Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners and Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h, 60642-60677 [2020-18778]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60642
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0008]
RIN 1904–AF01
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Computer
Room Air Conditioners and Air-Cooled,
Three-Phase, Small Commercial
Package Air Conditioning and Heating
Equipment With a Cooling Capacity of
Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of data availability
and request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is publishing an analysis
of the energy savings potential of
amended industry consensus standards
for certain classes of computer room air
conditioners (CRACs) and air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment
with a cooling capacity of less than
65,000 Btu/h (air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment). As required under
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), DOE has been triggered to act
by changes to the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 90.1. DOE is also soliciting
information regarding energy
conservation standards for CRACs and
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment for which the industry
consensus standards have not been
amended, pursuant to EPCA’s six-yearlookback review requirement. This
notice of data availability (NODA) and
request for information (RFI) solicits
information from the public to help
DOE determine whether more-stringent
amended standards for CRACs or aircooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment
would result in significant additional
energy savings and whether such
standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. DOE
welcomes written comments from the
public on any subject within the scope
of this document (including topics not
specifically raised in this NODA/RFI),
as well as the submission of data and
other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before November 9,
2020.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0008
and/or RIN 1904–AF01, by any of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email:
2019ASHRAE2020STD0008@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2020–BT–STD–0008 and/or RIN
1904–AF01 in the subject line of the
message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
Energy Conservation Standards NODA
and RFI for Certain Categories of
Commercial Air-Conditioning and
Heating Equipment, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–
0121. If possible, please submit all items
on a compact disc (CD), in which case
it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see section V of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov (search EERE–
2020–BT–STD–0008). All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008.
The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V of this
document for information on how to
ADDRESSES:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
submit comments through https://
www.regulations.gov.
Ms.
Catherine Rivest and Mr. Antonio
Bouza, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
7335. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585. Telephone:
(202) 586–5827. Email: Eric.Stas@
hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket,
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Purpose of the Notice of Data
Availability
C. Rulemaking Background
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
2. Air-Cooled, Three-phase, Small
Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019
A. Computer Room Air Conditioners
1. Methodology for Efficiency and Capacity
Crosswalk Analyses
a. General
b. Increase in Return Air Dry-Bulb
Temperature from 75 °F to 85 °F
c. Decrease in Entering Water Temperature
for Water-Cooled CRACs
d. Changes in External Static Pressure
Requirements for Upflow Ducted CRACs
e. Power Adder To Account for Pump and
Heat Rejection Fan Power in NSenCOP
Calculation for Water-Cooled and GlycolCooled CRACs
f. Calculating Overall Changes in Measured
Efficiency and Capacity from Test
Procedure Changes
2. Crosswalk Results
3. Discussion of Comments Received
Regarding Amended Standards for
CRACs
4. CRAC Standards Amended Under
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
B. Air-Cooled, Three-phase, Small
Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
1. Crosswalk Methodology and Results
III. Analysis of Standards Amended and
Newly Established by ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019
A. Annual Energy Use
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
b. Efficiency Levels
c. Analysis Method and Annual Energy
Use Results
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small
Commercial Package AC and HP (<65k)
Equipment
a. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
b. Efficiency Levels
c. Annual Energy Use Results
B. Shipments
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small
Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
C. No-New-Standards-Case Efficiency
Distribution
D. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Equipment Lifetime
2. Compliance Dates and Analysis Period
E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
F. Consideration of More-Stringent Energy
Efficiency Levels
IV. Review Under Six-Year-Lookback
Provisions: Requested Information
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
I. Introduction
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (EPCA),1 Public Law
94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317, as
codified) among other things, authorizes
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. Title III,
Part C 2 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317,
as codified), added by Public Law 95–
619, Title IV, § 441(a), established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency.
This equipment includes CRACs and
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment, which are categories of
small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, which are the subjects of
this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–
(D)).
Under EPCA, the energy conservation
program consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3)
Federal energy conservation standards,
and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of the
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270
(Oct. 23, 2018).
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6316).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited circumstances for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under EPCA.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D)).
In EPCA, Congress initially set
mandatory energy conservation
standards for certain types of
commercial heating, air-conditioning,
and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets
standards for small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment,3 packaged
terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and
packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs),
warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers,
storage water heaters, instantaneous
water heaters, and unfired hot water
storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA
established Federal energy conservation
standards at levels that generally
corresponded to the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings, as in effect on October 24,
1992 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
1989), for each type of covered
equipment listed in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a).
In acknowledgement of technological
changes that yield energy efficiency
benefits, Congress further directed DOE
through EPCA to consider amending the
existing Federal energy conservation
standard for each type of covered
equipment listed, each time ASHRAE
amends Standard 90.1 with respect to
such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) When triggered in this
manner, DOE must undertake and
publish an analysis of the energy
savings potential of amended energy
efficiency standards, and amend the
Federal standards to establish a uniform
national standard at the minimum level
specified in the amended ASHRAE
3 EPCA defines commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment as meaning
air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, or
water source (not including ground water source)
electrically operated, unitary central air
conditioners and central air-conditioning heat
pumps for commercial application. (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(A)) Commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment includes CRACs and aircooled, three-phase small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60643
Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines
that there is clear and convincing
evidence to support a determination
that a more-stringent standard level as a
national standard would produce
significant additional energy savings
and be technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)–(ii)) If DOE decides to
adopt as a uniform national standard the
minimum efficiency levels specified in
the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
DOE must establish such standard not
later than 18 months after publication of
the amended industry standard. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if
DOE determines, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that a morestringent uniform national standard
would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and
economically justified, then DOE must
establish such more-stringent uniform
national standard not later than 30
months after publication of the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1.4 (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B)(i)).
In an update to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, ‘‘Procedures,
interpretations, and policies for
consideration of new or revised energy
conservation standards and test
procedures for commercial/industrial
equipment’’ (the updated Process
Rule),5 DOE codified in its regulations
its long-standing interpretation that the
ASHRAE ‘‘trigger’’ is applicable only to
those equipment classes for which
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has adopted an
increase to the efficiency level as
compared to the current Federal
standard for that specific equipment
4 In determining whether a more-stringent
standard is economically justified, EPCA directs
DOE to determine, after receiving views and
comments from the public, whether the benefits of
the proposed standard exceed the burdens of the
proposed standard by, to the maximum extent
practicable, considering the following:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the
manufacturers and consumers of the products
subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the product compared to
any increases in the initial cost or maintenance
expense;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings
likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance
of the products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition,
as determined in writing by the Attorney General,
that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation;
and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)).
5 The updated Process Rule is applicable to
covered equipment and includes provisions specific
to rulemakings related to ASHRAE equipment. 85
FR 8626, 8704, 8708, and 8711 (Feb. 14, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
60644
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
class. 85 FR 8626, 8644–8645 (Feb. 14,
2020). DOE’s review in adopting
amendments based on an action by
ASHRAE to amend Standard 90.1 is
strictly limited to the specific standards
or test procedure amendment for the
specific equipment for which ASHRAE
has made a change (i.e., determined
down to the equipment class level). 85
FR 8626, 8708 (Feb. 14, 2020).
Although EPCA does not explicitly
define the term ‘‘amended’’ in the
context of what type of revision to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would trigger
DOE’s obligation, DOE’s longstanding
interpretation has been that the
statutory trigger is an amendment to the
standard applicable to that equipment
under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that
increases the energy efficiency level for
that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042
(March 7, 2007). In other words, if the
revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves
the energy efficiency level unchanged
(or lowers the energy efficiency level),
as compared to the energy efficiency
level specified by the uniform national
standard adopted pursuant to EPCA,
regardless of the other amendments
made to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
requirement (e.g., the inclusion of an
additional metric), DOE has stated that
it does not have the authority to conduct
a rulemaking to consider a higher
standard for that equipment pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). See 74 FR
36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and 77 FR
28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012). If an
amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1
changed the metric for the standard on
which the Federal requirement was
based, DOE would perform a crosswalk
analysis to determine whether the
amended metric under ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 resulted in an energy
efficiency level that was more stringent
than the current DOE standard.
DOE notes that Congress adopted
amendments to these provisions related
to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 equipment
under the American Energy
Manufacturing Technical Corrections
Act (Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012);
‘‘AEMTCA’’). In relevant part, DOE is
prompted to act whenever ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is amended with respect
to ‘‘the standard levels or design
requirements applicable under that
standard’’ to any of the enumerated
types of commercial air conditioning,
heating, or water heating equipment
covered under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)).
In those situations where ASHRAE
has not acted to amend the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the covered
equipment types enumerated in the
statute, EPCA also provides for a 6-yearlookback to consider the potential for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
amending the uniform national
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
Specifically, pursuant to the
amendments to EPCA under AEMTCA,
DOE is required to conduct an
evaluation of each class of covered
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
‘‘every 6 years’’ to determine whether
the applicable energy conservation
standards need to be amended. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must
publish either a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) to propose amended
standards or a notice of determination
that existing standards do not need to be
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I)–
(II)) In proposing new standards under
the 6-year-lookback review, DOE must
undertake the same considerations as if
it were adopting a standard that is more
stringent than an amendment to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II), 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)).
The 6-year-lookback review is a
separate statutory review obligation, as
differentiated from the obligation
triggered by an ASHRAE Standard 90.1
amendment, as previously discussed.
ASHRAE not acting to amend Standard
90.1 is tantamount to a decision that the
existing standard remain in place. 85 FR
8626, 8708 (Feb. 14, 2020). Thus, when
undertaking a review as required by 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE would need to
find clear and convincing evidence, as
defined in the Process Rule, to issue a
standard more stringent than the
existing standard for the equipment at
issue. Id. In those instances where DOE
makes a determination that the
standards for the equipment in question
do not need to be amended, the statute
requires the Department to revisit that
decision within three years to either
make a new determination or propose
amended standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)).
On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE
officially released for distribution and
made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019. As discussed in the following
sections, DOE has preliminarily
determined that the amendments to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 have triggered
DOE’s obligations under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6), for certain equipment
classed of CRACs and air-cooled, threephase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment.
As a preliminary step in the process
of reviewing the changes to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, EPCA directs DOE to
publish in the Federal Register for
public comment an analysis of the
energy savings potential of amended
standards within 180 days after
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended
with respect to any of the covered
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
equipment specified under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) This
notice of data availability (NODA)
presents the analysis of the energy
savings potential of the amended energy
efficiency standards in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019, as required under
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i).
Although not compelled to do so by
the statute, DOE may decide in
appropriate cases to simultaneously
conduct an ASHRAE trigger rulemaking
(i.e., for those equipment classes for
which ASHRAE set a higher standard)
and a 6-year-lookback rulemaking (i.e.,
for those equipment classes where
ASHRAE left levels unchanged or set a
lower standard) so as to address all
classes of an equipment category at the
same time. 85 FR 8626, 8645 (Feb. 14,
2020). For CRACs and air-cooled, threephase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment, DOE is also
evaluating possible amendments to the
standards for those equipment classes
for which the stringency of standards
was not changed by ASHRAE Standard
90.1, consistent with its obligations
under EPCA.
For all classes of CRACs and aircooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment
(including both the classes for which
ASHRAE did and did not increase the
stringency of energy efficiency levels
applicable under ASHRAE Standard
90.1), DOE seeks data and information
that could enable the agency to
determine whether a more-stringent
standard: (1) Would not result in
significant additional savings of energy;
(2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is
not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of the foregoing. If for the
triggered equipment classes, standard
levels more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE levels do not meet the
statutory criteria, DOE would adopt the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels.
If for the non-triggered equipment
classes, standard levels more stringent
than the current Federal standards do
not meet the statutory criteria, DOE
would determine the standards do not
need to be amended.
B. Purpose of the Notice of Data
Availability
As explained previously, DOE is
publishing this NODA as a preliminary
step pursuant to EPCA’s requirements
for DOE to consider amended standards
for certain categories of commercial
equipment covered by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, whenever ASHRAE
amends its standard to increase the
energy efficiency level for an equipment
class within a given equipment
category. Specifically, this NODA
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
presents for public comment DOE’s
analysis of the potential energy savings
for amended national energy
conservation standards for the
equipment classes of commercial
equipment for which amended
efficiency levels are contained within
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019. DOE
describes these analyses and
preliminary conclusions and seeks
input from interested parties, including
the submission of data and other
relevant information. Specifically, DOE
seeks comment on the potential energy
savings for amended national energy
conservation standards for these
categories of commercial equipment
based on: (1) The amended efficiency
levels contained within ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 and (2) morestringent efficiency levels. DOE is also
taking the opportunity to consider the
potential for more-stringent standards
for the other equipment classes within
the subject equipment categories (i.e.,
classes for which energy efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
were not increased, and, therefore, for
which DOE was not triggered) under
EPCA’s 6-year-lookback authority, so as
to conduct a thorough review for the
entire equipment category of CRACs and
the entire equipment category of aircooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
DOE carefully examined the changes
for equipment in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 in order to thoroughly evaluate the
amendments in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019, thereby permitting DOE to
determine what action, if any, is
required under its statutory mandate.
Section II of this NODA contains DOE’s
evaluation of the amendments in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019. For
equipment classes preliminarily
determined to have increased efficiency
levels or changes in design requirements
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019, DOE
subjected that equipment to further
analysis as discussed in section III of
this NODA. Section IV requests
comment for those equipment classes
for which efficiency levels and design
requirements have not been increased or
changed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019, but are undergoing review under
EPCA’s 6-year-lookback authority.
In summary, the energy savings
analysis presented in this NODA is a
preliminary step required under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i). DOE is also
treating it as an opportunity to gather
information regarding its obligations
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C). After
review of the public comments on this
NODA, DOE will either establish
amended uniform national standards for
the subject equipment at the minimum
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
level specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019, or where supported by clear
and convincing evidence, consider
more-stringent efficiency levels that
would be expected to result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and are technologically feasible
and economically justified. If DOE
determines it appropriate to conduct
such a rulemaking under the statute,
DOE will address the anti-backsliding
provision,6 and if DOE determines it
appropriate to conduct a rulemaking to
establish more-stringent efficiency
levels, DOE will also address the general
rulemaking requirements applicable
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), such as,
the criteria for making a determination
of economic justification as to whether
the benefits of the proposed standard
exceed the burden of the proposed
standard,7 and the prohibition on
making unavailable existing products
with performance characteristics
generally available in the United
States.8
C. Rulemaking Background
EPCA defines ‘‘commercial package
air conditioning and heating
equipment’’ as air-cooled, water-cooled,
evaporatively-cooled, or water source
(not including ground water source)
electrically operated, unitary central air
conditioners and central air
6 The anti-backsliding provision mandates that
the Secretary may not prescribe any amended
standard that either increases the maximum
allowable energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42
U.S.C. 6313 (a)(6)(B)(iii)(I))
7 In deciding whether a potential standard’s
benefits outweigh its burdens, DOE must consider
to the maximum extent practicable, the following
seven factors:
(1) The economic impact on manufacturers and
consumers of the product subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the product in the type (or
class), compared to any increase in the price, initial
charges, or maintenance expenses of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings
likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of product utility or
performance of the product likely to result from the
standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition,
as determined in writing by the Attorney General,
likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation;
and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII)).
8 The Secretary may not prescribe an amended
standard if interested persons have established by
a preponderance of evidence that the amended
standard would likely result in unavailability in the
United States of any covered product type (or class)
of performance characteristics (including reliability,
features, capacities, sizes, and volumes) that are
substantially the same as those generally available
in the U.S. at the time of the Secretary’s finding.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60645
conditioning heat pumps for
commercial application. (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92) EPCA
further divides ‘‘commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’
based on cooling capacity (i.e., small,
large, and very large categories). (42
U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)–(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
‘‘Small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’
means equipment rated below 135,000
Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42
U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92)
‘‘Large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’
means equipment rated: (i) At or above
135,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below
240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity).
(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92)
‘‘Very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’
means equipment rated: (i) At or above
240,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below
760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity).
(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
DOE generally refers to these broad
classifications as ‘‘equipment types.’’
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
Pursuant to its authority under EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) and in
response to updates to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE has established
additional categories of equipment that
meet the EPCA definition of
‘‘commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment,’’ but which
EPCA did not expressly identify. These
equipment categories include CRACs
(see 10 CFR 431.92 and 10 CFR 431.97).
Within these additional equipment
categories, further distinctions are made
at the equipment class level based on
capacity and other equipment attributes.
DOE’s current energy conservation
standards for 30 equipment classes of
CRACs are codified at 10 CFR 431.97.
DOE defines ‘‘computer room air
conditioner’’ as a commercial package
air-conditioning and heating equipment
(packaged or split) that is: Used in
computer rooms, data processing rooms,
or other information technology cooling
applications; rated for sensible
coefficient of performance (SCOP) and
tested in accordance with 10 CFR
431.96, and is not a covered product
under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)–(2) and 42
U.S.C. 6292. A computer room air
conditioner may be provided with, or
have as available options, an integrated
humidifier, temperature, and/or
humidity control of the supplied air,
and reheating function. 10 CFR 431.92.
DOE’s regulations include test
procedures and energy conservation
standards that apply to the current
CRAC equipment classes that are
differentiated by condensing system
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60646
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
type (air-cooled, water-cooled, watercooled with fluid economizer, glycolcooled, or glycol-cooled with fluid
economizer), net sensible cooling
capacity (NSCC) (less than 65,000 Btu/
h, greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/
h and less than 240,000 Btu/h, or greater
than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h and less
than 760,000 Btu/h), and direction of
conditioned air over the cooling coil
(upflow or downflow). 10 CFR 431.96
and 10 CFR 431.97, respectively.
DOE’s test procedure for CRACs, set
forth at 10 CFR 431.96, currently
incorporates by reference American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)/
ASHRAE Standard 127–2007 (ANSI/
ASHRAE 127–2007), ‘‘Method of
Testing for Rating Computer and Data
Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners,’’ (omit section 5.11), with
additional provisions indicated in 10
CFR 431.96(c) and (e). The energy
efficiency metric is sensible coefficient
of performance (SCOP) for all CRAC
equipment classes. ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016, which was published on
October 26, 2016, updated its test
procedure reference for CRACs from
ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007 to AHRI
Standard 1360–2016, ‘‘Performance
Rating of Computer and Data Processing
Room Air Conditioners’’ (AHRI 1360–
2016), which in turn references ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 127–2012, ‘‘Method
of Testing for Rating Computer and Data
Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners’’ (ANSI/ASHRAE 127–
2012). Subsequently, ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019, which was published on
October 24, 2019, further updated its
test procedure reference for CRACs to
AHRI Standard 1360–2017,
‘‘Performance Rating of Computer and
Data Processing Room Air
Conditioners’’ (AHRI 1360–2017),
which also references ANSI/ASHRAE
127–2012. The energy efficiency metric
for CRACs in AHRI 1360–2016 and
AHRI 1360–2017 is net sensible
coefficient of performance (NSenCOP).
The energy conservation standards for
CRACs were most recently amended
through the final rule for energy
conservation standards and test
procedures for certain commercial
HVAC and water heating equipment
published in the Federal Register on
May 16, 2012 (May 2012 final rule). 77
FR 28928. The May 2012 final rule
established separate equipment classes
for CRACs and adopted energy
conservation standards that generally
correspond to the levels in the 2010
revision of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for
most of the equipment classes.
DOE published a Notice of Data
Availability and Request for Information
(NODA/RFI) in response to the
amendments to the industry consensus
standard contained in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 in the Federal
Register on September 11, 2019 (the
September 2019 NODA/RFI). 84 FR
48006. In the September 2019 NODA/
RFI, DOE explained its methodology
and assumptions to compare the current
Federal standards for CRACs (in terms
of SCOP) to the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 (in terms of
NSenCOP) and requested comment on
its methodology and results. (The
document also addressed changes
related to dedicated outdoor air systems
(DOASes).) DOE received a number of
comments from interested parties in
response to the September 2019 NODA/
RFI. Table I–1 lists the commenters
relevant to CRACs, along with each
commenter’s abbreviated name used
throughout this NODA/RFI. Discussion
of the relevant comments, and DOE’s
responses, are provided in the
appropriate sections of this document.
Several other comments received in
response to the September 2019 NODA/
RFI pertain only to DOASes and will be
addressed in a separate notice.9
TABLE I–1—INTERESTED PARTIES PROVIDING COMMENT ON CRACS IN RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 2019 NODA/RFI
Name
Abbreviation
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ...................................................
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego
Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison.
Trane ..............................................................................................................................
Pano Koutrouvelis ..........................................................................................................
AHRI .........................................................
California Investor-Owned Utilities (CA
IOUs).
Trane .........................................................
Koutrouvelis ..............................................
Type
IR.
U.
M.
I.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; U: Utility; and I: Individual.
As noted previously, on October 24,
2019, ASHRAE officially released for
distribution and made public ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019. ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 revised the efficiency levels
for certain commercial equipment,
including certain classes of CRACs (as
discussed in the following section).
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 either
maintained or increased the stringency
of the efficiency levels applicable to
CRAC in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016,
and as such, addressing the
amendments for CRACs in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 will also address
DOE’s obligations for CRACs resulting
from the 2016 update to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016).
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small
Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
The energy conservation standards for
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment were most
recently amended through the final rule
for energy conservation standards and
test procedures for certain commercial
HVAC and water heating equipment
published in the Federal Register on
July 17, 2015 (July 2015 final rule). 80
FR 42614. The July 2015 final rule
adopted energy conservation standards
that correspond to the levels in the 2013
revision of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package air conditioners
(single package) and heat pumps (single
package and split system). The July
2015 final rule also determined that
standards for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package air
conditioners (split system) did not need
to be amended. DOE’s current energy
conservation standards for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment are
codified at 10 CFR 431.97.
The current DOE test procedure at 10
CFR 431.96 for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment incorporates by
reference ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/
240–2008, ‘‘Performance Rating of
Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source
Heat Pump Equipment,’’ approved by
9 As noted, the September 2019 NODA/RFI
addressed both CRACs and DOASes and is available
under docket number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0017.
As this NODA/RFI addresses only CRACs, it has
been assigned a separate docket number (i.e., EERE–
2020–BT–STD–0008). Subsequent rulemaking
activity regarding DOASes will continue to rely on
the docket number for the September 2019 NODA/
RFI.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated
by addendum 1 in June 2011 and
addendum 2 in March 2012 (ANSI/
AHRI 210/240–2008).10
As noted previously, on October 24,
2019, ASHRAE officially released for
distribution and made public ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019. ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 revised the efficiency levels
for certain commercial equipment,
including certain classes of air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment (as
discussed in the following section).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019
Before beginning an analysis of the
potential energy savings that would
result from adopting a uniform national
standard as specified by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 or more-stringent
uniform national standards, DOE must
first determine whether the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 standard levels
actually represent an increase in
efficiency above the current Federal
standard levels or whether ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 adopted new design
requirements, thereby triggering DOE
action.
This section contains a discussion of:
(1) Each equipment class for which the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 efficiency
levels differ from the current Federal
minimum efficiency levels 11 (2) newly
added equipment classes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, and (3) DOE’s
preliminary conclusion regarding the
appropriate action to take with respect
to these equipment classes. DOE is also
examining the other equipment classes
for the triggered equipment categories
under its 6-year-lookback authority. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
As noted in section I.C of this
document, ASHRAE adopted efficiency
levels for all CRAC equipment classes
denominated in terms of NSenCOP in
the 2016 and 2019 versions of Standard
90.1 (measured per AHRI 1360–2016
and AHRI 1360–2017, respectively),
whereas DOE’s current standards are
denominated in terms of SCOP
(measured per ANSI/ASHRAE 127–
2007). For this NODA, DOE’s analysis
focuses on whether DOE has been
triggered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 updates to minimum efficiency
10 DOE notes that the Federal test procedure omits
the use of section 6.5 of ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/
240–2008. 10 CFR 431.96, Table 1.
11 ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 did not change
any of the design requirements associated with the
minimum efficiency tables for the commercial
heating, air conditioning, and water heating
equipment covered by EPCA, so this potential
category of change is not discussed in this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
levels for CRACs and whether morestringent standards are warranted; DOE
will separately consider whether to
adopt the NSenCOP metric for all CRAC
equipment classes as part of the ongoing
test procedure rulemaking. As discussed
in detail in section II.A of this NODA,
DOE has conducted a crosswalk analysis
of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
standard levels (in terms of NSenCOP)
and the corresponding current Federal
energy conservation standards (in terms
of SCOP) to compare the stringencies.
DOE has tentatively determined that the
updates in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 increased the stringency of
efficiency levels for 48 equipment
classes and maintained equivalent
levels for six equipment classes of
CRACs relative to the current Federal
standard.12 In addition, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 includes efficiency
levels for 18 classes of horizontal-flow 13
CRACs and 48 classes of ceilingmounted CRACs which are not
currently subject to Federal standards.
Current Federal standards for aircooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment
are in terms of seasonal energy
efficiency ratio (SEER) and heating
seasonal performance factor (HSPF) as
measured by the current DOE test
procedure which incorporates by
reference the ANSI/AHRI 210/240–
2008. 10 CFR 431.96, Table 1. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 adopts new energy
efficiency levels and new metrics for all
equipment classes of air-cooled, threephase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment. Beginning
January 1, 2023, the metrics for this
equipment under ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 are SEER2 and HSPF2, as
measured by AHRI 210/240–2023,
‘‘Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment’’ (published in May
2020).14 15 AHRI 210/240–2023 aligns
test methods and ratings to be consistent
with DOE’s test procedure for singlephase central at conditioners at
Appendix M1 to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B. The year 2023 was chosen as
the version year to align compliance to
AHRI 210/240–2023 with Appendix M1.
12 ASHRAE 90.1–2019 added separate classes for
‘‘air cooled with fluid economizer’’ CRACs. This
change resulted in nine new ‘‘air cooled with fluid
economizer’’ equipment classes being added and
made subject to Federal standards.
13 ‘‘Horizontal flow’’ refers to the direction of
airflow of the unit.
14 Levels effective prior to January 1, 2023 are
unchanged from ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016.
15 Prior to ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019, ‘‘spaceconstrained’’ classes were referred to as ‘‘throughthe-wall.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60647
On October 2, 2018, DOE published in
the Federal Register a request for
information on its test procedure (and
certification and enforcement
requirements) for air-cooled, threephase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment. 83 FR 49501
(October 2018 TP RFI). The October
2018 TP RFI notes that air-cooled, threephase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment is essentially
identical to its single-phase residential
counterparts, is manufactured on the
same production lines, and is physically
identical to their corresponding singlephase central air conditioner and heat
pump models (with the exception of the
electrical systems and compressors). 83
FR 49501, 49504 (Oct. 2, 2018).
In order to determine whether the
2023 efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 represent an
increase in efficiency, DOE has
developed a preliminary crosswalk for
translating SEER to SEER2 and HSPF to
HSPF2 based on the metric translations
between SEER to SEER2 and HSPF to
HSPF2 developed for single-phase
products (see section II.B.1 of this
document for details). DOE has
tentatively determined that the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 for this
equipment category are more stringent
for two equipment classes, equivalent
for two equipment classes, and less
stringent for six equipment classes
relative to the current Federal standard.
Table II–1 and Table II–2 show the
equipment classes and efficiency levels
for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment provided in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 and the current
Federal energy conservation standards.
Table II–1 and Table II–2 also display
the corresponding existing Federal
equipment classes for clarity and
indicate whether the updated levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 trigger
DOE’s evaluation as required under
EPCA (i.e., whether the update results in
a standard level more stringent than the
current Federal level), and, therefore,
whether analysis of potential energy
savings from amended Federal
standards is warranted. The remainder
of this section explains DOE’s
methodology for evaluating the updated
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
and addresses comments received
regarding CRAC efficiency levels and
associated analyses discussed in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI.
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60648
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
TABLE II–1—ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CRACS IN ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2019, AND THE CORRESPONDING
FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS
DOE triggered by
ASHRAE standard
90.1–2019
amendment?
ASHRAE standard 90.1–2019 equipment
class 1
Current federal equipment class 1
Energy efficiency
levels in ASHRAE
standard 90.1–2019 2
Federal energy
conservation
standards 2
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <80,000 Btu/h, Downflow ..
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Horizontalflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <80,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Non-Ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥80,000 and <295,000
Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥80,000 and <295,000
Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Upflow Non-Ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥295,000 Btu/h, Downflow
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Downflow
N/A ..................................................................
2.70 NSenCOP ..........
2.65 NSenCOP ..........
2.20 SCOP .................
N/A .............................
Yes.
Yes.3
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow ....
2.67 NSenCOP ..........
2.09 SCOP .................
Yes.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow ....
2.16 NSenCOP ..........
2.09 SCOP .................
Yes.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
2.58 NSenCOP ..........
2.10 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.55 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.55 NSenCOP ..........
1.99 SCOP .................
No.4
2.04 NSenCOP ..........
1.99 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.36 NSenCOP ..........
1.90 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.47 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.33 NSenCOP ..........
1.79 SCOP .................
Yes.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥295,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Non-ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<80,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<80,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non-Ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥80,000 and <295,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Horizontalflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥80,000 and <295,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow NonDucted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥295,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥295,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted.
CRAC,
Water-Cooled,
<80,000
Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, <80,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Non-ducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥80,000 and <295,000
Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥80,000 and <295,000
Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted.
CRAC,
Water-Cooled,
≥295,000
Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥295,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Non-ducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<80,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Downflow
1.89 NSenCOP ..........
1.79 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.70 NSenCOP ..........
2.20 SCOP .................
Yes.5
N/A ..................................................................
2.65 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow ....
2.67 NSenCOP ..........
2.09 SCOP .................
Yes.5
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow ....
2.09 NSenCOP ..........
2.09 SCOP .................
No.4
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
2.58 NSenCOP ..........
2.10 SCOP .................
Yes.5
2.55 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Upflow.
2.55 NSenCOP ..........
1.99 SCOP .................
No.4
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Upflow.
1.99 NSenCOP ..........
1.99 SCOP .................
No.4
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
2.36 NSenCOP ..........
1.90 SCOP .................
Yes.5
2.47 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.33 NSenCOP ..........
1.79 SCOP .................
Yes.5
1.81 NSenCOP ..........
1.79 SCOP .................
Yes.5
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC,
Water-Cooled,
<65,000
Btu/h,
Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
2.82 NSenCOP ..........
2.60 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.79 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
CRAC, Water-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow
2.79 NSenCOP ..........
2.49 SCOP .................
Yes.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow
2.43 NSenCOP ..........
2.49 SCOP .................
Yes.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
2.73 NSenCOP ..........
2.50 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.68 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.70 NSenCOP ..........
2.39 SCOP .................
No.4
2.32 NSenCOP ..........
2.39 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.67 NSenCOP ..........
2.40 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.60 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.64 NSenCOP ..........
2.29 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.20 NSenCOP ..........
2.29 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.77 NSenCOP ..........
2.55 SCOP .................
Yes.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60649
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–1—ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CRACS IN ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2019, AND THE CORRESPONDING
FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS—Continued
Current federal equipment class 1
Energy efficiency
levels in ASHRAE
standard 90.1–2019 2
Federal energy
conservation
standards 2
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<80,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥80,000 and <295,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Horizontalflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥80,000 and <295,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Nonducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥295,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
2.71 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
2.74 NSenCOP ..........
2.44 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.35 NSenCOP ..........
2.44 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.68 NSenCOP ..........
2.45 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.60 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
2.65 NSenCOP ..........
2.34 SCOP .................
No.4
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
2.24 NSenCOP ..........
2.34 SCOP .................
Yes.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
2.61 NSenCOP ..........
2.35 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.54 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.58 NSenCOP ..........
2.24 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.12 NSenCOP ..........
2.24 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.56 NSenCOP ..........
2.50 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.48 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.53 NSenCOP ..........
2.39 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.08 NSenCOP ..........
2.39 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.24 NSenCOP ..........
2.15 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.18 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.21 NSenCOP ..........
2.04 SCOP .................
Yes.
1.90 NSenCOP ..........
2.04 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.21 NSenCOP ..........
2.10 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.18 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.18 NSenCOP ..........
1.99 SCOP .................
Yes.
1.81 NSenCOP ..........
1.99 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.51 NSenCOP ..........
2.45 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.44 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
2.48 NSenCOP ..........
2.34 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.00 NSenCOP ..........
2.34 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.19 NSenCOP ..........
2.10 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.10 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
2.16 NSenCOP ..........
1.99 SCOP .................
Yes.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
1.82 NSenCOP ..........
1.99 SCOP .................
Yes.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
2.15 NSenCOP ..........
2.05 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.10 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.3
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥295,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
DOE triggered by
ASHRAE standard
90.1–2019
amendment?
ASHRAE standard 90.1–2019 equipment
class 1
CRAC,
Glycol-Cooled,
<80,000
Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <80,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Non-ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥80,000 and <295,000
Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥80,000 and <295,000
Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000
Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥295,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥295,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Non-ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<80,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<80,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥80,000 and <295,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Horizontalflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥80,000 and <295,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Nonducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥295,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Upflow
Non-ducted.
CRAC,
Glycol-Cooled,
≥65,000
and
<240,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
CRAC,
Glycol-Cooled,
≥65,000
and
<240,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC,
Glycol-Cooled,
≥65,000
and
<240,000 Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
<65,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Downflow.
N/A ..................................................................
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60650
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–1—ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CRACS IN ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2019, AND THE CORRESPONDING
FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS—Continued
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal energy
conservation
standards 2
2.12 NSenCOP ..........
1.94 SCOP .................
Yes.
1.73 NSenCOP ..........
1.94 SCOP .................
Yes.
2.05 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.02 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.92 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.08 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.05 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.94 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.01 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.97 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.87 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.04 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.00 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.89 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.86 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.83 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.73 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.89 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.86 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.75 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.82 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.78 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.68 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.85 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.81 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
Current federal equipment class 1
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥295,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Non-ducted.
N/A ..................................................................
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid economizer,
≥240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser, Ducted, <29,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser, Ducted, ≥29,000
Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser, Ducted, ≥65,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser, Non-ducted,
<29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser, Non-ducted,
≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser, Non-ducted,
≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser with fluid economizer, Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser with fluid economizer, Ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser with fluid economizer, Ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser with fluid economizer, Non-ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser with fluid economizer, Non-ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with free
air discharge condenser with fluid economizer, Non-ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser, Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser, Ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h
and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser, Ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser, Non-ducted, <29,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser, Non-ducted, ≥29,000
Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser, Non-ducted, ≥65,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser with fluid economizer,
Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser with fluid economizer,
Ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser with fluid economizer,
Ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser with fluid economizer,
Non-ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser with fluid economizer,
Non-ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000
Btu/h.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
DOE triggered by
ASHRAE standard
90.1–2019
amendment?
Energy efficiency
levels in ASHRAE
standard 90.1–2019 2
ASHRAE standard 90.1–2019 equipment
class 1
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60651
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
TABLE II–1—ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CRACS IN ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2019, AND THE CORRESPONDING
FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS—Continued
DOE triggered by
ASHRAE standard
90.1–2019
amendment?
ASHRAE standard 90.1–2019 equipment
class 1
Current federal equipment class 1
Energy efficiency
levels in ASHRAE
standard 90.1–2019 2
Federal energy
conservation
standards 2
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air-cooled with
ducted condenser with fluid economizer,
Non-ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted
CRAC,
Water-cooled,
Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted
CRAC,
Water-cooled,
Ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted
CRAC,
Water-cooled,
Ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water-cooled, Nonducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water-cooled, Nonducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water-cooled, Nonducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water-cooled with
fluid economizer, Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water-cooled with
fluid economizer, Ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h
and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water-cooled with
fluid economizer, Ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water-cooled with
fluid economizer, Non-ducted, <29,000 Btu/
h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water-cooled with
fluid economizer, Non-ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/
h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water-cooled with
fluid economizer, Non-ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/
h.
Ceiling-mounted
CRAC,
Glycol-cooled,
Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted
CRAC,
Glycol-cooled,
Ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted
CRAC,
Glycol-cooled,
Ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol-cooled, Nonducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol-cooled, Nonducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol-cooled, Nonducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer, Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer, Ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/h
and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer, Ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer, Non-ducted, <29,000 Btu/
h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer, Non-ducted, ≥29,000 Btu/
h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer, Non-ducted, ≥65,000 Btu/
h.
N/A ..................................................................
1.70 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.38 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.28 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.18 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.41 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.31 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.20 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.33 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.23 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.13 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.36 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.26 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.16 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.97 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.93 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.78 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
2.00 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.98 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.81 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.92 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.88 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.73 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.95 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.93 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
N/A ..................................................................
1.76 NSenCOP ..........
N/A .............................
Yes.6
1 Note that equipment classes specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 do not necessarily correspond to the equipment classes defined in DOE’s regulations. Capacity ranges in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 are specified in terms of NSCC, as measured according to AHRI 1360–2017. Capacity ranges in Federal equipment
classes are specified in terms of NSCC, as measured according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007. As discussed in section II.A.1 of this document, for certain equipment
classes, AHRI 1360–2017 results in increased NSCC measurements as compared to the NSCC measured in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007. Therefore,
some CRACs would switch classes (i.e., move into a higher capacity equipment class) if the equipment class boundaries are not changed accordingly. Consequently,
DOE performed a ‘‘capacity crosswalk’’ analysis to translate the capacity boundaries for certain equipment classes.
2 For CRACs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 adopted efficiency levels in terms of NSenCOP based on test procedures in AHRI 1360–2017, while DOE’s current
standards are in terms of SCOP based on the test procedures in ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007. DOE performed a crosswalk analysis to compare the stringency of the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 efficiency levels with the current Federal standards. See section II.A of this NODA for further discussion on the crosswalk analysis performed for CRACs.
3 Horizontal-flow CRACs are new equipment classes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 (and not subject to current Federal standards), but DOE does not have any data to indicate the market share of horizontal-flow units. In the absence of data regarding market share and efficiency
distribution, DOE is unable to estimate potential savings for horizontal-flow equipment classes.
4 The preliminary CRAC crosswalk analysis indicates that there is no difference in stringency of efficiency levels for this class between ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 and the current Federal standard.
5 Air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers are new equipment classes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 and are currently subject to the Federal standard
for air-cooled CRACs. DOE does not have data regarding market share for air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers. Although DOE is unable to disaggregate the estimated potential savings for these equipment classes, energy savings for these equipment classes are included in the savings presented for air-cooled CRACs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60652
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
6 Ceiling-mounted CRACs are new equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 (and not subject to current Federal standards), and DOE does not have any
data to indicate the market share of ceiling-mounted units. In the absence of data regarding market share and efficiency distribution, DOE is unable to estimate potential savings for ceiling-mounted equipment classes.
TABLE II–2—ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AC AND HP
(<65 K) IN ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2019, AND THE CORRESPONDING FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS
ASHRAE standard 90.1–2019
equipment class
Current federal equipment class
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Single-Package, <65,000
Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, Three-phase,
Single-Package, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Single-Package, <65,000
Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, three-phase,
Single-Package, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, Three-phase,
Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, three-phase,
Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air Conditioner, Three-Phase, Single-Package, ≤30,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air Conditioner, Three-Phase, Split-System,
≤30,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Heat
Pump, Three-Phase, Single-Package, ≤30,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Heat
Pump, Three-Phase, Split-System,
≤30,000 Btu/h.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air-cooled
Air Conditioner, Three-Phase, SplitSystem, <65,000 Btu/h.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air-cooled
Heat Pump, Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Single-Package, <65,000
Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, three-phase,
Single-Package, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, three-phase,
Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, three-phase,
Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Energy efficiency levels in ASHRAE
standard 90.1–2019
14.0 SEER before 1/1/2023,
SEER2 after 1/1/2023.
Federal energy
conservation
standards 1
DOE
triggered by
ASHRAE
standard
90.1–2019
amendment?
13.4
14.0 SEER ...........
No.
13.0 SEER before 1/1/2023, 13.4
SEER2 after 1/1/2023.
14.0 SEER/8.0 HSPF before 1/1/2023,
13.4 SEER2/6.7 HSPF2 after 1/1/
2023.
14.0 SEER/8.2 HSPF before 1/1/2023,
14.3 SEER2/7.5 HSPF2 after 1/1/
2023.
12.0 SEER before 1/1/2023, 11.7
SEER2 after 1/1/2023.
13.0 SEER ...........
Yes.
14.0 SEER, 8.0
HSPF.
No.
14.0 SEER, 8.2
HSPF.
Yes.
14.0 SEER 2 .........
No.
13.0 SEER 2 .........
No.
12.0 SEER/7.4 HSPF before 1/1/2023,
11.7 SEER2/6.3 HSPF2 after 1/1/
2023.
12.0 SEER/7.4 HSPF before 1/1/2023,
11.7 SEER2/6.3 HSPF2 after 1/1/
2023.
12.0 SEER before 1/1/2023, 12.0
SEER2 after 1/1/2023.
14.0 SEER,2 8.0
HSPF 2.
No.
14.0 SEER,2 8.2
HSPF 2.
No.
13.0 SEER 2 .........
No.
12.0 SEER/7.2 HSPF before 1/1/2023,
12.0 SEER2/6.1 HSPF2 after 1/1/
2023.
14.0 SEER,2 8.2
HSPF 2.
No.
12.0 SEER before 1/1/2023,
SEER2 after 1/1/2023.
11.7
1 ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 adopts levels in terms of SEER2 and HSPF2 effective on 1/1/2023, as measured by AHRI 210/240–2023, while Federal standards
are in terms of SEER and HSPF. DOE performed a preliminary crosswalk analysis to determine whether the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels due to take effect
on 1/1/2023 represent an increase in stringency relative to the current Federal standards.
2 Although ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 specifies separate standard levels for three-phase space-constrained and small-duct, high-velocity equipment, the Federal
standards for these equipment classes are the same as other types of small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
A. Computer Room Air Conditioners
DOE currently prescribes energy
conservation standards for 30
equipment classes of CRACs at 10 CFR
431.97. The current CRAC equipment
classes are differentiated by condensing
system type (air-cooled, water-cooled,
water-cooled with fluid economizer,
glycol-cooled, or glycol-cooled with
fluid economizer), NSCC (less than
65,000 Btu/h, greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/
h, or greater than or equal to 240,000
Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h), and
direction of conditioned air over the
cooling coil (upflow or downflow).
Federal standards established in 10 CFR
431.97 are specified in terms of SCOP,
based on rating conditions in ANSI/
ASHRAE 127–2007. 10 CFR
431.96(b)(2).
As discussed in the September 2019
NODA/RFI, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2016 established new equipment classes
for CRACs. 84 FR 48006, 48013 (Sept.
11, 2019). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016
added efficiency levels for horizontal-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
flow CRAC equipment classes,
disaggregated the upflow CRAC
equipment classes into upflow ducted
and upflow non-ducted equipment
classes, and established different sets of
efficiency levels for upflow ducted and
upflow non-ducted equipment classes
based on the corresponding rating
conditions specified in AHRI 1360–
2016. In contrast, DOE currently
specifies the same set of standards at 10
CFR 431.97 for all covered upflow
CRACs, regardless of ducting
configuration.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
maintains the equipment class structure
for floor-mounted CRACs as established
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 amended
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 for all but three of
those equipment classes. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 also added classes
for air-cooled CRACs with fluid
economizers and a new table with new
efficiency levels for ceiling-mounted
CRAC equipment classes. The
equipment in horizontal-flow and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ceiling-mounted classes is not currently
subject to Federal standards set forth in
10 CFR 431.97, although DOE issued a
draft guidance document on October 7,
2015 to clarify that horizontal-flow and
ceiling-mounted CRACs are covered
equipment and are required to be tested
under the current DOE test procedure
for purposes of making representations
of energy consumption. (Docket No.
EERE–2014–BT–GUID–0022, No. 3, pp.
1–2) In contrast, upflow and downflow
air-cooled CRACs with fluid
economizers are currently subject to the
Federal standards in 10 CFR 431.97 for
air-cooled equipment classes.
DOE considered whether there were
any increases in stringency in the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels for
CRAC classes covered by DOE
standards, thus triggering DOE
obligations under EPCA. As with the
assessment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2016, for CRACs, this assessment has
been complicated because the current
standards established in 10 CFR 431.97
are specified in terms of SCOP and
based on the rating conditions in ANSI/
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
ASHRAE 127–2007, while the efficiency
levels for CRACs set forth in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 are specified in
terms of NSenCOP and based on rating
conditions in AHRI 1360–2017. While
EPCA does not expressly state how DOE
is to consider a change to an ASHRAE
efficiency metric, DOE is guided by the
criteria established under EPCA for the
evaluation of amendments to the test
procedures referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. For ASHRAE equipment
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), EPCA
directs that if the applicable test
procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must
amend the Federal test procedure to be
consistent with the amended industry
test procedure, unless DOE makes a
determination, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that to do so
would result in a test procedure that is
not reasonably designed to provide
results representative of use during an
average use cycle, or is unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B)) In evaluating an update to
an industry test procedure referenced in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must also
consider any potential impact on the
measured energy efficiency as compared
to the current Federal test procedure
and in the context of the current Federal
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C) and
42 U.S.C. 6293(e))
As discussed in section II.A.1 of this
document, the rating conditions in
AHRI 1360–2016 and AHRI 1360–2017
differ from those specified in ANSI/
ASHRAE 127–2007 (the industry
standard referenced in the current DOE
test procedure for CRACs) for most
CRAC equipment classes. As part of the
analysis for the September 2019 NODA/
RFI, DOE conducted a crosswalk
analysis for the classes affected by rating
condition changes to determine whether
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 levels
in terms of NSenCOP and determined
according to AHRI 1360–2016 are more
stringent than DOE’s current standards
in terms of SCOP and determined
according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007.
84 FR 48006, 48014–48022 (Sept. 11,
2019). Because the rating conditions
specified in AHRI 1360–2017 and AHRI
1360–2016 are the same for the classes
covered by the crosswalk (upflow
ducted, upflow non-ducted, and
downflow), the same crosswalk as
described in the September 2019
NODA/RFI can be used to compare
DOE’s current SCOP-based CRAC
standards to the NSenCOP values in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
(determined according to AHRI 1360–
2017), in order to perform the current
analysis required by EPCA. Section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
II.A.1 of this document includes a
detailed discussion of the differences in
rating conditions between DOE’s current
test procedure for CRACs (which
references ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007),
AHRI 1360–2016, and AHRI 1360–2017.
The crosswalk allows DOE to
determine whether any of the levels
specified in the updated ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 are more stringent than
the current DOE standards; any such
levels would be considered ‘‘amended’’
for the purpose of the evaluation
required by EPCA. To the extent that the
crosswalk identifies amended standards
(i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels
more stringent than the Federal
standards), the crosswalk also allows
DOE to conduct an analysis of the
energy savings potential of amended
standards, also as required by EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Additionally, in
order to make the required
determination of whether adoption of a
uniform national standard more
stringent than the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 level is technologically
feasible and economically justified (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)), DOE must
understand the relationship between the
current Federal standard and the
corresponding ASHRAE Standard 90.1
efficiency level. Finally, for any
standard that DOE does not make more
stringent because the Federal standard
is already more stringent than the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 level and where
more-stringent levels are not justified
(under the 6-year-lookback), DOE must
express these levels in terms of the new
efficiency metric so as to be consistent
with the relevant industry test
procedure (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)).
1. Methodology for Efficiency and
Capacity Crosswalk Analyses
a. General
DOE performed an efficiency
crosswalk analysis to compare the
stringency of the current Federal
standards (represented in terms of SCOP
based on the current DOE test
procedure) for CRACs to the stringency
of the efficiency levels for this
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 (represented in terms of NSenCOP
and based on AHRI 1360–2017). The
rating conditions for upflow ducted,
upflow non-ducted, and downflow
equipment classes specified in AHRI
1360–2017 are the same as in AHRI
1360–2016, so for these classes, the
same crosswalk can relate SCOP levels
measured according to ANSI/ASHRAE
127–2007 to NSenCOP levels measured
according to either the 2016 or 2017
editions of AHRI 1360. Therefore, the
crosswalk methodology and resulting
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60653
‘‘crosswalked’’ levels of the current
Federal standards used in this NODA/
RFI are the same as those presented in
the September 2019 NODA/RFI (i.e., the
methodology and resulting levels used
to compare the current Federal
standards to the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016; see 84 FR 48006,
48014–48019 (Sept. 11, 2019)). Because
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 added
classes for air-cooled CRACs with fluid
economizers, DOE also presents in this
NODA/RFI crosswalked levels for the 9
air-cooled with fluid economizer classes
currently being made subject to Federal
standards. However, the crosswalk
results for these classes are the same as
the results for corresponding classes for
air-cooled CRACs without fluid
economizers, because: (1) These classes
are subject to the same current Federal
standards as air-cooled CRACs without
fluid economizers; and (2) per AHRI
1360–2017, air-cooled units with fluid
economizers are not tested differently
than units without fluid economizers.
DOE received several comments in
response to the September 2019 NODA/
RFI addressing DOE’s crosswalk
methodology. AHRI stated that it agrees
with DOE’s crosswalk methodology and
analysis, with only slight discrepancies
in some of the percentages. However,
AHRI also stated that the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE 90.1–2019, which
were developed by AHRI and DOE,
resolve the shortcomings that AHRI
stated were in the crosswalk presented
in the September 2019 NODA/RFI.
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4) 16 The CA IOUs
commented that they support DOE’s
crosswalk analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at
p. 2) Similarly, Trane commented that it
generally agrees with the high-level
methodology in DOE’s crosswalk
analysis. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 1) Trane
also commented that cooling capacity
alone must be compared when
determining if backsliding has occurred,
as opposed to what minimum SCOP
requirement was previously required for
that individual unit. Trane further
stated that CRACs can achieve higher
cooling capacities with smaller box
sizes and less power input at the test
conditions specified in AHRI 1360 as
compared to DOE’s current test
procedure. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2) In
response to Trane, while the measured
NSCC will be higher for models in
certain equipment classes when tested
16 DOE identifies comments received in response
to the September 2019 NODA/RFI and placed in
Docket No. Docket EERE–2017–BT–STD–0017 by
the commenter, the number of the comment
document as listed in the docket maintained at
https://www.regulations.gov, and the page number of
that document where the comment appears (for
example: AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4).
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60654
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
to AHRI 1360–2016 or AHRI 1360–2017
as compared to when tested to ANSI/
ASHRAE 127–2007, DOE specifies
minimum standards in terms of energy
efficiency, not cooling capacity.
Therefore, DOE’s analysis to determine
if the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels
constitute backsliding must compare the
stringency of the current Federal SCOP
standards to the NSenCOP levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. As discussed
later in this section, DOE also performed
a ‘‘capacity crosswalk’’ analysis to
translate the capacity boundaries for
certain equipment classes, because some
CRACs would switch classes (i.e., move
into a higher capacity equipment class)
if the equipment class boundaries are
not changed accordingly. Such
switching of classes has the potential to
subject existing CRACs to lower
standards (which could raise concerns
vis-a`-vis EPCA’s anti-backsliding
provision at 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)). Based on these
comments, for this NODA/RFI, DOE did
not make any changes to the
methodology of the efficiency or
capacity crosswalks presented in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI.
For the efficiency crosswalk, DOE
analyzed the CRAC equipment classes
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 that are
currently subject to Federal standards
(i.e., all upflow and downflow
classes).17 ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
includes separate sets of efficiency
levels for upflow ducted and upflow
non-ducted CRACs to reflect the
differences in rating conditions for
upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted
units in AHRI 1360–2017 (e.g., return
air temperature and external static
pressure (ESP)). The current Federal test
procedure does not specify different
rating conditions for upflow ducted as
compared to upflow non-ducted CRACs,
and DOE’s current standards set forth in
10 CFR 431.97 do not differentiate
between upflow ducted and upflow
non-ducted CRACs. For the purpose of
the efficiency crosswalk analysis, DOE
converted the single set of current
Federal SCOP standards for all upflow
CRACs to sets of ‘‘crosswalked’’
NSenCOP levels for both the upflow
ducted and upflow non-ducted classes
included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019.
Similarly, DOE’s current standards set
forth in 10 CFR 431.97 do not
distinguish between air-cooled CRACs
with and without fluid economizers,
whereas ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
includes separate sets of efficiency
levels for air-cooled CRACs with and
without fluid economizers. Therefore,
DOE converted the single set of current
Federal standards for air-cooled classes
in terms of SCOP to crosswalked
standards in terms of NSenCOP for aircooled classes both with and without
fluid economizers. However, there is no
difference between the rating conditions
for air-cooled CRACs with and without
fluid economizers in AHRI 1360–2017
so the crosswalk results are identical for
these classes.
As explained previously, the levels
for CRACs as updated in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 rely on a different
metric (NSenCOP) and test procedure
(AHRI 1360–2017) than the metric and
test procedure required under the
Federal standards (SCOP and ANSI/
ASHRAE 127–2007, respectively). AHRI
1360–2017 and ANSI/ASHRAE 127–
2007 specify different rating conditions,
which are listed in Table II–3.18 AHRI
1360–2016 specifies the same rating
conditions for these classes as AHRI
1360–2017.
TABLE II–3—DIFFERENCES IN RATING CONDITIONS BETWEEN DOE’S CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE AND AHRI STANDARD
1360–2017
Test parameter
Affected equipment categories
Current DOE test procedure (ANSI/
ASHRAE 127–2007)
AHRI 1360–2017
Return air dry-bulb temperature (RAT)
Upflow ducted and downflow ..............
75 °F dry-bulb temperature
85 °F dry-bulb temperature.
Entering water temperature (EWT) ......
Water-cooled .......................................
86 °F
83 °F
ESP (varies with NSCC) ......................
Upflow ducted .....................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Adder for heat rejection fan and pump
power (add to total power consumption).
Water-cooled and glycol-cooled .........
17 ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 includes
efficiency levels for horizontal-flow and ceilingmounted classes of CRACs. DOE does not currently
prescribe standards for horizontal-flow or ceiling-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
<20 kW .................
0.8 in H2O ............
<65 kBtu/h ............
0.3 in H2O.
≥20 kW .................
1.0 in H2O ............
≥65 kBtu/h and
<240 kBtu/h.
0.4 in H2O.
≥240 kBtu/h and
<760 kBtu/h.
0.5 in H2O.
No added power consumption for heat
rejection fan and pump.
mounted classes, so these classes were not included
in the crosswalk analysis.
18 Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is conducting a
separate evaluation of its current test procedure as
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5 percent of NSCC for water-cooled
CRACs.
7.5 percent of NSCC for glycol-cooled
CRACs.
compared to AHRI 1360–2017. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B)).
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 (which references AHRI
1360–2017 as the test procedure for
CRACs), the capacity boundaries for
downflow and upflow-ducted CRAC
equipment classes are increased relative
to the boundaries of analogous classes
in the current Federal standards (which
references ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007 for
the test procedure). The capacity values
that bound the CRAC equipment classes
are in terms of NSCC. For certain
equipment classes, NSCC values
determined according to AHRI 1360–
2017 are higher than the NSCC values
determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE
127–2007 because of differences in the
specified rating conditions. Because the
test procedure in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 results in an increased NSCC
value for certain equipment classes, as
compared to the NSCC measured in
accordance with the current Federal test
procedure requirement, some CRACs
would switch classes (i.e., move into a
higher capacity equipment class) if the
equipment class boundaries are not
changed accordingly.19
As the equipment class capacity
increases for upflow or downflow CRAC
classes, the stringency of both the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level
and the current Federal standard
decreases. As a result, class switching
would subject some CRAC models to an
efficiency level under ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 that is less stringent
than the standard level that is
applicable to that model under the
current Federal requirements. Such
result would be impermissible under
EPCA’s anti-backsliding provision at 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I).
To provide for an appropriate
comparison between current Federal
efficiency standards and the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019,
address potential backsliding, and
evaluate the capacity boundaries in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019, a
capacity crosswalk was conducted to
adjust the NSCC boundaries that
separate equipment classes in the
Federal efficiency standards to account
for the expected increase in measured
NSCC values for affected equipment
classes (i.e., equipment classes with test
procedure changes that increase NSCC).
The capacity crosswalk calculated
necessary increases in the capacity
19 This difference in capacity values might shift
the boundaries between statutorily defined
categories (i.e., small, large and very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment), but would not impact which
equipment is within scope of DOE’s authority under
these statutorily defined categories (i.e., DOE has
authority to regulate all small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:01 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
boundaries of affected equipment
classes to prevent this equipment class
switching issue and avoid potential
backsliding that would occur if capacity
boundaries were not adjusted.
Both the efficiency and capacity
crosswalk analyses have a similar
structure and the data for both analyses
came from several of the same sources.
The crosswalk analyses were informed
by numerous sources, including public
manufacturer literature, manufacturer
performance data obtained through nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), results
from DOE’s testing of two CRAC units,
and DOE’s Compliance Certification
Database for CRACs. DOE analyzed each
test procedure change independently
and used the available data to determine
an aggregated percentage by which that
change impacted efficiency (SCOP) and/
or NSCC. Updated SCOP levels and
NSCC equipment class boundaries were
calculated for each class (as applicable)
by combining the percentage changes
for every test procedure change
applicable to that class.
The following sub-sections describe
the approaches used to analyze the
impacts on the measured efficiency and
capacity of each difference in rating
conditions between DOE’s current test
procedure and AHRI 1360–2017. As
discussed previously, the crosswalk
analysis methodology described in the
following sub-sections is the same as
presented in the September 2019
NODA/RFI. No additional data sources
were added to the analysis.
b. Increase in Return Air Dry-Bulb
Temperature From 75 °F to 85 °F
ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007, which is
referenced by DOE’s current test
procedure, specifies a return air drybulb temperature (RAT) of 75 °F for
testing all CRACs. AHRI 1360–2017
specifies an RAT of 85 °F for upflow
ducted and downflow CRACs, but
specifies an RAT for upflow non-ducted
units of 75 °F. SCOP and NSCC both
increase with increasing RAT for two
reasons. First, a higher RAT increases
the cooling that must be done for the air
to approach its dew point temperature
(i.e., the temperature at which water
vapor will condense if there is any
additional cooling). Second, a higher
RAT will tend to raise the evaporating
temperature of the refrigerant, which in
turn raises the temperature of fin and
tube surfaces in contact with the air—
the resulting reduction in the portion of
the heat exchanger surface that is below
the air’s dew point temperature reduces
the potential for water vapor to
condense on these surfaces. This is seen
in product specifications which show
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60655
that the sensible heat ratio 20 is
consistently higher at a RAT of 85 °F
than at 75 °F. Because SCOP is
calculated with NSCC, an increase in
the fraction of total cooling capacity that
is sensible cooling rather than latent
cooling also inherently increases SCOP.
To analyze the impacts of increasing
RAT for upflow ducted and downflow
CRACs on SCOP and NSCC, DOE
gathered data from three separate
sources and aggregated the results for
each crosswalk analysis. First, DOE
used product specifications for several
CRAC models that provide SCOP and
NSCC ratings for RATs ranging from
75 °F to 95 °F. Second, DOE analyzed
manufacturer performance data
obtained under NDAs that showed the
performance impact of individual test
condition changes, including the
increase in RAT. Third, DOE used
results from testing two CRAC units:
one air-cooled upflow ducted and one
air-cooled downflow unit. DOE
combined the results of these sources to
find the aggregated increases in SCOP
and NSCC due to the increase in RAT.
The increase in SCOP due to the change
in RAT was found to be approximately
19 percent, and the increase in capacity
was found to be approximately 22
percent.
c. Decrease in Entering Water
Temperature for Water-Cooled CRACs
ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007, which is
referenced by DOE’s current test
procedure, specifies an entering water
temperature (EWT) of 86 °F for watercooled CRACs, while AHRI 1360–2017
specifies an entering water temperature
of 83 °F. A decrease in the EWT for
water-cooled CRACs increases the
temperature difference between the
water and hot refrigerant in the
condenser coil, thus increasing cooling
capacity and decreasing compressor
power. To analyze the impact of this
decrease in EWT on SCOP and NSCC,
DOE analyzed manufacturer data
obtained through NDAs and a publiclyavailable presentation from a major
CRAC manufacturer and calculated an
SCOP increase of approximately 2
percent and an NSCC increase of
approximately 1 percent.
d. Changes in External Static Pressure
Requirements for Upflow Ducted CRACs
For upflow ducted CRACs, AHRI
1360–2017 specifies lower ESP
requirements than ANSI/ASHRAE 127–
20 ‘‘Sensible heat ratio’’ is the ratio of sensible
cooling capacity to the total cooling capacity. The
total cooling capacity includes both sensible
cooling capacity (cooling associated with reduction
in temperature) and latent cooling capacity (cooling
associated with dehumidification).
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60656
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
2007, which is referenced in DOE’s
current test procedure. The ESP
requirements in all CRAC industry test
standards vary with NSCC; however, the
capacity bins (i.e., capacity ranges over
which each ESP requirement applies) in
ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007 are different
from AHRI 1360–2017. Testing with a
lower ESP decreases the indoor fan
power input without a corresponding
decrease in cooling capacity, thus
increasing the measured efficiency.
Additionally, the reduction in fan heat
entering the indoor air stream that
results from lower fan power also
slightly increases NSCC.
To determine the impacts on
measured SCOP and NSCC of the
changes in ESP requirements between
DOE’s current test procedure and AHRI
1360–2017, DOE aggregated data from
its analysis of fan power consumption
changes, manufacturer data obtained
through NDAs, and results from DOE
testing. More details on each of these
sources are included in the following
paragraphs. The impact of changes in
ESP requirements on SCOP and NSCC
comparable air conditioning units with
similar cooling capacity, fan drive, and
fan motor horsepower.
was calculated separately for each
capacity range specified in AHRI 1360–
2017 (i.e., <65 kBtu/h, 65–240 kBtu/h,
and ≥240 kBtu/h).
DOE conducted an analysis to
estimate the change in fan power
consumption due to the changes in ESP
requirements using performance data
and product specifications for 77
upflow CRAC models with certified
SCOP ratings at or near the current
applicable SCOP standard level in
DOE’s Compliance Certification
Database. Using the certified SCOP and
NSCC values, DOE determined each
model’s total power consumption for
operation at the rating conditions
specified in DOE’s current test
procedure. DOE then used fan
performance data for each model to
estimate the change in indoor fan power
that would result from the lower ESP
requirements in AHRI 1360–2017, and
modified the total power consumption
for each model by the calculated value.
For several models, detailed fan
performance data were not available, so
DOE used fan performance data for
DOE also received manufacturer data
(obtained through NDAs) showing the
impact on efficiency and NSCC of the
change in ESP requirements.
Additionally, DOE conducted tests on
an upflow-ducted CRAC at ESPs of 1 in.
H2O and 0.4 in. H2O (the applicable ESP
requirements specified in ANSI/
ASHRAE 127–2007 and AHRI 1360–
2017, respectively), and included the
results of those tests in this analysis.
For each of the three capacity ranges
for which ESP requirements are
specified in AHRI AHRI 1360–2017,
Table II–4 shows the approximate
aggregated percentage increases in
SCOP and NSCC associated with the
decreased ESP requirements specified in
AHRI 1360–2017 for upflow ducted
units. As discussed previously, AHRI
1360–2016 specifies the same rating
conditions for upflow ducted classes as
AHRI 1360–2017.
TABLE II–4—PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN SCOP AND NSCC FROM DECREASES IN EXTERNAL STATIC PRESSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR UPFLOW DUCTED UNITS BETWEEN DOE’S CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE AND AHRI STANDARD 1360–
2017
Net sensible cooling capacity range (kBtu/h) *
ESP requirements in
DOE’s
current test procedure
(ANSI/ASHRAE 127–
2007)
(in H2O)
ESP requirements in AHRI
1360–2017
(in H2O)
Approx. average
percentage increase
in SCOP
Approx. average
percentage increase
in NSCC
0.8
0.3
7
2
** ≥65 to <68.2
0.8
0.4
*** 8
*** 2
** ≥68.2 to <240
1
0.5
6
2
<65
≥65 to <240 .....................................................................................
≥240 to <760
1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
* These boundaries are consistent with the boundaries in ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007, AHRI 1360–2016, and AHRI 1360–2017, and do not reflect
the expected capacity increases for upflow-ducted and downflow equipment classes at the AHRI 1360–2016 and AHRI 1360–2017 test conditions.
** 68.2 kBtu/h is equivalent to 20 kW, which is the capacity value that separates ESP requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007, which is referenced in DOE’s current test procedure.
*** This average percentage increase is an average across upflow ducted CRACs with net sensible cooling capacity ≥65 and <240 kBtu/h, including models with capacity <20 kW and ≥20 kW. DOE’s Compliance Certification Database shows that most of the upflow CRACs with a net sensible cooling capacity ≥65 kBtu/h and <240 kBtu/h have a net sensible cooling capacity ≥20 kW.
As discussed in section II.A.1.a of this
document, NSCC values determined
according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007
are lower than NSCC values determined
according to AHRI 1360–2017 for
certain CRAC classes, including upflowducted classes. The increase in NSCC
also impacts the ESP requirements for
upflow-ducted units in AHRI 1360–
2017 because these requirements are
specified based on NSCC. Differences in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:01 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
ESP requirements impact the stringency
of the test. For the efficiency and
capacity crosswalk analyses in this
NODA, DOE used the adjusted capacity
boundaries for upflow ducted classes
presented in Table II–5 (as discussed in
section II.A.1.f of this document) to
specify the applicable ESP requirement
in AHRI 1360–2017 (rather than using
the capacity boundaries specified in
AHRI 1360–2017) so that all CRACs
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
within an equipment class would be
subject to the same ESP requirement.
The same methodology was used in the
crosswalk analysis discussed in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI.
e. Power Adder To Account for Pump
and Heat Rejection Fan Power in
NSenCOP Calculation for Water-Cooled
and Glycol-Cooled CRACs
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Energy consumption for heat rejection
components for air-cooled CRACs (i.e.,
condenser fan motor(s)) is measured in
the industry test standards for CRACs;
however, energy consumption for heat
rejection components for water-cooled
and glycol-cooled CRACs is not
measured because these components
(i.e., water/glycol pump, dry cooler/
cooling tower fan(s)) are not considered
to be part of the CRAC unit. ANSI/
ASHRAE 127–2007, which is referenced
in DOE’s current test procedure, does
not include any factor in the calculation
of SCOP to account for the power
consumption of heat rejection
components for water-cooled and
glycol-cooled CRACs. In contrast, AHRI
1360–2017 specifies to increase the
measured total power input for CRACs
to account for the power consumption
of fluid pumps and heat rejection fans.
Specifically, Notes 2 and 3 to Table 3 of
AHRI 1360–2017 specify to add a
percentage of the measured NSCC (5
percent for water-cooled CRACs and 7.5
percent for glycol-cooled CRACs) in kW
to the total power input used to
calculate NSenCOP. DOE calculated the
impact of these additions on SCOP
using Equation 1:
Where, x is equal to 5 percent for
water-cooled CRACs and 7.5 percent for
glycol-cooled CRACs, and SCOP1 is the
SCOP value adjusted for the energy
consumption of heat rejection pumps
and fans.
2017 affect each of the CRAC equipment
classes considered in the crosswalk
analyses. To combine the impact on
SCOP of the changes to rating
conditions (i.e., increase in RAT,
decrease in condenser EWT for watercooled units, and decrease of the ESP
requirements for upflow ducted units),
DOE multiplied together the calculated
adjustment factors representing the
measurement changes corresponding to
each individual rating condition change,
as applicable, as shown in Equation 2.
These adjustment factors are equal to
100 percent plus the calculated percent
change in measured efficiency.
classes, NSenCOP is equal to
NSenCOP1.
To combine the impact on NSCC of
the changes to rating conditions, DOE
used a methodology similar to that used
for determining the impact on SCOP. To
determine adjusted NSCC equipment
class boundaries, DOE multiplied
together the calculated adjustment
factors representing the measurement
changes corresponding to each
individual rating condition change, as
applicable, as shown in Equation 4.
These adjustment factors are equal to
100 percent plus the calculated percent
change in measured NSCC. In this
equation, Boundary refers to the original
NSCC boundaries (i.e., 65,000 Btu/h,
240,000 Btu/h, or 760,000 Btu/h as
determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE
127–2007), Boundary1 refers to the
updated NSCC boundaries as
determined according to AHRI 1360–
2017, and y1, y2, and y3 represent the
percentage changes in NSCC due to
changes in RAT, condenser EWT, and
indoor fan ESP requirements,
respectively.
f. Calculating Overall Changes in
Measured Efficiency and Capacity From
Test Procedure Changes
Different combinations of the test
procedure changes between DOE’s
current test procedure and AHRI 1360–
EP25SE20.002</GPH>
In these equations, NSenCOP1 refers
to a partially-crosswalked NSenCOP
level that incorporates the impacts of
changes in RAT, condenser EWT, and
indoor fan ESP (as applicable), but not
the impact of adding the heat rejection
pump and fan power; x1, x2, and x3
represent the percentage change in
SCOP due to changes in RAT, condenser
EWT, and indoor fan ESP requirements,
respectively; and x4 is equal to 5 percent
for water-cooled equipment classes and
7.5 percent for glycol-cooled equipment
classes. For air-cooled classes, x4 is
equal to 0 percent; therefore, for these
To account for the impact of the adder
for heat rejection pump and fan power
for water-cooled and glycol-cooled
units, DOE used Equation 3. Hence,
DOE determined crosswalked NSenCOP
levels corresponding to the current
Federal SCOP standards for each CRAC
equipment class using the following two
equations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:01 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
EP25SE20.001</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
60657
60658
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
As mentioned previously, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 includes adjusted
equipment class capacity boundaries for
only upflow-ducted and downflow
equipment classes. The adjusted class
ranges for these categories are <80,000
Btu/h, ≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/
h, and ≥295,000 Btu/h. In previous
versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
these ranges are <65,000 Btu/h, ≥65,000
Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, and
≥240,000 Btu/h. The capacity range
boundaries for upflow non-ducted
classes were left unchanged at 65,000
Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019. DOE’s capacity
crosswalk analysis indicates that the
primary driver for increasing NSCC is
increasing RAT. The increases in RAT
in AHRI 1360–2017, as compared to
ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007, only apply to
upflow ducted and downflow
equipment classes. Based on the
analysis performed for this document,
DOE found that all the equipment class
boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019, which are in increments of 5,000
Btu/h, are within 1.4 percent of the
boundaries calculated from DOE’s
capacity crosswalk. As such, to more
closely align DOE’s analysis with
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019, DOE has
used the equipment class boundaries in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 as the
preliminary adjusted boundaries for the
crosswalk analysis. Use of the
equipment class boundaries from
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 allows for
an appropriate comparison between the
energy efficiency levels and equipment
classes specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 and those in the current DOE
standards, while addressing the
backsliding potential discussed
previously.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 does
not include an upper capacity limit for
coverage of CRACs. DOE’s current
standards are applicable only to CRACs
with an NSCC less than 760,000 Btu/h,
which is consistent with the statutory
limits on DOE’s authority.21 10 CFR
431.97(e). In order to account for all
equipment currently subject to the
Federal standards, DOE adjusted the
760,000 Btu/h equipment class
boundary for certain equipment classes
as part of its capacity crosswalk
analysis. This adjustment to the upper
boundary of the equipment classes
applies only for downflow and upflowducted classes (the classes for which the
RAT increase applies). Consistent with
the adjustments made in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019, DOE averaged the
cross-walked capacity results across the
affected equipment classes, and
rounded to the nearest 5,000 Btu/h.
Following this approach, DOE has used
930,000 Btu/h as the adjusted upper
capacity limit for downflow and
upflow-ducted CRACs in the analysis
presented in this notice. The 930,000
Btu/h upper capacity limit (as measured
per AHRI 1360–2017) used in the
crosswalk analysis is equivalent to the
760,000 Btu/h upper capacity limit (as
measured per ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007)
established in the current DOE
standards.
2. Crosswalk Results
The ‘‘crosswalked’’ DOE efficiency
levels (in terms of NSenCOP) and
adjusted equipment class capacity
boundaries were then compared with
the NSenCOP efficiency levels and
capacity boundaries specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 to
determine whether the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 requirements are
more stringent than current Federal
standards.
Table II–5 presents the preliminary
results for the crosswalk analyses (see
section II.A.1 of this document for
detailed discussion of the methodology
for the crosswalk analyses). The last
column in the table, labeled ‘‘Crosswalk
Comparison,’’ indicates whether the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels are
less stringent, equivalent to, or more
stringent than the current Federal
standards, based on DOE’s analysis.
Current
federal
standard
(SCOP)
Condenser
system type
Airflow
configuration
Current NSCC
range
(kBtu/h)
Air-cooled .........
Downflow ........
<65 .................
2.20
Air-cooled .........
Air-cooled .........
Air-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Water-cooled ...
Water-cooled ...
Water-cooled ...
Downflow ........
Downflow ........
Downflow ........
≥65 and <240
≥240 and <760
<65 .................
Downflow ........
Crosswalked current federal
standard
(NSenCOP)
ASHRAE
standard
90.1–2019
NSenCOP
level
Crosswalk
comparison
2.62
2.70
More Stringent.
2.10
1.90
2.20
≥80 and <295
≥295 and <930
<80 .................
2.50
2.26
2.62
2.58
2.36
2.70
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
≥65 and <240
2.10
≥80 and <295
2.50
2.58
More Stringent.
Downflow ........
≥240 and <760
1.90
≥295 and <930
2.26
2.36
More Stringent.
Downflow ........
Downflow ........
Downflow ........
<65 .................
≥65 and <240
≥240 and <760
2.60
2.50
2.40
<80 .................
≥80 and <295
≥295 and <930
2.73
2.63
2.54
2.82
2.73
2.67
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
Return air dry-bulb temperature.
Cross-walked
NSCC range
(kBtu/h)
<80 .................
21 In initially establishing standards CRACs, DOE
noted that the energy efficiency levels from
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 adopted as the Federal
standards were based on ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007.
77 FR 28928, 28945 (May 16, 2012). This includes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Test procedure changes
affecting efficiency *
Return air dry-bulb temperature. Condenser entering
water temperature. Add allowance for heat rejection
components to total power
input.
the relevant capacity values. DOE notes further that
EPCA provides a definition for ‘‘very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment’’ that encompasses such equipment
rated at or above 240,000 Btu/h and less than
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
760,000 Btu/h. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)) Consequently,
DOE does not have authority to set standards for
models beyond the capacity range specified for this
type of covered equipment.
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
EP25SE20.003</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
TABLE II–5—CROSSWALK RESULTS
60659
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–5—CROSSWALK RESULTS—Continued
ASHRAE
standard
90.1–2019
NSenCOP
level
Current NSCC
range
(kBtu/h)
Water-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Water-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Water-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Glycol-cooled ...
Glycol-cooled ...
Downflow ........
<65 .................
2.55
<80 .................
2.68
2.77
More Stringent.
Downflow ........
≥65 and <240
2.45
≥80 and <295
2.59
2.68
More Stringent.
Downflow ........
≥240 and <760
2.35
≥295 and <930
2.50
2.61
More Stringent.
Downflow ........
Downflow ........
<65 .................
≥65 and <240
2.50
2.15
<80 .................
≥80 and <295
2.43
2.15
2.56
2.24
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
Glycol-cooled ...
Glycol-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Glycol-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Glycol-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Air-cooled .........
Air-cooled .........
Air-cooled .........
Air-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Water-cooled ...
Water-cooled ...
Water-cooled ...
Water-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Water-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Water-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Glycol-cooled ...
Glycol-cooled ...
Glycol-cooled ...
Downflow ........
Downflow ........
≥240 and <760
<65 .................
2.10
2.45
≥295 and <930
<80 .................
2.11
2.39
2.21
2.51
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
Downflow ........
≥65 and <240
2.10
≥80 and <295
2.11
2.19
More Stringent.
Downflow ........
≥240 and <760
2.05
≥295 and <930
2.06
2.15
More Stringent.
Upflow
Upflow
Upflow
Upflow
<65 .................
≥65 and <240
≥240 and <760
<65 .................
2.09
1.99
1.79
2.09
<80 .................
≥80 and <295
≥295 and <930
<80 .................
2.65
2.55
2.26
2.65
2.67
2.55
2.33
2.67
More Stringent.
Equivalent.
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
Upflow Ducted
≥65 and <240
1.99
≥80 and <295
2.55
2.55
Equivalent.
Upflow Ducted
≥240 and <760
1.79
≥295 and <930
2.26
2.33
More Stringent.
Upflow
Upflow
Upflow
Upflow
<65 .................
≥65 and <240
≥240 and <760
<65 .................
2.49
2.39
2.29
2.44
<80 .................
≥80 and <295
≥295 and <930
<80 .................
2.77
2.70
2.56
2.72
2.79
2.70
2.64
2.74
More Stringent.
Equivalent.
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
Upflow Ducted
≥65 and <240
2.34
≥80 and <295
2.65
2.65
Equivalent.
Upflow Ducted
≥240 and <760
2.24
≥295 and <930
2.51
2.58
More Stringent.
Upflow Ducted
Upflow Ducted
Upflow Ducted
<65 .................
≥65 and <240
≥240 and <760
2.39
2.04
1.99
<80 .................
≥80 and <295
≥295 and <930
2.47
2.19
2.11
2.53
2.21
2.18
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
Glycol-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Glycol-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Glycol-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Air-cooled .........
Upflow Ducted
<65 .................
2.34
<80 .................
2.43
2.48
More Stringent.
Upflow Ducted
≥65 and <240
1.99
≥80 and <295
2.14
2.16
More Stringent.
Upflow Ducted
≥240 and <760
1.94
≥295 and <930
2.07
2.12
More Stringent.
Upflow NonDucted.
Upflow NonDucted.
Upflow NonDucted.
Upflow NonDucted.
<65 .................
2.09
<65 .................
2.09
2.16
More Stringent.
≥65 and <240
1.99
≥65 and <240
1.99
2.04
More Stringent.
≥240 and <760
1.79
≥240 and <760
1.79
1.89
More Stringent.
<65 .................
2.09
<65 .................
2.09
2.09
Equivalent.
Upflow NonDucted.
≥65 and <240
1.99
≥65 and <240
1.99
1.99
Equivalent.
Upflow NonDucted.
≥240 and <760
1.79
≥240 and <760
1.79
1.81
More Stringent.
Air-cooled .........
Air-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air-cooled with
fluid economizer.
Air-cooled with
fluid economizer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Ducted
Ducted
Ducted
Ducted
Ducted
Ducted
Ducted
Ducted
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Test procedure changes
affecting efficiency *
Add allowance for heat rejection components to total
power input.
Return air dry-bulb temperature. ESP requirements.
Return air dry-bulb temperature. Condenser entering
water temperature. ESP requirements. Add allowance
for heat rejection components to total power input.
Return air dry-bulb temperature. ESP requirements. Add
allowance for heat rejection
components to total power
input.
No changes .............................
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cross-walked
NSCC range
(kBtu/h)
Crosswalked current federal
standard
(NSenCOP)
Airflow
configuration
Air-cooled .........
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Current
federal
standard
(SCOP)
Condenser
system type
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Crosswalk
comparison
60660
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–5—CROSSWALK RESULTS—Continued
Condenser
system type
Water-cooled ...
Water-cooled ...
Water-cooled ...
Water-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Water-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Water-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Glycol-cooled ...
Glycol-cooled ...
Glycol-cooled ...
Glycol-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Glycol-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Glycol-cooled
with fluid
economizer.
Airflow
configuration
Current NSCC
range
(kBtu/h)
Current
federal
standard
(SCOP)
Crosswalked current federal
standard
(NSenCOP)
ASHRAE
standard
90.1–2019
NSenCOP
level
Test procedure changes
affecting efficiency *
Cross-walked
NSCC range
(kBtu/h)
Condenser entering water
temperature. Add allowance
for heat rejection components to total power input.
<65 .................
≥65 and <240
≥240 and <760
2.25
2.17
2.09
2.43
2.32
2.20
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
Crosswalk
comparison
Upflow NonDucted.
Upflow NonDucted.
Upflow NonDucted.
Upflow NonDucted.
<65 .................
≥65 and <240
≥240 and <760
2.49
2.39
2.29
<65 .................
2.44
<65 .................
2.21
2.35
More Stringent.
Upflow NonDucted.
≥65 and <240
2.34
≥65 and <240
2.13
2.24
More Stringent.
Upflow NonDucted.
≥240 and <760
2.24
≥240 and <760
2.05
2.12
More Stringent.
Upflow NonDucted.
Upflow NonDucted.
Upflow NonDucted.
Upflow NonDucted.
<65 .................
≥65 and <240
2.39
2.04
<65 .................
≥65 and <240
2.03
1.77
2.08
1.90
More Stringent.
More Stringent.
≥240 and <760
1.99
≥240 and <760
1.73
1.81
More Stringent.
<65 .................
2.34
<65 .................
1.99
2.00
More Stringent.
Upflow NonDucted.
≥65 and <240
1.99
≥65 and <240
1.73
1.82
More Stringent.
Upflow NonDucted.
≥240 and <760
1.94
≥240 and <760
1.69
1.73
More Stringent.
Add allowance for heat rejection components to total
power input.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
* Refer to Table II–4 of this document for specific changes in rating conditions.
CRAC Issue 1: DOE requests comment
on the methodology and results of the
crosswalk analysis.
As indicated by the crosswalk, the
standard levels established for CRACs in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 are
equivalent to the current Federal
standards for 6 equipment classes, and
are more stringent than the current
Federal standards for all other
equipment classes of CRACs. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 also added 66
equipment classes of ceiling-mounted
and horizontal-flow CRACs that did not
require a crosswalk because there are
currently no Federal standards for
classes. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
also incorporates shifted capacity bin
boundaries for upflow ducted and
downflow CRAC equipment classes.
DOE’s crosswalk analysis indicates that
these updated boundaries appropriately
reflect the increase in NSCC that results
from the changes in test procedure
adopted under ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 (as discussed in previous sections).
3. Discussion of Comments Received
Regarding Amended Standards for
CRACs
As mentioned in section I.C of this
document, DOE published a description
of a crosswalk comparing current
Federal standards to the minimum
efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
90.1–2016 and requested comment on
the crosswalk methodology and results
in the September 2019 NODA/RFI. 84
FR 48006, 48019 (Sept. 11, 2019). The
crosswalk and resulting crosswalked
levels of the current Federal standards
(i.e., current Federal standards
translated to the NSenCOP metric for
the purpose of comparison to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 levels) presented in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI are the
same as in this NODA/RFI because the
test conditions specified in AHRI 1360–
2016 and AHRI 1360–2017 are the same
and the Federal standards were
unchanged, so no additional changes to
the crosswalk methodology were
necessary. DOE received several
comments in response to the September
2019 NODA/RFI addressing of DOE’s
crosswalk methodology and results.
In response to the September 2019
NODA/RFI, several stakeholders
commented that DOE should not adopt
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 and should instead
adopt the levels in the Second Public
Review Draft of Addendum ‘be’ to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 (‘‘the
second public review draft’’),22 which
22 The second public review draft was published
by ASHRAE in November 2018. The same levels
were included in the subsequent ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019, which did not publish until after the
September 2019 NODA/RFI.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
were subsequently included in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019. (AHRI, No. 7 at p.
3; Trane, No. 5 at p. 1) AHRI also
commented that the levels in the second
public review draft were generated by
AHRI, discussed with DOE, and
approved by the ASHRAE 90.1
committee to address all backsliding
concerns from the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 levels. AHRI further stated
that the levels in the second public
review draft are all equal to or greater
than the DOE crosswalk values from the
current Federal standard and would
resolve their concerns over DOE’s
crosswalk findings presented in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI.
Specifically, AHRI stated that the levels
in the second public review draft
represent an increase in stringency by 3
to 5 percent from current Federal
minimums for most equipment classes.
AHRI recommended that DOE adopt
new energy efficiency metrics for the
national standards and revise capacity
demarcations for relevant equipment
classes to be published in the 2019
edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(AHRI, No. 7 at pp. 2–4)
Trane commented that there have
been no recent technological
advancements for CRACs that would
merit an increase of stringency in
standards relative to the current
efficiency levels (which are
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
denominated in terms of SCOP), and,
therefore, that the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 are the ‘‘most
stringent across of all the CRAC
systems,’’ in addition to being
technically feasible and economically
justified. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 1) The CA
IOUs stated that the publication of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 triggered
DOE’s statutory requirements to adopt
those levels or more-stringent standards,
and that the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 ensure that CRAC efficiency
levels will be maintained or
strengthened. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at pp. 2–
3)
AHRI and Trane both recommended
that DOE analyze and adopt the levels
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 for all
CRAC classes rather than amend
efficiencies for only a small subset of
products. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2; AHRI,
No. 7 at p. 7) Along these lines, AHRI
cautioned that a ‘‘no-new-standards’’
decision for a subset of CRACs would
‘‘create a serial rulemaking situation for
this equipment.’’ (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 7)
The CA IOUs similarly encouraged DOE
to move forward with an expanded
energy conservation standards analysis
for all equipment subject to the
ASHRAE trigger, as well as the covered
equipment classes subject to the sixyear-lookback provision. CA IOUs also
recommended that DOE not make the
decision on whether efficiency levels
above ASHRAE 90.1 levels can be
justified for CRACs until all energy
savings and cost-benefit analyses have
been completed. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p.
3)
In response to these comments, DOE
notes that this NODA/RFI evaluates the
efficiency levels for CRACs included in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019. Section
III.F of this NODA/RFI includes
discussion of DOE’s consideration of
standards more stringent than the levels
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 for all
CRAC equipment classes. Regarding
AHRI’s concern of a ‘‘serial
rulemaking,’’ DOE notes that EPCA
prescribes specific timing requirements.
As discussed, this NODA/RFI evaluates
potential standards pursuant to the
ASHRAE trigger in EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)), as well as pursuant to the
periodic lookback review required by
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)). While
DOE has some flexibility to consolidate
the reviews mandated by the two
separate statutory obligations, EPCA
prescribes the specific timing
requirements.
In general, EPCA requires DOE
conduct an evaluation of each class of
covered equipment within six years
following an amendment to the Federal
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
For equipment classes evaluated
pursuant to the 6-year-lookback and for
which DOE determines amended
standards are not justified, EPCA
requires DOE to conduct a subsequent
review within three years of such a
determination. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) As DOE has stated,
it may decide in appropriate cases to
simultaneously conduct an ASHRAE
trigger rulemaking and a lookback
rulemaking so as to address all classes
of an equipment category at the same
time (see 85 FR 8626, 8645 (Feb. 14,
2020), but DOE is still bound by the
timeframes established in EPCA.
4. CRAC Standards Amended Under
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
As discussed, DOE has analyzed the
updated CRAC efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements
of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). DOE
identified 48 equipment classes for
which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
efficiency levels are more stringent than
current DOE efficiency levels (expressed
in NSenCOP, see the crosswalk results
presented in section II.A.2 of this
document), 6 equipment classes for
which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
efficiency levels are equal to the current
DOE efficiency levels, and 66 classes of
CRACs for which standards are
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 that are not currently subject to
DOE’s standards (i.e., horizontal-flow
and ceiling-mounted classes).
DOE was unable to obtain the market
share data needed to disaggregate energy
savings for the 6 air-cooled with fluid
economizer equipment classes that
currently have DOE standards (i.e.,
upflow ducted, upflow non-ducted, and
down-flow) and that DOE identified as
having more-stringent standards under
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019.
Additionally, DOE lacked market share
data to establish a market baseline for
estimating energy savings potential for
the 66 horizontal-flow or ceilingmounted equipment classes. Thus, DOE
conducted an energy savings analysis,
presented in section III of this
document, for 42 of the 48 CRAC classes
that currently have DOE standards and
that DOE identified as having morestringent standards under ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019.
B. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small
Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
DOE’s current standards for small
three-phase, air-cooled, commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment
cover four equipment classes codified at
10 CFR 431.97, including both single
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60661
package and split systems. The energy
efficiency metric as measured under the
DOE test procedure listed in Table 1 to
10 CFR 431.96 is SEER for all
equipment types in cooling mode and
HSPF for heat pumps operating in
heating mode.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 adopted
new energy efficiency levels for aircooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment
levels, as well as a metric change. The
energy efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 maintain the
previous ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016
levels until January 1, 2023. After this
date, the levels for almost all equipment
classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
will align with Federal standards for aircooled, single-phase, central air
conditioners at 10 CFR 430.32(c)(5),
which will also be effective on January
1, 2023. The one exception is the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 energy
efficiency level for three-phase spaceconstrained (S–C) heat pumps, which
matches the SEER2 Federal standard for
single-phase S–C air conditioners in
cooling mode, rather than for singlephase S–C heat pumps in cooling mode.
In aligning levels with single-phase
central air conditioning standard, the
efficiency rating metrics in ASHRAE
90.1–2019 change from SEER to SEER2
and HSPF to HSPF2 effective January 1,
2023.
As discussed, the current DOE test
procedure at 10 CFR 431.96 for aircooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment
incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI
210/240–2008. AHRI has recently
published updated industry standards
in AHRI 210/240–2017 (published in
December 2017), as well as AHRI 210/
240–2017 with Addendum 1 (published
in April 2019). While ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 references AHRI
210/240–2008 with Addendum 1 and 2,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 references
AHRI 210/240–2017 for the period prior
to January 1, 2023. The reference to
AHRI 210/240–2017 does not include
Addendum 1, which DOE believes was
an oversight.
As part of the October 2018 TP RFI,
DOE reviewed AHRI 210/240–2017
(with and without Addendum 1) and
initially determined that it is consistent
with AHRI 210/240–2008 and would
not be expected to impact the measured
efficiency of the subject equipment
during a representative average use
cycle as compared to the 2008 version.
83 FR 49501, 49503 (Oct. 2. 2018).
Therefore, DOE determined that the pre2023 levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 based on AHRI 210/240–2017 are
consistent with those levels in ASHRAE
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60662
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Standard 90.1–2016 based on AHRI 210/
240–2008 and do not constitute a
change in efficiency levels that requires
a crosswalk analysis.
For the period beginning January 1,
2023, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
references AHRI 210/240–2023 (to align
with updates to minimum efficiency
standards that take effect on January 1,
2023). AHRI 210/240–2023, which
published in May 2020, adopts the
SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics and aligns
with the test procedure for single-phase
central air conditioners in DOE’s test
procedure at Appendix M1 to 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B.
For the analysis of air-cooled, threephase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment conducted
for this NODA to assess whether the
post-2023 levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 are a change that triggers
DOE review, DOE has applied the
crosswalk from SEER to SEER2 (and
HSPF to HSPF2 for heat pumps)
developed for single-phase products
switching to the SEER2 (and HSPF2 for
heat pumps) metric. DOE will update
the crosswalk as needed based on any
separate test procedure rulemaking that
DOE may conduct. The crosswalk
methodology and results are discussed
in the following section.
DOE also notes that ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 provides separate
levels for small-duct high-velocity
(SDHV) and S–C heat pumps, as did
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 and
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 23 (using
the nomenclature ‘‘through the wall’’
rather than space-constrained). In the
notice of proposed rule preceding the
July 2015 final rule, DOE stated that
EPCA does not separate these
equipment from other types of small
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment in its
definitions, and, therefore, EPCA’s
definition of ‘‘small commercial package
air conditioning and heating
equipment’’ includes SDHV and S–C
heat pumps. 80 FR 1172, 1184 (Jan. 8,
2015). As the levels for those classes in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were
lower than the Federal standards for the
main classes, DOE concluded that it was
not required to take action on those
classes. Id. As DOE has previously
determined that the pre-2023 levels for
SDHV and S–C, which are equivalent to
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 levels,
constitute backsliding in relation to the
Federal standards, DOE is now assessing
whether the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 post-2023 levels for SDHV and S–
C equipment constitute an increase in
stringency as compared to the current
Federal standards for the broader
equipment classes of single-package and
split-system air conditioners and heat
pumps. DOE notes that there are
currently no three-phase SDHV or S–C
air conditioners or heat pumps on the
market.
1. Crosswalk Methodology and Results
Given the similarity of the changes
occurring, DOE based its preliminary
crosswalk analysis on the analysis
conducted for single-phase residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps
switching from SEER and HSPF to
SEER2 and HSPF2 in the January 6,
2017 Direct Final Rule for Residential
Central Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps (January 2017 direct final rule)
published in the Federal Register. 82 FR
1786, 1857–1858 (Jan. 6, 2017). The
January 2017 direct final rule provides
the adopted standard levels for singlephase central air conditioners and heat
pumps in terms of SEER (and HSPF for
heat pumps) and corresponding
crosswalked SEER2 (and HSPF2 for heat
pumps) values. 82 FR 1786, 1848–1849,
Tables V–29 and V–30 (Jan. 6, 2017).
For three-phase equipment classes with
Federal standards matching SEER and
HPSF standards in Table V–29 of the
January 2017 direct final rule, DOE used
the corresponding SEER2 and HSPF2
value from Table V–30 of the January
2017 direct final rule.
For three-phase equipment classes
that did not have matching SEER values
in Table V–29 of the January 2017 direct
final rule, DOE evaluated the stringency
of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
SEER2 levels relative to the Federal
SEER standard by qualitatively
assessing how the testing method
changes made for single-phase
equipment switching from SEER to
SEER2 would impact three-phase
equipment. For ducted equipment, the
difference between Appendix M to 10
CFR part 430 (the pre-2023 test method)
and Appendix M1 to 10 CFR part 430
(the post-2023 test method) that impacts
measured energy use is an increase in
external static pressure. For a given
unit, the increase in external static
pressure in the post-2023 test method
leads to an increased measurement of
unit energy consumption, resulting in a
lower SEER2 rating (relative to the
unit’s comparable SEER rating). For
SDHV equipment classes, the specified
external static pressure is the same in
both the pre-2023 and post-2023 test
method. Consequently, for a given unit,
there is no change between SEER and
SEER2 rating.
For three-phase equipment classes
that did not have matching HSPF values
in Table V–29 of the January 2017 direct
final rule, DOE also evaluated the
stringency of the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 HSPF2 levels relative to the
Federal HSPF standard by qualitatively
assessing how the testing method
changes made for single-phase
equipment switching from HSPF to
HSPF2 would impact three-phase
equipment. The primary difference
between the pre-2023 test method and
the post-2023 test method is a change in
heating load line. For a given unit, the
change in heating load line in the post2023 test method leads to an increased
measurement of unit energy
consumption, resulting in a significantly
lower HSPF2 rating (relative to the
unit’s comparable HSPF rating). DOE
applied these changes in order to
compare the current Federal HSPF to
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
HSPF2.
The results of DOE’s preliminary
crosswalk are found Table II–6. The last
column in the table, labeled ‘‘Crosswalk
Comparison,’’ indicates whether the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels
beginning on January 1, 2023, are less
stringent, equivalent to, or more
stringent than the crosswalked Federal
standards, based on DOE’s analysis.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
TABLE II–6—CROSSWALK RESULTS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AC AND HP (<65 K)
EQUIPMENT
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 equipment class
Current federal equipment
class
Energy efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019
Air-cooled Air Conditioner,
Three-Phase, SinglePackage, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner,
Three-Phase, SinglePackage, <65,000 Btu/h.
14.0 SEER before 1/1/
2023; 13.4 SEER2 on
and after 1/1/2023.
23 DOE notes that ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016
did not amend levels relative to ASHRAE Standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
Federal energy
conservation standard(s)
Cross-walked current
federal standard(s)
14.0 SEER ........................
13.4 SEER2 ......................
90.1–2013 for air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Crosswalk
comparison 1
Equivalent.
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
60663
TABLE II–6—CROSSWALK RESULTS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AC AND HP (<65 K)
EQUIPMENT—Continued
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 equipment class
Current federal equipment
class
Energy efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019
Air-cooled Air Conditioner,
Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, SinglePackage, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner,
Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, SinglePackage, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Aircooled Air Conditioner,
Three-Phase, SinglePackage, ≤30,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Aircooled Air Conditioner,
Three-Phase, Split-System, ≤30,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, AirCooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, SinglePackage, ≤30,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Aircooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, Split-System, ≤30,000 Btu/h.
Small Duct High Velocity,
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, Three-Phase,
Split-System, <65,000
Btu/h.
Small Duct, High Velocity,
Air-cooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner,
Three-Phase, SinglePackage, <65,000 Btu/h.
13.0 SEER before 1/1/
2023; 13.4 SEER2 on
and after 1/1/2023.
14.0 SEER/8.0 HSPF before 1/1/2023; 13.4
SEER2/6.7 HSPF on
and after 1/1/2023.
14.0 SEER/8.2 HSPF before 1/1/2023; 14.3
SEER2/7.5 HSPF2 on
and after 1/1/2023.
12.0 SEER before 1/1/
2023; 11.7 SEER2 on
and after 1/1/2023.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner,
Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, SinglePackage, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner,
Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump,
Three-Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h.
Federal energy
conservation standard(s)
Cross-walked current
federal standard(s)
Crosswalk
comparison 1
13.0 SEER ........................
<13.0 SEER2 2 .................
More Stringent.
14.0 SEER; 8.0 HSPF ......
13.4 SEER2; 6.7 HSPF2 ..
Equivalent.
14.0 SEER; 8.2 HSPF ......
13.4 SEER2; <7.5
HSPF2 3.
More Stringent.
14.0 SEER ........................
>11.7 SEER2 4 .................
Less Stringent.
12.0 SEER before 1/1/
2023; 11.7 SEER2 on
and after 1/1/2023.
13.0 SEER ........................
>11.7 SEER2 4 .................
Less Stringent.
12.0 SEER/7.4 HSPF before 1/1/2023; 11.7
SEER2/6.3 HSPF2 on
and after 1/1/2023.
12.0 SEER/7.4 HSPF before 1/1/2023; 11.7
SEER2/6.3 HSPF2 on
and after 1/1/2023.
12.0 SEER before 1/1/
2023; 12.0 SEER2 on
and after 1/1/2023.
14.0 SEER; 8.0 HSPF ......
>11.7 SEER2; 4 >6.3
HSPF2 3.
Less Stringent.
14.0 SEER; 8.2 HSPF ......
>11.7 SEER2; 4 >6.3
HSPF2 3.
Less Stringent.
13.0 SEER ........................
13.0 SEER2 ......................
Less Stringent.
12.0 SEER/7.2 HSPF before 1/1/2023; 12.0
SEER2/6.1 HSPF2 on
and after 1/1/2023.
14.0 SEER; 8.2 HSPF ......
14.0 SEER2; >6.1
HSPF2 3.
Less Stringent.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
1 Column indicates whether the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels beginning on January 1, 2023, are less stringent, equivalent to, or more stringent than the
crosswalked Federal standards.
2 The Federal SEER standard is lower than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 SEER2 level indicating that the crosswalked Federal SEER2 standard will also be
lower than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 SEER2 level.
3 For single-phase equipment, the decrease in HSPF2 compared to the equivalent HSPF is in the range of 1.1–1.3 points. 82 FR 1786, 1848–1849, Tables V–29
and V–30 (Jan. 6, 2017). We expect a similar relationship for three-phase equipment and use this to assess whether the crosswalked Federal standard HSPF2 value
for a given HSPF value will be greater or less than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 HSPF2 level.
4 For S–C equipment classes, there is a small increase in external static pressure between the testing methods for SEER and SEER2 which, for a given unit, decreases the SEER2 rating slightly compared to the equivalent SEER rating. Therefore, the crosswalked Federal SEER2 is expected to be significantly higher than the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 level of 11.7 SEER2.
Based on DOE’s preliminary
crosswalk, two equipment classes have
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels that
are more stringent that current Federal
standards; two equipment classes are
equivalent, and six equipment classes
have ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
levels less stringent than the Federal
standards.
DOE notes that although the post2023 values for S–C and SDHV
equipment are less stringent than
current Federal standards for these
equipment, DOE still intends to
consider these ASHRAE classes
separately in this rulemaking as part of
the six-year-lookback review.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 1: DOE
requests feedback on its methodology
for determining crosswalked SEER2 and
HSPF2 values for three-phase
equipment based on crosswalked values
of single-phase residential central air
conditioners.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
III. Analysis of Standards Amended
and Newly Established by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019
As required under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A), for CRAC and air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment classes
for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
specifies amended energy efficiency
levels that are more stringent than the
corresponding Federal energy
conservation standards, DOE performed
an analysis to determine the energysavings potential of amending Federal
standards to the amended ASHRAE
levels as specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019. DOE’s energy savings
analysis is limited to equipment classes
for which sufficient data are available.
However, as discussed in section III.F of
this document, DOE has tentatively
determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that standards
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for either
CRACs or air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment would result in significant
additional energy savings because of
uncertainty in estimated energy savings
resulting from the change in energy
efficiency metrics.
The following discussion provides an
overview of the energy savings analysis
conducted for 42 classes of CRACs and
2 classes of air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) as defined by ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019, followed by summary results
of that analysis. Although ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 included levels for
horizontal flow and ceiling-mounted
CRAC equipment classes (which
currently do not have Federal
standards), DOE was unable to find
market data that could be used to
establish a market baseline for these
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60664
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
classes and, thus, estimate energy
savings.
In addition to the specific issues
identified in the following sections on
which DOE requests comment, DOE
requests comment on its overall
approach and analyses used to evaluate
potential standard levels for CRACs and
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K).
For the equipment classes where
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 specified
more-stringent levels than the
corresponding Federal energy
conservation standard, DOE calculated
the potential energy savings to the
Nation associated with adopting
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 as the
difference between a no-new-standards
case projection (i.e., without amended
standards) and the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 standards-case projection
(i.e., with adoption of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 levels).
The national energy savings (NES)
refers to cumulative lifetime energy
savings for equipment purchased in a
30-year period that differs by equipment
(i.e., the compliance date differs by
equipment class (i.e., capacity)
depending upon whether DOE is acting
under the ASHRAE trigger or the 6-yearlookback (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)).
In the standards case, equipment that is
more efficient gradually replaces lessefficient equipment over time. This
affects the calculation of the potential
energy savings, which are a function of
the total number of units in use and
their efficiencies. Savings depend on
annual shipments and equipment
lifetime. Inputs to the energy savings
analysis are presented in this document.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
A. Annual Energy Use
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to assess the energy savings
potential of different equipment
efficiencies in the building types that
utilize the equipment. DOE uses the
annual energy consumption and energysavings potential in the life-cycle cost
(LCC) and payback period (PBP)
analyses 24 to establish the savings in
consumer operating costs at various
equipment efficiency levels.
The Federal standard and ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 levels are expressed
in terms of an efficiency metric or
metrics. For each equipment class, this
24 The purpose of the LCC and PBP analyses are
to analyze the effects of potential amended energy
conservation standards on commercial consumers
of CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial AC and HP (<65 K) by determining how
a potential amended standard affects the
commercial consumers’ operating expenses (usually
decreased) and total installed costs (usually
increased).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
section describes how DOE developed
estimates of annual energy consumption
at the Federal baseline efficiency level
and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
level. These annual unit energy
consumption (UEC) estimates form the
basis of the national energy savings
estimates discussed in section III.E of
this document.
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Equipment Classes and Analytical
Scope
As noted previously in section II.A.4
of this document, DOE has conducted
an energy savings analysis for the 42
CRAC classes that currently have both
DOE standards and more-stringent
standards under ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019. DOE was unable to identify
market data that would allow for
disaggregating results for the six aircooled with fluid economizer
equipment classes with ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 levels more
stringent than current Federal
standards. Although ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 included levels for horizontal
flow and ceiling-mounted equipment
classes which currently are not subject
to Federal standards, DOE was unable to
identify market data that could be used
to establish a market baseline for these
classes in order to estimate energy
savings. Based on information received
in response to this document or
otherwise identified, DOE may
disaggregate these equipment classes in
future analyses and analyze them
separately.
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE
conducted an energy analysis for 15
downflow CRAC equipment classes
using a modified outside temperature
bin analysis. 77 FR 28928, 28954 (May
16, 2012). For each air-cooled
equipment class, DOE calculated fan
energy and condensing unit power
consumption at each 5 °F outdoor air
dry-bulb temperature bin. The
condensing unit power in this context
included the compressor(s) and
condenser fan(s) and/or pump(s)
included as part of the equipment
rating. For water-cooled and glycolcooled equipment, the May 2012 final
rule analysis first estimated the entering
fluid temperature from either an
evaporative cooling tower or a dry
cooler for water-cooled and for glycolcooled CRAC equipment, respectively,
based on binned weather data. Using
these results, DOE then estimated the
condensing unit power consumption
and adds to this the estimated supply
fan power. The sum of the CRAC
condensing unit power and the CRAC
supply fan power is the estimated
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
average CRAC total power consumption
for each temperature bin. Annual
estimates of energy use are developed
by multiplying the power consumption
at each temperature bin by the number
of hours in that bin for each climate
analyzed. In the May 2012 final rule,
DOE then took a population-weighted
average over results for 239 different
climate locations to derive nationally
representative CRAC annual energy use
values. DOE assumed energy savings
estimates derived for downflow
equipment classes would be
representative of upflow equipment. 77
FR 28928, 28954 (May 16, 2012). In this
document, DOE is using the results from
the May 2012 final rule as the basis for
the energy savings potential analysis of
the CRAC equipment classes analyzed
for this document, similar to the
methodology used in the September
2019 NODA/RFI.
b. Efficiency Levels
DOE analyzed the energy savings
potential of adopting ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 levels for CRAC equipment
classes that currently have a Federal
standard and have an ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 standard more
stringent than the current Federal
standard. For each equipment class,
energy savings are measured relative to
the baseline (i.e., the current Federal
standard for that class).
c. Analysis Method and Annual Energy
Use Results
For this analysis, DOE used a similar
analysis to that presented in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI. To derive
UECs for the equipment classes
analyzed in this document, DOE started
with the adopted standard level UECs
(i.e., the current DOE standard) for
downflow equipment classes analyzed
in the May 2012 final rule. DOE
assumed that these UECs correspond to
the NSenCOP derived through the
crosswalk analysis (i.e., ‘‘Cross-walked
Current Federal Standard’’ column in
Table II–5). DOE determined the UEC
for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
level by dividing the baseline NSenCOP
level by the NSenCOP for the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 level and
multiplied the resulting percentage by
the baseline UEC.
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE
assumed energy savings estimates
derived for downflow equipment classes
would be representative of upflow
equipment classes which differed by a
fixed 0.11 SCOP. 77 FR 28928, 28954
(May 16, 2012). Because of the fixed
0.11 SCOP difference between upflow
and downflow CRAC units in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2013, DOE determined
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
that the per-unit energy savings benefits
for corresponding CRACs at higher
efficiency levels could be represented
using the 15 downflow equipment
classes. Id. However, in this analysis,
the efficiency levels for the upflow nonducted equipment classes do not differ
from the downflow equipment class by
a fixed amount. For this document, DOE
assumed that the fractional increase/
decrease in NSenCOP between upflow
and downflow units corresponds to a
proportional decrease/increase in the
baseline UEC within a given equipment
class grouping of condenser system and
capacity.
In response to the September 2019
NODA/RFI, AHRI stated that DOE’s
proposed approach to determine the
UEC of upflow units using the fractional
increase or decrease in NSenCOP
relative to the baseline downflow unit
in a given equipment class grouping of
condenser system and capacity was
reasonable and an acceptable method to
use. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5) Trane stated
that return air conditions are becoming
more likely to approach AHRI 1360
class 4 levels in response to increased
use of High-Performance Computing
models. At higher return temperatures,
CRACs can avoid latent cooling and be
more efficient. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2)
However, Trane stated that using the
UECs derived for the 2012 rule might be
60665
the most workable option for evaluating
the impact of proposed standards.
(Trane, No. 5 at p. 2) After consideration
of these comments, DOE has tentatively
decided to maintain the same
methodology in this document.
CRAC Issue 2: DOE seeks comment on
its energy-use analysis methodology.
Table III–1 shows UEC estimates for
the equipment classes triggered by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 (i.e.,
equipment classes for which the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 energy
efficiency level is more stringent than
the current applicable Federal
standard).
TABLE III–1—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES (kWh/Year) FOR CRAC SYSTEMS 1
Airflow
configuration
Current net sensible
cooling capacity
Downflow .....................
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
Condenser system type
Air-cooled .....................
Upflow, ducted ............
Upflow, non-ducted .....
Water-cooled ................
Downflow .....................
Upflow, ducted ............
Upflow, non-ducted .....
Water-cooled with fluid
economizer.
Downflow .....................
Upflow, ducted ............
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Upflow, non-ducted .....
Glycol-cooled ................
Downflow .....................
Upflow, ducted ............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Current federal standard
NSenCOP
Sfmt 4702
UEC (kwh)
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
NSenCOP
UEC (kwh)
2.62
2.50
27,411
102,762
2.70
2.58
26,599
99,575
2.26
246,011
2.36
235,587
2.65
2.26
27,100
247,104
2.67
2.33
26,897
238,620
2.09
1.99
34,362
129,097
2.16
2.04
33,248
125,933
1.79
310,606
1.89
294,172
2.73
2.63
24,726
92,123
2.82
2.73
23,850
88,749
2.54
208,727
2.67
198,564
2.77
2.56
24,280
207,096
2.79
2.64
24,106
200,821
2.25
2.17
29,891
112,169
2.43
2.32
27,677
104,433
2.09
254,888
2.20
240,985
2.68
2.59
15,443
57,537
2.77
2.68
14,885
55,390
2.50
129,787
2.61
123,819
2.72
2.51
15,159
128,753
2.74
2.58
15,048
125,259
2.21
2.13
18,657
70,022
2.35
2.24
17,546
66,271
2.05
158,416
2.12
152,438
2.43
2.15
24,671
101,844
2.56
2.24
23,419
97,297
2.11
227,098
2.21
215,794
2.47
2.19
24,272
99,975
2.53
2.21
23,696
98,618
2.11
226,021
2.18
218,764
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60666
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III–1—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES (kWh/Year) FOR CRAC SYSTEMS 1—Continued
Airflow
configuration
Current net sensible
cooling capacity
Upflow, non-ducted .....
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ..............
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
Condenser system type
Glycol-cooled with fluid
economizer.
Downflow .....................
Upflow, ducted ............
Upflow, non-ducted .....
Current federal standard
NSenCOP
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
UEC (kwh)
NSenCOP
UEC (kwh)
2.03
1.77
29,679
123,833
2.08
1.90
28,823
114,708
1.73
275,668
1.81
263,483
2.39
2.11
19,813
81,668
2.51
2.19
18,866
78,312
2.06
182,034
2.15
174,414
2.43
2.14
19,567
80,142
2.48
2.16
19,094
79,400
2.07
182,034
2.12
176,882
1.99
1.73
23,796
99,135
2.00
1.82
23,677
94,232
1.69
221,888
1.73
216,757
1 The air-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; water-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; and
water-cooled with fluid economizer, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h equipment classes are not included in this table, as the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels for these equipment classes are equivalent to the current Federal standard.
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small
Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
a. Equipment Classes and Analytical
Scope
In response to the ASHRAE trigger at
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A), DOE conducted
an analysis of energy savings potential
for two equipment classes of air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment: (1) Aircooled, three-phase, split-system air
conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h, and
(2) air-cooled, three-phase, split-system
heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
b. Efficiency Levels
DOE analyzed the energy savings
potential of adopting the post-2023
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels for
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
classes that currently have a Federal
standard and have an ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 standard more
stringent than current Federal
standards. For each equipment class,
energy savings are measured relative to
the baseline (i.e., current Federal
standard for that class).
c. Annual Energy Use Results
The energy use analysis provides
estimates of the annual energy
consumption of air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K), at the current Federal baseline
and at the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
level. To estimate the savings of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 level
relative to the current Federal baseline,
DOE used the cooling UECs that were
developed for the same kind of split
systems in the July 2015 final rule. 80
FR 42614, 42625 (July 17, 2015). The
UECs in the July 2015 final rule came
from the national impact analysis of a
direct final rule for residential central
air conditioners and heat pumps
published June 27, 2011 (76 FR 37408)
(June 2011 DFR), specifically the UECs
for residential split-system equipment
that were used in commercial buildings.
(EERE–2011–BT–STD–0011–0011) In
the July 2015 final rule, DOE accounted
for variability by climate and building
type by using estimates of the Full Load
Equivalent Operating Hours (FLEOH)
for cooling and heating equipment from
a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
report.25 In the July 2015 final rule, DOE
reviewed the heating loads that were
used to determine heating energy use for
the June 2011 DFR and determined that
the heating loads were small (less than
500 kWh/year) and, therefore, did not
include any energy savings due to the
increase in HSPF for this equipment in
the July 2015 final rule. 80 FR 42614,
42625 (July 17, 2015). DOE maintained
that approach to develop UECs in its
current analysis for this rulemaking.
The UECs for split-system air
conditioners and split-system heat
pumps are shown in Table III–2.
25 See Appendix D of the 2000 Screening Analysis
for EPACT-Covered Commercial HVAC and WaterHeating Equipment. (EERE–2006–STD–0098–0015).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
TABLE III–2—UNIT ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF SPLIT-SYSTEM AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Efficiency Level
Threephase,
air-cooled
split-system air
conditioners
<65,000
Btu/h
Threephase,
air-cooled
split-system heat
pumps
<65,000
Btu/h
Annual Energy Use
(kWh)
Federal Baseline .......
ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 .............
2,701
2,660
2614
2,502
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 2: DOE
requests comment on its approach to
estimate the energy use of air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K).
B. Shipments
DOE uses shipment projections by
equipment class to calculate the
national impacts of standards on energy
consumption, as well as net present
value and future manufacturer cash
flows. DOE shipments projections
typically are based on available
historical data broken out by equipment.
Current sales estimates allow for a more
accurate model that captures recent
trends in the market.
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE performed a ‘‘bottom-up’’
calculation to estimate CRAC shipments
based on the cooling demand required
from CRAC-cooled data centers. Where
possible, DOE has incorporated data and
information received in comments to
that document to better inform its
analysis. DOE’s approach in this
document estimates total annual
shipments for the entire CRAC market
and then uses market share data to
estimate shipments for ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 triggered
equipment classes.
DOE’s shipments model first
estimates the installed CRAC base stock
by equipment size from information on
data centers in the 2012 Commercial
Business Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS).26 CBECS identifies buildings
that contain data centers, the number of
servers in the data center, and
associated square footage. CBECS does
not specifically inquire about the
presence of CRACs.
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE assumed any building identified as
having a data center in CBECS 2012 that
did not have a central chiller or district
chilled water system would be serviced
by a CRAC. DOE assumed that a
building with a central chiller or district
chilled water system would use a
computer room air handler (CRAH) and
not a CRAC for its data center cooling,
and, thus, such building was not
included in the analysis.27 Additionally,
DOE assumed buildings that contained
10 or more servers (but did not
explicitly identify as having a data
center) and did not have a central
chiller or district chilled water system
would also be serviced by CRAC units.
In response to the September 2019
NODA/RFI, DOE received a number of
comments on DOE’s assumptions for
identifying data centers that would be
serviced by CRACs. AHRI stated that
DOE’s methodology for using server
count to identify data centers could be
improved by using either counts by
‘‘rack’’ or estimates for ‘‘kW per rack.’’ 28
26 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration, 2012 CBECS Survey
Data (Last accessed March 9, 2020) (Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/
data/2012/). This is the most recent release of
CBECS.
27 A ‘‘CRAH’’ is a specialized air handling unit
designed for use in data centers with an internal
cooling coil supported by centralized chilled water
system. In contrast, CRACs contain a cooling coil
filled with a refrigerant.
28 Server racks are racks designed to hold and
organize multiple servers and supporting
information technology (IT) equipment. The
amount of energy produced by a server rack can be
measured in terms of kW per rack.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5) Trane
recommended using the definitions of
‘‘computer room’’ in ASHRAE Standard
90.1, the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC), and the CFR,
rather than use a threshold of 10 servers,
to determine whether CRACs should be
used for cooling. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2)
Regarding DOE’s assumption that
buildings with a central chiller or
district water system would not utilize
a CRAC, AHRI stated that edge
computing centers 29 may use a chilled
water system that may also use a CRAC
for cooling. (AHRI, No. 7 at pgs. 6–7)
For this RFI/NODA, DOE adjusted its
assumptions for identifying data centers
in CBECS 2012 that would utilize
CRACs. DOE is unable to use rack
counts or ‘‘kW per rack’’ to identify data
centers in CBECS 2012 because this
information is not recorded in the
survey. CBECS 2012 provides a variable
as to whether or not the building has a
data center. In this RFI/NODA, DOE
assumed that any building with a data
center, regardless of the building’s main
cooling system, would use a CRAC, in
order to account for the use of CRACs
in edge computing centers and to align
with the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
definition of a ‘‘computer room’’.
CRAC Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on
its methodology for identifying data
centers within CBECS 2012.
After identifying buildings with data
centers in CBECS 2012, DOE then
estimated the CRAC cooling capacity
required by estimating the total heat
generated from servers, networks, and
storage equipment within data centers.
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE
used estimates from the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
data center report to estimate average
power consumption of volume servers,
network equipment, and storage
equipment.30 Servers that were not in a
data center were assumed to only have
network equipment, while servers in a
data center had both network and
storage equipment, and thus a higher
power draw.31 DOE assumed 100
percent of the power draw was
converted into heat exhaust that would
need to be removed by a CRAC.
29 ‘‘Edge’’ data centers are small-scale data centers
built closer to the end user, thereby reducing the
time it takes for a server to respond to a user’s
request.
30 Shehabi, A., Smith, S.J., Horner, N., Azevedo,
I., Brown, R., Koomey, J., Masanet, E., Sartor, D.,
Herrlin, M. and Lintner, W., United States data
center energy usage report (2016), Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL–1005775
(Available at: https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/all/
files/DataCenterEnergyReport2016_0.pdf) (Last
accessed June 6, 2019).
31 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60667
In comments in the September 2019
NODA/RFI, AHRI recommended using
ASHRAE Datacom Series Book 2, ‘‘IT
Equipment Power Trends,’’ third
edition, published in 2018, which
shows power consumption trends for all
types of IT equipment through 2026.
AHRI noted that that source is what the
industry uses to estimate server power,
expectations of future server stock, and
energy use in many different types of
data centers. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane
also suggested using the same source for
projecting future server power
consumption. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2)
In this analysis, DOE used estimates
for server power draw for different IT
applications matched to CBECS
building type based on ASHRAE
Datacom Series Book 2, ‘‘IT Equipment
Power Trends.’’ 32 For volume servers
used in office buildings, DOE assumed
a typical power consumption of 575 W
based on the typical heat load for a
business analytics 2U server.33 For
volume servers used in buildings
identified as laboratories, DOE used a
typical power consumption of 1150 W
based on the typical heat load for a
scientific computing 2U server. DOE
used a multiplier of 1.265 to account for
the heating load due to network devices
connected to servers within the data
center based on the LBNL data center
report.34 The LBNL data center report
assigned mid-range and high-end
servers, which have estimated power
consumptions of 2 kW and 12 kW,
respectively, to localized, mid-tier, and
high-end data centers. To account for
the higher cooling needs of these servers
with high power consumption, DOE
assumed that 1 percent of servers in
CBECS 2012 were high end, and that 6
percent were mid-range. The LBNL data
center report did not provide estimates
of the high-end and mid-range server
stock; however, it did provide estimates
of total electricity consumption by
server class. The high-end and midrange classes represent about 30 percent
of electricity consumption (when
32 ASHRAE, IT Equipment Power Trends, Third
Edition, ASHRAE Datacom Series: Book 2 (2018).
33 In Table 4.4 of the ASHRAE IT Equipment
Power Trends book, an example of the server heat
by workload is given. 575 W represents the
workloads for analytics, storage, and visualization
and audio. 550 Watts is the workload for business
processing. In non-scientific buildings, these
workloads are likely the most common. Therefore,
DOE used 575 W for the servers in most data
centers.
34 Shehabi, A., Smith, S.J., Horner, N., Azevedo,
I., Brown, R., Koomey, J., Masanet, E., Sartor, D.,
Herrlin, M. and Lintner, W., United States data
center energy usage report (2016), Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL–1005775
(Available at: https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/all/
files/DataCenterEnergyReport2016_0.pdf) (Last
accessed June 6, 2019).
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
60668
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
removing unbranded servers, which are
used in hyperscale data centers that are
not considered in this report as they do
not used CRACs). By assigning 1 percent
of the servers in CBECS to high-end and
6 percent to mid-range, the total CRAC
cooling required by those servers is
approximately 30 percent of the total
calculated for all CBECS data centers.
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE calculated the cooling load for
each data center by multiplying the total
server power draw by the number of
servers in each CBECS-identified
building and then applying an oversize
factor of 1.3. Research has shown that
oversizing of the cooling load gives the
data center operator the flexibility to
add more servers (and thus more heat)
without having to increase the size of
the cooling system.35 84 FR 48006,
48028 (Sept. 11, 2019).
In response to the September 2019
NODA/RFI, Trane stated that redundant
or oversized units, if used, would be
closely tied to specific needs of the
system they are cooling, so the
commenter does not recommend using
broad assumptions for CRAC oversizing.
(Trane, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI stated that
DOE is likely overestimating energy use
by using an oversize factor and
recommended DOE not oversize
equipment in its energy use analysis.
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5) Based on
information gathered by Red Car
Analytics, the CA IOUs stated that
oversizing factors of 20 to 30 percent are
common for CRACs. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at
p. 3).
In response, DOE continues to believe
that oversizing is occurring in data
center settings, based upon the available
literature and the comment of the CA
IOUs. However, DOE is taking account
of other commenters’ suggestions that
the Department’s previous oversize
factor of 1.3 may have been too high.
Accordingly, for this analysis, based on
AHRI’s and Trane’s comments, DOE has
adjusted the oversizing factor to 1.2,
consistent with the lower estimate
provided by the CA IOUs.
CRAC Issue 4: DOE requests comment
on its server power consumption
estimates and any information or data
on expectations of future server stock
and energy use in small data centers.
One ton of cooling can remove 3.5 kW
of heat from a space.36 All data centers
35 Rasmussen, N., Calculating Total Cooling
Requirements for Data Centers—White paper 25.
Schneider Electric (Available at: https://
www.apcdistributors.com/white-papers/Cooling/
WP-25%20Calculating%20Total%20Cooling
%20Requirements%20for%20Data%20Centers.pdf)
(Last accessed June 6, 2019).
36 Rasmussen, N., Calculating Total Cooling
Requirements for Data Centers—White paper 25.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
without central chillers were assumed
to have CRACs, and the cooling capacity
of the CRAC units were based on the
three representative capacities analyzed
in the May 2012 final rule. 77 FR 28928,
28954 (May 16, 2012). For CRACs with
a cooling capacity of less than 65,000
Btu/h, a 3-ton unit was assigned as the
representative capacity; cooling
capacities from 65,000 Btu/h to 240,000
Btu/h were assigned a representative
capacity of 11 tons, and air conditioners
greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h
and less than 760,000 Btu/h were
assigned a 24-ton unit.
The final part of the stock
methodology is estimating the
redundancy requirements of the data
center which reduces the per-unit
energy use and increases the total
estimated shipment of CRACs.
Redundancy varies significantly across
data centers, ranging from having one
extra CRAC unit (N + 1 redundancy) to
having complete redundancy (2N
redundancy).37
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE assigned redundancy depending
on the data center square footage
provided in CBECS 2012. Categories 1–
4 (data centers under 10,000 square feet)
were given N + 1 redundancy; category
5 (greater than 10,000+ sq. ft.) was
assigned 2N redundancy. DOE assumed
that servers that were not in a data
center do not have cooling redundancy.
84 FR 48006, 48028 (Sept. 11, 2019).
In response to the September 2019
NODA/RFI, AHRI stated that
redundancy can be N + 1 or 2N, but
argued that it will not be operational all
the time. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5) Trane
states that the level of redundancy is
dependent on the size and need of the
data center. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2) The
CA IOUs recommended DOE base the
breakout between N + 1 and 2N
redundancy on total load (with a cut-off
of 50 cooling tons) and load density
(with a cut-off of 100 watts/square foot
(ft2)). The CA IOUs suggested that load
densities above this threshold would
have higher redundancy. (CA IOUs, No.
6 at pp. 3–4).
Through a confidential data
submission, AHRI provided DOE with a
CRAC shipments time series from 2012–
Schneider Electric (Available at: https://
www.apcdistributors.com/white-papers/Cooling/
WP-25%20Calculating%20Total%20Cooling
%20Requirements%20for%20Data%20Centers.pdf)
(Last accessed June 6, 2019).
37 Shehabi, A., Smith, S.J., Horner, N., Azevedo,
I., Brown, R., Koomey, J., Masanet, E., Sartor, D.,
Herrlin, M. and Lintner, W., United States data
center energy usage report (2016) Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL–1005775
(Available at: https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/all/
files/DataCenterEnergyReport2016_0.pdf) (Last
accessed June 6, 2019).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2018 and market shares broken out by
the 30 Federal equipment classes.
Accordingly, for this analysis, DOE
calibrated the stock of CRACs in CBECS
2012 to an amount that would be equal
to the number of 2012 shipments
multiplied by the average lifetime of a
CRAC (i.e., 15 years). In this model,
DOE assumed an N + 1 redundancy in
this NODA/RFI for any data center that
is larger than 1,501 square feet and has
a cooling load that requires a CRAC that
is larger than 65,000 Btu/h. All data
centers with a cooling load less than
65,000 Btu/h were assigned one CRAC
without redundancy. For buildings that
had more than 20 servers but did not
identify as having a data center in
CBECS, a CRAC without redundancy
was used, regardless of the cooling load.
As DOE was able to calibrate shipments
without using 2N redundancy, DOE did
not consider those levels of redundancy
in this analysis. As in the May 2012
final rule, DOE assumed the average
sensible cooling load on a CRAC unit
would be 65 percent of the unit’s
sensible capacity, factoring in operation
of redundant CRAC units, oversizing,
and the diversity in server loads.
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE estimated future CRAC shipments
in the no-new standards case (i.e.,
shipments in the absence of an amended
standard) by estimating future cooling
demand for CRAC-cooled data centers
using projected trends in data center
growth. DOE used two variables to
change the future server stock: (1) A 10percent reduction in the number of
servers in small data centers in 2050
(the final year of the shipments period
for that analysis) and (2) a doubling of
the power per server by 2050. DOE then
calculated the stock using the same
approach used to calculate stock in
2012. DOE then used model counts from
the CCMS database to determine market
shares by equipment class. 84 FR 48006,
48028 (Sept. 11, 2019).
AHRI commented that DOE’s total
shipments estimates for 2012 were
reasonable. (AHRI, No.7 at p. 6)
However, AHRI argued that DOE
estimates based on model counts in the
CCMS database significantly
overestimated shipments of the watercooled and glycol-cooled equipment
classes. (AHRI, No 7 at p. 3).
In this analysis, DOE used the
confidential shipments data provided by
AHRI to calibrate its shipment model to
produce a revised breakdown by
equipment class. DOE then used a stock
turnover model to project shipments
over the shipments analysis period
assuming a constant annual growth in
stock, calibrated using confidential
shipments data provided by AHRI,
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
60669
analysis period as shown in Table
III–3.
within a given cooling capacity
equipment size. Total shipments are
projected to grow slightly over the
TABLE III–3—ESTIMATED CRAC SHIPMENTS BY SCOP NET SENSIBLE COOLING CAPACITY
<65,000 Btu/h
2020 Shipments .........................................................................
2052 Shipments .........................................................................
The AHRI market share data provided
to DOE was broken out by the 30
currently defined Federal equipment
classes. DOE assumed upflow market
share would be evenly split between the
upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted
equipment classes. As the AHRI data
does not include market share for
horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted, and
air-cooled with fluid economizer CRAC
equipment classes, DOE was unable to
disaggregate savings for these classes.
CRAC Issue 5: DOE requests
shipments data on horizontal-flow,
ceiling-mounted, and air-cooled with
fluid economizer CRAC equipment
classes.
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small
Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
DOE based shipments estimates for
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment on the model developed for
the July 2015 final rule. 80 FR 42614,
42629–42630 (July 17, 2015). As
explained more fully in that document,
shipments projections in the July 2015
final rule relied on four data sources: A
1999 estimate of shipments from the
2000 Screening Analysis for EPACTCovered Commercial HVAC and WaterHeating Equipment (EERE–2006–STD–
0098–0015), data from the U.S. Census
Bureau for central AC and HP
shipments (for both single-phase and
three-phase equipment),38 data from
AHRI 39 (for both single-phase and
38 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Industrial Reports
for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm Air
Heating Equipment, MA333M (Available at: https://
www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/
ma333m/).
39 AHRI, HVACR & Water Heating Industry
Statistical Profile (2012) (Available at: https://
www.ari.org/site/883/Resources/Statistics/
AHRIIndustry-Statistical-Profile). See also AHRI
Monthly Shipments: https://www.ari.org/site/498/
Resources/Statistics/Monthly-Shipments; especially
December 2013 release: https://www.ari.org/App_
Content/ahri/files/Statistics/
Monthly%20Shipments/2013/December2013.pdf;
May 2014 release: https://www.ari.org/App_Content/
ahri/files/Statistics/Monthly%20Shipments/2014/
May2014.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h
3,208
2,634
2,132
3,650
three-phase equipment), and
commercial floor space projections from
the 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO
2014).40 The shipments model began
with the 1999 estimates and projected
shipments within 2000–2010 using the
year-over-year growth rate from U.S.
Census data. Shipments in 2011
shipments were estimated using the
AHRI shipments data. From 2012
through 2049 (the end of the analysis
period) shipments were based on the
growth rate of commercial floor space
from AEO 2014.
In the current analysis, DOE updated
the shipments model in two ways: (1)
The shipments estimates from 2012–
2018 were updated using the growth
rates from the most recent AHRI data,41
and (2) the projections from 2019
through 2054 were based on the
commercial floor space projections from
AEO 2020.42 The shipments estimates
for the compliance year, end year, and
select years in-between can be found in
Table III–4.
TABLE III–4—SHIPMENTS OF SPLITSYSTEM,
AIR-COOLED,
THREEPHASE, AIR CONDITIONERS AND
HEAT PUMPS <65,000 BTU/H
Year
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2054
AC
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
HP
116,300
122,300
128,503
134,418
140,464
146,648
151,704
35,045
36,853
38,721
40,504
42,326
44,189
45,713
40 2014 Annual Energy Outlook, Energy
Information Administration, Commercial Sector
Key Indicators (Available at: https://www.eia.gov/
outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=5AEO2014&cases=ref2014®ion=0-0).
41 AHRI Historical Data: Central Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps (Available at: https://ahrinet.org/
Resources/Statistics/Historical-Data/Central-AirConditioners-and-Air-Source-Heat-Pumps) (Last
accessed July 9, 2020).
42 2020 Annual Energy Outlook, Energy
Information Administration, Commercial Sector
Key Indicators (Available at: https://www.eia.gov/
outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=5-AEO2020&
cases=ref2020&sourcekey=0).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h
3,190
3,178
Total
shipments
8,530
9,462
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 3: DOE
requests comment on it approach to
estimate the shipments of air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
C. No-New-Standards-Case Efficiency
Distribution
The no-new-standards case efficiency
distribution is used to establish the
market share of each efficiency level in
the case where there is no new or
amended standard. DOE is unaware of
available market data that reports CRAC
efficiency in terms of NSenCOP that can
be used to determine the no-newstandards case efficiency distribution.
For this analysis, DOE relied on DOE’s
Compliance Certification Database for
CRACs which reports efficiency in
terms of SCOP. DOE applied the
crosswalk methodology discussed in
section II.A.1 of this document to
translate each model’s reported SCOP
into NSenCOP.
DOE estimated the no-new-standards
case efficiency distribution for each
CRAC equipment class using model
counts from DOE’s Compliance
Certification Database.43 DOE calculated
the fraction of models that are above the
current Federal baseline and below the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 level and
assigned this to the Federal baseline. All
models that are at or above that
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 are
assigned to the ASHRAE level. The nonew-standard case distribution for
CRACs can be found in Table III–5.
43 Available at: https://www.regulations.doe.gov/
certification-data/CCMS-4-Air_Conditioners_and_
Heat_Pumps_-_Computer_Room_Air_
Conditioners.html#q=Product_Group_
s%3A%22Air%20Conditioners
%20and%20Heat%20Pumps%20%20Computer%20Room%20
Air%20Conditioners%22.
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60670
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III–5—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR CRACS 1
Condenser system type
Airflow configuration
Current net sensible cooling capacity
Air-cooled ............................................
Downflow ...............................
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
Upflow, ducted .......................
Upflow, non-ducted ................
Water-cooled ......................................
Downflow ...............................
Upflow, ducted .......................
Upflow, non-ducted ................
Water-cooled with fluid economizer ...
Downflow ...............................
Upflow, ducted .......................
Upflow, non-ducted ................
Glycol-cooled ......................................
Downflow ...............................
Upflow, ducted .......................
Upflow, non-ducted ................
Glycol-cooled with fluid economizer ...
Downflow ...............................
Upflow, ducted .......................
Upflow, non-ducted ................
ASHRAE
90.1–2019
level
(%)
Federal
baseline
(%)
2
22
20
0
4
4
11
23
11
15
24
0
13
11
21
27
2
13
38
2
13
8
16
20
57
31
36
20
6
30
20
38
30
57
31
31
10
8
33
2
30
27
98
78
80
100
96
96
89
77
89
85
76
100
87
89
79
73
98
87
62
98
87
92
84
80
43
69
64
80
94
70
80
62
70
43
69
69
90
92
67
98
70
73
1 The air-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; water-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; and
water-cooled with fluid economizer, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h equipment classes are not included in this table, as the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels for these equipment classes are equivalent to the current Federal standard.
CRAC Issue 6: DOE requests
efficiency data for CRACs in terms of
NSenCOP that can be used to estimate
the no-new-standards case efficiency
distribution.
For air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment, DOE estimated the market
share of equipment at the current
Federal baseline and the ASHRAE
efficiency level using DOE’s Compliance
Certification Database. Table III–6 and
Table III–7 show the model counts and
their percentage by the Federal or the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 efficiency
level. The fraction of the market that
meets or exceeds the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 level is attributed to the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 level.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
TABLE III–6—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SPLIT-SYSTEM AIR CONDITIONERS
EL
Model count
Federal Baseline ......................................................................................................................................................
ASHRAE 90.1–2019 ................................................................................................................................................
% by EL
10,268
34,580
23
77
TABLE III–7—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SPLIT-SYSTEM HEAT PUMPS
EL
Model count
Federal Baseline ......................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
6,438
% by EL
57
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
60671
TABLE III–7—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SPLIT-SYSTEM HEAT PUMPS—Continued
EL
Model count
ASHRAE 90.1–2019 ................................................................................................................................................
For assessing the energy savings
potential of adopting ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 levels, DOE assumed
shipments at the Federal baseline
efficiency would most likely roll up to
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 level.
CRAC Issue 7: DOE seeks input on its
determination of the no-new-standards
case distribution of efficiencies for
CRACs.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 4: DOE
seeks input on its determination of the
no-new-standards case distribution of
efficiencies for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment.
D. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defines ‘‘equipment lifetime’’ as
the age at which a unit is retired from
service. For the September 2019 NODA/
RFI, DOE used a 15-year lifetime for all
CRAC equipment classes based on the
lifetime used in the May 2012 final rule.
84 FR 48006. 48030 (Sept. 11, 2019)
(citing the May 2012 final rule at 77 FR
28928, 28958 (May 16, 2012)). In
response to the September 2019 NODA/
RFI, AHRI and Trane agreed that 15
years was a reasonable average lifetime.
(AHRI, No. 7 at p.7; Trane, No. 5 at p.
2) Accordingly, DOE maintains an
equipment lifetime of 15 years for this
analysis.
For the other set of equipment under
consideration, DOE based equipment
lifetime on a retirement function in the
form of a Weibull probability
distribution in its analysis of air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K). A Weibull
distribution is a probability distribution
function that is commonly used to
measure failure rates. Its form is similar
to an exponential distribution, which
would model a fixed failure rate, except
that it allows for a failure rate that
changes over time. DOE used a mean
lifetime of 19 years for air conditioners
and 16.2 years for heat pumps. These
are the same values that were used in
the July 2015 final rule. 80 FR 42614,
42627 (July 17, 2015).
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 5: DOE
seeks comment on the approach of using
a Weibull probability distribution with
an average lifetime of 19 years for air
conditioners and 16.2 years for heat
pumps. DOE also requests data or
information which can be used to
inform the equipment lifetime for aircooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K).
2. Compliance Dates and Analysis
Period
If DOE were to prescribe energy
conservation standards at the efficiency
levels contained in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019, EPCA states that any such
standard shall become effective on or
after a date that is two or three years
(depending on the equipment type or
size) after the effective date of the
applicable minimum energy efficiency
requirement in the amended ASHRAE
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)).
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 does
not list an effective date for CRAC
levels. For estimating the energy savings
potential of adopting ASHRAE Standard
90.1-levels, DOE assumed a compliance
date of an amended Federal standard
relative to the publication of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 (i.e., October 23,
2019).
For air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K),
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 maintains
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 levels,
which are consistent with the current
Federal standards, until January 1, 2023,
after which levels are changed,
triggering DOE’s review. DOE assumed
% by EL
4,858
43
a compliance date of an amended
Federal standard relative to the effective
date of January 1, 2023.
If DOE were to prescribe standards
more stringent than the efficiency levels
contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019, EPCA dictates that any such
standard will become effective for
equipment manufactured on or after a
date which is four years after the date
of publication of a final rule in the
Federal Register. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(D)) For equipment classes
where DOE is acting under its 6-year
lookback authority, if DOE were to
adopt more-stringent standards, EPCA
states that any such standard shall apply
to equipment manufactured after a date
that is the latter of the date three years
after publication of the final rule
establishing such standard or six years
after the effective date for the current
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv))
However, as explained in sections III.F
and IV of this document, DOE has
tentatively concluded that it lacks the
clear and convincing evidence that
would be required to adopt morestringent standard levels.
For purposes of calculating the
national energy savings (NES) for the
equipment in this evaluation, DOE used
a 30-year analysis period starting with
the assumed year of compliance listed
in Table III–8 for equipment analyzed in
this NODA/RFI. This is the standard
analysis period of 30 years that DOE
typically uses in its NES analysis. For
equipment classes with a compliance
date in the last six months of the year,
DOE starts its analysis period in the first
full year after compliance. For example,
if CRACs less than 65,000 Btu/h were to
have a compliance date of October 23,
2021, the analysis period for calculating
NES would begin in 2022 and extend to
2051.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
TABLE III–8—APPROXIMATE COMPLIANCE DATE OF AN AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR TRIGGERED
EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Approximate compliance
date for adopting the
efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019
Equipment class
Computer Room Air Conditioners
Equipment with current NSCC <65,000 Btu/h ................................................................................................................
Equipment with current NSCC ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h .........................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
10/23/2021
10/23/2022
60672
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III–8—APPROXIMATE COMPLIANCE DATE OF AN AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR TRIGGERED
EQUIPMENT CLASSES—Continued
Approximate compliance
date for adopting the
efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019
Equipment class
Equipment with current NSCC ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .............................................................................
10/23/2022
Air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
All Equipment Classes .....................................................................................................................................................
E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
DOE estimated the potential site,
primary, and full-fuel-cycle (FFC)
energy savings in quads (i.e., 1015 Btu)
for adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 within each equipment class
1/1/2025
cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K),
respectively. The reported energy
savings are cumulative over the period
in which equipment shipped in the 30year analysis continues to operate.
analyzed. The potential energy savings
of adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 levels are measured relative to the
current Federal standards. Table III–9
and Table III–10 show the potential
energy savings resulting from the
analyses conducted for CRACs and air-
TABLE III–9—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS OF ADOPTING ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2019 FOR CRACS 1
Condenser
system type
Air-cooled ................................
Current net sensible cooling
capacity
Airflow configuration
Downflow ................................
Upflow, ducted ........................
Upflow, non-ducted ................
Water-cooled ...........................
Downflow ................................
Upflow, ducted ........................
Upflow, non-ducted ................
Water-cooled with fluid economizer.
Downflow ................................
Upflow, ducted ........................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Upflow, non-ducted ................
Glycol-cooled ..........................
Downflow ................................
Upflow, ducted ........................
Upflow, non-ducted ................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ASHRAE
efficiency level
Site
savings
Primary
savings
FFC
savings
NSenCOP
quads
quads
quads
2.70
2.58
0.0000
0.0011
0.0000
0.0029
0.0000
0.0030
2.36
0.0071
0.0185
0.0193
2.67
2.33
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0003
0.0000
0.0003
2.16
2.04
0.0000
0.0003
0.0001
0.0007
0.0001
0.0008
1.89
0.0014
0.0037
0.0039
2.82
2.73
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0003
0.0000
0.0003
2.67
0.0003
0.0007
0.0008
2.79
2.64
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
2.43
2.32
0.0001
0.0002
0.0004
0.0005
0.0004
0.0006
2.20
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
2.77
2.68
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.61
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
2.74
2.58
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.35
2.24
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.12
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.56
2.24
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0002
0.0000
0.0002
2.21
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
2.53
2.21
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.18
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.08
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
60673
TABLE III–9—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS OF ADOPTING ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2019 FOR CRACS 1—Continued
Condenser
system type
Glycol-cooled with fluid economizer.
Current net sensible cooling
capacity
Airflow configuration
Downflow ................................
Upflow, ducted ........................
Upflow, non-ducted ................
ASHRAE
efficiency level
Site
savings
Primary
savings
FFC
savings
NSenCOP
quads
quads
quads
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h .........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
1.90
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
1.81
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
2.51
2.19
0.0000
≤0.0003
0.0001
0.0007
0.0001
0.0007
2.15
0.0009
0.0022
0.0023
2.48
2.16
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.12
0.0002
0.0004
0.0004
2.00
1.82
0.0000
0.0003
0.0000
0.0007
0.0000
0.0008
1.73
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
1 The air-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; water-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; and water-cooled with fluid
economizer, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h equipment classes are not included in this table, as the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels for these
equipment classes are equivalent to the current Federal standard.
TABLE III–10—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL COMMERCIAL PACKAGED AC AND
HP
[<65 K]
Split-system, air conditioner
ASHRAE efficiency Level
Split-system, heat pump
quads
ASHRAE efficiency level
quads
Site Energy Savings Estimate
Level 0—ASHRAE ..........................
13.4 SEER2 ...................................
0.0007
14.3 SEER2, 7.5 HSPF2 ...............
0.0017
14.3 SEER2, 7.5 HSPF2 ...............
0.0044
14.3 SEER2, 7.5 HSPF2 ...............
0.0047
Primary Energy Savings Estimate
Level 0—ASHRAE ..........................
13.4 SEER2 ...................................
0.0017
FFC Energy Savings Estimate
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Level 0—ASHRAE ..........................
13.4 SEER2 ...................................
F. Consideration of More-Stringent
Energy Efficiency Levels
EPCA requires DOE to establish an
amended uniform national standard for
equipment classes at the minimum level
specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 unless DOE determines,
by rule published in the Federal
Register, and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a
uniform national standard more
stringent than the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 for the equipment class
would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)–(II)) As discussed in
the following paragraphs, because of
uncertainty in estimated energy savings
resulting from the change in energy
efficiency metrics, DOE has tentatively
determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that standards
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
0.0018
more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for either
CRACs or air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment would result in significant
additional energy savings.
For CRACs, further energy savings
analysis would rely on market efficiency
data in terms of the analyzed metric
(i.e., NSenCOP). In order to determine
whether the adoption of an updated
metric for CRACs in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 triggered DOE’s obligation under
EPCA, DOE was required to perform a
crosswalk between the Federal energy
conservation standards and the
amended ASHRAE levels. (See 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) This crosswalk
required only that DOE translate the
efficiency levels between the metrics at
the baseline levels, and not all
efficiency levels currently represented
in the market (i.e., high efficiency
levels). In addition, the analysis of the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
amended ASHRAE levels does not
require analysis of higher efficiency
models because DOE’s analyses assume
that a standards change only affects
shipments with efficiency lower than
the analyzed efficiency level (i.e., ‘‘rollup’’ shipments scenario). Additionally,
as discussed in section II.A.3 of this
document, DOE’s crosswalk was used to
confirm levels separately generated by
AHRI for inclusion in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 (i.e., DOE was able
to compare its crosswalk to the
crosswalk conducted by industry).
An estimation of energy savings
potentials of energy efficiency levels
more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels would
require developing efficiency data for
the entire market in terms of the
NSenCOP metric. This much broader
crosswalk would require DOE to
translate the individual SCOP ratings to
NSenCOP ratings for all models certified
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
60674
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
in DOE’s CCMS Database. As the range
of model efficiencies increases, so does
the number of different technologies
used to achieve such efficiencies. With
this increase in variation, there is an
increase in the potential for variation in
the crosswalk results from the actual
performance under the new metric of
the analyzed models. As noted, there is
limited market data regarding the
performance of CRACs as represented
according to the updated metric, and
there is not a comparable industry
analysis (i.e., translating ratings to the
updated metric for all models on the
market) for comparison.
For air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 amended the applicable metric,
and the amended standards that rely on
the updated metric are intended to
apply in 2023. As with the amended
CRAC standards, DOE was required to
conduct a crosswalk to compare the
stringency levels of the Federal
standards and the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 efficiency levels to
determine whether its obligation under
EPCA to adopt amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 efficiency levels was
triggered. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)).
As with an analysis of the CRAC
standards amended by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019, an analysis of
standard levels more stringent than the
amended standards in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 for air-cooled, threephase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment) would
require DOE to crosswalk the entire
market for this equipment. As noted, the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
levels for air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment rely on updated metrics (i.e.,
SEER2 and HSPF2), and they have the
added issue that the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 efficiency levels in terms
of the new SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics
are not applicable until 2023. This
future applicability date compounds the
problem of a lack of market data.
As discussed in the October 2018 TP
RFI for air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment, such equipment is
essentially identical to its single-phase
residential counterparts, is
manufactured on the same production
lines, and is physically identical to their
corresponding single-phase central air
conditioner and heat pump models
(with the exception of the electrical
systems and compressors). 83 FR 49501,
49504 (Oct. 2, 2018). Single-phase
central air conditioners are subject to
new Federal standards based on SEER2
and HSPF2 beginning January 1, 2023.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
10 CFR 430.32(c)(5)–(6). Currently,
manufacturers are permitted to make
representations under the SEER2 and
HSPF2 representations metrics only if
they certify to compliance to the 2023
standards. As a result, there is a lack of
SEER2 and HSPF2 data available for
single-phase central air conditioners
and central air conditioning heat
pumps, which if available may have
provided for a certain level of
assessment of the air-cooled, threephase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment market.
The market for air-cooled, threephase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment has not
responded to the change in the metrics,
particularly given that ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 does not specify
use of SEER2 and HSPF2 until 2023.
Likewise, the closely related singlephase market has not yet fully
responded to the amended Federal
metrics and standards, for which
manufacturers are not required to
comply until 2023. Given the change in
metrics and the future compliance dates
of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
amendments, and the comparable
changes to the Federal requirements for
the closely related single-phase market,
determination of max-tech levels and
projections of market distribution
according to efficiency levels have an
increased degree of uncertainty.
As noted previously, EPCA provides
that in order to adopt a standard more
stringent than an amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must determine, by
rule published in the Federal Register,
and supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that adoption of a uniform
national standard more stringent than
the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1
would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) In the updated
Process Rule, DOE reiterated the
existing statutory requirement stating
that the statutory threshold of ‘‘clear
and convincing evidence’’ is a very high
bar. 85 FR 8626, 8708 (Feb. 14, 2020).
Clear and convincing evidence would
exist only where the specific facts and
data made available to DOE regarding a
particular ASHRAE amendment
demonstrates that there is no substantial
doubt that a standard more stringent
than that contained in the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted
because it would result in a significant
additional amount of energy savings, is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. Id.
The lack of market data and the
uncertainties in the market and
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
technology projections regarding energy
efficiency levels under the new metrics
for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment create substantial
doubt in any analysis of energy savings
that would result from efficiency levels
more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 levels for
this equipment. Regardless of the results
of any such analysis, the degree of
uncertainty would create substantial
doubt as to whether a standard more
stringent than the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 amendment would result in a
significant additional amount of energy
savings as required for DOE to establish
more-stringent standards. As a result,
DOE did not conduct an analysis of any
associated energy savings for morestringent standards for the subject
equipment in this document.
CRAC Issue 8: DOE is requesting data
and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether standards
levels more stringent than the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 for
CRACs would result in significant
additional energy savings for classes for
which DOE is triggered.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 6: DOE is
requesting data and information that
could enable the agency to determine
whether standards levels more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package ACs and HPs
(<65 K) would result in significant
additional energy savings for classes for
which DOE is triggered.
IV. Review Under Six-Year-Lookback
Provisions: Requested Information
As discussed, DOE is required to
conduct an evaluation of each class of
covered equipment in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 every 6 years. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Accordingly, DOE is
also evaluating the remaining 6 CRAC
equipment classes and 8 air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment classes
for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
did not increase the stringency of the
standards. As explained in the February
2020 final rule updating DOE’s Process
Rule, EPCA applies the ‘‘clear and
convincing’’ evidentiary threshold to
both ASHRAE ‘‘trigger’’ and 6-yearlookback rulemakings. 85 FR 8626, 8647
(Feb. 14, 2020). Thus, when conducting
a six-year look-back review, DOE may
establish a uniform national standard
more stringent than the corresponding
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 level only upon
a determination, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that such an
amended Federal standard would result
in significant additional conservation of
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I) (referencing 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), which in turn references
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).
The 6 equipment classes of CRACs
and 8 equipment classes of air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment suffer
from the same lack of data and market
uncertainties resulting from the metric
changes and future compliance dates as
with the equipment classes for which
DOE was triggered, as discussed in
section III.F of this document. As such,
any analysis of energy efficiency
standards more stringent than the
current levels would be subject to a
degree of uncertainty that would create
substantial doubt as to whether a
standard more stringent than the current
Federal standard would result in a
significant additional amount of energy
savings as required for DOE to establish
more-stringent standards. Because DOE
does not have sufficient data to meet the
‘‘clear and convincing’’ threshold, DOE
did not conduct an energy savings
analysis of standard levels more
stringent than the current Federal
standard levels for CRACs and aircooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment
that were not amended in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019. See section III.F of
this notice for further discussion of the
consideration of energy efficiency levels
more stringent than the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 levels.
CRAC Issue 9: DOE is requesting data
and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether standards
levels more stringent than the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 for
CRACs would result in significant
additional energy savings for classes for
which DOE is not triggered.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 7: DOE is
requesting data and information that
could enable the agency to determine
whether standards levels more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package ACs and HPs
(<65 K) would result in significant
additional energy savings for classes for
which DOE is not triggered.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by the date specified
previously in the DATES section of this
document, comments, data, and
information on matters addressed in this
document and on other matters relevant
to DOE’s consideration of amended
energy conservation standards for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment. Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Following such instructions, persons
viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names,
correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to https://
www.regulations.gov information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
referred to as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)). Comments
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments
will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large
volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your
comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment
tracking number that https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60675
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include: (1)
A description of the items, (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources, (4) whether the
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
60676
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality, (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure, (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time, and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing energy conservation
standards. 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 process or would
like to request a public meeting should
contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or via email at
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
DOE welcomes comments on any
aspect of this document for CRAC and
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment classes where ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 increased
stringency (thereby triggering DOE’s
review of amended standards) and for
CRAC and air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment classes undergoing 6-yearlookback review.
In the preceding sections, DOE has
identified a variety of issues on which
it seeks input to aid in the development
of the technical and economic analyses
regarding whether amended standards
for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment may be warranted.
DOE notes that under Executive Order
13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’
Executive Branch agencies such as DOE
are directed to manage the costs
associated with the imposition of
expenditures required to comply with
Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339
(Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
Executive Order, DOE encourages the
public to provide input on measures
DOE could take to lower the cost of its
energy conservation standard
rulemakings, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, and compliance
and certification requirements
applicable to CRACs and air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment while
remaining consistent with the
requirements of EPCA. Other general
topics of interest include the following.
Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market
failure is a situation in which the
market outcome does not maximize
societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential
welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially
those in the context of amended energy
conservation standards for CRACs and
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment.
Network Mode/‘‘Smart’’ Equipment
DOE recently published an RFI on the
emerging smart technology appliance
and equipment market. 83 FR 46886
(Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought
information to better understand market
trends and issues in the emerging
market for appliances and commercial
equipment that incorporate smart
technology. DOE’s intent in issuing the
RFI was to ensure that DOE did not
inadvertently impede such innovation
in fulfilling its statutory obligations in
setting efficiency standards for covered
products and equipment. DOE seeks
comments, data, and information on the
issues presented in the NODA/RFI as
they may be applicable to CRACs and
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment.
Other
In addition to the issues identified
earlier in this document, DOE welcomes
comment on any other aspect of energy
conservation standards for CRACs and
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment not already addressed.
To summarize the specific issues
identified in this NODA/RFI, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following topics,
listed by equipment category:
CRAC Issue 1: DOE requests comment
on the methodology and results of the
crosswalk analysis.
CRAC Issue 2: DOE seeks comment on
its energy-use analysis methodology.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
CRAC Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on
its methodology for identifying data
centers within CBECS 2012.
CRAC Issue 4: DOE requests comment
on its server power consumption
estimates and any information or data
on expectations of future server stock
and energy use in small data centers.
CRAC Issue 5: DOE requests
shipments data on horizontal-flow,
ceiling-mounted, and air-cooled with
fluid economizer CRAC equipment
classes.
CRAC Issue 6: DOE requests
efficiency data for CRACs in terms of
NSenCOP that can be used to estimate
the no-new-standards case efficiency
distribution.
CRAC Issue 7: DOE seeks input on its
determination of the no-new-standards
case distribution of efficiencies for
CRACs.
CRAC Issue 8: DOE is requesting data
and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether standards
levels more stringent than the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 for
CRACs would result in significant
additional energy savings for classes for
which DOE is triggered.
CRAC Issue 9: DOE is requesting data
and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether standards
levels more stringent than the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 for
CRACs would result in significant
additional energy savings for classes for
which DOE is not triggered.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 1: DOE
requests feedback on its methodology
for determining crosswalked SEER2 and
HSPF2 values for three-phase
equipment based on crosswalked values
of single-phase residential central air
conditioners.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 2: DOE
requests comment on its approach to
estimate the energy use of air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K).
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 3: DOE
requests comment on it approach to
estimate the shipments of air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 4: DOE
seeks input on its determination of the
no-new-standards case distribution of
efficiencies for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 5: DOE
seeks comment on the approach of using
a Weibull probability distribution with
an average lifetime of 19 years for air
conditioners and 16.2 years for heat
pumps. DOE also requests data or
information which can be used to
inform the equipment lifetime for air-
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS4
cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K).
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 6: DOE is
requesting data and information that
could enable the agency to determine
whether standards levels more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package ACs and HPs
(<65 K) would result in significant
additional energy savings for classes for
which DOE is triggered.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 7: DOE is
requesting data and information that
could enable the agency to determine
whether standards levels more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package ACs and HPs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:25 Sep 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
(<65 K) would result in significant
additional energy savings for classes for
which DOE is not triggered.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of data
availability and request for information.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on August 21, 2020,
by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
60677
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 21,
2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020–18778 Filed 9–24–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25SEP4.SGM
25SEP4
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 187 (Friday, September 25, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60642-60677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18778]
[[Page 60641]]
Vol. 85
Friday,
No. 187
September 25, 2020
Part IV
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Computer
Room Air Conditioners and Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial
Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling Capacity
of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60642]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008]
RIN 1904-AF01
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Computer Room Air Conditioners and Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small
Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a
Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of data availability and request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing an analysis
of the energy savings potential of amended industry consensus standards
for certain classes of computer room air conditioners (CRACs) and air-
cooled, three-phase, small commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h
(air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment). As required under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), DOE has been triggered to act by changes to the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) Standard 90.1. DOE is also soliciting information regarding
energy conservation standards for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment for which the
industry consensus standards have not been amended, pursuant to EPCA's
six-year-lookback review requirement. This notice of data availability
(NODA) and request for information (RFI) solicits information from the
public to help DOE determine whether more-stringent amended standards
for CRACs or air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and
HP (<65 K) equipment would result in significant additional energy
savings and whether such standards would be technologically feasible
and economically justified. DOE welcomes written comments from the
public on any subject within the scope of this document (including
topics not specifically raised in this NODA/RFI), as well as the
submission of data and other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before November 9, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0008 and/or RIN 1904-AF01, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008 and/or RIN 1904-AF01 in the subject line
of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
Energy Conservation Standards NODA and RFI for Certain Categories of
Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all
items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov (search EERE-
2020-BT-STD-0008). All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V of this document for information on how to
submit comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catherine Rivest and Mr. Antonio
Bouza, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)
586-7335. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Purpose of the Notice of Data Availability
C. Rulemaking Background
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
2. Air-Cooled, Three-phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP
(<65 K) Equipment
II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
A. Computer Room Air Conditioners
1. Methodology for Efficiency and Capacity Crosswalk Analyses
a. General
b. Increase in Return Air Dry-Bulb Temperature from 75 [deg]F to
85 [deg]F
c. Decrease in Entering Water Temperature for Water-Cooled CRACs
d. Changes in External Static Pressure Requirements for Upflow
Ducted CRACs
e. Power Adder To Account for Pump and Heat Rejection Fan Power
in NSenCOP Calculation for Water-Cooled and Glycol-Cooled CRACs
f. Calculating Overall Changes in Measured Efficiency and
Capacity from Test Procedure Changes
2. Crosswalk Results
3. Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Amended Standards
for CRACs
4. CRAC Standards Amended Under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
B. Air-Cooled, Three-phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP
(<65 K) Equipment
1. Crosswalk Methodology and Results
III. Analysis of Standards Amended and Newly Established by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019
A. Annual Energy Use
[[Page 60643]]
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
b. Efficiency Levels
c. Analysis Method and Annual Energy Use Results
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP
(<65k) Equipment
a. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
b. Efficiency Levels
c. Annual Energy Use Results
B. Shipments
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP
(<65 K) Equipment
C. No-New-Standards-Case Efficiency Distribution
D. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Equipment Lifetime
2. Compliance Dates and Analysis Period
E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
F. Consideration of More-Stringent Energy Efficiency Levels
IV. Review Under Six-Year-Lookback Provisions: Requested Information
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),\1\
Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) among other
things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C
\2\ of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-
619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment
includes CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment, which are categories of small, large, and
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment,
which are the subjects of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of the EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures
(42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D)).
In EPCA, Congress initially set mandatory energy conservation
standards for certain types of commercial heating, air-conditioning,
and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the
statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment,\3\ packaged terminal
air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs),
warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters,
instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. Id.
In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards at
levels that generally corresponded to the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings, as in effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard
90.1-1989), for each type of covered equipment listed in 42 U.S.C.
6313(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPCA defines commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment as meaning air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled,
or water source (not including ground water source) electrically
operated, unitary central air conditioners and central air-
conditioning heat pumps for commercial application. (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(A)) Commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment includes CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy
efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to
consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for
each type of covered equipment listed, each time ASHRAE amends Standard
90.1 with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) When
triggered in this manner, DOE must undertake and publish an analysis of
the energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards,
and amend the Federal standards to establish a uniform national
standard at the minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard
90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and convincing evidence
to support a determination that a more-stringent standard level as a
national standard would produce significant additional energy savings
and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)-(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a uniform national
standard the minimum efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18
months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE determines, supported by clear
and convincing evidence, that a more-stringent uniform national
standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy
and is technologically feasible and economically justified, then DOE
must establish such more-stringent uniform national standard not later
than 30 months after publication of the amended ASHRAE Standard
90.1.\4\ (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B)(i)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In determining whether a more-stringent standard is
economically justified, EPCA directs DOE to determine, after
receiving views and comments from the public, whether the benefits
of the proposed standard exceed the burdens of the proposed standard
by, to the maximum extent practicable, considering the following:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial
cost or maintenance expense;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to
result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an update to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
``Procedures, interpretations, and policies for consideration of new or
revised energy conservation standards and test procedures for
commercial/industrial equipment'' (the updated Process Rule),\5\ DOE
codified in its regulations its long-standing interpretation that the
ASHRAE ``trigger'' is applicable only to those equipment classes for
which ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has adopted an increase to the efficiency
level as compared to the current Federal standard for that specific
equipment
[[Page 60644]]
class. 85 FR 8626, 8644-8645 (Feb. 14, 2020). DOE's review in adopting
amendments based on an action by ASHRAE to amend Standard 90.1 is
strictly limited to the specific standards or test procedure amendment
for the specific equipment for which ASHRAE has made a change (i.e.,
determined down to the equipment class level). 85 FR 8626, 8708 (Feb.
14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The updated Process Rule is applicable to covered equipment
and includes provisions specific to rulemakings related to ASHRAE
equipment. 85 FR 8626, 8704, 8708, and 8711 (Feb. 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term ``amended'' in
the context of what type of revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would
trigger DOE's obligation, DOE's longstanding interpretation has been
that the statutory trigger is an amendment to the standard applicable
to that equipment under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that increases the energy
efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7,
2007). In other words, if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the
energy efficiency level unchanged (or lowers the energy efficiency
level), as compared to the energy efficiency level specified by the
uniform national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, regardless of the
other amendments made to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirement (e.g.,
the inclusion of an additional metric), DOE has stated that it does not
have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher
standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). See 74
FR 36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and 77 FR 28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012).
If an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 changed the metric for the
standard on which the Federal requirement was based, DOE would perform
a crosswalk analysis to determine whether the amended metric under
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 resulted in an energy efficiency level that was
more stringent than the current DOE standard.
DOE notes that Congress adopted amendments to these provisions
related to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 equipment under the American Energy
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18,
2012); ``AEMTCA''). In relevant part, DOE is prompted to act whenever
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to ``the standard levels
or design requirements applicable under that standard'' to any of the
enumerated types of commercial air conditioning, heating, or water
heating equipment covered under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)).
In those situations where ASHRAE has not acted to amend the levels
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the covered equipment types enumerated in
the statute, EPCA also provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the
potential for amending the uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)) Specifically, pursuant to the amendments to EPCA under
AEMTCA, DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each class of
covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ``every 6 years'' to
determine whether the applicable energy conservation standards need to
be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must publish either a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to propose amended standards or a
notice of determination that existing standards do not need to be
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I)-(II)) In proposing new
standards under the 6-year-lookback review, DOE must undertake the same
considerations as if it were adopting a standard that is more stringent
than an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)).
The 6-year-lookback review is a separate statutory review
obligation, as differentiated from the obligation triggered by an
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment, as previously discussed. ASHRAE not
acting to amend Standard 90.1 is tantamount to a decision that the
existing standard remain in place. 85 FR 8626, 8708 (Feb. 14, 2020).
Thus, when undertaking a review as required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C),
DOE would need to find clear and convincing evidence, as defined in the
Process Rule, to issue a standard more stringent than the existing
standard for the equipment at issue. Id. In those instances where DOE
makes a determination that the standards for the equipment in question
do not need to be amended, the statute requires the Department to
revisit that decision within three years to either make a new
determination or propose amended standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)).
On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE officially released for distribution
and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. As discussed in the
following sections, DOE has preliminarily determined that the
amendments to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 have triggered DOE's obligations
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), for certain equipment classed of CRACs and
air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment.
As a preliminary step in the process of reviewing the changes to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA directs DOE to publish in the Federal
Register for public comment an analysis of the energy savings potential
of amended standards within 180 days after ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
amended with respect to any of the covered equipment specified under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) This notice of data
availability (NODA) presents the analysis of the energy savings
potential of the amended energy efficiency standards in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i).
Although not compelled to do so by the statute, DOE may decide in
appropriate cases to simultaneously conduct an ASHRAE trigger
rulemaking (i.e., for those equipment classes for which ASHRAE set a
higher standard) and a 6-year-lookback rulemaking (i.e., for those
equipment classes where ASHRAE left levels unchanged or set a lower
standard) so as to address all classes of an equipment category at the
same time. 85 FR 8626, 8645 (Feb. 14, 2020). For CRACs and air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment, DOE
is also evaluating possible amendments to the standards for those
equipment classes for which the stringency of standards was not changed
by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
For all classes of CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment (including both the
classes for which ASHRAE did and did not increase the stringency of
energy efficiency levels applicable under ASHRAE Standard 90.1), DOE
seeks data and information that could enable the agency to determine
whether a more-stringent standard: (1) Would not result in significant
additional savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3)
is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of the foregoing.
If for the triggered equipment classes, standard levels more stringent
than the amended ASHRAE levels do not meet the statutory criteria, DOE
would adopt the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels. If for the non-
triggered equipment classes, standard levels more stringent than the
current Federal standards do not meet the statutory criteria, DOE would
determine the standards do not need to be amended.
B. Purpose of the Notice of Data Availability
As explained previously, DOE is publishing this NODA as a
preliminary step pursuant to EPCA's requirements for DOE to consider
amended standards for certain categories of commercial equipment
covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, whenever ASHRAE amends its standard to
increase the energy efficiency level for an equipment class within a
given equipment category. Specifically, this NODA
[[Page 60645]]
presents for public comment DOE's analysis of the potential energy
savings for amended national energy conservation standards for the
equipment classes of commercial equipment for which amended efficiency
levels are contained within ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. DOE describes
these analyses and preliminary conclusions and seeks input from
interested parties, including the submission of data and other relevant
information. Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the potential energy
savings for amended national energy conservation standards for these
categories of commercial equipment based on: (1) The amended efficiency
levels contained within ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and (2) more-
stringent efficiency levels. DOE is also taking the opportunity to
consider the potential for more-stringent standards for the other
equipment classes within the subject equipment categories (i.e.,
classes for which energy efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
were not increased, and, therefore, for which DOE was not triggered)
under EPCA's 6-year-lookback authority, so as to conduct a thorough
review for the entire equipment category of CRACs and the entire
equipment category of air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
DOE carefully examined the changes for equipment in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 in order to thoroughly evaluate the amendments in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019, thereby permitting DOE to determine what action, if any, is
required under its statutory mandate. Section II of this NODA contains
DOE's evaluation of the amendments in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. For
equipment classes preliminarily determined to have increased efficiency
levels or changes in design requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019,
DOE subjected that equipment to further analysis as discussed in
section III of this NODA. Section IV requests comment for those
equipment classes for which efficiency levels and design requirements
have not been increased or changed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, but
are undergoing review under EPCA's 6-year-lookback authority.
In summary, the energy savings analysis presented in this NODA is a
preliminary step required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i). DOE is also
treating it as an opportunity to gather information regarding its
obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C). After review of the public
comments on this NODA, DOE will either establish amended uniform
national standards for the subject equipment at the minimum level
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, or where supported by clear and
convincing evidence, consider more-stringent efficiency levels that
would be expected to result in significant additional conservation of
energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified. If
DOE determines it appropriate to conduct such a rulemaking under the
statute, DOE will address the anti-backsliding provision,\6\ and if DOE
determines it appropriate to conduct a rulemaking to establish more-
stringent efficiency levels, DOE will also address the general
rulemaking requirements applicable under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), such
as, the criteria for making a determination of economic justification
as to whether the benefits of the proposed standard exceed the burden
of the proposed standard,\7\ and the prohibition on making unavailable
existing products with performance characteristics generally available
in the United States.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The anti-backsliding provision mandates that the Secretary
may not prescribe any amended standard that either increases the
maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required
energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6313
(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)).
\7\ In deciding whether a potential standard's benefits outweigh
its burdens, DOE must consider to the maximum extent practicable,
the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact on manufacturers and consumers of the
product subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the product in the type (or class), compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of
the products likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to
result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of product utility or performance of the
product likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII)).
\8\ The Secretary may not prescribe an amended standard if
interested persons have established by a preponderance of evidence
that the amended standard would likely result in unavailability in
the United States of any covered product type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including reliability, features,
capacities, sizes, and volumes) that are substantially the same as
those generally available in the U.S. at the time of the Secretary's
finding. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Rulemaking Background
EPCA defines ``commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' as air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, or water
source (not including ground water source) electrically operated,
unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat
pumps for commercial application. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92)
EPCA further divides ``commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' based on cooling capacity (i.e., small, large, and very
large categories). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)-(D); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Small
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'' means
equipment rated below 135,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42
U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment'' means equipment rated: (i) At or
above 135,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below 240,000 Btu per hour
(cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'' means
equipment rated: (i) At or above 240,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below
760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR
431.92) DOE generally refers to these broad classifications as
``equipment types.''
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
Pursuant to its authority under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) and
in response to updates to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE has established
additional categories of equipment that meet the EPCA definition of
``commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment,'' but
which EPCA did not expressly identify. These equipment categories
include CRACs (see 10 CFR 431.92 and 10 CFR 431.97). Within these
additional equipment categories, further distinctions are made at the
equipment class level based on capacity and other equipment attributes.
DOE's current energy conservation standards for 30 equipment
classes of CRACs are codified at 10 CFR 431.97. DOE defines ``computer
room air conditioner'' as a commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment (packaged or split) that is: Used in computer rooms,
data processing rooms, or other information technology cooling
applications; rated for sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) and
tested in accordance with 10 CFR 431.96, and is not a covered product
under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6292. A computer room air
conditioner may be provided with, or have as available options, an
integrated humidifier, temperature, and/or humidity control of the
supplied air, and reheating function. 10 CFR 431.92.
DOE's regulations include test procedures and energy conservation
standards that apply to the current CRAC equipment classes that are
differentiated by condensing system
[[Page 60646]]
type (air-cooled, water-cooled, water-cooled with fluid economizer,
glycol-cooled, or glycol-cooled with fluid economizer), net sensible
cooling capacity (NSCC) (less than 65,000 Btu/h, greater than or equal
to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h, or greater than or equal
to 240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h), and direction of
conditioned air over the cooling coil (upflow or downflow). 10 CFR
431.96 and 10 CFR 431.97, respectively.
DOE's test procedure for CRACs, set forth at 10 CFR 431.96,
currently incorporates by reference American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE Standard 127-2007 (ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007),
``Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room
Unitary Air Conditioners,'' (omit section 5.11), with additional
provisions indicated in 10 CFR 431.96(c) and (e). The energy efficiency
metric is sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) for all CRAC
equipment classes. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, which was published on
October 26, 2016, updated its test procedure reference for CRACs from
ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 to AHRI Standard 1360-2016, ``Performance Rating
of Computer and Data Processing Room Air Conditioners'' (AHRI 1360-
2016), which in turn references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 127-2012, ``Method
of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners'' (ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2012). Subsequently, ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019, which was published on October 24, 2019, further updated its
test procedure reference for CRACs to AHRI Standard 1360-2017,
``Performance Rating of Computer and Data Processing Room Air
Conditioners'' (AHRI 1360-2017), which also references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-
2012. The energy efficiency metric for CRACs in AHRI 1360-2016 and AHRI
1360-2017 is net sensible coefficient of performance (NSenCOP).
The energy conservation standards for CRACs were most recently
amended through the final rule for energy conservation standards and
test procedures for certain commercial HVAC and water heating equipment
published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2012 (May 2012 final
rule). 77 FR 28928. The May 2012 final rule established separate
equipment classes for CRACs and adopted energy conservation standards
that generally correspond to the levels in the 2010 revision of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 for most of the equipment classes.
DOE published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for
Information (NODA/RFI) in response to the amendments to the industry
consensus standard contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 in the
Federal Register on September 11, 2019 (the September 2019 NODA/RFI).
84 FR 48006. In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE explained its
methodology and assumptions to compare the current Federal standards
for CRACs (in terms of SCOP) to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016
(in terms of NSenCOP) and requested comment on its methodology and
results. (The document also addressed changes related to dedicated
outdoor air systems (DOASes).) DOE received a number of comments from
interested parties in response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI. Table I-
1 lists the commenters relevant to CRACs, along with each commenter's
abbreviated name used throughout this NODA/RFI. Discussion of the
relevant comments, and DOE's responses, are provided in the appropriate
sections of this document. Several other comments received in response
to the September 2019 NODA/RFI pertain only to DOASes and will be
addressed in a separate notice.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As noted, the September 2019 NODA/RFI addressed both CRACs
and DOASes and is available under docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-
0017. As this NODA/RFI addresses only CRACs, it has been assigned a
separate docket number (i.e., EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008). Subsequent
rulemaking activity regarding DOASes will continue to rely on the
docket number for the September 2019 NODA/RFI.
Table I-1--Interested Parties Providing Comment on CRACs in Response to
the September 2019 NODA/RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Abbreviation Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI.............. IR.
Refrigeration Institute.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, California U.
Southern California Gas Company, Investor-Owned
San Diego Gas and Electric, and Utilities (CA
Southern California Edison. IOUs).
Trane............................ Trane............. M.
Pano Koutrouvelis................ Koutrouvelis...... I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; IR: Industry Representative; M:
Manufacturer; U: Utility; and I: Individual.
As noted previously, on October 24, 2019, ASHRAE officially
released for distribution and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 revised the efficiency levels for certain
commercial equipment, including certain classes of CRACs (as discussed
in the following section). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 either maintained
or increased the stringency of the efficiency levels applicable to CRAC
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, and as such, addressing the amendments
for CRACs in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 will also address DOE's
obligations for CRACs resulting from the 2016 update to ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016).
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
The energy conservation standards for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment were
most recently amended through the final rule for energy conservation
standards and test procedures for certain commercial HVAC and water
heating equipment published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2015
(July 2015 final rule). 80 FR 42614. The July 2015 final rule adopted
energy conservation standards that correspond to the levels in the 2013
revision of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package air conditioners (single package) and heat pumps
(single package and split system). The July 2015 final rule also
determined that standards for air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package air conditioners (split system) did not need to be amended.
DOE's current energy conservation standards for air-cooled, three-
phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment are
codified at 10 CFR 431.97.
The current DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.96 for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment
incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240-2008,
``Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment,'' approved by
[[Page 60647]]
ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by addendum 1 in June 2011 and
addendum 2 in March 2012 (ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE notes that the Federal test procedure omits the use of
section 6.5 of ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240-2008. 10 CFR 431.96, Table
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, on October 24, 2019, ASHRAE officially
released for distribution and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 revised the efficiency levels for certain
commercial equipment, including certain classes of air-cooled, three-
phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment (as
discussed in the following section).
II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
Before beginning an analysis of the potential energy savings that
would result from adopting a uniform national standard as specified by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 or more-stringent uniform national standards,
DOE must first determine whether the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 standard
levels actually represent an increase in efficiency above the current
Federal standard levels or whether ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 adopted
new design requirements, thereby triggering DOE action.
This section contains a discussion of: (1) Each equipment class for
which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 efficiency levels differ from the
current Federal minimum efficiency levels \11\ (2) newly added
equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and (3) DOE's preliminary
conclusion regarding the appropriate action to take with respect to
these equipment classes. DOE is also examining the other equipment
classes for the triggered equipment categories under its 6-year-
lookback authority. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 did not change any of the design
requirements associated with the minimum efficiency tables for the
commercial heating, air conditioning, and water heating equipment
covered by EPCA, so this potential category of change is not
discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in section I.C of this document, ASHRAE adopted efficiency
levels for all CRAC equipment classes denominated in terms of NSenCOP
in the 2016 and 2019 versions of Standard 90.1 (measured per AHRI 1360-
2016 and AHRI 1360-2017, respectively), whereas DOE's current standards
are denominated in terms of SCOP (measured per ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007).
For this NODA, DOE's analysis focuses on whether DOE has been triggered
by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 updates to minimum efficiency levels for
CRACs and whether more-stringent standards are warranted; DOE will
separately consider whether to adopt the NSenCOP metric for all CRAC
equipment classes as part of the ongoing test procedure rulemaking. As
discussed in detail in section II.A of this NODA, DOE has conducted a
crosswalk analysis of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 standard levels (in
terms of NSenCOP) and the corresponding current Federal energy
conservation standards (in terms of SCOP) to compare the stringencies.
DOE has tentatively determined that the updates in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 increased the stringency of efficiency levels for 48
equipment classes and maintained equivalent levels for six equipment
classes of CRACs relative to the current Federal standard.\12\ In
addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes efficiency levels for 18
classes of horizontal-flow \13\ CRACs and 48 classes of ceiling-mounted
CRACs which are not currently subject to Federal standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ASHRAE 90.1-2019 added separate classes for ``air cooled
with fluid economizer'' CRACs. This change resulted in nine new
``air cooled with fluid economizer'' equipment classes being added
and made subject to Federal standards.
\13\ ``Horizontal flow'' refers to the direction of airflow of
the unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Federal standards for air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment are in terms of seasonal
energy efficiency ratio (SEER) and heating seasonal performance factor
(HSPF) as measured by the current DOE test procedure which incorporates
by reference the ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008. 10 CFR 431.96, Table 1. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 adopts new energy efficiency levels and new metrics
for all equipment classes of air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment. Beginning January 1, 2023, the
metrics for this equipment under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are SEER2
and HSPF2, as measured by AHRI 210/240-2023, ``Performance Rating of
Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment'' (published
in May 2020).\14\ \15\ AHRI 210/240-2023 aligns test methods and
ratings to be consistent with DOE's test procedure for single-phase
central at conditioners at Appendix M1 to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B.
The year 2023 was chosen as the version year to align compliance to
AHRI 210/240-2023 with Appendix M1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Levels effective prior to January 1, 2023 are unchanged
from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016.
\15\ Prior to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, ``space-constrained''
classes were referred to as ``through-the-wall.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2018, DOE published in the Federal Register a request
for information on its test procedure (and certification and
enforcement requirements) for air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment. 83 FR 49501 (October 2018 TP RFI).
The October 2018 TP RFI notes that air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment is essentially identical
to its single-phase residential counterparts, is manufactured on the
same production lines, and is physically identical to their
corresponding single-phase central air conditioner and heat pump models
(with the exception of the electrical systems and compressors). 83 FR
49501, 49504 (Oct. 2, 2018).
In order to determine whether the 2023 efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 represent an increase in efficiency, DOE has
developed a preliminary crosswalk for translating SEER to SEER2 and
HSPF to HSPF2 based on the metric translations between SEER to SEER2
and HSPF to HSPF2 developed for single-phase products (see section
II.B.1 of this document for details). DOE has tentatively determined
that the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for this equipment
category are more stringent for two equipment classes, equivalent for
two equipment classes, and less stringent for six equipment classes
relative to the current Federal standard.
Table II-1 and Table II-2 show the equipment classes and efficiency
levels for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment provided in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and
the current Federal energy conservation standards. Table II-1 and Table
II-2 also display the corresponding existing Federal equipment classes
for clarity and indicate whether the updated levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 trigger DOE's evaluation as required under EPCA (i.e.,
whether the update results in a standard level more stringent than the
current Federal level), and, therefore, whether analysis of potential
energy savings from amended Federal standards is warranted. The
remainder of this section explains DOE's methodology for evaluating the
updated levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and addresses comments
received regarding CRAC efficiency levels and associated analyses
discussed in the September 2019 NODA/RFI.
[[Page 60648]]
Table II-1--Energy Efficiency Levels for CRACs in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, and the Corresponding Federal
Energy Conservation Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
efficiency Federal energy DOE triggered by
ASHRAE standard 90.1-2019 Current federal levels in ASHRAE conservation ASHRAE standard 90.1-
equipment class \1\ equipment class \1\ standard 90.1- standards \2\ 2019 amendment?
2019 \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <80,000 Btu/ CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.70 NSenCOP.... 2.20 SCOP....... Yes.
h, Downflow. <65,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/ N/A.................. 2.65 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <80,000 Btu/ CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.67 NSenCOP.... 2.09 SCOP....... Yes.
h, Upflow Ducted. <65,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/ CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.16 NSenCOP.... 2.09 SCOP....... Yes.
h, Upflow Non-Ducted. <65,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, >=80,000 and CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.58 NSenCOP.... 2.10 SCOP....... Yes.
<295,000 Btu/h, Downflow. >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, >=65,000 and N/A.................. 2.55 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
<240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-
flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, >=80,000 and CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.55 NSenCOP.... 1.99 SCOP....... No.\4\
<295,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted. >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, >=65,000 and CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.04 NSenCOP.... 1.99 SCOP....... Yes.
<240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non- >=65,000 and
Ducted. <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, >=295,000 CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.36 NSenCOP.... 1.90 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Downflow. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, >=240,000 N/A.................. 2.47 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, >=295,000 CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.33 NSenCOP.... 1.79 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Ducted. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled, >=240,000 CRAC, Air-Cooled, 1.89 NSenCOP.... 1.79 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.70 NSenCOP.... 2.20 SCOP....... Yes.\5\
economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, <65,000 Btu/h,
Downflow. Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid N/A.................. 2.65 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
economizer, <65,000 Btu/h,
Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.67 NSenCOP.... 2.09 SCOP....... Yes.\5\
economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, <65,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Ducted. Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.09 NSenCOP.... 2.09 SCOP....... No.\4\
economizer, <65,000 Btu/h, <65,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Non-Ducted. Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.58 NSenCOP.... 2.10 SCOP....... Yes.\5\
economizer, >=80,000 and >=65,000 and
<295,000 Btu/h, Downflow. <240,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid N/A.................. 2.55 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
economizer, >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-
flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.55 NSenCOP.... 1.99 SCOP....... No.\4\
economizer, >=80,000 and >=65,000 and
<295,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted. <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Air-Cooled, 1.99 NSenCOP.... 1.99 SCOP....... No.\4\
economizer, >=65,000 and >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non- <240,000 Btu/h,
Ducted. Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.36 NSenCOP.... 1.90 SCOP....... Yes.\5\
economizer, >=295,000 Btu/h, >=240,000 Btu/h and
Downflow. <760,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid N/A.................. 2.47 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h,
Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Air-Cooled, 2.33 NSenCOP.... 1.79 SCOP....... Yes.\5\
economizer, >=295,000 Btu/h, >=240,000 Btu/h and
Upflow Ducted. <760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Air-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Air-Cooled, 1.81 NSenCOP.... 1.79 SCOP....... Yes.\5\
economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h, >=240,000 Btu/h and
Upflow Non-ducted. <760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, <80,000 CRAC, Water-Cooled, 2.82 NSenCOP.... 2.60 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Downflow. <65,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, <65,000 N/A.................. 2.79 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, <80,000 CRAC, Water-Cooled, 2.79 NSenCOP.... 2.49 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Ducted. <65,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, <65,000 CRAC, Water-Cooled, 2.43 NSenCOP.... 2.49 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted. <65,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, >=80,000 CRAC, Water-Cooled, 2.73 NSenCOP.... 2.50 SCOP....... Yes.
and <295,000 Btu/h, Downflow. >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, >=65,000 N/A.................. 2.68 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
and <240,000 Btu/h,
Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, >=80,000 CRAC, Water-Cooled, 2.70 NSenCOP.... 2.39 SCOP....... No.\4\
and <295,000 Btu/h, Upflow >=65,000 and
Ducted. <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, >=65,000 CRAC, Water-Cooled, 2.32 NSenCOP.... 2.39 SCOP....... Yes.
and <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow >=65,000 and
Non-ducted. <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, >=295,000 CRAC, Water-Cooled, 2.67 NSenCOP.... 2.40 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Downflow. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, >=240,000 N/A.................. 2.60 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, >=295,000 CRAC, Water-Cooled, 2.64 NSenCOP.... 2.29 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Ducted. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled, >=240,000 CRAC, Water-Cooled, 2.20 NSenCOP.... 2.29 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Water-Cooled 2.77 NSenCOP.... 2.55 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Downflow. economizer, <65,000
Btu/h, Downflow.
[[Page 60649]]
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid N/A.................. 2.71 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
economizer, <65,000 Btu/h,
Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Water-Cooled 2.74 NSenCOP.... 2.44 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Upflow Ducted. economizer, <65,000
Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Water-Cooled 2.35 NSenCOP.... 2.44 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, <65,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Upflow Non-ducted. economizer, <65,000
Btu/h, Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Water-Cooled 2.68 NSenCOP.... 2.45 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=80,000 and with fluid
<295,000 Btu/h, Downflow. economizer, >=65,000
and <240,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid N/A.................. 2.60 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
economizer, >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-
flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Water-Cooled 2.65 NSenCOP.... 2.34 SCOP....... No.\4\
economizer, >=80,000 and with fluid
<295,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted. economizer, >=65,000
and <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Water-Cooled 2.24 NSenCOP.... 2.34 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=65,000 and with fluid
<240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non- economizer, >=65,000
ducted. and <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Water-Cooled 2.61 NSenCOP.... 2.35 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=295,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Downflow. economizer,
>=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid N/A.................. 2.54 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h,
Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Water-Cooled 2.58 NSenCOP.... 2.24 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=295,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Upflow Ducted. economizer,
>=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Water-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Water-Cooled 2.12 NSenCOP.... 2.24 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Upflow Non-ducted. economizer,
>=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <80,000 CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, 2.56 NSenCOP.... 2.50 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Downflow. <65,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 N/A.................. 2.48 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <80,000 CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, 2.53 NSenCOP.... 2.39 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Ducted. <65,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, 2.08 NSenCOP.... 2.39 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted. <65,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Non-ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, >=80,000 CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, 2.24 NSenCOP.... 2.15 SCOP....... Yes.
and <295,000 Btu/h, Downflow. >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, >=65,000 N/A.................. 2.18 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
and <240,000 Btu/h,
Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, >=80,000 CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, 2.21 NSenCOP.... 2.04 SCOP....... Yes.
and <295,000 Btu/h, Upflow >=65,000 and
Ducted. <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, >=65,000 CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, 1.90 NSenCOP.... 2.04 SCOP....... Yes.
and <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow >=65,000 and
Non-ducted. <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, >=295,000 CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, 2.21 NSenCOP.... 2.10 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Downflow. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, >=240,000 N/A.................. 2.18 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
Btu/h, Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, >=295,000 CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, 2.18 NSenCOP.... 1.99 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Ducted. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, >=240,000 CRAC, Glycol-Cooled, 1.81 NSenCOP.... 1.99 SCOP....... Yes.
Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Non-ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Glycol-Cooled 2.51 NSenCOP.... 2.45 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Downflow. economizer, <65,000
Btu/h, Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid N/A.................. 2.44 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
economizer, <65,000 Btu/h,
Horizontal-flow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Glycol-Cooled 2.48 NSenCOP.... 2.34 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Upflow Ducted. economizer, <65,000
Btu/h, Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Glycol-Cooled 2.00 NSenCOP.... 2.34 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, <65,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Upflow Non-ducted. economizer, <65,000
Btu/h, Upflow Non-
ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Glycol-Cooled 2.19 NSenCOP.... 2.10 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=80,000 and with fluid
<295,000 Btu/h, Downflow. economizer, >=65,000
and <240,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid N/A.................. 2.10 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
economizer, >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal-
flow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Glycol-Cooled 2.16 NSenCOP.... 1.99 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=80,000 and with fluid
<295,000 Btu/h, Upflow Ducted. economizer, >=65,000
and <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Glycol-Cooled 1.82 NSenCOP.... 1.99 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=65,000 and with fluid
<240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Non- economizer, >=65,000
ducted. and <240,000 Btu/h,
Upflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Glycol-Cooled 2.15 NSenCOP.... 2.05 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=295,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Downflow. economizer,
>=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Downflow.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid N/A.................. 2.10 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\3\
economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h,
Horizontal-flow.
[[Page 60650]]
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Glycol-Cooled 2.12 NSenCOP.... 1.94 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=295,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Upflow Ducted. economizer,
>=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Ducted.
CRAC, Glycol-Cooled with fluid CRAC, Glycol-Cooled 1.73 NSenCOP.... 1.94 SCOP....... Yes.
economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h, with fluid
Upflow Non-ducted. economizer,
>=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h,
Upflow Non-ducted.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 2.05 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser, Ducted,
<29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 2.02 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser, Ducted,
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.92 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser, Ducted,
>=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 2.08 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser, Non-
ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 2.05 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser, Non-
ducted, >=29,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.94 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser, Non-
ducted, >=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 2.01 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser with
fluid economizer, Ducted,
<29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.97 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser with
fluid economizer, Ducted,
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.87 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser with
fluid economizer, Ducted,
>=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 2.04 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser with
fluid economizer, Non-ducted,
<29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 2.00 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser with
fluid economizer, Non-ducted,
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.89 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with free air
discharge condenser with
fluid economizer, Non-ducted,
>=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.86 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser,
Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.83 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser,
Ducted, >=29,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.73 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser,
Ducted, >=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.89 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser,
Non-ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.86 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser,
Non-ducted, >=29,000 Btu/h
and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.75 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser,
Non-ducted, >=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.82 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser
with fluid economizer,
Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.78 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser
with fluid economizer,
Ducted, >=29,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.68 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser
with fluid economizer,
Ducted, >=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.85 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser
with fluid economizer, Non-
ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.81 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser
with fluid economizer, Non-
ducted, >=29,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h.
[[Page 60651]]
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Air- N/A.................. 1.70 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with ducted condenser
with fluid economizer, Non-
ducted, >=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.38 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.28 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Ducted, >=29,000 Btu/
h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.18 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Ducted, >=65,000 Btu/
h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.41 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Non-ducted, <29,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.31 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Non-ducted, >=29,000
Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.20 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Non-ducted, >=65,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.33 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.23 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Ducted, >=29,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.13 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Ducted, >=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.36 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Non-ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.26 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Non-ducted, >=29,000 Btu/h
and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Water- N/A.................. 2.16 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Non-ducted, >=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.97 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.93 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Ducted, >=29,000 Btu/
h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.78 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Ducted, >=65,000 Btu/
h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 2.00 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Non-ducted, <29,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.98 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Non-ducted, >=29,000
Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.81 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled, Non-ducted, >=65,000
Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.92 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.88 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Ducted, >=29,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.73 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Ducted, >=65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.95 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Non-ducted, <29,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.93 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Non-ducted, >=29,000 Btu/h
and <65,000 Btu/h.
Ceiling-mounted CRAC, Glycol- N/A.................. 1.76 NSenCOP.... N/A............. Yes.\6\
cooled with fluid economizer,
Non-ducted, >=65,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that equipment classes specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 do not necessarily correspond to the
equipment classes defined in DOE's regulations. Capacity ranges in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are specified in
terms of NSCC, as measured according to AHRI 1360-2017. Capacity ranges in Federal equipment classes are
specified in terms of NSCC, as measured according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007. As discussed in section II.A.1 of
this document, for certain equipment classes, AHRI 1360-2017 results in increased NSCC measurements as
compared to the NSCC measured in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007. Therefore, some CRACs would switch
classes (i.e., move into a higher capacity equipment class) if the equipment class boundaries are not changed
accordingly. Consequently, DOE performed a ``capacity crosswalk'' analysis to translate the capacity
boundaries for certain equipment classes.
\2\ For CRACs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 adopted efficiency levels in terms of NSenCOP based on test procedures
in AHRI 1360-2017, while DOE's current standards are in terms of SCOP based on the test procedures in ANSI/
ASHRAE 127-2007. DOE performed a crosswalk analysis to compare the stringency of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
efficiency levels with the current Federal standards. See section II.A of this NODA for further discussion on
the crosswalk analysis performed for CRACs.
\3\ Horizontal-flow CRACs are new equipment classes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 and ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 (and not subject to current Federal standards), but DOE does not have any data to indicate the
market share of horizontal-flow units. In the absence of data regarding market share and efficiency
distribution, DOE is unable to estimate potential savings for horizontal-flow equipment classes.
\4\ The preliminary CRAC crosswalk analysis indicates that there is no difference in stringency of efficiency
levels for this class between ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and the current Federal standard.
\5\ Air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers are new equipment classes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and
are currently subject to the Federal standard for air-cooled CRACs. DOE does not have data regarding market
share for air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers. Although DOE is unable to disaggregate the estimated
potential savings for these equipment classes, energy savings for these equipment classes are included in the
savings presented for air-cooled CRACs.
[[Page 60652]]
\6\ Ceiling-mounted CRACs are new equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (and not subject to current
Federal standards), and DOE does not have any data to indicate the market share of ceiling-mounted units. In
the absence of data regarding market share and efficiency distribution, DOE is unable to estimate potential
savings for ceiling-mounted equipment classes.
Table II-2--Energy Efficiency Levels for Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K) in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, and the Corresponding Federal Energy Conservation Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
efficiency Federal energy DOE triggered by
ASHRAE standard 90.1-2019 Current federal levels in ASHRAE conservation ASHRAE standard 90.1-
equipment class equipment class standard 90.1- standards \1\ 2019 amendment?
2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, Air-cooled Air 14.0 SEER before 14.0 SEER............ No.
Three-Phase, Single-Package, Conditioner, 1/1/2023, 13.4
<65,000 Btu/h. Three-Phase, SEER2 after 1/1/
Single-Package, 2023.
<65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, Air-cooled Air 13.0 SEER before 13.0 SEER............ Yes.
Three-Phase, Split-System, Conditioner, 1/1/2023, 13.4
<65,000 Btu/h. Three-Phase, SEER2 after 1/1/
Split-System, 2023.
<65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, Three- Air-cooled Heat 14.0 SEER/8.0 14.0 SEER, 8.0 HSPF.. No.
phase, Single-Package, Pump, three- HSPF before 1/1/
<65,000 Btu/h. phase, Single- 2023, 13.4
Package, SEER2/6.7 HSPF2
<65,000 Btu/h. after 1/1/2023.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, Three- Air-cooled Heat 14.0 SEER/8.2 14.0 SEER, 8.2 HSPF.. Yes.
phase, Split-System, <65,000 Pump, three- HSPF before 1/1/
Btu/h. phase, Split- 2023, 14.3
System, <65,000 SEER2/7.5 HSPF2
Btu/h. after 1/1/2023.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air-cooled Air 12.0 SEER before 14.0 SEER \2\........ No.
Air Conditioner, Three-Phase, Conditioner, 1/1/2023, 11.7
Single-Package, <=30,000 Btu/ Three-Phase, SEER2 after 1/1/
h. Single-Package, 2023.
<65,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air-cooled Air 12.0 SEER before 13.0 SEER \2\........ No.
Air Conditioner, Three-Phase, Conditioner, 1/1/2023, 11.7
Split-System, <=30,000 Btu/h. Three-Phase, SEER2 after 1/1/
Split-System, 2023.
<65,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air-cooled Heat 12.0 SEER/7.4 14.0 SEER,\2\ 8.0 No.
Heat Pump, Three-Phase, Pump, three- HSPF before 1/1/ HSPF \2\.
Single-Package, <=30,000 Btu/ phase, Single- 2023, 11.7
h. Package, SEER2/6.3 HSPF2
<65,000 Btu/h. after 1/1/2023.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air-cooled Heat 12.0 SEER/7.4 14.0 SEER,\2\ 8.2 No.
Heat Pump, Three-Phase, Split- Pump, three- HSPF before 1/1/ HSPF \2\.
System, <=30,000 Btu/h. phase, Split- 2023, 11.7
System, <65,000 SEER2/6.3 HSPF2
Btu/h. after 1/1/2023.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air- Air-cooled Air 12.0 SEER before 13.0 SEER \2\........ No.
cooled Air Conditioner, Three- Conditioner, 1/1/2023, 12.0
Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Three-Phase, SEER2 after 1/1/
Btu/h. Split-System, 2023.
<65,000 Btu/h.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air- Air-cooled Heat 12.0 SEER/7.2 14.0 SEER,\2\ 8.2 No.
cooled Heat Pump, Three- Pump, three- HSPF before 1/1/ HSPF \2\.
Phase, Split-System, <65,000 phase, Split- 2023, 12.0
Btu/h. System, <65,000 SEER2/6.1 HSPF2
Btu/h. after 1/1/2023.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 adopts levels in terms of SEER2 and HSPF2 effective on 1/1/2023, as measured by
AHRI 210/240-2023, while Federal standards are in terms of SEER and HSPF. DOE performed a preliminary
crosswalk analysis to determine whether the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels due to take effect on 1/1/2023
represent an increase in stringency relative to the current Federal standards.
\2\ Although ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies separate standard levels for three-phase space-constrained and
small-duct, high-velocity equipment, the Federal standards for these equipment classes are the same as other
types of small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment.
A. Computer Room Air Conditioners
DOE currently prescribes energy conservation standards for 30
equipment classes of CRACs at 10 CFR 431.97. The current CRAC equipment
classes are differentiated by condensing system type (air-cooled,
water-cooled, water-cooled with fluid economizer, glycol-cooled, or
glycol-cooled with fluid economizer), NSCC (less than 65,000 Btu/h,
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h, or
greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h),
and direction of conditioned air over the cooling coil (upflow or
downflow). Federal standards established in 10 CFR 431.97 are specified
in terms of SCOP, based on rating conditions in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007.
10 CFR 431.96(b)(2).
As discussed in the September 2019 NODA/RFI, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2016 established new equipment classes for CRACs. 84 FR 48006, 48013
(Sept. 11, 2019). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 added efficiency levels for
horizontal-flow CRAC equipment classes, disaggregated the upflow CRAC
equipment classes into upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted equipment
classes, and established different sets of efficiency levels for upflow
ducted and upflow non-ducted equipment classes based on the
corresponding rating conditions specified in AHRI 1360-2016. In
contrast, DOE currently specifies the same set of standards at 10 CFR
431.97 for all covered upflow CRACs, regardless of ducting
configuration.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 maintains the equipment class structure
for floor-mounted CRACs as established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 amended the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016 for all but three of those equipment classes. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 also added classes for air-cooled CRACs with fluid
economizers and a new table with new efficiency levels for ceiling-
mounted CRAC equipment classes. The equipment in horizontal-flow and
ceiling-mounted classes is not currently subject to Federal standards
set forth in 10 CFR 431.97, although DOE issued a draft guidance
document on October 7, 2015 to clarify that horizontal-flow and
ceiling-mounted CRACs are covered equipment and are required to be
tested under the current DOE test procedure for purposes of making
representations of energy consumption. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-
0022, No. 3, pp. 1-2) In contrast, upflow and downflow air-cooled CRACs
with fluid economizers are currently subject to the Federal standards
in 10 CFR 431.97 for air-cooled equipment classes.
DOE considered whether there were any increases in stringency in
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels for CRAC classes covered by DOE
standards, thus triggering DOE obligations under EPCA. As with the
assessment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, for CRACs, this assessment has
been complicated because the current standards established in 10 CFR
431.97 are specified in terms of SCOP and based on the rating
conditions in ANSI/
[[Page 60653]]
ASHRAE 127-2007, while the efficiency levels for CRACs set forth in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are specified in terms of NSenCOP and based
on rating conditions in AHRI 1360-2017. While EPCA does not expressly
state how DOE is to consider a change to an ASHRAE efficiency metric,
DOE is guided by the criteria established under EPCA for the evaluation
of amendments to the test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard
90.1. For ASHRAE equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), EPCA
directs that if the applicable test procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must amend the Federal test procedure to
be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE
makes a determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that
to do so would result in a test procedure that is not reasonably
designed to provide results representative of use during an average use
cycle, or is unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) In
evaluating an update to an industry test procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must also consider any potential impact on the
measured energy efficiency as compared to the current Federal test
procedure and in the context of the current Federal standard. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C) and 42 U.S.C. 6293(e))
As discussed in section II.A.1 of this document, the rating
conditions in AHRI 1360-2016 and AHRI 1360-2017 differ from those
specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 (the industry standard referenced in
the current DOE test procedure for CRACs) for most CRAC equipment
classes. As part of the analysis for the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE
conducted a crosswalk analysis for the classes affected by rating
condition changes to determine whether the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016
levels in terms of NSenCOP and determined according to AHRI 1360-2016
are more stringent than DOE's current standards in terms of SCOP and
determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007. 84 FR 48006, 48014-48022
(Sept. 11, 2019). Because the rating conditions specified in AHRI 1360-
2017 and AHRI 1360-2016 are the same for the classes covered by the
crosswalk (upflow ducted, upflow non-ducted, and downflow), the same
crosswalk as described in the September 2019 NODA/RFI can be used to
compare DOE's current SCOP-based CRAC standards to the NSenCOP values
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (determined according to AHRI 1360-2017),
in order to perform the current analysis required by EPCA. Section
II.A.1 of this document includes a detailed discussion of the
differences in rating conditions between DOE's current test procedure
for CRACs (which references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007), AHRI 1360-2016, and
AHRI 1360-2017.
The crosswalk allows DOE to determine whether any of the levels
specified in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are more stringent than
the current DOE standards; any such levels would be considered
``amended'' for the purpose of the evaluation required by EPCA. To the
extent that the crosswalk identifies amended standards (i.e., ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 levels more stringent than the Federal standards), the
crosswalk also allows DOE to conduct an analysis of the energy savings
potential of amended standards, also as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Additionally, in order to make the required
determination of whether adoption of a uniform national standard more
stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 level is
technologically feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)), DOE must understand the relationship between the
current Federal standard and the corresponding ASHRAE Standard 90.1
efficiency level. Finally, for any standard that DOE does not make more
stringent because the Federal standard is already more stringent than
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 level and where more-stringent levels are not
justified (under the 6-year-lookback), DOE must express these levels in
terms of the new efficiency metric so as to be consistent with the
relevant industry test procedure (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)).
1. Methodology for Efficiency and Capacity Crosswalk Analyses
a. General
DOE performed an efficiency crosswalk analysis to compare the
stringency of the current Federal standards (represented in terms of
SCOP based on the current DOE test procedure) for CRACs to the
stringency of the efficiency levels for this equipment in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 (represented in terms of NSenCOP and based on AHRI
1360-2017). The rating conditions for upflow ducted, upflow non-ducted,
and downflow equipment classes specified in AHRI 1360-2017 are the same
as in AHRI 1360-2016, so for these classes, the same crosswalk can
relate SCOP levels measured according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 to
NSenCOP levels measured according to either the 2016 or 2017 editions
of AHRI 1360. Therefore, the crosswalk methodology and resulting
``crosswalked'' levels of the current Federal standards used in this
NODA/RFI are the same as those presented in the September 2019 NODA/RFI
(i.e., the methodology and resulting levels used to compare the current
Federal standards to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016; see 84 FR
48006, 48014-48019 (Sept. 11, 2019)). Because ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
added classes for air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers, DOE also
presents in this NODA/RFI crosswalked levels for the 9 air-cooled with
fluid economizer classes currently being made subject to Federal
standards. However, the crosswalk results for these classes are the
same as the results for corresponding classes for air-cooled CRACs
without fluid economizers, because: (1) These classes are subject to
the same current Federal standards as air-cooled CRACs without fluid
economizers; and (2) per AHRI 1360-2017, air-cooled units with fluid
economizers are not tested differently than units without fluid
economizers.
DOE received several comments in response to the September 2019
NODA/RFI addressing DOE's crosswalk methodology. AHRI stated that it
agrees with DOE's crosswalk methodology and analysis, with only slight
discrepancies in some of the percentages. However, AHRI also stated
that the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2019, which were developed by
AHRI and DOE, resolve the shortcomings that AHRI stated were in the
crosswalk presented in the September 2019 NODA/RFI. (AHRI, No. 7 at p.
4) \16\ The CA IOUs commented that they support DOE's crosswalk
analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 2) Similarly, Trane commented that it
generally agrees with the high-level methodology in DOE's crosswalk
analysis. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 1) Trane also commented that cooling
capacity alone must be compared when determining if backsliding has
occurred, as opposed to what minimum SCOP requirement was previously
required for that individual unit. Trane further stated that CRACs can
achieve higher cooling capacities with smaller box sizes and less power
input at the test conditions specified in AHRI 1360 as compared to
DOE's current test procedure. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2) In response to
Trane, while the measured NSCC will be higher for models in certain
equipment classes when tested
[[Page 60654]]
to AHRI 1360-2016 or AHRI 1360-2017 as compared to when tested to ANSI/
ASHRAE 127-2007, DOE specifies minimum standards in terms of energy
efficiency, not cooling capacity. Therefore, DOE's analysis to
determine if the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels constitute backsliding
must compare the stringency of the current Federal SCOP standards to
the NSenCOP levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. As discussed later in this
section, DOE also performed a ``capacity crosswalk'' analysis to
translate the capacity boundaries for certain equipment classes,
because some CRACs would switch classes (i.e., move into a higher
capacity equipment class) if the equipment class boundaries are not
changed accordingly. Such switching of classes has the potential to
subject existing CRACs to lower standards (which could raise concerns
vis-[agrave]-vis EPCA's anti-backsliding provision at 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)). Based on these comments, for this NODA/RFI, DOE
did not make any changes to the methodology of the efficiency or
capacity crosswalks presented in the September 2019 NODA/RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ DOE identifies comments received in response to the
September 2019 NODA/RFI and placed in Docket No. Docket EERE-2017-
BT-STD-0017 by the commenter, the number of the comment document as
listed in the docket maintained at https://www.regulations.gov, and
the page number of that document where the comment appears (for
example: AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the efficiency crosswalk, DOE analyzed the CRAC equipment
classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 that are currently subject to
Federal standards (i.e., all upflow and downflow classes).\17\ ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 includes separate sets of efficiency levels for
upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted CRACs to reflect the differences in
rating conditions for upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted units in AHRI
1360-2017 (e.g., return air temperature and external static pressure
(ESP)). The current Federal test procedure does not specify different
rating conditions for upflow ducted as compared to upflow non-ducted
CRACs, and DOE's current standards set forth in 10 CFR 431.97 do not
differentiate between upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted CRACs. For
the purpose of the efficiency crosswalk analysis, DOE converted the
single set of current Federal SCOP standards for all upflow CRACs to
sets of ``crosswalked'' NSenCOP levels for both the upflow ducted and
upflow non-ducted classes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes efficiency levels for
horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted classes of CRACs. DOE does not
currently prescribe standards for horizontal-flow or ceiling-mounted
classes, so these classes were not included in the crosswalk
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, DOE's current standards set forth in 10 CFR 431.97 do
not distinguish between air-cooled CRACs with and without fluid
economizers, whereas ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes separate sets
of efficiency levels for air-cooled CRACs with and without fluid
economizers. Therefore, DOE converted the single set of current Federal
standards for air-cooled classes in terms of SCOP to crosswalked
standards in terms of NSenCOP for air-cooled classes both with and
without fluid economizers. However, there is no difference between the
rating conditions for air-cooled CRACs with and without fluid
economizers in AHRI 1360-2017 so the crosswalk results are identical
for these classes.
As explained previously, the levels for CRACs as updated in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 rely on a different metric (NSenCOP) and test
procedure (AHRI 1360-2017) than the metric and test procedure required
under the Federal standards (SCOP and ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007,
respectively). AHRI 1360-2017 and ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 specify
different rating conditions, which are listed in Table II-3.\18\ AHRI
1360-2016 specifies the same rating conditions for these classes as
AHRI 1360-2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is conducting a separate evaluation
of its current test procedure as compared to AHRI 1360-2017. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)).
Table II-3--Differences in Rating Conditions Between DOE's Current Test Procedure and AHRI Standard 1360-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test parameter Affected equipment Current DOE test procedure (ANSI/ASHRAE 127-
categories. 2007)
AHRI 1360-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return air dry-bulb temperature Upflow ducted and 75 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature
(RAT) downflow.
85 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entering water temperature (EWT)... Water-cooled.......... 86 [deg]F
83 [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESP (varies with NSCC)............. Upflow ducted......... <20 kW................ 0.8 in H2O........... <65 kBtu/h........... 0.3 in H2O.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20 kW............... 1.0 in H2O........... >=65 kBtu/h and <240 0.4 in H2O.
kBtu/h.
---------------------------------------------
>=240 kBtu/h and <760 0.5 in H2O.
kBtu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adder for heat rejection fan and Water-cooled and No added power consumption for heat rejection
pump power (add to total power glycol-cooled. fan and pump.
consumption).
5 percent of NSCC for water-cooled CRACs. 7.5
percent of NSCC for glycol-cooled CRACs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60655]]
Additionally, in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (which references AHRI
1360-2017 as the test procedure for CRACs), the capacity boundaries for
downflow and upflow-ducted CRAC equipment classes are increased
relative to the boundaries of analogous classes in the current Federal
standards (which references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 for the test
procedure). The capacity values that bound the CRAC equipment classes
are in terms of NSCC. For certain equipment classes, NSCC values
determined according to AHRI 1360-2017 are higher than the NSCC values
determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 because of differences in
the specified rating conditions. Because the test procedure in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 results in an increased NSCC value for certain
equipment classes, as compared to the NSCC measured in accordance with
the current Federal test procedure requirement, some CRACs would switch
classes (i.e., move into a higher capacity equipment class) if the
equipment class boundaries are not changed accordingly.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ This difference in capacity values might shift the
boundaries between statutorily defined categories (i.e., small,
large and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment), but would not impact which equipment is within scope of
DOE's authority under these statutorily defined categories (i.e.,
DOE has authority to regulate all small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the equipment class capacity increases for upflow or downflow
CRAC classes, the stringency of both the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
efficiency level and the current Federal standard decreases. As a
result, class switching would subject some CRAC models to an efficiency
level under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 that is less stringent than the
standard level that is applicable to that model under the current
Federal requirements. Such result would be impermissible under EPCA's
anti-backsliding provision at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I).
To provide for an appropriate comparison between current Federal
efficiency standards and the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019, address potential backsliding, and evaluate the capacity
boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, a capacity crosswalk was
conducted to adjust the NSCC boundaries that separate equipment classes
in the Federal efficiency standards to account for the expected
increase in measured NSCC values for affected equipment classes (i.e.,
equipment classes with test procedure changes that increase NSCC). The
capacity crosswalk calculated necessary increases in the capacity
boundaries of affected equipment classes to prevent this equipment
class switching issue and avoid potential backsliding that would occur
if capacity boundaries were not adjusted.
Both the efficiency and capacity crosswalk analyses have a similar
structure and the data for both analyses came from several of the same
sources. The crosswalk analyses were informed by numerous sources,
including public manufacturer literature, manufacturer performance data
obtained through non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), results from DOE's
testing of two CRAC units, and DOE's Compliance Certification Database
for CRACs. DOE analyzed each test procedure change independently and
used the available data to determine an aggregated percentage by which
that change impacted efficiency (SCOP) and/or NSCC. Updated SCOP levels
and NSCC equipment class boundaries were calculated for each class (as
applicable) by combining the percentage changes for every test
procedure change applicable to that class.
The following sub-sections describe the approaches used to analyze
the impacts on the measured efficiency and capacity of each difference
in rating conditions between DOE's current test procedure and AHRI
1360-2017. As discussed previously, the crosswalk analysis methodology
described in the following sub-sections is the same as presented in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI. No additional data sources were added to the
analysis.
b. Increase in Return Air Dry-Bulb Temperature From 75 [deg]F to 85
[deg]F
ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced by DOE's current test
procedure, specifies a return air dry-bulb temperature (RAT) of 75
[deg]F for testing all CRACs. AHRI 1360-2017 specifies an RAT of 85
[deg]F for upflow ducted and downflow CRACs, but specifies an RAT for
upflow non-ducted units of 75 [deg]F. SCOP and NSCC both increase with
increasing RAT for two reasons. First, a higher RAT increases the
cooling that must be done for the air to approach its dew point
temperature (i.e., the temperature at which water vapor will condense
if there is any additional cooling). Second, a higher RAT will tend to
raise the evaporating temperature of the refrigerant, which in turn
raises the temperature of fin and tube surfaces in contact with the
air--the resulting reduction in the portion of the heat exchanger
surface that is below the air's dew point temperature reduces the
potential for water vapor to condense on these surfaces. This is seen
in product specifications which show that the sensible heat ratio \20\
is consistently higher at a RAT of 85 [deg]F than at 75 [deg]F. Because
SCOP is calculated with NSCC, an increase in the fraction of total
cooling capacity that is sensible cooling rather than latent cooling
also inherently increases SCOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Sensible heat ratio'' is the ratio of sensible cooling
capacity to the total cooling capacity. The total cooling capacity
includes both sensible cooling capacity (cooling associated with
reduction in temperature) and latent cooling capacity (cooling
associated with dehumidification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To analyze the impacts of increasing RAT for upflow ducted and
downflow CRACs on SCOP and NSCC, DOE gathered data from three separate
sources and aggregated the results for each crosswalk analysis. First,
DOE used product specifications for several CRAC models that provide
SCOP and NSCC ratings for RATs ranging from 75 [deg]F to 95 [deg]F.
Second, DOE analyzed manufacturer performance data obtained under NDAs
that showed the performance impact of individual test condition
changes, including the increase in RAT. Third, DOE used results from
testing two CRAC units: one air-cooled upflow ducted and one air-cooled
downflow unit. DOE combined the results of these sources to find the
aggregated increases in SCOP and NSCC due to the increase in RAT. The
increase in SCOP due to the change in RAT was found to be approximately
19 percent, and the increase in capacity was found to be approximately
22 percent.
c. Decrease in Entering Water Temperature for Water-Cooled CRACs
ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced by DOE's current test
procedure, specifies an entering water temperature (EWT) of 86 [deg]F
for water-cooled CRACs, while AHRI 1360-2017 specifies an entering
water temperature of 83 [deg]F. A decrease in the EWT for water-cooled
CRACs increases the temperature difference between the water and hot
refrigerant in the condenser coil, thus increasing cooling capacity and
decreasing compressor power. To analyze the impact of this decrease in
EWT on SCOP and NSCC, DOE analyzed manufacturer data obtained through
NDAs and a publicly-available presentation from a major CRAC
manufacturer and calculated an SCOP increase of approximately 2 percent
and an NSCC increase of approximately 1 percent.
d. Changes in External Static Pressure Requirements for Upflow Ducted
CRACs
For upflow ducted CRACs, AHRI 1360-2017 specifies lower ESP
requirements than ANSI/ASHRAE 127-
[[Page 60656]]
2007, which is referenced in DOE's current test procedure. The ESP
requirements in all CRAC industry test standards vary with NSCC;
however, the capacity bins (i.e., capacity ranges over which each ESP
requirement applies) in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 are different from AHRI
1360-2017. Testing with a lower ESP decreases the indoor fan power
input without a corresponding decrease in cooling capacity, thus
increasing the measured efficiency. Additionally, the reduction in fan
heat entering the indoor air stream that results from lower fan power
also slightly increases NSCC.
To determine the impacts on measured SCOP and NSCC of the changes
in ESP requirements between DOE's current test procedure and AHRI 1360-
2017, DOE aggregated data from its analysis of fan power consumption
changes, manufacturer data obtained through NDAs, and results from DOE
testing. More details on each of these sources are included in the
following paragraphs. The impact of changes in ESP requirements on SCOP
and NSCC was calculated separately for each capacity range specified in
AHRI 1360-2017 (i.e., <65 kBtu/h, 65-240 kBtu/h, and >=240 kBtu/h).
DOE conducted an analysis to estimate the change in fan power
consumption due to the changes in ESP requirements using performance
data and product specifications for 77 upflow CRAC models with
certified SCOP ratings at or near the current applicable SCOP standard
level in DOE's Compliance Certification Database. Using the certified
SCOP and NSCC values, DOE determined each model's total power
consumption for operation at the rating conditions specified in DOE's
current test procedure. DOE then used fan performance data for each
model to estimate the change in indoor fan power that would result from
the lower ESP requirements in AHRI 1360-2017, and modified the total
power consumption for each model by the calculated value. For several
models, detailed fan performance data were not available, so DOE used
fan performance data for comparable air conditioning units with similar
cooling capacity, fan drive, and fan motor horsepower.
DOE also received manufacturer data (obtained through NDAs) showing
the impact on efficiency and NSCC of the change in ESP requirements.
Additionally, DOE conducted tests on an upflow-ducted CRAC at ESPs of 1
in. H2O and 0.4 in. H2O (the applicable ESP
requirements specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 and AHRI 1360-2017,
respectively), and included the results of those tests in this
analysis.
For each of the three capacity ranges for which ESP requirements
are specified in AHRI AHRI 1360-2017, Table II-4 shows the approximate
aggregated percentage increases in SCOP and NSCC associated with the
decreased ESP requirements specified in AHRI 1360-2017 for upflow
ducted units. As discussed previously, AHRI 1360-2016 specifies the
same rating conditions for upflow ducted classes as AHRI 1360-2017.
Table II-4--Percentage Increase in SCOP and NSCC From Decreases in External Static Pressure Requirements for Upflow Ducted Units Between DOE's Current
Test Procedure and AHRI Standard 1360-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net sensible cooling capacity range (kBtu/h) * ESP requirements in ESP Approx. Approx.
DOE's requirements average average
current test procedure in AHRI 1360- percentage percentage
(ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007) 2017 increase increase
(in H2O) (in H2O) in SCOP in NSCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65 0.8 0.3 7 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65 to <240................................................ ** >=65 to <68.2 0.8 0.4 *** 8 *** 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** >=68.2 to <240 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=240 to <760 1 0.5 6 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These boundaries are consistent with the boundaries in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, AHRI 1360-2016, and AHRI 1360-2017, and do not reflect the expected
capacity increases for upflow-ducted and downflow equipment classes at the AHRI 1360-2016 and AHRI 1360-2017 test conditions.
** 68.2 kBtu/h is equivalent to 20 kW, which is the capacity value that separates ESP requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced in DOE's
current test procedure.
*** This average percentage increase is an average across upflow ducted CRACs with net sensible cooling capacity >=65 and <240 kBtu/h, including models
with capacity <20 kW and >=20 kW. DOE's Compliance Certification Database shows that most of the upflow CRACs with a net sensible cooling capacity
>=65 kBtu/h and <240 kBtu/h have a net sensible cooling capacity >=20 kW.
As discussed in section II.A.1.a of this document, NSCC values
determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 are lower than NSCC values
determined according to AHRI 1360-2017 for certain CRAC classes,
including upflow-ducted classes. The increase in NSCC also impacts the
ESP requirements for upflow-ducted units in AHRI 1360-2017 because
these requirements are specified based on NSCC. Differences in ESP
requirements impact the stringency of the test. For the efficiency and
capacity crosswalk analyses in this NODA, DOE used the adjusted
capacity boundaries for upflow ducted classes presented in Table II-5
(as discussed in section II.A.1.f of this document) to specify the
applicable ESP requirement in AHRI 1360-2017 (rather than using the
capacity boundaries specified in AHRI 1360-2017) so that all CRACs
within an equipment class would be subject to the same ESP requirement.
The same methodology was used in the crosswalk analysis discussed in
the September 2019 NODA/RFI.
e. Power Adder To Account for Pump and Heat Rejection Fan Power in
NSenCOP Calculation for Water-Cooled and Glycol-Cooled CRACs
[[Page 60657]]
Energy consumption for heat rejection components for air-cooled
CRACs (i.e., condenser fan motor(s)) is measured in the industry test
standards for CRACs; however, energy consumption for heat rejection
components for water-cooled and glycol-cooled CRACs is not measured
because these components (i.e., water/glycol pump, dry cooler/cooling
tower fan(s)) are not considered to be part of the CRAC unit. ANSI/
ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced in DOE's current test procedure,
does not include any factor in the calculation of SCOP to account for
the power consumption of heat rejection components for water-cooled and
glycol-cooled CRACs. In contrast, AHRI 1360-2017 specifies to increase
the measured total power input for CRACs to account for the power
consumption of fluid pumps and heat rejection fans. Specifically, Notes
2 and 3 to Table 3 of AHRI 1360-2017 specify to add a percentage of the
measured NSCC (5 percent for water-cooled CRACs and 7.5 percent for
glycol-cooled CRACs) in kW to the total power input used to calculate
NSenCOP. DOE calculated the impact of these additions on SCOP using
Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25SE20.001
Where, x is equal to 5 percent for water-cooled CRACs and 7.5
percent for glycol-cooled CRACs, and SCOP1 is the SCOP value
adjusted for the energy consumption of heat rejection pumps and fans.
f. Calculating Overall Changes in Measured Efficiency and Capacity From
Test Procedure Changes
Different combinations of the test procedure changes between DOE's
current test procedure and AHRI 1360-2017 affect each of the CRAC
equipment classes considered in the crosswalk analyses. To combine the
impact on SCOP of the changes to rating conditions (i.e., increase in
RAT, decrease in condenser EWT for water-cooled units, and decrease of
the ESP requirements for upflow ducted units), DOE multiplied together
the calculated adjustment factors representing the measurement changes
corresponding to each individual rating condition change, as
applicable, as shown in Equation 2. These adjustment factors are equal
to 100 percent plus the calculated percent change in measured
efficiency.
To account for the impact of the adder for heat rejection pump and
fan power for water-cooled and glycol-cooled units, DOE used Equation
3. Hence, DOE determined crosswalked NSenCOP levels corresponding to
the current Federal SCOP standards for each CRAC equipment class using
the following two equations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25SE20.002
In these equations, NSenCOP1 refers to a partially-
crosswalked NSenCOP level that incorporates the impacts of changes in
RAT, condenser EWT, and indoor fan ESP (as applicable), but not the
impact of adding the heat rejection pump and fan power; x1,
x2, and x3 represent the percentage change in
SCOP due to changes in RAT, condenser EWT, and indoor fan ESP
requirements, respectively; and x4 is equal to 5 percent for
water-cooled equipment classes and 7.5 percent for glycol-cooled
equipment classes. For air-cooled classes, x4 is equal to 0
percent; therefore, for these classes, NSenCOP is equal to
NSenCOP1.
To combine the impact on NSCC of the changes to rating conditions,
DOE used a methodology similar to that used for determining the impact
on SCOP. To determine adjusted NSCC equipment class boundaries, DOE
multiplied together the calculated adjustment factors representing the
measurement changes corresponding to each individual rating condition
change, as applicable, as shown in Equation 4. These adjustment factors
are equal to 100 percent plus the calculated percent change in measured
NSCC. In this equation, Boundary refers to the original NSCC boundaries
(i.e., 65,000 Btu/h, 240,000 Btu/h, or 760,000 Btu/h as determined
according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007), Boundary1 refers to the updated
NSCC boundaries as determined according to AHRI 1360-2017, and
y1, y2, and y3 represent the
percentage changes in NSCC due to changes in RAT, condenser EWT, and
indoor fan ESP requirements, respectively.
[[Page 60658]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25SE20.003
As mentioned previously, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes
adjusted equipment class capacity boundaries for only upflow-ducted and
downflow equipment classes. The adjusted class ranges for these
categories are <80,000 Btu/h, >=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/h, and
>=295,000 Btu/h. In previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, these
ranges are <65,000 Btu/h, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, and
>=240,000 Btu/h. The capacity range boundaries for upflow non-ducted
classes were left unchanged at 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019. DOE's capacity crosswalk analysis indicates that
the primary driver for increasing NSCC is increasing RAT. The increases
in RAT in AHRI 1360-2017, as compared to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, only
apply to upflow ducted and downflow equipment classes. Based on the
analysis performed for this document, DOE found that all the equipment
class boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, which are in increments
of 5,000 Btu/h, are within 1.4 percent of the boundaries calculated
from DOE's capacity crosswalk. As such, to more closely align DOE's
analysis with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, DOE has used the equipment
class boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 as the preliminary
adjusted boundaries for the crosswalk analysis. Use of the equipment
class boundaries from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 allows for an
appropriate comparison between the energy efficiency levels and
equipment classes specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and those in the
current DOE standards, while addressing the backsliding potential
discussed previously.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 does not include an upper capacity limit
for coverage of CRACs. DOE's current standards are applicable only to
CRACs with an NSCC less than 760,000 Btu/h, which is consistent with
the statutory limits on DOE's authority.\21\ 10 CFR 431.97(e). In order
to account for all equipment currently subject to the Federal
standards, DOE adjusted the 760,000 Btu/h equipment class boundary for
certain equipment classes as part of its capacity crosswalk analysis.
This adjustment to the upper boundary of the equipment classes applies
only for downflow and upflow-ducted classes (the classes for which the
RAT increase applies). Consistent with the adjustments made in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019, DOE averaged the cross-walked capacity results
across the affected equipment classes, and rounded to the nearest 5,000
Btu/h. Following this approach, DOE has used 930,000 Btu/h as the
adjusted upper capacity limit for downflow and upflow-ducted CRACs in
the analysis presented in this notice. The 930,000 Btu/h upper capacity
limit (as measured per AHRI 1360-2017) used in the crosswalk analysis
is equivalent to the 760,000 Btu/h upper capacity limit (as measured
per ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007) established in the current DOE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In initially establishing standards CRACs, DOE noted that
the energy efficiency levels from ASHRAE Standard 90.1 adopted as
the Federal standards were based on ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007. 77 FR
28928, 28945 (May 16, 2012). This includes the relevant capacity
values. DOE notes further that EPCA provides a definition for ``very
large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment''
that encompasses such equipment rated at or above 240,000 Btu/h and
less than 760,000 Btu/h. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)) Consequently, DOE
does not have authority to set standards for models beyond the
capacity range specified for this type of covered equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Crosswalk Results
The ``crosswalked'' DOE efficiency levels (in terms of NSenCOP) and
adjusted equipment class capacity boundaries were then compared with
the NSenCOP efficiency levels and capacity boundaries specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 to determine whether the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 requirements are more stringent than current Federal
standards.
Table II-5 presents the preliminary results for the crosswalk
analyses (see section II.A.1 of this document for detailed discussion
of the methodology for the crosswalk analyses). The last column in the
table, labeled ``Crosswalk Comparison,'' indicates whether the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 levels are less stringent, equivalent to, or more
stringent than the current Federal standards, based on DOE's analysis.
Table II-5--Crosswalk Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross-
Current Test procedure walked ASHRAE
Airflow Current NSCC federal changes Cross-walked current standard Crosswalk
Condenser system type configuration range (kBtu/h) standard affecting NSCC range federal 90.1-2019 comparison
(SCOP) efficiency * (kBtu/h) standard NSenCOP
(NSenCOP) level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled.................. Downflow....... <65............ 2.20 Return air dry- <80............ 2.62 2.70 More Stringent.
bulb
temperature.
Air-cooled.................. Downflow....... >=65 and <240.. 2.10 >=80 and <295.. 2.50 2.58 More Stringent.
Air-cooled.................. Downflow....... >=240 and <760. 1.90 >=295 and <930. 2.26 2.36 More Stringent.
Air-cooled with fluid Downflow....... <65............ 2.20 <80............ 2.62 2.70 More Stringent.
economizer.
Air-cooled with fluid Downflow....... >=65 and <240.. 2.10 >=80 and <295.. 2.50 2.58 More Stringent.
economizer.
Air-cooled with fluid Downflow....... >=240 and <760. 1.90 >=295 and <930. 2.26 2.36 More Stringent.
economizer.
Water-cooled................ Downflow....... <65............ 2.60 Return air dry- <80............ 2.73 2.82 More Stringent.
Water-cooled................ Downflow....... >=65 and <240.. 2.50 bulb >=80 and <295.. 2.63 2.73 More Stringent.
Water-cooled................ Downflow....... >=240 and <760. 2.40 temperature. >=295 and <930. 2.54 2.67 More Stringent.
Condenser
entering water
temperature.
Add allowance
for heat
rejection
components to
total power
input.
[[Page 60659]]
Water-cooled with fluid Downflow....... <65............ 2.55 <80............ 2.68 2.77 More Stringent.
economizer.
Water-cooled with fluid Downflow....... >=65 and <240.. 2.45 >=80 and <295.. 2.59 2.68 More Stringent.
economizer.
Water-cooled with fluid Downflow....... >=240 and <760. 2.35 >=295 and <930. 2.50 2.61 More Stringent.
economizer.
Glycol-cooled............... Downflow....... <65............ 2.50 Add allowance <80............ 2.43 2.56 More Stringent.
Glycol-cooled............... Downflow....... >=65 and <240.. 2.15 for heat >=80 and <295.. 2.15 2.24 More Stringent.
rejection
components to
total power
input.
Glycol-cooled............... Downflow....... >=240 and <760. 2.10 >=295 and <930. 2.11 2.21 More Stringent.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Downflow....... <65............ 2.45 <80............ 2.39 2.51 More Stringent.
economizer.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Downflow....... >=65 and <240.. 2.10 >=80 and <295.. 2.11 2.19 More Stringent.
economizer.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Downflow....... >=240 and <760. 2.05 >=295 and <930. 2.06 2.15 More Stringent.
economizer.
Air-cooled.................. Upflow Ducted.. <65............ 2.09 Return air dry- <80............ 2.65 2.67 More Stringent.
Air-cooled.................. Upflow Ducted.. >=65 and <240.. 1.99 bulb >=80 and <295.. 2.55 2.55 Equivalent.
temperature.
ESP
requirements.
Air-cooled.................. Upflow Ducted.. >=240 and <760. 1.79 >=295 and <930. 2.26 2.33 More Stringent.
Air-cooled with fluid Upflow Ducted.. <65............ 2.09 <80............ 2.65 2.67 More Stringent.
economizer.
Air-cooled with fluid Upflow Ducted.. >=65 and <240.. 1.99 >=80 and <295.. 2.55 2.55 Equivalent.
economizer.
Air-cooled with fluid Upflow Ducted.. >=240 and <760. 1.79 >=295 and <930. 2.26 2.33 More Stringent.
economizer.
Water-cooled................ Upflow Ducted.. <65............ 2.49 Return air dry- <80............ 2.77 2.79 More Stringent.
Water-cooled................ Upflow Ducted.. >=65 and <240.. 2.39 bulb >=80 and <295.. 2.70 2.70 Equivalent.
Water-cooled................ Upflow Ducted.. >=240 and <760. 2.29 temperature. >=295 and <930. 2.56 2.64 More Stringent.
Water-cooled with fluid Upflow Ducted.. <65............ 2.44 Condenser <80............ 2.72 2.74 More Stringent.
economizer. entering water
temperature.
ESP
requirements.
Add allowance
for heat
rejection
components to
total power
input.
Water-cooled with fluid Upflow Ducted.. >=65 and <240.. 2.34 >=80 and <295.. 2.65 2.65 Equivalent.
economizer.
Water-cooled with fluid Upflow Ducted.. >=240 and <760. 2.24 >=295 and <930. 2.51 2.58 More Stringent.
economizer.
Glycol-cooled............... Upflow Ducted.. <65............ 2.39 Return air dry- <80............ 2.47 2.53 More Stringent.
Glycol-cooled............... Upflow Ducted.. >=65 and <240.. 2.04 bulb >=80 and <295.. 2.19 2.21 More Stringent.
Glycol-cooled............... Upflow Ducted.. >=240 and <760. 1.99 temperature. >=295 and <930. 2.11 2.18 More Stringent.
ESP
requirements.
Add allowance
for heat
rejection
components to
total power
input.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Upflow Ducted.. <65............ 2.34 <80............ 2.43 2.48 More Stringent.
economizer.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Upflow Ducted.. >=65 and <240.. 1.99 >=80 and <295.. 2.14 2.16 More Stringent.
economizer.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Upflow Ducted.. >=240 and <760. 1.94 >=295 and <930. 2.07 2.12 More Stringent.
economizer.
Air-cooled.................. Upflow Non- <65............ 2.09 No changes..... <65............ 2.09 2.16 More Stringent.
Ducted.
Air-cooled.................. Upflow Non- >=65 and <240.. 1.99 >=65 and <240.. 1.99 2.04 More Stringent.
Ducted.
Air-cooled.................. Upflow Non- >=240 and <760. 1.79 >=240 and <760. 1.79 1.89 More Stringent.
Ducted.
Air-cooled with fluid Upflow Non- <65............ 2.09 <65............ 2.09 2.09 Equivalent.
economizer. Ducted.
Air-cooled with fluid Upflow Non- >=65 and <240.. 1.99 >=65 and <240.. 1.99 1.99 Equivalent.
economizer. Ducted.
Air-cooled with fluid Upflow Non- >=240 and <760. 1.79 >=240 and <760. 1.79 1.81 More Stringent.
economizer. Ducted.
[[Page 60660]]
Water-cooled................ Upflow Non- <65............ 2.49 Condenser <65............ 2.25 2.43 More Stringent.
Water-cooled................ Ducted. >=65 and <240.. 2.39 entering water >=65 and <240.. 2.17 2.32 More Stringent.
Water-cooled................ Upflow Non- >=240 and <760. 2.29 temperature. >=240 and <760. 2.09 2.20 More Stringent.
Ducted. Add allowance
Upflow Non- for heat
Ducted. rejection
components to
total power
input.
Water-cooled with fluid Upflow Non- <65............ 2.44 <65............ 2.21 2.35 More Stringent.
economizer. Ducted.
Water-cooled with fluid Upflow Non- >=65 and <240.. 2.34 >=65 and <240.. 2.13 2.24 More Stringent.
economizer. Ducted.
Water-cooled with fluid Upflow Non- >=240 and <760. 2.24 >=240 and <760. 2.05 2.12 More Stringent.
economizer. Ducted.
Glycol-cooled............... Upflow Non- <65............ 2.39 Add allowance <65............ 2.03 2.08 More Stringent.
Glycol-cooled............... Ducted. >=65 and <240.. 2.04 for heat >=65 and <240.. 1.77 1.90 More Stringent.
Upflow Non- rejection
Ducted. components to
total power
input.
Glycol-cooled............... Upflow Non- >=240 and <760. 1.99 >=240 and <760. 1.73 1.81 More Stringent.
Ducted.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Upflow Non- <65............ 2.34 <65............ 1.99 2.00 More Stringent.
economizer. Ducted.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Upflow Non- >=65 and <240.. 1.99 >=65 and <240.. 1.73 1.82 More Stringent.
economizer. Ducted.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Upflow Non- >=240 and <760. 1.94 >=240 and <760. 1.69 1.73 More Stringent.
economizer. Ducted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Refer to Table II-4 of this document for specific changes in rating conditions.
CRAC Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the methodology and results
of the crosswalk analysis.
As indicated by the crosswalk, the standard levels established for
CRACs in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are equivalent to the current
Federal standards for 6 equipment classes, and are more stringent than
the current Federal standards for all other equipment classes of CRACs.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 also added 66 equipment classes of ceiling-
mounted and horizontal-flow CRACs that did not require a crosswalk
because there are currently no Federal standards for classes. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 also incorporates shifted capacity bin boundaries
for upflow ducted and downflow CRAC equipment classes. DOE's crosswalk
analysis indicates that these updated boundaries appropriately reflect
the increase in NSCC that results from the changes in test procedure
adopted under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (as discussed in previous
sections).
3. Discussion of Comments Received Regarding Amended Standards for
CRACs
As mentioned in section I.C of this document, DOE published a
description of a crosswalk comparing current Federal standards to the
minimum efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 and requested
comment on the crosswalk methodology and results in the September 2019
NODA/RFI. 84 FR 48006, 48019 (Sept. 11, 2019). The crosswalk and
resulting crosswalked levels of the current Federal standards (i.e.,
current Federal standards translated to the NSenCOP metric for the
purpose of comparison to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels) presented in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI are the same as in this NODA/RFI because the
test conditions specified in AHRI 1360-2016 and AHRI 1360-2017 are the
same and the Federal standards were unchanged, so no additional changes
to the crosswalk methodology were necessary. DOE received several
comments in response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI addressing of DOE's
crosswalk methodology and results.
In response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, several stakeholders
commented that DOE should not adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016 and should instead adopt the levels in the Second
Public Review Draft of Addendum `be' to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016
(``the second public review draft''),\22\ which were subsequently
included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Trane, No.
5 at p. 1) AHRI also commented that the levels in the second public
review draft were generated by AHRI, discussed with DOE, and approved
by the ASHRAE 90.1 committee to address all backsliding concerns from
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 levels. AHRI further stated that the
levels in the second public review draft are all equal to or greater
than the DOE crosswalk values from the current Federal standard and
would resolve their concerns over DOE's crosswalk findings presented in
the September 2019 NODA/RFI. Specifically, AHRI stated that the levels
in the second public review draft represent an increase in stringency
by 3 to 5 percent from current Federal minimums for most equipment
classes. AHRI recommended that DOE adopt new energy efficiency metrics
for the national standards and revise capacity demarcations for
relevant equipment classes to be published in the 2019 edition of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (AHRI, No. 7 at pp. 2-4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The second public review draft was published by ASHRAE in
November 2018. The same levels were included in the subsequent
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, which did not publish until after the
September 2019 NODA/RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trane commented that there have been no recent technological
advancements for CRACs that would merit an increase of stringency in
standards relative to the current efficiency levels (which are
[[Page 60661]]
denominated in terms of SCOP), and, therefore, that the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are the ``most stringent across of all the
CRAC systems,'' in addition to being technically feasible and
economically justified. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 1) The CA IOUs stated that
the publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 triggered DOE's statutory
requirements to adopt those levels or more-stringent standards, and
that the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 ensure that CRAC
efficiency levels will be maintained or strengthened. (CA IOUs, No. 6
at pp. 2-3)
AHRI and Trane both recommended that DOE analyze and adopt the
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for all CRAC classes rather than
amend efficiencies for only a small subset of products. (Trane, No. 5
at p. 2; AHRI, No. 7 at p. 7) Along these lines, AHRI cautioned that a
``no-new-standards'' decision for a subset of CRACs would ``create a
serial rulemaking situation for this equipment.'' (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 7)
The CA IOUs similarly encouraged DOE to move forward with an expanded
energy conservation standards analysis for all equipment subject to the
ASHRAE trigger, as well as the covered equipment classes subject to the
six-year-lookback provision. CA IOUs also recommended that DOE not make
the decision on whether efficiency levels above ASHRAE 90.1 levels can
be justified for CRACs until all energy savings and cost-benefit
analyses have been completed. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3)
In response to these comments, DOE notes that this NODA/RFI
evaluates the efficiency levels for CRACs included in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019. Section III.F of this NODA/RFI includes discussion of DOE's
consideration of standards more stringent than the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 for all CRAC equipment classes. Regarding AHRI's
concern of a ``serial rulemaking,'' DOE notes that EPCA prescribes
specific timing requirements. As discussed, this NODA/RFI evaluates
potential standards pursuant to the ASHRAE trigger in EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)), as well as pursuant to the periodic lookback review
required by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)). While DOE has some
flexibility to consolidate the reviews mandated by the two separate
statutory obligations, EPCA prescribes the specific timing
requirements.
In general, EPCA requires DOE conduct an evaluation of each class
of covered equipment within six years following an amendment to the
Federal standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) For equipment classes
evaluated pursuant to the 6-year-lookback and for which DOE determines
amended standards are not justified, EPCA requires DOE to conduct a
subsequent review within three years of such a determination. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) As DOE has stated, it may decide in
appropriate cases to simultaneously conduct an ASHRAE trigger
rulemaking and a lookback rulemaking so as to address all classes of an
equipment category at the same time (see 85 FR 8626, 8645 (Feb. 14,
2020), but DOE is still bound by the timeframes established in EPCA.
4. CRAC Standards Amended Under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
As discussed, DOE has analyzed the updated CRAC efficiency levels
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). DOE identified 48 equipment
classes for which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 efficiency levels are
more stringent than current DOE efficiency levels (expressed in
NSenCOP, see the crosswalk results presented in section II.A.2 of this
document), 6 equipment classes for which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
efficiency levels are equal to the current DOE efficiency levels, and
66 classes of CRACs for which standards are specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 that are not currently subject to DOE's standards
(i.e., horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted classes).
DOE was unable to obtain the market share data needed to
disaggregate energy savings for the 6 air-cooled with fluid economizer
equipment classes that currently have DOE standards (i.e., upflow
ducted, upflow non-ducted, and down-flow) and that DOE identified as
having more-stringent standards under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
Additionally, DOE lacked market share data to establish a market
baseline for estimating energy savings potential for the 66 horizontal-
flow or ceiling-mounted equipment classes. Thus, DOE conducted an
energy savings analysis, presented in section III of this document, for
42 of the 48 CRAC classes that currently have DOE standards and that
DOE identified as having more-stringent standards under ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019.
B. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
DOE's current standards for small three-phase, air-cooled,
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment cover four equipment
classes codified at 10 CFR 431.97, including both single package and
split systems. The energy efficiency metric as measured under the DOE
test procedure listed in Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 is SEER for all
equipment types in cooling mode and HSPF for heat pumps operating in
heating mode.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 adopted new energy efficiency levels for
air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment levels, as well as a metric change. The energy efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 maintain the previous ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016 levels until January 1, 2023. After this date, the
levels for almost all equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
will align with Federal standards for air-cooled, single-phase, central
air conditioners at 10 CFR 430.32(c)(5), which will also be effective
on January 1, 2023. The one exception is the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
energy efficiency level for three-phase space-constrained (S-C) heat
pumps, which matches the SEER2 Federal standard for single-phase S-C
air conditioners in cooling mode, rather than for single-phase S-C heat
pumps in cooling mode. In aligning levels with single-phase central air
conditioning standard, the efficiency rating metrics in ASHRAE 90.1-
2019 change from SEER to SEER2 and HSPF to HSPF2 effective January 1,
2023.
As discussed, the current DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.96 for
air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008. AHRI has
recently published updated industry standards in AHRI 210/240-2017
(published in December 2017), as well as AHRI 210/240-2017 with
Addendum 1 (published in April 2019). While ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016
references AHRI 210/240-2008 with Addendum 1 and 2, ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 references AHRI 210/240-2017 for the period prior to January
1, 2023. The reference to AHRI 210/240-2017 does not include Addendum
1, which DOE believes was an oversight.
As part of the October 2018 TP RFI, DOE reviewed AHRI 210/240-2017
(with and without Addendum 1) and initially determined that it is
consistent with AHRI 210/240-2008 and would not be expected to impact
the measured efficiency of the subject equipment during a
representative average use cycle as compared to the 2008 version. 83 FR
49501, 49503 (Oct. 2. 2018). Therefore, DOE determined that the pre-
2023 levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 based on AHRI 210/240-2017 are
consistent with those levels in ASHRAE
[[Page 60662]]
Standard 90.1-2016 based on AHRI 210/240-2008 and do not constitute a
change in efficiency levels that requires a crosswalk analysis.
For the period beginning January 1, 2023, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
references AHRI 210/240-2023 (to align with updates to minimum
efficiency standards that take effect on January 1, 2023). AHRI 210/
240-2023, which published in May 2020, adopts the SEER2 and HSPF2
metrics and aligns with the test procedure for single-phase central air
conditioners in DOE's test procedure at Appendix M1 to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B.
For the analysis of air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment conducted for this NODA to assess
whether the post-2023 levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are a change
that triggers DOE review, DOE has applied the crosswalk from SEER to
SEER2 (and HSPF to HSPF2 for heat pumps) developed for single-phase
products switching to the SEER2 (and HSPF2 for heat pumps) metric. DOE
will update the crosswalk as needed based on any separate test
procedure rulemaking that DOE may conduct. The crosswalk methodology
and results are discussed in the following section.
DOE also notes that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 provides separate
levels for small-duct high-velocity (SDHV) and S-C heat pumps, as did
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 \23\ (using the
nomenclature ``through the wall'' rather than space-constrained). In
the notice of proposed rule preceding the July 2015 final rule, DOE
stated that EPCA does not separate these equipment from other types of
small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment in its
definitions, and, therefore, EPCA's definition of ``small commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment'' includes SDHV and S-C
heat pumps. 80 FR 1172, 1184 (Jan. 8, 2015). As the levels for those
classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 were lower than the Federal
standards for the main classes, DOE concluded that it was not required
to take action on those classes. Id. As DOE has previously determined
that the pre-2023 levels for SDHV and S-C, which are equivalent to the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels, constitute backsliding in relation to
the Federal standards, DOE is now assessing whether the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 post-2023 levels for SDHV and S-C equipment constitute an
increase in stringency as compared to the current Federal standards for
the broader equipment classes of single-package and split-system air
conditioners and heat pumps. DOE notes that there are currently no
three-phase SDHV or S-C air conditioners or heat pumps on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ DOE notes that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 did not amend
levels relative to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for air-cooled, three-
phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Crosswalk Methodology and Results
Given the similarity of the changes occurring, DOE based its
preliminary crosswalk analysis on the analysis conducted for single-
phase residential central air conditioners and heat pumps switching
from SEER and HSPF to SEER2 and HSPF2 in the January 6, 2017 Direct
Final Rule for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
(January 2017 direct final rule) published in the Federal Register. 82
FR 1786, 1857-1858 (Jan. 6, 2017). The January 2017 direct final rule
provides the adopted standard levels for single-phase central air
conditioners and heat pumps in terms of SEER (and HSPF for heat pumps)
and corresponding crosswalked SEER2 (and HSPF2 for heat pumps) values.
82 FR 1786, 1848-1849, Tables V-29 and V-30 (Jan. 6, 2017). For three-
phase equipment classes with Federal standards matching SEER and HPSF
standards in Table V-29 of the January 2017 direct final rule, DOE used
the corresponding SEER2 and HSPF2 value from Table V-30 of the January
2017 direct final rule.
For three-phase equipment classes that did not have matching SEER
values in Table V-29 of the January 2017 direct final rule, DOE
evaluated the stringency of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 SEER2 levels
relative to the Federal SEER standard by qualitatively assessing how
the testing method changes made for single-phase equipment switching
from SEER to SEER2 would impact three-phase equipment. For ducted
equipment, the difference between Appendix M to 10 CFR part 430 (the
pre-2023 test method) and Appendix M1 to 10 CFR part 430 (the post-2023
test method) that impacts measured energy use is an increase in
external static pressure. For a given unit, the increase in external
static pressure in the post-2023 test method leads to an increased
measurement of unit energy consumption, resulting in a lower SEER2
rating (relative to the unit's comparable SEER rating). For SDHV
equipment classes, the specified external static pressure is the same
in both the pre-2023 and post-2023 test method. Consequently, for a
given unit, there is no change between SEER and SEER2 rating.
For three-phase equipment classes that did not have matching HSPF
values in Table V-29 of the January 2017 direct final rule, DOE also
evaluated the stringency of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 HSPF2 levels
relative to the Federal HSPF standard by qualitatively assessing how
the testing method changes made for single-phase equipment switching
from HSPF to HSPF2 would impact three-phase equipment. The primary
difference between the pre-2023 test method and the post-2023 test
method is a change in heating load line. For a given unit, the change
in heating load line in the post-2023 test method leads to an increased
measurement of unit energy consumption, resulting in a significantly
lower HSPF2 rating (relative to the unit's comparable HSPF rating). DOE
applied these changes in order to compare the current Federal HSPF to
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 HSPF2.
The results of DOE's preliminary crosswalk are found Table II-6.
The last column in the table, labeled ``Crosswalk Comparison,''
indicates whether the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels beginning on
January 1, 2023, are less stringent, equivalent to, or more stringent
than the crosswalked Federal standards, based on DOE's analysis.
Table II-6--Crosswalk Results for Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K) Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy efficiency Federal energy
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 Current federal levels in ASHRAE conservation Cross-walked current Crosswalk comparison \1\
equipment class equipment class Standard 90.1-2019 standard(s) federal standard(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, Three- Air-cooled Air 14.0 SEER before 1/1/ 14.0 SEER............ 13.4 SEER2.......... Equivalent.
Phase, Single-Package, <65,000 Conditioner, Three- 2023; 13.4 SEER2 on
Btu/h. Phase, Single- and after 1/1/2023.
Package, <65,000 Btu/
h.
[[Page 60663]]
Air-cooled Air Conditioner, Three- Air-cooled Air 13.0 SEER before 1/1/ 13.0 SEER............ <13.0 SEER2 \2\..... More Stringent.
Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/ Conditioner, Three- 2023; 13.4 SEER2 on
h. Phase, Split-System, and after 1/1/2023.
<65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, Three-Phase, Air-cooled Heat Pump, 14.0 SEER/8.0 HSPF 14.0 SEER; 8.0 HSPF.. 13.4 SEER2; 6.7 Equivalent.
Single-Package, <65,000 Btu/h. Three-Phase, Single- before 1/1/2023; HSPF2.
Package, <65,000 Btu/ 13.4 SEER2/6.7 HSPF
h. on and after 1/1/
2023.
Air-cooled Heat Pump, Three-Phase, Air-cooled Heat Pump, 14.0 SEER/8.2 HSPF 14.0 SEER; 8.2 HSPF.. 13.4 SEER2; <7.5 More Stringent.
Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h. Three-Phase, Split- before 1/1/2023; HSPF2 \3\.
System, <65,000 Btu/ 14.3 SEER2/7.5 HSPF2
h. on and after 1/1/
2023.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air Air-cooled Air 12.0 SEER before 1/1/ 14.0 SEER............ >11.7 SEER2 \4\..... Less Stringent.
Conditioner, Three-Phase, Single- Conditioner, Three- 2023; 11.7 SEER2 on
Package, <=30,000 Btu/h. Phase, Single- and after 1/1/2023.
Package, <65,000 Btu/
h.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air Air-cooled Air 12.0 SEER before 1/1/ 13.0 SEER............ >11.7 SEER2 \4\..... Less Stringent.
Conditioner, Three-Phase, Split- Conditioner, Three- 2023; 11.7 SEER2 on
System, <=30,000 Btu/h. Phase, Split-System, and after 1/1/2023.
<65,000 Btu/h.
Space-Constrained, Air-Cooled Heat Air-cooled Heat Pump, 12.0 SEER/7.4 HSPF 14.0 SEER; 8.0 HSPF.. >11.7 SEER2; \4\ Less Stringent.
Pump, Three-Phase, Single- Three-Phase, Single- before 1/1/2023; >6.3 HSPF2 \3\.
Package, <=30,000 Btu/h. Package, <65,000 Btu/ 11.7 SEER2/6.3 HSPF2
h. on and after 1/1/
2023.
Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Heat Air-cooled Heat Pump, 12.0 SEER/7.4 HSPF 14.0 SEER; 8.2 HSPF.. >11.7 SEER2; \4\ Less Stringent.
Pump, Three-Phase, Split-System, Three-Phase, Split- before 1/1/2023; >6.3 HSPF2 \3\.
<=30,000 Btu/h. System, <65,000 Btu/ 11.7 SEER2/6.3 HSPF2
h. on and after 1/1/
2023.
Small Duct High Velocity, Air- Air-cooled Air 12.0 SEER before 1/1/ 13.0 SEER............ 13.0 SEER2.......... Less Stringent.
cooled Air Conditioner, Three- Conditioner, Three- 2023; 12.0 SEER2 on
Phase, Split-System, <65,000 Btu/ Phase, Split-System, and after 1/1/2023.
h. <65,000 Btu/h.
Small Duct, High Velocity, Air- Air-cooled Heat Pump, 12.0 SEER/7.2 HSPF 14.0 SEER; 8.2 HSPF.. 14.0 SEER2; >6.1 Less Stringent.
cooled Heat Pump, Three-Phase, Three-Phase, Split- before 1/1/2023; HSPF2 \3\.
Split-System, <65,000 Btu/h. System, <65,000 Btu/ 12.0 SEER2/6.1 HSPF2
h. on and after 1/1/
2023.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Column indicates whether the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels beginning on January 1, 2023, are less stringent, equivalent to, or more stringent
than the crosswalked Federal standards.
\2\ The Federal SEER standard is lower than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 SEER2 level indicating that the crosswalked Federal SEER2 standard will also
be lower than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 SEER2 level.
\3\ For single-phase equipment, the decrease in HSPF2 compared to the equivalent HSPF is in the range of 1.1-1.3 points. 82 FR 1786, 1848-1849, Tables V-
29 and V-30 (Jan. 6, 2017). We expect a similar relationship for three-phase equipment and use this to assess whether the crosswalked Federal standard
HSPF2 value for a given HSPF value will be greater or less than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 HSPF2 level.
\4\ For S-C equipment classes, there is a small increase in external static pressure between the testing methods for SEER and SEER2 which, for a given
unit, decreases the SEER2 rating slightly compared to the equivalent SEER rating. Therefore, the crosswalked Federal SEER2 is expected to be
significantly higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 level of 11.7 SEER2.
Based on DOE's preliminary crosswalk, two equipment classes have
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels that are more stringent that current
Federal standards; two equipment classes are equivalent, and six
equipment classes have ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels less stringent
than the Federal standards.
DOE notes that although the post-2023 values for S-C and SDHV
equipment are less stringent than current Federal standards for these
equipment, DOE still intends to consider these ASHRAE classes
separately in this rulemaking as part of the six-year-lookback review.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on its
methodology for determining crosswalked SEER2 and HSPF2 values for
three-phase equipment based on crosswalked values of single-phase
residential central air conditioners.
III. Analysis of Standards Amended and Newly Established by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019
As required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A), for CRAC and air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment
classes for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies amended energy
efficiency levels that are more stringent than the corresponding
Federal energy conservation standards, DOE performed an analysis to
determine the energy-savings potential of amending Federal standards to
the amended ASHRAE levels as specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
DOE's energy savings analysis is limited to equipment classes for which
sufficient data are available. However, as discussed in section III.F
of this document, DOE has tentatively determined that it lacks clear
and convincing evidence that standards more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for either CRACs or air-cooled, three-
phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment would
result in significant additional energy savings because of uncertainty
in estimated energy savings resulting from the change in energy
efficiency metrics.
The following discussion provides an overview of the energy savings
analysis conducted for 42 classes of CRACs and 2 classes of air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) as defined by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, followed by summary results of that
analysis. Although ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 included levels for
horizontal flow and ceiling-mounted CRAC equipment classes (which
currently do not have Federal standards), DOE was unable to find market
data that could be used to establish a market baseline for these
[[Page 60664]]
classes and, thus, estimate energy savings.
In addition to the specific issues identified in the following
sections on which DOE requests comment, DOE requests comment on its
overall approach and analyses used to evaluate potential standard
levels for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K).
For the equipment classes where ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specified
more-stringent levels than the corresponding Federal energy
conservation standard, DOE calculated the potential energy savings to
the Nation associated with adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 as the
difference between a no-new-standards case projection (i.e., without
amended standards) and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 standards-case
projection (i.e., with adoption of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels).
The national energy savings (NES) refers to cumulative lifetime
energy savings for equipment purchased in a 30-year period that differs
by equipment (i.e., the compliance date differs by equipment class
(i.e., capacity) depending upon whether DOE is acting under the ASHRAE
trigger or the 6-year-lookback (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)). In the
standards case, equipment that is more efficient gradually replaces
less-efficient equipment over time. This affects the calculation of the
potential energy savings, which are a function of the total number of
units in use and their efficiencies. Savings depend on annual shipments
and equipment lifetime. Inputs to the energy savings analysis are
presented in this document.
A. Annual Energy Use
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to assess the energy
savings potential of different equipment efficiencies in the building
types that utilize the equipment. DOE uses the annual energy
consumption and energy-savings potential in the life-cycle cost (LCC)
and payback period (PBP) analyses \24\ to establish the savings in
consumer operating costs at various equipment efficiency levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The purpose of the LCC and PBP analyses are to analyze the
effects of potential amended energy conservation standards on
commercial consumers of CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial AC and HP (<65 K) by determining how a potential amended
standard affects the commercial consumers' operating expenses
(usually decreased) and total installed costs (usually increased).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal standard and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels are
expressed in terms of an efficiency metric or metrics. For each
equipment class, this section describes how DOE developed estimates of
annual energy consumption at the Federal baseline efficiency level and
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 level. These annual unit energy
consumption (UEC) estimates form the basis of the national energy
savings estimates discussed in section III.E of this document.
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
As noted previously in section II.A.4 of this document, DOE has
conducted an energy savings analysis for the 42 CRAC classes that
currently have both DOE standards and more-stringent standards under
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. DOE was unable to identify market data that
would allow for disaggregating results for the six air-cooled with
fluid economizer equipment classes with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
levels more stringent than current Federal standards. Although ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 included levels for horizontal flow and ceiling-
mounted equipment classes which currently are not subject to Federal
standards, DOE was unable to identify market data that could be used to
establish a market baseline for these classes in order to estimate
energy savings. Based on information received in response to this
document or otherwise identified, DOE may disaggregate these equipment
classes in future analyses and analyze them separately.
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE conducted an energy analysis for 15
downflow CRAC equipment classes using a modified outside temperature
bin analysis. 77 FR 28928, 28954 (May 16, 2012). For each air-cooled
equipment class, DOE calculated fan energy and condensing unit power
consumption at each 5 [deg]F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature bin. The
condensing unit power in this context included the compressor(s) and
condenser fan(s) and/or pump(s) included as part of the equipment
rating. For water-cooled and glycol-cooled equipment, the May 2012
final rule analysis first estimated the entering fluid temperature from
either an evaporative cooling tower or a dry cooler for water-cooled
and for glycol-cooled CRAC equipment, respectively, based on binned
weather data. Using these results, DOE then estimated the condensing
unit power consumption and adds to this the estimated supply fan power.
The sum of the CRAC condensing unit power and the CRAC supply fan power
is the estimated average CRAC total power consumption for each
temperature bin. Annual estimates of energy use are developed by
multiplying the power consumption at each temperature bin by the number
of hours in that bin for each climate analyzed. In the May 2012 final
rule, DOE then took a population-weighted average over results for 239
different climate locations to derive nationally representative CRAC
annual energy use values. DOE assumed energy savings estimates derived
for downflow equipment classes would be representative of upflow
equipment. 77 FR 28928, 28954 (May 16, 2012). In this document, DOE is
using the results from the May 2012 final rule as the basis for the
energy savings potential analysis of the CRAC equipment classes
analyzed for this document, similar to the methodology used in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI.
b. Efficiency Levels
DOE analyzed the energy savings potential of adopting ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 levels for CRAC equipment classes that currently
have a Federal standard and have an ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 standard
more stringent than the current Federal standard. For each equipment
class, energy savings are measured relative to the baseline (i.e., the
current Federal standard for that class).
c. Analysis Method and Annual Energy Use Results
For this analysis, DOE used a similar analysis to that presented in
the September 2019 NODA/RFI. To derive UECs for the equipment classes
analyzed in this document, DOE started with the adopted standard level
UECs (i.e., the current DOE standard) for downflow equipment classes
analyzed in the May 2012 final rule. DOE assumed that these UECs
correspond to the NSenCOP derived through the crosswalk analysis (i.e.,
``Cross-walked Current Federal Standard'' column in Table II-5). DOE
determined the UEC for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 level by dividing
the baseline NSenCOP level by the NSenCOP for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 level and multiplied the resulting percentage by the baseline UEC.
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE assumed energy savings estimates
derived for downflow equipment classes would be representative of
upflow equipment classes which differed by a fixed 0.11 SCOP. 77 FR
28928, 28954 (May 16, 2012). Because of the fixed 0.11 SCOP difference
between upflow and downflow CRAC units in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013,
DOE determined
[[Page 60665]]
that the per-unit energy savings benefits for corresponding CRACs at
higher efficiency levels could be represented using the 15 downflow
equipment classes. Id. However, in this analysis, the efficiency levels
for the upflow non-ducted equipment classes do not differ from the
downflow equipment class by a fixed amount. For this document, DOE
assumed that the fractional increase/decrease in NSenCOP between upflow
and downflow units corresponds to a proportional decrease/increase in
the baseline UEC within a given equipment class grouping of condenser
system and capacity.
In response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI stated that DOE's
proposed approach to determine the UEC of upflow units using the
fractional increase or decrease in NSenCOP relative to the baseline
downflow unit in a given equipment class grouping of condenser system
and capacity was reasonable and an acceptable method to use. (AHRI, No.
7 at p. 5) Trane stated that return air conditions are becoming more
likely to approach AHRI 1360 class 4 levels in response to increased
use of High-Performance Computing models. At higher return
temperatures, CRACs can avoid latent cooling and be more efficient.
(Trane, No. 5 at p. 2) However, Trane stated that using the UECs
derived for the 2012 rule might be the most workable option for
evaluating the impact of proposed standards. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2)
After consideration of these comments, DOE has tentatively decided to
maintain the same methodology in this document.
CRAC Issue 2: DOE seeks comment on its energy-use analysis
methodology.
Table III-1 shows UEC estimates for the equipment classes triggered
by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (i.e., equipment classes for which the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 energy efficiency level is more stringent
than the current applicable Federal standard).
Table III-1--National UEC Estimates (kWh/Year) for CRAC Systems \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current federal standard ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
Condenser system type Airflow configuration Current net sensible ---------------------------------------------------------------
cooling capacity NSenCOP UEC (kwh) NSenCOP UEC (kwh)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled........................... Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.62 27,411 2.70 26,599
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.50 102,762 2.58 99,575
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.26 246,011 2.36 235,587
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.65 27,100 2.67 26,897
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.26 247,104 2.33 238,620
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.09 34,362 2.16 33,248
>=65,000 Btu/h and 1.99 129,097 2.04 125,933
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 1.79 310,606 1.89 294,172
<760,000 Btu/h.
Water-cooled......................... Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.73 24,726 2.82 23,850
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.63 92,123 2.73 88,749
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.54 208,727 2.67 198,564
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.77 24,280 2.79 24,106
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.56 207,096 2.64 200,821
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.25 29,891 2.43 27,677
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.17 112,169 2.32 104,433
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.09 254,888 2.20 240,985
<760,000 Btu/h.
Water-cooled with fluid economizer... Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.68 15,443 2.77 14,885
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.59 57,537 2.68 55,390
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.50 129,787 2.61 123,819
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.72 15,159 2.74 15,048
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.51 128,753 2.58 125,259
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.21 18,657 2.35 17,546
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.13 70,022 2.24 66,271
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.05 158,416 2.12 152,438
<760,000 Btu/h.
Glycol-cooled........................ Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.43 24,671 2.56 23,419
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.15 101,844 2.24 97,297
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.11 227,098 2.21 215,794
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.47 24,272 2.53 23,696
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.19 99,975 2.21 98,618
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.11 226,021 2.18 218,764
<760,000 Btu/h.
[[Page 60666]]
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.03 29,679 2.08 28,823
>=65,000 Btu/h and 1.77 123,833 1.90 114,708
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 1.73 275,668 1.81 263,483
<760,000 Btu/h.
Glycol-cooled with fluid economizer.. Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.39 19,813 2.51 18,866
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.11 81,668 2.19 78,312
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.06 182,034 2.15 174,414
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.43 19,567 2.48 19,094
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.14 80,142 2.16 79,400
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.07 182,034 2.12 176,882
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 1.99 23,796 2.00 23,677
>=65,000 Btu/h and 1.73 99,135 1.82 94,232
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 1.69 221,888 1.73 216,757
<760,000 Btu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The air-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; water-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; and water-cooled
with fluid economizer, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h equipment classes are not included in this table, as the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 levels for these equipment classes are equivalent to the current Federal standard.
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
a. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
In response to the ASHRAE trigger at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A), DOE
conducted an analysis of energy savings potential for two equipment
classes of air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment: (1) Air-cooled, three-phase, split-system air
conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h, and (2) air-cooled, three-phase,
split-system heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h.
b. Efficiency Levels
DOE analyzed the energy savings potential of adopting the post-2023
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels for air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) classes that currently have a
Federal standard and have an ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 standard more
stringent than current Federal standards. For each equipment class,
energy savings are measured relative to the baseline (i.e., current
Federal standard for that class).
c. Annual Energy Use Results
The energy use analysis provides estimates of the annual energy
consumption of air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and
HP (<65 K), at the current Federal baseline and at the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 level. To estimate the savings of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 level relative to the current Federal baseline, DOE used the
cooling UECs that were developed for the same kind of split systems in
the July 2015 final rule. 80 FR 42614, 42625 (July 17, 2015). The UECs
in the July 2015 final rule came from the national impact analysis of a
direct final rule for residential central air conditioners and heat
pumps published June 27, 2011 (76 FR 37408) (June 2011 DFR),
specifically the UECs for residential split-system equipment that were
used in commercial buildings. (EERE-2011-BT-STD-0011-0011) In the July
2015 final rule, DOE accounted for variability by climate and building
type by using estimates of the Full Load Equivalent Operating Hours
(FLEOH) for cooling and heating equipment from a Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory report.\25\ In the July 2015 final rule, DOE
reviewed the heating loads that were used to determine heating energy
use for the June 2011 DFR and determined that the heating loads were
small (less than 500 kWh/year) and, therefore, did not include any
energy savings due to the increase in HSPF for this equipment in the
July 2015 final rule. 80 FR 42614, 42625 (July 17, 2015). DOE
maintained that approach to develop UECs in its current analysis for
this rulemaking. The UECs for split-system air conditioners and split-
system heat pumps are shown in Table III-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Appendix D of the 2000 Screening Analysis for EPACT-
Covered Commercial HVAC and Water-Heating Equipment. (EERE-2006-STD-
0098-0015).
Table III-2--Unit Energy Consumption of Split-System Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-
phase,
Three-phase, air-
air-cooled cooled
split-system split-
Efficiency Level air system
conditioners heat
<65,000 Btu/ pumps
h <65,000
Btu/h
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Energy Use (kWh)
------------------------
Federal Baseline............................... 2,701 2,660
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019...................... 2614 2,502
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its approach to
estimate the energy use of air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K).
B. Shipments
DOE uses shipment projections by equipment class to calculate the
national impacts of standards on energy consumption, as well as net
present value and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments
projections typically are based on available historical data broken out
by equipment. Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model
that captures recent trends in the market.
[[Page 60667]]
1. Computer Room Air Conditioners
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE performed a ``bottom-up''
calculation to estimate CRAC shipments based on the cooling demand
required from CRAC-cooled data centers. Where possible, DOE has
incorporated data and information received in comments to that document
to better inform its analysis. DOE's approach in this document
estimates total annual shipments for the entire CRAC market and then
uses market share data to estimate shipments for ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 triggered equipment classes.
DOE's shipments model first estimates the installed CRAC base stock
by equipment size from information on data centers in the 2012
Commercial Business Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS).\26\ CBECS
identifies buildings that contain data centers, the number of servers
in the data center, and associated square footage. CBECS does not
specifically inquire about the presence of CRACs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration, 2012 CBECS Survey Data (Last accessed March 9, 2020)
(Available at: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/
). This is the most recent release of CBECS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE assumed any building identified
as having a data center in CBECS 2012 that did not have a central
chiller or district chilled water system would be serviced by a CRAC.
DOE assumed that a building with a central chiller or district chilled
water system would use a computer room air handler (CRAH) and not a
CRAC for its data center cooling, and, thus, such building was not
included in the analysis.\27\ Additionally, DOE assumed buildings that
contained 10 or more servers (but did not explicitly identify as having
a data center) and did not have a central chiller or district chilled
water system would also be serviced by CRAC units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ A ``CRAH'' is a specialized air handling unit designed for
use in data centers with an internal cooling coil supported by
centralized chilled water system. In contrast, CRACs contain a
cooling coil filled with a refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE received a number
of comments on DOE's assumptions for identifying data centers that
would be serviced by CRACs. AHRI stated that DOE's methodology for
using server count to identify data centers could be improved by using
either counts by ``rack'' or estimates for ``kW per rack.'' \28\ (AHRI,
No. 7 at p. 5) Trane recommended using the definitions of ``computer
room'' in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, the International Energy Conservation
Code (IECC), and the CFR, rather than use a threshold of 10 servers, to
determine whether CRACs should be used for cooling. (Trane, No. 5 at p.
2) Regarding DOE's assumption that buildings with a central chiller or
district water system would not utilize a CRAC, AHRI stated that edge
computing centers \29\ may use a chilled water system that may also use
a CRAC for cooling. (AHRI, No. 7 at pgs. 6-7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Server racks are racks designed to hold and organize
multiple servers and supporting information technology (IT)
equipment. The amount of energy produced by a server rack can be
measured in terms of kW per rack.
\29\ ``Edge'' data centers are small-scale data centers built
closer to the end user, thereby reducing the time it takes for a
server to respond to a user's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this RFI/NODA, DOE adjusted its assumptions for identifying
data centers in CBECS 2012 that would utilize CRACs. DOE is unable to
use rack counts or ``kW per rack'' to identify data centers in CBECS
2012 because this information is not recorded in the survey. CBECS 2012
provides a variable as to whether or not the building has a data
center. In this RFI/NODA, DOE assumed that any building with a data
center, regardless of the building's main cooling system, would use a
CRAC, in order to account for the use of CRACs in edge computing
centers and to align with the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 definition of a
``computer room''.
CRAC Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on its methodology for identifying
data centers within CBECS 2012.
After identifying buildings with data centers in CBECS 2012, DOE
then estimated the CRAC cooling capacity required by estimating the
total heat generated from servers, networks, and storage equipment
within data centers. In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE used estimates
from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) data center
report to estimate average power consumption of volume servers, network
equipment, and storage equipment.\30\ Servers that were not in a data
center were assumed to only have network equipment, while servers in a
data center had both network and storage equipment, and thus a higher
power draw.\31\ DOE assumed 100 percent of the power draw was converted
into heat exhaust that would need to be removed by a CRAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Shehabi, A., Smith, S.J., Horner, N., Azevedo, I., Brown,
R., Koomey, J., Masanet, E., Sartor, D., Herrlin, M. and Lintner,
W., United States data center energy usage report (2016), Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-1005775 (Available at: https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/DataCenterEnergyReport2016_0.pdf) (Last accessed June 6, 2019).
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comments in the September 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI recommended using
ASHRAE Datacom Series Book 2, ``IT Equipment Power Trends,'' third
edition, published in 2018, which shows power consumption trends for
all types of IT equipment through 2026. AHRI noted that that source is
what the industry uses to estimate server power, expectations of future
server stock, and energy use in many different types of data centers.
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane also suggested using the same source for
projecting future server power consumption. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2)
In this analysis, DOE used estimates for server power draw for
different IT applications matched to CBECS building type based on
ASHRAE Datacom Series Book 2, ``IT Equipment Power Trends.'' \32\ For
volume servers used in office buildings, DOE assumed a typical power
consumption of 575 W based on the typical heat load for a business
analytics 2U server.\33\ For volume servers used in buildings
identified as laboratories, DOE used a typical power consumption of
1150 W based on the typical heat load for a scientific computing 2U
server. DOE used a multiplier of 1.265 to account for the heating load
due to network devices connected to servers within the data center
based on the LBNL data center report.\34\ The LBNL data center report
assigned mid-range and high-end servers, which have estimated power
consumptions of 2 kW and 12 kW, respectively, to localized, mid-tier,
and high-end data centers. To account for the higher cooling needs of
these servers with high power consumption, DOE assumed that 1 percent
of servers in CBECS 2012 were high end, and that 6 percent were mid-
range. The LBNL data center report did not provide estimates of the
high-end and mid-range server stock; however, it did provide estimates
of total electricity consumption by server class. The high-end and mid-
range classes represent about 30 percent of electricity consumption
(when
[[Page 60668]]
removing unbranded servers, which are used in hyperscale data centers
that are not considered in this report as they do not used CRACs). By
assigning 1 percent of the servers in CBECS to high-end and 6 percent
to mid-range, the total CRAC cooling required by those servers is
approximately 30 percent of the total calculated for all CBECS data
centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ASHRAE, IT Equipment Power Trends, Third Edition, ASHRAE
Datacom Series: Book 2 (2018).
\33\ In Table 4.4 of the ASHRAE IT Equipment Power Trends book,
an example of the server heat by workload is given. 575 W represents
the workloads for analytics, storage, and visualization and audio.
550 Watts is the workload for business processing. In non-scientific
buildings, these workloads are likely the most common. Therefore,
DOE used 575 W for the servers in most data centers.
\34\ Shehabi, A., Smith, S.J., Horner, N., Azevedo, I., Brown,
R., Koomey, J., Masanet, E., Sartor, D., Herrlin, M. and Lintner,
W., United States data center energy usage report (2016), Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-1005775 (Available at: https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/DataCenterEnergyReport2016_0.pdf) (Last accessed June 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE calculated the cooling load for
each data center by multiplying the total server power draw by the
number of servers in each CBECS-identified building and then applying
an oversize factor of 1.3. Research has shown that oversizing of the
cooling load gives the data center operator the flexibility to add more
servers (and thus more heat) without having to increase the size of the
cooling system.\35\ 84 FR 48006, 48028 (Sept. 11, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Rasmussen, N., Calculating Total Cooling Requirements for
Data Centers--White paper 25. Schneider Electric (Available at:
https://www.apcdistributors.com/white-papers/Cooling/WP-25%20Calculating%20Total%20Cooling%20Requirements%20for%20Data%20Centers.pdf) (Last accessed June 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, Trane stated that
redundant or oversized units, if used, would be closely tied to
specific needs of the system they are cooling, so the commenter does
not recommend using broad assumptions for CRAC oversizing. (Trane, No.
5 at p. 2) AHRI stated that DOE is likely overestimating energy use by
using an oversize factor and recommended DOE not oversize equipment in
its energy use analysis. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5) Based on information
gathered by Red Car Analytics, the CA IOUs stated that oversizing
factors of 20 to 30 percent are common for CRACs. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p.
3).
In response, DOE continues to believe that oversizing is occurring
in data center settings, based upon the available literature and the
comment of the CA IOUs. However, DOE is taking account of other
commenters' suggestions that the Department's previous oversize factor
of 1.3 may have been too high. Accordingly, for this analysis, based on
AHRI's and Trane's comments, DOE has adjusted the oversizing factor to
1.2, consistent with the lower estimate provided by the CA IOUs.
CRAC Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its server power consumption
estimates and any information or data on expectations of future server
stock and energy use in small data centers.
One ton of cooling can remove 3.5 kW of heat from a space.\36\ All
data centers without central chillers were assumed to have CRACs, and
the cooling capacity of the CRAC units were based on the three
representative capacities analyzed in the May 2012 final rule. 77 FR
28928, 28954 (May 16, 2012). For CRACs with a cooling capacity of less
than 65,000 Btu/h, a 3-ton unit was assigned as the representative
capacity; cooling capacities from 65,000 Btu/h to 240,000 Btu/h were
assigned a representative capacity of 11 tons, and air conditioners
greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h were
assigned a 24-ton unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Rasmussen, N., Calculating Total Cooling Requirements for
Data Centers--White paper 25. Schneider Electric (Available at:
https://www.apcdistributors.com/white-papers/Cooling/WP-25%20Calculating%20Total%20Cooling%20Requirements%20for%20Data%20Centers.pdf) (Last accessed June 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final part of the stock methodology is estimating the
redundancy requirements of the data center which reduces the per-unit
energy use and increases the total estimated shipment of CRACs.
Redundancy varies significantly across data centers, ranging from
having one extra CRAC unit (N + 1 redundancy) to having complete
redundancy (2N redundancy).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Shehabi, A., Smith, S.J., Horner, N., Azevedo, I., Brown,
R., Koomey, J., Masanet, E., Sartor, D., Herrlin, M. and Lintner,
W., United States data center energy usage report (2016) Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-1005775 (Available at: https://datacenters.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/DataCenterEnergyReport2016_0.pdf) (Last accessed June 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE assigned redundancy depending
on the data center square footage provided in CBECS 2012. Categories 1-
4 (data centers under 10,000 square feet) were given N + 1 redundancy;
category 5 (greater than 10,000+ sq. ft.) was assigned 2N redundancy.
DOE assumed that servers that were not in a data center do not have
cooling redundancy. 84 FR 48006, 48028 (Sept. 11, 2019).
In response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI stated that
redundancy can be N + 1 or 2N, but argued that it will not be
operational all the time. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5) Trane states that the
level of redundancy is dependent on the size and need of the data
center. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 2) The CA IOUs recommended DOE base the
breakout between N + 1 and 2N redundancy on total load (with a cut-off
of 50 cooling tons) and load density (with a cut-off of 100 watts/
square foot (ft\2\)). The CA IOUs suggested that load densities above
this threshold would have higher redundancy. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at pp. 3-
4).
Through a confidential data submission, AHRI provided DOE with a
CRAC shipments time series from 2012-2018 and market shares broken out
by the 30 Federal equipment classes. Accordingly, for this analysis,
DOE calibrated the stock of CRACs in CBECS 2012 to an amount that would
be equal to the number of 2012 shipments multiplied by the average
lifetime of a CRAC (i.e., 15 years). In this model, DOE assumed an N +
1 redundancy in this NODA/RFI for any data center that is larger than
1,501 square feet and has a cooling load that requires a CRAC that is
larger than 65,000 Btu/h. All data centers with a cooling load less
than 65,000 Btu/h were assigned one CRAC without redundancy. For
buildings that had more than 20 servers but did not identify as having
a data center in CBECS, a CRAC without redundancy was used, regardless
of the cooling load. As DOE was able to calibrate shipments without
using 2N redundancy, DOE did not consider those levels of redundancy in
this analysis. As in the May 2012 final rule, DOE assumed the average
sensible cooling load on a CRAC unit would be 65 percent of the unit's
sensible capacity, factoring in operation of redundant CRAC units,
oversizing, and the diversity in server loads.
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE estimated future CRAC shipments
in the no-new standards case (i.e., shipments in the absence of an
amended standard) by estimating future cooling demand for CRAC-cooled
data centers using projected trends in data center growth. DOE used two
variables to change the future server stock: (1) A 10-percent reduction
in the number of servers in small data centers in 2050 (the final year
of the shipments period for that analysis) and (2) a doubling of the
power per server by 2050. DOE then calculated the stock using the same
approach used to calculate stock in 2012. DOE then used model counts
from the CCMS database to determine market shares by equipment class.
84 FR 48006, 48028 (Sept. 11, 2019).
AHRI commented that DOE's total shipments estimates for 2012 were
reasonable. (AHRI, No.7 at p. 6) However, AHRI argued that DOE
estimates based on model counts in the CCMS database significantly
overestimated shipments of the water-cooled and glycol-cooled equipment
classes. (AHRI, No 7 at p. 3).
In this analysis, DOE used the confidential shipments data provided
by AHRI to calibrate its shipment model to produce a revised breakdown
by equipment class. DOE then used a stock turnover model to project
shipments over the shipments analysis period assuming a constant annual
growth in stock, calibrated using confidential shipments data provided
by AHRI,
[[Page 60669]]
within a given cooling capacity equipment size. Total shipments are
projected to grow slightly over the analysis period as shown in Table
III-3.
Table III-3--Estimated CRAC Shipments by SCOP Net Sensible Cooling Capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65,000 Btu/h and >=240,000 Btu/h and Total
<65,000 Btu/h <240,000 Btu/h <760,000 Btu/h shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Shipments....................... 3,208 2,132 3,190 8,530
2052 Shipments....................... 2,634 3,650 3,178 9,462
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AHRI market share data provided to DOE was broken out by the 30
currently defined Federal equipment classes. DOE assumed upflow market
share would be evenly split between the upflow ducted and upflow non-
ducted equipment classes. As the AHRI data does not include market
share for horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted, and air-cooled with fluid
economizer CRAC equipment classes, DOE was unable to disaggregate
savings for these classes.
CRAC Issue 5: DOE requests shipments data on horizontal-flow,
ceiling-mounted, and air-cooled with fluid economizer CRAC equipment
classes.
2. Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Package AC and HP (<65 K)
Equipment
DOE based shipments estimates for air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment on the model developed
for the July 2015 final rule. 80 FR 42614, 42629-42630 (July 17, 2015).
As explained more fully in that document, shipments projections in the
July 2015 final rule relied on four data sources: A 1999 estimate of
shipments from the 2000 Screening Analysis for EPACT-Covered Commercial
HVAC and Water-Heating Equipment (EERE-2006-STD-0098-0015), data from
the U.S. Census Bureau for central AC and HP shipments (for both
single-phase and three-phase equipment),\38\ data from AHRI \39\ (for
both single-phase and three-phase equipment), and commercial floor
space projections from the 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 2014).\40\
The shipments model began with the 1999 estimates and projected
shipments within 2000-2010 using the year-over-year growth rate from
U.S. Census data. Shipments in 2011 shipments were estimated using the
AHRI shipments data. From 2012 through 2049 (the end of the analysis
period) shipments were based on the growth rate of commercial floor
space from AEO 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ U.S. Census Bureau, Current Industrial Reports for
Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm Air Heating Equipment,
MA333M (Available at: https://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma333m/).
\39\ AHRI, HVACR & Water Heating Industry Statistical Profile
(2012) (Available at: https://www.ari.org/site/883/Resources/Statistics/AHRIIndustry-Statistical-Profile). See also AHRI Monthly
Shipments: https://www.ari.org/site/498/Resources/Statistics/Monthly-Shipments; especially December 2013 release: https://www.ari.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Statistics/Monthly%20Shipments/2013/December2013.pdf; May 2014 release: https://www.ari.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Statistics/Monthly%20Shipments/2014/May2014.pdf.
\40\ 2014 Annual Energy Outlook, Energy Information
Administration, Commercial Sector Key Indicators (Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=5-AEO2014&cases=ref2014®ion=0-0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the current analysis, DOE updated the shipments model in two
ways: (1) The shipments estimates from 2012-2018 were updated using the
growth rates from the most recent AHRI data,\41\ and (2) the
projections from 2019 through 2054 were based on the commercial floor
space projections from AEO 2020.\42\ The shipments estimates for the
compliance year, end year, and select years in-between can be found in
Table III-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ AHRI Historical Data: Central Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps (Available at: https://ahrinet.org/Resources/Statistics/Historical-Data/Central-Air-Conditioners-and-Air-Source-Heat-Pumps)
(Last accessed July 9, 2020).
\42\ 2020 Annual Energy Outlook, Energy Information
Administration, Commercial Sector Key Indicators (Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=5-AEO2020&cases=ref2020&sourcekey=0).
Table III-4--Shipments of Split-System, Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year AC HP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025................................................ 116,300 35,045
2030................................................ 122,300 36,853
2035................................................ 128,503 38,721
2040................................................ 134,418 40,504
2045................................................ 140,464 42,326
2050................................................ 146,648 44,189
2054................................................ 151,704 45,713
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 3: DOE requests comment on it approach to
estimate the shipments of air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
C. No-New-Standards-Case Efficiency Distribution
The no-new-standards case efficiency distribution is used to
establish the market share of each efficiency level in the case where
there is no new or amended standard. DOE is unaware of available market
data that reports CRAC efficiency in terms of NSenCOP that can be used
to determine the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. For
this analysis, DOE relied on DOE's Compliance Certification Database
for CRACs which reports efficiency in terms of SCOP. DOE applied the
crosswalk methodology discussed in section II.A.1 of this document to
translate each model's reported SCOP into NSenCOP.
DOE estimated the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution for
each CRAC equipment class using model counts from DOE's Compliance
Certification Database.\43\ DOE calculated the fraction of models that
are above the current Federal baseline and below the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 level and assigned this to the Federal baseline. All models
that are at or above that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are assigned to the
ASHRAE level. The no-new-standard case distribution for CRACs can be
found in Table III-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Available at: https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Air_Conditioners_and_Heat_Pumps_-_Computer_Room_Air_Conditioners.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Air%20Conditioners%20and%20Heat%20Pumps%20-%20Computer%20Room%20Air%20Conditioners%22.
[[Page 60670]]
Table III-5--No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for CRACs \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE 90.1-
Condenser system type Airflow configuration Current net sensible Federal 2019 level (%)
cooling capacity baseline (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled........................ Downflow............. <65,000 Btu/h........ 2 98
>=65,000 Btu/h and 22 78
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 20 80
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted....... <65,000 Btu/h........ 0 100
>=240,000 Btu/h and 4 96
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted... <65,000 Btu/h........ 4 96
>=65,000 Btu/h and 11 89
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 23 77
<760,000 Btu/h.
Water-cooled...................... Downflow............. <65,000 Btu/h........ 11 89
>=65,000 Btu/h and 15 85
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 24 76
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted....... <65,000 Btu/h........ 0 100
>=240,000 Btu/h and 13 87
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted... <65,000 Btu/h........ 11 89
>=65,000 Btu/h and 21 79
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 27 73
<760,000 Btu/h.
Water-cooled with fluid economizer Downflow............. <65,000 Btu/h........ 2 98
>=65,000 Btu/h and 13 87
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 38 62
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted....... <65,000 Btu/h........ 2 98
>=240,000 Btu/h and 13 87
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted... <65,000 Btu/h........ 8 92
>=65,000 Btu/h and 16 84
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 20 80
<760,000 Btu/h.
Glycol-cooled..................... Downflow............. <65,000 Btu/h........ 57 43
>=65,000 Btu/h and 31 69
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 36 64
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted....... <65,000 Btu/h........ 20 80
>=65,000 Btu/h and 6 94
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 30 70
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted... <65,000 Btu/h........ 20 80
>=65,000 Btu/h and 38 62
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 30 70
<760,000 Btu/h.
Glycol-cooled with fluid Downflow............. <65,000 Btu/h........ 57 43
economizer.
>=65,000 Btu/h and 31 69
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 31 69
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted....... <65,000 Btu/h........ 10 90
>=65,000 Btu/h and 8 92
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 33 67
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted... <65,000 Btu/h........ 2 98
>=65,000 Btu/h and 30 70
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 27 73
<760,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The air-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; water-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h
and <240,000 Btu/h; and water-cooled with fluid economizer, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
equipment classes are not included in this table, as the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels for these equipment
classes are equivalent to the current Federal standard.
CRAC Issue 6: DOE requests efficiency data for CRACs in terms of
NSenCOP that can be used to estimate the no-new-standards case
efficiency distribution.
For air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment, DOE estimated the market share of equipment at the
current Federal baseline and the ASHRAE efficiency level using DOE's
Compliance Certification Database. Table III-6 and Table III-7 show the
model counts and their percentage by the Federal or the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 efficiency level. The fraction of the market that meets or
exceeds the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 level is attributed to the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 level.
Table III-6--No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Split-
System Air Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL Model count % by EL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Baseline........................ 10,268 23
ASHRAE 90.1-2019........................ 34,580 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-7--No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for Split-
System Heat Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL Model count % by EL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Baseline........................ 6,438 57
[[Page 60671]]
ASHRAE 90.1-2019........................ 4,858 43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For assessing the energy savings potential of adopting ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 levels, DOE assumed shipments at the Federal
baseline efficiency would most likely roll up to the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 level.
CRAC Issue 7: DOE seeks input on its determination of the no-new-
standards case distribution of efficiencies for CRACs.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 4: DOE seeks input on its determination of
the no-new-standards case distribution of efficiencies for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
D. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defines ``equipment lifetime'' as the age at which a unit is
retired from service. For the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE used a 15-
year lifetime for all CRAC equipment classes based on the lifetime used
in the May 2012 final rule. 84 FR 48006. 48030 (Sept. 11, 2019) (citing
the May 2012 final rule at 77 FR 28928, 28958 (May 16, 2012)). In
response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI and Trane agreed that 15
years was a reasonable average lifetime. (AHRI, No. 7 at p.7; Trane,
No. 5 at p. 2) Accordingly, DOE maintains an equipment lifetime of 15
years for this analysis.
For the other set of equipment under consideration, DOE based
equipment lifetime on a retirement function in the form of a Weibull
probability distribution in its analysis of air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K). A Weibull distribution is a
probability distribution function that is commonly used to measure
failure rates. Its form is similar to an exponential distribution,
which would model a fixed failure rate, except that it allows for a
failure rate that changes over time. DOE used a mean lifetime of 19
years for air conditioners and 16.2 years for heat pumps. These are the
same values that were used in the July 2015 final rule. 80 FR 42614,
42627 (July 17, 2015).
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 5: DOE seeks comment on the approach of
using a Weibull probability distribution with an average lifetime of 19
years for air conditioners and 16.2 years for heat pumps. DOE also
requests data or information which can be used to inform the equipment
lifetime for air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and
HP (<65 K).
2. Compliance Dates and Analysis Period
If DOE were to prescribe energy conservation standards at the
efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, EPCA states
that any such standard shall become effective on or after a date that
is two or three years (depending on the equipment type or size) after
the effective date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency
requirement in the amended ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)).
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 does not list an effective date for CRAC
levels. For estimating the energy savings potential of adopting ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-levels, DOE assumed a compliance date of an amended
Federal standard relative to the publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 (i.e., October 23, 2019).
For air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K), ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 maintains ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016
levels, which are consistent with the current Federal standards, until
January 1, 2023, after which levels are changed, triggering DOE's
review. DOE assumed a compliance date of an amended Federal standard
relative to the effective date of January 1, 2023.
If DOE were to prescribe standards more stringent than the
efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, EPCA dictates
that any such standard will become effective for equipment manufactured
on or after a date which is four years after the date of publication of
a final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) For
equipment classes where DOE is acting under its 6-year lookback
authority, if DOE were to adopt more-stringent standards, EPCA states
that any such standard shall apply to equipment manufactured after a
date that is the latter of the date three years after publication of
the final rule establishing such standard or six years after the
effective date for the current standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv))
However, as explained in sections III.F and IV of this document, DOE
has tentatively concluded that it lacks the clear and convincing
evidence that would be required to adopt more-stringent standard
levels.
For purposes of calculating the national energy savings (NES) for
the equipment in this evaluation, DOE used a 30-year analysis period
starting with the assumed year of compliance listed in Table III-8 for
equipment analyzed in this NODA/RFI. This is the standard analysis
period of 30 years that DOE typically uses in its NES analysis. For
equipment classes with a compliance date in the last six months of the
year, DOE starts its analysis period in the first full year after
compliance. For example, if CRACs less than 65,000 Btu/h were to have a
compliance date of October 23, 2021, the analysis period for
calculating NES would begin in 2022 and extend to 2051.
Table III-8--Approximate Compliance Date of an Amended Energy
Conservation Standard for Triggered Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate compliance
date for adopting the
Equipment class efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment with current NSCC <65,000 Btu/h.... 10/23/2021
Equipment with current NSCC >=65,000 and 10/23/2022
<240,000 Btu/h..............................
[[Page 60672]]
Equipment with current NSCC >=240,000 Btu/h 10/23/2022
and <760,000 Btu/h..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Equipment Classes........................ 1/1/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
DOE estimated the potential site, primary, and full-fuel-cycle
(FFC) energy savings in quads (i.e., 10\15\ Btu) for adopting ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 within each equipment class analyzed. The potential
energy savings of adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels are
measured relative to the current Federal standards. Table III-9 and
Table III-10 show the potential energy savings resulting from the
analyses conducted for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K), respectively. The reported energy
savings are cumulative over the period in which equipment shipped in
the 30-year analysis continues to operate.
Table III-9--Potential Energy Savings of Adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for CRACs \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE Site savings Primary FFC savings
efficiency ---------------- savings ---------------
Condenser system type Airflow configuration Current net sensible level ----------------
cooling capacity ---------------- quads quads
NSenCOP quads
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled........................... Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.70 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.58 0.0011 0.0029 0.0030
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.36 0.0071 0.0185 0.0193
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.67 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.33 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.16 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.04 0.0003 0.0007 0.0008
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 1.89 0.0014 0.0037 0.0039
<760,000 Btu/h.
Water-cooled......................... Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.82 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.73 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.67 0.0003 0.0007 0.0008
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.79 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.64 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.43 0.0001 0.0004 0.0004
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.32 0.0002 0.0005 0.0006
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.20 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003
<760,000 Btu/h.
Water-cooled with fluid economizer... Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.77 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.68 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.61 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.74 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.58 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.35 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.24 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.12 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
<760,000 Btu/h.
Glycol-cooled........................ Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.56 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.24 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.21 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.53 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.21 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.18 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.08 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
[[Page 60673]]
>=65,000 Btu/h and 1.90 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 1.81 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001
<760,000 Btu/h.
Glycol-cooled with fluid economizer.. Downflow................ <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.51 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.19 >0.0003 0.0007 0.0007
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.15 0.0009 0.0022 0.0023
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, ducted.......... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.48 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=65,000 Btu/h and 2.16 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 2.12 0.0002 0.0004 0.0004
<760,000 Btu/h.
Upflow, non-ducted...... <65,000 Btu/h.......... 2.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
>=65,000 Btu/h and 1.82 0.0003 0.0007 0.0008
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 1.73 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003
<760,000 Btu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The air-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; water-cooled, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; and water-cooled
with fluid economizer, upflow ducted, >65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h equipment classes are not included in this table, as the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 levels for these equipment classes are equivalent to the current Federal standard.
Table III-10--Potential Energy Savings for Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small Commercial Packaged AC and HP
[<65 K]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Split-system, air conditioner Split-system, heat pump
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE efficiency ASHRAE efficiency
Level quads level quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Energy Savings Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 0--ASHRAE................... 13.4 SEER2........... 0.0007 14.3 SEER2, 7.5 HSPF2 0.0017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy Savings Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 0--ASHRAE................... 13.4 SEER2........... 0.0017 14.3 SEER2, 7.5 HSPF2 0.0044
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFC Energy Savings Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 0--ASHRAE................... 13.4 SEER2........... 0.0018 14.3 SEER2, 7.5 HSPF2 0.0047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Consideration of More-Stringent Energy Efficiency Levels
EPCA requires DOE to establish an amended uniform national standard
for equipment classes at the minimum level specified in the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless DOE determines, by rule published in the
Federal Register, and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that
adoption of a uniform national standard more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the equipment class would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)-
(II)) As discussed in the following paragraphs, because of uncertainty
in estimated energy savings resulting from the change in energy
efficiency metrics, DOE has tentatively determined that it lacks clear
and convincing evidence that standards more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for either CRACs or air-cooled, three-
phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment would
result in significant additional energy savings.
For CRACs, further energy savings analysis would rely on market
efficiency data in terms of the analyzed metric (i.e., NSenCOP). In
order to determine whether the adoption of an updated metric for CRACs
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 triggered DOE's obligation under EPCA, DOE was
required to perform a crosswalk between the Federal energy conservation
standards and the amended ASHRAE levels. (See 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) This crosswalk required only that DOE translate the
efficiency levels between the metrics at the baseline levels, and not
all efficiency levels currently represented in the market (i.e., high
efficiency levels). In addition, the analysis of the amended ASHRAE
levels does not require analysis of higher efficiency models because
DOE's analyses assume that a standards change only affects shipments
with efficiency lower than the analyzed efficiency level (i.e., ``roll-
up'' shipments scenario). Additionally, as discussed in section II.A.3
of this document, DOE's crosswalk was used to confirm levels separately
generated by AHRI for inclusion in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (i.e., DOE
was able to compare its crosswalk to the crosswalk conducted by
industry).
An estimation of energy savings potentials of energy efficiency
levels more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels
would require developing efficiency data for the entire market in terms
of the NSenCOP metric. This much broader crosswalk would require DOE to
translate the individual SCOP ratings to NSenCOP ratings for all models
certified
[[Page 60674]]
in DOE's CCMS Database. As the range of model efficiencies increases,
so does the number of different technologies used to achieve such
efficiencies. With this increase in variation, there is an increase in
the potential for variation in the crosswalk results from the actual
performance under the new metric of the analyzed models. As noted,
there is limited market data regarding the performance of CRACs as
represented according to the updated metric, and there is not a
comparable industry analysis (i.e., translating ratings to the updated
metric for all models on the market) for comparison.
For air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP
(<65 K) equipment, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 amended the applicable
metric, and the amended standards that rely on the updated metric are
intended to apply in 2023. As with the amended CRAC standards, DOE was
required to conduct a crosswalk to compare the stringency levels of the
Federal standards and the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 efficiency
levels to determine whether its obligation under EPCA to adopt amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels was triggered. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)).
As with an analysis of the CRAC standards amended by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019, an analysis of standard levels more stringent than
the amended standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for air-cooled, three-
phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment) would
require DOE to crosswalk the entire market for this equipment. As
noted, the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment rely
on updated metrics (i.e., SEER2 and HSPF2), and they have the added
issue that the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels in terms
of the new SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics are not applicable until 2023. This
future applicability date compounds the problem of a lack of market
data.
As discussed in the October 2018 TP RFI for air-cooled, three-
phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment, such
equipment is essentially identical to its single-phase residential
counterparts, is manufactured on the same production lines, and is
physically identical to their corresponding single-phase central air
conditioner and heat pump models (with the exception of the electrical
systems and compressors). 83 FR 49501, 49504 (Oct. 2, 2018). Single-
phase central air conditioners are subject to new Federal standards
based on SEER2 and HSPF2 beginning January 1, 2023. 10 CFR
430.32(c)(5)-(6). Currently, manufacturers are permitted to make
representations under the SEER2 and HSPF2 representations metrics only
if they certify to compliance to the 2023 standards. As a result, there
is a lack of SEER2 and HSPF2 data available for single-phase central
air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps, which if
available may have provided for a certain level of assessment of the
air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment market.
The market for air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC
and HP (<65 K) equipment has not responded to the change in the
metrics, particularly given that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 does not
specify use of SEER2 and HSPF2 until 2023. Likewise, the closely
related single-phase market has not yet fully responded to the amended
Federal metrics and standards, for which manufacturers are not required
to comply until 2023. Given the change in metrics and the future
compliance dates of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 amendments, and the
comparable changes to the Federal requirements for the closely related
single-phase market, determination of max-tech levels and projections
of market distribution according to efficiency levels have an increased
degree of uncertainty.
As noted previously, EPCA provides that in order to adopt a
standard more stringent than an amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must
determine, by rule published in the Federal Register, and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a uniform national
standard more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would
result in significant additional conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) In the updated Process Rule, DOE reiterated the
existing statutory requirement stating that the statutory threshold of
``clear and convincing evidence'' is a very high bar. 85 FR 8626, 8708
(Feb. 14, 2020). Clear and convincing evidence would exist only where
the specific facts and data made available to DOE regarding a
particular ASHRAE amendment demonstrates that there is no substantial
doubt that a standard more stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted because it would result in a
significant additional amount of energy savings, is technologically
feasible and economically justified. Id.
The lack of market data and the uncertainties in the market and
technology projections regarding energy efficiency levels under the new
metrics for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment create substantial doubt in any analysis of
energy savings that would result from efficiency levels more stringent
than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels for this equipment.
Regardless of the results of any such analysis, the degree of
uncertainty would create substantial doubt as to whether a standard
more stringent than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 amendment would
result in a significant additional amount of energy savings as required
for DOE to establish more-stringent standards. As a result, DOE did not
conduct an analysis of any associated energy savings for more-stringent
standards for the subject equipment in this document.
CRAC Issue 8: DOE is requesting data and information that could
enable the agency to determine whether standards levels more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for CRACs would result in
significant additional energy savings for classes for which DOE is
triggered.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 6: DOE is requesting data and information
that could enable the agency to determine whether standards levels more
stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package ACs and HPs (<65 K) would result
in significant additional energy savings for classes for which DOE is
triggered.
IV. Review Under Six-Year-Lookback Provisions: Requested Information
As discussed, DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each
class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every 6 years. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Accordingly, DOE is also evaluating the
remaining 6 CRAC equipment classes and 8 air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment classes for which ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 did not increase the stringency of the standards. As
explained in the February 2020 final rule updating DOE's Process Rule,
EPCA applies the ``clear and convincing'' evidentiary threshold to both
ASHRAE ``trigger'' and 6-year-lookback rulemakings. 85 FR 8626, 8647
(Feb. 14, 2020). Thus, when conducting a six-year look-back review, DOE
may establish a uniform national standard more stringent than the
corresponding ASHRAE Standard 90.1 level only upon a determination,
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such an amended
Federal standard would result in significant additional conservation of
[[Page 60675]]
energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), which
in turn references 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).
The 6 equipment classes of CRACs and 8 equipment classes of air-
cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment suffer from the same lack of data and market uncertainties
resulting from the metric changes and future compliance dates as with
the equipment classes for which DOE was triggered, as discussed in
section III.F of this document. As such, any analysis of energy
efficiency standards more stringent than the current levels would be
subject to a degree of uncertainty that would create substantial doubt
as to whether a standard more stringent than the current Federal
standard would result in a significant additional amount of energy
savings as required for DOE to establish more-stringent standards.
Because DOE does not have sufficient data to meet the ``clear and
convincing'' threshold, DOE did not conduct an energy savings analysis
of standard levels more stringent than the current Federal standard
levels for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package
AC and HP (<65 K) equipment that were not amended in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019. See section III.F of this notice for further discussion of
the consideration of energy efficiency levels more stringent than the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels.
CRAC Issue 9: DOE is requesting data and information that could
enable the agency to determine whether standards levels more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for CRACs would result in
significant additional energy savings for classes for which DOE is not
triggered.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 7: DOE is requesting data and information
that could enable the agency to determine whether standards levels more
stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package ACs and HPs (<65 K) would result
in significant additional energy savings for classes for which DOE is
not triggered.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments,
data, and information on matters addressed in this document and on
other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy
conservation standards for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment. Interested parties may
submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Following such instructions, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the
[[Page 60676]]
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. 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 process or would like to request a public
meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this document for CRAC and
air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment classes where ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 increased stringency
(thereby triggering DOE's review of amended standards) and for CRAC and
air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment classes undergoing 6-year-lookback review.
In the preceding sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for CRACs and
air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K)
equipment may be warranted. DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' Executive
Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated
with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that
Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures
DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy conservation standard
rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and compliance
and certification requirements applicable to CRACs and air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment while
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA. Other general
topics of interest include the following.
Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of
amended energy conservation standards for CRACs and air-cooled, three-
phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
Network Mode/``Smart'' Equipment
DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging smart technology
appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that
RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and
issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment
that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was
to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in
fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards
for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data, and
information on the issues presented in the NODA/RFI as they may be
applicable to CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
Other
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE
welcomes comment on any other aspect of energy conservation standards
for CRACs and air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and
HP (<65 K) equipment not already addressed.
To summarize the specific issues identified in this NODA/RFI, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following topics, listed by equipment
category:
CRAC Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the methodology and results
of the crosswalk analysis.
CRAC Issue 2: DOE seeks comment on its energy-use analysis
methodology.
CRAC Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on its methodology for identifying
data centers within CBECS 2012.
CRAC Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its server power consumption
estimates and any information or data on expectations of future server
stock and energy use in small data centers.
CRAC Issue 5: DOE requests shipments data on horizontal-flow,
ceiling-mounted, and air-cooled with fluid economizer CRAC equipment
classes.
CRAC Issue 6: DOE requests efficiency data for CRACs in terms of
NSenCOP that can be used to estimate the no-new-standards case
efficiency distribution.
CRAC Issue 7: DOE seeks input on its determination of the no-new-
standards case distribution of efficiencies for CRACs.
CRAC Issue 8: DOE is requesting data and information that could
enable the agency to determine whether standards levels more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for CRACs would result in
significant additional energy savings for classes for which DOE is
triggered.
CRAC Issue 9: DOE is requesting data and information that could
enable the agency to determine whether standards levels more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for CRACs would result in
significant additional energy savings for classes for which DOE is not
triggered.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on its
methodology for determining crosswalked SEER2 and HSPF2 values for
three-phase equipment based on crosswalked values of single-phase
residential central air conditioners.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its approach to
estimate the energy use of air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K).
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 3: DOE requests comment on it approach to
estimate the shipments of air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 4: DOE seeks input on its determination of
the no-new-standards case distribution of efficiencies for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K) equipment.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 5: DOE seeks comment on the approach of
using a Weibull probability distribution with an average lifetime of 19
years for air conditioners and 16.2 years for heat pumps. DOE also
requests data or information which can be used to inform the equipment
lifetime for air-
[[Page 60677]]
cooled, three-phase, small commercial package AC and HP (<65 K).
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 6: DOE is requesting data and information
that could enable the agency to determine whether standards levels more
stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package ACs and HPs (<65 K) would result
in significant additional energy savings for classes for which DOE is
triggered.
Three-Phase CAC/HP Issue 7: DOE is requesting data and information
that could enable the agency to determine whether standards levels more
stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package ACs and HPs (<65 K) would result
in significant additional energy savings for classes for which DOE is
not triggered.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
data availability and request for information.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 21,
2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-18778 Filed 9-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
