Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment, 7296-7304 [2013-02164]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7296
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the draft language in Subchapter G—
Audit Requirements will address many
of them.
One additional idea for reform
suggested by many in the Federal
agency and audit community was to
reduce the amount of time for audit
submission from the current nine
months down to three months or six
months. OMB supports this idea, but
notes that it will require changes to
legislation to accomplish.
D. Additional Suggestions Outside of
the Scope of This Proposed Guidance
In addition to the ideas discussed
above, OMB received many ideas for
reforms to Federal grant policies which
have merit but are not properly
addressed through changes to
governmentwide guidance. Some of
these ideas include better coordination
of regulations that are applicable or
have an impact on Federal grant; use of
the Federal rule-making process for
agency grants policies; improvements in
data quality across systems that support
the Federal grants community; looking
at regulations governing electronic
imaging for documents for both grants
and contracts; facilitating better
coordination, consistency, and
transparency between indirect cost rate
setting agencies; and improving the
training available to Federal grants
professionals. OMB is committed to
continuing improvements in the
policies, practices, and systems that
support the Federal grants community
under the continuing leadership of the
COFAR. OMB and the COFAR will
continue to work together to reach out
to stakeholders to continue these
discussions and to evaluate where
further improvements may continue to
be made.
Daniel I. Werfel,
Controller.
[FR Doc. 2013–02113 Filed 1–31–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0007]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
RIN 1904–AC95
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Small,
Large, and Very Large Commercial
Package Air Conditioning and Heating
Equipment
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Jan 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
Request for information (RFI)
and notice of document availability.
ACTION:
Pursuant to the American
Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is initiating an effort to
determine whether to amend the current
energy conservation standards for
certain commercial air-conditioning and
heating equipment. This notice seeks to
solicit information from the public to
help DOE determine whether national
standards more stringent than those that
are currently in place would result in a
significant amount of additional energy
savings and whether those national
standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified.
Separately, DOE also seeks information
from the public on the merits of
adopting the integrated energy
efficiency ratio (IEER) as the energy
efficiency descriptor for small, large,
and very large air-cooled commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested on or before
March 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
encouraged to submit comments
electronically. However, comments may
be submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email to the following address:
CommPkgACHP2013STD0007@ee.
doe.gov. Include docket number EERE–
2013–BT–STD–0007 and/or RIN 1904–
AC95 in the subject line of the message.
All comments should clearly identify
the name, address, and, if appropriate,
organization of the commenter.
• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
Request for Information for Commercial
Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps,
Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0007
and/or RIN 1904–AC95, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please
submit one signed paper original.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Sixth
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024. Please submit
one signed paper original.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number and/or RIN for this
rulemaking. No telefacsimilies (faxes)
will be accepted.
Docket: The docket is available for
review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
public meeting attendees’ 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: https://www.regulations.gov/#
!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD0007. This Web page contains a link to
the docket for this notice on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. The
www.regulations.gov Web page contains
simple instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For 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:
Direct requests for additional
information may be sent to Mr. Joshua
Cocciardi, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: 202–287–1656. Email:
Joshua.Cocciardi@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Michael Kido, 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: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or
review public comments, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
III. Request for Information and Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or
the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C.
6311–6317, as codified), added by
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Public Law 95–619, Title IV, § 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which includes provisions
covering the commercial heating and
air-conditioning equipment that is the
subject of this notice.2 In general, this
program addresses the energy efficiency
of certain types of commercial and
industrial equipment. Relevant
provisions of the Act 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).
Section 342(a) of EPCA concerns
energy conservation standards for small,
large, and very large, air-cooled
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment (also known
generally as unitary air conditioning
and heating equipment). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)) This category of equipment has
a rated capacity between 64,000 Btu/h
and 760,000 Btu/h. The equipment is
designed to heat and cool commercial
buildings and is typically located on the
building’s rooftop. Section 5(b) of the
American Energy Manufacturing
Technical Corrections Act of 2012 (Pub.
L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012) (AEMTCA))
amended Section 342(a)(6) of EPCA,
which concerns the amendment of
energy conservation standards for
certain types of commercial and
industrial equipment. At issue here is
the inclusion of a requirement for DOE
to consider amending the standards for
‘‘any covered equipment as to which
more than 6 years has elapsed since the
issuance of the most recent final rule
establishing or amending a standard for
the product as of the date of AEMTCA’s
enactment, December 18, 2012. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(vi)) DOE must issue
either a notice of determination that the
current standards do not need to be
amended or a notice of proposed
rulemaking containing proposed
standards by December 31, 2013. See 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i) and (vi) (as
amended by AEMTCA).3
For small, large, and very large aircooled commercial package air
conditioners (ACs) and heating pumps
(HPs), the last final rule issued by DOE
was on October 18, 2005, which
codified both the amended standards for
small and large equipment and the new
standards for very large equipment set
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public
Law 109–58 (Aug. 8, 2005) (EPAct
2005). 70 FR 60407. Consistent with the
new requirements Congress enacted as
part of AEMTCA, DOE is required to
publish either a notice of determination
that standards for these equipment types
do not need to be amended, or a notice
of proposed rulemaking proposing
amended energy conservation standards
for these equipment types.
In order to meet the new requirements
added by AEMTCA, DOE is reviewing
the standards that are already in place
affecting those products listed in 42
U.S.C. 6313(a) for which more than six
years have elapsed since the issuance of
the most recent final rule. Under
Section 6313(a), DOE must either adopt
7297
those standards developed by the
American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE)—or to adopt levels
more stringent than the ASHRAE levels
if there is clear and convincing evidence
in support of doing so. AEMTCA added
to this procedure a specified deadline
within which DOE must act with
respect to those standards for which
more than six years have elapsed since
the issuance of the relevant final rule.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i) and (vi))
Today’s notice represents the initiation
of the mandatory review process
imposed by AEMTCA and seeks input
from the public to assist DOE with its
determination on whether to amend the
current standards pertaining to small,
large, and very large air-cooled
commercial package air conditioners
and heating equipment ranging in
cooling capacity from 65,000 Btu/h to
760,000 Btu/h. In making this
determination, DOE must evaluate
whether there is clear and convincing
evidence that more stringent national
standards than the ones established
pursuant to the ASHRAE-process
described above would result in
significant energy savings, be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. By statute, DOE
may promulgate or amend existing
energy conservation standards only if
the resulting standards would (1) yield
a significant savings in energy use and
(2) be both technologically feasible and
economically justified. The current
Federal standards, for this equipment,
are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1—MINIMUM COOLING AND HEATING EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR AIR-COOLED COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND
HEAT PUMPS, ≥65,000 BTU/H AND <760,000 BTU/H
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Small Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
(Air-Cooled).
>=65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
Sub-category
Heating type
AC ...................
HP ...................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
(Air-Cooled).
>=135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
AC ...................
HP ...................
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the American
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Jan 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Compliance
date
No Heating or Electric
Resistance Heating.
EER = 11.2
1/1/2010
All Other Types of Heating.
No Heating or Electric
Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of Heating.
No Heating or Electric
Resistance Heating.
EER = 11.0
1/1/2010
EER = 11.0
COP = 3.3
EER = 10.8
COP = 3.3
EER = 11.0
1/1/2010
All Other Types of Heating.
No Heating or Electric
Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of Heating.
EER = 10.8
1/1/2010
EER = 10.6
COP = 3.2
EER = 10.4
COP = 3.2
1/1/2010
Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act of
2012, Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
PO 00000
Efficiency
level
1/1/2010
1/1/2010
1/1/2010
3 Subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B) refer to
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
7298
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—MINIMUM COOLING AND HEATING EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR AIR-COOLED COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND
HEAT PUMPS, ≥65,000 BTU/H AND <760,000 BTU/H—Continued
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
>=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
Heating type
Efficiency
level
Compliance
date
A. Background
On October 29, 1999, ASHRAE and
the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America (IESNA) adopted
Standard 90.1–1999, which included
amended efficiency levels for
commercial air conditioners and heat
pumps. DOE evaluated these efficiency
levels and subsequently adopted levels
affecting 18 different equipment
categories in a 2001 final rule. 66 FR
3336 (Jan. 12, 2001). However, the final
rule’s notice also indicated that DOE
planned to further evaluate commercial
air-cooled air conditioners and heat
pumps with rated capacities between
65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h because
the initial analyses indicated that more
stringent standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. Id. at 3349. On
June 12, 2001, the Department
published a Framework Document that
described analytical approaches to
evaluate energy conservation standards
for these larger commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps (i.e.
capacities between 65,000 Btu/h and
240,000 Btu/h) and presented this
analytical framework to stakeholders at
a public workshop. On July 29, 2004,
DOE issued an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) to
solicit public comments on its
preliminary analyses for this equipment.
69 FR 45461. Subsequently, Congress
enacted EPAct 2005, which, among
other things, established amended
standards for small and large
commercial air-cooled air conditioners
and heat pumps and new standards for
very large air-cooled air conditioners
and heat pumps. As a result, EPAct
2005 displaced the rulemaking effort
that DOE had already begun. DOE
codified these new statutorilyprescribed standards on October 18,
2005. 70 FR 60407.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE generally follows specific criteria
when prescribing amended standards
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Jan 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
AC ...................
No Heating or Electric
Resistance Heating.
EER = 10.0
1/1/2010
All Other Types of Heating.
No Heating or Electric
Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of Heating.
EER = 9.8 ...
1/1/2010
HP ...................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Very Large Commercial Packaged AirConditioning and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Sub-category
EER = 9.5 ...
COP = 3.2
EER = 9.3 ...
COP = 3.2
1/1/2010
for covered equipment. See generally 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)–(C). An amended
standard for covered equipment must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. Furthermore,
DOE may not adopt any amended
standard that would not result in the
significant conservation of energy.
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard for certain equipment, if (1) no
test procedure has been established for
the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines
by rule that, in cases where a standard
has been proposed, the proposed
standard is not technologically feasible
or economically justified. In deciding
whether a proposed amended standard
is economically justified, DOE must
determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. DOE must
make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard,
and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven
factors:
1. The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to
the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered equipment in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that
are likely to result from the imposition
of the standard;
3. The total projected amount of
energy savings, or as applicable, water
savings, likely to result directly from the
imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered equipment
likely to result from the imposition of
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 imposition of the
standard;
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1/1/2010
6. The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of
Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
(See generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
As part of this decision-making
process, there must also be clear and
convincing evidence that the adoption
of a national standard that is more
stringent than the level set by ASHRAE
would result in the significant
additional conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. See generally 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). Accordingly, EPCA
requires that there be clear and
convincing evidence that the adoption
of standards more stringent than those
set by ASHRAE would lead to
significant energy savings and that
achieving those standards would be
both technologically feasible and,
separately, economically justified using
the seven criteria listed above.
In assessing the appropriateness of
amending the standards that are
currently in place for small, large, and
very large commercial air-cooled air
conditioners and heat pumps, DOE is
planning to conduct in-depth technical
analyses in the following areas to meet
the statutory criteria for prescribing
amended standards: (1) Engineering; (2)
energy use; (3) markups; (4) life-cycle
cost and payback period; (5) national
impacts; (6) manufacturer impacts; (7)
emission impacts; (8) utility impacts; (9)
employment impacts; and (10)
regulatory impacts. These analyses are
the same ones DOE routinely applies
when evaluating potential standards for
a given type of product or equipment.
DOE will also conduct several other
analyses that support those previously
listed, including the market and
technology assessment, the screening
analysis (which contributes to the
engineering analysis), and the
shipments analysis (which contributes
to the national impact analysis). As
detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is
specifically publishing this notice as the
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
first step in the analysis process and is
specifically requesting input and data
from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
As part of this analysis, DOE is giving
very serious consideration to the
possible replacement of the existing
efficiency descriptor (i.e., energy
efficiency ratio (EER)) with a new
energy-efficiency descriptor (i.e.,
integrated energy efficiency ratio
(IEER)). Unlike the EER metric, which
utilizes only the efficiency of equipment
operating at full load conditions, IEER
factors in the equipment’s efficiency
while operating at part-load conditions
of 75%, 50%, and 25% of capacity as
well as during full load. This is
accomplished by weighting the full- and
part-load efficiencies with the average
amount of time operating at each
loading point; IEER provides a more
representative measure of the energy
consumption in actual operation.
Moreover, IEER incorporates variations
of outside temperature from design
temperatures for part-load operation
that further increase the accuracy of the
metric.
Since 2007, ASHRAE has been
specifying in its Standard 90.1 the use
of an energy efficiency metric that
captures part-load performance.
ASHRAE first published specifications
for part-load energy efficiency in their
Standard 90.1–2007 based on the
integrated part load value (IPLV). In
Addendum’s from the 2008 Supplement
to Standard 90.1–2007, ASHRAE
replaced IPLV for commercial air
conditioning and heat pump equipment
with IEER, effective January 1, 2010.
According to ASHRAE, that change was
made to improve the accuracy when
rating part-load performance of
commercial air conditioning and
heating equipment.4
EPCA authorizes DOE to establish
‘‘energy conservation standards’’ that set
either a single performance standard or
a single design requirement—not both.
See 42 U.S.C. 6311(18). As such, DOE
can choose to implement an energy
conservation standard using one or the
other. In the case of small, large, and
very large commercial air-cooled ACs
and HPs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1
recommends two performance
requirements; EER and IEER. Because
EPCA does not specify a particular
metric that DOE must use when
measuring the efficiency of the
4 ASHRAE. ASHRAE Addenda. 2008
Supplement. https://www.ashrae.org/File%20
Library/docLib/Public/20090317_90_1_2007_
supplement.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Jan 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
equipment at issue in this notice,
changing that metric from one type (e.g.
EER) to another (e.g. IEER) is
permissible. DOE also notes that in
amending standards for a given type of
product or equipment, DOE must ensure
that a potential new standard would not
result in reduced stringency when
compared to the current Federal
standards. See, e.g. 74 FR 36322 and 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I).
As part of its consideration, DOE
examined whether part-load
performance is currently being used and
accepted for rating commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps. On
January 2, 2009, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft
ENERGY STAR specification for Light
Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps products, i.e., small and large
air-cooled air conditioners and airsource heat pumps, which proposed to
adopt IEER as part of the minimum
energy efficiency criteria.5 In a January
30, 2009 letter regarding EPA’s draft,
AHRI expressed support for IEER as
well as for the ENERGY STAR program
to adopt IEER. Recently, the Consortium
for Energy Efficiency (CEE), an
organization for energy efficiency
advocates, has adopted IEER for its Tier
0, 1, and 2 efficiencies for unitary air
conditioning and heat pump products,
i.e., small, large, and very large air-,
water-, and evaporatively-cooled air
conditioners and air- and water-source
heat pumps.6
IEER has also gained support through
efforts such as DOE’s Commercial
Building Energy Alliance (CBEA)
technology transfer program, which
sponsors the High Performance Rooftop
Unit Challenge (RTU Challenge). This
program provides a market mechanism
that reduces barriers for manufacturers
to procure greater than 18-IEER 10-ton
equipment and encourages the private
sector to commit to adopt energyefficient equipment. Carrier, Lennox,
7AC Technologies, and Rheem are
participating in the RTU Challenge,
while participant McQuay has already
produced certified equipment that
meets or exceeds 18 IEER. In
conjunction with manufacturer support,
fourteen CBEA-member private
entities,7 such as Target Corp., Macy’s,
5 ENERGY STAR. Re: EPA Proposed Draft Energy
Star Specification for Light Commercial HVAC
Equipment. https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/
prod_development/revisions/downloads/lhvac/
AHRI_Comments_D1.pdf.
6 Consortium for Energy Efficiency. CEE
Commercial Unitary AC and HP Specification.
https://www.cee1.org/files/CEE_CommHVAC_
UnitarySpec2012.pdf.
7 U.S. Department of Energy. Building
Technologies Program. High Performance Rooftop
Unit Challenge Fact Sheet. https://apps1.eere.energy.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7299
Inc., McDonald’s Corp., and others, have
also signaled their support and
indicated their strong interest in
potentially purchasing high-efficiency
rooftop units, a sign of their confidence
in the RTU Challenge and its ability to
use IEER to accurately portray the
energy use of commercial air-cooler air
conditioners and heat pumps in the
field.
Lastly, DOE conducted a market
analysis to compare the two metrics
based on publicly available ratings of
equipment currently available in the
market. DOE is making available for
comment a document that provides the
methodology and results of the
investigation of the relationship
between IEER and EER for commercial
air-cooled air conditioners and heat
pumps with cooling capacities between
65,000 Btu/hr and 760,000 Btu/hr (i.e.,
5 and 63 tons). In addition, it looks at
the variance of heating efficiency (i.e.,
coefficient of performance or COP) with
IEER and EER. The document is
available at: https://www1.eere.energy.
gov/buildings/appliance_standards/
product.aspx/productid/77. Ultimately,
if DOE were to decide after considering
the comments in response to this notice
to migrate to the IEER metric, DOE
would transition the existing Federal
energy conservation standards to the
new metric by identifying the
appropriate baseline energy-efficiency
levels to use in the analysis. From that
point forward, all of the technical and
economic analyses would be conducted
using the new metric, IEER, in the
evaluation of potential amended energy
conservation standards for small, large,
and very large air-cooled ACs and HPs.
Consequently, DOE seeks comments and
data regarding its consideration of
transitioning metrics and the analysis
conducted on the currently available
models.
III. Request for Information and
Comments
In the next section, DOE identifies a
variety of issues on which it seeks input
and data in order to aid its development
of the technical and economic analyses
to determine whether amended energy
conservation standards may be
warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
not specifically be identified in this
notice.
A. Test Procedure
DOE recently reviewed and adopted
amended test procedures for small,
gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/alliances/
techspec_rtus.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
7300
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
large, and very large, air-cooled
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment in a final rule
published on May 16, 2012. 77 FR
28928. These test procedures
incorporate by reference certain sections
of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute’s (AHRI) 2007
Standard for Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment (AHRI 340/360–2007) along
with the addition of a handful of other
additional testing specifications. AHRI
is an industry trade group representing
air conditioning, heating and
refrigeration manufacturers.
In light of DOE’s consideration to
switch from EER to IEER, DOE
conducted a preliminary review of the
current Federal test procedures for
small, large, and very large air-cooled
ACs and HPs. As part of its final rule
issued on May 16, 2012, DOE adopted
AHRI Test Standard 340/360–2007. 77
FR 28928. DOE found that the methods
and procedures for testing and rating
equipment with an IEER already exist
within its test procedure. However, DOE
specifically seeks comment on any test
procedure issues relating to IEER and
the existing Federal procedures that
DOE should consider as part of this
rulemaking.
(A1) DOE requests comment on the
existing DOE test procedure for small,
large, and very large air-conditioning
equipment and its suitability for
establishing a performance rating based
on IEER.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Market Assessment
The market and technology
assessment provides information about
the commercial air conditioner and heat
pump industry that will be used
throughout the rulemaking process. For
example, this information will be used
to determine whether the existing
equipment class structure requires
modification based on the statutory
criteria for setting such classes and to
explore the potential for technological
improvements in the design and
manufacturing of such equipment. The
Department uses qualitative and
quantitative information to assess the
past and present industry structure and
market characteristics. DOE will use
existing market materials and literature
from a variety of sources, including
industry publications, trade journals,
government agencies, and trade
organizations. Additionally, DOE will
consider conducting interviews with
manufacturers to assess the overall
market for commercial air conditioners
and heat pumps.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Jan 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
The current equipment classes as
established in EPAct 2005 for small,
large, and very large, air-cooled ACs and
HPs divide this equipment into twelve
equipment classes characterized by
rated cooling capacity, equipment type
(air conditioner versus heat pump), and
heating type. As a starting point, DOE
plans to use the existing equipment
class structure as shown in Table 1 of
10 CFR 431.97. However, DOE will
consider additional equipment classes
for capacities or other performancerelated features that inherently effect
efficiency and justify the establishment
of a different energy conservation
standard. For instance, additional
equipment classes may be warranted to
differentiate between split and packaged
type units or to further segment the
capacities of the equipment covered in
this analysis.
(B1) DOE requests feedback on the
current equipment classes and seeks
information regarding other equipment
classes it should consider for inclusion
in its analysis.
C. Technology Options for
Consideration
DOE uses information about existing
and past technology options and
prototype designs to help identify
technologies that manufacturers could
use to meet and/or exceed energy
conservation standards. In consultation
with interested parties, DOE intends to
develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. Initially, this
list will include all those technologies
considered to be technologically feasible
and will serve to establish the maximum
technologically feasible design. DOE is
currently considering the specific
technologies and design options listed
below.
• Electro-hydrodynamic enhanced
heat transfer.
• Copper rotor motor with improved
efficiency.
• Improved refrigerants.
• Evaporator coil area (keeping the
number of coil rows the same).
• Condenser coil area (keeping the
number of coil rows the same).
• Coil rows (keeping face area the
same).
• Condenser fan diameters.
• Evaporator fan.
• Air leakage paths within the unit.
• Coil row (keeping coil heat transfer
the same).
• Microchannel heat exchangers.
• Deep coil heat exchangers.
• Low-pressure-loss filters.
• High efficiency fan motors.
• High efficiency compressors.
• Multiple compressors.
• Thermal expansion valves.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Electronic expansion valves.
• Air foil centrifugal fans.
• Backward-curved centrifugal fans.
• Synchronous (toothed) belts.
• Direct-drive fans.
• High efficiency propeller
condenser.
• High-side solenoid valve or
discharge line check-valve to minimize
pressure equalization.
• Heat-pipes (for high latent loads).
• Sub-coolers.
• Demand-control ventilation
strategy.
(C1) DOE seeks information related to
these or other unlisted, efficiency
improving technologies as to their
applicability to the current market and
how these technologies improve
efficiency of small, large, and very large
commercial air-cooler ACs and HPs as
rated by AHRI 340/360–2007.
(C2) Additionally, DOE requests
comment on which of the listed
technologies and/or other technologies
not mentioned that may preferentially
improve the IEER more than the EER for
commercial air conditioners and heat
pumps.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates
the cost-efficiency relationship of
equipment at different levels of
increased energy efficiency. This
relationship serves as the basis for the
cost-benefit calculations for commercial
customers, manufacturers, and the
nation. In determining the costefficiency relationship, DOE will
estimate the increase in manufacturer
cost associated with increasing the
efficiency of equipment above the
baseline to the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
efficiency level for each equipment
class. The baseline model is used as a
reference point for each equipment class
in the engineering analysis and the lifecycle cost and payback-period analyses.
Typically, DOE would consider
equipment that just meets the minimum
energy conservation standard as
baseline equipment. However, DOE is
considering whether to replace the
current cooling performance energy
efficiency descriptor, EER, with IEER,
and a single EER level can correspond
to a range of IEERs. If DOE decides to
transition to a new efficiency descriptor,
DOE would have to establish a baseline
IEER for each equipment class, and
could consider the minimum, median,
average, or maximum IEER in the
applicable range.
(D1) DOE requests comment on
approaches that it should consider
when determining a baseline IEER for
each equipment class, including
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
information regarding the merits and/or
deficiencies of such approaches.
(D2) DOE also seeks comment on an
appropriate baseline IEER for each
equipment class and analysis
supporting such selected baseline
efficiency levels.
(D3) DOE requests information on
max-tech efficiency levels achievable in
the current market in terms of IEER,
EER, and COP as applicable.
In order to create the cost-efficiency
relationship, DOE anticipates that it will
structure its engineering analysis using
the reverse-engineering (or costassessment) approach. A reverseengineering or cost-assessment
approach relies on a teardown analysis
of representative baseline efficient to
highly efficient units that employ
maximum technologically feasible
designs. A teardown analysis (or
physical teardown) determines the
production cost of a piece of equipment
by disassembling the equipment ‘‘pieceby-piece’’ and estimating the material
and labor cost of each component. A
supplementary method called a catalog
teardown uses published manufacturer
catalogs and supplementary component
data to estimate the major physical
differences between a piece of
equipment that has been physically
disassembled and another piece of
similar equipment. These two methods
would be used together to help DOE
determine the cost effectiveness of any
standards that it may consider as part of
a standards rulemaking to amend the
levels currently in place.
(D4) DOE requests feedback on using
a reverse engineering approach
supplemented with catalog teardowns
and requests comment on what the
appropriate representative capacities
would be for each equipment class.
In the 2004 ANOPR, the Department
proposed to address the energy
efficiency of commercial air-cooled heat
pumps by developing functions relating
COP to EER. This method was also used
by industry to establish minimum
performance requirements for ASHRAE
90.1–1999. AHRI supplied the ASHRAE
90.1–1999 committee with curves
relating the COP as a function of EER,
and the committee then set the
minimum COP levels based on EER. 69
FR 45460, 45468. Due to the previous
acceptance of this method, DOE is
considering a similar approach for this
rulemaking. If DOE transitions to use
IEER as the energy efficiency descriptor,
then DOE may establish minimum COP
levels based on IEER. DOE has
conducted a market analysis and
evaluated the relationship between IEER
and COP in a technical support
document published to coincide with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Jan 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
this notice.8 DOE recognizes that COP
does not integrate part load efficiency
and that a correlation between COP and
IEER may not be robust for this reason.
(D5) DOE seeks information about
potential issues related to using IEER as
the cooling performance efficiency
metric when developing a correlation
between COP and IEER.
E. Markups Analysis
To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC)
and payback period (PBP) calculations,
DOE needs to determine the cost to the
commercial customer of baseline
equipment that satisfies the currently
applicable standards, and the cost of the
more-efficient unit the customer would
purchase under potential amended
standards. By applying a multiplier
called a ‘‘markup’’ to the manufacturer’s
selling price, DOE is able to estimate the
commercial customer’s price.
For DOE’s 2004 ANOPR, two types of
distribution channels were defined to
describe how the equipment passes
from the manufacturer to the customer.
In the first distribution channel, the
manufacturer sells the equipment to a
wholesaler. The wholesaler sells the
equipment to a mechanical contractor,
who then sells it to a general contractor.
In the final step to this first channel, the
general contractor sells the equipment
to the customer/end user (and installs
it). In the second distribution channel,
the manufacturer sells the equipment
directly to the customer through a
national account. 69 FR 45460, 45476.
For this rulemaking, DOE intends to
characterize the distribution of
equipment with the same channels
developed for the 2004 ANOPR, with
modifications to reflect the current
status of equipment distribution.
(E1) DOE seeks input from
stakeholders on whether the
distribution channels described above
are still relevant for small and large aircooled commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps, and whether they are also
relevant for very large air-cooled
equipment.
Based on information that equipment
manufacturers provided, commercial
customers were estimated to purchase
50 percent of equipment through small
mechanical contractors, 32.5 percent
through large mechanical contractors,
and the remaining 17.5 percent through
national accounts. In addition, 30
percent of commercial air-conditioning
equipment was estimated to be
purchased for the new construction
market while the remaining 70 percent
8 The document is available at: https://www1.eere.
energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.
aspx/productid/77.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7301
was estimated to serve the replacement
market. In the case of the replacement
market, where equipment is purchased
through a mechanical contractor, the
mechanical contractor purchases
equipment directly from the wholesaler
(i.e., a general contractor is not
involved). 69 FR 45460, 45476.
(E2) DOE seeks input on the percent
of equipment being distributed through
the various types of distribution
channels, and whether the share of
equipment through each channel varies
based on equipment capacity.
To develop markups for the parties
involved in the distribution of the
equipment, DOE utilized several sources
including: (1) The Air-conditioning &
Refrigeration Wholesalers Association’s
1998 Wholesaler PROFIT Survey Report
to develop wholesaler markups, (2) the
Air Conditioning Contractors of
America’s (ACCA) financial analysis for
the heating, ventilation, airconditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR)
contracting industry to develop
mechanical contractor markups, and (3)
U.S. Census Bureau economic data for
the commercial and institutional
building construction industry to
develop general contractor markups.
(D3) DOE seeks recent data to
establish the markups for the parties
involved with the distribution of the
equipment addressed by today’s notice.
F. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to assess the energy and peak
demand savings potential of different
equipment efficiencies in the building
types that utilize the equipment. DOE
intends to base the energy use analysis
for the current effort on building
simulation data compiled for the 2004
ANOPR. The simulation database
includes hourly profiles for over 1,000
commercial buildings, which were
based on building characteristics from
the 1995 Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS) for the
subset of buildings using the type of
equipment covered by the standards.
Each building was assigned to a specific
location and a typical meteorological
year hourly weather file (referred to as
TMY2) was used to represent local
weather. The simulations capture
variability in cooling loads due to
factors such as building activity,
schedule, occupancy, local weather and
shell characteristics. Because the
building simulation data developed for
the 2004 ANOPR are based on the 1995
CBECS, DOE intends to take a number
of steps to update the building
simulation database for this analytical
effort and with any subsequent
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7302
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
proposed rulemaking that DOE may
issue.
DOE intends to adjust the 1995
CBECS building weights to match the
most recent CBECS (2003), and to
account for changes to the distribution
of total floor space by geographic region
and building type. CBECS 2012 is
currently in development but will not
be available in time for DOE to use as
part of its rulemaking effort. In addition,
the 1995 CBECS sample may not
include examples of recent innovations
in building shell or window
technologies that reduce cooling loads.
DOE intends on reviewing other data
sets, for example, the technology
penetration curves used in the National
Energy Modeling System (NEMS)
commercial demand module,9 to
determine whether a significant fraction
of the current building population is not
represented by the building simulation
database used for the 2004 ANOPR.
The TMY2 weather data set was
updated in 2008 to TMY3. For each
location in the building database, the
two weather data sets will be compared
to determine whether there has been a
change to either the monthly maximum
temperatures or monthly cooling degree
days. DOE intends to adjust the
estimated cooling loads and energy use
accordingly.
The range of capacities covered by the
current effort that DOE may consider is
likely to be broader than that considered
in the 2004 ANOPR, and includes much
larger capacity units. For the 2004
ANOPR, a design day simulation was
used to determine the total cooling
capacity requirement for a building. The
simulation assumed this would be met
by a number of identical units of fixed
capacity. The updated analysis will
consider the possibility that a smaller
number of larger capacity units may be
used. Further, DOE intends to apply the
building simulation database to very
large equipment (i.e., equipment with
capacities between 240,000 Btu/h and
760,000 Btu/h.)
DOE requests comment or seeks input
from stakeholders on the following
issues pertaining to the energy use
analysis:
(F1) For different cooling
technologies, the relationship between
efficiency and the instantaneous load
level;
(F2) The current distribution of
equipment efficiencies in the building
population;
9 The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)
is a computer-based, energy-economy modeling
system of the U.S. designed and implemented by
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the
U.S. DOE.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Jan 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
(F3) For a given cooling load shape,
how equipment energy use scales as a
function of capacity, i.e., whether two
air-conditioning units of a certain
capacity use the same total cooling
energy as one air-conditioning unit of
twice the capacity; and
(F4) Whether the building simulations
developed for small and large airconditioning equipment are applicable
to very large equipment.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
The purpose of the LCC and PBP
analysis is to analyze the effects of
potential amended energy conservation
standards on customers of commercial
air-cooled air-conditioning and heating
equipment by determining how a
potential amended standard would
affect their operating expenses (usually
decreased) and their total installed costs
(usually increased).
DOE intends to analyze the potential
for variability and uncertainty by
performing the LCC and PBP
calculations on a representative sample
of individual commercial buildings.
DOE plans to utilize the sample of
buildings developed for the energy use
analysis and the corresponding
simulations results. Within a given
building, one or more air-conditioning
units may serve the building’s spaceconditioning needs, depending on the
cooling load requirements of the
building. As a result, the Department
intends to express the LCC and PBP
results as the number of ACs and HPs
experiencing economic impacts of
different magnitudes. DOE plans to
model both the uncertainty and the
variability in the inputs to the LCC and
PBP analysis using Monte Carlo
simulation and probability
distributions. As a result, the LCC and
PBP results will be displayed as
distributions of impacts compared to the
base case conditions.
(G1) DOE requests comment from
stakeholders on the overall method that
it intends to use when conducting the
LCC and PBP analysis.
Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis
are categorized as: (1) Inputs for
establishing the purchase expense,
otherwise known as the total installed
cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the
operating expense.
The primary inputs for establishing
the total installed cost are the baseline
customer price, standard-level customer
price increases, and installation costs.
Baseline customer prices and standardlevel customer price increases will be
determined by applying markups to
manufacturer price estimates. The
installation cost is added to the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
customer price to arrive at a total
installed cost. For DOE’s 2004 ANOPR,
DOE developed installation costs from
RS Means Mechanical Cost Data. 69 FR
45460, 45480. DOE intends to develop
installation costs for any potential
rulemaking it may conduct for the
equipment addressed by today’s notice
using the most recent RS Means data
available. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE
varied installation cost as a function of
equipment weight. Because weight
tends to increase with equipment
efficiency, installation cost increased
with equipment efficiency. 69 FR 45460,
45481. DOE intends to develop similar
relationships for this analysis and for
any proposed rulemaking that may be
issued.
(G2) DOE seeks input on the approach
and data sources it intends to use to
develop installation costs, specifically,
its intention to use the most recent RS
Means Mechanical Cost Data and to
vary installation cost based on
equipment weight.
The primary inputs for calculating the
operating costs are equipment energy
consumption and power demand,
equipment efficiency, electricity prices
and forecasts, maintenance and repair
costs, equipment lifetime, and discount
rates. Both equipment lifetime and
discount rates are used to calculate the
present value of future operating
expenses.
The equipment energy consumption
is the site energy use associated with
providing space-conditioning to the
building. The power demand is the
maximum power requirement of the
equipment (i.e., the peak demand) for a
specific period of time. DOE intends to
utilize updated building simulation
results from its 2004 ANOPR to
establish equipment energy use and
demand.
For projecting equipment efficiency,
DOE will use the most appropriate
metric to characterize efficiency,
whether it is EER or IEER. The building
simulations conducted for the 2004
ANOPR assigned specific baseline and
standard level EERs to the equipment to
determine its corresponding energy
consumption and peak demand. 69 FR
45460, 45482. If DOE utilizes an IEER as
the metric for equipment efficiency, the
updating of the building simulation
results will address how equipment
efficiency, expressed as IEER, will
impact energy use and demand.
Electricity prices are the price per
kilowatt-hour paid by each customer for
electricity. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE
determined electricity prices based on
tariffs from a representative sample of
electric utilities. 69 FR 45460, 45481–
82. This approach calculates energy
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
expenses based on actual electricity
prices that customers are paying. DOE
intends to retain the tariff-based
approach for its analysis and plans to
update its electricity prices based on
recent or current tariffs. Future
electricity prices will likely be
forecasted using trends from the Energy
Information Administration’s most
recent Annual Energy Outlook.
(G3) DOE seeks comment on its tariffbased approach for developing
electricity prices. DOE seeks input on
specific data sources available for
collecting tariffs.
Maintenance costs are costs
associated with maintaining the
operation of the equipment. For DOE’s
2004 ANOPR, DOE developed
maintenance costs from RS Means
Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost
Data. 69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends
to develop maintenance costs for its
analysis using the most recent RS Means
data available. For the 2004 ANOPR,
DOE estimated that maintenance costs
do not vary with equipment efficiency.
69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends to use
the same assumption as part of its
analysis in determining whether
amending the current standards is
appropriate under the statutory criteria.
(G4) DOE seeks input on the approach
and data sources it intends to use to
develop maintenance costs, specifically,
its intention to use the most recent RS
Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair
Cost Data and in assuming that
maintenance costs do not vary with
equipment efficiency.
Repair costs are associated with
repairing or replacing components that
have failed. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE
estimated that repair costs varied as
function of customer equipment price.
69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends to
determine whether repair costs continue
to vary with equipment prices as part of
its determination analysis.
(G5) DOE seeks comment as to
whether repair costs vary as a function
of equipment price. DOE also requests
any data or information on developing
repair costs.
Equipment lifetime is the age at
which the equipment is retired from
service. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE
based equipment lifetime on a
retirement function, which was based
on the use of a Weibull probability
distribution, with a resulting median
lifetime of 15 years. 69 FR 45460, 45486.
DOE intends to use the same retirement
function for its analysis.
(G6) DOE seeks comment on its
approach of using a Weibull probability
distribution to characterize equipment
lifetime. DOE also requests any data or
information that demonstrates whether
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Jan 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
equipment lifetime has a median value
of 15 years and whether equipment
lifetime varies based on equipment
class.
The discount rate is the rate at which
future expenditures are discounted to
establish their present value. For the
2004 ANOPR, DOE derived the discount
rates by estimating the cost of capital of
companies that purchase air-cooled airconditioning equipment. 69 FR 45460,
45486–87. DOE intends to apply this
approach for its analysis and to update
its data sources for calculating the cost
of capital of companies that purchase
air-cooled air-conditioning equipment.
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts
of potential standard levels relative to a
base case that reflects the likely market
in the absence of amended standards.
DOE plans to develop market-share
efficiency data (i.e., the distribution of
equipment shipments by efficiency) for
the equipment classes DOE is
considering, for the year in which
compliance with any amended
standards would be required.
(G7) DOE requests data on current
efficiency market shares (of shipments)
by equipment class, and also similar
historic data. In particular, DOE needs
efficiency data for very large equipment.
(G8) DOE also requests information on
expected trends in efficiency over the
next five years.
H. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses shipment projections by
equipment class to calculate the
national impacts of standards on energy
consumption, net present value (NPV),
and future manufacturer cash flows.
For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE developed
a shipments model for small and large
air-cooled air-conditioning and heating
equipment driven by historical
shipments data. 69 FR 45492. The
accuracy of the shipments model is
highly dependent on historical
shipments data as the data is used not
only to build up an equipment stock but
also to calibrate the shipments model.
(H1) DOE seeks recent historical
shipments data for small, large, and very
large air conditioners and heat pumps.
Because very large equipment were not
considered in the 2004 ANOPR, DOE is
especially in need of shipments data for
this class of equipment.
The shipments model for the 2004
ANOPR considered three market
segments: (1) New commercial buildings
acquiring equipment, (2) existing
buildings replacing broken equipment,
and (3) existing buildings acquiring new
equipment for the first time. It
considered two stock categories: (1)
Equipment that has received only
normal maintenance repairs, and (2)
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7303
equipment that has had its useful life
extended through additional repairs. To
determine whether a customer would
choose to repair rather than replace
their air-conditioning equipment, the
shipments model explicitly accounted
for the combined effects of changes in
purchase price, annual operating cost,
and the value of commercial floor space
on the purchase versus repair decision.
Changes to the purchase price and
operating costs due to standards were
the drivers for shipment estimates for
the standards cases relative to the base
case (the case without standards).
Because purchase price had more of an
effect on shipments than operating
costs, standards case shipments
estimated for the 2004 ANOPR were 0.2percent to 5-percent lower than the base
case, depending on the increased price
associated with the standard level.
Extended repairs, i.e., repairing the
equipment rather than purchasing a new
unit, accounted for 80-percent of the
shipments decrease with the remaining
20-percent due to forgone shipments to
new construction. DOE intends to
utilize the same approach to develop the
shipments model for this rulemaking
(H2) DOE requests comment on the
approach it intends on using to develop
the shipments model and shipments
forecasts for this rulemaking.
For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE utilized
U.S. Census Bureau data to establish
historical new construction floor space
as well as historical stock floor space.
The Annual Energy Outlook was used to
forecast both new construction and
stock floor space. Together with
historical equipment saturation data
from CBECS, DOE was able to estimate
shipments to the three market segments
identified above. The utility function to
estimate the repair versus replacement
decision was based on income per
square foot data from the Building
Owners and Managers Association
(BOMA) Commercial Building Survey
reports, purchase price data estimated
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and
operating cost data derived from the
LCC and PBP analysis. 69 FR 45493.
DOE intends to update all of the above
data sources for the development of the
shipments model for its analysis.
(H3) DOE seeks input on the approach
and data sources it intends to use in
developing the shipments model and
shipments forecasts for this analysis.
I. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the national impact
analysis (NIA) is to estimate aggregate
impacts of potential efficiency standards
at the national level. Impacts that DOE
reports include the national energy
savings (NES) from potential standards
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
7304
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and the national NPV of the total
customer benefits.
To develop the NES, DOE calculates
annual energy consumption for the base
case and the standards cases. DOE
calculates the annual energy
consumption using per-unit annual
energy use data multiplied by projected
shipments.
To develop the national NPV of
customer benefits from potential
standards, DOE calculates annual
energy expenditures and annual
equipment expenditures for the base
case and the standards cases. DOE
calculates annual energy expenditures
from annual energy consumption by
incorporating forecasted energy prices,
using shipment projections and average
energy efficiency projections. DOE
calculates annual equipment
expenditures by multiplying the price
per unit times the projected shipments.
The difference each year between
energy bill savings and increased
equipment expenditures is the net
savings or net costs.
A key component of DOE’s estimates
of NES and NPV are the equipment
energy efficiencies forecasted over time
for the base case and for each of the
standards cases. For the 2004 ANOPR,
DOE used a combination of historical
commercial and residential equipment
efficiency data to forecast efficiencies
for the base case. To estimate the impact
that standards have in the year
compliance becomes required, DOE
used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario which
assumes that equipment efficiencies in
the base case that do not meet the
standard level under consideration
would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new
standard level and equipment
shipments at efficiencies above the
standard level under consideration are
not affected. 69 FR 45460, 45489–90.
DOE intends to use the same methods
for conducting the NIA for this analysis.
(I1) In addition to historical efficiency
data (see section III.H), DOE also
requests information on expected trends
in efficiency over the long run.
J. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by March 4, 2013,
comments and information on matters
addressed in this notice and on other
matters relevant to DOE’s consideration
of a new efficiency descriptor and
amended energy conservations standard
for commercial air-cooled air
conditioners and heat pumps. After the
close of the comment period, DOE will
begin collecting data, conducting the
analyses, and reviewing the public
comments, as needed. These actions
will be taken to aid in the development
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Jan 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
of a NOPR for commercial air-cooled air
conditioners and heat pumps if DOE
decides to replace EER with IEER and
amend the standards for such
equipment.
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing test procedures. DOE
actively encourages the participation
and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of the
rulemaking process. Interactions with
and between members of the public
provide a balanced discussion of the
issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking
process. Anyone who wishes to be
added to the DOE mailing list to receive
future notices and information about
this rulemaking should contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945, or
via email at
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 25,
2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2013–02164 Filed 1–31–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031]
RIN 1904–AC54
Energy Efficiency Program for
Commercial and Industrial Equipment:
Public Meeting and Availability of the
Framework Document for Commercial
and Industrial Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting and
availability of the Framework
Document.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is considering energy
conservation standards for commercial
and industrial pumps. To inform
interested parties and to facilitate this
process, DOE has prepared a Framework
Document that details the analytical
approach and preliminary scope of the
rulemaking, and identifies several issues
on which DOE is particularly interested
in receiving comments. DOE will hold
a public meeting to discuss and receive
comments on its planned analytical
approach and issues it will address in
this rulemaking proceeding. DOE
welcomes written comments and
relevant data from the public on any
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
subject within the scope of this
rulemaking. A copy of the Framework
Document is available at: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/
ruleid/14.
DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting on February 20, 2013 from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Washington, DC.
Additionally, DOE plans to conduct the
public meeting via webinar. Registration
information, participant instructions,
and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE’s Web site at:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/
ruleid/14. Participants are responsible
for ensuring their systems are
compatible with the webinar software.
DOE must receive requests to speak at
the public meeting before 4:00 p.m.
February 13, 2013. DOE must receive an
electronic copy of the statement with
the name and, if appropriate, the
organization of the presenter to be given
at the public meeting before 4:00 p.m.,
February 15, 2013.
Comments: DOE will accept written
comments, data, and information
regarding the Framework Document
before and after the public meeting, but
no later than March 18, 2013.
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 20585–0121. Please
note that foreign nationals planning to
participate in the public meeting are
subject to advance security screening
procedures. If a foreign national wishes
to participate in the public meeting,
please inform DOE of this fact as soon
as possible by contacting Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 so that the
necessary procedures can be completed.
Please 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. As noted above, persons
may also attend the public meeting via
webinar.
Interested parties are encouraged to
submit comments electronically by the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email to the following address:
Pumps2011STD0031@ee.doe.gov.
Include docket number EERE–2011–BT–
STD–0031 and/or RIN 1904–AC54 in
the subject line of the message. All
comments should clearly identify the
name, address, and, if appropriate,
E:\FR\FM\01FEP1.SGM
01FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7296-7304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02164]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AC95
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Small, Large, and Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information (RFI) and notice of document
availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating an
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for certain commercial air-conditioning and heating
equipment. This notice seeks to solicit information from the public to
help DOE determine whether national standards more stringent than those
that are currently in place would result in a significant amount of
additional energy savings and whether those national standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. Separately, DOE
also seeks information from the public on the merits of adopting the
integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) as the energy efficiency
descriptor for small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before
March 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments
electronically. However, comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
Email to the following address:
CommPkgACHP2013STD0007@ee.doe.gov. Include docket number EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0007 and/or RIN 1904-AC95 in the subject line of the message. All
comments should clearly identify the name, address, and, if
appropriate, organization of the commenter.
Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Request for
Information for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Docket No.
EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007 and/or RIN 1904-AC95, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed paper
original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed paper
original.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number and/or RIN for this rulemaking. No telefacsimilies
(faxes) will be accepted.
Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendees' 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: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007. This Web
page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
For 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: Direct requests for additional
information may be sent to Mr. Joshua Cocciardi, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-287-1656. Email:
Joshua.Cocciardi@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Michael Kido, 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: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact
Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
III. Request for Information and Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as
codified), added by
[[Page 7297]]
Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which includes
provisions covering the commercial heating and air-conditioning
equipment that is the subject of this notice.\2\ In general, this
program addresses the energy efficiency of certain types of commercial
and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of the Act 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act of 2012, Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 342(a) of EPCA concerns energy conservation standards for
small, large, and very large, air-cooled commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment (also known generally as unitary air
conditioning and heating equipment). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) This category
of equipment has a rated capacity between 64,000 Btu/h and 760,000 Btu/
h. The equipment is designed to heat and cool commercial buildings and
is typically located on the building's rooftop. Section 5(b) of the
American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act of 2012 (Pub.
L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012) (AEMTCA)) amended Section 342(a)(6) of EPCA,
which concerns the amendment of energy conservation standards for
certain types of commercial and industrial equipment. At issue here is
the inclusion of a requirement for DOE to consider amending the
standards for ``any covered equipment as to which more than 6 years has
elapsed since the issuance of the most recent final rule establishing
or amending a standard for the product as of the date of AEMTCA's
enactment, December 18, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(vi)) DOE must
issue either a notice of determination that the current standards do
not need to be amended or a notice of proposed rulemaking containing
proposed standards by December 31, 2013. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)
and (vi) (as amended by AEMTCA).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B) refer to 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air
conditioners (ACs) and heating pumps (HPs), the last final rule issued
by DOE was on October 18, 2005, which codified both the amended
standards for small and large equipment and the new standards for very
large equipment set by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58
(Aug. 8, 2005) (EPAct 2005). 70 FR 60407. Consistent with the new
requirements Congress enacted as part of AEMTCA, DOE is required to
publish either a notice of determination that standards for these
equipment types do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking proposing amended energy conservation standards for these
equipment types.
In order to meet the new requirements added by AEMTCA, DOE is
reviewing the standards that are already in place affecting those
products listed in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a) for which more than six years have
elapsed since the issuance of the most recent final rule. Under Section
6313(a), DOE must either adopt those standards developed by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE)--or to adopt levels more stringent than the ASHRAE
levels if there is clear and convincing evidence in support of doing
so. AEMTCA added to this procedure a specified deadline within which
DOE must act with respect to those standards for which more than six
years have elapsed since the issuance of the relevant final rule. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i) and (vi)) Today's notice represents the
initiation of the mandatory review process imposed by AEMTCA and seeks
input from the public to assist DOE with its determination on whether
to amend the current standards pertaining to small, large, and very
large air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heating
equipment ranging in cooling capacity from 65,000 Btu/h to 760,000 Btu/
h. In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether there is
clear and convincing evidence that more stringent national standards
than the ones established pursuant to the ASHRAE-process described
above would result in significant energy savings, be technologically
feasible and economically justified. By statute, DOE may promulgate or
amend existing energy conservation standards only if the resulting
standards would (1) yield a significant savings in energy use and (2)
be both technologically feasible and economically justified. The
current Federal standards, for this equipment, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Minimum Cooling and Heating Efficiency Levels for Air-Cooled Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, >=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance
Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub-category Heating type Efficiency level date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air- >=65,000 Btu/h and AC....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 11.2............. 1/1/2010
Conditioning and Heating Equipment <135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
(Air-Cooled).
All Other Types of EER = 11.0............. 1/1/2010
Heating.
HP....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 11.0............. 1/1/2010
Resistance Heating. COP = 3.3..............
All Other Types of EER = 10.8............. 1/1/2010
Heating. COP = 3.3..............
Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=135,000 Btu/h and AC....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 11.0............. 1/1/2010
Conditioning and Heating Equipment <240,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
(Air-Cooled).
All Other Types of EER = 10.8............. 1/1/2010
Heating.
HP....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 10.6............. 1/1/2010
Resistance Heating. COP = 3.2..............
All Other Types of EER = 10.4............. 1/1/2010
Heating. COP = 3.2..............
[[Page 7298]]
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=240,000 Btu/h and AC....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 10.0............. 1/1/2010
Conditioning and Heating Equipment <760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
(Air-Cooled).
All Other Types of EER = 9.8.............. 1/1/2010
Heating.
HP....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 9.5.............. 1/1/2010
Resistance Heating. COP = 3.2..............
All Other Types of EER = 9.3.............. 1/1/2010
Heating. COP = 3.2..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Background
On October 29, 1999, ASHRAE and the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America (IESNA) adopted Standard 90.1-1999, which
included amended efficiency levels for commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps. DOE evaluated these efficiency levels and subsequently
adopted levels affecting 18 different equipment categories in a 2001
final rule. 66 FR 3336 (Jan. 12, 2001). However, the final rule's
notice also indicated that DOE planned to further evaluate commercial
air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps with rated capacities
between 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h because the initial analyses
indicated that more stringent standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. Id. at 3349. On June 12, 2001, the
Department published a Framework Document that described analytical
approaches to evaluate energy conservation standards for these larger
commercial air conditioners and heat pumps (i.e. capacities between
65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h) and presented this analytical framework
to stakeholders at a public workshop. On July 29, 2004, DOE issued an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) to solicit public
comments on its preliminary analyses for this equipment. 69 FR 45461.
Subsequently, Congress enacted EPAct 2005, which, among other things,
established amended standards for small and large commercial air-cooled
air conditioners and heat pumps and new standards for very large air-
cooled air conditioners and heat pumps. As a result, EPAct 2005
displaced the rulemaking effort that DOE had already begun. DOE
codified these new statutorily-prescribed standards on October 18,
2005. 70 FR 60407.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE generally follows specific criteria when prescribing amended
standards for covered equipment. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)-
(C). An amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified. Furthermore, DOE
may not adopt any amended standard that would not result in the
significant conservation of energy. Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard for certain equipment, if (1) no test procedure has been
established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that,
in cases where a standard has been proposed, the proposed standard is
not technologically feasible or economically justified. In deciding
whether a proposed amended standard is economically justified, DOE must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. DOE
must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed
standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the
standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy savings, or as applicable,
water savings, likely to result directly from the imposition of the
standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the imposition of 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
imposition of the standard;
6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant. (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
As part of this decision-making process, there must also be clear
and convincing evidence that the adoption of a national standard that
is more stringent than the level set by ASHRAE would result in the
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. See generally 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A). Accordingly, EPCA requires that there be clear and
convincing evidence that the adoption of standards more stringent than
those set by ASHRAE would lead to significant energy savings and that
achieving those standards would be both technologically feasible and,
separately, economically justified using the seven criteria listed
above.
In assessing the appropriateness of amending the standards that are
currently in place for small, large, and very large commercial air-
cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE is planning to conduct in-
depth technical analyses in the following areas to meet the statutory
criteria for prescribing amended standards: (1) Engineering; (2) energy
use; (3) markups; (4) life-cycle cost and payback period; (5) national
impacts; (6) manufacturer impacts; (7) emission impacts; (8) utility
impacts; (9) employment impacts; and (10) regulatory impacts. These
analyses are the same ones DOE routinely applies when evaluating
potential standards for a given type of product or equipment. DOE will
also conduct several other analyses that support those previously
listed, including the market and technology assessment, the screening
analysis (which contributes to the engineering analysis), and the
shipments analysis (which contributes to the national impact analysis).
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is specifically publishing this
notice as the
[[Page 7299]]
first step in the analysis process and is specifically requesting input
and data from interested parties to aid in the development of the
technical analyses.
II. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
As part of this analysis, DOE is giving very serious consideration
to the possible replacement of the existing efficiency descriptor
(i.e., energy efficiency ratio (EER)) with a new energy-efficiency
descriptor (i.e., integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER)). Unlike
the EER metric, which utilizes only the efficiency of equipment
operating at full load conditions, IEER factors in the equipment's
efficiency while operating at part-load conditions of 75%, 50%, and 25%
of capacity as well as during full load. This is accomplished by
weighting the full- and part-load efficiencies with the average amount
of time operating at each loading point; IEER provides a more
representative measure of the energy consumption in actual operation.
Moreover, IEER incorporates variations of outside temperature from
design temperatures for part-load operation that further increase the
accuracy of the metric.
Since 2007, ASHRAE has been specifying in its Standard 90.1 the use
of an energy efficiency metric that captures part-load performance.
ASHRAE first published specifications for part-load energy efficiency
in their Standard 90.1-2007 based on the integrated part load value
(IPLV). In Addendum's from the 2008 Supplement to Standard 90.1-2007,
ASHRAE replaced IPLV for commercial air conditioning and heat pump
equipment with IEER, effective January 1, 2010. According to ASHRAE,
that change was made to improve the accuracy when rating part-load
performance of commercial air conditioning and heating equipment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ASHRAE. ASHRAE Addenda. 2008 Supplement. https://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/docLib/Public/20090317_90_1_2007_supplement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA authorizes DOE to establish ``energy conservation standards''
that set either a single performance standard or a single design
requirement--not both. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(18). As such, DOE can choose
to implement an energy conservation standard using one or the other. In
the case of small, large, and very large commercial air-cooled ACs and
HPs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 recommends two performance requirements; EER
and IEER. Because EPCA does not specify a particular metric that DOE
must use when measuring the efficiency of the equipment at issue in
this notice, changing that metric from one type (e.g. EER) to another
(e.g. IEER) is permissible. DOE also notes that in amending standards
for a given type of product or equipment, DOE must ensure that a
potential new standard would not result in reduced stringency when
compared to the current Federal standards. See, e.g. 74 FR 36322 and 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I).
As part of its consideration, DOE examined whether part-load
performance is currently being used and accepted for rating commercial
air conditioners and heat pumps. On January 2, 2009, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft ENERGY STAR specification for
Light Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps products, i.e., small
and large air-cooled air conditioners and air-source heat pumps, which
proposed to adopt IEER as part of the minimum energy efficiency
criteria.\5\ In a January 30, 2009 letter regarding EPA's draft, AHRI
expressed support for IEER as well as for the ENERGY STAR program to
adopt IEER. Recently, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), an
organization for energy efficiency advocates, has adopted IEER for its
Tier 0, 1, and 2 efficiencies for unitary air conditioning and heat
pump products, i.e., small, large, and very large air-, water-, and
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners and air- and water-source heat
pumps.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ENERGY STAR. Re: EPA Proposed Draft Energy Star
Specification for Light Commercial HVAC Equipment. https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/lhvac/AHRI_Comments_D1.pdf.
\6\ Consortium for Energy Efficiency. CEE Commercial Unitary AC
and HP Specification. https://www.cee1.org/files/CEE_CommHVAC_UnitarySpec2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEER has also gained support through efforts such as DOE's
Commercial Building Energy Alliance (CBEA) technology transfer program,
which sponsors the High Performance Rooftop Unit Challenge (RTU
Challenge). This program provides a market mechanism that reduces
barriers for manufacturers to procure greater than 18-IEER 10-ton
equipment and encourages the private sector to commit to adopt energy-
efficient equipment. Carrier, Lennox, 7AC Technologies, and Rheem are
participating in the RTU Challenge, while participant McQuay has
already produced certified equipment that meets or exceeds 18 IEER. In
conjunction with manufacturer support, fourteen CBEA-member private
entities,\7\ such as Target Corp., Macy's, Inc., McDonald's Corp., and
others, have also signaled their support and indicated their strong
interest in potentially purchasing high-efficiency rooftop units, a
sign of their confidence in the RTU Challenge and its ability to use
IEER to accurately portray the energy use of commercial air-cooler air
conditioners and heat pumps in the field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Department of Energy. Building Technologies Program.
High Performance Rooftop Unit Challenge Fact Sheet. https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/alliances/techspec_rtus.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, DOE conducted a market analysis to compare the two metrics
based on publicly available ratings of equipment currently available in
the market. DOE is making available for comment a document that
provides the methodology and results of the investigation of the
relationship between IEER and EER for commercial air-cooled air
conditioners and heat pumps with cooling capacities between 65,000 Btu/
hr and 760,000 Btu/hr (i.e., 5 and 63 tons). In addition, it looks at
the variance of heating efficiency (i.e., coefficient of performance or
COP) with IEER and EER. The document is available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/77. Ultimately, if DOE were to decide after considering the
comments in response to this notice to migrate to the IEER metric, DOE
would transition the existing Federal energy conservation standards to
the new metric by identifying the appropriate baseline energy-
efficiency levels to use in the analysis. From that point forward, all
of the technical and economic analyses would be conducted using the new
metric, IEER, in the evaluation of potential amended energy
conservation standards for small, large, and very large air-cooled ACs
and HPs. Consequently, DOE seeks comments and data regarding its
consideration of transitioning metrics and the analysis conducted on
the currently available models.
III. Request for Information and Comments
In the next section, DOE identifies a variety of issues on which it
seeks input and data in order to aid its development of the technical
and economic analyses to determine whether amended energy conservation
standards may be warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other
issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not
specifically be identified in this notice.
A. Test Procedure
DOE recently reviewed and adopted amended test procedures for
small,
[[Page 7300]]
large, and very large, air-cooled commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment in a final rule published on May 16, 2012. 77 FR
28928. These test procedures incorporate by reference certain sections
of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute's (AHRI)
2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 340/360-2007)
along with the addition of a handful of other additional testing
specifications. AHRI is an industry trade group representing air
conditioning, heating and refrigeration manufacturers.
In light of DOE's consideration to switch from EER to IEER, DOE
conducted a preliminary review of the current Federal test procedures
for small, large, and very large air-cooled ACs and HPs. As part of its
final rule issued on May 16, 2012, DOE adopted AHRI Test Standard 340/
360-2007. 77 FR 28928. DOE found that the methods and procedures for
testing and rating equipment with an IEER already exist within its test
procedure. However, DOE specifically seeks comment on any test
procedure issues relating to IEER and the existing Federal procedures
that DOE should consider as part of this rulemaking.
(A1) DOE requests comment on the existing DOE test procedure for
small, large, and very large air-conditioning equipment and its
suitability for establishing a performance rating based on IEER.
B. Market Assessment
The market and technology assessment provides information about the
commercial air conditioner and heat pump industry that will be used
throughout the rulemaking process. For example, this information will
be used to determine whether the existing equipment class structure
requires modification based on the statutory criteria for setting such
classes and to explore the potential for technological improvements in
the design and manufacturing of such equipment. The Department uses
qualitative and quantitative information to assess the past and present
industry structure and market characteristics. DOE will use existing
market materials and literature from a variety of sources, including
industry publications, trade journals, government agencies, and trade
organizations. Additionally, DOE will consider conducting interviews
with manufacturers to assess the overall market for commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps.
The current equipment classes as established in EPAct 2005 for
small, large, and very large, air-cooled ACs and HPs divide this
equipment into twelve equipment classes characterized by rated cooling
capacity, equipment type (air conditioner versus heat pump), and
heating type. As a starting point, DOE plans to use the existing
equipment class structure as shown in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97.
However, DOE will consider additional equipment classes for capacities
or other performance-related features that inherently effect efficiency
and justify the establishment of a different energy conservation
standard. For instance, additional equipment classes may be warranted
to differentiate between split and packaged type units or to further
segment the capacities of the equipment covered in this analysis.
(B1) DOE requests feedback on the current equipment classes and
seeks information regarding other equipment classes it should consider
for inclusion in its analysis.
C. Technology Options for Consideration
DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and
prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers
could use to meet and/or exceed energy conservation standards. In
consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of
technologies to consider in its analysis. Initially, this list will
include all those technologies considered to be technologically
feasible and will serve to establish the maximum technologically
feasible design. DOE is currently considering the specific technologies
and design options listed below.
Electro-hydrodynamic enhanced heat transfer.
Copper rotor motor with improved efficiency.
Improved refrigerants.
Evaporator coil area (keeping the number of coil rows the
same).
Condenser coil area (keeping the number of coil rows the
same).
Coil rows (keeping face area the same).
Condenser fan diameters.
Evaporator fan.
Air leakage paths within the unit.
Coil row (keeping coil heat transfer the same).
Microchannel heat exchangers.
Deep coil heat exchangers.
Low-pressure-loss filters.
High efficiency fan motors.
High efficiency compressors.
Multiple compressors.
Thermal expansion valves.
Electronic expansion valves.
Air foil centrifugal fans.
Backward-curved centrifugal fans.
Synchronous (toothed) belts.
Direct-drive fans.
High efficiency propeller condenser.
High-side solenoid valve or discharge line check-valve to
minimize pressure equalization.
Heat-pipes (for high latent loads).
Sub-coolers.
Demand-control ventilation strategy.
(C1) DOE seeks information related to these or other unlisted,
efficiency improving technologies as to their applicability to the
current market and how these technologies improve efficiency of small,
large, and very large commercial air-cooler ACs and HPs as rated by
AHRI 340/360-2007.
(C2) Additionally, DOE requests comment on which of the listed
technologies and/or other technologies not mentioned that may
preferentially improve the IEER more than the EER for commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency. This
relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for
commercial customers, manufacturers, and the nation. In determining the
cost-efficiency relationship, DOE will estimate the increase in
manufacturer cost associated with increasing the efficiency of
equipment above the baseline to the maximum technologically feasible
(``max-tech'') efficiency level for each equipment class. The baseline
model is used as a reference point for each equipment class in the
engineering analysis and the life-cycle cost and payback-period
analyses. Typically, DOE would consider equipment that just meets the
minimum energy conservation standard as baseline equipment. However,
DOE is considering whether to replace the current cooling performance
energy efficiency descriptor, EER, with IEER, and a single EER level
can correspond to a range of IEERs. If DOE decides to transition to a
new efficiency descriptor, DOE would have to establish a baseline IEER
for each equipment class, and could consider the minimum, median,
average, or maximum IEER in the applicable range.
(D1) DOE requests comment on approaches that it should consider
when determining a baseline IEER for each equipment class, including
[[Page 7301]]
information regarding the merits and/or deficiencies of such
approaches.
(D2) DOE also seeks comment on an appropriate baseline IEER for
each equipment class and analysis supporting such selected baseline
efficiency levels.
(D3) DOE requests information on max-tech efficiency levels
achievable in the current market in terms of IEER, EER, and COP as
applicable.
In order to create the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE
anticipates that it will structure its engineering analysis using the
reverse-engineering (or cost-assessment) approach. A reverse-
engineering or cost-assessment approach relies on a teardown analysis
of representative baseline efficient to highly efficient units that
employ maximum technologically feasible designs. A teardown analysis
(or physical teardown) determines the production cost of a piece of
equipment by disassembling the equipment ``piece-by-piece'' and
estimating the material and labor cost of each component. A
supplementary method called a catalog teardown uses published
manufacturer catalogs and supplementary component data to estimate the
major physical differences between a piece of equipment that has been
physically disassembled and another piece of similar equipment. These
two methods would be used together to help DOE determine the cost
effectiveness of any standards that it may consider as part of a
standards rulemaking to amend the levels currently in place.
(D4) DOE requests feedback on using a reverse engineering approach
supplemented with catalog teardowns and requests comment on what the
appropriate representative capacities would be for each equipment
class.
In the 2004 ANOPR, the Department proposed to address the energy
efficiency of commercial air-cooled heat pumps by developing functions
relating COP to EER. This method was also used by industry to establish
minimum performance requirements for ASHRAE 90.1-1999. AHRI supplied
the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 committee with curves relating the COP as a
function of EER, and the committee then set the minimum COP levels
based on EER. 69 FR 45460, 45468. Due to the previous acceptance of
this method, DOE is considering a similar approach for this rulemaking.
If DOE transitions to use IEER as the energy efficiency descriptor,
then DOE may establish minimum COP levels based on IEER. DOE has
conducted a market analysis and evaluated the relationship between IEER
and COP in a technical support document published to coincide with this
notice.\8\ DOE recognizes that COP does not integrate part load
efficiency and that a correlation between COP and IEER may not be
robust for this reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The document is available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D5) DOE seeks information about potential issues related to using
IEER as the cooling performance efficiency metric when developing a
correlation between COP and IEER.
E. Markups Analysis
To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP)
calculations, DOE needs to determine the cost to the commercial
customer of baseline equipment that satisfies the currently applicable
standards, and the cost of the more-efficient unit the customer would
purchase under potential amended standards. By applying a multiplier
called a ``markup'' to the manufacturer's selling price, DOE is able to
estimate the commercial customer's price.
For DOE's 2004 ANOPR, two types of distribution channels were
defined to describe how the equipment passes from the manufacturer to
the customer. In the first distribution channel, the manufacturer sells
the equipment to a wholesaler. The wholesaler sells the equipment to a
mechanical contractor, who then sells it to a general contractor. In
the final step to this first channel, the general contractor sells the
equipment to the customer/end user (and installs it). In the second
distribution channel, the manufacturer sells the equipment directly to
the customer through a national account. 69 FR 45460, 45476. For this
rulemaking, DOE intends to characterize the distribution of equipment
with the same channels developed for the 2004 ANOPR, with modifications
to reflect the current status of equipment distribution.
(E1) DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the distribution
channels described above are still relevant for small and large air-
cooled commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, and whether they are
also relevant for very large air-cooled equipment.
Based on information that equipment manufacturers provided,
commercial customers were estimated to purchase 50 percent of equipment
through small mechanical contractors, 32.5 percent through large
mechanical contractors, and the remaining 17.5 percent through national
accounts. In addition, 30 percent of commercial air-conditioning
equipment was estimated to be purchased for the new construction market
while the remaining 70 percent was estimated to serve the replacement
market. In the case of the replacement market, where equipment is
purchased through a mechanical contractor, the mechanical contractor
purchases equipment directly from the wholesaler (i.e., a general
contractor is not involved). 69 FR 45460, 45476.
(E2) DOE seeks input on the percent of equipment being distributed
through the various types of distribution channels, and whether the
share of equipment through each channel varies based on equipment
capacity.
To develop markups for the parties involved in the distribution of
the equipment, DOE utilized several sources including: (1) The Air-
conditioning & Refrigeration Wholesalers Association's 1998 Wholesaler
PROFIT Survey Report to develop wholesaler markups, (2) the Air
Conditioning Contractors of America's (ACCA) financial analysis for the
heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR)
contracting industry to develop mechanical contractor markups, and (3)
U.S. Census Bureau economic data for the commercial and institutional
building construction industry to develop general contractor markups.
(D3) DOE seeks recent data to establish the markups for the parties
involved with the distribution of the equipment addressed by today's
notice.
F. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to assess the energy and
peak demand savings potential of different equipment efficiencies in
the building types that utilize the equipment. DOE intends to base the
energy use analysis for the current effort on building simulation data
compiled for the 2004 ANOPR. The simulation database includes hourly
profiles for over 1,000 commercial buildings, which were based on
building characteristics from the 1995 Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS) for the subset of buildings using the type
of equipment covered by the standards. Each building was assigned to a
specific location and a typical meteorological year hourly weather file
(referred to as TMY2) was used to represent local weather. The
simulations capture variability in cooling loads due to factors such as
building activity, schedule, occupancy, local weather and shell
characteristics. Because the building simulation data developed for the
2004 ANOPR are based on the 1995 CBECS, DOE intends to take a number of
steps to update the building simulation database for this analytical
effort and with any subsequent
[[Page 7302]]
proposed rulemaking that DOE may issue.
DOE intends to adjust the 1995 CBECS building weights to match the
most recent CBECS (2003), and to account for changes to the
distribution of total floor space by geographic region and building
type. CBECS 2012 is currently in development but will not be available
in time for DOE to use as part of its rulemaking effort. In addition,
the 1995 CBECS sample may not include examples of recent innovations in
building shell or window technologies that reduce cooling loads. DOE
intends on reviewing other data sets, for example, the technology
penetration curves used in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)
commercial demand module,\9\ to determine whether a significant
fraction of the current building population is not represented by the
building simulation database used for the 2004 ANOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is a computer-
based, energy-economy modeling system of the U.S. designed and
implemented by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the
U.S. DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TMY2 weather data set was updated in 2008 to TMY3. For each
location in the building database, the two weather data sets will be
compared to determine whether there has been a change to either the
monthly maximum temperatures or monthly cooling degree days. DOE
intends to adjust the estimated cooling loads and energy use
accordingly.
The range of capacities covered by the current effort that DOE may
consider is likely to be broader than that considered in the 2004
ANOPR, and includes much larger capacity units. For the 2004 ANOPR, a
design day simulation was used to determine the total cooling capacity
requirement for a building. The simulation assumed this would be met by
a number of identical units of fixed capacity. The updated analysis
will consider the possibility that a smaller number of larger capacity
units may be used. Further, DOE intends to apply the building
simulation database to very large equipment (i.e., equipment with
capacities between 240,000 Btu/h and 760,000 Btu/h.)
DOE requests comment or seeks input from stakeholders on the
following issues pertaining to the energy use analysis:
(F1) For different cooling technologies, the relationship between
efficiency and the instantaneous load level;
(F2) The current distribution of equipment efficiencies in the
building population;
(F3) For a given cooling load shape, how equipment energy use
scales as a function of capacity, i.e., whether two air-conditioning
units of a certain capacity use the same total cooling energy as one
air-conditioning unit of twice the capacity; and
(F4) Whether the building simulations developed for small and large
air-conditioning equipment are applicable to very large equipment.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to analyze the effects
of potential amended energy conservation standards on customers of
commercial air-cooled air-conditioning and heating equipment by
determining how a potential amended standard would affect their
operating expenses (usually decreased) and their total installed costs
(usually increased).
DOE intends to analyze the potential for variability and
uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations on a
representative sample of individual commercial buildings. DOE plans to
utilize the sample of buildings developed for the energy use analysis
and the corresponding simulations results. Within a given building, one
or more air-conditioning units may serve the building's space-
conditioning needs, depending on the cooling load requirements of the
building. As a result, the Department intends to express the LCC and
PBP results as the number of ACs and HPs experiencing economic impacts
of different magnitudes. DOE plans to model both the uncertainty and
the variability in the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis using Monte
Carlo simulation and probability distributions. As a result, the LCC
and PBP results will be displayed as distributions of impacts compared
to the base case conditions.
(G1) DOE requests comment from stakeholders on the overall method
that it intends to use when conducting the LCC and PBP analysis.
Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs
for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total
installed cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the operating expense.
The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are
the baseline customer price, standard-level customer price increases,
and installation costs. Baseline customer prices and standard-level
customer price increases will be determined by applying markups to
manufacturer price estimates. The installation cost is added to the
customer price to arrive at a total installed cost. For DOE's 2004
ANOPR, DOE developed installation costs from RS Means Mechanical Cost
Data. 69 FR 45460, 45480. DOE intends to develop installation costs for
any potential rulemaking it may conduct for the equipment addressed by
today's notice using the most recent RS Means data available. For the
2004 ANOPR, DOE varied installation cost as a function of equipment
weight. Because weight tends to increase with equipment efficiency,
installation cost increased with equipment efficiency. 69 FR 45460,
45481. DOE intends to develop similar relationships for this analysis
and for any proposed rulemaking that may be issued.
(G2) DOE seeks input on the approach and data sources it intends to
use to develop installation costs, specifically, its intention to use
the most recent RS Means Mechanical Cost Data and to vary installation
cost based on equipment weight.
The primary inputs for calculating the operating costs are
equipment energy consumption and power demand, equipment efficiency,
electricity prices and forecasts, maintenance and repair costs,
equipment lifetime, and discount rates. Both equipment lifetime and
discount rates are used to calculate the present value of future
operating expenses.
The equipment energy consumption is the site energy use associated
with providing space-conditioning to the building. The power demand is
the maximum power requirement of the equipment (i.e., the peak demand)
for a specific period of time. DOE intends to utilize updated building
simulation results from its 2004 ANOPR to establish equipment energy
use and demand.
For projecting equipment efficiency, DOE will use the most
appropriate metric to characterize efficiency, whether it is EER or
IEER. The building simulations conducted for the 2004 ANOPR assigned
specific baseline and standard level EERs to the equipment to determine
its corresponding energy consumption and peak demand. 69 FR 45460,
45482. If DOE utilizes an IEER as the metric for equipment efficiency,
the updating of the building simulation results will address how
equipment efficiency, expressed as IEER, will impact energy use and
demand.
Electricity prices are the price per kilowatt-hour paid by each
customer for electricity. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE determined
electricity prices based on tariffs from a representative sample of
electric utilities. 69 FR 45460, 45481-82. This approach calculates
energy
[[Page 7303]]
expenses based on actual electricity prices that customers are paying.
DOE intends to retain the tariff-based approach for its analysis and
plans to update its electricity prices based on recent or current
tariffs. Future electricity prices will likely be forecasted using
trends from the Energy Information Administration's most recent Annual
Energy Outlook.
(G3) DOE seeks comment on its tariff-based approach for developing
electricity prices. DOE seeks input on specific data sources available
for collecting tariffs.
Maintenance costs are costs associated with maintaining the
operation of the equipment. For DOE's 2004 ANOPR, DOE developed
maintenance costs from RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost
Data. 69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends to develop maintenance costs for
its analysis using the most recent RS Means data available. For the
2004 ANOPR, DOE estimated that maintenance costs do not vary with
equipment efficiency. 69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends to use the same
assumption as part of its analysis in determining whether amending the
current standards is appropriate under the statutory criteria.
(G4) DOE seeks input on the approach and data sources it intends to
use to develop maintenance costs, specifically, its intention to use
the most recent RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data and
in assuming that maintenance costs do not vary with equipment
efficiency.
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components
that have failed. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE estimated that repair costs
varied as function of customer equipment price. 69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE
intends to determine whether repair costs continue to vary with
equipment prices as part of its determination analysis.
(G5) DOE seeks comment as to whether repair costs vary as a
function of equipment price. DOE also requests any data or information
on developing repair costs.
Equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired
from service. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE based equipment lifetime on a
retirement function, which was based on the use of a Weibull
probability distribution, with a resulting median lifetime of 15 years.
69 FR 45460, 45486. DOE intends to use the same retirement function for
its analysis.
(G6) DOE seeks comment on its approach of using a Weibull
probability distribution to characterize equipment lifetime. DOE also
requests any data or information that demonstrates whether equipment
lifetime has a median value of 15 years and whether equipment lifetime
varies based on equipment class.
The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are
discounted to establish their present value. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE
derived the discount rates by estimating the cost of capital of
companies that purchase air-cooled air-conditioning equipment. 69 FR
45460, 45486-87. DOE intends to apply this approach for its analysis
and to update its data sources for calculating the cost of capital of
companies that purchase air-cooled air-conditioning equipment.
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels
relative to a base case that reflects the likely market in the absence
of amended standards. DOE plans to develop market-share efficiency data
(i.e., the distribution of equipment shipments by efficiency) for the
equipment classes DOE is considering, for the year in which compliance
with any amended standards would be required.
(G7) DOE requests data on current efficiency market shares (of
shipments) by equipment class, and also similar historic data. In
particular, DOE needs efficiency data for very large equipment.
(G8) DOE also requests information on expected trends in efficiency
over the next five years.
H. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses shipment projections by equipment class to calculate the
national impacts of standards on energy consumption, net present value
(NPV), and future manufacturer cash flows.
For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE developed a shipments model for small and
large air-cooled air-conditioning and heating equipment driven by
historical shipments data. 69 FR 45492. The accuracy of the shipments
model is highly dependent on historical shipments data as the data is
used not only to build up an equipment stock but also to calibrate the
shipments model.
(H1) DOE seeks recent historical shipments data for small, large,
and very large air conditioners and heat pumps. Because very large
equipment were not considered in the 2004 ANOPR, DOE is especially in
need of shipments data for this class of equipment.
The shipments model for the 2004 ANOPR considered three market
segments: (1) New commercial buildings acquiring equipment, (2)
existing buildings replacing broken equipment, and (3) existing
buildings acquiring new equipment for the first time. It considered two
stock categories: (1) Equipment that has received only normal
maintenance repairs, and (2) equipment that has had its useful life
extended through additional repairs. To determine whether a customer
would choose to repair rather than replace their air-conditioning
equipment, the shipments model explicitly accounted for the combined
effects of changes in purchase price, annual operating cost, and the
value of commercial floor space on the purchase versus repair decision.
Changes to the purchase price and operating costs due to standards were
the drivers for shipment estimates for the standards cases relative to
the base case (the case without standards). Because purchase price had
more of an effect on shipments than operating costs, standards case
shipments estimated for the 2004 ANOPR were 0.2-percent to 5-percent
lower than the base case, depending on the increased price associated
with the standard level. Extended repairs, i.e., repairing the
equipment rather than purchasing a new unit, accounted for 80-percent
of the shipments decrease with the remaining 20-percent due to forgone
shipments to new construction. DOE intends to utilize the same approach
to develop the shipments model for this rulemaking
(H2) DOE requests comment on the approach it intends on using to
develop the shipments model and shipments forecasts for this
rulemaking.
For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE utilized U.S. Census Bureau data to
establish historical new construction floor space as well as historical
stock floor space. The Annual Energy Outlook was used to forecast both
new construction and stock floor space. Together with historical
equipment saturation data from CBECS, DOE was able to estimate
shipments to the three market segments identified above. The utility
function to estimate the repair versus replacement decision was based
on income per square foot data from the Building Owners and Managers
Association (BOMA) Commercial Building Survey reports, purchase price
data estimated from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and operating cost
data derived from the LCC and PBP analysis. 69 FR 45493. DOE intends to
update all of the above data sources for the development of the
shipments model for its analysis.
(H3) DOE seeks input on the approach and data sources it intends to
use in developing the shipments model and shipments forecasts for this
analysis.
I. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the national impact analysis (NIA) is to estimate
aggregate impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national
level. Impacts that DOE reports include the national energy savings
(NES) from potential standards
[[Page 7304]]
and the national NPV of the total customer benefits.
To develop the NES, DOE calculates annual energy consumption for
the base case and the standards cases. DOE calculates the annual energy
consumption using per-unit annual energy use data multiplied by
projected shipments.
To develop the national NPV of customer benefits from potential
standards, DOE calculates annual energy expenditures and annual
equipment expenditures for the base case and the standards cases. DOE
calculates annual energy expenditures from annual energy consumption by
incorporating forecasted energy prices, using shipment projections and
average energy efficiency projections. DOE calculates annual equipment
expenditures by multiplying the price per unit times the projected
shipments. The difference each year between energy bill savings and
increased equipment expenditures is the net savings or net costs.
A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV are the equipment
energy efficiencies forecasted over time for the base case and for each
of the standards cases. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE used a combination of
historical commercial and residential equipment efficiency data to
forecast efficiencies for the base case. To estimate the impact that
standards have in the year compliance becomes required, DOE used a
``roll-up'' scenario which assumes that equipment efficiencies in the
base case that do not meet the standard level under consideration would
``roll up'' to meet the new standard level and equipment shipments at
efficiencies above the standard level under consideration are not
affected. 69 FR 45460, 45489-90. DOE intends to use the same methods
for conducting the NIA for this analysis.
(I1) In addition to historical efficiency data (see section III.H),
DOE also requests information on expected trends in efficiency over the
long run.
J. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by March 4,
2013, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and
on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of a new efficiency
descriptor and amended energy conservations standard for commercial
air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps. After the close of the
comment period, DOE will begin collecting data, conducting the
analyses, and reviewing the public comments, as needed. These actions
will be taken to aid in the development of a NOPR for commercial air-
cooled air conditioners and heat pumps if DOE decides to replace EER
with IEER and amend the standards for such equipment.
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures. DOE actively encourages the
participation and interaction of the public during the comment period
in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between
members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and
assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to
the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about
this rulemaking should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945, or
via email at Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 25, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2013-02164 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
