat Recovery .............
≥135,000 Btu/h .....................
9.8 EER 3.9 COP ................
October 29, 2013.
* 4.2 COP is the existing Federal minimum energy conservation standard for water-source heat pumps <17,000 Btu/h.
** ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 did not provide an effective date for these products, so it is assumed to be publication of ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, or October 29, 2010. As discussed in Section V.D.3, compliance dates for Federal standards would be two or three years after the
effective date in ASHRAE, depending on product size.
As noted previously, EPCA specifies
that, for any commercial and industrial
equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an
energy conservation standard more
stringent than the level for such
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
as amended, only if ‘‘clear and
convincing evidence’’ shows that a
more-stringent standard would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent
efficiency levels for computer room air
conditioner than those specified by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE
reviewed the results in terms of their
technological feasibility, significance of
energy savings, and economic
justification.
DOE has tentatively concluded that
all of the SCOP levels considered by
DOE are technologically feasible, as
units with equivalent efficiency
appeared to be available in the current
market at all levels examined. As noted
in section VI.B.4, manufacturers are
currently not reporting CRAC
equipment efficiencies in terms of SCOP
as defined and tested for in ASHRAE
127–2007. As a result, the efficiency
data used to determine the SCOP levels
for analysis were obtained using a ruleof-thumb method to convert EER (as
determined using ASHRAE Standard
127–2001) to an estimate of the SCOP
61 For other classes of VRF systems introduced by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE is not
proposing new standards but is clarifying that
existing standards for air-cooled or water-source
heat pumps continue to apply. In addition, DOE is
tentatively proposing a new test procedure for all
classes of VRF equipment. The proposed changes to
the Code of Federal Regulations are found at the
end of this NOPR.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(as determined by ASHRAE Standard
127–2007), which lends some
uncertainty to the SCOP ratings of
computer room air conditioners.
However, based on this mapping
between EER and SCOP, DOE believes
that all SCOP levels analyzed are
technically feasible.
DOE examined the potential energy
savings that would result from the
efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 and compared these
to the potential energy savings that
would result from efficiency levels more
stringent than those in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010. DOE estimates that
0.01 quads of energy would be saved if
DOE adopts the efficiency levels set in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for each
computer room air conditioner
equipment class specified in that
standard. If DOE were to adopt
efficiency levels more stringent than
those specified by ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, the potential additional
energy savings range from 0.07 quads to
0.98 quads. Associated with proposing
more-stringent efficiency levels is a
three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-year
delay in implementation (depending on
equipment size) compared to the
adoption of energy conservation
standards at the levels specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 (see
section VI.G.1). This delay in
implementation of amended energy
conservation standards would result in
a small amount of energy savings being
lost in the first years (2012 through
2016) compared to the savings from
adopting the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 (approximately
0.0001 quad); however, this loss may be
compensated for by increased savings in
later years. Taken in isolation, the
energy savings associated with morestringent standards might be considered
significant enough to warrant adoption
of such standards. However, as noted
above, energy savings are not the only
factor which DOE must consider.
In considering whether potential
standards are economically justified,
DOE also examined the NPV that would
result from adopting efficiency levels
more stringent than those set forth in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. With a
7-percent discount rate, all of the
efficiency levels examined by DOE
resulted in negative NPV. With a 3percent discount rate, Level 1 creates
positive NPV, while Levels 2 through 4
create negative NPV. These results
indicate that adoption of efficiency
levels more stringent than those in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 as Federal
energy conservation standards would
likely lead to negative economic
outcomes for the nation. Consequently,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
this criterion for adoption of morestringent standard levels does not
appear to have been met.
Furthermore, although DOE based it
analyses on the best available data when
examining the potential energy savings
and the economic justification of
efficiency levels more stringent than
those specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010, DOE believes there are
several limitations regarding that data
which should be considered before
proposing amended energy conservation
standards for computer room air
conditioners. As explained below, none
of these concerns are likely to run in the
direction of more-stringent standards.
First, DOE reexamined the
uncertainty in its analysis of computer
room air conditioners. As noted in
section VI.B.4, due to the lack of current
coverage and certification requirements,
no manufacturers currently test for the
SCOP of their computer room air
conditioner models, nor do they all
report such information in their
literature. DOE’s efficiency information
used in the analysis was the result of a
‘‘rule-of-thumb’’ method that provides
an approximation of SCOP, but DOE did
not obtain any actual SCOP efficiency
information that resulted from testing,
leading to uncertainty over whether the
levels considered (particularly at the
max-tech level) are technologically
feasible and also adding uncertainty in
the energy savings estimates. In
addition, for certain equipment classes,
DOE was unable to obtain enough
information even to estimate SCOP for
a useful portion of the models on the
market. For those equipment classes,
DOE had to analyze various efficiency
levels above the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 levels using SCOP levels that
were estimated based on the SCOP
differences established by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 between the different
equipment classes. The combination of
these factors leads to concerns about the
viability of using the estimated SCOP
data for the basis of this analysis. Such
concerns are heightened the further one
moves away from the efficiency levels
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 in the
context of this rulemaking.
Second, to assess the cost of
increasing efficiency, DOE conducted a
pricing survey in which DOE collected
contractor price data across a range of
efficiency levels, and examined the
trend in price as efficiency increased.
As noted in section VI.B.1, the primary
drawback to this approach is that
contractor pricing can be based on a
variety of factors, some of which have
little or nothing to do with changes in
equipment efficiency (e.g., differences
in manufacturer markups). This leads to
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2417
unexpected results for certain
equipment classes, including an
observed trend of decreasing price with
increasing efficiency for small watercooled equipment based on the data
collected, which reduces the certainty of
the analysis in terms of economic
justification. Therefore, the trends
developed through such analyses may
not be representative of the actual
relationship between manufacturer cost
and efficiency, or of what DOE would
find if it used a design option approach
with reverse engineering analysis
(which is more time-intensive). Further,
although there was generally a trend of
increasing price with increased
efficiency across all manufacturers for
most product classes, there was little
discernable trend between price and
efficiency for each individual
manufacturer, leading to additional
doubts about the role of equipment
efficiency in determining pricing. As a
result, DOE believes the results of this
analysis are highly uncertain, and that
a more in-depth analysis of the
relationship between cost of
manufacturing and efficiency could lead
to different results.
Third, due to the limited data on the
existing distribution of shipments by
efficiency level or historical efficiency
trends, DOE was not able to assess
possible future changes in either the
available efficiencies of equipment in
the computer room air conditioner
market or the sales distribution of
shipments by efficiency level in the
absence of setting more-stringent
standards. DOE recognizes that
manufacturers may continue to make
future improvements in the computer
room air conditioner efficiencies even in
the absence of mandated energy
conservation standards. This possibility
increases the uncertainty of the energy
savings estimates. To the extent that
manufacturers improve product
efficiency and customers choose to
purchase improved products in the
absence of standards, the energy savings
estimates would likely be reduced.
Fourth, as a result of a lack of
shipment information for the United
States, DOE’s shipment analysis rests
primarily on a single market report from
Australia. While DOE attempted to use
an appropriate inflator to adjust
Australian shipments to the United
States market, DOE recognizes the
uncertainty inherent in this approach.
DOE also based its equipment class
allocations on market share for a few
classes from the Australian report, as
well as model availability in the United
States. It is unknown whether the
United States market mirrors the
Australian market or whether model
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2418
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
availability approximates shipment
distributions. Any inaccuracy in the
shipment forecast in total or by product
class contributes to the uncertainty of
the energy savings results and thus
makes it difficult for DOE to determine
that any energy savings are significant.
In light of the above, DOE would
again restate the statutory test for
adopting energy conservation standards
more stringent than the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE must have
‘‘clear and convincing’’ evidence in
order to propose efficiency levels more
stringent than those specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, and for
the reasons explained in this notice, the
totality of information does not meet the
level necessary to support these morestringent efficiency levels for computer
room air conditioners. Consequently,
DOE has tentatively decided to propose
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 as amended energy
conservation standards for all 30
computer room air conditioner
equipment classes. Table VIII.38
presents the proposed energy
conservation standards for computer
room air conditioners.
By proposing to adopt the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010
as amended energy conservation
standards, DOE would be setting a
minimum floor for these previously
unregulated products. This would allow
the industry time to transition to
coverage of these products, would
require manufacturers to begin
submitting efficiency data, and would
spur the tracking of shipments. These
data would improve DOE’s future
analysis of computer room air
conditioners. DOE notes that it will be
able to undertake such an analysis
without waiting for the trigger of a
subsequent amendment of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, because of the six-year
look back provision in the relevant EISA
2007 amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C))
DOE seeks comments from interested
parties on its proposed amended energy
conservation standards for computer
room air conditioners, as well as the
other efficiency levels considered.
Although DOE currently believes that it
would be appropriate to adopt the
efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 for computer room air
conditioners, DOE may consider the
possibility of setting standards at morestringent efficiency levels if public
comments and additional data supply
clear and convincing evidence in
support of such an approach.
TABLE VIII.38—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
Efficiency
level
(SCOP–
127)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Equipment type
Subcategory
Size category
(Input)
Air conditioners, air-cooled ............
Air conditioners, air-cooled ............
Air conditioners, air-cooled ............
Air conditioners, air-cooled ............
Air conditioners, air-cooled ............
Air conditioners, air-cooled ............
Air conditioners, water-cooled .......
Air conditioners, water-cooled .......
Air conditioners, water-cooled .......
Air conditioners, water-cooled .......
Air conditioners, water-cooled .......
Air conditioners, water-cooled .......
Air conditioners, water-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled .......
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled .......
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled .......
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled .......
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled .......
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled .......
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Downflow .......................................
Upflow ...........................................
Downflow .......................................
Upflow ...........................................
Downflow .......................................
Upflow ...........................................
Downflow .......................................
Upflow ...........................................
Downflow .......................................
Upflow ...........................................
Downflow .......................................
Upflow ...........................................
Downflow .......................................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
2.20
2.09
2.10
1.99
1.90
1.79
2.60
2.49
2.50
2.39
2.40
2.29
2.55
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
Upflow ...........................................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
2.44
October 29, 2012.
Downflow .......................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
2.45
October 29, 2013.
Upflow ...........................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
2.34
October 29, 2013.
Downflow .......................................
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
2.35
October 29, 2013.
Upflow ...........................................
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
2.24
October 29, 2013.
Downflow .......................................
Upflow ...........................................
Downflow .......................................
Upflow ...........................................
Downflow .......................................
Upflow ...........................................
Downflow .......................................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
2.50
2.39
2.15
2.04
2.10
1.99
2.45
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
Upflow ...........................................
<65,000 Btu/h ................................
2.34
October 29, 2012.
Downflow .......................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
2.10
October 29, 2013.
Upflow ...........................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
1.99
October 29, 2013.
Downflow .......................................
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
2.05
October 29, 2013.
Upflow ...........................................
≥240,000 Btu/h ..............................
1.94
October 29, 2013.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Compliance date
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
29,
2012.
2012.
2013.
2013.
2013.
2013.
2012.
2012.
2013.
2013.
2013.
2013.
2012.
2012.
2012.
2013.
2013.
2013.
2013.
2012.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
IX. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
and 13563
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993),
requires each agency to identify the
problem that it intends to address,
including, where applicable, the failures
of private markets or public institutions
that warrant new agency action, as well
as to assess the significance of that
problem. The problems that the
standards in this rule address are as
follows:
(1) There is a lack of consumer
information and/or information
processing capability about energy
efficiency opportunities in the
commercial equipment market.
(2) There is asymmetric information
(one party to a transaction has more and
better information than the other) and/
or high transactions costs (costs of
gathering information and effecting
exchanges of goods and services).
(3) There are external benefits
resulting from improved energy
efficiency of water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled commercial
package air conditioners, variable
refrigerant flow air conditioners, and
computer room air conditioners that are
not captured by the users of such
equipment. These benefits include
externalities related to environmental
protection and energy security that are
not reflected in energy prices, such as
reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.
In addition, DOE has determined that
today’s regulatory action is not an
‘‘economically significant regulatory
action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) for today’s rule,
and the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has
not reviewed this rule.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation
pursuant to Executive Order 13563,
issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281
(Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563
is supplemental to and explicitly
reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866.
To the extent permitted by law, agencies
are required by Executive Order 13563
to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden
on society, consistent with obtaining
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the
extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that
Executive Order 13563 requires agencies
to use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
emphasized that such techniques may
include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, DOE believes
that today’s NOPR is consistent with
these principles, including the
requirement that, to the extent
permitted by law, agencies adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its
costs and select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those
approaches maximize net benefits.
Consistent with Executive Order
13563, and the range of impacts
analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy
conservation standards proposed in this
NOPR maximize net benefits to the
extent permitted by EPCA.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public
comment and a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such
rule that an agency adopts as a final
rule, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2419
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s Web site: (www.gc.doe.gov).
For manufacturers of water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled air
conditioners, computer room air
conditioners, and VRF water-source
heat pumps with a cooling capacity
equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h,
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) has set a size threshold, which
defines those entities classified as
‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of
the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small
business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be
subject to the requirements of the rule.
65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as
amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept.
5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part
121. The size standards are listed by
North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code and industry
description and are available at https://
www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_
Standards_Table.pdf. The ASHRAE
equipment covered by this rule are
classified under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a
threshold of 750 employees or fewer for
an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category.
DOE examined each of the
manufacturers it found during its
market assessment and used publiclyavailable information to determine if
any manufacturers identified qualify as
a small business under the SBA
guidelines discussed above. (For a list of
all manufacturers of ASHRAE
equipment covered by this rule, see
Chapter 2 of the TSD.) DOE’s research
involved individual company Web sites,
marketing research tools (e.g., Hoovers
reports 62), and contacting individual
companies to create a list of companies
that manufacture the types of ASHRAE
equipment affected by this rule. DOE
screened out companies that do not
have domestic manufacturing
operations for ASHRAE equipment (i.e.,
manufacturers that produce all of their
ASHRAE equipment internationally).
DOE also did not consider
manufacturers which are subsidiaries of
parent companies that exceed the 750employee threshold set by the SBA to be
small businesses. DOE identified 3
62 For more information see: https://www.hoovers.
com/.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2420
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
manufacturers that qualify as a small
business: 2 computer room air
conditioner manufacturers (out of the 5
total identified) and 1 water-cooled air
conditioner manufacturer (of the 8 total
identified). DOE did not identify any
small business manufacturers of
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners or
water-source VRF heat pump
manufacturers.
DOE has reviewed today’s proposed
rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. As part
of this rulemaking, DOE examined not
only the impacts on manufacturers of
revised standard levels, but also the
existing compliance costs manufacturers
already bear as compared to the revised
compliance costs, based on the
proposed revisions to the test
procedures. Since DOE is proposing to
adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010, which are part of
the prevailing industry standard, DOE
believes that manufacturers of watercooled and evaporatively-cooled
commercial package air conditioners
and heating equipment, computer room
air conditioners, and VRF water-source
heat pumps with a cooling capacity
equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h
are already producing equipment at
these efficiency levels. For VRF watersource heat pumps with a cooling
capacity below 17,000 Btu/h, DOE
believes the efficiency levels being
proposed in today’s NOPR are also part
of the prevailing industry standard and
that manufacturers would experience no
impacts, because no such equipment is
currently manufactured. Furthermore,
DOE believes the industry standard was
developed through a process which
would attempt to mitigate the impacts
on manufacturers, including any
impacted small business manufacturers,
while increasing the efficiency of this
equipment.
In addition, DOE does not find that
the costs associated with the adoption of
updated test procedures for commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, commercial water heating
equipment, or commercial warm-air
furnaces in this document would result
in any significant increase in testing or
compliance costs. For these types of
equipment, DOE already has testing
requirements, which have only minor
differences from those being adopted in
this notice. DOE notes that this
document proposes adoption of new test
procedures for VRF systems and
computer room air conditioners.
However, VRF systems currently must
be tested using the DOE test procedures
for commercial package air conditioners
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
and heating equipment. The procedure
proposed for adoption in this NOPR is
tailored to VRF systems, and DOE does
not believe this procedure is more
burdensome than the currently
applicable test procedures. For
computer room air conditioners, this
notice proposes the use of a new test
procedure where none was previously
required. However, for all equipment
types (including computer room air
conditioners) the proposed test
procedures are part of the prevailing
industry standard to test and rate
equipment. DOE believes that
manufacturers generally already use the
accepted industry test procedures when
testing their equipment, and that given
its inclusion in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010, they would continue to use it in
the future. Therefore, DOE does not
believe the additional burden imposed
by today’s proposal will have a
significant adverse impact on a large
number of small manufacturers. DOE
requests public comment on the impact
of this proposed rule on small entities.
This is identified as issue 18 in section
X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.’’
For the reasons stated above, DOE
certifies that the proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, DOE did not prepare an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis for
the proposed rule. DOE will transmit its
certification and a supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA for review
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of the ASHRAE
equipment addressed in today’s NOPR
must certify to DOE that their
equipment comply with any applicable
energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers
must test their equipment according to
the applicable DOE test procedures for
the given equipment type, including any
amendments adopted for those test
procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all
covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including the
ASHRAE equipment at issue in this
NOPR. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)).
The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement
has been approved by OMB under OMB
control number 1910–1400. Public
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reporting burden for the certification is
estimated to average 20 hours per
response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), DOE has
determined that the proposed rule fits
within the category of actions included
in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and
otherwise meets the requirements for
application of a CX. See 10 CFR part
1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b), and
Appendix B, B(1)–(5). The proposed
rule fits within the category of actions
because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, and for which
none of the exceptions identified in CX
B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made
a CX determination for this rulemaking,
and DOE does not need to prepare an
Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement for
this proposed rule. DOE’s CX
determination for this proposed rule is
available at https://cxnepa.energy.gov/.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order
requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
examined this proposed rule and has
tentatively determined that it would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the equipment that are the subject of
today’s proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, as set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d) and 6316(b)(2)(D)) No further
action is required by Executive Order
13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform’’ (61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996))
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction. With regard to
the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any;
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation;
(3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any;
(5) adequately defines key terms; and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, the proposed
rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy
statement is also available at
www.gc.doe.gov.
Today’s proposed rule contains
neither an intergovernmental mandate
nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any year. Accordingly, no assessment
or analysis is required under the UMRA.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2421
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note)
provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to
the public under guidelines established
by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed
today’s NOPR under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is
consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgates or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must provide a
detailed statement of any adverse effects
on energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that
today’s regulatory action, which sets
forth energy conservation standards for
certain types of ASHRAE equipment, is
not a significant energy action because
the proposed standards are not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 and are not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, nor has it been designated as
such by the Administrator at OIRA.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects on the
proposed rule.
L. Review Under the Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2422
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
its Final Information Quality Bulletin
for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR
2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin
establishes that certain scientific
information shall be peer reviewed by
qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions. 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal in-progress peer
reviews of the energy conservation
standards development process and
analyses and has prepared a Peer
Review Report pertaining to the energy
conservation standards rulemaking
analyses. Generation of this report
involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective
criteria and qualified and independent
reviewers to make a judgment as to the
technical/scientific/business merit, the
actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management
effectiveness of programs and/or
projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation
Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report’’ dated February 2007 has been
disseminated and is available at the
following Web site: www1.eere.energy.
gov/buildings/appliance_standards/
peer_review.html.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
X. Public Participation
A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
The time, date, and location of the
public meeting are listed in the DATES
and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning
of this notice. If you plan to attend the
public meeting, please notify Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As
explained in the ADDRESSES section,
foreign nationals visiting DOE
Headquarters are subject to advance
security screening procedures. Any
foreign national wishing to participate
in the meeting should advise DOE of
this fact as soon as possible by
contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards to
initiate the necessary procedures.
In addition, you can attend the public
meeting via webinar. Webinar
registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
capabilities available to webinar
participants will be published on DOE’s
Web site at: https://www1.eere.energy.
gov/buildings/appliance_standards/
commercial/ashrae_products_docs_
meeting.html. Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems
are compatible with the webinar
software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Request To
Speak and Prepared General Statements
for Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the
topics addressed in this notice, or who
is representative of a group or class of
persons that has an interest in these
issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the public
meeting. Such persons may handdeliver requests to speak to the address
show in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this notice between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Requests may
also be sent by mail or email to Ms.
Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121, or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Persons who wish to speak should
include in their request a computer
diskette or CD–ROM in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file
format that briefly describes the nature
of their interest in this rulemaking and
the topics they wish to discuss. Such
persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be
reached.
DOE requests persons selected to
make an oral presentation to submit an
advance copy of their statements at least
one week before the public meeting.
DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their
statement to participate, if those persons
have made advance alternative
arrangements with the Building
Technologies Program. As necessary,
request to give an oral presentation
should ask for such alternative
arrangements.
Any person who has plans to present
a prepared general statement may
request that copies of his or her
statement be made available at the
public meeting. Such persons may
submit requests, along with an advance
electronic copy of their statement in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format, to the appropriate address
shown in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this notice. The request
and advance copy of statements must be
received at least one week before the
public meeting and may be emailed,
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE
prefers to receive requests and advance
copies via email. Please include a
telephone number to enable DOE staff to
make follow-up contact, if needed.
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the public meeting and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid
discussion. The meeting will not be a
judicial or evidentiary-type public
hearing, but DOE will conduct it in
accordance with section 336 of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will
be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the
right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the
procedures governing the conduct of the
public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information,
costs or prices, market share, or other
commercial matters regulated by U.S.
anti-trust laws. After the public meeting,
interested parties may submit further
comments on the proceedings, as well
as on any aspect of the rulemaking, until
the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted
in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present summaries of comments
received before the public meeting,
allow time for prepared general
statements by participants, and
encourage all interested parties to share
their views on issues affecting this
rulemaking. Each participant will be
allowed to make a general statement
(within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics.
DOE will allow, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly and
comment on statements made by others.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the
public meeting will accept additional
comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the above procedures that may be
needed for the proper conduct of the
public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will
be posted on the DOE Web site and will
be included in the docket, which can be
viewed as described in the Docket
section at the beginning of this notice.
In addition, any person may buy a copy
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
of the transcript from the transcribing
reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public meeting,
but no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule. Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this notice.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
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. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
compact disc (CD), if feasible, in which
case it is not necessary to submit
printed copies. No telefacsimiles (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 including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
non-confidential with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via 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
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2423
information as confidential include: (1)
A description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure; (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time; and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
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).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
1. How manufacturers currently
differentiate commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment
used solely for manufacturing and
industrial processes from that
equipment of the same type that is used
in buildings.
2. Any aspect of the test procedures
affected by this rule as part of DOE’s
comprehensive 7-year-review
requirement.
3. DOE’s proposed adoption of AHRI
210/240–2008 as the test procedure for
small (<65,000 Btu/h) commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. DOE is also interested in
receiving comment on the need for an
optional ‘‘break-in’’ period for this
equipment, and whether 16 hours is an
appropriate maximum length for the
break-in period.
4. DOE’s proposed adoption of AHRI
340/360–2007 as the test procedure for
small (≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/
h), large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. DOE is also interested in
receiving comment on the need for an
optional ‘‘break-in’’ period for this
equipment, and whether 16 hours is an
appropriate maximum length for the
break-in period.
5. DOE’s proposed adoption of ANSI
Z21.10.3–2006 for commercial water
heating equipment, and DOE’s finding
that the updated test method will not
impact measured efficiency.
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2424
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
6. DOE’s proposed adoption of
ASHRAE Standard 127–2007 for
computer room air conditioners. DOE is
also interested in receiving comment on
how to treat the draft revisions that
ASHRAE has made to standard 127, and
on any shortcomings with the test
procedure that may require
modification.
7. DOE’s proposed adoption of AHRI
1230–2010 with Amendment 1 for VRF
systems. DOE is also interested in
receiving comment on the need for an
optional ‘‘break-in’’ period for this
equipment, and whether 16 hours is an
appropriate maximum length for the
break-in period.
8. DOE’s proposed adoption of AHRI
390–2003 as the test procedure for
single package vertical air conditioners
and single package vertical heat pumps.
DOE is also interested in receiving
comment on the need for an optional
‘‘break-in’’ period for this equipment,
and whether 16 hours is an appropriate
maximum length for the break-in
period.
9. The testing conditions, the basic
model operating points, and set-up for
variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioners and heat pumps.
10. DOE’s proposed definitions of
‘‘variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioner,’’ ‘‘variable refrigerant flow
multi-split heat pump,’’ and ‘‘heat
recovery.’’
11. DOE’s proposed definition of
‘‘computer room air conditioner.’’ DOE
is specifically interested in whether
there are any physical features or
components that could allow DOE to
differentiate between computer room air
conditioners and commercial package
air conditioners used for comfort
conditioning
12. The results of DOE’s pricing
analysis, and any data or information on
the price-efficiency relationship for
computer room air conditioners
13. Does computer room air
conditioner installation cost increase as
a function of increased efficiency? If so,
how should the increase in cost be
estimated or derived?
14. Is there a rebound effect in
computer room air conditioner
equipment energy use as a result of
improvements in the efficiency of such
units?
15. Would shipments of computer
room air conditioners change with
higher standard levels?
16. The NES-forecasted base-case
distribution of efficiencies and DOE’s
prediction of how amended energy
conservation standards might affect the
distribution of efficiencies in the
standards case.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
17. The need for an optional ‘‘breakin’’ period for computer room air
conditioners, similar to the period being
proposed for other types of commercial
air conditioning and heating equipment.
18. The impact of DOE’s proposed
standards on small business
manufacturers.
XI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of today’s notice of
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
20, 2011.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to
read as set forth below:
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Section 431.2 is amended by
revising the definition of ‘‘Commercial
HVAC & WH product’’ to read as
follows:
§ 431.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Commercial HVAC & WH product
means any small, large, or very large
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment, packaged
terminal air conditioner, packaged
terminal heat pump, single package
vertical air conditioner, single package
vertical heat pump, computer room air
conditioner, variable refrigerant flow
multi-split air conditioner, variable
refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump,
commercial packaged boiler, hot water
supply boiler, commercial warm air
furnace, instantaneous water heater,
storage water heater, or unfired hot
water storage tank.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 431.75 is revised to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 431.75 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) General. DOE incorporates by
reference the following test procedures
into subpart D of part 431. The materials
listed have been approved for
incorporation by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. Any subsequent
amendment to the listed materials by
the standard-setting organization will
not affect the DOE regulations unless
and until amended by DOE. Materials
are incorporated as they exist on the
date of the approval and a notice of any
changes in the materials will be
published in the Federal Register. All
approved materials are available for
inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030
or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federalregulations/
ibr_locations.html. Also, these materials
are available for inspection at U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945,
or go to: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/. The
referenced test procedure standards are
listed below by relevant standard-setting
organization, along with information on
how to obtain copies from those
sources.
(b) ANSI. American National
Standards Institute. 25 W. 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212)
642–4900, or go to https://www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI Z21.47–2006, ‘‘Gas-Fired
Central Furnaces,’’ approved on July 27,
2006, IBR approved for § 431.76.
(2) Reserved.
(c) ASHRAE. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers Inc., 1791 Tullie
Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329,
(404) 636–8400, or go to https://
www.ashrae.org.
(1) ASHRAE Standard 103–1993,
sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, and 11.3.7,
‘‘Method of Testing for Annual Fuel
Utilization Efficiency of Residential
Central Furnaces and Boilers,’’
approved on June 26, 1993, IBR
approved for § 431.76.
(2) Reserved.
(d) HI. Hydronics Institute Division of
AHRI, 35 Russo Place, P.O. Box 218,
Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922, (703) 600–
0350, or go to https://www.ahrinet.org/
hydronics+institute+section.aspx.
(1) HI BTS–2000, sections 8.2.2,
11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2, ‘‘Method to
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Determine Efficiency of Commercial
Space Heating Boilers,’’ approved
January 2001, IBR approved for
§ 431.76.
(2) Reserved.
(e) UL. Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL
60062, (847) 272–8800, or go to https://
www.ul.com.
(1) UL Standard 727–2006, ‘‘Standard
for Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces,’’
approved April 7, 2006, IBR approved
for § 431.76.
(2) Reserved.
4. Section 431.76 is revised to read as
follows:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 431.76 Uniform test method for the
measurement of energy efficiency of
commercial warm air furnaces.
(a) This section covers the test
procedures you must follow if, pursuant
to EPCA, you are measuring the steadystate thermal efficiency of a gas-fired or
oil-fired commercial warm air furnace
with a rated maximum input of 225,000
Btu per hour or more. Where this
section prescribes use of ANSI Standard
Z21.47–2006 or UL Standard 727–2006,
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.75), perform only the procedures
pertinent to the measurement of the
steady-state efficiency.
(b) Test setup. (1) Test setup for gasfired commercial warm air furnaces.
The test setup, including flue
requirement, instrumentation, test
conditions, and measurements for
determining thermal efficiency is as
specified in sections 1.1 (Scope), 2.1
(General), 2.2 (Basic Test
Arrangements), 2.3 (Test Ducts and
Plenums), 2.4 (Test Gases), 2.5 (Test
Pressures and Burner Adjustments), 2.6
(Static Pressure and Air Flow
Adjustments), 2.39 (Thermal Efficiency),
and 4.2.1 (Basic Test Arrangements for
Direct Vent Control Furnaces) of ANSI
Standard Z21.47–2006 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.75). The thermal
efficiency test must be conducted only
at the normal inlet test pressure, as
specified in Section 2.5.1 of ANSI
Standard Z21.47–2006, and at the
maximum hourly Btu input rating
specified by the manufacturer for the
product being tested.
(2) Test setup for oil-fired commercial
warm air furnaces. The test setup,
including flue requirement,
instrumentation, test conditions, and
measurement for measuring thermal
efficiency is as specified in sections 1
(Scope), 2 (Units of Measurement), 3
(Glossary), 37 (General), 38 and 39 (Test
Installation), 40 (Instrumentation,
except 40.4 and 40.6.2 through 40.6.7,
which are not required for the thermal
efficiency test), 41 (Initial Test
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
Conditions), 42 (Combustion Test—
Burner and Furnace), 43.2 (Operation
Tests), 44 (Limit Control Cutout Test),
45 (Continuity of Operation Test), and
46 (Air Flow, Downflow or Horizontal
Furnace Test), of UL Standard 727–2006
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.75). You must conduct a fuel oil
analysis for heating value, hydrogen
content, carbon content, pounds per
gallon, and American Petroleum
Institute (API) gravity as specified in
Section 8.2.2 of HI BTS–2000
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.75). The steady-state combustion
conditions, specified in Section 42.1 of
UL Standard 727–2006, are attained
when variations of not more than 5 °F
in the measured flue gas temperature
occur for three consecutive readings
taken 15 minutes apart.
(c) Additional test measurements. (1)
Measurement of flue CO2 (carbon
dioxide) for oil-fired commercial warm
air furnaces. In addition to the flue
temperature measurement specified in
Section 40.6.8 of UL Standard 727–
2006, (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.75) you must locate one or two
sampling tubes within six inches
downstream from the flue temperature
probe (as indicated on Figure 40.3 of UL
Standard 727–2006). If you use an open
end tube, it must project into the flue
one-third of the chimney connector
diameter. If you use other methods of
sampling CO2, you must place the
sampling tube so as to obtain an average
sample. There must be no air leak
between the temperature probe and the
sampling tube location. You must
collect the flue gas sample at the same
time the flue gas temperature is
recorded. The CO2 concentration of the
flue gas must be as specified by the
manufacturer for the product being
tested, with a tolerance of ±0.1 percent.
You must determine the flue CO2 using
an instrument with a reading error no
greater than ±0.1 percent.
(2) Procedure for the measurement of
condensate for a gas-fired condensing
commercial warm air furnace. The test
procedure for the measurement of the
condensate from the flue gas under
steady state operation must be
conducted as specified in sections
7.2.2.4, 7.8 and 9.2 of ASHRAE
Standard 103–1993 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.75) under the
maximum rated input conditions. You
must conduct this condensate
measurement for an additional 30
minutes of steady state operation after
completion of the steady state thermal
efficiency test specified in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(d) Calculation of thermal efficiency.
(1) Gas-fired commercial warm air
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2425
furnaces. You must use the calculation
procedure specified in Section 2.39,
Thermal Efficiency, of ANSI Standard
Z21.47–2006 (incorporated by reference,
see § 431.75).
(2) Oil-fired commercial warm air
furnaces. You must calculate the
percent flue loss (in percent of heat
input rate) by following the procedure
specified in sections 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and
11.1.6.2 of the HI BTS–2000
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.75). The thermal efficiency must
be calculated as:
Thermal Efficiency (percent) = 100
percent ¥ flue loss (in percent).
(e) Procedure for the calculation of
the additional heat gain and heat loss,
and adjustment to the thermal
efficiency, for a condensing commercial
warm air furnace. (1) You must
calculate the latent heat gain from the
condensation of the water vapor in the
flue gas, and calculate heat loss due to
the flue condensate down the drain, as
specified in sections 11.3.7.1 and
11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE Standard 103–
1993, (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.75), with the exception that in the
equation for the heat loss due to hot
condensate flowing down the drain in
section 11.3.7.2, the assumed indoor
temperature of 70 °F and the
temperature term TOA must be replaced
by the measured room temperature as
specified in Section 2.2.8 of ANSI
Standard Z21.47–2006 (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.75).
(2) Adjustment to the Thermal
Efficiency for Condensing Furnace. You
must adjust the thermal efficiency as
calculated in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section by adding the latent gain,
expressed in percent, from the
condensation of the water vapor in the
flue gas, and subtracting the heat loss
(due to the flue condensate down the
drain), also expressed in percent, both
as calculated in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, to obtain the thermal efficiency
of a condensing furnace.
5. Section 431.92, is amended by
adding the definitions ‘‘Computer room
air conditioner,’’ ‘‘Heat Recovery,’’
‘‘Sensible Coefficient of Performance, or
SCOP,’’ ‘‘Variable Refrigerant Flow
Multi-Split Air Conditioner’’ and
‘‘Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split
Heat Pump,’’ in alphabetical order to
read as follows:
§ 431.92 Definitions concerning
commercial air conditioners and heat
pumps.
*
*
*
*
*
Computer Room Air Conditioner
means a unit of commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2426
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
that is advertised, marketed, and/or sold
specifically for use in computer rooms,
data processing rooms, or other
precision cooling applications, and is
rated for performance using ASHRAE
Standard 127, (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.95). Such
equipment may not be marketed or
advertised as equipment for any other
space conditioning applications, and
may not be rated for performance using
AHRI Standard 210/240 or AHRI
Standard 340/360. (incorporated by
reference, see § 431.95).
*
*
*
*
*
Heat Recovery (in the context of
variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioners or variable refrigerant flow
multi-split heat pumps) means that the
air conditioner or heat pump is also
capable of providing simultaneous
heating and cooling operation, where
recovered energy from the indoor units
operating in one mode can be
transferred to one or more other indoor
units operating in the other mode. A
variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat
recovery heat pump is a variable
refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump
with the addition of heat recovery
capability.
*
*
*
*
*
Sensible Coefficient of Performance,
or SCOP means the net sensible cooling
capacity in watts divided by the total
power input in watts (excluding
reheaters and humidifiers).
*
*
*
*
*
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split
Air Conditioner means a unit of
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment that is
configured as a split system airconditioner incorporating a single
refrigerant circuit, with one or more
outdoor units, at least one variablespeed compressor or an alternate
compressor combination for varying the
capacity of the system by three or more
steps, and multiple indoor fan coil
units, each of which is individually
metered and individually controlled by
an integral control device and common
communications network and which
can operate independently in response
to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable
refrigerant flow implies three or more
steps of capacity control on common,
inter-connecting piping.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split
Heat Pump means a unit of commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment that is configured as a split
system heat pump that uses reverse
cycle refrigeration as its primary heating
source and which may include
secondary supplemental heating by
means of electrical resistance, steam,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
hot water, or gas. The equipment
incorporates a single refrigerant circuit,
with one or more outdoor units, at least
one variable-speed compressor or an
alternate compressor combination for
varying the capacity of the system by
three or more steps, and multiple indoor
fan coil units, each of which is
individually metered and individually
controlled by a control device and
common communications network and
which can operate independently in
response to multiple indoor thermostats.
Variable refrigerant flow implies three
or more steps of capacity control on
common, inter-connecting piping.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 431.95 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 431.95 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) General. DOE incorporates by
reference the following test procedures
into subpart F of part 431. The materials
listed have been approved for
incorporation by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. Any subsequent
amendment to the listed materials by
the standard-setting organization will
not affect the DOE regulations unless
and until amended by DOE. Materials
are incorporated as they exist on the
date of the approval and a notice of any
changes in the materials will be
published in the Federal Register. All
approved materials are available for
inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030,
or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federalregulations/
ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is
available for inspection at U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945,
or go to: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/. The
referenced test procedure standards are
listed below by relevant standard-setting
organization, along with information on
how to obtain copies from those
sources.
(b) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201,
(703) 524–8800, or go to https://
www.ahrinet.org.
(1) AHRI Standard 210/240–2008,
‘‘Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Equipment,’’ approved April 21, 2008,
IBR approved for § 431.96.
(2) AHRI Standard 310/380–2004
(CSA C744–04), ‘‘Standard for Packaged
Terminal Air-Conditioners and Heat
Pumps,’’ approved September 2004, IBR
approved for § 431.96.
(3) AHRI Standard 340/360–2007,
‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial
and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning
and Heat Pump Equipment,’’ approved
September 2007, IBR approved for
§ 431.96.
(4) AHRI Standard 390–2003,
‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package
Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat
Pumps,’’ approved December 2003, IBR
approved for § 431.96.
(5) AHRI Standard 1230–2010,
‘‘Performance Rating of Variable
Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment,’’ approved August 2, 2010
and updated by addendum 1 in March
2011, IBR approved for § 431.96.
(6) Reserved.
(c) ASHRAE. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie
Circle NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329, (404)
636–8400, or go to https://
www.ashrae.org.
(1) ASHRAE Standard 127–2007,
‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Computer
and Data Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners,’’ approved on June 28,
2007, IBR approved for § 431.96.
(2) Reserved.
(d) ISO. International Organization for
Standardization, 1, ch. De la VoieCreuse, Case Postale 56, CH–1211
Geneva 20, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01
11 or https://www.iso.ch/.
(1) ISO Standard 13256–1, ‘‘Watersource heat pumps—Testing and rating
for performance—Part 1: Water-to-air
and brine-to-air heat pumps,’’ approved
1998, IBR approved for § 431.96.
(2) Reserved.
7. Section 431.96 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 431.96 Uniform test method for the
measurement of energy efficiency of
commercial air conditioners and heat
pumps.
(a) Scope. This section contains test
procedures for measuring, pursuant to
EPCA, the energy efficiency of any
small, large, or very large commercial
package air-conditioning and heating
equipment, packaged terminal air
conditioners and packaged terminal
heat pumps, computer room air
conditioners, and variable refrigerant
flow systems.
(b) Testing and calculations.
Determine the energy efficiency of each
covered product by conducting the test
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
procedure(s) listed in the rightmost
column of Table 1 of this section, that
apply to the energy efficiency descriptor
2427
for that product, category, and cooling
capacity.
TABLE 1 TO § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Product
Category
Cooling capacity
Energy efficiency
descriptor
Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment.
Air-Cooled, 3
Phase, AC and
HP.
Air-Cooled AC and
HP.
Water-Cooled and
EvaporativelyCooled.
Water-Source HP ...
<65,000 Btu/h .........
SEER and HSPF ....
AHRI Standard 210/240–2008
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
<135,000 Btu/h .......
EER and COP ........
AHRI Standard 340/360–2004
EER ........................
EER ........................
AHRI Standard 210/240–2008
AHRI Standard 340/360–2004
EER and COP ........
ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998)
Air-Cooled AC and
HP.
Water-Cooled and
EvaporativelyCooled AC.
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
EER and COP ........
AHRI Standard 340/360–2004
EER ........................
AHRI Standard 340/360–2004
Air-Cooled AC and
HP.
Water-Cooled and
EvaporativelyCooled AC.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
EER and COP ........
AHRI Standard 340/360–2004
EER ........................
AHRI Standard 340/360–2004
Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and
Heat Pumps.
AC and HP .............
<760,000 Btu/h .......
EER and COP ........
AHRI Standard 310/380–2004
Computer Room Air Conditioners ...........
AC ..........................
<760,000 Btu/h .......
SCOP .....................
ASHRAE Standard 127–2007
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems.
AC and HP .............
<760,000 Btu/h .......
EER and COP ........
AHRI Standard 1230–2010
Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners
and Single Package Vertical Heat
Pumps.
AC and HP .............
<760,000 Btu/h .......
EER and COP ........
AHRI Standard 390–2003
Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment.
Very Large Commercial Packaged AirConditioning and Heating Equipment.
1 Incorporated
Use tests, conditions and
procedures 1 in
by reference, see § 431.95.
(c) Optional break-in period for tests
conducted using AHRI 210/240–2008,
AHRI 340/360–2004, AHRI 1230–2010,
and AHRI 390–2003. Manufacturers
may optionally specify a ‘‘break-in’’
period, not to exceed 16 hours, to
operate the equipment under test prior
to conducting the test method specified
by AHRI 210/240–2008, AHRI 340/360–
2004, AHRI 1230–2010, or AHRI 390–
2003.
8. Section 431.97 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and
their compliance dates.
(a) Each commercial air conditioner or
heat pump (not including single
package vertical air conditioners and
single package vertical heat pumps,
packaged terminal air conditioners and
packaged terminal heat pumps,
computer room air conditioners, and
variable refrigerant flow systems)
manufactured on or after the
compliance date listed in the
corresponding table must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency
standard level(s) set forth in Tables 1, 2,
and 3 of this section.
TABLE 1 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT
(NOT INCLUDING SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS,
PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMPS, COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AND VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS)
Compliance date:
Products manufactured
on and after
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Product
Cooling capacity
Sub-category
Heating type
Efficiency level
Small Commercial Packaged Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3 Phase).
<65,000 Btu/h .....
AC .......................
HP .......................
All ........................
All ........................
SEER = 13 .........
SEER = 13 .........
June 16, 2008.
June 16, 2008.
Small Commercial Packaged Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).
≥65,000 Btu/h
and <135,000
Btu/h.
AC .......................
No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
EER = 11.2 .........
January 1, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2428
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT
(NOT INCLUDING SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS,
PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMPS, COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AND VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS)—Continued
Product
Cooling capacity
Sub-category
HP .......................
Large Commercial Packaged Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).
≥135,000 Btu/h
and <240,000
Btu/h.
AC .......................
HP .......................
Very Large Commercial Packaged
Air Conditioning and Heating
Equipment (Air-Cooled).
≥240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000
Btu/h.
AC .......................
HP .......................
Small Commercial Packaged Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
(Water-Cooled,
Evaporatively-Cooled,
and
WaterSource).
<17,000 Btu/h .....
Compliance date:
Products manufactured
on and after
Heating type
Efficiency level
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
EER = 11.0 .........
January 1, 2010.
EER = 11.0 .........
January 1, 2010.
EER = 10.8 .........
January 1, 2010.
No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
EER = 11.0 .........
January 1, 2010.
EER = 10.8 .........
January 1, 2010.
EER = 10.6 .........
January 1, 2010.
EER = 10.4 .........
January 1, 2010.
EER = 10.0 .........
January 1, 2010.
EER = 9.8 ...........
January 1, 2010.
EER = 9.5 ...........
January 1, 2010.
EER = 9.3 ...........
January 1, 2010.
No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Large Commercial Packaged Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
(Water-Cooled,
Evaporatively-Cooled,
and
WaterSource).
Very Large Commercial Packaged
Air Conditioning and Heating
Equipment (Water-Cooled, Evaporatively-Cooled,
and
WaterSource).
≥135,000 Btu/h
and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000
Btu/h.
EER = 12.1 .........
October 29, 2003.
HP .......................
AC .......................
All ........................
All ........................
EER = 11.2 .........
EER = 12.1 .........
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2003.
HP .......................
AC .......................
All ........................
No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
All ........................
EER = 12.0 .........
EER = 11.5 .........
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2003 1.
EER = 11.3 .........
October 29, 20031.
EER = 12.0 .........
October 29, 2003 1.
AC .......................
All ........................
EER = 11.0 .........
October 29, 2004 2.
HP .......................
≥65,000 Btu/h
and <135,000
Btu/h.
All ........................
HP .......................
≥17,000 Btu/h
and <65,000
Btu/h.
AC .......................
All ........................
EER = 11.0 .........
October 29, 2004 2.
AC .......................
No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
EER = 11.0 .........
January 10, 2011 2.
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
EER = 10.8 .........
January 10, 2011 2.
EER = 11.0 .........
January 10, 2011 2.
HP .......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
2429
TABLE 1 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT
(NOT INCLUDING SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS,
PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMPS, COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AND VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS)—Continued
Product
2 And
Heating type
Efficiency level
All Other Types of
Heating.
1 And
Cooling capacity
Sub-category
EER = 10.8 .........
Compliance date:
Products manufactured
on and after
January 10, 2011 2.
manufactured before June 1, 2013. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards.
manufactured before June 1, 2014. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards.
TABLE 2 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM HEATING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT
(HEAT PUMPS)
Compliance date: Products
manufactured on and after
Product
Cooling capacity
Efficiency level
Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3 Phase).
Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning
and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment (Water-Source).
<65,000 Btu/h ...................
HSPF = 7.7 .......................
June 16, 2008.
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<135,000 Btu/h .................
COP = 3.3 .........................
January 1, 2010.
COP = 3.2 .........................
January 1, 2010.
COP = 3.2 .........................
January 1, 2010.
COP = 4.2 .........................
October 29, 2003.
TABLE 3 TO § 431.97—UPDATES TO THE MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND
EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT
Product
Cooling capacity
Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment (WaterCooled).
Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment (WaterCooled).
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
(Water-Cooled).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled).
Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled).
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
(Evaporatively-Cooled).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
EER = 12.1 ..............
June 1, 2013.
EER = 11.9 ..............
June 1, 2013.
EER = 12.5 ..............
June 1, 2014.
EER = 12.3 ..............
June 1, 2014.
EER = 12.4 ..............
June 1, 2014.
EER = 12.2 ..............
June 1, 2014.
EER = 12.1 ..............
June 1, 2013.
EER = 11.9 ..............
June 1, 2013.
EER = 12.0 ..............
June 1, 2014.
EER = 11.8 ..............
June 1, 2014.
EER = 11.9 ..............
June 1, 2014.
EER = 11.7 ..............
June 1, 2014.
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
Frm 00075
Efficiency level
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
PO 00000
Compliance date:
Products manufactured on
and after
Heating type
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2430
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(b) Each packaged terminal air
conditioner (PTAC) and packaged
terminal heat pump (PTHP)
manufactured on or after January 1,
1994, and before October 8, 2012 (for
standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and
before October 7, 2010 (for non-standard
size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency
standard level(s) set forth in Table 4 of
this section. Each PTAC and PTHP
manufactured on or after October 8,
2012 (for standard size PTACs and
PTHPs) and on or after October 7, 2010
(for non-standard size PTACs and
PTHPs) must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in Table 5 of this
section.
TABLE 4 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PTAC AND PTHP
Compliance date: Products
manufactured on and after
* * *
Product
Cooling capacity
Efficiency level
PTAC ........................
<7,000 Btu/h ................................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and <15,000 Btu/h .................
≥15,000 Btu/h ..............................................
EER = 8.88 ..................................................
EER = 10.0¥(0.16 × Cap 1) ........................
EER = 7.6 ....................................................
January 1, 1994.
January 1, 1994.
January 1, 1994.
PTHP ........................
<7,000 Btu/h ................................................
EER = 8.88 ..................................................
COP = 2.72
EER = 10.0¥(0.16 × Cap 1) ........................
COP = 1.3 + (0.16 × EER) 2
EER = 7.6
COP = 2.52 .................................................
January 1, 1994.
≥7,000 Btu/h and <15,000 Btu/h .................
≥15,000 Btu/h ..............................................
1 Cap
2 The
January 1, 1994.
January 1, 1994.
means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
applicable minimum cooling EER prescribed in this table.
TABLE 5 TO § 431.97—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PTAC AND PTHP
Compliance date: Products manufactured
on and after * * *
Product
Cooling capacity
Sub-category
Efficiency level
PTAC ........................
Standard Size .........
<7,000 Btu/h ...........
≥7,000 Btu/h and
<15,000 Btu/h.
≥15,000 Btu/h .........
<7,000 Btu/h ...........
≥7,000 Btu/h and
<15,000 Btu/h.
≥15,000 Btu/h .........
EER = 11.7 .............................
EER = 13.8¥(0.3 × Cap 1) .....
October 8, 2012.
October 8, 2012.
EER = 9.3 ...............................
EER = 9.4 ...............................
EER = 10.9¥(0.213 × Cap 1)
October 8, 2012.
October 7, 2010.
October 7, 2010.
EER = 7.7 ...............................
October 7, 2010.
Standard Size .........
<7,000 Btu/h ...........
October 8, 2012.
.................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and
<15,000 Btu/h.
≥15,000 Btu/h .........
Non-Standard Size
<7,000 Btu/h ...........
EER = 11.9 .............................
COP = 3.3
EER = 14.0¥(0.3 × Cap 1) .....
COP = 3.7¥(0.052 × Cap 1)
EER = 9.5 ...............................
COP = 2.9
EER = 9.3 ...............................
COP = 2.7
EER = 10.8¥(0.213 × Cap 1)
COP = 2.9¥(0.026 × Cap 1)
EER = 7.6 ...............................
COP = 2.5
Non-Standard Size
PTHP ........................
≥7,000 Btu/h and
<15,000 Btu/h.
≥15,000 Btu/h .........
1 Cap
October 8, 2012.
October 8, 2012.
October 7, 2010.
October 7, 2010.
October 7, 2010.
means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
(c) Each single package vertical air
conditioner and heat pump
manufactured on or after January 1,
2010, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this section.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE 6 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND
SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS
Compliance date:
Products manufactured on
and after * * *
Product
Cooling capacity
Sub-category
Efficiency level
Single package vertical air conditioners and
single package vertical heat pumps, singlephase and three-phase.
<65,000 Btu/h .............
AC ................
EER = 9.0 ...................
January 1, 2010.
HP ................
EER = 9.0 ...................
COP = 3.0
EER = 8.9 ...................
January 1, 2010.
Single package vertical air conditioners and
single package vertical heat pumps.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:02 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
AC ................
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
January 1, 2010.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
2431
TABLE 6 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND
SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS—Continued
Product
Cooling capacity
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
Efficiency level
HP ................
Single package vertical air conditioners and
single package vertical heat pumps.
Sub-category
EER = 8.9 ...................
COP = 3.0
EER = 8.6 ...................
AC ................
HP ................
(d) Each computer room air
conditioner with a net sensible cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h
manufactured on or after October 29,
EER = 8.6 ...................
COP = 2.9
2012, and each computer room air
conditioner with a net sensible cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000
Btu/h manufactured on or after October
Compliance date:
Products manufactured on
and after * * *
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
29, 2013, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this section.
TABLE 7 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
Minimum SCOP efficiency
Equipment type
Net sensible cooling capacity
Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled ........
Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled ...
Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled
with a Fluid Economizer.
Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled ...
Computer Room Air Conditioner, Glycol-Cooled
with a Fluid Economizer.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(e) Each variable refrigerant flow air
conditioner or heat pump manufactured
Downflow
unit
Upflow unit
Compliance date: Products
manufactured on and after
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
2.20
2.10
2.09
1.99
October 29, 2012.
October 29, 2013.
1.90
1.79
October 29, 2013.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
2.60
2.50
2.49
2.39
October 29, 2012.
October 29, 2013.
2.40
2.29
October 29, 2013.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
2.55
2.44
October 29, 2012.
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
2.45
2.34
October 29, 2013.
2.35
2.24
October 29, 2013.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
2.50
2.15
2.39
2.04
October 29, 2012.
October 29, 2013.
2.10
1.99
October 29, 2013.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
2.45
2.34
October 29, 2012.
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
2.10
1.99
October 29, 2013.
2.05
1.94
October 29, 2013.
on or after the effective date listed in
this table must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this section.
TABLE 8 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR
CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Compliance date: Products
manufactured and after
Cooling capacity
VRF Multi-Split
Cooled).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Air
Conditioners
18:49 Jan 13, 2012
(Air-
Jkt 226001
Heating type 1
Efficiency level
<65,000 Btu/h ..........
All .............................
13.0 SEER ...............
June 16, 2008.
≥65,000 and
<135,000 Btu/h.
Product
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
11.2 EER .................
January 1, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
2432
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR
CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS—Continued
Compliance date: Products
manufactured and after
Heating type 1
Efficiency level
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
11.0 EER .................
January 1, 2010.
11.0 EER .................
January 1, 2010.
10.8 EER .................
January 1, 2010.
10.0 EER .................
January 1, 2010.
9.8 EER ...................
January 1, 2010.
<65,000 Btu/h ..........
All .............................
June 16, 2008.
≥65,000 and
<135,000 Btu/h.
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of
Heating.
13.0 SEER ...............
7.7 HSPF
11.0 EER .................
3.3 COP
10.8 EER .................
3.3 COP
10.6 EER .................
3.2 COP
January 1, 2010.
10.4 EER .................
3.2 COP
9.5 EER ...................
3.2 COP
January 1, 2010.
9.3 EER ...................
3.2 COP
January 1, 2010.
12.0 EER .................
October 29, 2012.
4.2 COP ...................
11.8 EER .................
4.2 COP ...................
12.0 EER .................
4.2 COP
12.0 EER .................
4.2 COP
10.0 EER .................
3.9 COP
9.8 EER ...................
3.9 COP
October
October
October
October
Product
Cooling capacity
≥135,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 and
<760,000 Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) ..
≥135,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 and
<760,000 Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split
Source).
Heat
Pumps
(Water-
<17,000 Btu/h ..........
Without heat recovery.
With heat recovery ..
≥17,000 and
<65,000 Btu/h.
≥65,000 and
<135,000 Btu/h.
≥135,000 and
<760,000 Btu/h.
All .............................
All .............................
Without heat recovery.
With heat recovery ..
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
29,
29,
29,
29,
2003.
2012.
2003.
2003.
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2013.
October 29, 2013.
1 VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ‘‘All Other Types of Heating’’ unless they also have
electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ‘‘No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.’’
9. Add a new section 431.104 to read
as follows:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 431.104 Sources for information and
guidance.
(a) General. The standards listed in
this paragraph are referred to in the DOE
test procedures and elsewhere in this
part but are not incorporated by
reference. These sources are given here
for information and guidance.
(b) ASTM. American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, PO Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA, 19438–2959, 1 (877)
909–2786, or go to https://www.astm.org/
index.shtml.
(1) ASTM Standard Test Method
C177–97, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements
and Thermal Transmission Properties
by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate
Apparatus.’’
(2) ASTM Standard Test Method
C518–91, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements
and Thermal Transmission Properties
by Means of the Heat Flow Meter
Apparatus.’’
(3) ASTM Standard Test Method
D2156–80, ‘‘Method for Smoke Density
in Flue Gases from Burning Distillate
Fuels.’’
10. Section 431.105 is revised to read
as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 431.105 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) General. DOE incorporates by
reference the following test procedures
into subpart G of part 431. The materials
listed have been approved for
incorporation by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent
amendment to the listed materials by
the standard-setting organization will
not affect the DOE regulations unless
and until amended by DOE. Materials
are incorporated as they exist on the
date of the approval and a notice of any
change in the materials will be
published in the Federal Register. All
approved materials are available for
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030,
or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_
federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.
Also, this material is available for
inspection at U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC
20024, (202) 586–2945, or go to:
https://wwww.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/. The referenced
test procedure standards are listed
below by relevant standard-setting
organization, along with information on
how to obtain copies from those
sources.
(b) ANSI. American National
Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212)
642–4900, or go to https://www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, CSA 4.3–
2004, Sections 2.1.7, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.30,
Figure 3, and Exhibit G, Volume III,
‘‘Storage Water Heaters With Input
Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour,
Circulating and Instantaneous,’’
approved on July 2, 2004, IBR approved
for § 431.106.
(2) Reserved.
11. Section 431.106 is revised to read
as follows:
Energy efficiency
descriptor
Use test setup, equipment and
procedures in subsection labeled
‘‘Method of Test’’ of
Gas-fired Storage and Instantaneous Water
Heaters and Hot Water
Supply Boilers.*
Oil-fired Storage and Instantaneous Water
Heaters and Hot Water
Supply Boilers.*
Electric Storage and instantaneous Water
Heaters
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Product
Thermal Efficiency ..........
Standby Loss ..................
ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G1
ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G2
Thermal Efficiency ..........
Standby Loss ..................
ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G1
ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G2
Standby Loss ..................
ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G2
2433
§ 431.106 Uniform test method for the
measurement of energy efficiency of
commercial water heaters and hot water
supply boilers (other than commercial heat
pump water heaters).
(a) Scope. This section covers the test
procedures you must follow if, pursuant
to EPCA, you are measuring the thermal
efficiency or standby loss, or both, of a
storage or instantaneous water heater or
hot water supply boiler (other than a
commercial heat pump water heater).
(b) Testing and Calculations.
Determine the energy efficiency of each
covered product by conducting the test
procedure(s), set forth in the two
rightmost columns of the following
table, that apply to the energy efficiency
descriptor(s) for that product:
With these additional stipulations
A. For all products, the duration of the standby loss
test shall be until whichever of the following occurs first after you begin to measure the fuel and/
or electric consumption: (1) The first cutout after
24 hours or (2) 48 hours, if the water heater is not
in the heating mode at that time.
B. For oil and gas products, the standby loss in Btu
per hour must be calculated as follows: SL (Btu
per hour) = S (% per hour) × 8.25 (Btu/gal-F) ×
Measured Volume (gal) × 70 (degrees F).
C. For oil-fired products, apply the following in conducting the thermal efficiency and standby loss
tests: (1) Venting Requirements—Connect a
vertical length of flue pipe to the flue gas outlet of
sufficient height so as to meet the minimum draft
specified by the manufacturer. (2) Oil Supply—Adjust the burner rate so that: (a) The hourly Btu
input rate lies within ± 2 percent of the manufacturer’s specified input rate, (b) the CO2 reading
shows the value specified by the manufacturer, (c)
smoke in the flue does not exceed No. 1 smoke
as measured by the procedure in ASTM–D–2156–
80, and (d) fuel pump pressure lies within ±10 percent of manufacturer’s specifications.
D. For electric products, apply the following in conducting the standby loss test:
(1) Assume that the thermal efficiency (Et) of electric
water heaters with immersed heating elements is
98 percent.
(2) Maintain the electrical supply voltage to within ± 5
percent of the center of the voltage range specified on the water heater nameplate.
(3) If the set up includes multiple adjustable thermostats, set the highest one first to yield a maximum
water temperature in the specified range as measured by the topmost tank thermocouple. Then set
the lower thermostat(s) to yield a maximum mean
tank temperature within the specified range.
* As to hot water supply boilers with a capacity of less than 10 gallons, these test methods become mandatory on October 21, 2005. Prior to
that time, you may use for these products either (1) these test methods if you rate the product for thermal efficiency, or (2) the test methods in
Subpart E if you rate the product for combustion efficiency as a commercial packaged boiler.
** Incorporated by reference, see § 431.105.
[FR Doc. 2012–327 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jan 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\17JAP2.SGM
17JAP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2356-2433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-327]
[[Page 2355]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 10
January 17, 2012
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-
Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2356]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 and Test Procedures for Commercial
Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to amend its
energy conservation standards for several classes of commercial
heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. Pursuant to the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, DOE must
assess whether the uniform national standards for these covered
equipment need to be updated each time the corresponding industry
standard--the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)
Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1)--is amended, which most recently
occurred on October 29, 2010. Based upon its analysis of the energy
savings potential of amended energy conservation standards and the lack
of clear and convincing evidence to support more-stringent standards,
DOE is proposing to adopt the amended standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
commercial package air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow (VRF)
water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h; VRF water-source heat
pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h; and computer room air
conditioners. DOE is also proposing updates to the current Federal test
procedures to incorporate by reference the most current versions of the
following relevant industry test procedures specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1: Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI) 210/240 (small commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment); AHRI 340/360 (large and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment); Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727
and ANSI Z21.47 (commercial warm-air furnaces); and ANSI Z21.10.3
(commercial water heaters). Furthermore, DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI
1230 for newly-created classes of variable refrigerant flow air
conditioners and heat pumps, ASHRAE 127 for computer room air
conditioners, and AHRI 390 for single package vertical air conditioners
and single package vertical heat pumps. In addition, DOE is announcing
a public meeting to receive comment on its proposal and related issues.
DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on February 14, 2012,
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be
broadcast as a webinar. See section X, ``Public Participation,'' for
webinar information, participant instructions, and information about
the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public
meeting, but no later than April 2, 2012. For details, see section X,
``Public Participation,'' of this NOPR.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE
Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any
foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting, should advise
DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards at the phone number
above to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that any
person wishing to bring a laptop computer into the Forrestal Building
will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid
bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons may also attend
the public meeting via webinar. For more information, refer to section
X, ``Public Participation,'' of this NOPR.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR on Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for ASHRAE Standard 90.1
Products, and provide 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: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: ASHRAE90.1-2011-STD-0029@ee.doe.gov. Include docket
number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029 and/or RIN 1904-AC47 in the subject line
of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a
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 X of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, 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.
This 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 X, ``Public Participation,'' for
further information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
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. Email:
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. Email: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
[[Page 2357]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
2. Notice of Data Availability
III. General Discussion of Comments Regarding the ASHRAE Process and
DOE's Interpretation of EPCA's Requirements With Respect to ASHRAE
Equipment
A. The ASHRAE Process
B. The Definition of ``Amendment'' With Respect to the
Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
C. DOE's Review of ASHRAE Equipment Independent of the ASHRAE
Standards Process
IV. General Discussion of the Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
and Determination of Scope for Further Rulemaking Activity
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. Coverage of Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating
Equipment That Are Exclusively Used as Part of Industrial or
Manufacturing Processes
E. Test Procedures
1. Small (<65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) Commercial Package Air
Conditioners and Heating Equipment
2. Small (>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity), Large
(>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) and Very Large
(>=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) Commercial Package
Air Conditioners and Heating Equipment
3. Commercial Oil-Fired Warm-Air Furnaces
4. Commercial Gas-Fired Warm-Air Furnaces
5. Commercial Water Heaters
6. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms
7. Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems
8. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package
Vertical Heat Pumps
9. Additional Specifications for Testing of Commercial Package
Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment, Including VRF Systems
10. Sampling Plans for Commercial Heating, Ventilating, and Air-
Conditioning Equipment
F. Definitional Changes
V. Methodology for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
A. Definitions of ``VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners'' and ``VRF
Multi-Split Heat Pumps''
B. Annual Energy Use
C. Shipments
D. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Site-to-Source Conversion
2. Product Lifetime
3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period
VI. Methodology for Computer Room Air Conditioners
A. Market Assessment
1. Definitions of ``Computer Room Air Conditioners''
2. Equipment Classes
3. Review of Current Market for Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Trade Association Information
b. Manufacturer Information
c. Market Data
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Approach
2. Representative Input Capacities for Analysis
3. Baseline Equipment
4. Identification of Efficiency Information and Efficiency
Levels for Analysis
5. Pricing Data
6. Equipment Classes for Analysis and Extrapolation to
Unanalyzed Equipment Classes
7. Engineering Analysis Results
C. Markups To Determine Equipment Price
D. Energy Use Characterization
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
1. Approach
2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs
a. Equipment Prices
b. Installation Costs
c. Annual Energy Use
d. Electricity Prices
e. Maintenance Costs
f. Repair Costs
g. Equipment Lifetime
h. Discount Rate
3. Payback Period
F. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net
Present Value Analysis
1. Approach
2. Shipments Analysis
3. Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasted Distribution of
Efficiencies
4. National Energy Savings and Net Present Value
G. Other Issues
1. Compliance Date of the Proposed Amended Energy Conservation
Standards
VII. Methodology for Emissions Analysis and Monetizing Carbon
Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
A. Emissions Analysis
B. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
1. Social Cost of Carbon
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
VIII. Analytical Results
A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
B. Energy Savings and Economic Justification
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers
b. National Impact Analysis
C. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
D. Proposed Standards
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
IX. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
X. Public Participation
A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Request To Speak and Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
XI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291 et
seq.), as amended, requires DOE to consider amending the existing
Federal energy conservation standard for certain types of listed
commercial and industrial equipment (generally, commercial water
heaters, commercial packaged boilers, commercial air conditioning and
heating equipment, and packaged terminal air conditioners and heat
pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 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,\1\ DOE must adopt
amended
[[Page 2358]]
energy conservation 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 efficiency 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
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)) If
DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the
statutory criteria, DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not
later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard
90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 on October 29, 2010, thereby triggering DOE's above-
referenced obligations pursuant to EPCA to determine for those
equipment with efficiency level changes beyond the current Federal
standard, whether: (1) the amended industry standard should be adopted;
or (2) clear and convincing evidence exists to justify more-stringent
standard levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, this NOPR sets forth DOE's determination of scope for
consideration of amended energy conservation standards with respect to
certain heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and water-heating
equipment addressed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Such inquiry is
necessary to ascertain whether the revised ASHRAE efficiency levels
have become more stringent, thereby ensuring that any new amended
national standard would not result in prohibited ``backsliding.'' For
those equipment classes for which ASHRAE set more-stringent or new
efficiency levels (i.e., small, large, and very large water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow water-
source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either less than 17,000 Btu/h
or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h with and without heat
recovery; and computer room air conditioners), where possible,\2\ DOE
analyzed the energy savings potential of amended national energy
conservation standards (at both the new ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency
levels and more-stringent efficiency levels). For the classes of water-
cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioning and heating equipment,
as well as the VRF equipment classes, DOE determined that the potential
for energy savings from adopting more stringent levels than the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 levels was not significant, and, thus, DOE is proposing
to adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels without further analysis. (See
section IV.B for further details.) For computer room air conditioners,
DOE also analyzed the economic justification of amended national energy
conservation standards at more-stringent efficiency levels, in addition
to the energy savings potential. DOE did not identify any equipment on
the market for evaporatively-cooled air conditioners with a capacity
less than 240,000 Btu/h (small and large product classes) or VRF water-
source heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 17,000 Btu/h. As a
result, DOE did not analyze the economic or energy savings potential of
these amended national energy conservation standards, because there are
currently no energy savings associated with these product classes, nor
is there any available equipment information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ If DOE found there were no models available on the market
for any equipment class, DOE did not perform an analysis of the
energy savings potential of that equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the above, DOE has tentatively concluded that for
twelve classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air
conditioners, four classes of VRF water-source heat pumps, and thirty
classes of computer room air conditioners: (1) The revised efficiency
levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 \3\ are more stringent than current national
standards or represent new standards; and (2) their adoption as Federal
energy conservation standards would result in energy savings where
models exist below the revised efficiency levels. DOE has also
tentatively concluded that there is not clear and convincing evidence
as would justify adoption of more-stringent efficiency levels for this
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To obtain a copy of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, visit
www.ashrae.org/technology/page/548 or contact the ASHRAE
publications department by e-mail at orders@ashrae.org or by
telephone at (800) 527-4723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in accordance with the criteria discussed elsewhere in this
notice, DOE is proposing to amend its existing energy conservation
standards for twelve equipment classes of water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled equipment and VRF water-source heat pumps less
than 17,000 Btu/h (with and without heat recovery), and to establish
new energy conservation standards for VRF water-source heat pumps at or
greater than 135,000 Btu/h (with and without heat recovery) and thirty
classes of computer room air conditioners by adopting the efficiency
levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
The proposed standards for small water-cooled and evaporatively-
cooled commercial package air conditioners, VRF water-source heat pumps
less than 17,000 Btu/h, and computer room air conditioners less than
65,000 Btu/h would apply to equipment manufactured on or after the date
two years after the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 (i.e., by June 1, 2013 for small water-cooled and evaporatively-
cooled commercial package air conditioners, and by October 29, 2012 for
VRF water-source heat pump less than 17,000 Btu/h and computer room air
conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)(i)) The
proposed standards for large and very large water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, VRF water-
source heat pumps equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h, and computer
room air conditioners equal to or greater than 65,000 Btu/h would apply
to such equipment manufactured on or after the date three years after
the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (i.e., by
June 1, 2014 for large and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-
cooled commercial package air conditioners, and by October 29, 2013 for
VRF water-source heat pumps equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and
computer room air conditioners equal to or greater than 65,000 Btu/h).
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)(ii))
In addition, when the test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 are updated, EPCA requires DOE to amend the test procedures for
those ASHRAE equipment (which manufacturers are required to use in
order to certify compliance with energy conservation standards mandated
under EPCA) to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) Specifically, these amendments would update
the citations and incorporations by reference in
[[Page 2359]]
DOE's regulations to the most recent version of the following industry
standards: (1) AHRI 210/240-2008 (Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment); (2) AHRI 340/360-2007
(Performance Rating of Unitary Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment); (3) UL 727-2006 (Standard for
Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces); (4) ANSI Z21.47-2006 (Standard
for Gas-Fried Central Furnaces); and (5) 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). DOE is also
proposing to adopt three new test procedures for VRF equipment (AHRI
1230-2010), computer room air conditioners (ASHRAE 127-2007), and
single package vertical units (AHRI 390-2003). In addition to
harmonizing the test procedures with the latest versions in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE also reviewed each of these test procedures in their
totality as part of DOE's seven-year review required by EPCA.
DOE is also proposing to include an optional ``break-in'' provision
in its test procedures for commercial air conditioning and heating
equipment, in order to provide the manufacturer with the option of
running the test unit for a set amount of time prior to testing the
equipment. Such a provision could allow components within the unit to
warm-up to conditions that are more characteristic of typical operation
and more accurately reflect efficiencies achieved in the field. Lastly,
DOE has identified a number of issues associated with its test
procedures for which it is seeking comments from interested parties.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying today's proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment of standards for water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow
water-source heat pump systems, and computer room air conditioners.
A. Authority
Title III, Part C \4\ 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.\5\ 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), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labelling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information
and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA
2007) amended EPCA by adding definitions and setting minimum energy
conservation standards for single-package vertical air conditioners
(SPVACs) and single-package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(A)) The efficiency standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs
established by EISA 2007 correspond to the levels contained in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2004, which originated as addendum ``d'' to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2001.
In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy
efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to
consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation 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, DOE must publish in the Federal Register an analysis of the
energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards within
180 days of the amendment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs that 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 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 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 it
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)) (In addition, DOE notes that pursuant to the EISA 2007
amendments to EPCA, under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), the agency must
periodically review its already-established energy conservation
standards for ASHRAE products. Under this requirement, the next review
that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six years from
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a
covered product.)
EISA 2007 also amended EPCA to require that DOE review the most
recently published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010) with respect to SPVACs and SPVHPs in accordance with the
procedures established for ASHRAE equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6).
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE believes that this one-time
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.\6\ DOE is conducting a
separate rulemaking to further evaluate the efficiency levels for this
equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Once DOE has completed its rulemaking obligations under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B), SPVACs and SPVHPs will be treated similar to
other ASHRAE equipment going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2360]]
EPCA also requires that if a test procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must update its test procedure to be
consistent with the amended test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
unless DOE determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably
designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency,
energy use, or estimated operating costs of the ASHRAE product during a
representative average use cycle. In addition, DOE must determine that
the amended test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4))
Additionally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require that at least once
every 7 years, DOE must conduct an evaluation of the test procedures
for all covered equipment and either amend test procedures (if the
Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately
or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3)) or
publish notice in the Federal Register of any determination not to
amend a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) Under this
requirement, DOE must review the test procedures for the various types
of ASHRAE equipment not later than December 19, 2014 (i.e., 7 years
after the enactment of EISA 2007). Thus, the final rule resulting from
this rulemaking will satisfy the requirement to review the test
procedures for the certain types of ASHRAE equipment included in this
rule (i.e., those equipment for which DOE has been triggered) within
seven years.
On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE officially released and made public
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. This action triggered DOE's obligations
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined above.
When considering the possibility of a more-stringent standard,
DOE's more typical rulemaking requirements under EPCA apply (i.e., a
determination of technological feasibility, economic justification, and
significant energy savings). For example, EPCA provides that in
deciding whether such a standard is economically justified, DOE must
determine, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, whether
the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the 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 the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that such standard would likely result in
the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States at the time of
the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings
during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the
standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as
ASHRAE equipment, has two or more subcategories, DOE often specifies
more than one standard level. DOE generally will adopt a different
standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class
of products for any group of covered products that have the same
function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such
group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by
other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a
capacity or other performance-related feature which other products
within such type (or class) do not have and which justifies a higher or
lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In
determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different
standard for a group of products, DOE generally considers such factors
as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE
deems appropriate. In a rule prescribing such a standard, DOE includes
an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2); 6316(a)) DOE plans to follow a
similar process in the context of today's rulemaking.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)).
Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt
a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable,
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
[[Page 2361]]
technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the
reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today's NOPR is
consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to
the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net
benefits are maximized.
Consistent with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this
rulemaking, the energy efficiency standard proposed herein by DOE
achieves maximum net benefits.
B. 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 its efficiency levels for certain
commercial equipment and revised its scope to include additional
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 II.1 below presents the equipment classes for which ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels differed from those in the
previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2007). Table II.1 also presents the existing Federal energy
conservation standards and the corresponding standard levels in both
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for those
equipment classes. Section IV 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 II.1.
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards and Energy Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 and
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for Specific Types of Commercial Equipment *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy efficiency Energy efficiency Federal energy
ASHRAE equipment class** levels in ASHRAE levels in ASHRAE conservation DOE review
standard 90.1-2007 standard 90.1-2010 standards triggered?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-Fired Commercial Warm-Air Ec = 80% Et = 80% Et = 80% No
furnace. Interrupted or Interrupted or
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
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 1/11)
Electric Resistance Heating or
No Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.3 EER 11.9 EER (as of 6/ 11.3 EER Yes
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 1/11)
All Other Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER 12.5 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER Yes
>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 1/11)
Electric Resistance Heating or
No Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 10.8 EER 12.3 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER Yes
>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 1/11)
All Other Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER 12.4 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER Yes
>=240,000 Btu/h, Electric 1/11)
Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 10.8 EER 12.2 EER (as of 6/ 10.8 EER Yes
>=240,000 Btu/h, All Other 1/11)
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
Conditioner, >=65,000 and 1/11)
<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
Conditioner, >=65,000 and 1/11)
<135,000 Btu/h, All Other
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air 11.0 EER 12.0 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER Yes
Conditioner, >=135,000 and 1/11)
<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
Conditioner, >=135,000 and 1/11)
<240,000 Btu/h, All Other
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air 11.0 EER 11.9 EER (as of 6/ 11.0 EER Yes
Conditioner, >=240,000 and 1/11)
<760,000 Btu/h, Electric
Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air 10.8 EER 11.7 EER[dagger] 10.8 EER Yes
Conditioner, >=240,000 and (as of 6/1/11)
<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
cooled, <65,000 Btu/h.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air- N/A 11.2 EER 11.2 EER No
cooled, >=65,000 and <135,000
Btu/h, Electric Resistance or
No Heating.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air- N/A 11.0 EER 11.0 EER No
cooled, >=135,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Electric Resistance or
No Heating.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air- N/A 10.0 EER 10.0 EER No
cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance or No
Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A 13.0 SEER 13.0 SEER No
<65,000 Btu/h. 7.7 HSPF 7.7 HSPF
[[Page 2362]]
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A 11.0 EER 11.0 EER No
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 3.3 COP 3.3 COP
without heat recovery,
Electric Resistance or No
Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A 10.8 EER 11.0 EER (electric No
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 3.3 COP resistance
with heat recovery, Electric heating)
Resistance or No Heating. 10.8 EER (no
electric
resistance
heating)[dagger][
dagger][dagger]
3.3 COP
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A 10.6 EER 10.6 EER No
>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 3.2 COP 3.2 COP
without heat recovery,
Electric Resistance or No
Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A 10.4 EER 10.6 EER (electric No
>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 3.2 COP resistance
with heat recovery, Electric heating)
Resistance or No Heating. 10.4 (no electric
resistance
heating)[dagger][
dagger][dagger]
3.2 COP
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A 9.5 EER 9.5 EER No
>=240,000 Btu/h, without heat 3.2 COP 3.2 COP
recovery, Electric Resistance
or No Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, N/A 9.3 EER 9.5 EER (electric No
>=240,000 Btu/h, with heat 3.2 COP resistance
recovery, Electric Resistance heating)
or No Heating. 9.3 EER (no
electric
resistance
heating)[dagger][
dagger][dagger]
3.2 COP
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A 12.0 EER 11.2 EER (<17,000 Yes[loz][loz][loz]
<65,000 Btu/h, without heat 4.2 COP Btu/h)[Dagger] for <17,000 Btu
recovery. 12.0 EER (>=17,000 No
Btu/h and <65,000 for >=17,000 Btu/h
Btu/h) and <65,000 Btu/h
4.2 COP
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A 11.8 EER 11.2 EER (< 17,000 Yes[loz][loz][loz]
<65,000 Btu/h, with heat 4.2 COP Btu/h)[Dagger] for <17,000 Btu
recovery.
12.0 EER (>=17,000 No
Btu/h and <65,000 for >=17,000 Btu/h
Btu/h) and <65,000 Btu/h
4.2 COP
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A 12.0 EER 12.0 EER No
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 4.2 COP 4.2 COP
without heat recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A 11.8 EER 12.0 EER No
>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 4.2 COP 4.2 COP
with heat recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A 10.0 EER N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
>=135,000 Btu/h, without heat 3.9 COP
recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, N/A 9.8 EER N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
>=135,000 Btu/h, with heat 3.9 COP
recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--PTACs and PTHPs[Dagger][Dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Package Terminal Air EER = 11.0 EER = 11.7 EER = 11.7 No
Conditioner, <7,000 Btu/h, (as of 10/8/12)
Standard Size (New
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][
Dagger].
Package Terminal Air EER = 12.5--(0.213 EER = 13.8--(0.300 EER = 13.8--(0.300 No
Conditioner, >=7,000 and x Cap[loz]) x Cap[loz]) x Cap[loz])
<15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (as of 10/8/12)
(New
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][
Dagger].
Package Terminal Air EER = 9.3 EER = 9.3 EER = 9.3 No
Conditioner, >15,000 Btu/h,
Standard Size (New
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][
Dagger].
Package Terminal Heat Pump, EER = 10.8 EER = 11.9 EER = 11.9 No
<7,000 Btu/h, Standard Size COP = 3.0 COP = 3.3 COP = 3.3
(New (as of 10/8/12)
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][
Dagger].
Package Terminal Heat Pump, EER = 12.3--(0.213 EER = 14.0--(0.300 EER = 14.0--(0.300 No
>=7,000 and <15,000 Btu/h, x Cap[loz]) x Cap[loz]) x Cap[loz])
Standard Size (New COP = 3.2--(0.026 x COP = 3.7--(0.052 COP = 3.7--(0.052
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][ Cap[loz]) x Cap[loz]) x Cap[loz])
Dagger]. (as of 10/8/12)
Package Terminal Heat Pump, EER = 9.1 EER = 9.5 EER = 9.5 No
>15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size COP = 2.8 COP = 2.9 COP = 2.9
(New
Construction)[Dagger][Dagger][
Dagger].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--SDHV and TTW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through-the-Wall, Air-cooled 12.0 SEER 13.0 SEER 13.0 SEER No
Heat Pumps, <=30,000 Btu/h. 7.4 HSPF 7.4 HSPF 7.7 HSPF
Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air- 10.0 SEER N/A[loz][loz] 13.0 SEER No
cooled Heat Pumps, <65,000 Btu/ 6.8 HSPF 7.7 HSPF
h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, N/A 2.20 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
<65,000 Btu/h. (downflow)
2.09 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, air-cooled, N/A 2.10 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h. (downflow)
1.99 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, air-cooled, N/A 1.90 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
>=240,000 Btu/h. (downflow)
1.79 SCOP (upflow)
[[Page 2363]]
Air conditioners, water-cooled, N/A 2.60 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
<65,000 Btu/h. (downflow)
2.49 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, water-cooled, N/A 2.50 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h. (downflow)
2.39 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, water-cooled, N/A 2.40 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
>=240,000 Btu/h. (downflow)
2.29 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, water-cooled N/A 2.55 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
with fluid economizer, <65,000 (downflow)
Btu/h. 2.44 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, water-cooled N/A 2.45 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
with fluid economizer, (downflow)
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h. 2.34 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, water-cooled N/A 2.35 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
with fluid economizer, (downflow)
>=240,000 Btu/h. 2.24 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, glycol- N/A 2.50 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. (downflow)
2.39 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, glycol- N/A 2.15 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
cooled, >=65,000 and <240,000 (downflow)
Btu/h. 2.04 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, glycol- N/A 2.10 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h. (downflow)
1.99 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled N/A 2.45 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
with fluid economizer, <65,000 (downflow)
Btu/h. 2.34 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled N/A 2.10 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
with fluid economizer, (downflow)
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h. 1.99 SCOP (upflow)
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled N/A 2.05 SCOP N/A Yes[loz][loz][loz]
with fluid economizer, (downflow)
>=240,000 Btu/h. 1.94 SCOP (upflow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``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
IV.B.2 of this NOPR, 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 IV.B.3 of this NOPR, DOE believes these systems are currently covered by
Federal energy conservation 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[ordm] F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products and evaporatively-cooled products, and at
85[ordm] F entering water temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values must be rated at 47[ordm] F
outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products, and at 70[ordm] 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.
[loz] ``Cap'' means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95[ordm] F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
[loz][loz] ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 includes an efficiency level of 10.0 SEER for these products. However, as
explained in section IV.B.5 of this NOPR, DOE believes that ASHRAE did not intend to set an efficiency level
for these products.
[loz][loz][loz] An energy-savings analysis for this class of equipment was not conducted for the notice of data
availability published on May 5, 2011 due to either a lack of data or because there is no equipment on the
market that would fall into this equipment class.
2. Notice of Data Availability
On May 5, 2011, DOE published a notice of data availability (May
2011 NODA) in the Federal Register and requested public comment as a
preliminary step required pursuant to EPCA when DOE considers amended
energy conservation standards for certain types of commercial equipment
covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 76 FR 25622. Specifically, the May
2011 NODA presented for public comment DOE's analysis of the potential
energy savings estimates for amended national energy conservation
standards for types of commercial equipment based on: (1) The modified
efficiency levels contained within ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010; and (2)
more-stringent efficiency levels. Id. at 25637. DOE has described these
analyses and preliminary conclusions and sought input from interested
parties, including the submission of data and other relevant
information. Id.
In addition, DOE presented a discussion in the May 2011 NODA of the
changes found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Id. at 25630-37. The May
2011 NODA includes a description of DOE's evaluation of each ASHRAE
equipment type in order for DOE to determine whether the amendments in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 have increased efficiency levels. As an
initial matter, DOE sought to determine which requirements for covered
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if any, have been revised solely to
reflect the level of the current Federal energy conservation standard
(where ASHRAE is merely ``catching up'' to the current national
standard), have been revised but lowered, have been revised to include
design requirements without changes to the efficiency level, or have
had any other revisions made that do not increase the standard level,
in which case, DOE is not triggered to act under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)
for that particular product type. For those types of equipment in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for which ASHRAE actually increased efficiency
levels above the current Federal standard, DOE subjected that equipment
to the potential energy savings analysis discussed above and presented
the results in the May 2011 NODA for public comment. 76 FR 25622,
25644-47 (May 5, 2011). Additionally, for single package vertical air
conditioners and heat pumps, although the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010 were unchanged, DOE performed an analysis of their potential
energy savings as required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B). Lastly, DOE
presented an initial assessment of the
[[Page 2364]]
test procedure changes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
As a result of the preliminary determination of scope set forth in
the May 2011 NODA, DOE found that there were equipment types for which
ASHRAE increased the efficiency levels (thereby triggering further
analysis) including: (1) Water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air
conditioners; (2) two classes of VRF water-source heat pumps with and
without heat recovery; and (3) computer room air conditioners (which
were not previously covered). 76 FR 25622, 25644-47 (May 5, 2011). DOE
presented its methodology, data, and results for the preliminary energy
savings analysis developed for the water-cooled and evaporatively-
cooled equipment classes in the May 2011 N
