Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures and Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps and Small Vertical In-Line Pumps, 24516-24537 [2021-09242]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
24516
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
surveillance plans of decommissioned
uranium mills. However, long-term
surveillance plans that include
groundwater monitoring might not be
included in the categorical exclusion.
• Revisions to categorically exclude
authorizations to revise emergency
plans for administrative changes such as
reduction in staffing.
• Revisions to categorically exclude
approvals for alternative waste disposal
procedures for reactor and material
licenses in accordance with § 20.2002,
‘‘Method for obtaining approval of
proposed disposal procedures.’’
• Revisions to categorically exclude
NRC actions during decommissioning
that do not authorize changes to
physical structures such as changes to
administrative, organizational, or
procedural requirements; and therefore,
do not include activities that have
environmental impacts.
• Revisions to include references to
the definition of construction in § 51.4,
‘‘Definitions,’’ after the phrase
‘‘significant construction impacts’’ to
clarify this term where it is used in
various categorical exclusions.
Additional Questions
Question (1) Are there licensing and
regulatory actions that do not or have
not resulted in environmental impacts
that the NRC should consider as a
categorical exclusion?
Question (2) Are there any categorical
exclusions that are listed in 10 CFR
51.22(c) that the NRC should consider
modifying or clarifying? For example,
are there categorical exclusions that
licensees, applicants, or members of the
public have found confusing?
Question (3) Are there any current
categorical exclusions (§ 51.22(c)) that
the NRC should consider removing? For
example, are there categorical
exclusions that are no longer in use, or
are there activities listed that have been
shown to have an environmental
impact?
Question (4) Are there aspects of NRC
authorized changes to previously
approved programs, such as emergency
plans, cybersecurity programs, quality
assurance programs, radiation
protection programs, or materials
control and accounting programs that
the NRC should consider categorically
excluding?
Question (5) Is there anything else
that the NRC should consider regarding
its regulations for categorical
exclusions?
V. Public Meeting
The NRC will conduct a public
meeting to discuss the potential
rulemaking and answer questions. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
NRC will publish a notice of the
location, time, and agenda of the
meeting on the NRC’s public meeting
website at least ten calendar days before
the meeting. Interested members from
the public should monitor the NRC’s
public meeting website for information
about the public meeting at: https://
www.nrc.gov/public-involve/publicmeetings/index.cfm. In addition, the
meeting information will be posted on
https://www.regulations.gov/ under
Docket ID NRC–2018–0300.
VI. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub.
L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to
write documents in a clear, concise, and
well-organized manner. The NRC has
written this document to be consistent
with the Plain Writing Act as well as the
Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain
Language in Government Writing,’’
published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).
The NRC requests comment on this
document with respect to the clarity and
effectiveness of the language used.
VII. Rulemaking Process
The NRC does not intend to provide
a detailed response to individual
comments submitted on this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking;
however, the NRC will evaluate all
public input in the development of a
proposed rule. If the NRC determines a
need for supporting guidance, the NRC
will issue the draft guidance for public
comment. The NRC will provide
another opportunity for public comment
for any subsequent proposed rule
developed before it is finalized.
Dated: April 30, 2021.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Margaret M. Doane,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2021–09675 Filed 5–6–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004]
RIN 1904–AD61
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures and Energy Conservation
Standards for Circulator Pumps and
Small Vertical In-Line Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’) is
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
restarting rulemaking activities to
consider potential test procedures and
energy conservation standards for
circulator pumps and small vertical inline pumps. Consensus
recommendations for test procedures
and energy conservation standards were
negotiated in 2016 by a stakeholder
working group of the Appliance
Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’). Through this
request for information (‘‘RFI’’), DOE
seeks data and information regarding
development and evaluation of new test
procedures that would be reasonably
designed to produce test results which
reflect energy use during a
representative average use cycle for the
equipment without being unduly
burdensome to conduct. Additionally,
this RFI solicits information regarding
the development and evaluation of
potential new energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps and
small vertical in-line pumps, and
whether such standards would result in
significant energy savings and be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE also
welcomes written comments from the
public on any subject within the scope
of this document (including those topics
not specifically raised), 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 July 6, 2021.
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 by email to the
following address:
circpumps2016std0004@ee.doe.gov.
Include ‘‘Circulator Pumps RFI’’ and
docket number EERE–2016–BT–STD–
0004 and/or RIN number 1904–AD61 in
the subject line of the message. Submit
electronic comments in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file
format, and avoid the use of special
characters or any form of encryption.
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
variety of mechanisms, including postal
mail and hand delivery/courier, the
Department has found it necessary to
make temporary modifications to the
comment submission process in light of
the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is
currently accepting only electronic
submissions at this time. If a commenter
finds that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance
Standards Program staff at (202) 586–
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
1445 to discuss the need for alternative
arrangements. Once the Covid-19
pandemic health emergency is resolved,
DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment
submission, including postal mail and
hand delivery/courier.
No telefacsimilies (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
IV of this document.
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. 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://beta.regulations.gov/docket/
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004. The docket
web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including
public comments, in the docket. See
section IV for information on how to
submit comments through https://
www.regulations.gov.
Mr.
Jeremy Dommu, 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–
9870. Email: ApplianceStandards
Questions@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: 202–586–2588. Email:
Amelia.Whiting@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: ApplianceStandards
Questions@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking History
C. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
Pertaining to Potential Test Procedure
A. Scope and Definitions
1. Definitions for Circulator Pumps
2. Definition of Small Vertical In-Line
Pump
B. Metric for Circulator Pumps
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
C. Test Procedure for Circulator Pumps
1. Test Methods for Different Categories
and Control Varieties
2. Updates to Industry Standards
D. Metric and Test Procedure for SVIL
Pumps
III. Request for Information and Comments
Pertaining to Energy Conservation
Standards
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Assessment
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Cost Analysis
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Consumer Samples and Market
Breakdowns
2. Operating Hours
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
G. Shipments
H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
I. Other Issues
IV. Submission of Comments
A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
I. Introduction
Pumps are included in the list of
‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is
authorized to establish test procedures
and energy conservation standards. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) Circulator and small
vertical in-line (‘‘SVIL’’) pumps, which
are the subject of this notification, are
categories of pumps. Currently,
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps are
not subject to DOE test procedures or
energy conservation standards. The
following sections discuss DOE’s
authority to establish test procedures
and energy conservation standards for
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps and
relevant background information
regarding DOE’s consideration of
establishing Federal regulations for
these equipment types.
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6291–6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA,
added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV,
section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317 as
codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. This
equipment includes pumps, the subject
of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020).
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24517
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3)
Federal energy conservation standards,
and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), 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 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C.
6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular
State laws or regulations, in accordance
with the procedures and other
provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D))
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment
must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying
to DOE that their equipment complies
with the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and
(2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered equipment.
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section must be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency, energy use or estimated
annual operating cost of a given type of
covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and
requires that test procedures not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
Before prescribing any final test
procedures, the Secretary must publish
proposed test procedures in the Federal
Register, and afford interested persons
an opportunity (of not less than 45 days’
duration) to present oral and written
data, views, and arguments on the
proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6314(b))
In proposing new standards, DOE
must evaluate that proposal against the
criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as
described in section I.C, and follow the
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
24518
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
rulemaking procedures set out in 42
U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)) DOE is publishing this
RFI consistent with its obligations in
EPCA.
B. Rulemaking History
As stated, ‘‘pumps’’ are listed as a
type of industrial equipment covered by
EPCA, although EPCA does not define
the term ‘‘pump.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
In a final rule published January 25,
2016, DOE established definitions
applicable to pumps and test procedures
for certain pumps. 81 FR 4086 (‘‘January
2016 TP final rule’’). ‘‘Pump’’ is defined
as equipment designed to move liquids
(which may include entrained gases,
free solids, and totally dissolved solids)
by physical or mechanical action and
includes a bare pump and, if included
by the manufacturer at the time of sale,
mechanical equipment, driver, and
controls. 10 CFR 431.462. This
definition includes circulator pumps
and SVIL pumps, but such pumps are
not currently subject to the established
Federal test procedure or energy
conservation standards.
The established test procedure for
pumps is applicable to certain
categories of clean water pumps,3
specifically those that are end suction
close-coupled; end suction frame
mounted/own bearings; in-line (‘‘IL’’);
radially split, multi-stage, vertical, inline diffuser casing; and submersible
turbine (‘‘ST’’) pumps with the
following characteristics:
• Flow rate of 25 gallons per minute
(‘‘gpm’’) or greater (at best efficiency
point (‘‘BEP’’) and full impeller
diameter);
• 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP
and full impeller diameter and the
number of stages specified for testing);
• Design temperature range from 14
to 248 °F;
• Designed to operate with either (1)
a 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a
non-induction motor with a speed of
rotation operating range that includes
speeds of rotation between 2,880 and
4,320 revolutions per minute (‘‘rpm’’)
and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and in
either case, the driver and impeller must
rotate at the same speed;
• 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for
ST pumps; and
• For ESCC and ESFM pumps, a
specific speed less than or equal to
5,000 when calculated using U.S.
customary units.
• Except for: Fire pumps, self-priming
pumps, prime-assist pumps, magnet
driven pumps, pumps designed to be
used in a nuclear facility subject to 10
CFR part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities’’;
and pumps meeting the design and
construction requirements set forth in
any relevant military specifications.4
10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)
The pump categories subject to the
current test procedures are referred to as
‘‘general pumps’’ in this document. As
stated, circulator pumps and SVIL
pumps are not general pumps.
DOE also published a final rule
establishing energy conservation
standards applicable to certain classes
of general pumps. 81 FR 4368 (Jan. 26,
2016) (‘‘January 2016 ECS final rule’’);
see also, 10 CFR 431.465.
The January 2016 TP final rule and
the January 2016 ECS final rule
implemented the recommendations of
the Commercial and Industrial Pump
Working Group (‘‘CIPWG’’) established
through the ASRAC to negotiate
standards and a test procedure for
general pumps. (Docket No. EERE–
2013–BT–NOC–0039) The CIPWG
concluded its negotiations on June 19,
2014, with a consensus vote to approve
a term sheet containing
recommendations to DOE on
appropriate standard levels for general
pumps, as well as recommendations
addressing issues related to the metric
and test procedure for general pumps
(‘‘CIPWG recommendations’’). (Docket
No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 92)
Subsequently, ASRAC voted
unanimously to approve the CIPWG
recommendations during a July 7, 2014
webinar. The term sheet containing the
CIPWG recommendations is available in
the CIPWG’s docket. The CIPWG
recommendations included initiation of
a separate rulemaking for circulator
pumps. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–
NOC–0039, No. 92, Recommendation
#5A at p. 2)
On February 3, 2016, DOE published
a Notice of Intent to Establish the
Circulator Pumps Working Group to
Negotiate a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) for Energy
Conservation Standards for Circulator
Pumps to negotiate, if possible, Federal
standards and a test procedure for
circulator pumps and to announce the
first public meeting. 81 FR 5658. The
members of the Circulator Pumps
Working Group (‘‘CPWG’’) were selected
to ensure a broad and balanced array of
interested parties and expertise,
including representatives from
efficiency advocacy organizations and
manufacturers. Additionally, one
member from ASRAC and one DOE
representative were part of the CPWG.
Table I.1 lists the members of the CPWG
and their affiliations.
TABLE I.1—ASRAC CPWG MEMBERS AND AFFILIATIONS
Member
Affiliation
Charles White .........................................
Gabor Lechner ........................................
Gary Fernstrom .......................................
Joanna Mauer .........................................
Joe Hagerman ........................................
Laura Petrillo-Groh ..................................
Lauren Urbanek ......................................
Mark Chaffee ..........................................
Mark Handzel ..........................................
Peter Gaydon ..........................................
Richard Gussert ......................................
David Bortolon ........................................
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association ..............................................
Armstrong Pumps, Inc ...........................................................................................
California Investor-Owned Utilities .........................................................................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project ..............................................................
U.S. Department of Energy ...................................................................................
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ...........................................
Natural Resources Defense Council .....................................................................
TACO, Inc ..............................................................................................................
Xylem Inc ...............................................................................................................
Hydraulic Institute ..................................................................................................
Grundfos Americas Corporation ............................................................................
Wilo Inc ..................................................................................................................
3 A ‘‘clean water pump’’ is a pump that is
designed for use in pumping water with a
maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0.016
pounds per cubic foot, and with a maximum
dissolved solid content of 3.1 pounds per cubic
foot, provided that the total gas content of the water
does not exceed the saturation volume, and
disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
water from freezing at a minimum of 14 °F. 10 CFR
431.462.
4 I.e., MIL–P–17639F, ‘‘Pumps, Centrifugal,
Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use’’ (as
amended); MIL–P–17881D, ‘‘Pumps, Centrifugal,
Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)’’ (as amended); MIL–P–
17840C, ‘‘Pumps, Centrifugal, Close-Coupled, Navy
Standard (For Surface Ship Application)’’ (as
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Abbreviation
PHCC.
Armstrong.
CA IOUs.
ASAP.
DOE.
AHRI.
NRDC.
Taco.
Xylem.
HI.
Grundfos.
Wilo.
amended); MIL–P–18682D, ‘‘Pump, Centrifugal,
Main Condenser Circulating, Naval Shipboard’’ (as
amended); and MIL–P–18472G, ‘‘Pumps,
Centrifugal, Condensate, Feed Booster, Waste Heat
Boiler, And Distilling Plant’’ (as amended). Military
specifications and standards are available at https://
everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
24519
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I.1—ASRAC CPWG MEMBERS AND AFFILIATIONS—Continued
Member
Affiliation
Russell Pate ............................................
Don Lanser .............................................
Tom Eckman ...........................................
Rheem Manufacturing Company ...........................................................................
Nidec Motor Corporation ........................................................................................
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (ASRAC member) ..........................
The CPWG commenced negotiations
at an open meeting on March 29, 2016,
and held six additional meetings to
discuss scope, metrics, and the test
procedure. The CPWG concluded its
negotiations for test procedure items on
September 7, 2016, with a consensus
vote to approve a term sheet containing
recommendations to DOE on scope,
metric, and the basis of the test
procedure (‘‘September 2016 CPWG
Recommendations’’). The term sheet
containing these recommendations is
available in the CPWG docket. (Docket
No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58)
The CPWG continued to meet to
address potential energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps. Those
meetings began on November 3–4, 2016
and concluded on December 1, 2016,
with approval of a second term sheet
(‘‘December 2016 CPWG
Recommendations’’) containing CPWG
recommendations related to energy
conservation standards, applicable test
procedure, labeling and certification
requirements for circulator pumps.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 98) ASRAC subsequently voted
unanimously to approve the September
and December 2016 CPWG
Recommendations (collectively, the
‘‘2016 Term Sheets’’) during a December
meeting. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–
NOC–0005, No. 91 at p. 2) 5
In a letter dated June 9, 2017, HI
expressed its support for the process
that DOE initiated regarding circulator
Abbreviation
pumps and encouraged the publishing
of a NOPR and a final rule by the end
of 2017. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, HI, No.103 at p. 1) In
response to an early assessment review
RFI published September 28, 2020
regarding the existing test procedures
for certain pumps (85 FR 60734,
‘‘September 2020 Early Assessment
RFI), HI commented that it continues to
support the recommendations from the
CPWG. (Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–
TP–0032, HI, No. 6 at p. 1) In addition,
NEEA commented that the CPWG
recommended adopting test procedures
for circulator pumps, which DOE
should do in the pumps or a separate
rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–2020–
BT–TP–0032, NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8)
C. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered equipment. EPCA
requires that any new or amended
energy conservation standard prescribed
by the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’)
be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy or water
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
The Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard that will not
result in significant conservation of
energy, or is not technologically feasible
or economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Rheem.
Nidec.
NPCC.
To determine whether a standard is
economically justified, EPCA requires
that DOE determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven
factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard
on the manufacturers and consumers of the
affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the
product compared to any increases in the
initial cost, or maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy
and water (if applicable) 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 and water
conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other
applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the
rulemaking process. Table I.2 shows the
individual analyses that are performed
to satisfy each of the requirements
within EPCA.
TABLE I.2—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings ..............................................................................................
Technological Feasibility ..................................................................................................
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers ..........................................
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Compared to Increased Cost for the Product
5 All references in this document to the approved
recommendations included in 2016 Term Sheets are
noted with the recommendation number and a
citation to the appropriate document in the CPWG
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Markups for Product Price Determination.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
docket (e.g., Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. #, Recommendation #X at p. Y). References to
discussions or suggestions of the CPWG not found
in the 2016 Term Sheets include a citation to
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
meeting transcripts and the commenter, if
applicable (e.g., Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–
0004, [Organization], No. X at p. Y).
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
24520
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I.2—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS—Continued
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
3. Total Projected Energy Savings ...........................................................................
4. Impact on Utility or Performance ..........................................................................
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition .............................................................
6. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation ............................................
7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Relevant ................................................
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE
is publishing this document seeking
input and data from interested parties to
aid in the development of the technical
analyses on which DOE will ultimately
rely to determine whether (and if so,
how) to establish the standards for
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps.
II. Request for Information and
Comments Pertaining to Potential Test
Procedure
In the following sections, DOE has
identified a variety of issues on which
it seeks input to assist in its evaluation
of potential test procedures for
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps, to
ensure that any such test procedures
would comply with the requirements in
EPCA that they be reasonably designed
to produce test results which reflect
energy use during a representative
average use cycle, without being unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2))
A. Scope and Definitions
In the January 2016 TP final rule, DOE
adopted a definition for pump, as well
as definitions for pump categories and
other pump component- and
configuration-related definitions. 10
CFR 431.462. Although circulator
pumps are a style of pump, DOE did not
define circulator pump. 81 FR 4086,
4094 (Jan. 25, 2016). In addition,
although DOE established a definition
for inline pumps, the definition requires
the pump to have a shaft input power
greater than 1 hp and therefore excludes
the SVIL pumps considered in this RFI
because SVIL pumps have a shaft input
power less than 1 hp.6
The September 2016 CPWG
recommendations addressed the scope
of a circulator pumps rulemaking.
6 As noted, an inline pump must have a shaft
input power greater than or equal to 1 hp and less
than or equal to 200 hp at BEP and full impeller
diameter, in which liquid is discharged through a
volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft. See 10
CFR 431.462.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Employment Impact Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Specifically, the CPWG recommended
that the scope of the circulator pumps
test procedure and energy conservation
standards cover clean water pumps (as
defined at 10 CFR 431.462) distributed
in commerce with or without a volute 7
and that are one of the following
categories: Wet rotor circulator pumps,
dry rotor close-coupled circulator
pumps, and dry rotor mechanicallycoupled circulator pumps. The CPWG
also recommended that the scope
exclude submersible pumps and header
pumps. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 58, Recommendations
#1A, 2A and 2B at p. 1–2) The CPWG
also recommended the following
definitions relevant to scope:
Wet rotor circulator pump means a single
stage, rotodynamic, close-coupled, wet rotor
pump. Examples include, but are not limited
to, pumps generally referred to in industry as
CP1.
Dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump
means a single stage, rotodynamic, singleaxis flow, close-coupled, dry rotor pump
that: (1) Has a hydraulic power less than or
equal to five horsepower at best efficiency
point at full impeller diameter, (2) is
distributed in commerce with a horizontal
motor, and (3) discharges the pumped liquid
through a volute in a plane perpendicular to
the shaft. Examples include, but are not
limited to, pumps generally referred to in
industry as CP2.
Dry rotor, three-piece circulator pump
means a single stage, rotodynamic, singleaxis flow, mechanically-coupled, dry rotor
pump that: (1) Has a hydraulic power less
than or equal to five horsepower at best
efficiency point at full impeller diameter, (2)
is distributed in commerce with a horizontal
motor, and (3) discharges the pumped liquid
through a volute in a plane perpendicular to
the shaft. Examples include, but are not
limited to, pumps generally referred to in
industry as CP3.
Horizontal motor means a motor that
requires the motor shaft to be in a horizontal
position to function as designed under
typical operating conditions, as specified in
manufacturer literature.
7 Volutes are also sometimes referred to as a
‘‘housing’’ or ‘‘casing.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submersible pump means a pump that is
designed to be operated with the motor and
bare pump fully submerged in the pumped
liquid.
Header pump means a pump that consists
of a circulator-less-volute intended to be
installed in an original equipment
manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) piece of equipment
that serves as the volute.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58, Recommendations #2B, 3A, and
3B at p. 2–3)
DOE notes that the orientation of the
motor is used to differentiate IL pumps
from other pumps. As noted, the
definition of IL pump excludes pumps
that are distributed in commerce with a
horizontal motor. 10 CFR 431.462. DOE
currently defines a ‘‘horizontal motor’’
as a motor that requires the motor shaft
to be in a horizontal position to function
as designed, as specified in the
manufacturer literature. Id.
The definition of horizontal motor
recommended by the CPWG includes
‘‘under typical operating conditions’’ to
qualify ‘‘function as designed.’’ The
CPWG stated that this qualifier was
added to address the potential that a
motor would not be covered as a
horizontal motor if a manufacturer were
to advertise its circulator as being able
to be installed in a non-horizontal
orientation under certain conditions,
such as high operating pressure (i.e.,
conditions other than typical
conditions). (Docket No. EERE–2016–
BT–STD–0004, No. 64 at pp. 75–83) The
CPWG stated that the requirement to
consider motor installation in the
context of typical operating conditions,
as specified in the manufacturer
literature, would address this potential.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 66 at pp. 55–57)
The definition for submersible pump
is consistent with that already
applicable to pumps in 10 CFR 431.462.
The recommended definition for header
pump is discussed in section II.A of this
document.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
DOE requests comment on the
CPWG’s recommended definitions for
wet rotor circulator pump; dry rotor,
two-piece circulator pump; dry rotor,
three-piece circulator pump; and
horizontal motor. Specifically, DOE
requests comment regarding whether
changes in the market since the CPWG’s
recommendation would affect the
recommended definitions and scope.
1. Definitions for Circulator Pumps
In addition to the circulator pump
categories discussed in II.A of this
document, circulator pumps can also be
differentiated based on the
configuration in which they are sold.
Certain specific instances of this are
discussed in sections II.A.1.a and
II.A.1.b of this document.
a. Circulators-Less-Volute and Header
Pumps
Some circulator pumps are
distributed in commerce as a complete
assembly with a motor, impeller, and
volute, while other circulator pumps are
distributed in commerce with a motor
and impeller, but without a volute
(herein referred to as ‘‘circulators-lessvolute’’). Some circulators-less-volute
are solely intended to be installed in
other equipment, such as a boiler, using
a cast piece in the other piece of
equipment as the volute, while others
can be installed as a replacement for a
failed circulator pump in an existing
system or to be newly installed with a
paired volute in the field. (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 47 at
pp. 371–372; Docket No. EERE–2016–
BT–STD–0004, No. 70 at p. 98)
In reviewing the definition of a pump,
the CPWG stated that circulator pumps
distributed in commerce without
volutes fall under the definition of
pump as defined in the January 2016 TP
final rule. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 70 at pp. 89–91) Further,
the CPWG asserted that, if a circulatorless-volute was not subject to any
adopted test procedure and standards,
this could present a loophole since a
circulator-less-volute and matching
volute could easily be purchased and
installed instead of a compliant
circulator pump with a volute. (Docket
No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 74
at pp. 383–403)
However, the CPWG discussed that a
circulator-less-volute (header pump)
that is solely intended to be installed in
other equipment, uses the other
equipment as the volute, and does not
have a matching volute that is
separately distributed in commerce
would not pose the same loophole risk
and, furthermore, would be very
difficult to test. Specifically, the CPWG
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
discussed how circulator manufacturers
would not have access to or design
authority for the volute design. In
addition, the circulator could not be
tested as a standalone circulator because
the volute would be unable to be
removed from the other equipment, and
there would be no paired volute
distributed in commerce with which the
header pump could be tested. Therefore,
such equipment would potentially
require extensive and burdensome
equipment to test appropriately. (Docket
No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 74
at pp. 413–416)
The CPWG recommended excluding
circulator pumps that are distributed in
commerce exclusively to be
incorporated into other OEM
equipment, such as boilers or pool
heaters. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 74 at pp. 415–416) The
CPWG suggested referring to these
circulator-less-volute pumps that are
intended solely for installation in
another piece of equipment and do not
have a paired volute that is distributed
in commerce as ‘‘header pumps.’’
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 74 at pp. 384–386). Specifically, in
the September 2016 CPWG
recommendations, the CPWG
recommended to differentiate header
pumps from other circulator-less-volute
pumps by defining header pump as a
pump that consists of a circulator-lessvolute intended to be installed in an
OEM piece of equipment that serves as
the volute, and to exclude them from
the recommended circulator test
procedure and standards. (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58
Recommendations #2B at p. 2)
DOE requests comment regarding
whether the market changes in the
intervening years since the CPWG’s
recommendation of a definition for
‘‘header pump’’ warrant modification of
that recommended definition.
b. On-Demand Circulator Pumps
On-demand circulator pumps are
designed to maintain hot water supply
within a temperature range by activating
in response to a signal, such as user
presence. The CPWG recommended that
the following definition for ‘‘on-demand
circulator pumps’’ be incorporated as
necessary:
‘‘On-demand circulator pump’’ means
a circulator pump that is distributed in
commerce with an integral control that:
• Initiates water circulation based on
receiving a signal from the action of a user
[of a fixture or appliance] or sensing the
presence of a user of a fixture and cannot
initiate water circulation based on other
inputs, such as water temperature or a preset schedule.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24521
• Automatically terminates water
circulation once hot water has reached the
pump or desired fixture.
• Does not allow the pump to operate
when the temperature in the pipe exceeds
104 °F or for more than 5 minutes
continuously.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 98 Non-Binding Recommendation
#1 at pp. 4–5)
In addition, the on-demand circulator
pump must not be capable of operating
without the control without physically
destructive modification of the unit,
such as any modification that would
violate the product’s standards listing.
DOE requests comment regarding the
CPWG-recommended definition of ‘‘ondemand circulator pump’’ and whether
it is appropriate to retain on-demand
circulator pumps within the scope of
future analysis.
2. Definition of Small Vertical In-Line
Pump
During the course of the negotiations,
the CPWG also discussed and provided
recommendations related to SVIL
pumps. As noted, SVIL pumps are
similar to IL pumps, but have a shaft
input power lower than pumps
included in the scope of the general
pumps test procedure. Specifically,
SVIL pumps are described as IL style
pumps with a shaft input power of less
than 1 hp at BEP at full impeller
diameter and are distinguished from
dry-rotor circulator pumps by having a
motor that does not have to be
configured in a horizontal position. The
CPWG found that SVIL pumps could
serve similar functions as some dry
rotor circulator pumps. (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 66 at p.
11, 52) Additionally, the CPWG stated
that because they serve similar
functions to some dry rotor circulator
pumps, SVIL pumps pose a substitution
risk and recommended that SVIL pumps
be addressed as part the circulator
pumps rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 66 at p. 27–30)
Specifically, the CPWG recommended
that SVIL pumps be evaluated on the
PEICL or PEIVL metric, similar to
commercial and industrial pumps
(‘‘CIP’’),8 and use the CIP test procedure
to measure performance, with any
additional modifications necessary as
determined by DOE. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58
Recommendations #1B at pp. 1–2)
Potential test procedures and metric for
SVIL pumps are discussed further in
section II.D.
In order to distinguish SVIL pumps
from dry rotor circulator pumps, the
8 Commercial and industrial pumps are referred
to as ‘‘general pumps’’ throughout this document.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
24522
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
CPWG recommended the following
definition for SVIL pumps:
‘‘Small vertical in-line pump’’ means a
single stage, single-axis flow, dry rotor,
rotodynamic pump that:
(1) Has a shaft input power less than 1
horse power at best efficiency point at full
impeller diameter,
(2) Is distributed in commerce with a motor
that does not have to be in a horizontal
position to function as designed, and
(3) Discharges the pumped liquid through
a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58, Recommendation #3C at p. 3)
DOE seeks comment and feedback on
the scope and definitions recommended
by the CPWG, including whether
anything has changed in the market
since the conclusion of the CPWG that
would impact the recommended scope
and definitions for SVIL pumps.
DOE seeks feedback and information
regarding whether it may be appropriate
to include SVIL pumps in the circulator
pumps rulemaking, in the commercial
and industrial pumps rulemaking, or in
a separate rulemaking.
DOE seeks comment regarding any
other topics related to scope and
definitions for circulator pumps and
SVIL pumps.
B. Metric for Circulator Pumps
The CPWG focused on defining a
performance-based metric that was
similar to the pump energy index
(‘‘PEI’’) metric established in the
January 2016 TP final rule. (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 64 at
pp. 246–247) The CPWG recommended
using the PEICIRC metric, which would
be defined as the pump energy rating
(‘‘PER’’) for the rated circulator pump
model (‘‘PERCIRC’’), divided by the PER
for a circulator that is minimally
compliant with energy conservation
standards serving the same hydraulic
load (‘‘PERCIRC,STD’’). (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58,
Recommendation #5 at p. 4)
The equation for PEICIRC is shown in
the equation (1):
PERcrnc ]
PElcrnc
= [PERcrnc,srD
(1)
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 Recommendation #5 at p. 4)
PERCIRC would be determined as the
weighted average input power to the
circulator motor or controls, if available,
of a given circulator over a number of
specified load points. Due to differences
in the various control varieties available
with circulator pumps, the CPWG
recommended that each circulator
pump control variety have unique
weights and load points that are used in
determining PERCIRC. (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58
Recommendations #6A and #6B at pp.
4–6) The test points, weights, and test
methods necessary for calculating
PERCIRC for pressure controls,
temperature controls, manual speed
controls, external input signal controls,
and circulator pumps with no control
(i.e., without external input signal,
manual, pressure, or temperature
control) 9 are described in II.C.1 of this
document.
9 As discussed previously in section III.A.5, in
this document, circulator pumps with no controls
are also inclusive of other potential control varieties
that have a control, but are not one of the identified
circulator control varieties. DOE refers to these as
circulator pumps with no controls throughout this
document, as any circulator pump without one of
the defined control varieties would be treated as a
circulator pump with no controls, regardless of
whether it is a single-speed circulator or has a
control variety not defined in this test procedure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
PERCIRC,STD would be determined
similarly for all circulator pumps,
regardless of control variety.
PERCIRC,STD would represent the
weighted average input power to a
minimally compliant circulator pump
serving the same hydraulic load. As
such, PERCIRC,STD would essentially
define the minimally compliant
circulator pump performance, such that
the energy conservation standard level
would always be defined as 1.00, and
lower PEICIRC values would represent
better performance. The CPWG
discussed the derivation of PERCIRC,STD
at length during the CPWG negotiations
and, ultimately, recommended a
standard level that is nominally
equivalent to a single-speed circulator
equipped with an electrically
commutated motor. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 102 at pp. 53–
56; Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–
0004, No. 98 Recommendations #1 and
2A–D at pp. 1–4)
The CPWG specified a method for
determining PERCIRC,STD equivalent to
the test method recommended for
circulator pumps with no controls, with
additional procedures necessary to
determine the minimally compliant
overall efficiency at the various test
points based on the hydraulic
performance of the rated circulator
pump. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 98 Recommendations
#2A–D at pp. 1–4) However, because
PERCIRC,STD would represent the energy
conservation standard level, DOE
would, in a potential future circulator
pump ECS rulemaking, discuss in detail
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the derivation of PERCIRC,STD for the
recommended standard level, as well as
all of the efficiency levels presented to
the CPWG, including assessment of the
technical feasibility and economic
justification for any adopted levels.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004)
DOE requests comment on the CPWG
recommendation to adopt PEICIRC as the
metric to characterize the energy use of
certain circulator pumps and on the
recommended equation for PEICIRC,
including whether anything in the
technology or market has changed since
publication of the 2016 Term Sheets
that would lead to this metric no longer
being appropriate.
C. Test Procedure for Circulator Pumps
There is no current industry test
procedure for circulator pumps. The
September 2016 CPWG Term Sheet
contained extensive recommendations
related to development of a test
procedure for circulator pumps. (Docket
No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58,
Recommendations #6–12 at p. 4–9)
1. Test Methods for Different Categories
and Control Varieties
Many circulator pumps are sold with
a variable speed drive and controls (i.e.,
logic or user interface) with various
control strategies that reduce the
required power input at a given flow
rate to save energy. The ability of a
circulator pump to operate at different
speeds and the control logic of each
control variety will impact the energy
use for that circulator pump model in
the field. To reflect this variation in
energy consumption, the CPWG
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
EP07MY21.000</GPH>
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating
(‘‘hp’’); and
PERCIRC,STD = pump energy rating for a
minimally compliant circulator pump
serving the same hydraulic load.
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
recommended that DOE establish
different test methods for each control
variety in the circulator pump test
procedure in order to best represent the
different energy use patterns exhibited
by each control variety. (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58,
Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
a. Control Definitions
The CPWG recommended definitions
for the following control varieties for
circulator pumps: manual speed control,
pressure control, temperature control,
and external input signal control. The
definitions of these pump control
varieties recommended by the CPWG
are as follows:
• Manual speed control means a control
(variable speed drive and user interface) that
adjusts the speed of a driver based on manual
user input.
• Pressure control means a control
(variable speed drive and integrated logic)
that automatically adjusts the speed of the
driver in response to pressure.
• Temperature control means a control
(variable speed drive and integrated logic)
that automatically adjusts the speed of the
driver continuously over the driver operating
speed range in response to temperature.
• External input signal control means a
variable speed drive that adjusts the speed of
the driver in response to an input signal from
an external logic and/or user interface.
H
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58, Recommendation #4 at p. 4)
The CPWG did not recommend a
definition for adaptive pressure
controls, although it did recommend a
separate test procedure for them,
because, as discussed by the CPWG,
adaptive pressure controls are able to
adjust the slope of the control curve to
fit the system needs through an ongoing
learning process inherent in the
software. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 72 at pp. 45–46) The test
procedure for circulator pumps with
adaptive pressure controls is discussed
further in section II.C.1.c.
DOE requests comment on the
recommended definitions for manual
speed control, pressure control,
adaptive pressure control, temperature
control, and external input signal
control. Additionally, DOE requests
comment on a possible definition for
adaptive pressure control.
DOE requests comment on whether
any additional control variety is now
currently on the market and if it should
be considered in this rulemaking.
b. Reference Curve
All recommended test methods for
circulator control varieties, which
involve variable speed control of the
circulator pump, specify test points
24523
with respect to a representative system
curve. That is, for circulator pumps with
manual speed controls, pressure
controls, temperature controls, or
external input signal controls, a
reference system curve is implemented
to be representative of the speed
reduction that is possible in a typical
system to provide representative results.
For circulator pumps with no controls,
no reference system is required as
measurements are taken at various test
points along a pump curve at maximum
speed only.
Such a reference system curve
describes the relationship between the
head and the flow at each test point in
a typical system. Additionally, a
reference system curve that is
representative of a typical system in
which circulator pumps are installed
may also allow for the differentiation of
control varieties to be reflected in the
resulting ratings. The CPWG
recommended that DOE incorporate the
same reference system curve that is used
in the January 2016 TP final rule.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 Recommendations #8 at pp. 6–
7) This curve is a quadratic reference
system curve, which intersects the BEP
and has a static offset of 20 percent of
BEP head, as shown in equation (2):
2
= [o.8 * (-Q-)
+ 0.2] * H100%
Q100%
(2)
Where:
H = the pump total head (ft),
Q = the flow rate (gpm),
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow
(gpm), and
H100% = pump total head at 100 percent of
BEP flow (ft).
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 Recommendations #8 at pp. 6–
7)
PERcrnc
DOE requests comment on whether
the CPWG-recommended reference
system curve shape, including the static
offset, is reasonable for circulator
pumps.
c. Pressure Control
Pressure controls are a variety of
circulator pump controls in which the
variable speed drive is automatically
adjusted based on the pressure in the
system. For example, such controls are
=
common in multi-zone hydronic heating
applications in which the flow and
speed are adjusted in response to zones
opening or closing. The CPWG
recommended that for all circulator
pumps distributed in commerce with
pressure controls, the PERCIRC should be
calculated as the weighted average input
power at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of
BEP flow, with unique weights shown
in equation (3):
L wi(Pin,i)
(3)
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating
(hp);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
wi = weight of 0.05, 0.40, 0.40, and 0.15 at
test points of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent
of BEP flow, respectively;
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Pin,i = power input to the driver at each test
point i (hp); and
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
EP07MY21.001</GPH> EP07MY21.002</GPH>
i
24524
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and
100 percent of the flow at BEP.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 Recommendations #6A at pp. 4–
5 and #7 at p.6)
The CPWG recommended testing
circulator pumps with pressure controls
using automatic speed adjustment based
on the factory selected control setting,
manual speed adjustment, or simulated
pressure signal to trace a factory
selected control curve setting that will
achieve the test point flow rates with a
head at or above the reference system
curve. The CPWG also recommended
that if a circulator pump with pressure
controls is tested with automatic speed
adjustment, that the pump can be
manually adjusted to achieve 100
percent BEP flow and head point at
maximum speed. Finally, for circulator
pumps with adaptive pressure controls,
the CPWG recommended that testing be
conducted at the minimum thresholds
for head based on manufacturer
literature and through manual speed
adjustment to achieve the test point
flow rates with head values at or above
the reference curve. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58
Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
DOE requests comment on the
recommended test methods, test points,
and weights for circulator pumps with
pressure controls, including circulator
pumps with adaptive pressure controls.
Specifically, DOE requests comment on
whether the technology or market for
such controls has changed sufficiently
since the term sheet to warrant a
different approach.
d. Temperature Control
Temperature controls are controls that
automatically adjust the speed of the
variable speed drive in the pump
continuously over the operating speed
range to respond to a change in
temperature of the operating fluid in the
system. Typically, temperature controls
are designed to achieve a fixed
temperature differential between the
supply and return lines and adjust the
p.inmax
flow rate through the system by
adjusting the speed to achieve the
specified temperature differential.
Similar to pressure controls,
temperature controls are also designed
primarily for hydronic heating
applications. However, temperature
controls may be installed in single- or
multi-zone systems and will optimize
the circulator pump’s operating speed to
provide the necessary flow rate based on
the heat load in each zone. As there are
no minimum head requirements
inherent to the circulator pump control,
temperature controls may have potential
to use less energy than pressure-based
controls to serve a given load.
The CPWG recommended that for
circulator pumps distributed in
commerce with temperature controls,
that PERCIRC should be calculated the
same way and with the same weights as
for pressure controls, as shown in
Equation 3. (Docket No. EERE–2016–
BT–STD–0004, No. 58
Recommendations #6A at pp. 4–5 and
#7 at p. 6) The CPWG also
recommended that circulator pumps
with temperature controls be tested
based on manual speed adjustment or
with a simulated temperature signal to
activate the temperature-based control
to achieve the test point flow rates with
a head at or above the reference curve.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
DOE requests comment on the
recommended test methods, test points,
and weights for circulator pumps with
temperature controls. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether the
technology or market for such controls
has changed sufficiently since the term
sheet to warrant a different approach.
e. Manual Speed Control
Manual speed controls are controls in
which the speed of the pump is adjusted
manually, typically to one of several
pre-set speeds, by a dial or a control
panel to fit the demand of the system
within which it is installed. The CPWG
discussed how circulator pumps
'w-
=L
imax
installed with manual speed controls
are typically only adjusted one time
upon installation, if at all, and will
operate at that set speed as if it were a
single-speed circulator pump. That is,
many manual speed control circulator
pumps operate at full speed, while a
portion of them may be set to a medium
or low speed to suit the needs of the
systems. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 65 at pp. 131–133)
Therefore, the CPWG recommended to
test circulator pumps with manual
speed controls both: (1) Along the
maximum speed circulator pump curve
to achieve the test point flow rates for
the maximum speed input power
values, and (2) based on manual speed
adjustment to the lowest speed setting
that will achieve a head at or above the
reference curve at the test point flow
rate for the reduced speed input power
values. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9
at p. 7)
To accomplish a single rating
representative of the ‘‘average’’ energy
use of a manual speed circulator, the
CPWG recommended that for circulator
pumps distributed in commerce with
manual speed controls, the PERCIRC
should be calculated as the weighted
average of Pin,max (the weighted average
input power at specific load points
across the maximum speed curve) and
Pin,reduced (the weighted average input
power at specific load points at reduced
speed), but recommended separate load
points and speed factors, as shown in
equations (4), (5), and (6):
PERCIRC = zmax(Pinmax) + zreduced (Pinreduced)
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating
(hp);
zmax = speed factor weight of 0.75;
Pin_max = weighted average input power at
maximum rotating speed of the
circulator (hp), as specified in equation
(5);
zreduced = speed factor weight of 0.25; and
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at
reduced rotating speed of the circulator
(hp), as specified in equation (6).
(P-m,imax
. )
i
(5)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
wi_max = 0.25;
Pin,i_max = power input to the driver at
maximum rotating speed of the
circulator at each test point i (hp); and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and
100 percent of the flow at BEP.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
EP07MY21.003</GPH>
Where:
Pin_max = weighted average input power at
maximum speed of the circulator (hp);
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
24525
=L
~ w-lreduced (P-m,ireduced
.
)
(6)
Where:
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at
reduced speeds of the circulator (hp);
wi_reduced = 0.3333;
Pin,i_reduced = power input to the driver at
reduced rotating speed of the circulator
at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, and 75
percent of the flow at BEP of max speed
and head values at or above the reference
curve.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 Recommendation #6B and 7 at
pp. 5–6)
DOE requests comment on the CPWGrecommended test method and the
unique test points, weights, and speed
factors for circulator pumps distributed
in commerce with manual speed
controls. Specifically, DOE requests
comment on whether the technology or
market for such controls has changed
sufficiently since the term sheet to
warrant a different approach.
f. External Input Signal Control
The final control variety considered
by the CPWG was external input signal
controls. External input signal controls
are controls in which the device that
responds to the stimulus, or the primary
control logic, is external to the
circulator pump. Unlike pressure and
temperature controls, the logic that
defines how the circulator pump
operating speed is selected in response
to some measured variable (e.g.,
temperature, pressure, or boiler fire rate)
is not part of the circulator, as
distributed in commerce. Instead, it is
part of another control system, such as
a building management system or a
p.inmax
boiler control system. (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 72 at
pp. 76–84)
For circulator pumps that have only
an external input signal control, the
CPWG recommended testing along the
reference control curve to achieve the
test point flow rates with a head at or
above the reference system curve with
the same weights as temperature and
pressure controls. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58
Recommendations #9 at pp. 7–8).
The CPWG recommended that, to
ensure the rating would be
representative of the performance of
such pumps, the external input signal
control must be the only control mode
on the pump, and the pump must not
be able to operate without an external
input signal. (Docket No. EERE–2016–
BT–STD–0004, No. 58
Recommendations #9 at pp. 7–8)
The CPWG asserted that if external
input signal control is one of multiple
options available on a circulator pump,
or the pump is able to operate without
an external input signal, it is less likely
that the external input signal control
option would be utilized in the field.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 72 at pp. 217–218). Therefore, to
prevent the possibility of artificially
improving the PEICIRC rating through
the addition of an external input signal
control mode, the CPWG recommended
testing circulator pumps with external
input signal controls similar to manual
speed controls. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 47 at p. 480)
The CPWG recommended testing a
circulator pump sold with external
input signal controls and another
control variety with a simulated signal
both: (1) Along the maximum speed
circulator pump curve to achieve the
test point flow rates for the maximum
speed input power values, and (2) with
speed adjustment using a simulated
signal to the lowest speed setting that
will achieve a head at or above the
reference curve at the test point flow
rates for the reduced speed input power
values. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9
at pp. 7–8)
As such, the CPWG recommended
that for circulator pumps distributed in
commerce with external input signal
controls and at least one other control
variety, the PERCIRC should be
calculated as the weighted average of
Pin,max (the weighted average input
power at specific load points across the
maximum speed curve) and Pin,reduced
(the weighted average input power at
specific load points at reduced speed),
similar to circulator pumps with manual
speed control, but with a different speed
factor, as shown in equations (7), (8),
and (9):
PERCIRC = zmax(Pinmax) + zreduced (Pinreduced)
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating
(hp);
zmax = speed factor weight of 0.30;
Pin_max = weighted average input power at
maximum rotating speed of the
circulator pump (hp);
zreduced = speed factor weight of 0.70; and
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at
reduced rotating speed of the circulator
(hp).
=L
~ w-lmax (P-m,imax
. )
(8)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
wi_max = 0.25;
Pin,i_max = power input to the driver at
maximum rotating speed of the
circulator at each test point i (hp); and
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and
100 percent of the flow at BEP.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
EP07MY21.004</GPH> EP07MY21.005</GPH>
Where:
Pin_max = weighted average input power at
maximum speed of the circulator (hp);
24526
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
p.inreduced
=L
~ w-lreduced (P-m,ireduced
.
)
i
(9)
Where:
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at
reduced speeds of the circulator (hp);
wi_reduced = 0.3333;
Pin,i_reduced = power input to the driver at
reduced rotating speed of the circulator
at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, and 75
percent of the flow at BEP of max speed
and head values at or above the reference
curve.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 Recommendations #6B and #7 at
pp. 5–6)
The CPWG recommended the speed
factors of 0.30 at maximum speed and
0.70 at reduced speed in order to
produce a rating on an equivalent basis
as that of a circulator pump with a
PERcIRc
typical differential pressure control.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 at p. 6). In addition, these speed
factors would represent the likelihood
that a circulator pump with an external
input signal control is selected to
operate with that external input signal
control, and whether the signal it
receives results in the circulator pump
reducing speed.
DOE requests comment on the CPWGrecommended test method for circulator
pumps distributed in commerce with
only external input signal controls, as
well as for those distributed in
commerce with external input signal
controls in addition to other control
varieties. Specifically, DOE requests
comment on whether the technology or
=
market for such controls has changed
sufficiently since the term sheet to
warrant a different approach.
g. No Controls
For circulator pumps with no
controls, the CPWG recommended
testing the pump along the maximum
speed circulator pump curve to achieve
the test point flow rates of 25, 50, 75,
and 100 percent of BEP flow. (Docket
No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58
Recommendation #9 at p. 7) The CPWG
also recommended that for circulator
pumps distributed in commerce with no
controls, PERCIRC should be calculated
with the unique weights and test points
as shown in equation (10):
L
Wt(Ptn,J
i
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating
(hp);
wi = 0.25;
Pin,i = power input to the driver at each test
point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and
100 percent of the flow at BEP.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 Recommendation #6A at pp. 4–
5)
The CPWG recommended the 0.25
weights at each test point (i.e., 25, 50,
75, and 100 percent of the flow at BEP)
in order to account for the variety of
systems and operating points a singlespeed circulator may encounter. (Docket
No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 70
at pp. 172–173)
DOE requests comment on the CPWGrecommended test methods, test points,
and weights for circulator pumps with
no controls.
2. Updates to Industry Standards
As part of the September 2016 CPWG
recommendations, the CPWG
recommended that all test points be
tested on a wire-to-water basis, in
accordance with HI 40.6–2014, with
minor modifications. The CPWG also
recommended that if an updated version
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
of HI 40.6 is published prior to
publication of the test procedure final
rule, DOE should review and
incorporate the updated version.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58, Recommendation #10 at p. 8–9)
In 2016, HI published an updated
industry standard, HI 40.6–2016,
‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic Pump
Efficiency Testing’’ (‘‘HI 40.6–2016’’).
This update aligned the definitions and
procedures described in HI Standard
40.6 with the DOE test procedure for
pumps published in the January 2016
TP final rule. Appendix A to subpart Y
to 10 CFR part 431. In the September
2020 Early Assessment RFI for pumps,
DOE requested comment on the
potential effect of incorporating HI
40.6–2016 by reference as the DOE test
procedure for pumps. 85 FR 60734,
60737. Grundfos, NEEA, and HI
commented that HI expects to publish
another standard update in 2021 (‘‘HI
40.6–2021’’) and urged DOE to
incorporate by reference HI 40.6–2021
rather than HI 40.6–2016 (Grundfos,
Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032,
No. 07 at p. 2; NEEA, Docket No. EERE–
2020–BT–TP–0032, No. 08 at p. 6; HI,
Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
No. 06 at pp. 1, 3). HI specified that HI
40.6–2016 included updates to match
DOE’s test procedure for pumps, and
that HI 40.6–2021 will further include
editorial revisions and added circulator
pump testing, and also would not
impact measured values, burden, or
representativeness. (HI, Docket No.
EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032, No.06 at p. 3)
At the time of this RFI publication, HI
40.6–2021 was not yet available. DOE
expects to review and consider this
updated industry standard when
available.
DOE seeks comment and feedback on
whether HI 40.6–2016 or HI 40.6–2021
is an appropriate test method for
conducting wire-to-water testing of
circulator pumps, as recommended by
the CPWG. In addition, DOE seeks
comment on whether the modifications
in HI 40.6–2016 and/or HI 40.6–2021
adequately capture the CPWG
recommended modifications in
Recommendation #10.
Additionally, CPWG recommended
several specifications for the circulator
pump test procedure that are not
included in either HI 40.6–2014 or HI
40.6–2016, including test arrangements
for twin-head circulator pumps and
circulators-less-volute:
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
EP07MY21.006</GPH> EP07MY21.007</GPH>
(10)
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
• To test twin head circulator pumps, one
of the two impeller assemblies is to be
incorporated into an adequate, single
impeller volute and casing. An adequate,
single impeller volute and casing means a
volute and casing for which any physical and
functional characteristics that affect energy
consumption and energy efficiency are
essentially identical to their corresponding
characteristics for a single impeller in the
twin head circulator volute and casing.
• To test circulators-less-volute, pair the
circulator-less-volute with specific volute(s)
with which the circulator is advertised to be
paired, based on manufacturer’s literature, to
determine the PEI rating for each circulatorless-volute and volute combination.
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 58 Recommendations #11 and #12
at p. 9)
DOE seeks comment on whether the
recommendations for twin-head
circulator pumps and circulators-lessvolute have been adequately addressed
in HI 40.6–2021.
D. Metric and Test Procedure for SVIL
Pumps
The CPWG recommended evaluating
SVIL pumps using the constant load
pump energy index (PEICL) or variable
load pump energy index (PEIVL) metric,
similar to general pumps, and using the
general pump test procedure to measure
performance, with any additional
modifications necessary as determined
by DOE. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 98 Recommendations
#1B at pp. 1–2) In the January 2016 TP
final rule, DOE adopted a metric of
PEICL for pumps distributed in
commerce as bare pumps or as bare
pumps with a motor (i.e., pumps sold
without continuous or non-continuous
controls) and a metric of PEIVL for
pumps sold with either continuous or
non-continuous controls. 81 FR 4086,
4150–4152 (Jan. 25, 2016)
DOE identified the size and
characteristics of the motor with which
the SVIL pumps are rated as the primary
difference between SVIL and IL pumps
that affects the application of the DOE
general pumps test procedure.
Specifically, the general pumps test
procedure establishes that testing-based
methods are applicable to all pump
configurations, while calculation-based
methods are applicable only to (1)
pumps sold with neither a motor nor
controls (i.e., a bare pump), (2) pumps
sold with motors that are subject to
DOE’s energy conservation standards for
electric motors, as defined pursuant to
10 CFR 431.25(g), (with or without
continuous controls), and (3) pumps
sold with submersible motors (with or
without continuous controls). This is
because the calculation-based test
methods presume motor efficiency and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
motor or motor and drive loss values
based on the performance
characteristics of motors that are subject
to DOE’s current energy conservation
standards for electric motors at 10 CFR
431.25. Table 1 to appendix A to
subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431.
SVIL pumps are often distributed in
commerce with motors that are either
subject to DOE’s electric motor
regulations at 10 CFR 431.25 or DOE’s
small electric motor regulations at 10
CFR 431.466. Therefore, the calculationbased test methods may need to be
modified to reference DOE’s electric
motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.25 or
DOE’s small electric motor regulations
at 10 CFR 431.446, as applicable.
DOE also notes that the general
pumps test procedure includes the
requirement that all pumps sold with
single-phase motors be rated as bare
pumps. Table 1 to appendix A to
subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431. SVIL
pumps sold with single-phase motors
could instead be rated to reflect the
performance of that single-phase motor,
either through the testing or calculationbased methods.
In addition, the general pumps test
procedure relies on nominal motor
losses to calculate the PERSTD and
PERCL for the calculation-based method
and nominal motor and drive losses to
calculate PERVL. Both the motor and
combined motor and drive loss curves
were developed for the general pumps
test procedure based on data from the
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) and from
manufacturers of motors and drives, as
well as data from DOE’s own testing, for
motors and drives from 1 to 250 hp
gathered during the general pumps test
procedure rulemaking. Since these
losses were based on data for motors
and drives from 1 to 250 hp, the
nominal motor losses derived for the
general pumps test procedure may not
be appropriate for SVIL pumps. DOE
researched typical losses for motors and
combined motor and drive assemblies
for motors that were less than 1 hp.
Based on the information DOE received,
the part load loss curves, or the
variation in efficiency as a function of
load, does not vary significantly
between 1 hp motors and drives and
motors and drives that are less than 1
hp.
DOE requests comment on the
recommendation to test SVIL pumps
with the test methods in the general
pumps test procedure and additional
provisions to account for the differences
in size and characteristics of SVIL pump
motors. In particular, DOE requests
comment on the potential extension of
the nominal full load motor efficiency
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24527
values to reference DOE’s small electric
motor regulations, including certain
single-phase motors, and the need for an
exception for SVIL pumps so that those
sold with single-phase motors do not
have to be rated as bare pumps.
DOE also requests comment on the
prevalence of SVIL pumps sold with
single-phase versus three-phase motors,
and the prevalence of SVIL pumps sold
with motors not covered by DOE’s small
electric motors and electric motors
energy conservation standards for either
single- or three-phase motors.
DOE also requests comment on
whether the equations used to establish
the part load motor and drive losses in
the general pumps test procedure are
appropriate for SVIL pumps under one
horsepower. If inappropriate, DOE
requests data supporting the generation
of alternative loss curves.
III. Request for Information and
Comments Pertaining to Energy
Conservation Standards
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect
data and information to inform its
decision, consistent with its obligations
under EPCA, as to whether the
Department should proceed with an
energy conservation standards
rulemaking. In the following 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
standards for circulator pumps and
SVIL pumps may be warranted.
DOE seeks comment on whether
establishing a standard for circulator
pumps and SVIL pumps would be costeffective, economically justified,
technologically feasible, or would result
in a significant savings of energy.
For circulator pumps, the CPWG
reached agreement on the methodology,
data sources, and assumptions required
to conduct the analyses and reach
consensus on a recommended standard
level. Therefore, DOE is requesting
comment only on specific inputs to the
analyses that may need to be updated
due to technological or market changes
since the CPWG proceedings. However,
because the CPWG did not analyze SVIL
pumps, DOE is requesting comment on
several of the associated inputs to the
analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology
assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a
potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides
information about the circulator pumps
and SVIL pumps industry that will be
used in DOE’s analysis throughout the
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
24528
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
rulemaking process. DOE uses
qualitative and quantitative information
to characterize the structure of the
industry and market. DOE identifies
manufacturers, estimates market shares
and trends, addresses regulatory and
non-regulatory initiatives intended to
improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explores the
potential for efficiency improvements in
the design and manufacturing of
circulator pumps. DOE also reviews
product literature, industry
publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE considers conducting
interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market
and available technologies for circulator
pumps.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered equipment into
equipment classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other
performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a
determination whether capacity or
another performance-related feature
justifies a different standard, DOE must
consider such factors as the utility of the
feature to the consumer and other
factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.)
For circulator pumps, there are no
current energy conservation standards
and, thus, no equipment classes.
However, the 2016 Term Sheets
contained a recommendation related to
establishing equipment classes for
circulator pumps. Specifically,
‘‘Recommendation #1’’ of the December
2016 CPWG Recommendations suggests
grouping all circulator pumps into a
single equipment class, though with
numerical energy conservation standard
values that vary as a function of
hydraulic output power. (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 98
Recommendation at p.1)
DOE requests comment regarding the
CPWG recommendation to include all
circulator pumps within a single
equipment class, especially regarding
interim market changes since the
recommendation that may warrant
changes to that recommendation. DOE
additionally seeks comment regarding
whether the same recommendations
should apply to SVIL pumps.
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of
potential new energy conservation
standards, DOE uses information about
existing and past technology options
and prototype designs to help identify
technologies that manufacturers could
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
energy conservation standards under
consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to
develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. An initial list of
those options appears in Table III.1 of
this document. Each technology option
is then described separately in the
sections.
TABLE III.1—POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGY
OPTIONS FOR CIRCULATOR PUMPS
Improved Hydraulic Design
Improved Motor Efficiency
Ability to Reduce Speed
a. Improved Hydraulic Design
The performance characteristics of a
pump, such as flow, head, and
efficiency, are influenced by the pump’s
hydraulic design. For purposes of DOE’s
analysis, ‘‘hydraulic design’’ is a broad
term used to describe the system design
of the wetted components of a pump.
Although hydraulic design focuses on
the specific hydraulic characteristics of
the impeller and the volute/casing, it
also includes design choices related to
bearings, seals, and other ancillary
components.
Impeller and volute/casing
geometries, clearances, and associated
components can be redesigned to a
higher efficiency (at the same flow and
head) using a combination of historical
best practices and modern computeraided design (CAD) and analysis
methods. The wide availability of
modern CAD packages and techniques
now enables pump designers to more
quickly reach designs with improved
vane shapes, flow paths, and cutwater
designs, all of which work to improve
the efficiency of the pump. In
confidential interviews, manufacturers
indicated that the potential for
additional efficiency improvements
from improved hydraulic design were
fairly small.
b. Improved Motor Efficiency
Different varieties (or constructions)
of a motor have different achievable
efficiencies. Two general motor
constructions are present in the
circulator pump market: Induction
motors, and electronically commutated
motors (ECMs). Induction motors can
have one of two configurations: Singlephase and three-phase. Single-phase
induction motors may be further
categorized to include split phase,
capacitor-start induction-run (CSIR),
capacitor-start capacitor-run (CSCR),
and permanent split capacitor (PSC)
motors.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The majority of circulator pumps
currently available on the market use
induction motors. The efficiency of an
induction motor can be increased by
redesigning the motor to reduce slip
losses between the rotor and stator
components, as well as reducing
mechanical losses at seals and bearings.
ECMs are generally more efficient than
induction motors because their
construction minimizes slip losses
between the rotor and stator
components. Unlike induction motors,
ECMs require an electronic drive to
function. This electronic drive
consumes electricity, and variations in
drive losses and mechanical designs
lead to a range of ECM efficiencies.
The performance standard for
circulator pumps is based upon wire-towater efficiency, which is defined as the
hydraulic output power of a circulator
divided by its line input power. Wireto-water efficiency is commonly
expressed as a percentage. The
achievable wire-to-water efficiency of
circulator pumps is influenced by both
hydraulic efficiency and motor
efficiency. DOE assessed the range of
attainable wire-to-water efficiencies for
circulator pumps with induction
motors, and circulator pumps with
ECMs, over a range of hydraulic power
outputs. Because circulator pump
efficiency is measured on a wire-towater basis, it is difficult to fully
separate differences due to motor
efficiency from those due to hydraulic
efficiency. In redesigning a pump model
to attain greater efficiency levels,
manufacturers would likely consider
both hydraulic efficiency and motor
efficiency. However, manufacturers
indicated in interviews that the energy
savings potential of improving
hydraulic efficiency is small compared
to that of improving motor efficiency.
Higher motor capacities are generally
required for higher hydraulic power
outputs, and as motor capacity
increases, the attainable efficiency of the
motor at full load also increases. Higher
horsepower motors also operate close to
their peak efficiency for a wider range
of loading conditions.10
Circulator pumps manufacturers
manufacture motors in-house or
purchase complete or partial motors
from motor manufacturers and/or
distributors. As a result, manufacturers
may select an entirely different motor,
10 U.S. DOE Building Technologies Office. Energy
Savings Potential and Opportunities for HighEfficiency Electric Motors in Residential and
Commercial Equipment. December 2013. Prepared
for the DOE by Navigant Consulting. p. 4. Available
at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/
Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential
%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
or redesign an existing motor in order to
improve a pump’s motor efficiency.
c. Ability To Operate at Reduced Speeds
Circulator pumps with the variable
speed capability can reduce their energy
consumption by reducing pump speed
to match load requirements. As
discussed in Section II.B, the PERCIRC
metric is a weighted average of input
powers at each test point relative to BEP
flow. The circulator pumps test
procedure agreed to by the CPWG
allows: PERCIRC values for multi- and
variable-speed circulator pumps to be
calculated as the weighted average of
input powers at full speed BEP flow,
and reduced speed at flow points less
than BEP and PERCIRC for single-speed
pumps to be calculated based only on
input power at full speed. Due to pump
affinity laws, variable-speed circulator
pumps will achieve reduced power
24529
consumption at flow points less than
BEP by reducing their rotational speed
to more closely match required system
head. As such, the PERCIRC metric grants
benefits on circulator pumps capable of
variable speed operation.
Specifically, the pump affinity laws
describe the relationship of pump
operating speed, flow rate, head, and
hydraulic power as shown in Equations
(11), (12), and (13).
(11)
(12)
This means that a pump operating at
half speed will provide one half of the
pump’s full-speed flow and one eighth
of the pump’s full-speed power.11
However, pump affinity laws do not
account for changes in hydraulic and
motor efficiency that may occur as a
pump’s rotational speed is reduced.
Typically, hydraulic efficiency and
motor efficiency will be reduced at
lower operating speeds. Consequently,
at reduced speeds, power consumption
is not reduced as drastically as
hydraulic output power. Even so, the
efficiency losses at low-speed operation
are typically outweighed by the
exponential reduction in hydraulic
output power at low-speed operation;
this results in a lower input power at
11 A discussion of reduced-speed pump dynamics
is available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0099.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
low speed operation at flow points
lower than BEP.
Circulator speed controls may be
discrete or continuous, as well as
manual or automatic. Circulator pumps
with discrete speed controls vary the
pump’s rotational speed in a step-wise
manner. Discrete controls are found
mostly on circulator pumps with
induction motors, and have several
speed settings that are can be used to
allow contractors greater installation
flexibility with a single circulator
model. For these circulator pumps, the
pump’s speed is set manually with a
dial or buttons by the installer or user
and operate at a constant speed once the
installation is complete.
Circulator pumps equipped with
automatic speed controls can adjust the
circulator’s rotational speed based on a
signal from differential pressure or
temperature sensors, or an external
input signal from a boiler. The variable
frequency drives required for ECMs
makes them fairly amenable to the
addition of variable speed control logic.
Currently, the vast majority of circulator
pumps with automatic continuously
variable speed controls also have ECM
motors. However, some circulator
models with induction motors also
come equipped with automatic
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
continuous variable speed controls.
Automatic controls can reduce energy
consumption either by allowing
circulator speed to dynamically respond
to changes in system conditions or
simply by reducing speed to a single
value optimal for the specific
application. Automatic controls can be
broadly categorized into two groups:
Pressure-based controls, and
temperature-based controls.
Pressure-based controls vary the
circulator speed based on changes in the
system pressure. These pressure
changes are typically induced by a
thermostatically controlled zone valve
that monitors the space temperature in
different zones and calls for heat (i.e.,
opens the valve) when the space/zone
temperature is below the set-point,
similar to a thermostat. In this type of
control, a pressure sensor internal to the
circulator determines the amount of
pressure in the system and adjusts the
circulator speed to achieve the desired
system pressure.
Temperature-based controls monitor
the supply and return temperature to
the circulator and modulate the
circulator speed to maintain a fixed
temperature drop across the system.
Circulator pumps with temperaturebased controls are able to serve the heat
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
EP07MY21.008</GPH> EP07MY21.009</GPH>
Where:
Q1 and Q2 = volumetric flow rate at two
operating points
H1 and H2 = pump total head at two
operating points
N1 and N2 = pump rotational speed at two
operating points
P1 and P2 = pump hydraulic power at two
operating points
EP07MY21.010</GPH>
(13)
24530
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
loads of a conditioned space at a lower
speed, and therefore lower input power,
than those with differential pressure
controls. This is because they can
account for the differential temperature
between the space and supplied hot
water, delivering a constant BTU/hr
load to the space when less heat is
needed even in a given zone or zones.
DOE seeks information on the
technologies listed in Table III.1
regarding their applicability to the
current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency
of circulator pumps as measured
according to the DOE test procedure.
Specifically, DOE seeks information on
the range of efficiencies or performance
characteristics that are currently
available for each technology option.
DOE seeks information on the
technologies listed in Table III.1
regarding their market adoption, costs,
and any concerns with incorporating
them into products (e.g., impacts on
consumer utility, potential safety
concerns, manufacturing/production/
implementation issues, etc.).
DOE seeks comment on other
technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis
and if these technologies may impact
product features or consumer utility.
B. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis
is to evaluate the technologies that
improve equipment efficiency to
determine which technologies will be
eliminated from further consideration
and which will be passed to the
engineering analysis for further
consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate
certain technology options from further
consideration based on the following
criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies
that are not incorporated in commercial
products or in working prototypes will not be
considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install,
and service. If it is determined that mass
production of a technology in commercial
products and reliable installation and
servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the
relevant market at the time of the compliance
date of the standard, then that technology
will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or
equipment availability. If a technology is
determined to have significant adverse
impact on the utility of the equipment to
significant subgroups of consumers, or result
in the unavailability of any covered
equipment type with performance
characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as equipment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
generally available in the United States at the
time, it will not be considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If
it is determined that a technology will have
significant adverse impacts on health or
safety, it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary
Technologies. If a design option utilizes
proprietary technology that represents a
unique pathway to achieving a given
efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for
monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b)
Technology options identified in the
technology assessment are evaluated
against these criteria using DOE
analyses and inputs from interested
parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade
organizations, and energy efficiency
advocates). Technologies that pass
through the screening analysis are
referred to as ‘‘design options’’ in the
engineering analysis. Technology
options that fail to meet one or more of
the five criteria are eliminated from
consideration.
DOE requests feedback on what
impact, if any, the five screening criteria
described in this section would have on
each of the technology options listed in
Table III.1 with respect to circulator
pumps. Similarly, DOE seeks
information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other
technology options not already
identified in this document with respect
to their potential use in circulator
pumps.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering
analysis is to establish the relationship
between the efficiency and cost of
circulator pumps. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering
analysis: The selection of efficiency
levels to analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency
analysis’’) and the determination of
product cost at each efficiency level
(i.e., the ‘‘cost analysis’’). In determining
the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as
the incremental cost for the equipment
at efficiency levels above the baseline.
The output of the engineering analysis
is a set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that
are used in downstream analyses (i.e.,
the life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback
period (‘‘PBP’’) analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two
approaches to develop energy efficiency
levels for the engineering analysis: (1)
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Relying on observed efficiency levels in
the market (i.e., the efficiency-level
approach), or (2) determining the
incremental efficiency improvements
associated with incorporating specific
design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the
efficiency-level approach, the efficiency
levels established for the analysis are
determined based on the market
distribution of existing products (in
other words, based on the range of
efficiencies and efficiency level
‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the
market). Using the design option
approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are
determined through detailed
engineering calculations and/or
computer simulations of the efficiency
improvements from implementing
specific design options that have been
identified in the technology assessment.
DOE may also rely on a combination of
these two approaches. For example, the
efficiency-level approach (based on
actual products on the market) may be
extended using the design option
approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap
fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between
other identified efficiency levels) and/or
to extrapolate to the max-tech level
(particularly in cases where the maxtech level exceeds the maximum
efficiency level currently available on
the market).
Although DOE has not developed a
formal engineering analysis, DOE
supported the CPWG by providing some
engineering-like analysis based on the
efficiency-level approach. The analysis
was presented over a series of working
sessions, transcripts and accompanying
material for which is available in the
rulemaking docket. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004)
For each established equipment class,
DOE selects a baseline model as a
reference point against which any
changes resulting from new or amended
energy conservation standards can be
measured. The baseline model in each
equipment class represents the
characteristics of common or typical
products in that class. Typically, a
baseline model is one that meets the
current minimum energy conservation
standards and provides basic consumer
utility.
DOE requests feedback on appropriate
baseline efficiency levels for DOE to
apply to each equipment class in
evaluating whether to establish energy
conservation standards for these
products.
DOE requests feedback on the
appropriate baseline efficiency levels for
any newly analyzed equipment classes
that are not currently in place or for the
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
contemplated combined equipment
classes, as discussed in section III.A.1 of
this document. For newly analyzed
equipment classes, DOE requests energy
use data to characterize the baseline
efficiency level.
As part of DOE’s analysis, the
maximum available efficiency level is
the highest efficiency unit currently
available on the market. DOE also
defines a max-tech efficiency level to
represent the theoretical maximum
possible efficiency if all available design
options are incorporated in a model. In
applying these design options, DOE
would only include those that are
compatible with each other that when
combined would represent the
theoretical maximum possible
efficiency. In many cases, the max-tech
efficiency level is not commercially
available because it is not economically
feasible.
DOE seeks input on whether the
maximum available efficiency levels are
appropriate and technologically feasible
for potential consideration as possible
energy conservation standards for
circulator pumps—and if not, why not.
DOE also requests feedback on which
maximum efficiencies are representative
of those for the other circulator pumps
not included within the scope of the
Term Sheets. If the range of possible
efficiencies is different for such other
equipment, what alternative approaches
should DOE consider using for those
equipment classes and why?
DOE seeks feedback on what design
options would be incorporated at a maxtech efficiency level, and the
efficiencies associated with those levels.
As part of this request, DOE also seeks
information as to whether there are
limitations on the use of certain
combinations of design options.
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the
engineering analysis is conducted using
one or a combination of cost
approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors,
including availability and reliability of
public information, characteristics of
the regulated product, and the
availability and timeliness of
purchasing the equipment on the
market. The cost approaches are
summarized as follows:
• Physical teardowns: Under this
approach, DOE physically dismantles a
commercially available product,
component-by-component, to develop a
detailed bill of materials for the product.
• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of
physically deconstructing a product,
DOE identifies each component using
parts diagrams (available from
manufacturer websites or appliance
repair websites, for example) to develop
the bill of materials for the product.
• Price surveys: If neither a physical
nor catalog teardown is feasible (for
example, for tightly integrated products
such as fluorescent lamps, which are
infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical
(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE
conducts price surveys using publicly
available pricing data published on
major online retailer websites and/or by
soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
The bill of materials provides the
basis for the manufacturer production
cost (‘‘MPC’’) estimates. DOE then
applies a manufacturer markup to
convert the MPC to manufacturer selling
price (‘‘MSP’’). The manufacturer
markup accounts for costs such as
overhead and profit. The resulting bill
of materials provides the basis for the
manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’)
estimates.
As described at the beginning of this
section, the main outputs of the
engineering analysis are cost-efficiency
relationships that describe the estimated
increases in manufacturer production
cost associated with higher-efficiency
products for the analyzed equipment
classes.
DOE requests feedback on whether,
and if so how, manufacturers would
incorporate the technology options
listed in Table III.1 to increase energy
efficiency in circulator pumps beyond
the baseline. This includes information
in which manufacturers would
incorporate the different technologies to
incrementally improve the efficiencies
of products. DOE also requests feedback
on whether the increased energy
efficiency would lead to other design
changes that would not occur otherwise.
DOE is also interested in information
regarding any potential impact of design
options on a manufacturer’s ability to
24531
incorporate additional functions or
attributes in response to consumer
demand.
DOE also seeks input on the increase
in MPC associated with incorporating
each particular design option. DOE also
requests information on the investments
necessary to incorporate specific design
options, including, but not limited to,
costs related to new or modified tooling
(if any), materials, engineering and
development efforts to implement each
design option, and manufacturing/
production impacts.
DOE requests comment on whether
certain design options may not be
applicable to (or incompatible with)
specific equipment classes.
To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE
applies a non-production cost multiplier
(the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price
(‘‘MSP’’) is the price at which the
manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce.
DOE requests feedback on what
manufacturer markups are appropriate
for non-built-in and built-in products,
respectively.
D. Markups Analysis
DOE derives customer prices by
applying a multiplier called a ‘‘markup’’
to the MSP. In deriving markups, DOE
determines the major distribution
channels for product sales, the markup
associated with each party in each
distribution channel, and the existence
and magnitude of differences between
markups for baseline products
(‘‘baseline markups’’) and higherefficiency products (‘‘incremental
markups’’). The identified distribution
channels (i.e., how the products are
distributed from the manufacturer to the
consumer), and estimated relative sales
volumes through each channel are used
in generating end-user price inputs for
the LCC and PBP analyses and the
national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’).
During the CPWG meetings, the
CPWG identified distribution channels
for circulator pumps and estimated their
respective shares of shipments by sector
(residential and commercial), based on
manufacturer feedback (Docket No.
EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 49 at p.
51), as shown in Table III.2:
TABLE III.2—CIRCULATOR PUMPS DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS AND RESPECTIVE MARKET SHARES
Channel: From manufacturer
Residential
shipments
share
(%)
Sales Rep → Contractor → End User ....................................................................................................................
........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Commercial
shipments
share
(%)
37
24532
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.2—CIRCULATOR PUMPS DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS AND RESPECTIVE MARKET SHARES—Continued
Channel: From manufacturer
Residential
shipments
share
(%)
Commercial
shipments
share
(%)
Sales Rep → Distributor → Contractor → End User ..............................................................................................
Distributor → End User ...........................................................................................................................................
Sales Rep → Distributor → End User .....................................................................................................................
OEM → Contractor → End User .............................................................................................................................
OEM → Distributor → Contractor → End User .......................................................................................................
73
........................
2
12
13
36
2
........................
12
13
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
100
100
DOE requests information on whether
there have been market changes since
the CPWG that would affect the
distribution channels and the
percentage of circulator pump
shipments in each channel and sector,
as shown in Table III.2, and if so, how
such market changes would affect the
circulator pump distribution channels.
DOE also requests information on
whether the same distribution channels
and associated breakdowns across
sectors apply for SVIL pumps, and if
not, DOE requests relevant data on the
SVIL distribution channels and their
market shares.
E. Energy Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process,
DOE conducts an energy use analysis to
identify how products are used by
consumers, and thereby determine the
energy savings potential of energy
efficiency improvements. DOE will base
the energy consumption of circulator
pumps and SVIL pumps on the rated
annual energy consumption as
determined by the DOE test procedure.
Along similar lines, the energy use
analysis is meant to represent typical
energy consumption in the field.
1. Consumer Samples and Market
Breakdowns
To estimate the energy use of
products in field operating conditions,
DOE typically develops consumer
samples that are representative of
installation and operating
characteristics of how such products are
used in the field, as well as distributions
of annual energy use by application and
market segment. According to
manufacturer feedback, there are two
main applications for circulator pumps:
Hydronic heating and hot water
recirculation. DOE estimated the market
share of these two applications based on
manufacturer-provided circulator pump
shipments data for 2015, as well as the
market distribution of circulator pumps
in the residential and commercial
sectors based on the horsepower ratings
of the shipments data and industry
expert input.
To develop consumer samples, the
CPWG relied on the Energy Information
Administration’s (EIA) 2009 residential
energy consumption survey (RECS) and
the 2012 commercial buildings energy
consumption survey (CBECS), for the
residential and commercial sectors,
respectively. (Docket No. EERE–2016–
BT–STD–0004, No. 46 at p. 158) In a
potential energy conservation standards
rulemaking for circulator pumps and
SVIL pumps, DOE may utilize the most
current versions of the RECS and CBECS
consumer samples, currently the 2015
RECS and the upcoming 2018 CBECS.
DOE requests data and information on
whether the breakdowns of circulator
pumps by sector and application have
changed since the CPWG proceedings,
and if so, how. DOE also requests
information on the market applications
of SVIL pumps and how those are
broken down by sector.
As discussed in section II.A.1.b of this
document, the CPWG recommended a
definition for ‘‘on-demand circulator
pumps’’. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 98 Non-Binding
Recommendation #1 at pp. 4–5) In order
to consider analyzing on-demand
circulator pumps, DOE requires
information to characterize their market
size. The CPWG reported that ondemand circulator pumps comprise 5
percent of the hot water recirculation
market. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 46 at p. 168)
DOE requests feedback on whether
there have been market changes since
the CPWG meetings that would warrant
a different estimate of the fraction of
circulator pumps sold with on-demand
controls, and if so, what that fraction is.
2. Operating Hours
To develop annual energy use
estimates, the CPWG reviewed the
operating hours of circulator pumps by
sector (residential and commercial) and
application (hydronic heating and hot
water recirculation). For hydronic
heating applications in the residential
sector, operating hours per year (‘‘HPY’’)
were estimated based on two field
metering studies: A 2015 Vermont study
and a 2012–2013 metering study in
Ithaca, NY.12 Based on these metering
studies, the CPWG suggested
establishing a relationship between
residential sector heating degree days
(‘‘HDDs’’) and circulator pump HPY to
develop operating hour estimates for the
hydronic heating application. For the
residential sector, this scaling factor was
0.33 HPY/HDD. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 100 at pp. 54,
108). For the commercial sector, the
CPWG recommended a scaling factor of
0.45 HPY/HDD. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 100 at pp.
122–123). These scaling factors were
used to develop distributions of
circulator pump operating hours across
the consumer samples. The weighted
average HPY for the hydronic heating
application were estimated at
approximately 1,970 and 2,200 for the
residential and commercial sector,
respectively.
For circulator pumps used in hot
water recirculation applications, the
CPWG agreed to HPY estimates based
on their associated control types (Docket
No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 60
at p. 74), as shown in Table III.3.
12 For more information on the Ithaca, NY study,
see https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60200.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
24533
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.3—CIRCULATOR PUMP OPERATING HOURS IN HOT WATER RECIRCULATION
Fraction of
consumers
Control type
Sector
No Control .........................
Residential .......................
Commercial ......................
Residential .......................
Timer .................................
HPY
50%
8,760
Constant Operation.
25%
7,300
50% operate constantly and 50% operate 16 hours/
day.
50% operate constantly and 50% operate 12 hours/
day.
3 hours per day.
Commercial ......................
Aquastat ............................
On Demand * .....................
Notes
6,570
Residential .......................
Commercial ......................
Residential .......................
Commercial ......................
20%
1,095
5%
61
122
10 minutes per day *.
20 minutes per day *.
* Assuming that circulator pumps operate for 30 seconds for each demand ‘‘push’’
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
effects of potential energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps and
Table 111.4 Circulator Pum
Application
Efficiency
Level
without new and/or amended standards,
and uses efficiency market shares to
characterize the ‘‘no-new-standards’’
case equipment mix. By accounting for
consumers who already purchase more
efficient equipment, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from
potential standards. For circulator
pumps, the CPWG reviewed the market
efficiency distribution for circulator
pumps by efficiency level, circulator
variety (e.g., CP1, CP2, CP3),
horsepower rating, and application. The
data used to develop the no-newstandards case were confidential
manufacturer shipments data from 2015.
Table III.4 shows the no-new-standards
efficiency distribution in 2015, as
agreed by the CPWG. (Docket No. EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 99 at pp. 206–
208). Note that due to confidentiality
concerns, the actual market shares are
not shown, and instead market
availability is depicted by ’X’.
SVIL pumps on individual customers.
For any given efficiency level, DOE
measures the PBP and the change in
LCC relative to an estimated baseline
level. The LCC is the total customer
expense over the life of the equipment,
consisting of purchase, installation, and
operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the
calculation of total installed cost
include the cost of the equipment—
which includes the MSP, distribution
channel markups, and sales taxes—and
installation costs. Inputs to the
calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs,
equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and
the year that compliance with new and
amended standards is required.
DOE measures savings of potential
standards relative to a ‘‘no-newstandards’’ case that reflects conditions
Distribution in 2015
......
~
N
~
(")
~
......
~
N
~
1 hp
1/6 hp
1/25 hp
(")
~
......
~
N
(")
~
~
......
~
(")
~
~
ELO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ELI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EL2
X
EL3
X
X
X
X
EL4
X
X
X
X
Hot Water
ELO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recirculation
ELI
X
X
X
X
X
X
EL2
X
X
EL3
X
X
X
X
EL4*
*The CPWG agreed that EL4 was not viable for circulator pumps used in hot water recirculation.
X
X
X
Heating
DOE requests feedback and data on
whether any changes in the circulator
pump market since 2015 have affected
VerDate Sep<11>2014
N
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
the market efficiency distribution of
circulator pumps, and if so, how. DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
X
X
also requests information on the current
efficiency distribution of SVIL pumps.
DOE requests data and information on
the installation costs of SVIL pumps,
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
EP07MY21.011</GPH>
DOE requests information on any
updated or recent data sources, such as
circulator pump field metering studies,
to inform and validate the circulator
pump operating hours in the residential
and commercial sectors and across all
applications. DOE also requests
comment on whether there have been
any technology or market changes since
the term sheet to warrant a different
approach on the circulator pump
operating hours.
DOE requests input on the operating
hours for SVIL pumps by sector and
application, and specifically, whether a
similar approach should be followed for
SVIL pumps, as the one used to estimate
operating hours for circulator pumps.
24534
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
and whether those vary by motor type,
control type, or any other factor
affecting their efficiency. DOE also
requests input on SVIL repair and
maintenance costs and frequencies, and
SVIL lifetimes, including average and
maximum service lifetimes.
G. Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts of
equipment to calculate the national
impacts of potential amended energy
conservation standards on energy
consumption, net present value
(‘‘NPV’’), and future manufacturer cash
flows. DOE shipments projections are
typically based on available historical
data broken out by equipment class,
capacity, and efficiency. Current sales
estimates allow for a more accurate
model that captures recent trends in the
market.
For circulator pumps, DOE utilized
manufacturer-provided confidential
historical shipments data up to the year
2015 to estimate future circulator pump
shipments, which were broken down by
circulator pump variety (CP1, CP2,
CP3), horsepower rating, and circulator
pump housing material.
DOE requests circulator pump annual
sales data (i.e., number of shipments)
from 2016 to 2020 broken out by
circulator pump category, horsepower
rating, and circulator pump housing
material. If disaggregated fractions of
annual sales are not available, DOE
requests more aggregated fractions of
annual sales. DOE also requests annual
historical shipments data for SVILs for
the past 10 years, if possible
disaggregated by horsepower rating,
motor type, housing material, or any
other differentiating factor used in the
industry.
To project future shipments, DOE
typically uses new housing starts
projections and floorspace projections
from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)
as market drivers for the residential and
commercial sectors, respectively. In
addition to the aforementioned drivers,
for hydronic heating applications in the
residential sector, the CPWG also agreed
to utilize Department of Commerce
historical data (from 1973 to 2015),
which showed a declining saturation for
new construction. Based on these inputs
and resulting projections, the CPWG
agreed that circulator pump shipments
would remain constant at approximately
1.8 million units per year throughout
the analysis period (2022–2051).
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004,
No. 100 at pp. 19–21).
To project future shipments of
circulator pumps, DOE plans to utilize
the market drivers and saturation trends
agreed by the CPWG and to update the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
data sources with the most current ones,
if available.
DOE requests information on any
market changes since 2015 that would
justify using market drivers and
saturation trends that are different than
those recommended by the CPWG. DOE
also requests input on the market
drivers and saturation trends that would
help project shipments for SVIL pumps.
significant burden on manufacturers,
the combined effects of several existing
or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some
manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the
impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory
burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other
regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers’ financial operations.
Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead
companies to abandon product lines or
markets with lower expected future
returns than competing products. For
these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis
of cumulative regulatory burden as part
of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the
names and contact information of any
domestic or foreign-based
manufacturers that distribute circulator
pumps or SVILs in the United States.
DOE identified small businesses as a
subgroup of manufacturers that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
requests the names and contact
information of small business
manufacturers, as defined by the SBA’s
size threshold, of circulator pumps or
SVILs that manufacture products in the
United States. In addition, DOE requests
comment on any other manufacturer
subgroups that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
requests feedback on any potential
approaches that could be considered to
address impacts on manufacturers,
including small businesses.
DOE requests information regarding
the cumulative regulatory burden
impacts on manufacturers of circulator
pumps and SVILs associated with (1)
other DOE standards applying to
different products that these
manufacturers may also make and (2)
product-specific regulatory actions of
other Federal agencies. DOE also
requests comment on its methodology
for computing cumulative regulatory
burden and whether there are any
flexibilities it can consider that would
reduce this burden while remaining
consistent with the requirements of
EPCA.
H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer
impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) is to estimate
the financial impact of amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of circulator pumps, and
to evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and
manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and
qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the
Government Regulatory Impact Model
(‘‘GRIM’’), an industry cash-flow model
adapted for each product in this
analysis, with the key output of industry
net present value (‘‘INPV’’). The
qualitative part of the MIA addresses the
potential impacts of energy conservation
standards on manufacturing capacity
and industry competition, as well as
factors such as product characteristics,
impacts on particular subgroups of
firms, and important market and
product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to
analyze impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on subgroups of
manufacturers of covered equipment,
including small business manufacturers.
DOE uses the Small Business
Administration’s (‘‘SBA’’) small
business size standards to determine
whether manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, which are listed by the
applicable North American Industry
Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code.13
Manufacturing of circulator pumps is
classified under NAICS 333914,
‘‘Measuring, Dispensing, and Other
Pumping Equipment Manufacturing,’’
and the SBA sets a threshold of 750
employees or less for a domestic entity
to be considered as a small business.
This employee threshold includes all
employees in a business’ parent
company and any other subsidiaries.
One aspect of assessing manufacturer
burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE
standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies that affect the manufacturers of
a covered product or equipment. While
any one regulation may not impose a
I. Other Issues
The CPWG analyzed four ELs (ELs 1
through 4) as potential standard levels
for circulator pumps.14 The CPWG
recommended standard level #2 as the
13 Available online at https://www.sba.gov/
document/support--table-size-standards.
14 The CPWG did not analyze SVILs, therefore no
standard levels were considered.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
proposed standard level, with a
compliance date of four years following
the publication of a circulator pumps
final rule. (Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–
STD–0004, No. 98 Recommendation #1
at p. 1).
DOE requests comment on whether
there have been any market or
technology changes since publication of
the 2016 Term Sheets that would make
the CPWG’s EL 2 recommendation no
longer valid.
IV. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by the date specified
under the DATES heading, comments and
information on matters addressed in this
RFI and on other matters relevant to
DOE’s consideration of test procedures
and energy conservation standards for
circulator pumps and small vertical inline pumps. These comments and
information will aid in the development
of test procedure and energy
conservation standards NOPRs for
circulator pumps and small vertical inline pumps if DOE determines that
amended test procedures may be
appropriate for this equipment.
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 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 this instruction, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
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.
Comments and documents submitted
via email 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 on 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. Faxes
will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and free of
any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit via email two wellmarked copies: One copy of the
document marked confidential
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24535
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. DOE will make its
own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
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 test procedures and
energy conservation standards. DOE
actively encourages the participation
and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of this
process. Interactions with and between
members of the public provide a
balanced discussion of the issues and
assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing
list to receive future notices and
information about this process should
contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or via email at Appliance
StandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on the
CPWG’s recommended definitions for
wet rotor circulator pump; dry rotor,
two-piece circulator pump; dry rotor,
three-piece circulator pump; and
horizontal motor. Specifically, DOE
requests comment regarding whether
changes in the market since the CPWG’s
recommendation would affect the
recommended definitions and scope.
(2) DOE requests comment regarding
whether the market changes in the
intervening years since the CPWG’s
recommendation of a definition for
‘‘header pump’’ warrant modification of
that recommended definition.
(3) DOE requests comment regarding
the CPWG-recommended definition of
‘‘on-demand circulator pump’’ and
whether it is appropriate to retain ondemand circulator pumps within the
scope of future analysis.
(4) DOE seeks comment and feedback
on the scope and definitions
recommended by the CPWG, including
whether anything has changed in the
market since the conclusion of the
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
24536
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
CPWG that would impact the
recommended scope and definitions for
SVIL pumps.
(5) DOE seeks feedback and
information regarding whether it may be
appropriate to include SVIL pumps in
the circulator pumps rulemaking, in the
commercial and industrial pumps
rulemaking, or in a separate rulemaking.
(6) DOE seeks comment regarding any
other topics related to scope and
definitions for circulator pumps and
SVIL pumps.
(7) DOE requests comment on the
CPWG recommendation to adopt
PEICIRC as the metric to characterize the
energy use of certain circulator pumps
and on the recommended equation for
PEICIRC, including whether anything in
the technology or market has changed
since publication of the 2016 Term
Sheets that would lead to this metric no
longer being appropriate.
(8) DOE requests comment on the
recommended definitions for manual
speed control, pressure control,
adaptive pressure control, temperature
control, and external input signal
control. Additionally, DOE requests
comment on a possible definition for
adaptive pressure control.
(9) DOE requests comment on
whether any additional control variety
is now currently on the market and if it
should be considered in this
rulemaking.
(10) DOE requests comment on
whether the CPWG-recommended
reference system curve shape, including
the static offset, is reasonable for
circulator pumps.
(11) DOE requests comment on the
recommended test methods, test points,
and weights for circulator pumps with
pressure controls, including circulator
pumps with adaptive pressure controls.
Specifically, DOE requests comment on
whether the technology or market for
such controls has changed sufficiently
since the term sheet to warrant a
different approach.
(12) DOE requests comment on the
recommended test methods, test points,
and weights for circulator pumps with
temperature controls. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether the
technology or market for such controls
has changed sufficiently since the term
sheet to warrant a different approach.
(13) DOE requests comment on the
CPWG-recommended test method and
the unique test points, weights, and
speed factors for circulator pumps
distributed in commerce with manual
speed controls. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether the
technology or market for such controls
has changed sufficiently since the term
sheet to warrant a different approach.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
(14) DOE requests comment on the
CPWG-recommended test method for
circulator pumps distributed in
commerce with only external input
signal controls, as well as for those
distributed in commerce with external
input signal controls in addition to
other control varieties. Specifically,
DOE requests comment on whether the
technology or market for such controls
has changed sufficiently since the term
sheet to warrant a different approach.
(15) DOE requests comment on the
CPWG-recommended test methods, test
points, and weights for circulator
pumps with no controls.
(16) DOE seeks comment and
feedback on whether HI 40.6–2016 or HI
40.6–2021 is an appropriate test method
for conducting wire-to-water testing of
circulator pumps, as recommended by
the CPWG. In addition, DOE seeks
comment on whether the modifications
in HI 40.6–2016 and/or HI 40.6–2021
adequately capture the CPWG
recommended modifications in
Recommendation #10.
(17) DOE seeks comment on whether
the recommendations for twin-head
circulator pumps and circulators-lessvolute have been adequately addressed
in HI 40.6–2021.
(18) DOE requests comment on the
recommendation to test SVIL pumps
with the test methods in the general
pumps test procedure and additional
provisions to account for the differences
in size and characteristics of SVIL pump
motors. In particular, DOE requests
comment on the potential extension of
the nominal full load motor efficiency
values to reference DOE’s small electric
motor regulations, including certain
single-phase motors, and the need for an
exception for SVIL pumps so that those
sold with single-phase motors do not
have to be rated as bare pumps.
(19) DOE also requests comment on
the prevalence of SVIL pumps sold with
single-phase versus three-phase motors,
and the prevalence of SVIL pumps sold
with motors not covered by DOE’s small
electric motors and electric motors
energy conservation standards for either
single- or three-phase motors.
(20) DOE also requests comment on
whether the equations used to establish
the part load motor and drive losses in
the general pumps test procedure are
appropriate for SVIL pumps under one
horsepower. If inappropriate, DOE
requests data supporting the generation
of alternative loss curves.
(21) DOE seeks comment on whether
establishing a standard for circulator
pumps and SVIL pumps would be costeffective, economically justified,
technologically feasible, or would result
in a significant savings of energy.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(22) DOE requests comment regarding
the CPWG recommendation to include
all circulator pumps within a single
equipment class, especially regarding
interim market changes since the
recommendation that may warrant
changes to that recommendation. DOE
additionally seeks comment regarding
whether the same recommendations
should apply to SVIL pumps.
(23) DOE seeks information on the
technologies listed in Table III.1
regarding their applicability to the
current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency
of circulator pumps as measured
according to the DOE test procedure.
Specifically, DOE seeks information on
the range of efficiencies or performance
characteristics that are currently
available for each technology option.
(24) DOE seeks information on the
technologies listed in Table III.1
regarding their market adoption, costs,
and any concerns with incorporating
them into products (e.g., impacts on
consumer utility, potential safety
concerns, manufacturing/production/
implementation issues, etc.).
(25) DOE seeks comment on other
technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis
and if these technologies may impact
product features or consumer utility.
(26) DOE requests feedback on what
impact, if any, the five screening criteria
described in this section would have on
each of the technology options listed in
Table III.1 with respect to circulator
pumps. Similarly, DOE seeks
information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other
technology options not already
identified in this document with respect
to their potential use in circulator
pumps.
(27) DOE requests feedback on
appropriate baseline efficiency levels for
DOE to apply to each equipment class
in evaluating whether to establish
energy conservation standards for these
products.
(28) DOE requests feedback on the
appropriate baseline efficiency levels for
any newly analyzed equipment classes
that are not currently in place or for the
contemplated combined equipment
classes, as discussed in section III.A.1 of
this document. For newly analyzed
equipment classes, DOE requests energy
use data to characterize the baseline
efficiency level.
(29) DOE seeks input on whether the
maximum available efficiency levels are
appropriate and technologically feasible
for potential consideration as possible
energy conservation standards for
circulator pumps—and if not, why not.
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(30) DOE also requests feedback on
which maximum efficiencies are
representative of those for the other
circulator pumps not included within
the scope of the Term Sheets. If the
range of possible efficiencies is different
for such other equipment, what
alternative approaches should DOE
consider using for those equipment
classes and why?
(31) DOE seeks feedback on what
design options would be incorporated at
a max-tech efficiency level, and the
efficiencies associated with those levels.
As part of this request, DOE also seeks
information as to whether there are
limitations on the use of certain
combinations of design options.
(32) DOE requests feedback on
whether, and if so how, manufacturers
would incorporate the technology
options listed in Table III.1 to increase
energy efficiency in circulator pumps
beyond the baseline. This includes
information in which manufacturers
would incorporate the different
technologies to incrementally improve
the efficiencies of products. DOE also
requests feedback on whether the
increased energy efficiency would lead
to other design changes that would not
occur otherwise. DOE is also interested
in information regarding any potential
impact of design options on a
manufacturer’s ability to incorporate
additional functions or attributes in
response to consumer demand.
(33) DOE also seeks input on the
increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular design
option. DOE also requests information
on the investments necessary to
incorporate specific design options,
including, but not limited to, costs
related to new or modified tooling (if
any), materials, engineering and
development efforts to implement each
design option, and manufacturing/
production impacts.
(34) DOE requests comment on
whether certain design options may not
be applicable to (or incompatible with)
specific equipment classes.
(35) DOE requests feedback on what
manufacturer markups are appropriate
for non-built-in and built-in products,
respectively.
(36) DOE requests information on
whether there have been market changes
since the CPWG that would affect the
distribution channels and the
percentage of circulator pump
shipments in each channel and sector,
as shown in Table III.2, and if so, how
such market changes would affect the
circulator pump distribution channels.
DOE also requests information on
whether the same distribution channels
and associated breakdowns across
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
sectors apply for SVIL pumps, and if
not, DOE requests relevant data on the
SVIL distribution channels and their
market shares.
(37) DOE requests data and
information on whether the breakdowns
of circulator pumps by sector and
application have changed since the
CPWG proceedings, and if so, how. DOE
also requests information on the market
applications of SVIL pumps and how
those are broken down by sector.
(38) DOE requests feedback on
whether there have been market changes
since the CPWG meetings that would
warrant a different estimate of the
fraction of circulator pumps sold with
on-demand controls, and if so, what that
fraction is.
(39) DOE requests information on any
updated or recent data sources, such as
circulator pump field metering studies,
to inform and validate the circulator
pump operating hours in the residential
and commercial sectors and across all
applications. DOE also requests
comment on whether there have been
any technology or market changes since
the term sheet to warrant a different
approach on the circulator pump
operating hours.
(40) DOE requests input on the
operating hours for SVIL pumps by
sector and application, and specifically,
whether a similar approach should be
followed for SVIL pumps, as the one
used to estimate operating hours for
circulator pumps.
(41) DOE requests feedback and data
on whether any changes in the
circulator pump market since 2015 have
affected the market efficiency
distribution of circulator pumps, and if
so, how. DOE also requests information
on the current efficiency distribution of
SVIL pumps.
(42) DOE requests data and
information on the installation costs of
SVIL pumps, and whether those vary by
motor type, control type, or any other
factor affecting their efficiency. DOE
also requests input on SVIL repair and
maintenance costs and frequencies, and
SVIL lifetimes, including average and
maximum service lifetimes.
(43) DOE requests circulator pump
annual sales data (i.e., number of
shipments) from 2016 to 2020 broken
out by circulator category, horsepower
rating, and circulator housing material.
If disaggregated fractions of annual sales
are not available, DOE requests more
aggregated fractions of annual sales.
DOE also requests annual historical
shipments data for SVILs for the past 10
years, if possible disaggregated by
horsepower rating, motor type, housing
material, or any other differentiating
factor used in the industry.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
24537
(44) DOE requests information on any
market changes since 2015 that would
justify using market drivers and
saturation trends that are different than
those recommended by the CPWG. DOE
also requests input on the market
drivers and saturation trends that would
help project shipments for SVIL pumps.
(45) To the extent feasible, DOE seeks
the names and contact information of
any domestic or foreign-based
manufacturers that distribute circulator
pumps or SVILs in the United States.
(46) DOE identified small businesses
as a subgroup of manufacturers that
could be disproportionally impacted by
amended energy conservation
standards. DOE requests the names and
contact information of small business
manufacturers, as defined by the SBA’s
size threshold, of circulator pumps or
SVILs that manufacture products in the
United States. In addition, DOE requests
comment on any other manufacturer
subgroups that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
requests feedback on any potential
approaches that could be considered to
address impacts on manufacturers,
including small businesses.
(47) DOE requests comment on
whether there have been any market or
technology changes since publication of
the 2016 Term Sheets that would make
the CPWG’s EL 2 recommendation no
longer valid.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on April 27, 2021, by
Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
Assistant Secretary for 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 April 28,
2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021–09242 Filed 5–6–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 87 (Friday, May 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24516-24537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09242]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004]
RIN 1904-AD61
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures and Energy
Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps and Small Vertical In-Line
Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the Department'')
is restarting rulemaking activities to consider potential test
procedures and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps and
small vertical in-line pumps. Consensus recommendations for test
procedures and energy conservation standards were negotiated in 2016 by
a stakeholder working group of the Appliance Standards Rulemaking
Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC''). Through this request for
information (``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information regarding
development and evaluation of new test procedures that would be
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy use
during a representative average use cycle for the equipment without
being unduly burdensome to conduct. Additionally, this RFI solicits
information regarding the development and evaluation of potential new
energy conservation standards for circulator pumps and small vertical
in-line pumps, and whether such standards would result in significant
energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically
justified. DOE also welcomes written comments from the public on any
subject within the scope of this document (including those topics not
specifically raised), 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 July 6, 2021.
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 by email to the following address:
[email protected]. Include ``Circulator Pumps RFI'' and
docket number EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004 and/or RIN number 1904-AD61 in the
subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special
characters or any form of encryption.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently accepting only
electronic submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this
change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards
Program staff at (202) 586-
[[Page 24517]]
1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-
19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all
of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal
mail and hand delivery/courier.
No telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
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. 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://beta.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket. See section IV for information on how to submit comments
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, 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) 586-9870. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-2588. 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 and Background
B. Rulemaking History
C. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Potential
Test Procedure
A. Scope and Definitions
1. Definitions for Circulator Pumps
2. Definition of Small Vertical In-Line Pump
B. Metric for Circulator Pumps
C. Test Procedure for Circulator Pumps
1. Test Methods for Different Categories and Control Varieties
2. Updates to Industry Standards
D. Metric and Test Procedure for SVIL Pumps
III. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Energy
Conservation Standards
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Assessment
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Cost Analysis
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Consumer Samples and Market Breakdowns
2. Operating Hours
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
G. Shipments
H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
I. Other Issues
IV. Submission of Comments
A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
I. Introduction
Pumps are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which
DOE is authorized to establish test procedures and energy conservation
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) Circulator and small vertical in-line
(``SVIL'') pumps, which are the subject of this notification, are
categories of pumps. Currently, circulator pumps and SVIL pumps are not
subject to DOE test procedures or energy conservation standards. The
following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures
and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps and SVIL pumps
and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of
establishing Federal regulations for these equipment types.
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317 as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency. This equipment includes pumps, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), 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 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must
use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies
with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
Before prescribing any final test procedures, the Secretary must
publish proposed test procedures in the Federal Register, and afford
interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration)
to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the proposed
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b))
In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in section I.C, and
follow the
[[Page 24518]]
rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) DOE is publishing this RFI consistent with its
obligations in EPCA.
B. Rulemaking History
As stated, ``pumps'' are listed as a type of industrial equipment
covered by EPCA, although EPCA does not define the term ``pump.'' (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) In a final rule published January 25, 2016, DOE
established definitions applicable to pumps and test procedures for
certain pumps. 81 FR 4086 (``January 2016 TP final rule''). ``Pump'' is
defined as equipment designed to move liquids (which may include
entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical
or mechanical action and includes a bare pump and, if included by the
manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver, and
controls. 10 CFR 431.462. This definition includes circulator pumps and
SVIL pumps, but such pumps are not currently subject to the established
Federal test procedure or energy conservation standards.
The established test procedure for pumps is applicable to certain
categories of clean water pumps,\3\ specifically those that are end
suction close-coupled; end suction frame mounted/own bearings; in-line
(``IL''); radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser
casing; and submersible turbine (``ST'') pumps with the following
characteristics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A ``clean water pump'' is a pump that is designed for use in
pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of
0.016 pounds per cubic foot, and with a maximum dissolved solid
content of 3.1 pounds per cubic foot, provided that the total gas
content of the water does not exceed the saturation volume, and
disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the water from
freezing at a minimum of 14 [deg]F. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate of 25 gallons per minute (``gpm'') or greater
(at best efficiency point (``BEP'') and full impeller diameter);
459 feet of head maximum (at BEP and full impeller
diameter and the number of stages specified for testing);
Design temperature range from 14 to 248 [deg]F;
Designed to operate with either (1) a 2- or 4-pole
induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation
operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and
4,320 revolutions per minute (``rpm'') and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and
in either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the same speed;
6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for ST pumps; and
For ESCC and ESFM pumps, a specific speed less than or
equal to 5,000 when calculated using U.S. customary units.
Except for: Fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist
pumps, magnet driven pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear
facility subject to 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production
and Utilization Facilities''; and pumps meeting the design and
construction requirements set forth in any relevant military
specifications.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ I.e., MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous
Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended); MIL-P-17881D, ``Pumps,
Centrifugal, Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)'' (as amended); MIL-P-
17840C, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Close-Coupled, Navy Standard (For
Surface Ship Application)'' (as amended); MIL-P-18682D, ``Pump,
Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating, Naval Shipboard'' (as
amended); and MIL-P-18472G, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Condensate, Feed
Booster, Waste Heat Boiler, And Distilling Plant'' (as amended).
Military specifications and standards are available at https://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS.
10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)
The pump categories subject to the current test procedures are
referred to as ``general pumps'' in this document. As stated,
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps are not general pumps.
DOE also published a final rule establishing energy conservation
standards applicable to certain classes of general pumps. 81 FR 4368
(Jan. 26, 2016) (``January 2016 ECS final rule''); see also, 10 CFR
431.465.
The January 2016 TP final rule and the January 2016 ECS final rule
implemented the recommendations of the Commercial and Industrial Pump
Working Group (``CIPWG'') established through the ASRAC to negotiate
standards and a test procedure for general pumps. (Docket No. EERE-
2013-BT-NOC-0039) The CIPWG concluded its negotiations on June 19,
2014, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet containing
recommendations to DOE on appropriate standard levels for general
pumps, as well as recommendations addressing issues related to the
metric and test procedure for general pumps (``CIPWG
recommendations''). (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92)
Subsequently, ASRAC voted unanimously to approve the CIPWG
recommendations during a July 7, 2014 webinar. The term sheet
containing the CIPWG recommendations is available in the CIPWG's
docket. The CIPWG recommendations included initiation of a separate
rulemaking for circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No.
92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2)
On February 3, 2016, DOE published a Notice of Intent to Establish
the Circulator Pumps Working Group to Negotiate a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``NOPR'') for Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator
Pumps to negotiate, if possible, Federal standards and a test procedure
for circulator pumps and to announce the first public meeting. 81 FR
5658. The members of the Circulator Pumps Working Group (``CPWG'') were
selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of interested parties and
expertise, including representatives from efficiency advocacy
organizations and manufacturers. Additionally, one member from ASRAC
and one DOE representative were part of the CPWG. Table I.1 lists the
members of the CPWG and their affiliations.
Table I.1--ASRAC CPWG Members and Affiliations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Affiliation Abbreviation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles White................. Plumbing-Heating- PHCC.
Cooling Contractors
Association.
Gabor Lechner................. Armstrong Pumps, Inc.. Armstrong.
Gary Fernstrom................ California Investor- CA IOUs.
Owned Utilities.
Joanna Mauer.................. Appliance Standards ASAP.
Awareness Project.
Joe Hagerman.................. U.S. Department of DOE.
Energy.
Laura Petrillo-Groh........... Air-Conditioning, AHRI.
Heating, and
Refrigeration
Institute.
Lauren Urbanek................ Natural Resources NRDC.
Defense Council.
Mark Chaffee.................. TACO, Inc............. Taco.
Mark Handzel.................. Xylem Inc............. Xylem.
Peter Gaydon.................. Hydraulic Institute... HI.
Richard Gussert............... Grundfos Americas Grundfos.
Corporation.
David Bortolon................ Wilo Inc.............. Wilo.
[[Page 24519]]
Russell Pate.................. Rheem Manufacturing Rheem.
Company.
Don Lanser.................... Nidec Motor Nidec.
Corporation.
Tom Eckman.................... Northwest Power and NPCC.
Conservation Council
(ASRAC member).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPWG commenced negotiations at an open meeting on March 29,
2016, and held six additional meetings to discuss scope, metrics, and
the test procedure. The CPWG concluded its negotiations for test
procedure items on September 7, 2016, with a consensus vote to approve
a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on scope, metric, and
the basis of the test procedure (``September 2016 CPWG
Recommendations''). The term sheet containing these recommendations is
available in the CPWG docket. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No.
58)
The CPWG continued to meet to address potential energy conservation
standards for circulator pumps. Those meetings began on November 3-4,
2016 and concluded on December 1, 2016, with approval of a second term
sheet (``December 2016 CPWG Recommendations'') containing CPWG
recommendations related to energy conservation standards, applicable
test procedure, labeling and certification requirements for circulator
pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98) ASRAC subsequently
voted unanimously to approve the September and December 2016 CPWG
Recommendations (collectively, the ``2016 Term Sheets'') during a
December meeting. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 91 at p. 2)
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All references in this document to the approved
recommendations included in 2016 Term Sheets are noted with the
recommendation number and a citation to the appropriate document in
the CPWG docket (e.g., Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. #,
Recommendation #X at p. Y). References to discussions or suggestions
of the CPWG not found in the 2016 Term Sheets include a citation to
meeting transcripts and the commenter, if applicable (e.g., Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, [Organization], No. X at p. Y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter dated June 9, 2017, HI expressed its support for the
process that DOE initiated regarding circulator pumps and encouraged
the publishing of a NOPR and a final rule by the end of 2017. (Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, HI, No.103 at p. 1) In response to an early
assessment review RFI published September 28, 2020 regarding the
existing test procedures for certain pumps (85 FR 60734, ``September
2020 Early Assessment RFI), HI commented that it continues to support
the recommendations from the CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032,
HI, No. 6 at p. 1) In addition, NEEA commented that the CPWG
recommended adopting test procedures for circulator pumps, which DOE
should do in the pumps or a separate rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2020-
BT-TP-0032, NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8)
C. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
The Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard that will
not result in significant conservation of energy, or is not
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial
cost, or maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if
applicable) 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 and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.2 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
Table I.2--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings.............. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Technological Feasibility............... Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers Manufacturer Impact
and Consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Markups for Product
Compared to Increased Cost for the Price Determination.
Product. Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
[[Page 24520]]
3. Total Projected Energy Savings... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance. Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Manufacturer Impact
Competition. Analysis.
6. Need for National Energy and Shipments Analysis.
Water Conservation. National Impact
Analysis.
7. Other Factors the Secretary Employment Impact
Considers Relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
to determine whether (and if so, how) to establish the standards for
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps.
II. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Potential Test
Procedure
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to assist in its evaluation of potential test
procedures for circulator pumps and SVIL pumps, to ensure that any such
test procedures would comply with the requirements in EPCA that they be
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy use
during a representative average use cycle, without being unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
A. Scope and Definitions
In the January 2016 TP final rule, DOE adopted a definition for
pump, as well as definitions for pump categories and other pump
component- and configuration-related definitions. 10 CFR 431.462.
Although circulator pumps are a style of pump, DOE did not define
circulator pump. 81 FR 4086, 4094 (Jan. 25, 2016). In addition,
although DOE established a definition for inline pumps, the definition
requires the pump to have a shaft input power greater than 1 hp and
therefore excludes the SVIL pumps considered in this RFI because SVIL
pumps have a shaft input power less than 1 hp.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As noted, an inline pump must have a shaft input power
greater than or equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 200 hp at
BEP and full impeller diameter, in which liquid is discharged
through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft. See 10 CFR
431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The September 2016 CPWG recommendations addressed the scope of a
circulator pumps rulemaking. Specifically, the CPWG recommended that
the scope of the circulator pumps test procedure and energy
conservation standards cover clean water pumps (as defined at 10 CFR
431.462) distributed in commerce with or without a volute \7\ and that
are one of the following categories: Wet rotor circulator pumps, dry
rotor close-coupled circulator pumps, and dry rotor mechanically-
coupled circulator pumps. The CPWG also recommended that the scope
exclude submersible pumps and header pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendations #1A, 2A and 2B at p. 1-2) The CPWG
also recommended the following definitions relevant to scope:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Volutes are also sometimes referred to as a ``housing'' or
``casing.''
Wet rotor circulator pump means a single stage, rotodynamic,
close-coupled, wet rotor pump. Examples include, but are not limited
to, pumps generally referred to in industry as CP1.
Dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump means a single stage,
rotodynamic, single-axis flow, close-coupled, dry rotor pump that:
(1) Has a hydraulic power less than or equal to five horsepower at
best efficiency point at full impeller diameter, (2) is distributed
in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3) discharges the pumped
liquid through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps generally referred
to in industry as CP2.
Dry rotor, three-piece circulator pump means a single stage,
rotodynamic, single-axis flow, mechanically-coupled, dry rotor pump
that: (1) Has a hydraulic power less than or equal to five
horsepower at best efficiency point at full impeller diameter, (2)
is distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3)
discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a plane
perpendicular to the shaft. Examples include, but are not limited
to, pumps generally referred to in industry as CP3.
Horizontal motor means a motor that requires the motor shaft to
be in a horizontal position to function as designed under typical
operating conditions, as specified in manufacturer literature.
Submersible pump means a pump that is designed to be operated
with the motor and bare pump fully submerged in the pumped liquid.
Header pump means a pump that consists of a circulator-less-
volute intended to be installed in an original equipment
manufacturer (``OEM'') piece of equipment that serves as the volute.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendations #2B, 3A, and
3B at p. 2-3)
DOE notes that the orientation of the motor is used to
differentiate IL pumps from other pumps. As noted, the definition of IL
pump excludes pumps that are distributed in commerce with a horizontal
motor. 10 CFR 431.462. DOE currently defines a ``horizontal motor'' as
a motor that requires the motor shaft to be in a horizontal position to
function as designed, as specified in the manufacturer literature. Id.
The definition of horizontal motor recommended by the CPWG includes
``under typical operating conditions'' to qualify ``function as
designed.'' The CPWG stated that this qualifier was added to address
the potential that a motor would not be covered as a horizontal motor
if a manufacturer were to advertise its circulator as being able to be
installed in a non-horizontal orientation under certain conditions,
such as high operating pressure (i.e., conditions other than typical
conditions). (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 64 at pp. 75-83)
The CPWG stated that the requirement to consider motor installation in
the context of typical operating conditions, as specified in the
manufacturer literature, would address this potential. (Docket No.
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 66 at pp. 55-57)
The definition for submersible pump is consistent with that already
applicable to pumps in 10 CFR 431.462. The recommended definition for
header pump is discussed in section II.A of this document.
[[Page 24521]]
DOE requests comment on the CPWG's recommended definitions for wet
rotor circulator pump; dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump; dry rotor,
three-piece circulator pump; and horizontal motor. Specifically, DOE
requests comment regarding whether changes in the market since the
CPWG's recommendation would affect the recommended definitions and
scope.
1. Definitions for Circulator Pumps
In addition to the circulator pump categories discussed in II.A of
this document, circulator pumps can also be differentiated based on the
configuration in which they are sold. Certain specific instances of
this are discussed in sections II.A.1.a and II.A.1.b of this document.
a. Circulators-Less-Volute and Header Pumps
Some circulator pumps are distributed in commerce as a complete
assembly with a motor, impeller, and volute, while other circulator
pumps are distributed in commerce with a motor and impeller, but
without a volute (herein referred to as ``circulators-less-volute'').
Some circulators-less-volute are solely intended to be installed in
other equipment, such as a boiler, using a cast piece in the other
piece of equipment as the volute, while others can be installed as a
replacement for a failed circulator pump in an existing system or to be
newly installed with a paired volute in the field. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 47 at pp. 371-372; Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-
0004, No. 70 at p. 98)
In reviewing the definition of a pump, the CPWG stated that
circulator pumps distributed in commerce without volutes fall under the
definition of pump as defined in the January 2016 TP final rule.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 70 at pp. 89-91) Further, the
CPWG asserted that, if a circulator-less-volute was not subject to any
adopted test procedure and standards, this could present a loophole
since a circulator-less-volute and matching volute could easily be
purchased and installed instead of a compliant circulator pump with a
volute. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 74 at pp. 383-403)
However, the CPWG discussed that a circulator-less-volute (header
pump) that is solely intended to be installed in other equipment, uses
the other equipment as the volute, and does not have a matching volute
that is separately distributed in commerce would not pose the same
loophole risk and, furthermore, would be very difficult to test.
Specifically, the CPWG discussed how circulator manufacturers would not
have access to or design authority for the volute design. In addition,
the circulator could not be tested as a standalone circulator because
the volute would be unable to be removed from the other equipment, and
there would be no paired volute distributed in commerce with which the
header pump could be tested. Therefore, such equipment would
potentially require extensive and burdensome equipment to test
appropriately. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 74 at pp. 413-
416)
The CPWG recommended excluding circulator pumps that are
distributed in commerce exclusively to be incorporated into other OEM
equipment, such as boilers or pool heaters. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, No. 74 at pp. 415-416) The CPWG suggested referring to these
circulator-less-volute pumps that are intended solely for installation
in another piece of equipment and do not have a paired volute that is
distributed in commerce as ``header pumps.'' (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, No. 74 at pp. 384-386). Specifically, in the September 2016
CPWG recommendations, the CPWG recommended to differentiate header
pumps from other circulator-less-volute pumps by defining header pump
as a pump that consists of a circulator-less-volute intended to be
installed in an OEM piece of equipment that serves as the volute, and
to exclude them from the recommended circulator test procedure and
standards. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations
#2B at p. 2)
DOE requests comment regarding whether the market changes in the
intervening years since the CPWG's recommendation of a definition for
``header pump'' warrant modification of that recommended definition.
b. On-Demand Circulator Pumps
On-demand circulator pumps are designed to maintain hot water
supply within a temperature range by activating in response to a
signal, such as user presence. The CPWG recommended that the following
definition for ``on-demand circulator pumps'' be incorporated as
necessary:
``On-demand circulator pump'' means a circulator pump that is
distributed in commerce with an integral control that:
Initiates water circulation based on receiving a signal
from the action of a user [of a fixture or appliance] or sensing the
presence of a user of a fixture and cannot initiate water
circulation based on other inputs, such as water temperature or a
pre-set schedule.
Automatically terminates water circulation once hot
water has reached the pump or desired fixture.
Does not allow the pump to operate when the temperature
in the pipe exceeds 104 [deg]F or for more than 5 minutes
continuously.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Non-Binding Recommendation #1
at pp. 4-5)
In addition, the on-demand circulator pump must not be capable of
operating without the control without physically destructive
modification of the unit, such as any modification that would violate
the product's standards listing.
DOE requests comment regarding the CPWG-recommended definition of
``on-demand circulator pump'' and whether it is appropriate to retain
on-demand circulator pumps within the scope of future analysis.
2. Definition of Small Vertical In-Line Pump
During the course of the negotiations, the CPWG also discussed and
provided recommendations related to SVIL pumps. As noted, SVIL pumps
are similar to IL pumps, but have a shaft input power lower than pumps
included in the scope of the general pumps test procedure.
Specifically, SVIL pumps are described as IL style pumps with a shaft
input power of less than 1 hp at BEP at full impeller diameter and are
distinguished from dry-rotor circulator pumps by having a motor that
does not have to be configured in a horizontal position. The CPWG found
that SVIL pumps could serve similar functions as some dry rotor
circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 66 at p. 11,
52) Additionally, the CPWG stated that because they serve similar
functions to some dry rotor circulator pumps, SVIL pumps pose a
substitution risk and recommended that SVIL pumps be addressed as part
the circulator pumps rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No.
66 at p. 27-30) Specifically, the CPWG recommended that SVIL pumps be
evaluated on the PEICL or PEIVL metric, similar
to commercial and industrial pumps (``CIP''),\8\ and use the CIP test
procedure to measure performance, with any additional modifications
necessary as determined by DOE. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No.
58 Recommendations #1B at pp. 1-2) Potential test procedures and metric
for SVIL pumps are discussed further in section II.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Commercial and industrial pumps are referred to as ``general
pumps'' throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to distinguish SVIL pumps from dry rotor circulator pumps,
the
[[Page 24522]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPWG recommended the following definition for SVIL pumps:
``Small vertical in-line pump'' means a single stage, single-
axis flow, dry rotor, rotodynamic pump that:
(1) Has a shaft input power less than 1 horse power at best
efficiency point at full impeller diameter,
(2) Is distributed in commerce with a motor that does not have
to be in a horizontal position to function as designed, and
(3) Discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a plane
perpendicular to the shaft.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #3C at p. 3)
DOE seeks comment and feedback on the scope and definitions
recommended by the CPWG, including whether anything has changed in the
market since the conclusion of the CPWG that would impact the
recommended scope and definitions for SVIL pumps.
DOE seeks feedback and information regarding whether it may be
appropriate to include SVIL pumps in the circulator pumps rulemaking,
in the commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking, or in a separate
rulemaking.
DOE seeks comment regarding any other topics related to scope and
definitions for circulator pumps and SVIL pumps.
B. Metric for Circulator Pumps
The CPWG focused on defining a performance-based metric that was
similar to the pump energy index (``PEI'') metric established in the
January 2016 TP final rule. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 64
at pp. 246-247) The CPWG recommended using the PEICIRC
metric, which would be defined as the pump energy rating (``PER'') for
the rated circulator pump model (``PERCIRC''), divided by
the PER for a circulator that is minimally compliant with energy
conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load
(``PERCIRC,STD''). (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No.
58, Recommendation #5 at p. 4)
The equation for PEICIRC is shown in the equation (1):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.000
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (``hp''); and
PERCIRC,STD = pump energy rating for a minimally
compliant circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #5 at p. 4)
PERCIRC would be determined as the weighted average
input power to the circulator motor or controls, if available, of a
given circulator over a number of specified load points. Due to
differences in the various control varieties available with circulator
pumps, the CPWG recommended that each circulator pump control variety
have unique weights and load points that are used in determining
PERCIRC. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58
Recommendations #6A and #6B at pp. 4-6) The test points, weights, and
test methods necessary for calculating PERCIRC for pressure
controls, temperature controls, manual speed controls, external input
signal controls, and circulator pumps with no control (i.e., without
external input signal, manual, pressure, or temperature control) \9\
are described in II.C.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As discussed previously in section III.A.5, in this
document, circulator pumps with no controls are also inclusive of
other potential control varieties that have a control, but are not
one of the identified circulator control varieties. DOE refers to
these as circulator pumps with no controls throughout this document,
as any circulator pump without one of the defined control varieties
would be treated as a circulator pump with no controls, regardless
of whether it is a single-speed circulator or has a control variety
not defined in this test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERCIRC,STD would be determined similarly for all
circulator pumps, regardless of control variety. PERCIRC,STD
would represent the weighted average input power to a minimally
compliant circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load. As such,
PERCIRC,STD would essentially define the minimally compliant
circulator pump performance, such that the energy conservation standard
level would always be defined as 1.00, and lower PEICIRC
values would represent better performance. The CPWG discussed the
derivation of PERCIRC,STD at length during the CPWG
negotiations and, ultimately, recommended a standard level that is
nominally equivalent to a single-speed circulator equipped with an
electrically commutated motor. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No.
102 at pp. 53-56; Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98
Recommendations #1 and 2A-D at pp. 1-4)
The CPWG specified a method for determining PERCIRC,STD
equivalent to the test method recommended for circulator pumps with no
controls, with additional procedures necessary to determine the
minimally compliant overall efficiency at the various test points based
on the hydraulic performance of the rated circulator pump. (Docket No.
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendations #2A-D at pp. 1-4)
However, because PERCIRC,STD would represent the energy
conservation standard level, DOE would, in a potential future
circulator pump ECS rulemaking, discuss in detail the derivation of
PERCIRC,STD for the recommended standard level, as well as
all of the efficiency levels presented to the CPWG, including
assessment of the technical feasibility and economic justification for
any adopted levels. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004)
DOE requests comment on the CPWG recommendation to adopt
PEICIRC as the metric to characterize the energy use of
certain circulator pumps and on the recommended equation for
PEICIRC, including whether anything in the technology or
market has changed since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets that would
lead to this metric no longer being appropriate.
C. Test Procedure for Circulator Pumps
There is no current industry test procedure for circulator pumps.
The September 2016 CPWG Term Sheet contained extensive recommendations
related to development of a test procedure for circulator pumps.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendations #6-12 at p.
4-9)
1. Test Methods for Different Categories and Control Varieties
Many circulator pumps are sold with a variable speed drive and
controls (i.e., logic or user interface) with various control
strategies that reduce the required power input at a given flow rate to
save energy. The ability of a circulator pump to operate at different
speeds and the control logic of each control variety will impact the
energy use for that circulator pump model in the field. To reflect this
variation in energy consumption, the CPWG
[[Page 24523]]
recommended that DOE establish different test methods for each control
variety in the circulator pump test procedure in order to best
represent the different energy use patterns exhibited by each control
variety. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #9
at p. 7)
a. Control Definitions
The CPWG recommended definitions for the following control
varieties for circulator pumps: manual speed control, pressure control,
temperature control, and external input signal control. The definitions
of these pump control varieties recommended by the CPWG are as follows:
Manual speed control means a control (variable speed
drive and user interface) that adjusts the speed of a driver based
on manual user input.
Pressure control means a control (variable speed drive
and integrated logic) that automatically adjusts the speed of the
driver in response to pressure.
Temperature control means a control (variable speed
drive and integrated logic) that automatically adjusts the speed of
the driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in
response to temperature.
External input signal control means a variable speed
drive that adjusts the speed of the driver in response to an input
signal from an external logic and/or user interface.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #4 at p. 4)
The CPWG did not recommend a definition for adaptive pressure
controls, although it did recommend a separate test procedure for them,
because, as discussed by the CPWG, adaptive pressure controls are able
to adjust the slope of the control curve to fit the system needs
through an ongoing learning process inherent in the software. (Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 72 at pp. 45-46) The test procedure for
circulator pumps with adaptive pressure controls is discussed further
in section II.C.1.c.
DOE requests comment on the recommended definitions for manual
speed control, pressure control, adaptive pressure control, temperature
control, and external input signal control. Additionally, DOE requests
comment on a possible definition for adaptive pressure control.
DOE requests comment on whether any additional control variety is
now currently on the market and if it should be considered in this
rulemaking.
b. Reference Curve
All recommended test methods for circulator control varieties,
which involve variable speed control of the circulator pump, specify
test points with respect to a representative system curve. That is, for
circulator pumps with manual speed controls, pressure controls,
temperature controls, or external input signal controls, a reference
system curve is implemented to be representative of the speed reduction
that is possible in a typical system to provide representative results.
For circulator pumps with no controls, no reference system is required
as measurements are taken at various test points along a pump curve at
maximum speed only.
Such a reference system curve describes the relationship between
the head and the flow at each test point in a typical system.
Additionally, a reference system curve that is representative of a
typical system in which circulator pumps are installed may also allow
for the differentiation of control varieties to be reflected in the
resulting ratings. The CPWG recommended that DOE incorporate the same
reference system curve that is used in the January 2016 TP final rule.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #8 at pp. 6-
7) This curve is a quadratic reference system curve, which intersects
the BEP and has a static offset of 20 percent of BEP head, as shown in
equation (2):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.001
Where:
H = the pump total head (ft),
Q = the flow rate (gpm),
Q100 = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow
(gpm), and
H100 = pump total head at 100 percent of BEP flow
(ft).
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #8 at pp. 6-
7)
DOE requests comment on whether the CPWG-recommended reference
system curve shape, including the static offset, is reasonable for
circulator pumps.
c. Pressure Control
Pressure controls are a variety of circulator pump controls in
which the variable speed drive is automatically adjusted based on the
pressure in the system. For example, such controls are common in multi-
zone hydronic heating applications in which the flow and speed are
adjusted in response to zones opening or closing. The CPWG recommended
that for all circulator pumps distributed in commerce with pressure
controls, the PERCIRC should be calculated as the weighted
average input power at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, with
unique weights shown in equation (3):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.002
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (hp);
wi = weight of 0.05, 0.40, 0.40, and 0.15 at test points
of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, respectively;
Pin,i = power input to the driver at each test point i
(hp); and
[[Page 24524]]
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the
flow at BEP.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #6A at pp. 4-
5 and #7 at p.6)
The CPWG recommended testing circulator pumps with pressure
controls using automatic speed adjustment based on the factory selected
control setting, manual speed adjustment, or simulated pressure signal
to trace a factory selected control curve setting that will achieve the
test point flow rates with a head at or above the reference system
curve. The CPWG also recommended that if a circulator pump with
pressure controls is tested with automatic speed adjustment, that the
pump can be manually adjusted to achieve 100 percent BEP flow and head
point at maximum speed. Finally, for circulator pumps with adaptive
pressure controls, the CPWG recommended that testing be conducted at
the minimum thresholds for head based on manufacturer literature and
through manual speed adjustment to achieve the test point flow rates
with head values at or above the reference curve. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
DOE requests comment on the recommended test methods, test points,
and weights for circulator pumps with pressure controls, including
circulator pumps with adaptive pressure controls. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether the technology or market for such controls
has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to warrant a different
approach.
d. Temperature Control
Temperature controls are controls that automatically adjust the
speed of the variable speed drive in the pump continuously over the
operating speed range to respond to a change in temperature of the
operating fluid in the system. Typically, temperature controls are
designed to achieve a fixed temperature differential between the supply
and return lines and adjust the flow rate through the system by
adjusting the speed to achieve the specified temperature differential.
Similar to pressure controls, temperature controls are also designed
primarily for hydronic heating applications. However, temperature
controls may be installed in single- or multi-zone systems and will
optimize the circulator pump's operating speed to provide the necessary
flow rate based on the heat load in each zone. As there are no minimum
head requirements inherent to the circulator pump control, temperature
controls may have potential to use less energy than pressure-based
controls to serve a given load.
The CPWG recommended that for circulator pumps distributed in
commerce with temperature controls, that PERCIRC should be
calculated the same way and with the same weights as for pressure
controls, as shown in Equation 3. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004,
No. 58 Recommendations #6A at pp. 4-5 and #7 at p. 6) The CPWG also
recommended that circulator pumps with temperature controls be tested
based on manual speed adjustment or with a simulated temperature signal
to activate the temperature-based control to achieve the test point
flow rates with a head at or above the reference curve. (Docket No.
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
DOE requests comment on the recommended test methods, test points,
and weights for circulator pumps with temperature controls.
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to
warrant a different approach.
e. Manual Speed Control
Manual speed controls are controls in which the speed of the pump
is adjusted manually, typically to one of several pre-set speeds, by a
dial or a control panel to fit the demand of the system within which it
is installed. The CPWG discussed how circulator pumps installed with
manual speed controls are typically only adjusted one time upon
installation, if at all, and will operate at that set speed as if it
were a single-speed circulator pump. That is, many manual speed control
circulator pumps operate at full speed, while a portion of them may be
set to a medium or low speed to suit the needs of the systems. (Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 65 at pp. 131-133) Therefore, the CPWG
recommended to test circulator pumps with manual speed controls both:
(1) Along the maximum speed circulator pump curve to achieve the test
point flow rates for the maximum speed input power values, and (2)
based on manual speed adjustment to the lowest speed setting that will
achieve a head at or above the reference curve at the test point flow
rate for the reduced speed input power values. (Docket No. EERE-2016-
BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
To accomplish a single rating representative of the ``average''
energy use of a manual speed circulator, the CPWG recommended that for
circulator pumps distributed in commerce with manual speed controls,
the PERCIRC should be calculated as the weighted average of
Pin,max (the weighted average input power at specific load
points across the maximum speed curve) and Pin,reduced (the
weighted average input power at specific load points at reduced speed),
but recommended separate load points and speed factors, as shown in
equations (4), (5), and (6):
PERCIRC = zmax(Pinmax) + zreduced (Pinreduced)
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (hp);
zmax = speed factor weight of 0.75;
Pin_max = weighted average input power at maximum
rotating speed of the circulator (hp), as specified in equation (5);
zreduced = speed factor weight of 0.25; and
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at reduced
rotating speed of the circulator (hp), as specified in equation (6).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.003
Where:
Pin_max = weighted average input power at maximum speed
of the circulator (hp);
wi_max = 0.25;
Pin,i_max = power input to the driver at maximum rotating
speed of the circulator at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the
flow at BEP.
[[Page 24525]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.004
Where:
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at reduced
speeds of the circulator (hp);
wi_reduced = 0.3333;
Pin,i_reduced = power input to the driver at reduced
rotating speed of the circulator at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, and 75 percent of the flow at
BEP of max speed and head values at or above the reference curve.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #6B and 7 at
pp. 5-6)
DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test method and the
unique test points, weights, and speed factors for circulator pumps
distributed in commerce with manual speed controls. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether the technology or market for such controls
has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to warrant a different
approach.
f. External Input Signal Control
The final control variety considered by the CPWG was external input
signal controls. External input signal controls are controls in which
the device that responds to the stimulus, or the primary control logic,
is external to the circulator pump. Unlike pressure and temperature
controls, the logic that defines how the circulator pump operating
speed is selected in response to some measured variable (e.g.,
temperature, pressure, or boiler fire rate) is not part of the
circulator, as distributed in commerce. Instead, it is part of another
control system, such as a building management system or a boiler
control system. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 72 at pp. 76-84)
For circulator pumps that have only an external input signal
control, the CPWG recommended testing along the reference control curve
to achieve the test point flow rates with a head at or above the
reference system curve with the same weights as temperature and
pressure controls. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58
Recommendations #9 at pp. 7-8).
The CPWG recommended that, to ensure the rating would be
representative of the performance of such pumps, the external input
signal control must be the only control mode on the pump, and the pump
must not be able to operate without an external input signal. (Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #9 at pp. 7-8)
The CPWG asserted that if external input signal control is one of
multiple options available on a circulator pump, or the pump is able to
operate without an external input signal, it is less likely that the
external input signal control option would be utilized in the field.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 72 at pp. 217-218). Therefore,
to prevent the possibility of artificially improving the
PEICIRC rating through the addition of an external input
signal control mode, the CPWG recommended testing circulator pumps with
external input signal controls similar to manual speed controls.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 47 at p. 480) The CPWG
recommended testing a circulator pump sold with external input signal
controls and another control variety with a simulated signal both: (1)
Along the maximum speed circulator pump curve to achieve the test point
flow rates for the maximum speed input power values, and (2) with speed
adjustment using a simulated signal to the lowest speed setting that
will achieve a head at or above the reference curve at the test point
flow rates for the reduced speed input power values. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at pp. 7-8)
As such, the CPWG recommended that for circulator pumps distributed
in commerce with external input signal controls and at least one other
control variety, the PERCIRC should be calculated as the
weighted average of Pin,max (the weighted average input
power at specific load points across the maximum speed curve) and
Pin,reduced (the weighted average input power at specific
load points at reduced speed), similar to circulator pumps with manual
speed control, but with a different speed factor, as shown in equations
(7), (8), and (9):
PERCIRC = zmax(Pinmax) + zreduced (Pinreduced)
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (hp);
zmax = speed factor weight of 0.30;
Pin_max = weighted average input power at maximum
rotating speed of the circulator pump (hp);
zreduced = speed factor weight of 0.70; and
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at reduced
rotating speed of the circulator (hp).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.005
Where:
Pin_max = weighted average input power at maximum speed
of the circulator (hp);
wi_max = 0.25;
Pin,i_max = power input to the driver at maximum rotating
speed of the circulator at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the
flow at BEP.
[[Page 24526]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.006
Where:
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at reduced
speeds of the circulator (hp);
wi_reduced = 0.3333;
Pin,i_reduced = power input to the driver at reduced
rotating speed of the circulator at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, and 75 percent of the flow at
BEP of max speed and head values at or above the reference curve.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #6B and #7 at
pp. 5-6)
The CPWG recommended the speed factors of 0.30 at maximum speed and
0.70 at reduced speed in order to produce a rating on an equivalent
basis as that of a circulator pump with a typical differential pressure
control. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 at p. 6). In
addition, these speed factors would represent the likelihood that a
circulator pump with an external input signal control is selected to
operate with that external input signal control, and whether the signal
it receives results in the circulator pump reducing speed.
DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test method for
circulator pumps distributed in commerce with only external input
signal controls, as well as for those distributed in commerce with
external input signal controls in addition to other control varieties.
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to
warrant a different approach.
g. No Controls
For circulator pumps with no controls, the CPWG recommended testing
the pump along the maximum speed circulator pump curve to achieve the
test point flow rates of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
The CPWG also recommended that for circulator pumps distributed in
commerce with no controls, PERCIRC should be calculated with
the unique weights and test points as shown in equation (10):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.007
Where:
PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (hp);
wi = 0.25;
Pin,i = power input to the driver at each test point i
(hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the
flow at BEP.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #6A at pp. 4-
5)
The CPWG recommended the 0.25 weights at each test point (i.e., 25,
50, 75, and 100 percent of the flow at BEP) in order to account for the
variety of systems and operating points a single-speed circulator may
encounter. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 70 at pp. 172-173)
DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test methods, test
points, and weights for circulator pumps with no controls.
2. Updates to Industry Standards
As part of the September 2016 CPWG recommendations, the CPWG
recommended that all test points be tested on a wire-to-water basis, in
accordance with HI 40.6-2014, with minor modifications. The CPWG also
recommended that if an updated version of HI 40.6 is published prior to
publication of the test procedure final rule, DOE should review and
incorporate the updated version. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No.
58, Recommendation #10 at p. 8-9)
In 2016, HI published an updated industry standard, HI 40.6-2016,
``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing'' (``HI 40.6-2016'').
This update aligned the definitions and procedures described in HI
Standard 40.6 with the DOE test procedure for pumps published in the
January 2016 TP final rule. Appendix A to subpart Y to 10 CFR part 431.
In the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI for pumps, DOE requested
comment on the potential effect of incorporating HI 40.6-2016 by
reference as the DOE test procedure for pumps. 85 FR 60734, 60737.
Grundfos, NEEA, and HI commented that HI expects to publish another
standard update in 2021 (``HI 40.6-2021'') and urged DOE to incorporate
by reference HI 40.6-2021 rather than HI 40.6-2016 (Grundfos, Docket
No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, No. 07 at p. 2; NEEA, Docket No. EERE-2020-
BT-TP-0032, No. 08 at p. 6; HI, Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, No. 06
at pp. 1, 3). HI specified that HI 40.6-2016 included updates to match
DOE's test procedure for pumps, and that HI 40.6-2021 will further
include editorial revisions and added circulator pump testing, and also
would not impact measured values, burden, or representativeness. (HI,
Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, No.06 at p. 3)
At the time of this RFI publication, HI 40.6-2021 was not yet
available. DOE expects to review and consider this updated industry
standard when available.
DOE seeks comment and feedback on whether HI 40.6-2016 or HI 40.6-
2021 is an appropriate test method for conducting wire-to-water testing
of circulator pumps, as recommended by the CPWG. In addition, DOE seeks
comment on whether the modifications in HI 40.6-2016 and/or HI 40.6-
2021 adequately capture the CPWG recommended modifications in
Recommendation #10.
Additionally, CPWG recommended several specifications for the
circulator pump test procedure that are not included in either HI 40.6-
2014 or HI 40.6-2016, including test arrangements for twin-head
circulator pumps and circulators-less-volute:
[[Page 24527]]
To test twin head circulator pumps, one of the two
impeller assemblies is to be incorporated into an adequate, single
impeller volute and casing. An adequate, single impeller volute and
casing means a volute and casing for which any physical and
functional characteristics that affect energy consumption and energy
efficiency are essentially identical to their corresponding
characteristics for a single impeller in the twin head circulator
volute and casing.
To test circulators-less-volute, pair the circulator-
less-volute with specific volute(s) with which the circulator is
advertised to be paired, based on manufacturer's literature, to
determine the PEI rating for each circulator-less-volute and volute
combination.
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #11 and #12
at p. 9)
DOE seeks comment on whether the recommendations for twin-head
circulator pumps and circulators-less-volute have been adequately
addressed in HI 40.6-2021.
D. Metric and Test Procedure for SVIL Pumps
The CPWG recommended evaluating SVIL pumps using the constant load
pump energy index (PEICL) or variable load pump energy index
(PEIVL) metric, similar to general pumps, and using the
general pump test procedure to measure performance, with any additional
modifications necessary as determined by DOE. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendations #1B at pp. 1-2) In the January 2016 TP
final rule, DOE adopted a metric of PEICL for pumps
distributed in commerce as bare pumps or as bare pumps with a motor
(i.e., pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls) and a
metric of PEIVL for pumps sold with either continuous or
non-continuous controls. 81 FR 4086, 4150-4152 (Jan. 25, 2016)
DOE identified the size and characteristics of the motor with which
the SVIL pumps are rated as the primary difference between SVIL and IL
pumps that affects the application of the DOE general pumps test
procedure. Specifically, the general pumps test procedure establishes
that testing-based methods are applicable to all pump configurations,
while calculation-based methods are applicable only to (1) pumps sold
with neither a motor nor controls (i.e., a bare pump), (2) pumps sold
with motors that are subject to DOE's energy conservation standards for
electric motors, as defined pursuant to 10 CFR 431.25(g), (with or
without continuous controls), and (3) pumps sold with submersible
motors (with or without continuous controls). This is because the
calculation-based test methods presume motor efficiency and motor or
motor and drive loss values based on the performance characteristics of
motors that are subject to DOE's current energy conservation standards
for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25. Table 1 to appendix A to subpart
Y of 10 CFR part 431.
SVIL pumps are often distributed in commerce with motors that are
either subject to DOE's electric motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.25 or
DOE's small electric motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.466. Therefore,
the calculation-based test methods may need to be modified to reference
DOE's electric motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.25 or DOE's small
electric motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.446, as applicable.
DOE also notes that the general pumps test procedure includes the
requirement that all pumps sold with single-phase motors be rated as
bare pumps. Table 1 to appendix A to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431. SVIL
pumps sold with single-phase motors could instead be rated to reflect
the performance of that single-phase motor, either through the testing
or calculation-based methods.
In addition, the general pumps test procedure relies on nominal
motor losses to calculate the PERSTD and PERCL
for the calculation-based method and nominal motor and drive losses to
calculate PERVL. Both the motor and combined motor and drive
loss curves were developed for the general pumps test procedure based
on data from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
and from manufacturers of motors and drives, as well as data from DOE's
own testing, for motors and drives from 1 to 250 hp gathered during the
general pumps test procedure rulemaking. Since these losses were based
on data for motors and drives from 1 to 250 hp, the nominal motor
losses derived for the general pumps test procedure may not be
appropriate for SVIL pumps. DOE researched typical losses for motors
and combined motor and drive assemblies for motors that were less than
1 hp. Based on the information DOE received, the part load loss curves,
or the variation in efficiency as a function of load, does not vary
significantly between 1 hp motors and drives and motors and drives that
are less than 1 hp.
DOE requests comment on the recommendation to test SVIL pumps with
the test methods in the general pumps test procedure and additional
provisions to account for the differences in size and characteristics
of SVIL pump motors. In particular, DOE requests comment on the
potential extension of the nominal full load motor efficiency values to
reference DOE's small electric motor regulations, including certain
single-phase motors, and the need for an exception for SVIL pumps so
that those sold with single-phase motors do not have to be rated as
bare pumps.
DOE also requests comment on the prevalence of SVIL pumps sold with
single-phase versus three-phase motors, and the prevalence of SVIL
pumps sold with motors not covered by DOE's small electric motors and
electric motors energy conservation standards for either single- or
three-phase motors.
DOE also requests comment on whether the equations used to
establish the part load motor and drive losses in the general pumps
test procedure are appropriate for SVIL pumps under one horsepower. If
inappropriate, DOE requests data supporting the generation of
alternative loss curves.
III. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Energy
Conservation Standards
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to
inform its decision, consistent with its obligations under EPCA, as to
whether the Department should proceed with an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. In the following 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 standards for
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps may be warranted.
DOE seeks comment on whether establishing a standard for circulator
pumps and SVIL pumps would be cost-effective, economically justified,
technologically feasible, or would result in a significant savings of
energy.
For circulator pumps, the CPWG reached agreement on the
methodology, data sources, and assumptions required to conduct the
analyses and reach consensus on a recommended standard level.
Therefore, DOE is requesting comment only on specific inputs to the
analyses that may need to be updated due to technological or market
changes since the CPWG proceedings. However, because the CPWG did not
analyze SVIL pumps, DOE is requesting comment on several of the
associated inputs to the analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides information about the circulator pumps
and SVIL pumps industry that will be used in DOE's analysis throughout
the
[[Page 24528]]
rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information
to characterize the structure of the industry and market. DOE
identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends, addresses
regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy
efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explores the potential for
efficiency improvements in the design and manufacturing of circulator
pumps. DOE also reviews product literature, industry publications, and
company websites. Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews
with manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market and
available technologies for circulator pumps.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of
energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that
justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In
making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related
feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors
as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE
deems appropriate. (Id.)
For circulator pumps, there are no current energy conservation
standards and, thus, no equipment classes. However, the 2016 Term
Sheets contained a recommendation related to establishing equipment
classes for circulator pumps. Specifically, ``Recommendation #1'' of
the December 2016 CPWG Recommendations suggests grouping all circulator
pumps into a single equipment class, though with numerical energy
conservation standard values that vary as a function of hydraulic
output power. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation
at p.1)
DOE requests comment regarding the CPWG recommendation to include
all circulator pumps within a single equipment class, especially
regarding interim market changes since the recommendation that may
warrant changes to that recommendation. DOE additionally seeks comment
regarding whether the same recommendations should apply to SVIL pumps.
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new energy conservation
standards, DOE uses information about existing and past technology
options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that
manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of energy
conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. An initial list of those options appears in
Table III.1 of this document. Each technology option is then described
separately in the sections.
Table III.1--Potential Technology Options for Circulator Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Hydraulic Design
Improved Motor Efficiency
Ability to Reduce Speed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Improved Hydraulic Design
The performance characteristics of a pump, such as flow, head, and
efficiency, are influenced by the pump's hydraulic design. For purposes
of DOE's analysis, ``hydraulic design'' is a broad term used to
describe the system design of the wetted components of a pump. Although
hydraulic design focuses on the specific hydraulic characteristics of
the impeller and the volute/casing, it also includes design choices
related to bearings, seals, and other ancillary components.
Impeller and volute/casing geometries, clearances, and associated
components can be redesigned to a higher efficiency (at the same flow
and head) using a combination of historical best practices and modern
computer-aided design (CAD) and analysis methods. The wide availability
of modern CAD packages and techniques now enables pump designers to
more quickly reach designs with improved vane shapes, flow paths, and
cutwater designs, all of which work to improve the efficiency of the
pump. In confidential interviews, manufacturers indicated that the
potential for additional efficiency improvements from improved
hydraulic design were fairly small.
b. Improved Motor Efficiency
Different varieties (or constructions) of a motor have different
achievable efficiencies. Two general motor constructions are present in
the circulator pump market: Induction motors, and electronically
commutated motors (ECMs). Induction motors can have one of two
configurations: Single-phase and three-phase. Single-phase induction
motors may be further categorized to include split phase, capacitor-
start induction-run (CSIR), capacitor-start capacitor-run (CSCR), and
permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors.
The majority of circulator pumps currently available on the market
use induction motors. The efficiency of an induction motor can be
increased by redesigning the motor to reduce slip losses between the
rotor and stator components, as well as reducing mechanical losses at
seals and bearings. ECMs are generally more efficient than induction
motors because their construction minimizes slip losses between the
rotor and stator components. Unlike induction motors, ECMs require an
electronic drive to function. This electronic drive consumes
electricity, and variations in drive losses and mechanical designs lead
to a range of ECM efficiencies.
The performance standard for circulator pumps is based upon wire-
to-water efficiency, which is defined as the hydraulic output power of
a circulator divided by its line input power. Wire-to-water efficiency
is commonly expressed as a percentage. The achievable wire-to-water
efficiency of circulator pumps is influenced by both hydraulic
efficiency and motor efficiency. DOE assessed the range of attainable
wire-to-water efficiencies for circulator pumps with induction motors,
and circulator pumps with ECMs, over a range of hydraulic power
outputs. Because circulator pump efficiency is measured on a wire-to-
water basis, it is difficult to fully separate differences due to motor
efficiency from those due to hydraulic efficiency. In redesigning a
pump model to attain greater efficiency levels, manufacturers would
likely consider both hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency.
However, manufacturers indicated in interviews that the energy savings
potential of improving hydraulic efficiency is small compared to that
of improving motor efficiency. Higher motor capacities are generally
required for higher hydraulic power outputs, and as motor capacity
increases, the attainable efficiency of the motor at full load also
increases. Higher horsepower motors also operate close to their peak
efficiency for a wider range of loading conditions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. DOE Building Technologies Office. Energy Savings
Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in
Residential and Commercial Equipment. December 2013. Prepared for
the DOE by Navigant Consulting. p. 4. Available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circulator pumps manufacturers manufacture motors in-house or
purchase complete or partial motors from motor manufacturers and/or
distributors. As a result, manufacturers may select an entirely
different motor,
[[Page 24529]]
or redesign an existing motor in order to improve a pump's motor
efficiency.
c. Ability To Operate at Reduced Speeds
Circulator pumps with the variable speed capability can reduce
their energy consumption by reducing pump speed to match load
requirements. As discussed in Section II.B, the PERCIRC
metric is a weighted average of input powers at each test point
relative to BEP flow. The circulator pumps test procedure agreed to by
the CPWG allows: PERCIRC values for multi- and variable-
speed circulator pumps to be calculated as the weighted average of
input powers at full speed BEP flow, and reduced speed at flow points
less than BEP and PERCIRC for single-speed pumps to be
calculated based only on input power at full speed. Due to pump
affinity laws, variable-speed circulator pumps will achieve reduced
power consumption at flow points less than BEP by reducing their
rotational speed to more closely match required system head. As such,
the PERCIRC metric grants benefits on circulator pumps
capable of variable speed operation.
Specifically, the pump affinity laws describe the relationship of
pump operating speed, flow rate, head, and hydraulic power as shown in
Equations (11), (12), and (13).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.010
Where:
Q1 and Q2 = volumetric flow rate at two operating points
H1 and H2 = pump total head at two operating points
N1 and N2 = pump rotational speed at two operating points
P1 and P2 = pump hydraulic power at two operating points
This means that a pump operating at half speed will provide one
half of the pump's full-speed flow and one eighth of the pump's full-
speed power.\11\ However, pump affinity laws do not account for changes
in hydraulic and motor efficiency that may occur as a pump's rotational
speed is reduced. Typically, hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency
will be reduced at lower operating speeds. Consequently, at reduced
speeds, power consumption is not reduced as drastically as hydraulic
output power. Even so, the efficiency losses at low-speed operation are
typically outweighed by the exponential reduction in hydraulic output
power at low-speed operation; this results in a lower input power at
low speed operation at flow points lower than BEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A discussion of reduced-speed pump dynamics is available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circulator speed controls may be discrete or continuous, as well as
manual or automatic. Circulator pumps with discrete speed controls vary
the pump's rotational speed in a step-wise manner. Discrete controls
are found mostly on circulator pumps with induction motors, and have
several speed settings that are can be used to allow contractors
greater installation flexibility with a single circulator model. For
these circulator pumps, the pump's speed is set manually with a dial or
buttons by the installer or user and operate at a constant speed once
the installation is complete.
Circulator pumps equipped with automatic speed controls can adjust
the circulator's rotational speed based on a signal from differential
pressure or temperature sensors, or an external input signal from a
boiler. The variable frequency drives required for ECMs makes them
fairly amenable to the addition of variable speed control logic.
Currently, the vast majority of circulator pumps with automatic
continuously variable speed controls also have ECM motors. However,
some circulator models with induction motors also come equipped with
automatic continuous variable speed controls. Automatic controls can
reduce energy consumption either by allowing circulator speed to
dynamically respond to changes in system conditions or simply by
reducing speed to a single value optimal for the specific application.
Automatic controls can be broadly categorized into two groups:
Pressure-based controls, and temperature-based controls.
Pressure-based controls vary the circulator speed based on changes
in the system pressure. These pressure changes are typically induced by
a thermostatically controlled zone valve that monitors the space
temperature in different zones and calls for heat (i.e., opens the
valve) when the space/zone temperature is below the set-point, similar
to a thermostat. In this type of control, a pressure sensor internal to
the circulator determines the amount of pressure in the system and
adjusts the circulator speed to achieve the desired system pressure.
Temperature-based controls monitor the supply and return
temperature to the circulator and modulate the circulator speed to
maintain a fixed temperature drop across the system. Circulator pumps
with temperature-based controls are able to serve the heat
[[Page 24530]]
loads of a conditioned space at a lower speed, and therefore lower
input power, than those with differential pressure controls. This is
because they can account for the differential temperature between the
space and supplied hot water, delivering a constant BTU/hr load to the
space when less heat is needed even in a given zone or zones.
DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table III.1
regarding their applicability to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency of circulator pumps as measured
according to the DOE test procedure. Specifically, DOE seeks
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics
that are currently available for each technology option.
DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table III.1
regarding their market adoption, costs, and any concerns with
incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility,
potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/implementation
issues, etc.).
DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may
impact product features or consumer utility.
B. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will
not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it
is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial
products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology
could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features,
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as
equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it
will not be considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined
that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or
safety, it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b)
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five screening
criteria described in this section would have on each of the technology
options listed in Table III.1 with respect to circulator pumps.
Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same criteria
would affect any other technology options not already identified in
this document with respect to their potential use in circulator pumps.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of circulator pumps. There
are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: The selection
of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and
payback period (``PBP'') analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in
cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level
currently available on the market).
Although DOE has not developed a formal engineering analysis, DOE
supported the CPWG by providing some engineering-like analysis based on
the efficiency-level approach. The analysis was presented over a series
of working sessions, transcripts and accompanying material for which is
available in the rulemaking docket. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004)
For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline
model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of common
or typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one
that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and
provides basic consumer utility.
DOE requests feedback on appropriate baseline efficiency levels for
DOE to apply to each equipment class in evaluating whether to establish
energy conservation standards for these products.
DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline efficiency levels
for any newly analyzed equipment classes that are not currently in
place or for the
[[Page 24531]]
contemplated combined equipment classes, as discussed in section
III.A.1 of this document. For newly analyzed equipment classes, DOE
requests energy use data to characterize the baseline efficiency level.
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
also defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the theoretical
maximum possible efficiency if all available design options are
incorporated in a model. In applying these design options, DOE would
only include those that are compatible with each other that when
combined would represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency.
In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially
available because it is not economically feasible.
DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency levels
are appropriate and technologically feasible for potential
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for circulator
pumps--and if not, why not.
DOE also requests feedback on which maximum efficiencies are
representative of those for the other circulator pumps not included
within the scope of the Term Sheets. If the range of possible
efficiencies is different for such other equipment, what alternative
approaches should DOE consider using for those equipment classes and
why?
DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be incorporated at
a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies associated with those
levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to
whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations of
design options.
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the
equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
The bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer
production cost (``MPC'') estimates. DOE then applies a manufacturer
markup to convert the MPC to manufacturer selling price (``MSP''). The
manufacturer markup accounts for costs such as overhead and profit. The
resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer
production cost (``MPC'') estimates.
As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost
associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed equipment
classes.
DOE requests feedback on whether, and if so how, manufacturers
would incorporate the technology options listed in Table III.1 to
increase energy efficiency in circulator pumps beyond the baseline.
This includes information in which manufacturers would incorporate the
different technologies to incrementally improve the efficiencies of
products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the increased energy
efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur
otherwise. DOE is also interested in information regarding any
potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to
incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer
demand.
DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular design option. DOE also requests
information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production
impacts.
DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not be
applicable to (or incompatible with) specific equipment classes.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce.
DOE requests feedback on what manufacturer markups are appropriate
for non-built-in and built-in products, respectively.
D. Markups Analysis
DOE derives customer prices by applying a multiplier called a
``markup'' to the MSP. In deriving markups, DOE determines the major
distribution channels for product sales, the markup associated with
each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and
magnitude of differences between markups for baseline products
(``baseline markups'') and higher-efficiency products (``incremental
markups''). The identified distribution channels (i.e., how the
products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and
estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in
generating end-user price inputs for the LCC and PBP analyses and the
national impact analysis (``NIA'').
During the CPWG meetings, the CPWG identified distribution channels
for circulator pumps and estimated their respective shares of shipments
by sector (residential and commercial), based on manufacturer feedback
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 49 at p. 51), as shown in Table
III.2:
Table III.2--Circulator Pumps Distribution Channels and Respective
Market Shares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Commercial
Channel: From manufacturer shipments shipments
share (%) share (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Rep [rarr] Contractor [rarr] End .............. 37
User...................................
[[Page 24532]]
Sales Rep [rarr] Distributor [rarr] 73 36
Contractor [rarr] End User.............
Distributor [rarr] End User............. .............. 2
Sales Rep [rarr] Distributor [rarr] End 2 ..............
User...................................
OEM [rarr] Contractor [rarr] End User... 12 12
OEM [rarr] Distributor [rarr] Contractor 13 13
[rarr] End User........................
-------------------------------
Total............................... 100 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests information on whether there have been market changes
since the CPWG that would affect the distribution channels and the
percentage of circulator pump shipments in each channel and sector, as
shown in Table III.2, and if so, how such market changes would affect
the circulator pump distribution channels. DOE also requests
information on whether the same distribution channels and associated
breakdowns across sectors apply for SVIL pumps, and if not, DOE
requests relevant data on the SVIL distribution channels and their
market shares.
E. Energy Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and thereby
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency
improvements. DOE will base the energy consumption of circulator pumps
and SVIL pumps on the rated annual energy consumption as determined by
the DOE test procedure. Along similar lines, the energy use analysis is
meant to represent typical energy consumption in the field.
1. Consumer Samples and Market Breakdowns
To estimate the energy use of products in field operating
conditions, DOE typically develops consumer samples that are
representative of installation and operating characteristics of how
such products are used in the field, as well as distributions of annual
energy use by application and market segment. According to manufacturer
feedback, there are two main applications for circulator pumps:
Hydronic heating and hot water recirculation. DOE estimated the market
share of these two applications based on manufacturer-provided
circulator pump shipments data for 2015, as well as the market
distribution of circulator pumps in the residential and commercial
sectors based on the horsepower ratings of the shipments data and
industry expert input.
To develop consumer samples, the CPWG relied on the Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) 2009 residential energy consumption
survey (RECS) and the 2012 commercial buildings energy consumption
survey (CBECS), for the residential and commercial sectors,
respectively. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 46 at p. 158) In a
potential energy conservation standards rulemaking for circulator pumps
and SVIL pumps, DOE may utilize the most current versions of the RECS
and CBECS consumer samples, currently the 2015 RECS and the upcoming
2018 CBECS.
DOE requests data and information on whether the breakdowns of
circulator pumps by sector and application have changed since the CPWG
proceedings, and if so, how. DOE also requests information on the
market applications of SVIL pumps and how those are broken down by
sector.
As discussed in section II.A.1.b of this document, the CPWG
recommended a definition for ``on-demand circulator pumps''. (Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Non-Binding Recommendation #1 at pp.
4-5) In order to consider analyzing on-demand circulator pumps, DOE
requires information to characterize their market size. The CPWG
reported that on-demand circulator pumps comprise 5 percent of the hot
water recirculation market. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 46
at p. 168)
DOE requests feedback on whether there have been market changes
since the CPWG meetings that would warrant a different estimate of the
fraction of circulator pumps sold with on-demand controls, and if so,
what that fraction is.
2. Operating Hours
To develop annual energy use estimates, the CPWG reviewed the
operating hours of circulator pumps by sector (residential and
commercial) and application (hydronic heating and hot water
recirculation). For hydronic heating applications in the residential
sector, operating hours per year (``HPY'') were estimated based on two
field metering studies: A 2015 Vermont study and a 2012-2013 metering
study in Ithaca, NY.\12\ Based on these metering studies, the CPWG
suggested establishing a relationship between residential sector
heating degree days (``HDDs'') and circulator pump HPY to develop
operating hour estimates for the hydronic heating application. For the
residential sector, this scaling factor was 0.33 HPY/HDD. (Docket No.
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 100 at pp. 54, 108). For the commercial
sector, the CPWG recommended a scaling factor of 0.45 HPY/HDD. (Docket
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 100 at pp. 122-123). These scaling
factors were used to develop distributions of circulator pump operating
hours across the consumer samples. The weighted average HPY for the
hydronic heating application were estimated at approximately 1,970 and
2,200 for the residential and commercial sector, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For more information on the Ithaca, NY study, see https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60200.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For circulator pumps used in hot water recirculation applications,
the CPWG agreed to HPY estimates based on their associated control
types (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 60 at p. 74), as shown in
Table III.3.
[[Page 24533]]
Table III.3--Circulator Pump Operating Hours in Hot Water Recirculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction of
Control type Sector consumers HPY Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Control....................... Residential........ 50% 8,760 Constant Operation.
Commercial.........
Timer............................ Residential........ 25% 7,300 50% operate constantly
and 50% operate 16
hours/day.
Commercial......... 6,570 50% operate constantly
and 50% operate 12
hours/day.
Aquastat......................... Residential........ 20% 1,095 3 hours per day.
Commercial.........
On Demand *...................... Residential........ 5% 61 10 minutes per day *.
Commercial......... 122 20 minutes per day *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assuming that circulator pumps operate for 30 seconds for each demand ``push''
DOE requests information on any updated or recent data sources,
such as circulator pump field metering studies, to inform and validate
the circulator pump operating hours in the residential and commercial
sectors and across all applications. DOE also requests comment on
whether there have been any technology or market changes since the term
sheet to warrant a different approach on the circulator pump operating
hours.
DOE requests input on the operating hours for SVIL pumps by sector
and application, and specifically, whether a similar approach should be
followed for SVIL pumps, as the one used to estimate operating hours
for circulator pumps.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic
effects of potential energy conservation standards for circulator pumps
and SVIL pumps on individual customers. For any given efficiency level,
DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated
baseline level. The LCC is the total customer expense over the life of
the equipment, consisting of purchase, installation, and operating
costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the
calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--
which includes the MSP, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--
and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and
the year that compliance with new and amended standards is required.
DOE measures savings of potential standards relative to a ``no-new-
standards'' case that reflects conditions without new and/or amended
standards, and uses efficiency market shares to characterize the ``no-
new-standards'' case equipment mix. By accounting for consumers who
already purchase more efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the
potential benefits from potential standards. For circulator pumps, the
CPWG reviewed the market efficiency distribution for circulator pumps
by efficiency level, circulator variety (e.g., CP1, CP2, CP3),
horsepower rating, and application. The data used to develop the no-
new-standards case were confidential manufacturer shipments data from
2015. Table III.4 shows the no-new-standards efficiency distribution in
2015, as agreed by the CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 99
at pp. 206-208). Note that due to confidentiality concerns, the actual
market shares are not shown, and instead market availability is
depicted by 'X'.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.011
DOE requests feedback and data on whether any changes in the
circulator pump market since 2015 have affected the market efficiency
distribution of circulator pumps, and if so, how. DOE also requests
information on the current efficiency distribution of SVIL pumps.
DOE requests data and information on the installation costs of SVIL
pumps,
[[Page 24534]]
and whether those vary by motor type, control type, or any other factor
affecting their efficiency. DOE also requests input on SVIL repair and
maintenance costs and frequencies, and SVIL lifetimes, including
average and maximum service lifetimes.
G. Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts of equipment to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on
energy consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future
manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are typically based
on available historical data broken out by equipment class, capacity,
and efficiency. Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model
that captures recent trends in the market.
For circulator pumps, DOE utilized manufacturer-provided
confidential historical shipments data up to the year 2015 to estimate
future circulator pump shipments, which were broken down by circulator
pump variety (CP1, CP2, CP3), horsepower rating, and circulator pump
housing material.
DOE requests circulator pump annual sales data (i.e., number of
shipments) from 2016 to 2020 broken out by circulator pump category,
horsepower rating, and circulator pump housing material. If
disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available, DOE requests
more aggregated fractions of annual sales. DOE also requests annual
historical shipments data for SVILs for the past 10 years, if possible
disaggregated by horsepower rating, motor type, housing material, or
any other differentiating factor used in the industry.
To project future shipments, DOE typically uses new housing starts
projections and floorspace projections from the Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO) as market drivers for the residential and commercial sectors,
respectively. In addition to the aforementioned drivers, for hydronic
heating applications in the residential sector, the CPWG also agreed to
utilize Department of Commerce historical data (from 1973 to 2015),
which showed a declining saturation for new construction. Based on
these inputs and resulting projections, the CPWG agreed that circulator
pump shipments would remain constant at approximately 1.8 million units
per year throughout the analysis period (2022-2051). (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 100 at pp. 19-21).
To project future shipments of circulator pumps, DOE plans to
utilize the market drivers and saturation trends agreed by the CPWG and
to update the data sources with the most current ones, if available.
DOE requests information on any market changes since 2015 that
would justify using market drivers and saturation trends that are
different than those recommended by the CPWG. DOE also requests input
on the market drivers and saturation trends that would help project
shipments for SVIL pumps.
H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of circulator pumps, and to evaluate the potential
impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing
capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects.
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted
for each product in this analysis, with the key output of industry net
present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses the
potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing
capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and
important market and product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code.\13\ Manufacturing of circulator pumps is classified
under NAICS 333914, ``Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping
Equipment Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750
employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small
business. This employee threshold includes all employees in a business'
parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact information
of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that distribute
circulator pumps or SVILs in the United States.
DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of manufacturers that
could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation
standards. DOE requests the names and contact information of small
business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, of
circulator pumps or SVILs that manufacture products in the United
States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer
subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy
conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any potential
approaches that could be considered to address impacts on
manufacturers, including small businesses.
DOE requests information regarding the cumulative regulatory burden
impacts on manufacturers of circulator pumps and SVILs associated with
(1) other DOE standards applying to different products that these
manufacturers may also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions
of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology
for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any
flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this burden while
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
I. Other Issues
The CPWG analyzed four ELs (ELs 1 through 4) as potential standard
levels for circulator pumps.\14\ The CPWG recommended standard level #2
as the
[[Page 24535]]
proposed standard level, with a compliance date of four years following
the publication of a circulator pumps final rule. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation #1 at p. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The CPWG did not analyze SVILs, therefore no standard
levels were considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on whether there have been any market or
technology changes since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets that would
make the CPWG's EL 2 recommendation no longer valid.
IV. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters
addressed in this RFI and on other matters relevant to DOE's
consideration of test procedures and energy conservation standards for
circulator pumps and small vertical in-line pumps. These comments and
information will aid in the development of test procedure and energy
conservation standards NOPRs for circulator pumps and small vertical
in-line pumps if DOE determines that amended test procedures may be
appropriate for this equipment.
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 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 this instruction, 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. Comments and documents submitted via
email 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 on 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. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email 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. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential status of the information and
treat it according to its determination.
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 test procedures and energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process.
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices
and information about this process should contact Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on the CPWG's recommended definitions for
wet rotor circulator pump; dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump; dry
rotor, three-piece circulator pump; and horizontal motor. Specifically,
DOE requests comment regarding whether changes in the market since the
CPWG's recommendation would affect the recommended definitions and
scope.
(2) DOE requests comment regarding whether the market changes in
the intervening years since the CPWG's recommendation of a definition
for ``header pump'' warrant modification of that recommended
definition.
(3) DOE requests comment regarding the CPWG-recommended definition
of ``on-demand circulator pump'' and whether it is appropriate to
retain on-demand circulator pumps within the scope of future analysis.
(4) DOE seeks comment and feedback on the scope and definitions
recommended by the CPWG, including whether anything has changed in the
market since the conclusion of the
[[Page 24536]]
CPWG that would impact the recommended scope and definitions for SVIL
pumps.
(5) DOE seeks feedback and information regarding whether it may be
appropriate to include SVIL pumps in the circulator pumps rulemaking,
in the commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking, or in a separate
rulemaking.
(6) DOE seeks comment regarding any other topics related to scope
and definitions for circulator pumps and SVIL pumps.
(7) DOE requests comment on the CPWG recommendation to adopt
PEICIRC as the metric to characterize the energy use of
certain circulator pumps and on the recommended equation for
PEICIRC, including whether anything in the technology or
market has changed since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets that would
lead to this metric no longer being appropriate.
(8) DOE requests comment on the recommended definitions for manual
speed control, pressure control, adaptive pressure control, temperature
control, and external input signal control. Additionally, DOE requests
comment on a possible definition for adaptive pressure control.
(9) DOE requests comment on whether any additional control variety
is now currently on the market and if it should be considered in this
rulemaking.
(10) DOE requests comment on whether the CPWG-recommended reference
system curve shape, including the static offset, is reasonable for
circulator pumps.
(11) DOE requests comment on the recommended test methods, test
points, and weights for circulator pumps with pressure controls,
including circulator pumps with adaptive pressure controls.
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to
warrant a different approach.
(12) DOE requests comment on the recommended test methods, test
points, and weights for circulator pumps with temperature controls.
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to
warrant a different approach.
(13) DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test method and
the unique test points, weights, and speed factors for circulator pumps
distributed in commerce with manual speed controls. Specifically, DOE
requests comment on whether the technology or market for such controls
has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to warrant a different
approach.
(14) DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test method for
circulator pumps distributed in commerce with only external input
signal controls, as well as for those distributed in commerce with
external input signal controls in addition to other control varieties.
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to
warrant a different approach.
(15) DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test methods,
test points, and weights for circulator pumps with no controls.
(16) DOE seeks comment and feedback on whether HI 40.6-2016 or HI
40.6-2021 is an appropriate test method for conducting wire-to-water
testing of circulator pumps, as recommended by the CPWG. In addition,
DOE seeks comment on whether the modifications in HI 40.6-2016 and/or
HI 40.6-2021 adequately capture the CPWG recommended modifications in
Recommendation #10.
(17) DOE seeks comment on whether the recommendations for twin-head
circulator pumps and circulators-less-volute have been adequately
addressed in HI 40.6-2021.
(18) DOE requests comment on the recommendation to test SVIL pumps
with the test methods in the general pumps test procedure and
additional provisions to account for the differences in size and
characteristics of SVIL pump motors. In particular, DOE requests
comment on the potential extension of the nominal full load motor
efficiency values to reference DOE's small electric motor regulations,
including certain single-phase motors, and the need for an exception
for SVIL pumps so that those sold with single-phase motors do not have
to be rated as bare pumps.
(19) DOE also requests comment on the prevalence of SVIL pumps sold
with single-phase versus three-phase motors, and the prevalence of SVIL
pumps sold with motors not covered by DOE's small electric motors and
electric motors energy conservation standards for either single- or
three-phase motors.
(20) DOE also requests comment on whether the equations used to
establish the part load motor and drive losses in the general pumps
test procedure are appropriate for SVIL pumps under one horsepower. If
inappropriate, DOE requests data supporting the generation of
alternative loss curves.
(21) DOE seeks comment on whether establishing a standard for
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps would be cost-effective, economically
justified, technologically feasible, or would result in a significant
savings of energy.
(22) DOE requests comment regarding the CPWG recommendation to
include all circulator pumps within a single equipment class,
especially regarding interim market changes since the recommendation
that may warrant changes to that recommendation. DOE additionally seeks
comment regarding whether the same recommendations should apply to SVIL
pumps.
(23) DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table
III.1 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency of circulator pumps as measured
according to the DOE test procedure. Specifically, DOE seeks
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics
that are currently available for each technology option.
(24) DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table
III.1 regarding their market adoption, costs, and any concerns with
incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility,
potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/implementation
issues, etc.).
(25) DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may
impact product features or consumer utility.
(26) DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table III.1 with respect to circulator
pumps. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other technology options not already
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in
circulator pumps.
(27) DOE requests feedback on appropriate baseline efficiency
levels for DOE to apply to each equipment class in evaluating whether
to establish energy conservation standards for these products.
(28) DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline efficiency
levels for any newly analyzed equipment classes that are not currently
in place or for the contemplated combined equipment classes, as
discussed in section III.A.1 of this document. For newly analyzed
equipment classes, DOE requests energy use data to characterize the
baseline efficiency level.
(29) DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency
levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for potential
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for circulator
pumps--and if not, why not.
[[Page 24537]]
(30) DOE also requests feedback on which maximum efficiencies are
representative of those for the other circulator pumps not included
within the scope of the Term Sheets. If the range of possible
efficiencies is different for such other equipment, what alternative
approaches should DOE consider using for those equipment classes and
why?
(31) DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain
combinations of design options.
(32) DOE requests feedback on whether, and if so how, manufacturers
would incorporate the technology options listed in Table III.1 to
increase energy efficiency in circulator pumps beyond the baseline.
This includes information in which manufacturers would incorporate the
different technologies to incrementally improve the efficiencies of
products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the increased energy
efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur
otherwise. DOE is also interested in information regarding any
potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to
incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer
demand.
(33) DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular design option. DOE also requests
information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production
impacts.
(34) DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not
be applicable to (or incompatible with) specific equipment classes.
(35) DOE requests feedback on what manufacturer markups are
appropriate for non-built-in and built-in products, respectively.
(36) DOE requests information on whether there have been market
changes since the CPWG that would affect the distribution channels and
the percentage of circulator pump shipments in each channel and sector,
as shown in Table III.2, and if so, how such market changes would
affect the circulator pump distribution channels. DOE also requests
information on whether the same distribution channels and associated
breakdowns across sectors apply for SVIL pumps, and if not, DOE
requests relevant data on the SVIL distribution channels and their
market shares.
(37) DOE requests data and information on whether the breakdowns of
circulator pumps by sector and application have changed since the CPWG
proceedings, and if so, how. DOE also requests information on the
market applications of SVIL pumps and how those are broken down by
sector.
(38) DOE requests feedback on whether there have been market
changes since the CPWG meetings that would warrant a different estimate
of the fraction of circulator pumps sold with on-demand controls, and
if so, what that fraction is.
(39) DOE requests information on any updated or recent data
sources, such as circulator pump field metering studies, to inform and
validate the circulator pump operating hours in the residential and
commercial sectors and across all applications. DOE also requests
comment on whether there have been any technology or market changes
since the term sheet to warrant a different approach on the circulator
pump operating hours.
(40) DOE requests input on the operating hours for SVIL pumps by
sector and application, and specifically, whether a similar approach
should be followed for SVIL pumps, as the one used to estimate
operating hours for circulator pumps.
(41) DOE requests feedback and data on whether any changes in the
circulator pump market since 2015 have affected the market efficiency
distribution of circulator pumps, and if so, how. DOE also requests
information on the current efficiency distribution of SVIL pumps.
(42) DOE requests data and information on the installation costs of
SVIL pumps, and whether those vary by motor type, control type, or any
other factor affecting their efficiency. DOE also requests input on
SVIL repair and maintenance costs and frequencies, and SVIL lifetimes,
including average and maximum service lifetimes.
(43) DOE requests circulator pump annual sales data (i.e., number
of shipments) from 2016 to 2020 broken out by circulator category,
horsepower rating, and circulator housing material. If disaggregated
fractions of annual sales are not available, DOE requests more
aggregated fractions of annual sales. DOE also requests annual
historical shipments data for SVILs for the past 10 years, if possible
disaggregated by horsepower rating, motor type, housing material, or
any other differentiating factor used in the industry.
(44) DOE requests information on any market changes since 2015 that
would justify using market drivers and saturation trends that are
different than those recommended by the CPWG. DOE also requests input
on the market drivers and saturation trends that would help project
shipments for SVIL pumps.
(45) To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute circulator pumps or SVILs in the United States.
(46) DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of manufacturers
that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation
standards. DOE requests the names and contact information of small
business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, of
circulator pumps or SVILs that manufacture products in the United
States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer
subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy
conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any potential
approaches that could be considered to address impacts on
manufacturers, including small businesses.
(47) DOE requests comment on whether there have been any market or
technology changes since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets that would
make the CPWG's EL 2 recommendation no longer valid.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 27,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for 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 April 28, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-09242 Filed 5-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
