Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Portable Electric Spas, 69082-69116 [2022-24290]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
69082
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2022–BT–STD–0025]
RIN 1904–AF36
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Portable
Electric Spas
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of data availability
and request for comment.
AGENCY:
In this notice of data
availability (‘‘NODA’’), the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is
publishing data and certain preliminary
analytical results related to DOE’s
evaluation of potential energy
conservation standards for portable
electric spas (‘‘PESs’’). DOE requests
comments, data, and information
regarding the data and analysis.
DATES: Written comments and
information will be accepted on or
before, January 17, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0025.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2022–BT–STD–0025, by any of the
following methods:
Email:
PortableElecSpas2022STD0025@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2022–BT–STD–0025 in the
subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
information on this process, see section
IV of this document.
To inform interested parties and to
facilitate this rulemaking process, DOE
has prepared preliminary analytical
data, which is available on the
rulemaking docket at:
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2022-BT-STD-0025.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, public meeting
transcripts, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the 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
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2022-BT-STD-0025. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments in the docket. See section
IV.A of this document for information
on how to submit comments through
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–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
9870. Email
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–3593. Email:
Kristin.koernig@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking Process
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Background
A. Current Process
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by
DOE
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Description
2. Potential Product Classes
a. Inflatable Spas
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
b. Exercise Spas
c. Standard Spas
d. Combination Spas
3. Manufacturers and Industry Structure
4. Other Regulatory Programs
5. Technology Options for Improving
Efficiency
a. Insulation
b. Cover
c. Sealing
d. Radiant Barrier
e. Insulated Ground Cover
f. Dedicated Circulation Pump
g. Heat Pump
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Cost Analysis
3. Engineering Results
D. Markups Analysis
1. Distribution Channels
2. Markups
3. Sales Taxes
4. Summary of Markups
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Typical Annual Operating Hours (npy)
3. Ambient Temperature (Tamb)
4. Operating Water Temperature (Top)
5. Annual Energy Use Results
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
1. Inputs to the Life-Cycle Cost Model
a. Inputs to Total Installed Cost
b. Inputs to Operating Costs
2. Product Lifetime
a. Hard-Sided Spas
b. Inflatable Spas
3. Rebound Effect
4. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case
5. Discount Rates
6. Payback Period Analysis
7. Consumer Results
G. Shipments Analysis
1. Approach To Shipments and Stock
Models
2. Initial Stock Estimates
a. Hard-Sided Spas Stock
b. Inflatable Spas Stock
3. Product Saturations
4. Determining Annual Spa Shipments
a. Initial Shipments
b. New Spa Shipments
c. Spa Replacements
d. Demolitions
e. Product Lifetimes
f. Future Portable Electric Spa Shipments
g. Calculating Shipments and Stock
5. Impacts of Increased Product Costs on
Shipments
6. Results for 30-Years of Shipment (2029–
2058)
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
a. Site-to-Power-Plant Energy Conversion
Factors
b. Full-Fuel Cycle Multipliers
3. Net Present Value Analysis
4. Candidate Standard Levels
5. Results for 30-Years of Shipments
(2029–2058)
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Authority
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 B 2 of EPCA
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles, which, in addition
to identifying particular consumer
products and commercial equipment as
covered under the statute, permits the
Secretary of Energy to classify
additional types of consumer products
as covered products. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(20)) In a notice of final
determination of coverage (‘‘NOFD’’)
published in the Federal Register on
September 2, 2022 (‘‘September 2022
NOFD’’), DOE classified PESs as a
covered product pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6292(b)(1) after determining that
classifying PESs as a covered product is
necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of EPCA and that average
annual household energy use for PESs is
likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per
year. 87 FR 54123.
The relevant purposes of EPCA
include:
(1) To conserve energy supplies
through energy conservation programs,
and, where necessary, the regulation of
certain energy uses; and
(2) To provide for improved energy
efficiency of motor vehicles, major
appliances, and certain other consumer
products. (42 U.S.C. 6201(4) and (5))
First, DOE determined that the
coverage of PESs is both necessary and
appropriate to carry out the purposes of
EPCA on the basis of market data, the
existence of technology options for
improving energy efficiency of PESs,
and supporting argument of commenters
in response to the notice of proposed
determination of coverage. 87 FR 54123,
54125–54126.
DOE then determined that estimated
household energy use was likely to
exceed 100 kWh/year based on market
data and certification data reported to
the California Energy Commission’s
(‘‘CEC’’) Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System
(‘‘MAEDbS’’).3 In the September 2022
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), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
3 CEC Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database
System. Available at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
NOFD, DOE had estimated average
energy consumption of 1,699 kWh per
year per household, which matched
estimates submitted by commenters in
response to the notice of proposed
determination of coverage. Id. at 87 FR
54126–54127.
Having determined that classifying
PESs as a covered product was
necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of EPCA and that average
annual household energy use for PESs
was likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours
per year, DOE classified PESs as a
covered product. Id. at 87 FR 54127.
Additionally, in the September 2022
NOFD, DOE established a definition of
the term ‘‘portable electric spa,’’ which
was ‘‘a factory-built electric spa or hot
tub, supplied with equipment for
heating and circulating water at the time
of sale or sold separately for subsequent
attachment.’’ Id. at 87 FR 54125; see also
10 CFR 430.2.
As PESs are now a covered product,
EPCA allows DOE to prescribe an
energy conservation standard for any
type (or class) of covered products of a
type specified in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)
if the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)
and (p) are met and the Secretary
determines that—
(A) the average per household energy
use within the United States by
products of such type (or class)
exceeded 150 kilowatt-hours (or its Btu
equivalent) for any 12-month period
ending before such determination;
(B) the aggregate household energy
use within the United States by
products of such type (or class)
exceeded 4,200,000,000 kilowatt-hours
(or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12month period;
(C) substantial improvement in the
energy efficiency of products of such
type (or class) is technologically
feasible; and
(D) the application of a labeling rule
under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such type (or
class) is not likely to be sufficient to
induce manufacturers to produce, and
consumers and other persons to
purchase, covered products of such type
(or class) which achieve the maximum
energy efficiency which is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(1))
EPCA further provides that, not later
than 6 years after the issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE must publish either a
notification of determination that
standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov. (last accessed
October 26, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
69083
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new
proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not
later than three years after issuance of
a final determination not to amend
standards, DOE must publish either a
notice of determination that standards
for the product do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR including new
proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
Under EPCA, any new or amended
energy conservation standard must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
DOE determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the
new or amended standard must result in
a significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
DOE is publishing this NODA to
collect data and information to inform
its decision to establish energy
conservation standards for PESs
consistent with its obligations under
EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products,
including PESs. As noted, 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 efficiency (or
water efficiency for certain products
specified by EPCA) that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may
not adopt any standard that would not
result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a
given rulemaking.4 For example, some
covered products and equipment have
most of their energy consumption occur
during periods of peak energy demand.
The impacts of these products on the
energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products or equipment
with relatively constant demand. In
evaluating the significance of energy
savings, DOE considers differences in
primary energy and full-fuel cycle
4 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration in New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial
Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69084
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(‘‘FFC’’) effects for different covered
products and equipment when
determining whether energy savings are
significant. Primary energy and FFC
effects include the energy consumed in
electricity production (depending on
load shape), in distribution and
transmission, and in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus present a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards. Accordingly,
DOE evaluates the significance of energy
savings on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account the significance of
cumulative FFC national energy savings,
the cumulative FFC emissions
reductions, and the need to confront the
global climate crisis, among other
factors.
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 products subject to the
standard;
2. The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered products in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that
are likely to result from the standard;
3. The total projected amount of
energy (or as applicable, water) 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. 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.1 shows the
individual analyses that are performed
to satisfy each of the requirements
within EPCA.
TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings .......................................................................
Technological Feasibility ..........................................................................
Economic Justification:
Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers ........................
Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for the
product.
Total projected energy savings .........................................................
Impact on utility or performance .......................................................
Impact of any lessening of competition ............................................
Need for national energy and water conservation ............................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ................................
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy Analysis.
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 Analysis.
Energy Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
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.5
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that a standard is
economically justified if the Secretary
finds that the additional cost to the
consumer of purchasing a product
complying with an energy conservation
standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings
during the first year that the consumer
will receive as a result of the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as
an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which
prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either
increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the
Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if interested persons
have established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the standard is likely
to result in the unavailability in the
United States in any covered product
type (or class) of performance
characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes
that are substantially the same as those
5 On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal
government’s emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–
1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth
Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no
longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal
government’s appeal of that injunction or a further
court order. Among other things, the preliminary
injunction enjoined the defendants in that case
from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or
relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social
cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to
monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In the absence of further intervening
court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior
to the injunction and present monetized benefits
where appropriate and permissible by law.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
generally available in the United States.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies
requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a
covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a
different standard level for a type or
class of product that has the same
function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such
group: (A) consume a different kind of
energy from that consumed by other
covered products within such type (or
class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
products within such type (or class) do
not have and such feature justifies a
higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard for a group of
products, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility to the consumer of
the feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (Id.) Any rule prescribing
such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such
higher or lower level was established.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments
contained in the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’),
Public Law 110–140, any final rule for
new or amended energy conservation
standards promulgated after July 1,
2010, is required to address standby
mode and off mode energy use. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when
DOE adopts a standard for a covered
product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of
standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and
off mode energy use into a single
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt
a separate standard for such energy use
for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B))
Before proposing a standard, DOE
typically seeks public input on the
analytical framework, models, and tools
that DOE intends to use to evaluate
standards for the product at issue and
the results of preliminary analyses DOE
performed for the product. See section
IV.B of this document for a list of
analysis and data on which DOE seeks
comment.
DOE is examining whether to
establish energy conservation standards
for PESs pursuant to its obligations
under EPCA. This notification
announces the availability of
preliminary analytical results and data.
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is
deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR
stage for an energy conservation
standard rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of
appendix A specifies that the length of
the public comment period for a preNOPR will vary depending upon the
circumstances of the particular
rulemaking, but will not be less than 75
calendar days. For this NODA, DOE is
providing a 60-day comment period,
which DOE deems appropriate given the
publication of three antecedent notices
relating to PESs, two of which,
themselves, offered opportunity for
comment related to PESs and all of
which would be understood by
interested parties as a signal that DOE
would be evaluating potential energy
conservation standards. Those three
antecedent notices were the proposed
determination of portable electric spas
as a covered consumer product (87 FR
8745 (Feb. 16, 2022)), the final
determination of portable electric spas
as a covered consumer product (87 FR
54123 (Sept. 2, 2022)), and the proposed
rulemaking for the test procedure for
portable electric spas (87 FR 63356 (Oct.
18, 2022)), respectively. Further, a 60day comment period will allow DOE to
review comments received in response
to this NODA and use them to inform
the analysis of the product considered
in evaluating potential energy
conservation standards.
II. Background
A. Current Process
DOE has not previously conducted an
energy conservation standards
rulemaking for PESs. As described in
section I.A of this NODA, DOE
previously determined that PESs met
the criteria for classification as a
covered product pursuant to EPCA and
classified PESs as a covered product. 87
FR 54123.
Following this determination of
coverage, DOE published a NOPR
proposing a test procedure for PESs in
the Federal Register on October 18,
2022. 87 FR 63356. In that NOPR, DOE
proposed to incorporate by reference an
industry test method published by the
Pool and Hot Tub Alliance (‘‘PHTA’’) 6
in partnership with the International
Code Council (‘‘ICC’’) and approved by
the American National Standards
Institute (‘‘ANSI’’), ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019, ‘‘American National Standard for
6 The PHTA is a result of a 2019 merger between
the Association of Pool and Spa Professionals
(‘‘APSP’’) and the National Swimming Pool
Foundation (‘‘NSPF’’). The reference to APSP has
been retained in the ANSI designation of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
69085
Portable Electric Spa Energy Efficiency’’
(‘‘APSP–14 2019’’) with certain
exceptions and additions. 87 FR 63356,
63361–63369. The proposed test method
produces a measure of the energy
consumption of PESs (i.e., the
normalized average standby power) that
represents the average power consumed
by the spa, normalized to a standard
temperature difference between the
ambient air and the water in the spa,
while the cover is on and the product
is operating in its default operation
mode. Id. at 87 FR 63361.
Comments received to date as part of
the coverage determination rulemaking
have helped DOE identify and resolve
issues related to the NODA.
III. Summary of the Analyses
Performed by DOE
For the product covered in this
NODA, DOE conducted in-depth
technical analyses in the following
areas: (1) engineering; (2) markups to
determine product price; (3) energy use;
(4) life cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback
period (‘‘PBP’’); and (5) national
impacts. The preliminary analytical
results that present the methodology
and results of each of these analyses that
are not included in the body of this
notice are available at:
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2022-BT-STD-0025. Specifically, DOE is
making available the following data and
analysis:
(1) Approved and Archived Portable
Electric Spas exported from the CEC’s
Meads. Data as of August 8, 2022.
(2) DOE’s testing results for a simple
inflatable portable electric spa. Testing
followed methods specified in APSP–14
2019 and attempted to isolate the effects
of various test conditions and design
options.
(3) Reference table for DOE’s
proposed efficiency levels for noninflatable and inflatable portable electric
spas, including particular changes in
specifications and the estimated effects
on energy consumption and costs
thereof.
DOE also conducted, and has
included in this NODA, several other
analyses that either support the major
analyses or are preliminary analyses
that will be expanded if DOE
determines that a NOPR is warranted to
propose new energy conservation
standards. These analyses include: (1)
the market and technology assessment;
(2) the screening analysis, which
contributes to the engineering analysis;
and (3) the shipments analysis, which
contributes to the LCC and PBP analysis
and the national impact analysis
(‘‘NIA’’). In addition to these analyses,
DOE has begun preliminary work on the
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69086
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
manufacturer impact analysis and has
identified the methods to be used for the
consumer subgroup analysis, the
emissions analysis, the employment
impact analysis, the regulatory impact
analysis, and the utility impact analysis.
DOE will expand on these analyses in
the NOPR should one be issued.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that
provides an overall picture of the
market for the products concerned,
including general characteristics of the
products, the industry structure,
manufacturers, market characteristics,
and technologies used in the products.
This activity includes both quantitative
and qualitative assessments, based
primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in
the market and technology assessment
include: (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes;
(2) manufacturers and industry
structure; (3) existing efficiency
programs; (4) shipments information; (5)
market and industry trends; and (6)
technologies or design options that
could improve the energy efficiency of
the product.
1. Product Description
DOE referred to PES product literature
and to its communications with spa
manufacturers to inform its
understanding of the technology and the
different types of products within the
industry. Relevant product literature
includes APSP–14 2019, the current
industry test procedure and energy
conservation standards, materials
related to state rulemakings, academic
papers, and marketing materials.7 In
particular, DOE also made significant
use of the following sources: the final
staff report for CEC’s 2018 Appliance
Efficiency Rulemaking for Spas,
‘‘Analysis of Efficiency Standards and
Marking for Spas;’’ 8 the Codes and
Standards Enhancement (‘‘CASE’’)
Initiative submission from California
investor-owned utilities in support of
CEC’s 2012 rulemaking for spas,
‘‘Analysis of Standards Proposal for
Portable Electric Spas;’’ 9 a 2018
graduate thesis from California State
University, Sacramento, ‘‘Improving
Energy Efficiency of Portable Electric
Spas by Improving Its Thermal
7 APSP–14 2019 is available at: webstore.ansi.org/
standards/apsp/ansiapspicc142019.
8 California Energy Commission. ‘‘Final Staff
Report—Analysis of Efficiency Standards and
Marking for Spas.’’ February 2, 2018.
9 Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE)
Initiative. ‘‘Analysis of Standards Proposal for
Portable Electric Spas.’’ May 15, 2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
Conductivity Properties;’’ 10 and a 2012
graduate thesis from California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo, ‘‘Measurement and Analysis of
the Standby Power of Twenty-Seven
Portable Electric Spas.’’ 11 PES
manufacturers were contacted via the
PHTA.
APSP–14 2019 defines a spa as ‘‘a
product intended for the immersion of
persons in temperature-controlled water
circulated in a closed system’’ and a
portable electric spa as ‘‘a factory-built
electric spa or hot tub, supplied with
equipment for heating and circulating
water at the time of sale or sold
separately for subsequent attachment.’’
DOE adopted this definition of
‘‘portable electric spa’’ without
modification in the September 2022
NOFD. 87 FR 54123, 54125.
Integral heating and circulation
equipment are features that distinguish
PESs from similar products in inflatable
or above-ground pools and therapy
bathtubs or permanent residential spas,
respectively. Beyond these
characteristic features, PESs often also
include chemical systems for water
sanitation as well as features such as
additional lighting, audio systems, and
internet connectivity for more precise
and accessible spa monitoring.
DOE requests comment on the
previous description of the target
technology and the scope of this
product, including whether any
modifications or additions are necessary
to characterize this product.
2. Potential Product Classes
DOE must specify a different standard
level for a type or class of product that
has the same function or intended use
if DOE determines that products within
such group: consume a different kind of
energy from that consumed by other
covered products within such type (or
class); or have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
products within such type (or class) do
not have and such feature justifies a
higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard for a group of
products, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility to the consumer of
the feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (Id.) Any rule prescribing
such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such
10 Ramos, Nestor. ‘‘Improving Energy Efficiency
of Portable Electric Spas by Improving Its Thermal
Conductivity Properties.’’ Spring, 2018.
11 Hamill, Andrew. ‘‘Measurement and Analysis
of the Standby Power of Twenty-Seven Portable
Electric Spas.’’ September, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
higher or lower level was established.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
DOE observed several distinguishable
categories of products in the PES market
that provide consumers with unique
utility that could necessitate a different
standard level for energy consumption.
a. Inflatable Spas
Inflatable spas are characterized by
collapsible and storable bodies. They
are usually made of a flexible polyvinyl
chloride (‘‘PVC’’) plastic tub, which is
filled with air during use and which
connects to a control unit external to the
tub but still integral to the product as
distributed in commerce. Inflatable spas
are often used seasonally and, during
seasons when inflatable spas are not in
use, they are often deflated and put in
storage. Correspondence with inflatable
spa manufacturers indicated that
inflatable spas provide unique utility as
a result of their low price relative to
other portable electric spas and their
ability to be collapsed and moved more
easily than other spas. Inflatable spas
often have maximum water
temperatures settings greater than
100 °F, and the PVC construction that
allows them to be less expensive and
collapsible also decrease their ability to
retain heat. This characteristic generally
makes the power demand of inflatable
spas higher than that of other portable
electric spas. As a result, DOE
tentatively concludes that inflatable
spas are not able to be subject to the
same energy consumption limits as
other spas.
b. Exercise Spas
Exercise spas are characterized by
their large size and ability to generate a
water flow strong enough to allow for
physical activity such as swimming in
place. Exercise spas are usually
composed of a rectangular rigid
synthetic plastic cabinet topped with a
rigid vacuum-formed acrylic shell. The
cavity between the cabinet and acrylic
shell houses components such as pumps
and heaters and also allows for dense
insulating materials to help the spa
retain heat. Exercise spas provide
unique utility in their capacity to
facilitate physical activity inside the spa
for a person as large as the 99th
Percentile Man as specified in ANSI/
APSP/ICC–16.12 Exercise spas may have
maximum water temperatures settings
above or below 100 °F. According to
manufacturers, consumers tend to set
the water temperature of exercise spas
to less than 100 °F when using exercise
12 ANSI/APSP/ICC–16 is available at https://
webstore.ansi.org/standards/apsp/ansiapspicc
162017PA2021.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
spas for physical activity. And exercise
spas’ capacity to house dense insulation
makes them able to retain heat and
reduce energy consumption more than
inflatable spas.
c. Standard Spas
Standard spas are neither collapsible
nor designed for use in recreational
physical activities. Like exercise spas,
they are typically composed of rigid
plastic cabinets affixed to an acrylic
shell. However, they may also be
constructed of other rigid materials.
DOE is aware of some standard spas
whose exteriors are made entirely of
rotationally molded plastic. Standard
spas are not designed to generate a
water flow strong enough to allow for
swimming in place and are usually not
large enough to allow for a person to
swim in place. Standard spas offer
unique utility in comparison to
inflatable spas in that they typically
have more and higher performance jet
pumps, as well as the capacity for more
additional features such as lights, water
features, or stereo systems. Standard
spas usually have maximum water
temperature settings of above 100 °F.
Like exercise spas, the rigid and
relatively large space between the
perimeter of the spa and the spa shell
allows for dense insulation, which
makes standard spas able to reduce
energy consumption more than
inflatable spas.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
d. Combination Spas
Combination spas are single
contiguous spas consisting of distinct
exercise spa and standard spa sections,
each of which has an independent
control for the setting of water
temperature. Combination spas provide
unique utility in their capacity to
provide distinct reservoirs intended for
physical activity and also therapy and
leisure. Like standard and exercise spas,
combination spas are able to house
dense insulation, increasing their ability
to retain heat and to lower their energy
consumption.
DOE’s descriptions of these potential
product classes were largely informed
by the current industry standard, APSP–
14 2019. In this NODA, standard spas,
exercise spas, and combination spas are
sometimes collectively referred to as
‘‘non-inflatable’’ spas or ‘‘hard-sided’’
spas. And in this NODA, inflatable spas
are often treated separately because
their construction is associated with
limited technology options and higher
energy consumption. Exercise spas,
standard spas, and combination spas,
however, are often treated similarly as
non-inflatable spas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
DOE requests comment on whether
the distinction between categories of
PESs, as described in section III.A.2 of
this NODA, is significant enough to
warrant the establishment of different
product classes for each type.
3. Manufactures and Industry Structure
The PES market is largely split
between inflatable spas, standard spas,
and exercise and combination spas,
with each type catering to different
consumer segments that do not
significantly overlap. Similarly, there is
no significant overlap between the
manufacturers of inflatable spas and
non-inflatable spas, although one
manufacturer will often make all of the
standard, exercise, and combination
spas. The inflatable spa market is
concentrated in a small number of
manufacturers characterized by large
production volumes, vertical
integration, and manufacturing plants
located outside of the United States. The
market for non-inflatable spas, however,
is more fragmented among
manufacturers who purchase most spa
components and whose manufacturing
plants are located in North America.
Manufacturers of both inflatable and
non-inflatable spas often produce
models under multiple brands. In
particular, manufacturers of noninflatable spas may also offer different
brands, and even product lines within a
brand, at multiple price points. Features
that tend to correlate to the price point
of a spa include the number and
strength of therapy jets, the quality of
cabinet materials, and the presence of
additional features, such as lighting or
stereo systems.
DOE requests comment on the above
description of the PES manufacturers
and the PES industry structure and
whether any other details are necessary
for characterizing the industry or for
determining whether energy
conservation standards for PESs might
be justified.
4. Other Regulatory Programs
As part of its analysis, DOE surveyed
existing regulatory programs concerning
the energy consumption of PESs. These
regulatory programs include both
programs that enforce mandatory limits
in their respective jurisdictions and
voluntary programs. The first such
mandatory program was CEC’s
mandatory Title 20 regulations
concerning PESs, which were adopted
in 2004. Over the next decade, four
other states adopted mandatory
standards, in some cases following
CEC’s regulations and, in other cases,
creating their own, such as Arizona’s
Title 44 adopted in 2009. In 2014, PHTA
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
69087
created the first iteration of a voluntary
industry standard in APSP–14 2014,
which measures and sets limits for the
energy required to maintain the set
temperature and circulate water while
the spa is not in use, known as ‘‘standby
power.’’
The most recent development in test
procedures and energy conservation
standards for PESs was the publication
of APSP–14 2019 in 2019. This revised
version of the APSP–14 (i.e., APSP–14
2019) was created in collaboration with
CEC and was promptly adopted as
California’s new standard. The 2019
version revised some test methods and
lowered the maximum allowable
standby power for exercise and
combination spas from those in
APSP–14 2014. APSP–14 2019 also
included standby power limits for
inflatable spas for the first time. As of
July 2022, nine states have adopted
APSP–14 2019, three states have
adopted the previous version APSP–14
2014, and Arizona and Connecticut
follow Arizona’s 2009 Title 44
provisions and California’s 2006 Title
20 provisions, respectively.
DOE is also aware of standards in the
European Union and Canada. The
European Union standard, CSN EN
17125, covers a wider range of products
and concerns safety requirements and
test methods for energy consumption.13
CSN EN 17125 specifies labeling
requirements for energy consumption
but does not specify a maximum limit
for the energy consumption of PESs. A
Canadian national standard, Energy
Performance of Hot Tubs and Spas,
reaffirmed in 2021, (‘‘CSA C374:11’’),
provides both a test method and energy
performance requirements for PESs.14
CSA C374:11 cites CEC’s Title 20, and
its test procedure and energy
conservation standards are similar to
those in APSP–14 2019.
DOE requests information on any
voluntary or mandatory test procedure
and energy conservation standards for
PESs that are not mentioned in section
III.A.4 of this NODA.
5. Technology Options for Improving
Efficiency
DOE reviewed product literature and
conducted manufacturer interviews to
survey the technologies that could lower
the normalized average standby power
of a PES and are currently available for
use in the portable electric spa market.
To identify the most relevant technology
13 CSN EN 17125 is available at: https://www.enstandard.eu/csn-en-17125-domestic-spas-whirlpoolspas-hot-tubs-safety-requirements-and-testmethods/.
14 CSA C374:11 (R2021) is available at: https://
www.csagroup.org/store/product/2703317/.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69088
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
options, DOE researched the
components of PESs that consume
energy and the design characteristics
that affect energy consumption. DOE’s
research and data submitted by
manufacturers suggest that the most
substantial energy uses of a portable
electric spa in standby mode are the
energy use associated with maintaining
the water temperature and circulating
the water. As a result, DOE’s analysis
considered technology options that
focus on these two systems. Because
their designs are quite different,
inflatable spas and non-inflatable spas
have different instances of applicable
technology options, although the
engineering motivations behind the
types of technology options are similar.
DOE’s research did not identify reasons
that technology options would differ
between standard spas, exercise, and
combination spas. Accordingly, the
same technology options are considered
for each spa variety.
DOE seeks comment generally on the
descriptions of relevant energy-saving
technology options as described in
section III.A.5 of this document,
including whether any options require
revised or additional details to
characterize each option’s effects on a
PES’s energy consumption.
a. Insulation
To minimize heat losses, PESs require
insulating materials between the hot spa
water and cool ambient air. This NODA
uses the unmodified term ‘‘insulation’’
to refer to the insulation in the walls
and floor of the spa, as opposed to any
insulating materials in the cover. In
non-inflatable spas, this material is
often a polyurethane spray foam, which
is applied to the bottom of the spa shell.
Foam can also be applied in sheets
inside the perimeter of the spa cabinet.
Foam insulation can be any selected
thickness, with the maximum amount of
foam known as ‘‘full-foam’’ insulation,
which entirely fills the space between
the spa shell and the cabinet. Even in
full-foam applications, however, foam
or other insulating materials cannot
totally encapsulate a spa’s pumps or
heating element. The most typical foam
used has a density of 0.5 pounds per
cubic foot. Both thicker and denser
insulation increase, up to a point, the
total R-value of the insulation, which
then reduces the energy consumption of
spas. However, the marginal
effectiveness of thicker or denser
insulation in the walls and floor, as
measured in R-value, decreases
progressively. Although in practice
foam may be added in arbitrary
increments, the efficiency analysis in
section III.C.1 considers two specific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
levels of additional insulation. The first
corresponds to R–6 added in the spa’s
wall sections to prevent heat loss from
the water outward to the ambient air
and to R–3.5 added in the floor section
to prevent heat loss from the water
downward to the ground. The second
corresponds to R–6 added in the wall
sections. The efficiency analysis also
considers a design option in which two
inches of 0.5 pound per cubic foot of
foam is replaced with 2 pound per cubic
foot of foam.
Inflatable spas are typically only
insulated by air pockets, their PVC
material, and flexible foam integrated
into their covers and, especially, into
attachable ‘‘jackets.’’ To maintain its
collapsible and storable characteristics,
however, many other methods of adding
foam or other insulating materials to
non-inflatable spas are not applicable.
In response to mandatory energy
consumption limits in some
jurisdictions, some inflatable spa
manufacturers developed a ‘‘jacket,’’
which has foam integrated into it and
surrounds the inflated spa. During
correspondence with DOE, inflatable
manufacturers reported that such a
jacket or a similar design is necessary
for reducing the energy consumption
below maximum levels as specified by
the most recent industry and CEC
standards.
DOE seeks comment regarding use of
additional or improved insulation as a
technology option for PESs and, in
particular, what would limit adding
further insulation to a PES.
b. Cover
Heat loss, which drives PES energy
consumption, can also occur through
the top face of a spa, in addition to
through the walls and floor. Covers
prevent this heat loss by acting as an
insulator against conductive heat
transfer and also as a convection and
vapor barrier to maintain high humidity
levels above the water surface, thus
preventing evaporative cooling. In noninflatable spas, spa covers are typically
made of rigid polystyrene foam panels
wrapped in moisture barriers and
protective vinyl sheaths. Most covers on
non-inflatable spas have a central hinge,
which allows consumers to remove and
otherwise handle them more easily. The
hinge is typically created by joining two
pieces of rigid foam with a patch of
vinyl. To allow for easy folding, there is
typically a space of one to two inches
between the two sections. This design is
known as a ‘‘dual-hinged’’ design
because either half may be lifted first.
Like insulation in the body of noninflatable spas, the main method for
increasing the thermal resistance of a
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
cover is to increase its thickness or
density. Also, like insulation in the
body of an inflatable spa, the marginal
effectiveness of additional cover
thickness or density decreases as the
thickness or density increase. Product
literature and online retail data suggest
that the ranges of cover thicknesses and
densities available are two inches to six
inches and one pound per cubic foot to
two pounds per cubic foot, respectively.
Inflatable spa covers consist of thin
flexible foam material that is about onehalf inch thick and surrounded by a
flexible PVC tarp. In lieu of additional
foam that would reduce the cover’s
ability to collapse or to be stored, some
inflatable spa manufacturers distribute
spas with inflatable inserts, which end
users may place in a pouch on the
bottom of the cover. These inserts
reduce the heat loss through the top face
of the spa by adding additional
insulating pockets of air between the
water and ambient air and by improving
the seal of the cover.
DOE seeks comment regarding use of
improved covers as a technology option
for PESs and, in particular, what would
limit further energy performance
increases of PES covers.
c. Sealing
A particularly important aspect of the
performance of a spa cover is that it
largely depends on the extent to which
the cover is able to create an airtight seal
between the area above the spa’s water
and the area surrounding the spa.
Inadequate seals allow air to exchange
between each area, resulting in heat
losses through evaporation and
convection. Areas through which air
typically escapes are around the edge of
the cover, where the cover meets the
flange created by the top of the spa
shell, and the central double-hinging
area of the cover, if the cover does have
a hinge. A common method of
addressing the seal around the edge of
the cover is by ensuring both the spa
flange and the bottom of the cover are
as flat as possible. To address air leaks
through a hinge in the cover,
manufacturers might insert a separate
piece of foam to fill the gap between
each half of the cover created by the
hinge. This ‘‘hinge seal’’ is also
composed of rigid foam sheathed in a
protective material, such as vinyl, and is
connected to the stretch of material
connecting each section of the spa
cover. The hinge seal is not connected
to each section, however, allowing for
easy folding. Manufacturers might also
opt for a ‘‘single-hinged’’ folding design,
in which there is no space gap between
vertical edges of each spa cover
sections. Instead, the edges of each
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
section of the cover are angled, with one
overlapping the other. This design
eliminates the gap between sections.
With this design, only the section of the
cover resting on top of the other at the
hinge can be lifted first. Covers can
typically be buckled into position, but
manufacturers and product literature
suggest that, when fastened, these
buckles do not to a large extent affect
the seal but are mostly intended for
safety. Correspondence with
manufacturers has also suggested that
the cover cannot be perfectly sealed.
Because pressure will build as a result
of thermal expansion and contraction of
interior air and water, as well as from
the potential addition of air through jets,
some amount of air will be forced to
escape through even very fortified spa
covers.
Manufacturers have indicated to DOE
that similar sealing strategies addressing
air from leaking out of the spa cabinet
could also reduce a spa’s normalized
average standby power. However, DOE
did not identify evidence of air leakage
through spa regions other than the
cover. Accordingly, no technology
options or technologies were analyzed
that explicitly address the sealing of
other areas than the cover of the spa.
DOE seeks comment regarding use of
improved sealing as a technology option
for PESs, regarding whether air leakage
is significant at PES locations other than
the cover, and regarding what would
limit further sealing improvements
energy performance increases of PES
covers.
d. Radiant Barrier
The insulation and sealing methods
described previously reduce conductive
and convective heat losses, respectively.
Energy can also leave the spa through
radiative heat transfer. This type of heat
transfer can be reduced by the
application of a radiant barrier that
reflects radiation back toward the center
of the spa. Commonly available radiant
barriers are composite ‘‘thermal
blankets’’ made of a thin insulating
material, such as bubble wrap, with
reflective foil on both of its sides. DOE
is aware of several manufacturers who
use such a material or similar ones as a
method of reducing their spas’ heat
losses. Correspondence with
manufacturers and DOE’s own research
indicates that radiant barriers require an
air gap between them and the radiating
heat source to be effective. Like
insulation, the marginal effectiveness of
radiant barriers decreases as the spa
reduces its heat losses via other
methods.
DOE seeks comment on the
description of radiant barriers and data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
on the relative effects of radiant barriers
when paired with different amounts of
insulation and different thicknesses of
adjacent air gaps.
e. Insulated Ground Cover
To reduce heat conducted from the
bottom of a spa to the ground, it is
possible to install spas on top of a layer
of insulating material. While noninflatable spas are not typically
distributed with such layers, an
example of this application is in the
current industry test procedure,
APSP–14 2019, which allows for spas to
be placed on top of two inches of
polyisocyanurate sheathed with at least
half an inch of plywood during testing.
Inflatable spas, however, are often
distributed with thin foam mats meant
to be placed underneath the spas. These
mats are typically to protect them from
debris which might puncture the spas’
PVC material. DOE has also observed
similar, thicker ground covers available
for purchase, which are marketed on the
basis of their insulating capacities in
addition to protective capacities. These
thicker ground covers reduce the
conductive heat transfer through the
bottom of the spa to the ground. Based
on their expected effectiveness and
availability on the market, DOE
considered insulated ground covers as a
viable technology option for inflatable
PESs.
For this NODA, DOE did not
explicitly model the addition of an
insulated ground cover as a technology
option for non-inflatable PESs because it
remains unclear how DOE’s proposed
test procedure for PESs may affect
manufacturers’ installation instructions
(e.g., to use an insulated ground cover)
and consequently typical PES
installation configurations.
Additionally, existing performance data
for PESs does not typically disclose
presence of an insulated ground cover.
Due to this uncertainty and the fact that
such an addition into DOE’s model
would change the effects of other design
options, DOE employed the more
conservative approach of not modeling
insulated ground covers as a technology
option for non-inflatable PESs in this
NODA. However, DOE may do so in the
future as indicated by comment or data.
In contrast to the approach taken for
non-inflatable PESs, DOE did include
insulated ground covers as a technology
option for inflatable spas because of the
abundance of currently available
products marketed as insulating ground
covers for that spa type.
DOE requests comment regarding
whether insulated ground covers
warrant inclusion in the set of
technology options for non-inflatable
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
69089
PESs, including whether non-inflatable
PESs are typically installed on top of
insulated ground covers and whether
that installation would be likely to
change in view of the proposed DOE test
procedure (see 87 FR 63356).
f. Dedicated Circulation Pump
Most non-inflatable spas use twospeed jet pumps for powering therapy
jets and for water circulation. These jet
pumps operate at high speed when
powering therapy jets and low speed
when used only for circulation
purposes. The overall efficiency of a
pump depends on several factors,
including the hydraulic efficiency of the
impeller and casing, the geometry of the
plumbing system, and the electrical
efficiency of the pump’s motor.
However, it is possible to simplify the
comparison of the efficiencies of two
differently sized pumps operating at the
same motor speed. In general, when a
pump operates at a motor speed
significantly lower than its maximum
motor speed on a given plumbing
system, it will be less efficient than a
smaller pump operating at its maximum
motor speed on that same plumbing
system. Consequently, a pump
configuration more efficient than a
single two-speed pump is two singlespeed pumps, including a higher
horsepower pump sized for operating
therapy jets and a lower horsepower
pump sized for filtration purposes. DOE
is aware that pump inefficiencies may
manifest as waste heat, which, if
absorbed by the spa water, would
reduce the load on the heating element
and ultimately may mitigate the effects
of a relatively inefficient pump and
pump motor. The extent to which this
waste heat is captured is still being
investigated. Although in practice twospeed pumps and dedicated circulation
pumps vary in power consumption, and
the amount of waste heat will depend
on how a given pump motor dissipates
heat and on a spa’s insulation, the
efficiency analysis in section III.C.1
considers just two estimated values for
water circulation: one associated with
using the low-speed setting of a twospeed pump, and one associated with
using a one-speed dedicated circulation
pump. DOE did not evaluate dedicated
circulation pumps as a technology
option for inflatable spas because
inflatable spas typically use a one-speed
dedicated circulation pump and a
separate air blower for massage jets.
DOE seeks comment and data on the
degree to which two-speed pump
inefficiencies manifest as waste heat
and to which that waste heat is absorbed
by the spa’s water.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69090
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
g. Heat Pump
B. Screening Analysis
DOE is aware of the existence of heat
pumps marketed for use with PESs.
Heat pumps would require less power
as a heat source than the electric
resistance heaters typically used in the
PES industry. DOE is aware of at least
one manufacturer of heat pump models
marketed for use with spas explicitly.15
However, heat pumps designed for use
with portable electric spas appear
otherwise absent in the market. DOE is
unaware of portable electric spas that
are equipped with heat pumps by their
manufacturers.
For the one spa-compatible heat
pumps supplier that DOE identified,
models list coefficients of
performance 16 that range from 3.16 to
6.2, though at lower output
temperatures than those typical of PESs.
In general, heat pump performance
declines as a function of increase of the
thermal gradient across which they
operate. However, DOE did not obtain
data to extrapolate those values to
higher temperatures. In general, heat
pump performance declines as a
function of increase of the thermal
gradient across which they operate.
Additionally, DOE did not obtain data
regarding how heat pumps would affect
installation cost if non-integral units
required separate mounting, plumbing,
and electrical connection.
Accordingly, for this NODA, heat
pumps were not included in the set of
design options modeled in the
engineering analysis due to lack of
sufficient data and limited availability.
If warranted, DOE may model the
addition of a heat pump as a technology
option in future analysis.
DOE requests comment regarding
whether heat pumps would be likely to
reduce energy consumption in PESs
and, if so, quantified estimates of the
effects of heat pump integration on both
energy consumption and manufacturer
production cost.
DOE requests comment regarding the
availability of heat pumps compatible
with PESs.
DOE uses the following five screening
criteria to determine which technology
options are suitable for further
consideration in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking:
Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in working
prototypes will not be considered
further.
Practicability to manufacture, install,
and service. If it is determined that mass
production and reliable installation and
servicing of a technology in commercial
products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the projected
compliance date of the standard, then
that technology will not be considered
further.
Impacts on product utility or product
availability. If it is determined that a
technology would have a significant
adverse impact on the utility of the
product for significant subgroups of
consumers or would result in the
unavailability of any covered product
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States
at the time, that technology will not be
considered further.
Adverse impacts on health or safety.
If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts
on health or safety, that technology will
not be considered further.
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 part 430, subpart C, appendix
A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
If DOE determines that a technology,
or a combination of technologies, fails to
meet one or more of the listed five
criteria, it will be excluded from further
consideration in the engineering
analysis.
In the case of PESs, DOE has
tentatively determined that no
technology options identified in section
III.A.5 met the criteria for screening.
Accordingly, all technology options
identified in section III.A.5 were
considered during the engineering
analysis, with the exception of heat
pumps and insulated ground covers (for
non-inflatable spas only), which are not
explicitly analyzed as design options for
reasons discussed in section III.A.5 of
this NODA.
15 Arctic Heat Pumps. Arctic Titanium Heat Pump
for Swimming Pools and Spas—015ZA/B. Available
at www.arcticheatpumps.com/arctic-titanium-heatpump-for-swimming-pools-and-spas-heats-chills11-700-btu-dc-inverter.html. (last accessed August
5, 2022) The 2022–08–05 material from this website
is available in docket 2022–BT–STD–0025 at
www.regulations.gov.
16 Coefficient of performance (‘‘COP’’) is a figure
characterizing the relative performance of heat
pumps. It represents the ratio of heat transferred to
the input energy required to transfer it. A higher
COP indicates less energy consumed to per unit of
heat delivered.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering
analysis is to establish the relationship
between the efficiency and cost of PESs.
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 PESs cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost
analysis’’). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency PESs,
DOE considered technologies and
design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each product class of PES, DOE
estimated the manufacturer production
cost (‘‘MPC’’) for the baseline as well as
higher efficiency levels. The output of
the engineering analysis is a set of costefficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are used in
downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and
PBP analyses and the NIA).
DOE converts the MPC to the
manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) by
applying a manufacturer markup. The
MSP is the price the manufacturer
charges its first customer, when selling
into the PES distribution channels. The
manufacturer markup accounts for
manufacturer non-production costs and
profit margin. DOE developed the
manufacturer markup by examining
publicly available financial information
for manufacturers of the covered
product.
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE selected efficiency levels to
analyze by identifying baseline units for
non-inflatable and inflatable spas,
evaluating the effects of efficiency
design options on those units, and
extrapolating the results to spas of other
sizes. The baseline unit is intended to
be representative of the most
consumptive spas available in the
market. For non-inflatable spas, DOE
identified ‘‘Spa J’’ from the 2012 study
‘‘Measurement and Analysis of the
Standby Power of Twenty-Seven
Portable Electric Spas’’ as the baseline
unit.17 For inflatable spas, DOE acquired
a sample unit and measured its
performance without the additional
features that make it compliant with
CEC energy conservation standards
(and, by extension, with APSP–14
2019). The results of those tests were
considered to be representative of the
most consumptive inflatable spas on the
market.
DOE seeks comment on its selection
of the baseline unit, including whether
any other units on the market would
17 Hamill, Andrew. ‘‘Measurement and Analysis
of the Standby Power of Twenty-Seven Portable
Electric Spas.’’ September, 2012.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69091
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
better represent the most consumptive
spas available for purchase.
The non-inflatable spa baseline unit
was identified on the basis of its fill
volume and normalized average standby
power. However, no information was
available regarding its features and, in
particular, its insulation characteristics.
To predict the effects of technologies
and design option combinations on the
non-inflatable baseline unit, it was
necessary to estimate insulation levels
of the model’s spa cabinet. To do this
estimate, a simplified model of the
energy consumption of PESs was
created, which accepts spa
specifications, including fill volume,
linear dimensions, and insulation type,
and predicts the normalized average
standby losses of a spa. Predictions were
made for a subset of spas in MAEDbS
on which DOE collected additional data
through brochures and other marketing
materials, and predictions were then
compared to values reported in
MAEDbS. By establishing a relationship
between the amount of insulation and
normalized average standby power, it
was possible to estimate the amount of
insulation in the non-inflatable baseline
unit, Spa J. Additionally, Spa J was
reported to be tested with a cover better
than other covers observed to be
available on the market. Using the
energy consumption model, the
normalized average standby power was
approximated for Spa J if it had been
fitted with a cover of a lower R-value.
The energy consumption model is
described in more detail below.
DOE’s research and correspondence
with manufacturers indicate that the
drivers of PESs’ energy consumption in
standby mode are: (1) heat losses, and
(2) the energy demands of filtration. In
addition to the energy consumption of
the filtration system, there are small
power demands, such as that of a spa’s
controls unit, that are also modeled as
constant with size. In DOE’s analysis,
the energy consumption of the filtration
system and other wattage inputs, which
are constant with size and do not
contribute to water heating, are
collectively referred to as ‘‘non-heat
losses.’’ In the energy consumption
model, these non-heat losses were
modeled as constant with size and were
discretized into two potential values for
non-inflatable spas—a larger value for
spas that use the low-speed setting of
high-hp pumps for filtration, and a
smaller value for spas that use a bettersized dedicated circulation pump for
filtration purposes. Only one value for
non-heat losses was estimated for
inflatable spas, which typically already
use dedicated circulation pumps for
filtration and separate air blowers for
massage jets. The estimated values for
non-heat losses are summarized in the
table below. The ‘‘High HP 2-Speed
Pump’’ column represents the non-heat
losses associated with a high
horsepower two-speed pump for noninflatable spas and the single speed
pump typical for inflatable spas, while
the ‘‘Dedicated Circulation Pump’’
column represents non-heat losses
associated with dedicated circulation
pump upgrades.
TABLE III.1—ESTIMATED NON-HEAT LOSSES OF PESS
Non-heat losses
Spa type
High HP
2-speed pump
Dedicated
circulation
pump
Standard Spa ..........................................................................................................................................................
Exercise Spa ...........................................................................................................................................................
Combination Spa .....................................................................................................................................................
Inflatable Spa ..........................................................................................................................................................
40 Watts ........
40 Watts ........
40 Watts ........
n/a ..................
20 Watts.
20 Watts.
20 Watts.
27.25 Watts.
DOE requests comment on the range
of filtration system power demands in
PESs as described in Table III.1. DOE
also requests comment on any
correlation between power demand and
whether a spa uses a high horsepower
two-speed pump or a lower horsepower
dedicated circulation pump.
To calculate a spa’s heat loss in
standby mode, DOE assumed that a
spa’s normalized average standby power
loss is approximately equal to the
instantaneous heat loss of a spa held at
thermal equilibrium, with spa water
temperature and ambient air
temperature held at the values
respectively specified by DOE’s
proposed test procedure. It is
noteworthy that doing so ignores
temperature fluctuations characteristic
of PESs’ heating cycles.
DOE accounted for heat losses due to
one-dimensional conductive heat
transfer through the walls, floor, and
cover of the spa, as well as heat losses
due to convection at the outer wall and
due to radiation. Spas were modelled as
thermal circuits consisting of walls,
floor, and cover in parallel with each
other. The total thermal resistance of the
walls and floor of the spa depends in
part on their respective thicknesses and,
consequently, the shape of the spa shell.
Therefore, a simplified shell
configuration consisting of basic upright
seats on every side (i.e., no lounge seats)
was considered. As a result of this
assumption, walls were divided into
lower-insulation top wall and higherinsulation bottom wall sections, and the
floor was divided into lower-insulation
center and higher-insulation perimeter
sections. In particular, the following
simplifications were made regarding the
distance from the spa shell to the spa
cabinet:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE III.2—MEASUREMENTS OF SIMPLIFIED MODEL OF NON-INFLATABLE SPA SHELL
Section of spa
Top of Wall .....
Bottom of Wall
Center of floor
Perimeter of
floor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Maximum
insulation
thickness
Description
The
The
The
The
horizontal distance from the spa cabinet to the seat backs. ..........................................................................
horizontal distance from the spa cabinet to the wall of the foot well. ............................................................
vertical distance from the base of the spa to the bottom of the foot well. .....................................................
vertical distance from the base of the spa to the bottom of the seat. ...........................................................
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
6 inches.
18 inches.
3 inches.
15 inches.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
69092
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
In addition to conductive heat
transfer, heat losses due to radiation and
convection were estimated. Losses due
to radiation were approximated using
the average percent difference between
the average standby losses of spa models
units with and without reflective layers
in their insulation. DOE identified those
unit pairs and their differences in
standby energy consumption using
MAEDbS. DOE also conducted
independent testing on one inflatable
spa and one non-inflatable spa,
measuring the energy consumption
before and after each was retrofitted
with a reflective radiant barrier. To
estimate the effects of air convection on
the outside surfaces of the spa, DOE
selected a convective heat transfer
coefficient characteristic of airflow at
the rate specified in DOE’s proposed test
procedure and applied it in series with
the spa walls, floor, and cover. Although
air leaks are known to affect the heat
losses of a spa, DOE did not obtain data
sufficient to characterize the magnitude
of their effect. Accordingly, DOE’s
energy model does not estimate the
effect of air leaks explicitly. Instead,
losses due to air leaks are treated as
included in the losses through bridge
sections, as described as follows.
DOE requests comment on its
assumption of a standard shell shape as
described in Table III.2, especially
whether it is representative and whether
DOE should consider certain shapes that
result in maximum or minimum
amounts of insulation.
DOE requests data and comment on
the effectiveness of radiant barriers in
reducing the normalized average
standby power of PESs and on what
factors make radiant barriers more or
less effective.
DOE requests data and comment on
the extent to which spas lose heat
through air convection out of unsealed
regions of the spa and on the factors that
affect heat losses due to sealing.
DOE requests comment on the best
way to quantify varying degrees of cover
seal, including perimeter seal against
the spa flange and hinge seal through
the center of the cover.
The PES energy consumption model
system described previously overlooks
several complicating factors.
Specifically, the typical spa’s cabinet
holds plumbing, heating equipment,
and other components that not only
displace insulation, but also bring hot
water closer to the outside of the spa
and even generate their own waste heat,
which escapes the spa or enters the
water at unknown proportions. At the
same time, the foam itself is subject to
voids and other variations. Rather than
attempting to find an analytical solution
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
that considers factors such as the
number of jets and amount of piping,
the physical size of internal
components, or the distance of each
from the outside of the spa, DOE used
a simplified model that considers the
heat loss through these ‘‘thermal
bridges’’ as the amount of heat loss that
could not be predicted by the onedimensional model described above.
DOE used this assumption to
reformulate the thermal circuit of a spa
as consisting of one-part thermal bridge
section and one-part insulated section,
which is subdivided into walls, floor,
and cover, as described previously.
Bridge sections were modeled as smaller
but responsible for a disproportionate
amount of heat flux. Specifically, the
proportion of areas were estimated to be
90 percent insulated area to 10 percent
bridge area. As a result, it was possible
to calculate an average R-value for
bridge sections in a spa. Using the
average R-value for bridge sections and
the modeled area ratios of insulated area
to bridge area, the energy consumption
model calculated total energy use with
a median 0.9 percent error and an
average of ¥4.38 percent error.
DOE requests comment on the method
of analyzing thermal bridges as a single
section of low R-value on the spa.
Additionally, DOE requests information
about techniques and models which are
used in industry to predict spa
performance.
DOE requests comment and data on
the discrepancy between heat loss
through the wall where the components
are housed and through other walls.
DOE requests comment on any
strategies for considering the effects of
hot water traveling through plumbing
on a spa’s heat loss.
The R-value of a typical spa’s bridge
section was important to infer
insulation thickness of Spa J, the chosen
baseline unit for non-inflatable spas.
Although Spa J’s ‘‘equivalent insulation
thickness’’ was calculated using the
measured heat loss rate, this value
cannot be used to represent the spa’s
insulation thickness because it does not
consider bridge sections of relatively
low thermal resistance. Consequently, it
would underestimate the amount of
insulation in Spa J and overestimate
both the space available for additional
insulation and ultimately the amount by
which it would be possible to lower
heat losses. Using the average R-value
for bridge sections, DOE found what
may be a more representative insulation
equivalent resistance, which is then able
to be decomposed into individual walls,
cover, and floor equivalent resistances.
With estimated insulation
characteristics for its baseline non-
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inflatable spa, it was possible to
calculate the expected effects of
additional insulation on the baseline
spa’s normalized average standby power
consumption. DOE used these
calculations to evaluate additional
insulation in the walls of the spa, the
floor, and the cover. These calculations,
along with data from DOE’s testing a
non-inflatable spa and from the 2012
Hamill study, were used to establish
proposed efficiency levels for noninflatable spas. DOE selected efficiency
levels in the order of increasing dollar
to implement per expected watt savings
using costs described below in the cost
analysis.
DOE was also able to conduct its own
testing on an inflatable spa baseline
unit. Because DOE’s energy
consumption model relies to a large
extent on R-values, and as DOE found
less data on the R-value of inflatable spa
materials, the effects of most inflatable
design options were related to test data
rather than calculations. For design
options utilizing additional insulation
and for which DOE did not have test
data, a model similar to the one
described previously was used. And
efficiency levels for inflatable spas were
chosen in the order of increasing dollar
to implement per expected watt savings,
similar to non-inflatable spas.
After the normalized standby power
consumption was calculated for the
baseline non-inflatable and inflatable
spas, the standby power of spas with
other volumes was extrapolated using a
scaling relationship. DOE used the
relationship defined in APSP–14 2019
standards levels, which vary energy
consumption proportionally to the
volume of the spa raised to the twothirds power. Several manufacturers
recounted during correspondence with
DOE that a constant term was added to
the scaling relationship to account for
energy demands unrelated to size
during the most recent revision of
APSP–14 2019. Consequently, DOE
chose to again break total standby power
losses into heat losses and non-heat
losses, and to scale only heat losses
proportionally to volume raised to the
two-thirds power, while holding nonheat losses constant at different fill
volumes.
DOE requests comment describing its
appropriation of the scaling relationship
defined in APSP–14 2019 and whether
there are any other traits with which
DOE might vary energy consumption.
The efficiency analysis above was
informed by data acquired by testing to
the current industry standard test
procedure, APSP–14 2019. However,
DOE has proposed a test procedure for
PESs, which made it necessary to
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
convert initial results into those which
might be expected if spas were to be
tested under that proposed test
procedure. In particular, this conversion
accounted for a higher temperature
gradient between spa water and ambient
air temperatures during testing, and for
the removal of the foam and plywood
foundation allowed by APSP–14 2019.18
To account for the change in
temperature gradient, original values
were multiplied by a re-normalization
factor of 1.243, the ratio of the proposed
temperature difference of 46 °F to the
industry standard of 37 °F. DOE
removed R–13 of insulation from the
floor section of the spa in its model to
account for the loss of two inches of
polyisocyanurate foam underneath the
spa. While the converted values will be
used for downstream analyses, DOE is
also releasing the values before
conversion so that manufacturers may
consider them in the context of existing
data.
DOE requests comment on whether
there are other factors DOE should
consider in converting normalized
average standby power values to reflect
the proposed test procedure.
2. Cost Analysis
DOE gathered data through
manufacturer interviews, sample unit
teardowns, and publicly available retail
data to estimate the costs of both whole
baseline units and of incremental design
options. When necessary, profit margins
for inflatables and non-inflatable spa
manufacturers, as well as certain
distributors, were estimated to convert
MPC to MSP to final sale price.
DOE requests comment and data on
typical markups from MPC to MSP and
from MSP to final sale price.
Once the costs of baseline units and
individual design options were
estimated, DOE investigated a scaling
function that could relate the price of a
spa to its fill volume. As a first
approximation, DOE estimated that the
cost of a spa would be directly
proportional to its fill-volume to the
two-thirds power. DOE analyzed a small
sample of retail data and found that, for
units otherwise equal in qualities and
features, such a relationship appears to
slightly overestimate the cost of smaller
spas and underestimate the cost of
larger spas.
DOE requests comment and data
characterizing the relationship between
69093
MPC and the size of a PES and whether
there are better methods for
approximating the effects of size
changes on MPC than the one described
previously.
DOE requests comment and data
characterizing to what degree sales
margins vary with spa size.
3. Engineering Results
The initial results of the efficiency
analysis contained the estimated energy
consumption of PESs at each efficiency
level, as would be measured according
to the current industry test procedure,
APSP–14. These initial results are not
used in the energy use analysis or other
downstream analyses because they do
not reflect DOE’s proposed test
procedure. However, as manufacturers
are most likely to have data as measured
with the current industry standard test
procedure, the initial results of the
efficiency analysis are summarized in
the tables which follow. In the sets of
efficiency levels for both non-inflatable
and inflatable spas, Efficiency Level 1 is
equivalent to the maximum
consumption limit set by APSP–14
2019.
TABLE III.3—ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR NON-INFLATABLE SPAS USING INDUSTRY TP
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Energy consumption of a 334gal unit
(watts)
Energy consumption using industry TP
(watts)
Efficiency level
(Baseline) .......................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
(Max-Tech) ....................................
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
6.88
3.75
2.92
2.74
2.74
2.63
2.38
1.88
1.80
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
371
220
180
172
152
146
135
111
107
TABLE III.4—ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR INFLATABLE SPAS USING INDUSTRY TP
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
0 (Baseline) .......................................
1 ........................................................
2 ........................................................
3(Max-Tech) ......................................
9.20
7.00
4.78
4.73
*
*
*
*
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
DOE requests comment on the
efficiency levels described in tables
Table III.3 and Table III.4, including
whether any do not align with expected
effects design options associated with
them, as described in Table III.7 and
Table III.8.
As discussed previously in this
document, on October 18, 2022, DOE
proposed a test procedure for measuring
the energy consumption of PESs. 87 FR
63356. DOE’s proposed test procedure
aligns with the current industry test
procedure in many regards, including in
18 Appendix A of APSP–14 states the following:
The floor may be insulated with 2in. (51mm) thick
R–13 polyisocyanurate with radiant barrier on both
sides.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Estimated energy consumption
of a 200-gal unit
(watts)
Energy consumption using industry TP
(watts)
Efficiency level
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
315
239
164
162
its use of normalized average standby
power as a metric for the energy
consumption of PESs. However, DOE’s
proposed test procedure includes
changes to the specified ambient air
temperature and to the amount of
insulation allowed under the spa during
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69094
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
below. These values are used in the
analyses described in later sections of
this document.
The tables below also summarize the
expected percent change in energy
consumption on each efficiency level as
a result of DOE’s proposed test
procedure. The increased temperature
gradient is not expected to affect any
efficiency levels differently. However,
the effect of removing additional
testing. These changes can be expected
to increase the measured normalized
average standby power of all PESs.
Section III.C.1 discusses DOE’s method
of converting standby power values
measured under the industry test
procedure to the values expected if the
standby power values for the same spas
were measured under DOE’s proposed
test procedure. The converted and final
results are summarized in the tables
insulation from underneath the spa will
depend on the amount of foam present
in the base section of the spa and on the
presence of other design options. As a
result, the percent change is not
constant across efficiency levels. The
change in normalized average standby
power at a given efficiency level due to
DOE’s proposed test procedure is
expected to remain constant for spas of
all volumes at that efficiency level.
TABLE III.5—ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR NON-INFLATABLE SPA USING PROPOSED TP
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Energy
consumption of a
334-gal unit
(watts)
Energy consumption using proposed TP
(watts)
Efficiency level
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
9.55
5.37
4.34
4.12
4.02
3.88
3.04
2.73
2.63
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
Vol
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
500
299
249
238
213
207
167
152
147
% Increase from
industry TP
(%)
35
36
38
38
40
42
24
37
37
TABLE III.6—ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR INFLATABLE SPA USING PROPOSED TP
0
1
2
3
Energy
consumption of a
200-gal unit
(watts)
Energy consumption using proposed TP
(watts)
Efficiency level
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
14.39 * Vol 2/3 ...................................................................................
12.03 * Vol 2/3 ...................................................................................
7.50 * Vol 2/3 .....................................................................................
7.44 * Vol 2/3 .....................................................................................
DOE requests comment on the
expected effects of DOE’s proposed test
procedure, as described in Table III.5
and Table III.6, including on whether its
effects on normalized average standby
power would be greater than or less
than DOE’s estimates.
Efficiency levels for PESs were
established by estimating the effects of
adding each design option to a
representative unit at the previous
efficiency level. The design option,
which presented the lowest cost in
dollars per watt expected to be saved,
was selected as characteristic of the next
efficiency level. Although potential
standards at different efficiency levels
will not prescribe specific design
options, this approach resulted in the
possibility of characterizing each
492
411
257
254
% Increase from
industry TP
(%)
56
72
57
57
efficiency level by the addition of a
specific design option. DOE’s estimates
of the cost to manufacture each design
option, as well as the baseline spa, are
described in section III.C.2 of this
NODA. The characteristic design
options and their estimated costs on
334-gallon non-inflatable spas and a
200-gallon inflatable spa are
summarized in the tables III.7 and III.8.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE III.7—CHARACTERISTIC DESIGN OPTIONS FOR NON-INFLATABLE EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Efficiency level
Characteristic design option added from previous EL
0 ...........................................
The baseline spa, Spa J, was estimated to have R–10 worth of insulation in the walls and floor and an R–14 cover.
Additional R–6 in the wall sections and R–3.5 in the floor section ..........
Additional R–6 in the wall sections ...........................................................
Additional inch of cover thickness (equivalent to an additional R–4) .......
Switch from two-speed pump to dedicated jet and circulation pumps .....
Additional inch of cover thickness (equivalent to an additional R–4) .......
Replace two inches of 0.5lb foam with 2lb foam insulation .....................
Add radiant barrier around perimeter of spa ............................................
Increase cover density from 1lb foam to 2lb foam ...................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
Total MPC for
334-gal unit
17NOP2
Marginal MPC for
334-gal unit
$3,120
$0
3,186
3,252
3,280
3,405
3,433
3,607
3,697
3,767
66
66
28
125
28
174
90
70
69095
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.8—CHARACTERISTIC DESIGN OPTIONS FOR INFLATABLE SPA EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Efficiency level
0
1
2
3
Total MPC on
200-gal unit
Characteristic design option added from previous EL
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
None ..................................................................................................
Flexible foam jacket and inflatable cover insert ...............................
Additional reflective blanket around spa ...........................................
1⁄2 inch thick foam ground cover .......................................................
DOE requests comment and data
regarding the design options and
associated estimated costs described in
tables Table III.7 and Table III.8 of this
NODA.
Section III.C.2 also discusses the
conversion of MPC to MSP using
manufacturer markups, and the scaling
relationship used to extrapolate from
the price of the baseline unit to units of
other sizes. In particular, the price of a
spa was modeled as growing
proportionally to the fill volume to the
two thirds power. The manufacturer
markups used and the ultimate MSP
scaling relationships are described in
Tables III.9 and III.10.
Marginal MPC on
200-gal unit
$122
165
297
329
$0
43
132
32
TABLE III.9—MANUFACTURER
MARKUPS BY MANUFACTURER TYPE
Estimated
manufacturer
markup
Manufacturer types
Inflatable Spa Manufacturer ......
Non-Inflatable Spa Manufacturer .......................................
1.17
1.43
TABLE III.10—PORTABLE ELECTRIC SPA MSP BY VOLUME
MSP for non-inflatable spas
($)
Efficiency level
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
MSP for inflatable spas
($)
92.69 * Vol 2/3 ..........................................................................
94.64 * Vol 2/3 ..........................................................................
98.54 * Vol 2/3 ..........................................................................
103.27 * Vol 2/3 ........................................................................
111.72 * Vol 2/3 ........................................................................
120.99 * Vol 2/3 ........................................................................
136.22 * Vol 2/3 ........................................................................
154.10 * Vol 2/3 ........................................................................
174.05 * Vol 2/3 ........................................................................
Those estimates describe a
relationship between the marginal cost
and the marginal efficiency of a PES as
the PES is made progressively more
efficient. The relationship is the basis of
analyses described in sections D, E, F,
G, and H of this NODA.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops
appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups,
contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the
MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices,
which are then used in the LCC and PBP
analyses and in the manufacturer
impact analysis. At each step in the
distribution channel, companies mark
up the price of the product to cover
business costs and profit margin.
4.07 * Vol 2/3
5.50 * Vol 2/3
9.92 * Vol 2/3
10.98 * Vol 2/3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Distribution Channels
For this NODA, DOE has identified
separate distribution channels into
groups for hard-sided (standard,
exercise, and combination) and
inflatable spas. DOE based the market
shares on confidential manufacturer
interviews conducted under nondisclosure agreements. For PESs, the
main parties in the distribution chains
are shown in Table III.11.
TABLE III.11—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
Market share
(%)
Index
Distribution channel agents
Hard-sided
spas
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1
2
3
4
5
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
→
→
→
→
→
2. Markups
Baseline markups are applied to the
price of products with baseline
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
Wholesaler → Spa Product Contractor → Consumer ..................
Spa Product Retailer → Consumer ..............................................
Big Box Retailer → Consumer ......................................................
Big Box Internet Retailer → Consumer ........................................
Consumer (direct sale) .................................................................
efficiency, while incremental markups
are applied to the difference in price
between baseline and higher-efficiency
models (the incremental cost increase).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5
60
20
10
5
Inflatable spas
........................
........................
50
50
........................
The incremental markup is typically
less than the baseline markup and is
designed to maintain similar per-unit
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69096
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.19
For this NODA, DOE did not develop
PES-specific baseline and incremental
markups for each actor in the
distribution chain. Instead, based on
supply chain similarities, DOE used the
markups analysis developed for its Pool
Heater energy conservation standard as
a proxy.20 If DOE decides to pursue
minimum efficiency standards for PESs,
DOE will examine the PES supply chain
in detail.
DOE applied the following baseline
and incremental markups for each step
of the distribution channels listed in
Table III.11, which are shown in Table
III.12.
TABLE III.12—AGENT SPECIFIC MARKUPS
Baseline
markup
Agent
Wholesaler ...............................................................................................................................................................
Spa Product Retailer ...............................................................................................................................................
Big Box Retailer .......................................................................................................................................................
Big Box Internet Retailer .........................................................................................................................................
Consumer (direct sale) ............................................................................................................................................
Spa Product Contractor ...........................................................................................................................................
DOE requests information on the
existence of any distribution channels
other than the distribution channels
listed in Table III.11 of this document.
Further, DOE requests comment on
whether the same distribution channels
are applicable to installations of new
and replacement PESs.
DOE requests information on the
fraction of shipments that are
distributed through the channels shown
in Table III.11 of this document.
3. Sales Taxes
The sales tax represents state and
local sales taxes that are applied to the
consumer product price. The sales tax is
1.41
1.76
1.31
1.31
1.70
1.40
Incremental
markup
1.15
1.22
1.07
1.07
1.22
1.21
a multiplicative factor that increases the
consumer product price.
DOE derived state and local taxes
from data provided by the Sales Tax
Clearinghouse.21 DOE derived
population-weighted average tax values
for each Census Region, as shown in
Table III.13.22
TABLE III.13—AVERAGE SALES TAX RATES BY CENSUS REGION
Census region
1
2
3
4
Sales tax rate
(%)
Description
..................................................................................................
..................................................................................................
..................................................................................................
..................................................................................................
Northeast ....................................................................................
Midwest ......................................................................................
South ..........................................................................................
West ...........................................................................................
6.90
7.10
7.36
7.53
Population-weighted average ..............................................
....................................................................................................
7.28
and provides the average sales tax to
arrive at overall markups for the
4. Summary of Markups
Table III.14 summarizes the markups
at each stage in the distribution channel
potential product classes considered in
this analysis.
TABLE III.14—SUMMARY OF MARKUPS
Baseline
markup
Equipment class
Standard ..................................................................................................................................................................
Exercise ...................................................................................................................................................................
Combination .............................................................................................................................................................
Inflatable ..................................................................................................................................................................
E. Energy Use Analysis
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of PESs during
19 Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the
price of baseline products, using the same markup
for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While
such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that it
is unlikely that standards would lead to a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.41
Incremental
markups
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.15
stand-by operation at different
efficiencies in representative U.S.
single-family homes and to assess the
energy savings potential of increased
PES efficiency. The energy use analysis
estimated the range of energy use of
PESs in the field (i.e., as they are
actually used by consumers). The
energy use analysis provided the basis
for other analyses DOE performed,
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run
in markets that are reasonable competitive.
20 Please see chapter 6 of the Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer
Products and Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Consumer Pool Heaters. DOE. 2022.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0020-0005.
21 Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc. State Sales Tax
Rates Along with Combined Average City and
County Rates. July 2021. Available at https://
thestc.com/STrates.stm (Last accessed July 1, 2021.)
22 See: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/mapsdata/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
particularly assessments of the energy
savings and the savings in consumer
operating costs that could result from
adoption of new standards.
The energy use analysis uses the
energy use models developed in the
engineering analysis. The engineering
analysis calculated the rate of heat loss
AEUz
from the spa as a function of the
difference between the spa operating
temperature and the ambient
temperature. For this analysis, DOE
developed distributions of binned
hourly ambient temperature data using
the dry-bulb temperature from the
Typical Meteorological Year 3
69097
(‘‘TMY3’’) 23 weather data as a function
of climate zone, as described in section
III.E.3 of this document. The annual
energy use (‘‘AEU’’) in kilowatt hours
per year (kWh/yr) for each climate zone,
z, for all spas, other than combination
spas, is expressed as:
~ Wz,j ((Sysnon-heat + Sysheat X Vol3~) X T Top -Tambj
= L.,.
_T
opTP
J
)
X npyz
ambTP
For combination spas, where there are two independently heated pools of water:
~ Wz,j ([Sysnon-heat + (Sysheat X Vol'§'2) X T T
= L.,.
J
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
+
[(Sysheat
X
2)
Vol'§'
X
l
T0 p - Tamb 1•
_T
opTP
ambTP ExerciseSpa
T
Where:
AEUz = the annual energy use, in kWh, of the
spa installed in climate zone z; if there
are any hours where Tamb exceeds Top,
AEU is set equal to zero,
j = a bin index representing the ambient
temperature at which the spa is
operating,
wz,j = the probability of the monthly ambient
temperature for climate zone z,
Sysnon-heat = the energy use of non-heat
producing systems, i.e., water pumps,
controls, etc., which does not scale with
spa water volume,
z = climate zone,
Sysheat = a coefficient representing heating
system energy use, which scales with spa
water volume,
Vol = the spa’s water volume,
Top = the spa’s operating temperature (87 for
exercise spas, and the exercise portion of
combination spas, 102 for all other
products) (°F),
TopTP = the spa’s operating temperature as
defined in the test procedure (102 °F),
Tamb j = the ambient temperature (°F),
TambTP = the national average ambient
temperature, as defined in the test
procedure (56 °F), and
npyz = number of months of operation per
year for PESs installed in climate zone z.
23 The TMY data sets hold hourly values of solar
radiation and meteorological elements for a 1-year
period. Their intended use is for computer
simulations of solar energy conversion systems and
building systems to facilitate performance
comparisons of different system types,
configurations, and locations in the United States
and its territories. Because the values represent
typical rather than extreme conditions, they are not
suited for designing systems to meet the worst-case
conditions occurring at a location.
24 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration. Residential Energy
Consumption Survey: 2015 RECS Survey Data.
2015. Available at https://www.eia.gov/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
l
p - Tamb 1•
_T
opTP
ambTP StandardSpa
Jkt 259001
DOE seeks comment on its energy use
model. Specifically, DOE seeks
comment on the energy use model for
combination spas, where the Sysnon-heat
variable is normalized with volume of
water portioned to the standard spa
pool.
1. Consumer Sample
DOE conducts its analysis in support
of a potential new minimum energy
conservation standard at the national
level. This means that DOE must
distribute consumers of PES products
throughout the nation to capture
variability of key inputs of PES
operation. Specifically, for the annual
energy use estimate, DOE had concern
regarding distributing the population of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
0
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
)
X npyz
PES installations across different
regions to capture variability in outdoor
(ambient) temperatures, which impact
PES stand-by energy consumption. This
distribution of installations is referred to
as the ‘‘Consumer Sample.’’
For this NODA, DOE used the
statistical household data available in
the Energy Information Administration.
Residential Energy Consumption
Survey: 2015 (‘‘RECS’’).24 25 DOE used
the data from RECS of households with
a hot tub (RECBATH=1, FUELTUB=5,
and TYPEHUQ=[2, 3]) to define the
national spatial sample of PES
installations over analysis regions
defined by the intersection of census
regions r and climate zones z. The
climate zones are those defined in the
RECS microdata. The percent
distribution of consumers over census
region/climate zone is provided in Table
III.15.
consumption/residential/data/2015/. (Last accessed
August 5, 2021.)
25 At the time of drafting, the Residential Energy
Consumption Survey has released a new version
based on 2020 inputs as a preliminary analysis. If
DOE elects to pursue new minimum efficiency
standards for PESs, DOE will update the consumer
sample to the 2020 version of RECS.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
EP17NO22.000</GPH>
AEUz
69098
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.15—REGION AND CLIMATE ZONE PROBABILITIES OF HOT TUB INSTALLATIONS
Climate zone (z)
Census region (r )
Hot-dry/
mixed-dry
Cold/very cold
1
2
3
4
Hot-humid
Marine
Mixed-humid
Total
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
18.0
16.5
1.1
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.1
2.1
6.4
14.5
0.0
20.1
22.9
25.4
31.6
Total ..................................................
44.5
9.0
10.5
13.1
22.9
100.0
2. Typical Annual Operating Hours
(npy)
A key input to the energy use analysis
is the number of annual operating hours
of the product. Available data indicated
that PESs operate in stand-by mode for
the majority of hours that they are on.
During the process of updating PES
standards for California in 2018, CEC
reported a duty cycle between 5,040
hours per year for inflatable spas (which
are intended for seasonal use) and 8,760
hours per year for standard, exercise,
and combination spas.26 DOE notes that
these estimates may be typical for
California, but are not represented in the
existing data in RECS.
The RECS data include a field
(MONTUB) quantifying the number of
months per year that the hot tub is
considered in use. For this analysis,
DOE considered the term ‘‘in use’’ to
mean plugged-in and running. RECS
does not specify which months the spa
is in use, only the quantity of months.
Therefore, for this NODA, DOE
interpreted these data as that the spas in
RECS will be operating during the
warmest months of the year, as shown
in Table III.16. For inflatable PES, DOE
made the modeling assumption that
they would be in operation up to a
maximum of warmest 6 months of the
year.
TABLE III.16—MAPPING OF RECS MONTHS OF OPERATION TO CALENDAR MONTHS
Months of operation (npy)
Jan ................
Feb ................
Mar ................
Apr ................
May ...............
Jun ................
Jul .................
Aug ...............
Sep ...............
Oct ................
Nov ...............
Dec ...............
Hours/year ....
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
................
................
................
................
................
744
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
1
................
................
................
................
1,488
................
................
................
................
................
1
1
1
................
................
................
................
2,208
................
................
................
................
................
1
1
1
1
................
................
................
2,928
................
................
................
................
1
1
1
1
1
................
................
................
3,672
................
................
................
................
1
1
1
1
1
1
................
................
4,416
................
................
................
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
................
................
5,136
................
................
................
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
................
5,856
................
................
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
................
6,600
................
................
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7,344
................
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8,016
DOE used RECS data to estimate the
probability that a spa would be in use
npy months per year as a function of
climate zone. Given the sparsity of
RECS data and to estimate the
probabilities, DOE first binned the
recorded value of MONTUB into 4 bins:
1 to 3 months per year, 4 to 6 months
per year, 7 to 9 months per year, and 10
to 12 months per year. Then DOE
calculated the percent of RECS
households falling in each bin for each
climate zone. Finally, DOE used the
modelling assumption that the 3 values
in each bin are equally probable. The
resulting distribution of the expected
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8,760
number of months per year (npy) are
shown in Table III.17. Once the number
of months of operation is known, the
hours of operation are calculated as if
the spa is in operation over the full
month.
TABLE III.17—ASSIGNMENT OF CLIMATE ZONE (z) BY MONTHS OF OPERATION (npy) FOR HARD-SIDED SPAS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Months per year
(npy)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Cold/very cold
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
26 Final Staff Report, Analysis of Efficiency
Standards and Marking for Spas, 2018 Appliance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
Hot-dry/
mixed-dry
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.13
Efficiency Rulemaking for Spas Docket Number 18–
AAER–02 TN 222413. See: pg. 35, Available at
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Hot-humid
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.11
Marine
Mixed-humid
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.14
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.
aspx?tn=222413&DocumentContentId=31256.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.15
69099
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.17—ASSIGNMENT OF CLIMATE ZONE (z) BY MONTHS OF OPERATION (npy) FOR HARD-SIDED SPAS—Continued
Months per year
(npy)
Cold/very cold
10 .........................................................................................
11 .........................................................................................
12 .........................................................................................
Hot-dry/
mixed-dry
0.12
0.12
0.12
Hot-humid
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.11
Marine
Mixed-humid
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.15
TABLE III.18—ASSIGNMENT OF CLIMATE ZONE (z) BY MONTHS OF OPERATION (npy) FOR INFLATABLE SPAS
Months per year
(npy)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Cold/very cold
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
DOE requests comment on its
approach to estimating annual operating
hours. Additionally, DOE requests
comment on its modeling assumption
that PES would be operated during the
warmest months of the year.
3. Ambient Temperature (Tamb)
For the purposes of the NODA, DOE
has made the modeling assumption that
all PESs are installed outdoors and their
energy use will be a function of the
ambient temperature of the PESs’
location. Losses to the external
environment depend both on how many
months per year the spa operates, and
Hot-dry/
mixed-dry
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
Hot-humid
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.12
0.12
the distribution of ambient temperatures
for those months in the given climate
zone. To establish representative hourly
temperatures for each of the PESs’
installations as a function of climate
zone (z), DOE calculated the probability
distribution of temperatures, binned
into 5 °F segments, denoted j, based on
TMY3 data. For this NODA, DOE
averaged over one TMY3 weather
station for each state within a climate
zone to determine a single hourly
temperature series for each zone, z. For
each value of npy, DOE binned the
temperature time series for the
Marine
Mixed-humid
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.23
0.23
appropriate months to create a
distribution. The distribution was
normalized by the total number of hours
for that selection of months. The result
is a distribution w(z,j,npy), which
defines the percent of hours allocated to
each bin j for climate zone z, with npy
months of operation.27
An example of the probability
distribution of ambient temperatures for
PESs operating for 1 and 7 months a
year installed in census region 2
(Midwest), which covers climate zones:
cold/very cold and mixed-humid, are
shown in Table III.19.
TABLE III.19—EXAMPLE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE PROBABILITIES FOR CENSUS REGION 2 (MIDWEST), WHERE PESS ARE
OPERATED FOR 1 AND 7 MONTHS PER YEAR
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Months of
operation npy
Probability (w)
Temperature bin
°F (j )
Cold/very cold (z)
Mixed-humid (z)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
62.5
67.5
72.5
77.5
82.5
87.5
92.5
0.095
0.223
0.219
0.249
0.172
0.042
..................................................................
..................................................................
0.067
0.266
0.215
0.196
0.179
0.077
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Total ........
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
..................................................................
32.5
37.5
42.5
47.5
52.5
57.5
62.5
67.5
72.5
77.5
82.5
87.5
92.5
1.000
0.003
0.033
0.052
0.084
0.102
0.117
0.155
0.165
0.134
0.102
0.046
0.008
..................................................................
1.00
..................................................................
0.001
0.022
0.049
0.071
0.123
0.135
0.156
0.168
0.116
0.099
0.048
0.012
27 For the treatment of TMY3 data and mapping
weather stations to regions, climate zones and states
please see Appendix 7C or the Technical Support
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer
Products and Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Consumer Furnaces. U.S. Department
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of Energy. 2022. Available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BTSTD-0031-0320.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69100
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.19—EXAMPLE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE PROBABILITIES FOR CENSUS REGION 2 (MIDWEST), WHERE PESS ARE
OPERATED FOR 1 AND 7 MONTHS PER YEAR—Continued
Months of
operation npy
Total ........
Probability (w)
Temperature bin
°F (j )
Cold/very cold (z)
Mixed-humid (z)
..................................................................
Representative values of the
distribution are provided in Table III.19
for one month of operation and for
seven months of operation per year. In
general, the smaller the npy, the more
usage is concentrated in warmer
months.
DOE requests comment on its
approach to determining regional
ambient temperatures.
4. Operating Water Temperature (Top)
An input to the energy use analysis is
the typical stand-by mode operating
temperature of the spa. DOE
1.000
understands that the typical operating
temperature for any given spa would be
determined by the personal preference
of the consumer. Further, DOE
understands that all potential product
classes of PESs can be operated over a
range of temperatures, with a
recommended safe operating maximum
temperature of 104 °F.28 DOE recognizes
that this maximum temperature would
not apply to exercise spas not capable
of maintaining a minimum water
temperature of 100 °F. DOE was unable
to find a credible source to create a
lower bound, minimum stand-by
1.00
operating temperature. In a guidance
document to dutyholders of spas, the
Health and Safety Executive determined
a typical operating range of 30–40 °C
(86–104 °F).29
For any future potential energy
conservation standards for PESs, DOE
tentatively concludes that the typical
stand-by mode operating temperatures
aligns with the minimum operating
temperatures stated in APSP–14 2019,
and that these temperatures are
representative of the average. These
values are shown in Table III.20.
TABLE III.20—TYPICAL OPERATING WATER TEMPERATURE (°F) BY SPA POTENTIAL PRODUCT CLASS DEFINED IN
APSP–14 2019
Temp. °F
Product class
Requirement
102 ±2 ..
exercise spas or the exercise portion of a combination
spa.
exercise spas or the exercise portion of a combination
spa.
standard spas, the standard spa portion of a combination spa, or inflatable spas.
capable of maintaining a minimum water temperature of
100 °F.
is not capable of maintaining a minimum water temperature of 100 °F.
...........................................................................................
87 ±2 ....
102 ±2 ..
For spas capable of maintaining a
minimum water temperature of 100 °F,
DOE assumed for modelling a single
point temperature of 102 °F. For spas
not capable of maintaining a minimum
water temperature of 100 °F, DOE
assumed for modelling a single point
temperature of 87 °F. DOE split the
fraction of exercise, and the exercise
portion of combination spas, where 30
percent of installations would operate at
87 °F and the remaining 70 percent of
installations would operate at 102 °F.
DOE made the modeling assumption
that the spa would be maintained at this
temperature for the operating hours that
the spa is in stand-by mode. However,
in the field, DOE expects that spas will
be operated over a range of temperatures
to meet the comfort of the consumer.
DOE requests data or comment on the
typical operating temperature for
exercise spas not capable of maintaining
a minimum temperature of 100 °F. And
DOE requests data or comment on the
distribution of typical operating
Reference
5.6.1.1
5.6.1.2
5.6.1.3
temperature for exercise spas not
capable of maintaining a minimum
temperature of 100 °F.
DOE requests data or comment on the
distribution of typical operating
temperature for spas capable of
maintaining a minimum temperature of
100 °F. And DOE requests data or
comment on the distribution of typical
operating temperature for exercise spas
capable of maintaining a minimum
temperature of 100 °F.
5. Annual Energy Use Results
TABLE III.21—AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY USE BY POTENTIAL PRODUCT CLASS (KWH/YEAR)
Spa type
Efficiency level
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Combination
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
28 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
CPSC Warns of Hot Tub Temperatures, December
31, 1979. Available at www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
8,978
5,118
4,182
3,978
3,783
3,654
2,894
News-Releases/1980/CPSC-Warns-Of-Hot-TubTemperatures (Last accessed: January 14, 2022.)
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Exercise
6,869
3,937
3,219
3,063
2,902
2,803
2,223
Inflatable
988
816
511
507
N/A
N/A
N/A
Standard
2,570
1,542
1,283
1,228
1,101
1,066
860
29 The Control of Legionella and Other Infectious
Agents in Spa-Pool Systems, Health and Safety
Executive, 2017. Available at www.hse.gov.uk/
pubns/priced/hsg282.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69101
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.21—AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY USE BY POTENTIAL PRODUCT CLASS (KWH/YEAR)—Continued
Spa type
Efficiency level
Combination
7 .......................................................................................................................
8 .......................................................................................................................
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual consumers
defined in the consumer sample (see
section III.E.1) of potential energy
conservation standards for PESs. The
effect of potential energy conservation
standards on individual consumers
usually involves a reduction in
operating cost and an increase in
purchase cost. In this NODA, DOE used
the following two metrics to measure
consumer impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer
expense of an appliance or product over
the life of that product, consisting of
total installed cost (manufacturer selling
price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus
operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute
the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of
purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the product.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change
in annual operating cost for the year that
amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE
measures the change in LCC relative to
the LCC in the no-new-standards case,
which reflects the estimated efficiency
Exercise
2,605
2,512
distribution of PESs in the absence of
new or amended energy conservation
standards. In contrast, the PBP for a
given efficiency level is measured
relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level
in each potential product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a
nationally representative set of housing
units. As stated previously, DOE
developed household samples from the
2015 RECS. For each sample household,
DOE determined the energy
consumption for the PESs and the
appropriate electricity price. By
developing a representative sample of
households, the analysis captured the
variability in energy consumption and
energy prices associated with the use of
PESs.
Inputs to the calculation of total
installed cost include the cost of the
product—which includes MPCs,
manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor 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, product
lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE
created distributions of values for
product lifetime, discount rates, and
sales taxes, with probabilities attached
to each value to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to
calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a
Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate
uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations
randomly sample input values from the
probability distributions and PES’s user
2,002
1,931
Inflatable
N/A
N/A
Standard
781
756
samples. For this NODA the Monte
Carlo approach was implemented in a
computer simulation. The model
calculated the LCC and PBP for
products at each efficiency level for
10,000 housing units per simulation
run. The analytical results include a
distribution of 10,000 data points
showing the range of LCC savings for a
given efficiency level relative to the nonew-standards case efficiency
distribution. In performing an iteration
of the Monte Carlo simulation for a
given consumer, product efficiency is
chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product efficiency is greater than
or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC and
PBP calculation reveals that a consumer
is not impacted by the standard level.
By accounting for consumers who
already purchase more-efficient
products, DOE avoids overstating the
potential benefits from increasing
product efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for
all consumers of PESs as if each were to
purchase a new product in the expected
year of required compliance with new
standards. Any new standards would
apply to PESs manufactured 5 years
after the date on which any new
standard is published. (42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(2)) For purposes of its analysis,
DOE used 2029 as the first year of
compliance with any new standards for
PESs.
Table III.22 summarizes the approach
and data DOE used to derive inputs to
the LCC and PBP calculations. The
subsections that follow provide further
discussion on the approach and data.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE III.22—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *
Inputs
Source/method
Product Cost ...................................
Installation Costs .............................
Annual Energy Use .........................
Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate.
Assumed no change with efficiency level and not considered in the NODA.
The total annual energy use multiplied by the hours per year. Average number of hours based on RECS
2015.
Variability: Based on the Census region, and Climate Zone.
Electricity: Determined as per LBNL–2001169.30
Based on AEO2022 price projections.
Assumed not to change with efficiency level.
Average: 10.5 years for hard-sided spas, 3.0 for inflatable spas.
Energy Prices ..................................
Energy Price Trends .......................
Repair and Maintenance Costs ......
Product Lifetime ..............................
30 Coughlin, K., Beraki, B. Residential Electricity
Prices A Review of Data Sources and Estimation
Methods. Energy Analysis and Environmental
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
Impacts Division Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory Energy Efficiency Standards Group.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2018. Available at https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/
sites/default/files/lbnl-2001169.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69102
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.22—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *—Continued
Inputs
Source/method
Discount Rates ................................
Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s
Survey of Consumer Finances.
2029.
1. Inputs to the Life-Cycle Cost Model
The LCC is the total consumer
expense during the life of an appliance,
including purchase expense and
operating costs (including energy
expenditures). DOE discounts future
operating costs to the time of purchase
and sums them over the lifetime of the
product. DOE defines LCC by the
following equation:
L
N
LCC =TIC+
(1
act
+ r)t
t=l
Where:
LCC = life-cycle cost in dollars,
TIC = total installed cost in dollars,
è = sum over product lifetime, from year 1
to year N,
N = lifetime of appliance in years,
OCt = operating cost in dollars in year t,
r = discount rate, and
t = year for which operating cost is being
determined.
DOE expresses dollar values in 2021$
for the LCC.
a. Inputs to Total Installed Cost
Product Costs
To calculate consumer product costs,
DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in
the engineering analysis by the markups
described previously (along with sales
taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline products and higher-efficiency
products because DOE applies an
incremental markup to the increase in
MSP associated with higher-efficiency
products.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Future Product Costs
Examination of historical price data
for certain appliances and equipment
that have had energy conservation
standards indicates that the assumption
of constant real prices and costs may
overestimate long-term trends in
appliance and equipment prices in
many cases. Economic literature and
historical data suggest that the real costs
of these products may, in fact, trend
downward over time according to
‘‘learning’’ or ‘‘experience’’ curves.
Desroches et al. (2013) summarizes the
data and literature currently available
that is relevant to price projections for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
selected appliances and equipment.31
The extensive literature on the
‘‘learning’’ or ‘‘experience’’ curve
phenomenon is typically based on
observations in the manufacturing
sector.32 In the experience curve
method, the real cost of production is
related to the cumulative production or
‘‘experience’’ with a manufactured
product. This experience is usually
measured in terms of cumulative
production. Thus, as experience
(production) accumulates, the cost of
producing the next unit decreases.
If DOE proceeds with new efficiency
standards for PESs, DOE may derive the
learning rate parameter for all PESs from
the historical Producer Price Index
(‘‘PPI’’) data for ‘‘326191—Plastics
Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing’’ for
the time period between 1993 and 2021
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(‘‘BLS’’).33 34 If DOE determines that new
efficiency standards for PESs are
warranted, DOE will inflation-adjust the
price indices calculation by dividing the
PPI series by the implicit Gross
Domestic Product price deflator for the
same years.
DOE requests comment on its
proposed methodology to project future
equipment prices.
DOE requests information or data
related to the past trends in production
costs of PESs. Additionally, DOE
requests data or information related to
the cost of PES production over time.
product. As part of its Title 20
regulatory activities for PESs, CEC
examined potentially available
technologies that can be employed to
improve the efficiency of PESs. CEC’s
report includes several technology
options but states that improved
insulation (in terms of improved
insulation coverage, type, and quantity)
within the tub walls and of the tub
cover offer the greatest opportunity for
improved efficiency. The report also
mentions further attainable efficiency
improvements through, but not limited
to, improved spa cover design and
improved pump and motor system
design within in the spa itself.35 DOE
tentatively finds that none of these
technologies would impact the quantity
of labor, overhead, or materials needed
to install a PES if DOE were to adopt
new energy efficiency standards. Based
on these findings, DOE tentatively
concludes that installation costs should
not be included in any future life-cycle
cost analysis.
DOE requests comment on its
decision to exclude installation costs
from any future efficiency standard
calculation.
DOE requests data and details on the
installation costs of PESs, and whether
those costs vary by product type or any
other factor affecting their efficiency.
Installation Costs
As noted, inputs to the calculation of
total install cost include the installation
costs. Installation cost includes labor,
overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the
For each sampled household, DOE
determined the energy consumption for
a PES at different efficiency levels using
the approach described previously in
section III.E of this document.
31 Desroches, Louis-Benoit, et al., ‘‘Incorporating
Experience Curves in Appliance Standards
Analysis’’, Energy Policy 52 (2013): 402–416.
32 In addition to Desroches (2013), see Weiss, M.,
Junginger, H.M., Patel, M.K., Blok, K., (2010a). A
Review of Experience Curve Analyses for Energy
Demand Technologies. Technological Forecasting &
Social Change. 77:411–428.
33 This U.S. industry consists of establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing plastics or
fiberglass plumbing fixtures. Examples of products
made by these establishments are plastics or
fiberglass bathtubs, hot tubs, portable toilets, and
shower stalls. See www.naics.com/naics-codedescription/?code=326191
34 Product series ID: NDU3261913261911, see
more information at www.bls.gov/ppi.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
b. Inputs to Operating Costs
Annual Energy Consumption
Electricity Prices
Using data from EEI Typical Bills and
Average Rates reports, DOE derived
annual electricity prices in 2021 for all
the census regions in RECS.36 37 DOE
calculated electricity prices using the
35 Final Staff Report, Analysis of Efficiency
Standards and Marking for Spas, 2018 Appliance
Efficiency Rulemaking for Spas Docket Number 18–
AAER–02 TN 222413. Available at
efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=
222413&DocumentContentId=31256.
36 Edison Electric Institute, Typical Bills and
Average Rates Report, Winter 2021, 2021.
37 Edison Electric Institute, Typical Bills and
Average Rates Report, Summer 2021, 2021.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
EP17NO22.001</GPH>
Compliance Date ............................
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
methodology described in Coughlin and
Beraki (2018), where for each purchase
sampled, DOE assigned the average and
marginal electricity price for the census
region in which the PES is located.38
Because marginal electricity price
captures more accurately the
incremental costs or savings associated
with a change in energy use relative to
the consumer’s bill in the reference
case, it may provide a better
representation of incremental change in
consumer costs than average electricity
prices. Therefore, DOE used average
electricity prices to characterize the
baseline energy level and marginal
69103
electricity prices to characterize the
incremental change in energy costs
associated with the other energy levels
considered. The regional average and
marginal electricity prices are shown in
Table III.23.
TABLE III.23—REGIONAL AVERAGE AND MARGINAL ELECTRICITY PRICES
[$/kWh, 2021$]
Census region
1
2
3
4
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
Northeast ...................................................................................................
Midwest .....................................................................................................
South .........................................................................................................
West ..........................................................................................................
Future Electricity Price Trends
To arrive at prices in future years,
DOE will multiply the 2021 electricity
prices by the forecast of annual average
price changes for each census division
from the most recent Energy Information
Administration’s Annual Energy
Outlook (‘‘AEO’’).39 To estimate price
trends after 2050, DOE maintained
prices constant at 2050 levels.
DOE requests comment on its use of
AEO to project electricity prices into the
future.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Maintenance and Repair Costs
As noted, inputs to the calculation of
operating expenses include repair and
maintenance costs, among other factors.
For this NODA, DOE made the modeling
assumption that maintenance costs
would not change with increased
product stand-by efficiency. DOE
understands that PES maintenance
broadly falls into two categories: (1)
maintaining water quality, and (2) the
care and upkeep of the PES itself. DOE
does not foresee a difference in costs to
consumers in maintaining water quality
under a new potential efficiency
standard to stand-by power. Further,
DOE understands the maintenance to
38 Coughlin, K., Beraki, B. Residential Electricity
Prices A Review of Data Sources and Estimation
Methods. Energy Analysis and Environmental
Impacts Division Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory Energy Efficiency Standards Group.
2018. Available at https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/
sites/default/files/lbnl-2001169.pdf.
39 See www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo.
40 See https://staging-na01jacuzzi.demandware.net/on/demandware.static/-/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Average
$/kWh
Geographic area
Jkt 259001
the PES itself to be cleaning activities
(i.e., cleaning of the filters, spa interior,
spa exterior, and cover).40 Based on
these understandings, DOE does not
consider that these cleaning activities
would cost the consumer more under a
new potential energy conservation
standard.
However, DOE notes that the costs to
repair more efficient PES mechanical
systems and insulation may be greater
in the case of a potential new energy
conservation standard.
DOE requests feedback and specific
data on whether maintenance costs
differ in comparison to the baseline
maintenance costs for any of the specific
efficiency improving technology options
applicable to PESs.
DOE requests comment on the typical
repairs to PESs and how they may differ
in the case of a potential new energy
conservation standard.
0.1834
0.1380
0.1164
0.1959
Marginal
$/kWh
0.1687
0.1240
0.0994
0.2145
PESs will be retired from service. To
model PES lifetimes, DOE assumed that
the probability function for the annual
survival of PESs would take the form of
a Weibull distribution. A Weibull
distribution is a probability distribution
commonly used to measure failure
rates.41 42
a. Hard-Sided Spas
DOE examined historical hard-sided
spa installation data from PK Data, Inc.
(‘‘PK Data’’) for the years from 2015
through 2020 and fit a Weibull
distribution to these data with
minimum and maximum lifetimes of 1
year and 30 years, respectively. This
Weibull distribution yielded an average
lifetime of 9.3 years.
b. Inflatable Spas
The product lifetime is the age at
which a product is retired from service.
Rather than use a single average value
for the lifetime of PESs, DOE developed
lifetime distributions to characterize the
age, in years, when hard- and inflatable
DOE did not have equivalent data
from which to estimate lifetimes for
inflatable spas. As a result, DOE used
the average lifetime on the design life
from the CEC CASE report on PESs.43
To estimate the lifetime of inflatable
spas, DOE fit a Weibull function based
on the modeling assumptions of an
average and maximum lifetimes of 3.0
and 5.0 years, respectively.
Library-Sites-jacuzzi-shared-content/default/
v44de813235d8b46eb8c84da693ec1bed8e8ec186/
pdf-documents/Jacuzzi_Swim_Spa_Collection_
Owners_Manual_English.pdf.
41 For reference on the Weibull distribution, see
sections 1.3.6.6.8 and 8.4.1.3 of the NIST/
SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods.
Available at www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
42 For an example methodology of how DOE
approaches its survival calculation, see section
8.3.4 of chapter 8 of the Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Program For
Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Consumer Furnaces. DOE. 2022.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0320.
43 California Energy Commission. ‘‘Final Staff
Report—Analysis of Efficiency Standards and
Marking for Spas.’’ February 2, 2018.
2. Product Lifetime
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69104
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.24—LIFETIME PARAMETERS
Value
Minimum
(years)
Hard-Sided Spas ..................................................................
Inflatable Spas .....................................................................
DOE requests comment on its lifetime
analysis.
3. Rebound Effect
DOE considered the possibility that
some consumers may use a higherefficiency PES more than a baseline one,
thereby negating some or all the energy
savings from the more-efficient product.
Such a change in consumer behavior
when operating costs decline is known
as a (direct) rebound effect. Because the
heating and pumping systems operation
in ‘‘stand-by mode’’ also function when
the PES is operated in ‘‘active mode,’’
an increase in PES usage due to a
rebound effect would not impact any
potential energy savings in a new
standards case. For this reason, DOE
tentatively finds that the rebound effect
should not apply to PES stand-by
power.
DOE requests comment on its
reasoning to not apply a rebound effect
to PES stand-by power energy use.
4. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the
No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of
consumers that would be affected by a
potential energy conservation standard
Weibull parameters
Average
(years)
1
1
Maximum
(years)
9.3
3.0
at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s
LCC analysis considers the projected
distribution (market shares) of product
efficiencies under the no-new-standards
case (i.e., the case without amended or
new energy conservation standards).
To establish the fraction of PES
purchases that exceed baseline
equipment in terms of energy efficiency
in the absence of potential new
standards, DOE examined information
provided by PHTA and U.S. Census
data.
The information provided by the
PHTA shows the adoption of state level
minimum efficiency requirements for
PESs. These state level programs are
related to different editions of APSP–14
2019, and this variation in state-level
adoption creates a fractured regulatory
environment where different states have
different minimum energy efficiency
requirements.
For this NODA, DOE has made the
simplified modeling assumption that all
spas sold in states with an existing
standard would adhere to APSP–14
2019 and will be considered above the
baseline in 2029. Further, DOE notes
that the RECS 2015 data does not have
Alpha
(scale)
30
5
9.91
3.20
Beta
(shape)
1.85
7.00
state-level information from which to
derive the relative spa owning
probability for each state, and, for the
purposes of estimating the efficiency
distribution in the no-new standards
case, DOE used state populations
published in the 2021 Census.44 DOE
acknowledges that this modeling
assumption may overrepresent the state
of national efficiency adoption to the
detriment of national energy savings as
states with less stringent standards are
modeled with greater minimum
efficiency levels. However, this
potential overrepresentation may be
balanced by those consumers in nonregulated states purchasing more
efficient products. These populations
are shown in Table III.25 and are held
constant over time.
Using the projected distribution of
efficiencies for PESs, DOE randomly
assigned a product efficiency to each
household drawn from the consumer
sample. If a consumer is assigned a
product efficiency that is greater than or
equal to the efficiency under
consideration, the consumer would not
be affected by a standard at that
efficiency level.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE III.25—PESS MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS BY STATE
State
Standard
Arizona ........................................................................................
California .....................................................................................
Connecticut .................................................................................
District of Columbia ....................................................................
Massachusetts ............................................................................
New Jersey .................................................................................
Oregon ........................................................................................
Pennsylvania ..............................................................................
Rhode Island ..............................................................................
Colorado .....................................................................................
Maryland .....................................................................................
Nevada .......................................................................................
Vermont ......................................................................................
Washington .................................................................................
AZ Title 44 ..................................................................................
APSP 14–2019 ...........................................................................
CA Title 20 (2006) ......................................................................
APSP 14–2019 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2019 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2019 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2019 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2019 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2019 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2014 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2019 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2019 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2014 ...........................................................................
APSP 14–2014 ...........................................................................
7,276,316
39,237,836
3,605,597
670,050
6,984,723
9,267,130
4,246,155
12,964,056
1,095,610
5,812,069
6,165,129
3,143,991
645,570
7,738,692
Total Population Covered by Standards .............................................................................................................................................
U.S. Population ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Fraction above Baseline ......................................................................................................................................................................
Fraction at Baseline .............................................................................................................................................................................
108,852,924
331,893,745
32.8%
67.2%
44 Annual Estimates of the Resident Population
for the United States, Regions, States, District of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
Columbia, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2020 to July 1,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Population
2021 (NST–EST2021–POP). U.S. Census Bureau,
Population Division. December 2021.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69105
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.26—DISTRIBUTION OF EFFICIENCIES IN THE NO-NEW STANDARDS CASE (%)
Efficiency level
Type
All Spas ........................
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
67.2
32.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE
applies discount rates appropriate to
households to estimate the present
value of future operating cost savings in
the year of compliance. DOE estimated
a distribution of discount rates for PESs
based on the opportunity cost of
consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average
discount rates calculated from consumer
debt and asset data, rather than marginal
or implicit discount rates.45 The LCC
analysis estimates net present value
over the lifetime of the product. As a
result, the appropriate discount rate will
reflect the general opportunity cost of
household funds, taking this time scale
into account. Given the long-time
horizon modeled in the LCC analysis,
the application of a marginal interest
rate associated with an initial source of
funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the
method of purchase, consumers are
expected to continue to rebalance their
debt and asset holdings over the LCC
analysis period, based on the
restrictions consumers face in their debt
payment requirements and the relative
size of the interest rates available on
debts and assets. DOE estimates the
aggregate impact of this rebalancing
using the historical distribution of debts
and assets.
To establish residential discount rates
for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all
relevant household debt or asset classes
to approximate a consumer’s
opportunity cost of funds related to
appliance energy cost savings. Then
DOE estimated the average percentage
shares of the various types of debt and
equity by household income group
using data from the Federal Reserve
Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances
(‘‘SCF’’) for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004,
2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019.46
Using the SCF and other sources, DOE
developed a distribution of rates for
each type of debt and asset by income
group to represent the rates that may
apply in the year in which new energy
conservation standards would take
effect. DOE assigned each sample
household a specific discount rate
drawn from one of the distributions.
The average rate across all types of
household debt and equity and income
groups were then mapped to RECS
income bins for the fraction of homes
with portable electric spas.47
TABLE III.27—MAPPING OF SCF INCOME GROUPS TO RECS 2015 INCOME BIN
RECS income bins
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
2
100.0%
2.9%
3
86.6%
10.6%
100.0%
15.4%
4
5
84.6%
100.0%
13.4%
6
86.6%
88.4%
11.6%
100.0
TABLE III.28—AVERAGE REAL EFFECTIVE DISCOUNT RATES
SCF income group
Discount rate (%)
1 ................................................................................................................
2 ................................................................................................................
3 ................................................................................................................
4 ................................................................................................................
5 ................................................................................................................
6 ................................................................................................................
Overall Average ........................................................................................
4.76
4.99
4.54
3.84
3.47
3.23
4.29
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Survey of Consumer Finances (1995–2019).
45 The implicit discount rate is inferred from a
consumer purchase decision between two otherwise
identical goods with different first cost and
operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the
increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost,
incorporating the influence of several factors:
transaction costs; risk premiums and response to
uncertainty; time preferences; and interest rates at
which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The
implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
analysis because it reflects a range of factors that
influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than
the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in
purchases.
46 Note that two older versions of the SCF are also
available (1989 and 1992); these surveys are not
used in this analysis because they do not provide
all of the necessary types of data (e.g., credit card
interest rates, etc.). DOE has tentatively determined
that the time span covered by the eight surveys
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
included is sufficiently representative of recent debt
and equity shares and interest rates.
47 A detailed discussion of DOE discount rate
methodology for residential consumers can be
found in the Technical Support Document: Energy
Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Consumer
Furnaces. DOE, 2022, in chapters 8, and appendix
8H. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0320.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69106
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
6. Payback Period Analysis
The PBP is the amount of time it takes
the consumer to recover the additional
installed cost of more-efficient products,
compared to baseline products, through
energy cost savings. PBP are expressed
in years. PBP that exceed the life of the
product mean that the increased total
installed cost is not recovered in
reduced operating expenses. The
equation for PBP is:
ll/C
PBP
= flOC
Where:
PBP = payback period in years,
DIC = difference in the total installed cost
between the more efficient product
(efficiency levels 1, 2, 3, etc.) and the
baseline product, and
DOC = difference in first-year annual
operating costs between the more
efficient product and the baseline
product.
The data inputs to PBP are the total
installed cost of the product to the
consumer for each efficiency level and
the annual (first year) operating costs for
each efficiency level. As for the LCC, the
inputs to the total installed cost are the
product price and installation cost. The
inputs to the operating costs are the
annual energy and annual maintenance
costs. The PBP uses the same inputs as
does the LCC analysis, except that
electricity price trends are not required.
Because the PBP is a simple payback,
the required electricity cost is only for
the year in which a potential new
energy conservation standard would
take effect—in this case, 2029.
7. Consumer Results
TABLE III.29—STANDARD SPAS: AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Average costs (2021$)
Efficiency level
Installed cost
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
352
246
207
198
179
174
142
130
126
2,648
1,849
1,555
1,491
1,345
1,305
1,068
978
949
8,507
8,594
8,852
9,165
9,725
10,338
11,347
12,530
13,851
Simple
payback
period
(years)
LCC
11,644
10,937
10,918
11,188
11,638
12,251
13,088
14,258
15,636
Average
lifetime
(years)
........................
0.8
2.4
4.5
7.8
11.9
16.5
23.9
34.6
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
TABLE III.30—STANDARD SPAS: AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY
DISTRIBUTION
% Consumers
with net cost
Efficiency level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
6.4
35.2
51.2
65.9
77.0
84.6
91.4
96.1
Average
savings—
impacted
consumers
(2021$)
1,056
726
456
6
¥607
¥1,444
¥2,614
¥3,992
TABLE III.31—EXERCISE SPAS: AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Efficiency level
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Installed cost
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
First year’s
operating
cost
26,791
27,063
27,876
28,862
30,624
32,556
35,731
39,459
43,618
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Lifetime
operating
cost
930
631
521
497
472
457
368
335
324
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6,937
4,715
3,892
3,715
3,530
3,417
2,756
2,504
2,423
Simple
payback
period
(years)
LCC
35,077
33,144
33,187
34,060
35,751
37,696
40,415
44,132
48,479
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
........................
0.9
2.7
5.1
9.4
14.6
20.2
29.7
44.0
17NOP2
Average
lifetime
(years)
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
EP17NO22.002</GPH>
Average costs (2021$)
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
69107
TABLE III.32—EXERCISE SPAS: AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY
DISTRIBUTION
% Consumers
with net cost
Efficiency level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
7.9
39.5
55.8
72.1
82.1
88.5
94.2
97.5
Average
savings—
impacted
consumers
(2021$)
2,889
1,889
1,017
¥674
¥2,619
¥5,338
¥9,055
¥13,403
TABLE III.33—COMBINATION SPAS: AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Average costs (2021$)
Efficiency level
Installed cost
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
1,218
823
678
647
617
597
481
437
422
9,093
6,143
5,064
4,831
4,609
4,460
3,592
3,262
3,155
34,175
34,523
35,560
36,818
39,065
41,531
45,581
50,336
55,642
Simple
payback
period
(years)
LCC
44,965
42,387
42,412
43,519
45,690
48,167
51,611
56,345
61,888
Average
lifetime
(years)
........................
0.9
2.7
4.9
9.1
14.1
19.5
28.6
42.2
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
TABLE III.34—COMBINATION SPAS: AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY
DISTRIBUTION
% Consumers
with net cost
Efficiency level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
7.5
38.4
54.2
70.6
81.0
88.2
94.1
97.4
Average
savings—
impacted
consumers
(2021$)
3,835
2,553
1,446
¥724
¥3,201
¥6,646
¥11,379
¥16,923
TABLE III.35—INFLATABLE SPAS: AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Average costs (2021$)
Efficiency level
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Installed cost
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
147
130
83
82
424
375
238
237
244
287
549
858
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Simple
payback
period
(years)
LCC
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
780
778
924
1,256
........................
2.8
5.5
13.0
17NOP2
Average
lifetime
(years)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
69108
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.36—INFLATABLE SPAS: AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY
DISTRIBUTION: COMBINATION SPAS
% Consumers
with net cost
Efficiency level
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual
product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended
or new energy conservation standards
on energy use, NPV, and future
manufacturer cash flows.48 The
shipments model takes an accounting
approach in tracking market shares of
each potential product class and the
vintage of units in the stock. Stock
accounting uses product shipments as
inputs to estimate the age distribution of
in-service product stocks for all years.
The age distribution of in-service
product stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the NES and NPV
because operating costs for any year
depend on the age distribution of the
stock.
1. Approach to Shipments and Stock
Models
DOE developed a national stock
model to estimate annual shipments of
products under potential energy
efficiency standards. The model
considers market segments as distinct
inputs to projected shipments. DOE
considered new home installations and
replacements in existing households as
the primary market segments for PESs.
DOE’s shipments model takes a stock
accounting approach, tracking the
vintage of units in the existing stock and
expected housing stock trends. The
stock accounting uses product
shipments, a retirement function, and
initial in-service product stock as inputs
to develop an estimate of the age
distribution of in-service product stock
for all years. The age distribution of inservice product stock is a key input to
calculations of both the NES and NPV
because the operating costs for any year
depend on the age distribution of the
stock. The dependence of operating cost
on the product age distribution occurs
under a standards-case scenario that
produces increasing efficiency over
38.7
84.6
99.6
Average
savings—
impacted
consumers
(2021$)
3
¥143
¥475
time, whereby older, less efficient units
may have higher operating costs, while
younger, more-efficient units have lower
operating costs.
2. Initial Stock Estimates
a. Hard-Sided Spas Stock
DOE used industry data from PK Data
to estimate the initial stock for hardsided spas.49 The PK Data were
compiled from manufacturer data and
other sources, including dealers,
retailers, and consumers, and provide
an estimated installation base for these
spas. However, these data did not
specify the fraction of installations that
are standard, exercise, or combination
spas. For this NODA, DOE has made the
modeling assumptions that the fraction
of the market for standard, exercise, and
combination spas will follow the model
count in MAEDbS.50 The stock
breakdown based on the data received
by DOE from PK Data and the weights
from MAEDbS are shown in Table III.37.
TABLE III.37—PK DATA AND DOE STOCK ESTIMATES OF HARD-SIDED SPAS
[Units, 2020]
All spas
PK data
Fraction (%) .....................................................................................................
Units (2020) .....................................................................................................
DOE requests comment on its stock
ratios for hard-sided spas. Additionally,
DOE seeks input on the market shares
of standard, exercise, and combination
spas.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Inflatable Spas Stock
Inflatable spas (inflatable spas) are a
relatively new product to the spa
48 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as
a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales
are lacking. In general, one would expect a close
correspondence between shipments and sales.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
100
5,454,117
Standard
85
4,635,999
Exercise
12
654,494
Combination
3
163,624
industry. As such, DOE was unable to
find comprehensive, publicly available
information to indicate either their
shipments or existing stock. The CEC’s
‘‘2018 Appliance Efficiency Rulemaking
for Spas, Final Staff Report’’ projected
California’s stock of inflatable spas in
2020 to be 20,101 units. When this
value is scaled by population, it
produces a national stock estimate of
170,025 units, or approximately 3
percent of the stock of hard-sided Spas.
For this NODA, DOE has made the
modeling assumption that stock of
inflatable spas in 2020 was 170,025
units.
49 P.K. Data Inc. 2022 Hot Tube Market Data:
Custom Compilation for Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (through 2021). 2022.
Alpharetta, GA. (Last accessed April 12, 2022.)
Available at https://www.pkdata.com/reportsstore.html#/.
50 California Energy Commission’s Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System. Available at
https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
69109
TABLE III.38—ESTIMATED TOTAL PES STOCKS, AND MARKET WEIGHT, 2020 (UNITS)
Potential
product class
weight, M
Potential product class
Standard ..................................................................................................................................................................
Exercise ...................................................................................................................................................................
Combination .............................................................................................................................................................
Inflatable ..................................................................................................................................................................
Stocki
= S toek t x Stockt,
Where:
Stockt = the total PES stock in 2022, i.e.,
5,624,142 units,
i = an index indicating the location (r, z) of
the spa,
S = the saturation (count) of spas per singlefamily household, and
H = total single-family households.
4. Determining Annual Spa Shipments
a. Initial Shipments
Initial shipments for each potential
product class of PESs are derived from
the stock estimates in section III.G.2, as:
.
(SH) xM
Ships=
L
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
avg
Where:
Ships = total PES shipments for each product
class,
M = PES market weight (see Table III.38), and
Lavg = the average potential product class’s
lifetime.
b. New Spa Shipments
To estimate shipments of new
purchases, DOE used projections of total
housing stock from AEO2022 coupled
with the estimated PES saturation. In
other words, to project the shipments
for new purchases for any given year,
DOE multiplied the regional stock
housing projections by the estimated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
c. Spa Replacements
Over time, some units will be retired
and removed from stock, thereby
triggering the shipment of a replacement
unit. Depending on the vintage, a
certain percentage of each type of unit
will fail and need to be replaced. To
determine when a unit fails, DOE used
a Weibull survival function based on a
product lifetime distribution with an
average lifetime of 9.3 years and 3.5
years for hard-sided, and inflatable spas,
respectively. For a more complete
discussion of lifetimes, refer to section
III.F.2. Shipments for replacements are
defined as:
y-1
Shipr(Y)
L
=
PrShips
y-Lmax
Where:
Shipr = shipments for replacement,
Lmax = product maximum lifetime, and
pr = a product’s retirement probability.
d. Demolitions
Demolitions refer to the destruction of
in-service spas that are not replaced
with new equipment. For this NODA,
DOE defined the demolition rate as
follows. For each location (r, z), and
analysis year, y.
E = T¥N
E(y - 1) - E(y)
(j
+ N(y)
= - - E(y)
- -+-N(y)
---
Where:
s = the demolition rate, and
E = existing single-family house count,
derived from RECS.
e. Product Lifetimes
The methodology used to determine
the distribution of PESs’ lifetimes is
discussed in section III.F.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
g. Calculating Shipments and Stock
DOE calculates the total in-service
stock of products by integrating
historical shipments data starting from a
specified year. The start year depends
on the historical data available for each
product, which for this NODA is based
on data from PK Data in 2020. As units
are added to the in-service stock, some
older units retire and exit the stock. In
this NODA, for each year in the analysis
period from 2029 through 2058, DOE
calculated the shipments and stock as:
Stock(y) = Stock(y¥1) (1¥s) + Shipn(y),
and
Ships(y) = Shipn(y) + Shipr(y) +
sStock(y¥1).
As the last unit shipped during the
analysis period will survive beyond
2056, their presence was be accounted
for as:
Stock(y) = Stock(y¥1)¥Shipr(y),
5. Impacts of Increased Product Costs on
Shipments
Because DOE’s projections of
shipments and national impacts from
potential energy conservation standards
consider a 30-year period, DOE needed
to consider how price elasticity evolves
in the years after a new standard takes
effect in this NODA. Price elasticity is
a factor that reflects the percent change
in quantity purchased of a product
51 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2022. 2022. Washington, DC. (Last
accessed July 10, 2022.) See: Table 4. Residential
Sector Key Indicators and Consumption—Case:
Reference case Available at https://www.eia.gov/
outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=4-AEO2022&
cases=ref2022&sourcekey=0.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
EP17NO22.006</GPH>
Stocki
Shipn (y) = N(y)S(y)
Where:
Shipn = new shipments,
y = year of analysis, and
N = new housing starts.
f. Future Portable Electric Spa
Shipments
To project future shipments, DOE
typically uses new housing starts
projections from AEO as market drivers
for products sold to the residential
sector. For this NODA, DOE used the
Single-Family Households trend from
AEO2022 to drive future spa
shipments.51
DOE requests comment on its
proposed use of future residential
construction to project future shipments
of PESs.
EP17NO22.005</GPH>
3. Product Saturations
PES stocks are distributed nationally
according to the number of single-family
houses by census region, r, and climate
zone, z, derived from RECS. These
regional distributions are considered
static over the analysis period. PES
saturations are expressed as:
saturation of PES. New shipments in
each year are determined as:
4,635,999
654,494
163,624
170,025
EP17NO22.003</GPH> EP17NO22.004</GPH>
DOE seeks comment on its 2020 stock
estimates for all spa types.
82.5
11.7
2.9
2.9
Units
69110
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
given a 1 percent change in price. DOE
conducted a literature review and an
analysis of appliance price and
efficiency data to estimate the effects on
product shipments from increases in
product purchase price and product
energy efficiency.
Existing studies of appliance markets
suggest that the demand for durable
goods, such as appliances, is priceinelastic. Other information in the
literature suggests that appliances are a
normal good, such that rising incomes
increase the demand for appliances, and
that consumer behavior reflects
relatively high implicit discount rates
when comparing appliance prices and
appliance operating costs.
DOE considered the price elasticity
developed above to be a short-term
value but was unable to identify sources
specific to PESs that would be sufficient
to model differences in short- and longterm price elasticities. Therefore, to
estimate how the price elasticity
changes through time, DOE relied on a
study pertaining to automobiles.52 This
study shows that the price elasticity of
demand for automobiles changes in the
years following a change in purchase
price, a trend also observed in
appliances and other durables.53 54 As
time passes from the change in purchase
price, the price elasticity becomes more
inelastic until it reaches a terminal
value around the tenth year after the
price change. Table III.39 shows the
relative change over time in the price
elasticity of demand for automobiles. As
shown in the table, DOE developed a
time series of price elasticity for
residential appliances based on the
relative change over time in the price
elasticity of demand for automobiles.
For years not shown in the table, DOE
performed a linear interpolation to
obtain the price elasticity.55
TABLE III.39—CHANGE IN RELATIVE PRICE ELASTICITY FOLLOWING A CHANGE IN PURCHASE PRICE
Years following price change
1
Change in elasticity relative to first year
Price elasticity ..........................................
2
1.00
¥0.45
3
0.78
¥0.35
5
0.63
¥0.28
10
0.46
¥0.21
0.35
¥0.16
20
0.33
¥0.15
6. Results for 30-years of Shipment
(2029–2058)
TABLE III.40—PES SHIPMENTS FOR SELECT YEARS IN THE ABSENCE OF POTENTIAL NEW STANDARDS (EL 0), (UNITS)
Spa type
Year
Standard
2029
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2058
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
558,863
562,920
580,511
598,725
615,313
631,547
648,129
657,934
Exercise
Combination
78,898
79,471
81,954
84,526
86,868
89,160
91,501
92,885
19,725
19,868
20,489
21,131
21,717
22,290
22,875
23,221
Inflatable
50,809
51,194
53,077
54,708
56,357
57,934
59,488
60,416
TABLE III.41—PES AFFECTED STOCK FOR SELECT YEARS IN THE ABSENCE OF POTENTIAL NEW STANDARDS (EL 0),
(UNITS)
Spa type
Year
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Standard
2027
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
2075
2080
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
52 Saul H. Hymans, Gardner Ackley, and F.
Thomas Juster. Consumer durable spending:
Explanation and prediction. Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, 1970(2):173–206, 1970. (Last
accessed August 28, 2021.) Available at https://
www.jstor.org/stable/2534239.
53 Philip Parker and Ramya Neelamegham. Price
elasticity dynamics over the product life cycle: A
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
558,863
1,113,813
3,474,943
4,828,630
5,420,218
5,684,921
5,858,365
4,697,420
2,075,344
660,865
150,756
24,229
study of consumer durables. Marketing Letters,
8(2):205–216, April 1997. (Last accessed August 28,
2021.) Available at https://link.springer.com/
article/10.1023%2FA%3A1007962520455.
54 DOE relies on Hymens et al. (1970) for
efficiency scaling factors because it provides the
greatest detail out of all the available studies on
price elasticity over time.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Exercise
78,898
157,244
490,580
681,689
765,207
802,577
827,063
663,165
292,990
93,299
21,283
3,421
Combination
19,725
39,311
122,645
170,422
191,302
200,644
206,766
165,791
73,247
23,325
5,321
855
Inflatable
50,809
101,988
184,055
190,031
195,793
201,380
206,848
90,521
0
0
0
0
55 For an example methodology of how DOE
approaches its product price elasticity calculation,
please see section 9.4 of chapter 9 of the Technical
Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for
Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Room Air Conditioners. DOE. 2022.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0059-0030.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
69111
TABLE III.41—PES AFFECTED STOCK FOR SELECT YEARS IN THE ABSENCE OF POTENTIAL NEW STANDARDS (EL 0),
(UNITS)—Continued
Spa type
Year
Standard
2085 .................................................................................................................
2090 .................................................................................................................
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the
NPV from a national perspective of total
consumer costs and savings that would
be expected to result from new or
amended standards at specific efficiency
levels.56 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context
refers to consumers of the product being
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and
NPV for the potential standard levels
considered based on projections of
annual product shipments, along with
the annual energy consumption and
total installed cost data from the energy
use and LCC analyses. For the present
analysis, DOE projected the energy
Exercise
2,259
0
savings, operating cost savings, product
costs, and NPV of consumer benefits
over the lifetime of PESs sold from 2029
through 2058.
DOE evaluates the effects of potential
new standards by comparing a case
without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards
case characterizes energy use and
consumer costs for each potential
product class in the absence of new or
amended energy conservation
standards. For this projection, DOE
considers historical trends in efficiency
and various forces that are likely to
affect the mix of efficiencies over time.
Combination
319
0
80
0
Inflatable
0
0
DOE compares the no-new-standards
case with projections characterizing the
market for each potential product class
if DOE adopted new or amended
standards at specific energy efficiency
levels (i.e., the ELs or standards cases)
for that class. For the standards cases,
DOE considers how a given standard
would likely affect the market shares of
products with efficiencies greater than
the standard.
Table III.42 summarizes the inputs
and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the NODA. Discussion of
these inputs and methods follows the
table.
TABLE III.42—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Inputs
Method
Shipments .................................................................................................
Modeled Compliance Date of Standard ...................................................
Efficiency Trends ......................................................................................
Annual shipments from shipments model.
2029.
No-new-standards case.
Standards cases.
Annual average values are a function of energy use at each EL.
Annual average values are a function of cost at each EL.
Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy
consumption per unit and energy prices.
Annual values do not change with efficiency level.
AEO2022 projections (to 2050), constant 2050 prices thereafter.
A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2022.
3 percent and 7 percent.
2022.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ......................................................
Total Installed Cost per Unit .....................................................................
Annual Energy Cost per Unit ...................................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit ....................................................
Energy Prices ...........................................................................................
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion ..........................................
Discount Rate ...........................................................................................
Present Year .............................................................................................
1. Products Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the
trend in energy efficiency projected for
the no-new-standards case and each of
the standards cases. Section III.F.4 of
this document describes how DOE
developed an energy efficiency
distribution for the no-new-standards
case (which yields a shipment-weighted
average efficiency) for each of the
considered potential product classes for
the year of anticipated compliance with
an amended or new standard.
For the standards cases, DOE used a
‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the
shipment-weighted efficiency for the
year that standards are assumed to
become effective (2029). In this
scenario, the market shares of products
in the no-new-standards case that do not
meet the standard under consideration
would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new
standard level, and the market share of
products above the standard would
remain unchanged.
For this NODA, DOE’s modeling
assumed that the distribution of product
efficiencies will remain constant over
time.
DOE requests comment on its
modeling assumption that PES
efficiency will remaining constant over
time in the absence of potential new
standards.
2. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a
comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered products
between each potential standards case
(EL) and the case with no new or
amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national
energy consumption by multiplying the
number of units (stock) of each product
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy
consumption (also by vintage). DOE
calculated annual NES based on the
difference in national energy
consumption for the no-new-standards
case and for each higher efficiency
standard case. DOE estimated energy
consumption and savings based on site
energy and converted the electricity
consumption and savings to primary
energy (i.e., the energy consumed by
power plants to generate site electricity)
using annual conversion factors derived
from AEO2022. Cumulative energy
56 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states
and Washington D.C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69112
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
savings are the sum of the NES for each
year over the timeframe of the analysis.
The following equation shows that
DOE calculated annual NES as the
difference between two projections: a
no-new-standards case (without new
standards) and a standards case.
Positive values of NES represent energy
savings (that is, they show that national
annual energy consumption (‘‘AEC’’)
under a standards case is less than in
the no-new-standards).
NESy = AECBase¥AECSTD
Where:
NES = annual national energy savings
(quads),
AEC = annual national energy consumption
each year in quadrillion Btus (quads)
summed over vintages of the product
stock, and
y = year in the forecast.
Cumulative energy savings are the
sum of annual NES from products
shipped between the years 2029 through
2058.
DOE calculated the national annual
site energy consumption by multiplying
the number or stock of the product (by
vintage) by its unit annual energy
consumption (AEC; also, by vintage).
National annual energy consumption is
calculated using the following equation.
AECy = S STOCKV × UECV
conversion factor to account for losses
associated with the generation,
transmission, and distribution of
electricity. The site-to-source
conversion factor is a multiplicative
factor used to convert site energy
consumption into primary, or source,
energy consumption, expressed in
quadrillion Btus (quads).
DOE used annual site-to-power-plant
conversion factors based on the version
of the national energy modeling system
(‘‘NEMS’’) 57 that corresponds to
AEO2022 58 The factors are marginal
values, which represent the response of
the national power system to
incremental changes in consumption.
For electricity, the conversion factors
change over time in response to
projected changes in generation sources
(the types of power plants projected to
provide electricity). There is not a
specific end-use for PES in NEMS. As
such, DOE applied the refrigeration enduse as a proxy, as the load profile of the
equipment would be similar—
equipment that when plugged-in and
running does not respond to the cyclical
dynamics of the electricity grid.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Full-Fuel Cycle Multipliers
In 2011, DOE announced its intention
to use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in
Where:
the NIA and emissions analyses
AEC = annual national energy consumption
included in future energy conservation
each year in quadrillion Btus (quads),
standards rulemakings in response to
summed over vintages of the product
the recommendations of a committee on
stock, STOCKV,
‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle
STOCKV = stock of product (millions of units)
Measurement Approaches to Energy
of vintage V that survive in the year for
Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the
which DOE calculated annual energy
National Academy of Sciences. 76 FR
consumption,
51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating
UECV = annual energy consumption of PESs
the approaches discussed in the August
in kilowatt-hours (kWh),
V = year in which the product was purchased 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a
as a new unit, and
statement of amended policy in which
y = year in the forecast.
DOE explained its determination that
EIA’s NEMS is the most appropriate tool
The stock of a product depends on
annual shipments and the lifetime of the for its FFC analysis and its intention to
use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
product. DOE projected product
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public
shipments under the no-new-standards
domain, multi-sector, partial
case and standards cases. To avoid
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy
including savings attributable to
sector 59 that EIA uses to prepare its
shipments displaced (units not
purchased) because of standards, DOE
57 For more information on NEMS, refer to the
used the projected standards-case
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
shipments and, in turn, the standardsAdministration documentation. A useful summary
case stock, to calculate the national AEC is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview
for the no-new-standards.
2000, DOE/EIA–0581(2000), March 2000. EIA
a. Site-to-Power-Plant Energy
Conversion Factors
In determining annual NES, DOE
initially considered the AEC at a
residence (for electricity, the energy,
expressed in kWh, consumed by a
household). DOE then calculated
primary (source) energy use from site
energy consumption by applying a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
approves use of the name NEMS to describe only
an official version of the model with no
modification to code or data. Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with
Projections to 2050. 2022. Washington, DC (Last
accessed July 20, 2022.) Available at https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
58 See www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo.
59 For more information on NEMS, refer to The
National Energy Modeling System: An Overview
2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
AEO. The FFC factors incorporate losses
in production, and delivery in the case
of natural gas, (including fugitive
emissions) and additional energy used
to produce and deliver the various fuels
used by power plants. The approach
used for deriving FFC measures of
energy use and emissions can be found
in other DOE analysis.60
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV
of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total
annual installed cost, (2) total annual
operating costs (energy costs and repair
and maintenance costs), and (3) a
discount factor to calculate the present
value of costs and savings. DOE
calculates net savings each year as the
difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case
in terms of total savings in operating
costs versus total increases in installed
costs. DOE calculates operating cost
savings over the lifetime of each product
shipped during the projection period.
The NPV is the value in the present
of a time-series of costs and savings. The
NPV is described by the equation:
NPV = PVS¥PVC
Where:
PVS = present value of operating cost
savings, and
PVC = present value of increased total
installed costs (including purchase price and
installation costs).
DOE determined the PVS and PVC
according to the following expressions.
PVS = S OCSy × DFy
PVC = S TICy × DFy
Where:
OCS = total annual savings in operating costs
each year summed over vintages of the
product stock, STOCKV,
DF = discount factor in each year,
TIC = total annual increases in installed cost
each year summed over vintages of the
product stock, STOCKV and
y = year in the forecast.
DOE calculated the total annual
consumer savings in operating costs by
multiplying the number or stock of the
product (by vintage) by its per-unit
operating cost savings (also by vintage).
DOE calculated the total annual
increases in consumer product price by
multiplying the number or shipments of
the product (by vintage) by its per-unit
0581(2009)index.php (last accessed September
2022).
60 An example methodology of deriving FFC
measures can be found in the Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer
Products and Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Commercial Water Heating Equipment,
2022, appendix 10D. Available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BTSTD-0027-0001.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
increase in consumer cost (also by
vintage). Total annual operating cost
savings and total annual product price
increases are calculated by the following
equations.
OCSy = S STOCKy × UOCSv
TICy = S SHIPy × UTICy
Where:
OCSy = operating cost savings per unit in
year y,
STOCKV = stock of products of vintage V that
survive in the year for which DOE
calculated annual energy consumption,
UOCSV = annual operating cost savings per
unit of vintage V,
V = year in which the product was purchased
as a new unit,
TICy = total increase in installed product cost
in year y,
SHIPy = shipments of the product in year y,
and
UTICy = annual per-unit increase in installed
product cost in year y.
The operating cost savings are energy
cost savings, which are calculated using
the estimated energy savings in each
year and the projected price of the
appropriate form of energy. To estimate
energy prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average regional energy
prices by the projection of annual
national-average residential energy price
changes in the Reference Case from
AEO2022, which has an end year of
2050. To estimate price trends after
2050, DOE maintained electricity prices
constant at 2050 levels.
In calculating the NPV, DOE
multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine
their present value. For this NODA,
DOE estimated the NPV of consumer
benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7percent real discount rate. DOE used
these discount rates in accordance with
guidance provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to
Federal agencies on the development of
regulatory analysis.61 The discount rates
for the determination of NPV are in
contrast to the discount rates used in the
LCC analysis, which are designed to
reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7percent real value is an estimate of the
average before-tax rate of return to
private capital in the U.S. economy. The
3-percent real value represents the
‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which
is the rate at which society discounts
future consumption flows to their
present value.
The operating cost savings are energy
cost savings, which are calculated using
the estimated energy savings in each
year, and the projected price of the
appropriate form of energy. To estimate
energy prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average regional energy
prices by the projection of annual
national-average residential energy price
changes in the Reference Case from
AEO2022, which has an end year of
2050.
69113
4. Candidate Standards Levels
In general, DOE typically evaluates
potential new or amended standards for
products and equipment by grouping
individual efficiency levels for each
class into candidate standard levels
(‘‘CSLs’’). Use of CSLs allows DOE to
identify and consider manufacturer cost
interactions between the product classes
and market cross elasticity from
consumer purchasing decisions that
may change when different standard
levels are set, to the extent that there are
such interactions.
In the analysis conducted for this
NODA, DOE analyzed the benefits and
burdens of up to eight CSLs for PESs.
DOE developed CSLs that combine
efficiency levels for each analyzed
product class. These CSLs were
developed by directly mapping specific
efficiency levels for each of the PES
product classes analyzed by DOE. For
this NODA, CSL 1 represents PES
efficiency at APSP–14 2019. And the
remaining CSLs represent the increase
in efficiency determined by each
efficiency level in the engineering
analysis. DOE notes that for inflatable
spas DOE did not examine efficiency
levels greater than EL 3, and mapped EL
3 to the CSLs greater than 3.
Table III.43 presents the CSLs and the
corresponding efficiency levels that
DOE has identified for potential new
energy conservation standards for PESs.
TABLE III.43—CANDIDATE STANDARD LEVELS FOR PESS
Candidate
standard level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Spa type
Combination
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
Exercise
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Inflatable
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Standard
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5. Results for 30-years of Shipments
(2029–2058)
TABLE III.44—CUMULATIVE FULL-FUEL CYCLE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS (QUADS)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Candidate
standard level
1
2
3
4
5
Spa type
Combination
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
0.11
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.16
61 United States Office of Management and
Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Exercise
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
Inflatable
0.35
0.43
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Standard
drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last
accessed Aug 8, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
0.86
1.09
1.14
1.26
1.31
69114
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.44—CUMULATIVE FULL-FUEL CYCLE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS (QUADS)—Continued
Candidate
standard level
Spa type
Combination
Exercise
6 .....................
7 .....................
8 .....................
0.19
0.20
0.20
Inflatable
0.57
0.60
0.61
Standard
0.03
0.03
0.03
1.48
1.56
1.59
TABLE III.45—CUMULATIVE CONSUMER NET PRESENT (BILLION, 2021$)
Candidate
standard level
Spa type
Combination
Exercise
Inflatable
Standard
3% Discount Rate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
0.078
0.074
0.047
¥0.007
¥0.068
¥0.158
¥0.277
¥0.416
0.235
0.221
0.134
¥0.033
¥0.226
¥0.507
¥0.883
¥1.318
0.007
0.015
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.598
0.592
0.407
0.089
¥0.333
¥0.941
¥1.769
¥2.739
0.003
0.007
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.285
0.275
0.177
0.009
¥0.211
¥0.532
¥0.962
¥1.465
7% Discount Rate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
0.037
0.034
0.020
¥0.008
¥0.040
¥0.087
¥0.149
¥0.221
0.112
0.102
0.056
¥0.031
¥0.131
¥0.279
¥0.474
¥0.700
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
A. Submission of Comments
it in the comment itself or in any
DOE will accept comments, data, and documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
information regarding this NODA no
later than the date provided in the DATES to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
section at the beginning of this NODA.
document attached to your comment.
Interested parties may submit
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
comments, data, and other information
will see only first and last names,
using any of the methods described in
organization names, correspondence
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
containing comments, and any
of this document.
documents submitted with the
Submitting comments via
comments.
www.regulations.gov. The
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
www.regulations.gov web page will
information for which disclosure is
require you to provide your name and
restricted by statute, such as trade
contact information. Your contact
secrets and commercial or financial
information will be viewable to DOE
information (hereinafter referred to as
Building Technologies staff only. Your
Confidential Business Information
contact information will not be publicly (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through
viewable except for your first and last
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
names, organization name (if any), and
as CBI. Comments received through the
submitter representative name (if any).
website will waive any CBI claims for
If your comment is not processed
the information submitted. For
properly because of technical
information on submitting CBI, see the
difficulties, DOE will use this
Confidential Business Information
section.
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
DOE processes submissions made
technical difficulties and cannot contact through www.regulations.gov before
you for clarification, DOE may not be
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
able to consider your comment.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
IV. Publication Participation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email 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).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this NODA, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the
previously description of the target
technology and the scope of this
product, including whether any
modifications or additions are necessary
to characterize this product.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on
whether the distinction between
categories of PESs, as described in
section III.A.2 of this NODA, is
significant enough to warrant the
establishment of different product
classes for each type.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on the
above description of the PES
manufacturers and the PES industry
structure and whether any other details
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
are necessary for characterizing the
industry or for determining whether
energy conservation standards for PESs
might be justified.
Issue 4: DOE requests information on
any voluntary or mandatory test
procedure and energy conservation
standards for PESs that are not
mentioned in section III.A.4 of this
NODA.
Issue 5: DOE seeks comment generally
on the descriptions of relevant energysaving technology options as described
in section III.A.5 of this document,
including whether any options require
revised or additional details to
characterize each option’s effects on a
PES’s energy consumption.
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment
regarding use of additional or improved
insulation as a technology option for
PESs, and in particular what would
limit adding further insulation to a PES.
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment
regarding use of improved covers as a
technology option for PESs, and in
particular what would limit further
energy performance increases of PES
covers.
Issue 8: DOE seeks comment
regarding use of improved sealing as a
technology option for PESs, regarding
whether air leakage is significant at PES
locations other than the cover, and
regarding what would limit further
sealing improvements energy
performance increases of PES covers.
Issue 9: DOE seeks comment on the
description of radiant barriers and data
on the relative effects of radiant barriers
when paired with different amounts of
insulation and different thicknesses of
adjacent air gaps.
Issue 10: DOE requests comment
regarding whether insulated ground
covers warrant inclusion in the set of
technology options for non-inflatable
PESs.
Issue 11: DOE seeks comment and
data on the degree to which two-speed
pump inefficiencies manifest as waste
heat and to which that waste heat is
absorbed by the portable electric spa’s
water.
Issue 12: DOE requests comment
regarding whether heat pumps would be
likely to reduce energy consumption in
PESs and, if so, quantified estimates of
the effects of heat pump integration on
both energy consumption and
manufacturer production cost.
Issue 13: DOE requests comment
regarding the availability of heat pumps
compatible with PESs.
Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on its
selection of baseline units, including
whether any other units on the market
would better represent the most
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
69115
consumptive spas available for
purchase.
Issue 15: DOE requests comment on
the range of filtration system power
demands in PESs as described in Table
III.1. DOE also requests comment on any
correlation between power demand and
whether a spa uses a high horsepower
two-speed pump or a lower horsepower
dedicated circulation pump.
Issue 16: DOE requests comment on
its assumption of a standard shell shape
as described in Table III.2, especially
whether it is representative and whether
DOE should consider certain shapes that
result in maximum or minimum
amounts of insulation.
Issue 17: DOE requests data and
comment on the effectiveness of radiant
barriers in reducing the normalized
average standby power of PES and on
what factors make radiant barriers more
or less effective.
Issue 18: DOE requests data and
comment on the extent to which spas
lose heat through air convection out of
unsealed regions of the spa and on the
factors that affect heat losses due to
sealing.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on
the best way to quantify varying degrees
of cover seal, including perimeter seal
against the spa flange and hinge seal
through the center of the cover.
Issue 20: DOE requests comment on
the method of analyzing thermal bridges
as a single section of low R-value on the
spa. Additionally, DOE requests
information about techniques and
models which are used in industry to
predict spa performance.
Issue 21: DOE requests comment and
data on the discrepancy between heat
loss through the wall where the
components are housed and through
other walls.
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on
any strategies for considering the effects
of hot water traveling through plumbing
on a spa’s heat loss.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment
describing its appropriation of the
scaling relationship defined in APSP–14
2019 and whether there are any other
traits with which DOE might vary
energy consumption.
Issue 24: DOE requests comment on
whether there are other factors DOE
should consider in converting
normalized average standby power
values to reflect the proposed test
procedure.
Issue 25: DOE requests comment and
data on typical markups from MPC to
MSP and from MSP to final sale price.
Issue 26: DOE requests comment and
data characterizing the relationship
between MPC and the size of a PES and
whether there are better methods for
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
69116
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
approximating the effects of size
changes on MPC than the one described
previously.
Issue 27: DOE requests comment and
data characterizing to what degree sales
margins vary with spa size.
Issue 28: DOE requests comment on
the efficiency levels described in tables
Table III.3 and Table III.4, including
whether any do not align with expected
effects design options associated with
them, as described below in Table III.7
and Table III.8.
Issue 29: DOE requests comment on
the expected effects of DOE’s proposed
test procedure, as described in Table
III.5 and Table III.6, including on
whether its effects on normalized
average standby power would be greater
than or less than DOE’s estimates.
Issue 30: DOE requests comment and
data regarding the design options and
associated estimated costs described in
tables Table III.7 and Table III.8 of this
NODA.
Issue 31: DOE requests information on
the existence of any distribution
channels other than the distribution
channels listed in Table III.11 of this
document. Further, DOE requests
comment on whether the same
distribution channels are applicable to
installations of new and replacement
PES.
Issue 32: DOE requests information on
the fraction of shipments that are
distributed through the channels shown
in Table III.11 of this document.
Issue 33: DOE seeks comment on its
energy use model. Specifically, DOE
seeks comment on the energy use model
for combination spas, where the
Sysnon-heat variable is normalized with
volume of water portioned to the
standard spa pool.
Issue 34: DOE requests comment on
its approach to estimating annual
operating hours. Additionally, DOE
requests comments on its modeling
assumption that PES would be operated
during the warmest months of the year.
Issue 35: DOE requests comment on
its approach to determining regional
ambient temperatures.
Issue 36: DOE requests data or
comment on the typical operating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
temperature for exercise spas not
capable of maintaining a minimum
temperature of 100 °F. And DOE
requests data or comment on the
distribution of typical operating
temperature for exercise spas not
capable of maintaining a minimum
temperature of 100 °F.
Issue 37: DOE requests data or
comment on the distribution of typical
operating temperature for spas capable
of maintaining a minimum temperature
of 100 °F. And DOE requests data or
comment on the distribution of typical
operating temperature for exercise spas
capable of maintaining a minimum
temperature of 100 °F.
Issue 38: DOE requests comment on
its proposed methodology to project
future equipment prices.
Issue 39: DOE request information or
data related to the past trends in
production costs of PESs. Additionally,
DOE request data or information related
to the cost of PES production over time.
Issue 40: DOE requests comment on
its decision to exclude installation costs
from any future efficiency standard
calculation.
Issue 41: DOE requests data and
details on the installation costs of PESs,
and whether those costs vary by product
type or any other factor affecting their
efficiency.
Issue 42: DOE requests comment on
its use of AEO to project electricity
prices into the future.
Issue 43: DOE requests feedback and
specific data on whether maintenance
costs differ in comparison to the
baseline maintenance costs for any of
the specific efficiency improving
technology options applicable to PESs.
Issue 44: DOE requests comment on
the typical repairs to PESs and how they
may differ in the case of a potential new
energy conservation standard.
Issue 45: DOE requests comment on
its lifetime analysis.
Issue 46: DOE requests comment on
its reasoning and assumption to not
apply a rebound effect to PES stand-by
power energy use.
Issue 47: DOE requests comment on
its stock ratios for hard-sided spas.
Additionally, DOE seeks input on the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
market shares of standard, exercise, and
combination spas.
Issue 48: DOE seeks comment on its
assumed 2020 stock estimates for all spa
types.
Issue 49: DOE requests comment on
its proposed use of future residential
construction to project future shipments
of PESs.
Issue 50: DOE requests comment on
its modeling assumption that PES
efficiency will remaining constant over
time in the absence of potential new
standards.
Issue 51: Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
not specifically be identified in this
document.
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notification of data
availability and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on October 31, 2022,
by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, 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 November 2,
2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022–24290 Filed 11–16–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM
17NOP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69082-69116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24290]
[[Page 69081]]
Vol. 87
Thursday,
No. 221
November 17, 2022
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Portable
Electric Spas; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 69082]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0025]
RIN 1904-AF36
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Portable Electric Spas
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of data availability and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice of data availability (``NODA''), the U.S.
Department of Energy (``DOE'') is publishing data and certain
preliminary analytical results related to DOE's evaluation of potential
energy conservation standards for portable electric spas (``PESs'').
DOE requests comments, data, and information regarding the data and
analysis.
DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before,
January 17, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0025. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0025, by any of the
following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0025 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
To inform interested parties and to facilitate this rulemaking
process, DOE has prepared preliminary analytical data, which is
available on the rulemaking docket at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0025.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, public meeting transcripts, and other
supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0025. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments in the docket. See
section IV.A of this document for information on how to submit comments
through 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-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email [email protected].
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3593. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking Process
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Background
A. Current Process
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Description
2. Potential Product Classes
a. Inflatable Spas
b. Exercise Spas
c. Standard Spas
d. Combination Spas
3. Manufacturers and Industry Structure
4. Other Regulatory Programs
5. Technology Options for Improving Efficiency
a. Insulation
b. Cover
c. Sealing
d. Radiant Barrier
e. Insulated Ground Cover
f. Dedicated Circulation Pump
g. Heat Pump
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Cost Analysis
3. Engineering Results
D. Markups Analysis
1. Distribution Channels
2. Markups
3. Sales Taxes
4. Summary of Markups
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Typical Annual Operating Hours (npy)
3. Ambient Temperature (Tamb)
4. Operating Water Temperature (Top)
5. Annual Energy Use Results
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
1. Inputs to the Life-Cycle Cost Model
a. Inputs to Total Installed Cost
b. Inputs to Operating Costs
2. Product Lifetime
a. Hard-Sided Spas
b. Inflatable Spas
3. Rebound Effect
4. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
5. Discount Rates
6. Payback Period Analysis
7. Consumer Results
G. Shipments Analysis
1. Approach To Shipments and Stock Models
2. Initial Stock Estimates
a. Hard-Sided Spas Stock
b. Inflatable Spas Stock
3. Product Saturations
4. Determining Annual Spa Shipments
a. Initial Shipments
b. New Spa Shipments
c. Spa Replacements
d. Demolitions
e. Product Lifetimes
f. Future Portable Electric Spa Shipments
g. Calculating Shipments and Stock
5. Impacts of Increased Product Costs on Shipments
6. Results for 30-Years of Shipment (2029-2058)
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
a. Site-to-Power-Plant Energy Conversion Factors
b. Full-Fuel Cycle Multipliers
3. Net Present Value Analysis
4. Candidate Standard Levels
5. Results for 30-Years of Shipments (2029-2058)
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
[[Page 69083]]
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
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 B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which, in
addition to identifying particular consumer products and commercial
equipment as covered under the statute, permits the Secretary of Energy
to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) In a notice of final determination of coverage
(``NOFD'') published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2022
(``September 2022 NOFD''), DOE classified PESs as a covered product
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1) after determining that classifying
PESs as a covered product is necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of EPCA and that average annual household energy use for PESs
is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per year. 87 FR 54123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relevant purposes of EPCA include:
(1) To conserve energy supplies through energy conservation
programs, and, where necessary, the regulation of certain energy uses;
and
(2) To provide for improved energy efficiency of motor vehicles,
major appliances, and certain other consumer products. (42 U.S.C.
6201(4) and (5))
First, DOE determined that the coverage of PESs is both necessary
and appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA on the basis of
market data, the existence of technology options for improving energy
efficiency of PESs, and supporting argument of commenters in response
to the notice of proposed determination of coverage. 87 FR 54123,
54125-54126.
DOE then determined that estimated household energy use was likely
to exceed 100 kWh/year based on market data and certification data
reported to the California Energy Commission's (``CEC'') Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System (``MAEDbS'').\3\ In the September
2022 NOFD, DOE had estimated average energy consumption of 1,699 kWh
per year per household, which matched estimates submitted by commenters
in response to the notice of proposed determination of coverage. Id. at
87 FR 54126-54127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CEC Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System.
Available at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov. (last accessed October
26, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having determined that classifying PESs as a covered product was
necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA and that
average annual household energy use for PESs was likely to exceed 100
kilowatt-hours per year, DOE classified PESs as a covered product. Id.
at 87 FR 54127.
Additionally, in the September 2022 NOFD, DOE established a
definition of the term ``portable electric spa,'' which was ``a
factory-built electric spa or hot tub, supplied with equipment for
heating and circulating water at the time of sale or sold separately
for subsequent attachment.'' Id. at 87 FR 54125; see also 10 CFR 430.2.
As PESs are now a covered product, EPCA allows DOE to prescribe an
energy conservation standard for any type (or class) of covered
products of a type specified in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) if the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) are met and the Secretary
determines that--
(A) the average per household energy use within the United States
by products of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kilowatt-hours (or its
Btu equivalent) for any 12-month period ending before such
determination;
(B) the aggregate household energy use within the United States by
products of such type (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kilowatt-hours
(or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12-month period;
(C) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of
such type (or class) is technologically feasible; and
(D) the application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such
type (or class) is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers
to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered
products of such type (or class) which achieve the maximum energy
efficiency which is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notification of determination that standards for
the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)) Not later than three years after issuance of a final
determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice
of determination that standards for the product do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
Under EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))
DOE is publishing this NODA to collect data and information to
inform its decision to establish energy conservation standards for PESs
consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including PESs. As noted, 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 efficiency (or water
efficiency for certain products specified by EPCA) that is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would
not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\4\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products or equipment with relatively constant demand. In evaluating
the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in
primary energy and full-fuel cycle
[[Page 69084]]
(``FFC'') effects for different covered products and equipment when
determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and
FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture
of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE
evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy
savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to
confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 products subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
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. 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.1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible by law.
Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings............. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Energy Analysis.
Technological Feasibility.............. Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
Economic impact on manufacturers Manufacturer Impact
and consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Lifetime operating cost savings Markups for Product
compared to increased cost for the Price Analysis.
product. Energy Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Total projected energy savings..... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Impact on utility or performance... Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis.
Need for national energy and water Shipments Analysis.
conservation. National Impact
Analysis.
Other factors the Secretary Employment Impact
considers relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions
Benefits.\5\
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those
[[Page 69085]]
generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature
justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and
other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) Any rule prescribing such a
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher
or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B))
Before proposing a standard, DOE typically seeks public input on
the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE intends to use to
evaluate standards for the product at issue and the results of
preliminary analyses DOE performed for the product. See section IV.B of
this document for a list of analysis and data on which DOE seeks
comment.
DOE is examining whether to establish energy conservation standards
for PESs pursuant to its obligations under EPCA. This notification
announces the availability of preliminary analytical results and data.
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stage for an energy
conservation standard rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A
specifies that the length of the public comment period for a pre-NOPR
will vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular
rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NODA,
DOE is providing a 60-day comment period, which DOE deems appropriate
given the publication of three antecedent notices relating to PESs, two
of which, themselves, offered opportunity for comment related to PESs
and all of which would be understood by interested parties as a signal
that DOE would be evaluating potential energy conservation standards.
Those three antecedent notices were the proposed determination of
portable electric spas as a covered consumer product (87 FR 8745 (Feb.
16, 2022)), the final determination of portable electric spas as a
covered consumer product (87 FR 54123 (Sept. 2, 2022)), and the
proposed rulemaking for the test procedure for portable electric spas
(87 FR 63356 (Oct. 18, 2022)), respectively. Further, a 60-day comment
period will allow DOE to review comments received in response to this
NODA and use them to inform the analysis of the product considered in
evaluating potential energy conservation standards.
II. Background
A. Current Process
DOE has not previously conducted an energy conservation standards
rulemaking for PESs. As described in section I.A of this NODA, DOE
previously determined that PESs met the criteria for classification as
a covered product pursuant to EPCA and classified PESs as a covered
product. 87 FR 54123.
Following this determination of coverage, DOE published a NOPR
proposing a test procedure for PESs in the Federal Register on October
18, 2022. 87 FR 63356. In that NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by
reference an industry test method published by the Pool and Hot Tub
Alliance (``PHTA'') \6\ in partnership with the International Code
Council (``ICC'') and approved by the American National Standards
Institute (``ANSI''), ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, ``American National
Standard for Portable Electric Spa Energy Efficiency'' (``APSP-14
2019'') with certain exceptions and additions. 87 FR 63356, 63361-
63369. The proposed test method produces a measure of the energy
consumption of PESs (i.e., the normalized average standby power) that
represents the average power consumed by the spa, normalized to a
standard temperature difference between the ambient air and the water
in the spa, while the cover is on and the product is operating in its
default operation mode. Id. at 87 FR 63361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The PHTA is a result of a 2019 merger between the
Association of Pool and Spa Professionals (``APSP'') and the
National Swimming Pool Foundation (``NSPF''). The reference to APSP
has been retained in the ANSI designation of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments received to date as part of the coverage determination
rulemaking have helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the
NODA.
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
For the product covered in this NODA, DOE conducted in-depth
technical analyses in the following areas: (1) engineering; (2) markups
to determine product price; (3) energy use; (4) life cycle cost
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP''); and (5) national impacts. The
preliminary analytical results that present the methodology and results
of each of these analyses that are not included in the body of this
notice are available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0025. Specifically, DOE is making available the following data and
analysis:
(1) Approved and Archived Portable Electric Spas exported from the
CEC's Meads. Data as of August 8, 2022.
(2) DOE's testing results for a simple inflatable portable electric
spa. Testing followed methods specified in APSP-14 2019 and attempted
to isolate the effects of various test conditions and design options.
(3) Reference table for DOE's proposed efficiency levels for non-
inflatable and inflatable portable electric spas, including particular
changes in specifications and the estimated effects on energy
consumption and costs thereof.
DOE also conducted, and has included in this NODA, several other
analyses that either support the major analyses or are preliminary
analyses that will be expanded if DOE determines that a NOPR is
warranted to propose new energy conservation standards. These analyses
include: (1) the market and technology assessment; (2) the screening
analysis, which contributes to the engineering analysis; and (3) the
shipments analysis, which contributes to the LCC and PBP analysis and
the national impact analysis (``NIA''). In addition to these analyses,
DOE has begun preliminary work on the
[[Page 69086]]
manufacturer impact analysis and has identified the methods to be used
for the consumer subgroup analysis, the emissions analysis, the
employment impact analysis, the regulatory impact analysis, and the
utility impact analysis. DOE will expand on these analyses in the NOPR
should one be issued.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including general characteristics of the products, the
industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and
technologies used in the products. This activity includes both
quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly
available information. The subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment include: (1) a determination of the scope of the
rulemaking and product classes; (2) manufacturers and industry
structure; (3) existing efficiency programs; (4) shipments information;
(5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of the product.
1. Product Description
DOE referred to PES product literature and to its communications
with spa manufacturers to inform its understanding of the technology
and the different types of products within the industry. Relevant
product literature includes APSP-14 2019, the current industry test
procedure and energy conservation standards, materials related to state
rulemakings, academic papers, and marketing materials.\7\ In
particular, DOE also made significant use of the following sources: the
final staff report for CEC's 2018 Appliance Efficiency Rulemaking for
Spas, ``Analysis of Efficiency Standards and Marking for Spas;'' \8\
the Codes and Standards Enhancement (``CASE'') Initiative submission
from California investor-owned utilities in support of CEC's 2012
rulemaking for spas, ``Analysis of Standards Proposal for Portable
Electric Spas;'' \9\ a 2018 graduate thesis from California State
University, Sacramento, ``Improving Energy Efficiency of Portable
Electric Spas by Improving Its Thermal Conductivity Properties;'' \10\
and a 2012 graduate thesis from California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, ``Measurement and Analysis of the Standby
Power of Twenty-Seven Portable Electric Spas.'' \11\ PES manufacturers
were contacted via the PHTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ APSP-14 2019 is available at: webstore.ansi.org/standards/apsp/ansiapspicc142019.
\8\ California Energy Commission. ``Final Staff Report--Analysis
of Efficiency Standards and Marking for Spas.'' February 2, 2018.
\9\ Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative.
``Analysis of Standards Proposal for Portable Electric Spas.'' May
15, 2014.
\10\ Ramos, Nestor. ``Improving Energy Efficiency of Portable
Electric Spas by Improving Its Thermal Conductivity Properties.''
Spring, 2018.
\11\ Hamill, Andrew. ``Measurement and Analysis of the Standby
Power of Twenty-Seven Portable Electric Spas.'' September, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APSP-14 2019 defines a spa as ``a product intended for the
immersion of persons in temperature-controlled water circulated in a
closed system'' and a portable electric spa as ``a factory-built
electric spa or hot tub, supplied with equipment for heating and
circulating water at the time of sale or sold separately for subsequent
attachment.'' DOE adopted this definition of ``portable electric spa''
without modification in the September 2022 NOFD. 87 FR 54123, 54125.
Integral heating and circulation equipment are features that
distinguish PESs from similar products in inflatable or above-ground
pools and therapy bathtubs or permanent residential spas, respectively.
Beyond these characteristic features, PESs often also include chemical
systems for water sanitation as well as features such as additional
lighting, audio systems, and internet connectivity for more precise and
accessible spa monitoring.
DOE requests comment on the previous description of the target
technology and the scope of this product, including whether any
modifications or additions are necessary to characterize this product.
2. Potential Product Classes
DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of
product that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines
that products within such group: consume a different kind of energy
from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or
class); or have a capacity or other performance-related feature which
other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature
justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In
determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different
standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the
utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (Id.) Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
DOE observed several distinguishable categories of products in the
PES market that provide consumers with unique utility that could
necessitate a different standard level for energy consumption.
a. Inflatable Spas
Inflatable spas are characterized by collapsible and storable
bodies. They are usually made of a flexible polyvinyl chloride
(``PVC'') plastic tub, which is filled with air during use and which
connects to a control unit external to the tub but still integral to
the product as distributed in commerce. Inflatable spas are often used
seasonally and, during seasons when inflatable spas are not in use,
they are often deflated and put in storage. Correspondence with
inflatable spa manufacturers indicated that inflatable spas provide
unique utility as a result of their low price relative to other
portable electric spas and their ability to be collapsed and moved more
easily than other spas. Inflatable spas often have maximum water
temperatures settings greater than 100 [deg]F, and the PVC construction
that allows them to be less expensive and collapsible also decrease
their ability to retain heat. This characteristic generally makes the
power demand of inflatable spas higher than that of other portable
electric spas. As a result, DOE tentatively concludes that inflatable
spas are not able to be subject to the same energy consumption limits
as other spas.
b. Exercise Spas
Exercise spas are characterized by their large size and ability to
generate a water flow strong enough to allow for physical activity such
as swimming in place. Exercise spas are usually composed of a
rectangular rigid synthetic plastic cabinet topped with a rigid vacuum-
formed acrylic shell. The cavity between the cabinet and acrylic shell
houses components such as pumps and heaters and also allows for dense
insulating materials to help the spa retain heat. Exercise spas provide
unique utility in their capacity to facilitate physical activity inside
the spa for a person as large as the 99th Percentile Man as specified
in ANSI/APSP/ICC-16.\12\ Exercise spas may have maximum water
temperatures settings above or below 100 [deg]F. According to
manufacturers, consumers tend to set the water temperature of exercise
spas to less than 100 [deg]F when using exercise
[[Page 69087]]
spas for physical activity. And exercise spas' capacity to house dense
insulation makes them able to retain heat and reduce energy consumption
more than inflatable spas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ANSI/APSP/ICC-16 is available at https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/apsp/ansiapspicc162017PA2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Standard Spas
Standard spas are neither collapsible nor designed for use in
recreational physical activities. Like exercise spas, they are
typically composed of rigid plastic cabinets affixed to an acrylic
shell. However, they may also be constructed of other rigid materials.
DOE is aware of some standard spas whose exteriors are made entirely of
rotationally molded plastic. Standard spas are not designed to generate
a water flow strong enough to allow for swimming in place and are
usually not large enough to allow for a person to swim in place.
Standard spas offer unique utility in comparison to inflatable spas in
that they typically have more and higher performance jet pumps, as well
as the capacity for more additional features such as lights, water
features, or stereo systems. Standard spas usually have maximum water
temperature settings of above 100 [deg]F. Like exercise spas, the rigid
and relatively large space between the perimeter of the spa and the spa
shell allows for dense insulation, which makes standard spas able to
reduce energy consumption more than inflatable spas.
d. Combination Spas
Combination spas are single contiguous spas consisting of distinct
exercise spa and standard spa sections, each of which has an
independent control for the setting of water temperature. Combination
spas provide unique utility in their capacity to provide distinct
reservoirs intended for physical activity and also therapy and leisure.
Like standard and exercise spas, combination spas are able to house
dense insulation, increasing their ability to retain heat and to lower
their energy consumption.
DOE's descriptions of these potential product classes were largely
informed by the current industry standard, APSP-14 2019. In this NODA,
standard spas, exercise spas, and combination spas are sometimes
collectively referred to as ``non-inflatable'' spas or ``hard-sided''
spas. And in this NODA, inflatable spas are often treated separately
because their construction is associated with limited technology
options and higher energy consumption. Exercise spas, standard spas,
and combination spas, however, are often treated similarly as non-
inflatable spas.
DOE requests comment on whether the distinction between categories
of PESs, as described in section III.A.2 of this NODA, is significant
enough to warrant the establishment of different product classes for
each type.
3. Manufactures and Industry Structure
The PES market is largely split between inflatable spas, standard
spas, and exercise and combination spas, with each type catering to
different consumer segments that do not significantly overlap.
Similarly, there is no significant overlap between the manufacturers of
inflatable spas and non-inflatable spas, although one manufacturer will
often make all of the standard, exercise, and combination spas. The
inflatable spa market is concentrated in a small number of
manufacturers characterized by large production volumes, vertical
integration, and manufacturing plants located outside of the United
States. The market for non-inflatable spas, however, is more fragmented
among manufacturers who purchase most spa components and whose
manufacturing plants are located in North America. Manufacturers of
both inflatable and non-inflatable spas often produce models under
multiple brands. In particular, manufacturers of non-inflatable spas
may also offer different brands, and even product lines within a brand,
at multiple price points. Features that tend to correlate to the price
point of a spa include the number and strength of therapy jets, the
quality of cabinet materials, and the presence of additional features,
such as lighting or stereo systems.
DOE requests comment on the above description of the PES
manufacturers and the PES industry structure and whether any other
details are necessary for characterizing the industry or for
determining whether energy conservation standards for PESs might be
justified.
4. Other Regulatory Programs
As part of its analysis, DOE surveyed existing regulatory programs
concerning the energy consumption of PESs. These regulatory programs
include both programs that enforce mandatory limits in their respective
jurisdictions and voluntary programs. The first such mandatory program
was CEC's mandatory Title 20 regulations concerning PESs, which were
adopted in 2004. Over the next decade, four other states adopted
mandatory standards, in some cases following CEC's regulations and, in
other cases, creating their own, such as Arizona's Title 44 adopted in
2009. In 2014, PHTA created the first iteration of a voluntary industry
standard in APSP-14 2014, which measures and sets limits for the energy
required to maintain the set temperature and circulate water while the
spa is not in use, known as ``standby power.''
The most recent development in test procedures and energy
conservation standards for PESs was the publication of APSP-14 2019 in
2019. This revised version of the APSP-14 (i.e., APSP-14 2019) was
created in collaboration with CEC and was promptly adopted as
California's new standard. The 2019 version revised some test methods
and lowered the maximum allowable standby power for exercise and
combination spas from those in APSP-14 2014. APSP-14 2019 also included
standby power limits for inflatable spas for the first time. As of July
2022, nine states have adopted APSP-14 2019, three states have adopted
the previous version APSP-14 2014, and Arizona and Connecticut follow
Arizona's 2009 Title 44 provisions and California's 2006 Title 20
provisions, respectively.
DOE is also aware of standards in the European Union and Canada.
The European Union standard, CSN EN 17125, covers a wider range of
products and concerns safety requirements and test methods for energy
consumption.\13\ CSN EN 17125 specifies labeling requirements for
energy consumption but does not specify a maximum limit for the energy
consumption of PESs. A Canadian national standard, Energy Performance
of Hot Tubs and Spas, reaffirmed in 2021, (``CSA C374:11''), provides
both a test method and energy performance requirements for PESs.\14\
CSA C374:11 cites CEC's Title 20, and its test procedure and energy
conservation standards are similar to those in APSP-14 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CSN EN 17125 is available at: https://www.en-standard.eu/csn-en-17125-domestic-spas-whirlpool-spas-hot-tubs-safety-requirements-and-test-methods/.
\14\ CSA C374:11 (R2021) is available at: https://www.csagroup.org/store/product/2703317/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests information on any voluntary or mandatory test
procedure and energy conservation standards for PESs that are not
mentioned in section III.A.4 of this NODA.
5. Technology Options for Improving Efficiency
DOE reviewed product literature and conducted manufacturer
interviews to survey the technologies that could lower the normalized
average standby power of a PES and are currently available for use in
the portable electric spa market. To identify the most relevant
technology
[[Page 69088]]
options, DOE researched the components of PESs that consume energy and
the design characteristics that affect energy consumption. DOE's
research and data submitted by manufacturers suggest that the most
substantial energy uses of a portable electric spa in standby mode are
the energy use associated with maintaining the water temperature and
circulating the water. As a result, DOE's analysis considered
technology options that focus on these two systems. Because their
designs are quite different, inflatable spas and non-inflatable spas
have different instances of applicable technology options, although the
engineering motivations behind the types of technology options are
similar. DOE's research did not identify reasons that technology
options would differ between standard spas, exercise, and combination
spas. Accordingly, the same technology options are considered for each
spa variety.
DOE seeks comment generally on the descriptions of relevant energy-
saving technology options as described in section III.A.5 of this
document, including whether any options require revised or additional
details to characterize each option's effects on a PES's energy
consumption.
a. Insulation
To minimize heat losses, PESs require insulating materials between
the hot spa water and cool ambient air. This NODA uses the unmodified
term ``insulation'' to refer to the insulation in the walls and floor
of the spa, as opposed to any insulating materials in the cover. In
non-inflatable spas, this material is often a polyurethane spray foam,
which is applied to the bottom of the spa shell. Foam can also be
applied in sheets inside the perimeter of the spa cabinet. Foam
insulation can be any selected thickness, with the maximum amount of
foam known as ``full-foam'' insulation, which entirely fills the space
between the spa shell and the cabinet. Even in full-foam applications,
however, foam or other insulating materials cannot totally encapsulate
a spa's pumps or heating element. The most typical foam used has a
density of 0.5 pounds per cubic foot. Both thicker and denser
insulation increase, up to a point, the total R-value of the
insulation, which then reduces the energy consumption of spas. However,
the marginal effectiveness of thicker or denser insulation in the walls
and floor, as measured in R-value, decreases progressively. Although in
practice foam may be added in arbitrary increments, the efficiency
analysis in section III.C.1 considers two specific levels of additional
insulation. The first corresponds to R-6 added in the spa's wall
sections to prevent heat loss from the water outward to the ambient air
and to R-3.5 added in the floor section to prevent heat loss from the
water downward to the ground. The second corresponds to R-6 added in
the wall sections. The efficiency analysis also considers a design
option in which two inches of 0.5 pound per cubic foot of foam is
replaced with 2 pound per cubic foot of foam.
Inflatable spas are typically only insulated by air pockets, their
PVC material, and flexible foam integrated into their covers and,
especially, into attachable ``jackets.'' To maintain its collapsible
and storable characteristics, however, many other methods of adding
foam or other insulating materials to non-inflatable spas are not
applicable. In response to mandatory energy consumption limits in some
jurisdictions, some inflatable spa manufacturers developed a
``jacket,'' which has foam integrated into it and surrounds the
inflated spa. During correspondence with DOE, inflatable manufacturers
reported that such a jacket or a similar design is necessary for
reducing the energy consumption below maximum levels as specified by
the most recent industry and CEC standards.
DOE seeks comment regarding use of additional or improved
insulation as a technology option for PESs and, in particular, what
would limit adding further insulation to a PES.
b. Cover
Heat loss, which drives PES energy consumption, can also occur
through the top face of a spa, in addition to through the walls and
floor. Covers prevent this heat loss by acting as an insulator against
conductive heat transfer and also as a convection and vapor barrier to
maintain high humidity levels above the water surface, thus preventing
evaporative cooling. In non-inflatable spas, spa covers are typically
made of rigid polystyrene foam panels wrapped in moisture barriers and
protective vinyl sheaths. Most covers on non-inflatable spas have a
central hinge, which allows consumers to remove and otherwise handle
them more easily. The hinge is typically created by joining two pieces
of rigid foam with a patch of vinyl. To allow for easy folding, there
is typically a space of one to two inches between the two sections.
This design is known as a ``dual-hinged'' design because either half
may be lifted first. Like insulation in the body of non-inflatable
spas, the main method for increasing the thermal resistance of a cover
is to increase its thickness or density. Also, like insulation in the
body of an inflatable spa, the marginal effectiveness of additional
cover thickness or density decreases as the thickness or density
increase. Product literature and online retail data suggest that the
ranges of cover thicknesses and densities available are two inches to
six inches and one pound per cubic foot to two pounds per cubic foot,
respectively.
Inflatable spa covers consist of thin flexible foam material that
is about one-half inch thick and surrounded by a flexible PVC tarp. In
lieu of additional foam that would reduce the cover's ability to
collapse or to be stored, some inflatable spa manufacturers distribute
spas with inflatable inserts, which end users may place in a pouch on
the bottom of the cover. These inserts reduce the heat loss through the
top face of the spa by adding additional insulating pockets of air
between the water and ambient air and by improving the seal of the
cover.
DOE seeks comment regarding use of improved covers as a technology
option for PESs and, in particular, what would limit further energy
performance increases of PES covers.
c. Sealing
A particularly important aspect of the performance of a spa cover
is that it largely depends on the extent to which the cover is able to
create an airtight seal between the area above the spa's water and the
area surrounding the spa. Inadequate seals allow air to exchange
between each area, resulting in heat losses through evaporation and
convection. Areas through which air typically escapes are around the
edge of the cover, where the cover meets the flange created by the top
of the spa shell, and the central double-hinging area of the cover, if
the cover does have a hinge. A common method of addressing the seal
around the edge of the cover is by ensuring both the spa flange and the
bottom of the cover are as flat as possible. To address air leaks
through a hinge in the cover, manufacturers might insert a separate
piece of foam to fill the gap between each half of the cover created by
the hinge. This ``hinge seal'' is also composed of rigid foam sheathed
in a protective material, such as vinyl, and is connected to the
stretch of material connecting each section of the spa cover. The hinge
seal is not connected to each section, however, allowing for easy
folding. Manufacturers might also opt for a ``single-hinged'' folding
design, in which there is no space gap between vertical edges of each
spa cover sections. Instead, the edges of each
[[Page 69089]]
section of the cover are angled, with one overlapping the other. This
design eliminates the gap between sections. With this design, only the
section of the cover resting on top of the other at the hinge can be
lifted first. Covers can typically be buckled into position, but
manufacturers and product literature suggest that, when fastened, these
buckles do not to a large extent affect the seal but are mostly
intended for safety. Correspondence with manufacturers has also
suggested that the cover cannot be perfectly sealed. Because pressure
will build as a result of thermal expansion and contraction of interior
air and water, as well as from the potential addition of air through
jets, some amount of air will be forced to escape through even very
fortified spa covers.
Manufacturers have indicated to DOE that similar sealing strategies
addressing air from leaking out of the spa cabinet could also reduce a
spa's normalized average standby power. However, DOE did not identify
evidence of air leakage through spa regions other than the cover.
Accordingly, no technology options or technologies were analyzed that
explicitly address the sealing of other areas than the cover of the
spa.
DOE seeks comment regarding use of improved sealing as a technology
option for PESs, regarding whether air leakage is significant at PES
locations other than the cover, and regarding what would limit further
sealing improvements energy performance increases of PES covers.
d. Radiant Barrier
The insulation and sealing methods described previously reduce
conductive and convective heat losses, respectively. Energy can also
leave the spa through radiative heat transfer. This type of heat
transfer can be reduced by the application of a radiant barrier that
reflects radiation back toward the center of the spa. Commonly
available radiant barriers are composite ``thermal blankets'' made of a
thin insulating material, such as bubble wrap, with reflective foil on
both of its sides. DOE is aware of several manufacturers who use such a
material or similar ones as a method of reducing their spas' heat
losses. Correspondence with manufacturers and DOE's own research
indicates that radiant barriers require an air gap between them and the
radiating heat source to be effective. Like insulation, the marginal
effectiveness of radiant barriers decreases as the spa reduces its heat
losses via other methods.
DOE seeks comment on the description of radiant barriers and data
on the relative effects of radiant barriers when paired with different
amounts of insulation and different thicknesses of adjacent air gaps.
e. Insulated Ground Cover
To reduce heat conducted from the bottom of a spa to the ground, it
is possible to install spas on top of a layer of insulating material.
While non-inflatable spas are not typically distributed with such
layers, an example of this application is in the current industry test
procedure, APSP-14 2019, which allows for spas to be placed on top of
two inches of polyisocyanurate sheathed with at least half an inch of
plywood during testing. Inflatable spas, however, are often distributed
with thin foam mats meant to be placed underneath the spas. These mats
are typically to protect them from debris which might puncture the
spas' PVC material. DOE has also observed similar, thicker ground
covers available for purchase, which are marketed on the basis of their
insulating capacities in addition to protective capacities. These
thicker ground covers reduce the conductive heat transfer through the
bottom of the spa to the ground. Based on their expected effectiveness
and availability on the market, DOE considered insulated ground covers
as a viable technology option for inflatable PESs.
For this NODA, DOE did not explicitly model the addition of an
insulated ground cover as a technology option for non-inflatable PESs
because it remains unclear how DOE's proposed test procedure for PESs
may affect manufacturers' installation instructions (e.g., to use an
insulated ground cover) and consequently typical PES installation
configurations. Additionally, existing performance data for PESs does
not typically disclose presence of an insulated ground cover. Due to
this uncertainty and the fact that such an addition into DOE's model
would change the effects of other design options, DOE employed the more
conservative approach of not modeling insulated ground covers as a
technology option for non-inflatable PESs in this NODA. However, DOE
may do so in the future as indicated by comment or data. In contrast to
the approach taken for non-inflatable PESs, DOE did include insulated
ground covers as a technology option for inflatable spas because of the
abundance of currently available products marketed as insulating ground
covers for that spa type.
DOE requests comment regarding whether insulated ground covers
warrant inclusion in the set of technology options for non-inflatable
PESs, including whether non-inflatable PESs are typically installed on
top of insulated ground covers and whether that installation would be
likely to change in view of the proposed DOE test procedure (see 87 FR
63356).
f. Dedicated Circulation Pump
Most non-inflatable spas use two-speed jet pumps for powering
therapy jets and for water circulation. These jet pumps operate at high
speed when powering therapy jets and low speed when used only for
circulation purposes. The overall efficiency of a pump depends on
several factors, including the hydraulic efficiency of the impeller and
casing, the geometry of the plumbing system, and the electrical
efficiency of the pump's motor. However, it is possible to simplify the
comparison of the efficiencies of two differently sized pumps operating
at the same motor speed. In general, when a pump operates at a motor
speed significantly lower than its maximum motor speed on a given
plumbing system, it will be less efficient than a smaller pump
operating at its maximum motor speed on that same plumbing system.
Consequently, a pump configuration more efficient than a single two-
speed pump is two single-speed pumps, including a higher horsepower
pump sized for operating therapy jets and a lower horsepower pump sized
for filtration purposes. DOE is aware that pump inefficiencies may
manifest as waste heat, which, if absorbed by the spa water, would
reduce the load on the heating element and ultimately may mitigate the
effects of a relatively inefficient pump and pump motor. The extent to
which this waste heat is captured is still being investigated. Although
in practice two-speed pumps and dedicated circulation pumps vary in
power consumption, and the amount of waste heat will depend on how a
given pump motor dissipates heat and on a spa's insulation, the
efficiency analysis in section III.C.1 considers just two estimated
values for water circulation: one associated with using the low-speed
setting of a two-speed pump, and one associated with using a one-speed
dedicated circulation pump. DOE did not evaluate dedicated circulation
pumps as a technology option for inflatable spas because inflatable
spas typically use a one-speed dedicated circulation pump and a
separate air blower for massage jets.
DOE seeks comment and data on the degree to which two-speed pump
inefficiencies manifest as waste heat and to which that waste heat is
absorbed by the spa's water.
[[Page 69090]]
g. Heat Pump
DOE is aware of the existence of heat pumps marketed for use with
PESs. Heat pumps would require less power as a heat source than the
electric resistance heaters typically used in the PES industry. DOE is
aware of at least one manufacturer of heat pump models marketed for use
with spas explicitly.\15\ However, heat pumps designed for use with
portable electric spas appear otherwise absent in the market. DOE is
unaware of portable electric spas that are equipped with heat pumps by
their manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Arctic Heat Pumps. Arctic Titanium Heat Pump for Swimming
Pools and Spas--015ZA/B. Available at www.arcticheatpumps.com/arctic-titanium-heat-pump-for-swimming-pools-and-spas-heats-chills-11-700-btu-dc-inverter.html. (last accessed August 5, 2022) The
2022-08-05 material from this website is available in docket 2022-
BT-STD-0025 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the one spa-compatible heat pumps supplier that DOE identified,
models list coefficients of performance \16\ that range from 3.16 to
6.2, though at lower output temperatures than those typical of PESs. In
general, heat pump performance declines as a function of increase of
the thermal gradient across which they operate. However, DOE did not
obtain data to extrapolate those values to higher temperatures. In
general, heat pump performance declines as a function of increase of
the thermal gradient across which they operate. Additionally, DOE did
not obtain data regarding how heat pumps would affect installation cost
if non-integral units required separate mounting, plumbing, and
electrical connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Coefficient of performance (``COP'') is a figure
characterizing the relative performance of heat pumps. It represents
the ratio of heat transferred to the input energy required to
transfer it. A higher COP indicates less energy consumed to per unit
of heat delivered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, for this NODA, heat pumps were not included in the set
of design options modeled in the engineering analysis due to lack of
sufficient data and limited availability. If warranted, DOE may model
the addition of a heat pump as a technology option in future analysis.
DOE requests comment regarding whether heat pumps would be likely
to reduce energy consumption in PESs and, if so, quantified estimates
of the effects of heat pump integration on both energy consumption and
manufacturer production cost.
DOE requests comment regarding the availability of heat pumps
compatible with PESs.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered
further.
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States at the time, that technology
will not be considered further.
Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
that technology will not be considered further.
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 part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
If DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis.
In the case of PESs, DOE has tentatively determined that no
technology options identified in section III.A.5 met the criteria for
screening. Accordingly, all technology options identified in section
III.A.5 were considered during the engineering analysis, with the
exception of heat pumps and insulated ground covers (for non-inflatable
spas only), which are not explicitly analyzed as design options for
reasons discussed in section III.A.5 of this NODA.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of PESs. 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 PESs cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
PESs, DOE considered technologies and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class of PES,
DOE estimated the manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') for the
baseline as well as higher efficiency levels. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the
NIA).
DOE converts the MPC to the manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') by
applying a manufacturer markup. The MSP is the price the manufacturer
charges its first customer, when selling into the PES distribution
channels. The manufacturer markup accounts for manufacturer non-
production costs and profit margin. DOE developed the manufacturer
markup by examining publicly available financial information for
manufacturers of the covered product.
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE selected efficiency levels to analyze by identifying baseline
units for non-inflatable and inflatable spas, evaluating the effects of
efficiency design options on those units, and extrapolating the results
to spas of other sizes. The baseline unit is intended to be
representative of the most consumptive spas available in the market.
For non-inflatable spas, DOE identified ``Spa J'' from the 2012 study
``Measurement and Analysis of the Standby Power of Twenty-Seven
Portable Electric Spas'' as the baseline unit.\17\ For inflatable spas,
DOE acquired a sample unit and measured its performance without the
additional features that make it compliant with CEC energy conservation
standards (and, by extension, with APSP-14 2019). The results of those
tests were considered to be representative of the most consumptive
inflatable spas on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Hamill, Andrew. ``Measurement and Analysis of the Standby
Power of Twenty-Seven Portable Electric Spas.'' September, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on its selection of the baseline unit, including
whether any other units on the market would
[[Page 69091]]
better represent the most consumptive spas available for purchase.
The non-inflatable spa baseline unit was identified on the basis of
its fill volume and normalized average standby power. However, no
information was available regarding its features and, in particular,
its insulation characteristics. To predict the effects of technologies
and design option combinations on the non-inflatable baseline unit, it
was necessary to estimate insulation levels of the model's spa cabinet.
To do this estimate, a simplified model of the energy consumption of
PESs was created, which accepts spa specifications, including fill
volume, linear dimensions, and insulation type, and predicts the
normalized average standby losses of a spa. Predictions were made for a
subset of spas in MAEDbS on which DOE collected additional data through
brochures and other marketing materials, and predictions were then
compared to values reported in MAEDbS. By establishing a relationship
between the amount of insulation and normalized average standby power,
it was possible to estimate the amount of insulation in the non-
inflatable baseline unit, Spa J. Additionally, Spa J was reported to be
tested with a cover better than other covers observed to be available
on the market. Using the energy consumption model, the normalized
average standby power was approximated for Spa J if it had been fitted
with a cover of a lower R-value. The energy consumption model is
described in more detail below.
DOE's research and correspondence with manufacturers indicate that
the drivers of PESs' energy consumption in standby mode are: (1) heat
losses, and (2) the energy demands of filtration. In addition to the
energy consumption of the filtration system, there are small power
demands, such as that of a spa's controls unit, that are also modeled
as constant with size. In DOE's analysis, the energy consumption of the
filtration system and other wattage inputs, which are constant with
size and do not contribute to water heating, are collectively referred
to as ``non-heat losses.'' In the energy consumption model, these non-
heat losses were modeled as constant with size and were discretized
into two potential values for non-inflatable spas--a larger value for
spas that use the low-speed setting of high-hp pumps for filtration,
and a smaller value for spas that use a better-sized dedicated
circulation pump for filtration purposes. Only one value for non-heat
losses was estimated for inflatable spas, which typically already use
dedicated circulation pumps for filtration and separate air blowers for
massage jets. The estimated values for non-heat losses are summarized
in the table below. The ``High HP 2-Speed Pump'' column represents the
non-heat losses associated with a high horsepower two-speed pump for
non-inflatable spas and the single speed pump typical for inflatable
spas, while the ``Dedicated Circulation Pump'' column represents non-
heat losses associated with dedicated circulation pump upgrades.
Table III.1--Estimated Non-Heat Losses of PESs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-heat losses
----------------------------------------
Spa type High HP 2-speed Dedicated
pump circulation pump
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spa................... 40 Watts........... 20 Watts.
Exercise Spa................... 40 Watts........... 20 Watts.
Combination Spa................ 40 Watts........... 20 Watts.
Inflatable Spa................. n/a................ 27.25 Watts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the range of filtration system power
demands in PESs as described in Table III.1. DOE also requests comment
on any correlation between power demand and whether a spa uses a high
horsepower two-speed pump or a lower horsepower dedicated circulation
pump.
To calculate a spa's heat loss in standby mode, DOE assumed that a
spa's normalized average standby power loss is approximately equal to
the instantaneous heat loss of a spa held at thermal equilibrium, with
spa water temperature and ambient air temperature held at the values
respectively specified by DOE's proposed test procedure. It is
noteworthy that doing so ignores temperature fluctuations
characteristic of PESs' heating cycles.
DOE accounted for heat losses due to one-dimensional conductive
heat transfer through the walls, floor, and cover of the spa, as well
as heat losses due to convection at the outer wall and due to
radiation. Spas were modelled as thermal circuits consisting of walls,
floor, and cover in parallel with each other. The total thermal
resistance of the walls and floor of the spa depends in part on their
respective thicknesses and, consequently, the shape of the spa shell.
Therefore, a simplified shell configuration consisting of basic upright
seats on every side (i.e., no lounge seats) was considered. As a result
of this assumption, walls were divided into lower-insulation top wall
and higher-insulation bottom wall sections, and the floor was divided
into lower-insulation center and higher-insulation perimeter sections.
In particular, the following simplifications were made regarding the
distance from the spa shell to the spa cabinet:
Table III.2--Measurements of Simplified Model of Non-Inflatable Spa
Shell
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum insulation
Section of spa Description thickness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top of Wall........... The horizontal distance 6 inches.
from the spa cabinet to
the seat backs..
Bottom of Wall........ The horizontal distance 18 inches.
from the spa cabinet to
the wall of the foot
well..
Center of floor....... The vertical distance 3 inches.
from the base of the
spa to the bottom of
the foot well..
Perimeter of floor.... The vertical distance 15 inches.
from the base of the
spa to the bottom of
the seat..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69092]]
In addition to conductive heat transfer, heat losses due to
radiation and convection were estimated. Losses due to radiation were
approximated using the average percent difference between the average
standby losses of spa models units with and without reflective layers
in their insulation. DOE identified those unit pairs and their
differences in standby energy consumption using MAEDbS. DOE also
conducted independent testing on one inflatable spa and one non-
inflatable spa, measuring the energy consumption before and after each
was retrofitted with a reflective radiant barrier. To estimate the
effects of air convection on the outside surfaces of the spa, DOE
selected a convective heat transfer coefficient characteristic of
airflow at the rate specified in DOE's proposed test procedure and
applied it in series with the spa walls, floor, and cover. Although air
leaks are known to affect the heat losses of a spa, DOE did not obtain
data sufficient to characterize the magnitude of their effect.
Accordingly, DOE's energy model does not estimate the effect of air
leaks explicitly. Instead, losses due to air leaks are treated as
included in the losses through bridge sections, as described as
follows.
DOE requests comment on its assumption of a standard shell shape as
described in Table III.2, especially whether it is representative and
whether DOE should consider certain shapes that result in maximum or
minimum amounts of insulation.
DOE requests data and comment on the effectiveness of radiant
barriers in reducing the normalized average standby power of PESs and
on what factors make radiant barriers more or less effective.
DOE requests data and comment on the extent to which spas lose heat
through air convection out of unsealed regions of the spa and on the
factors that affect heat losses due to sealing.
DOE requests comment on the best way to quantify varying degrees of
cover seal, including perimeter seal against the spa flange and hinge
seal through the center of the cover.
The PES energy consumption model system described previously
overlooks several complicating factors. Specifically, the typical spa's
cabinet holds plumbing, heating equipment, and other components that
not only displace insulation, but also bring hot water closer to the
outside of the spa and even generate their own waste heat, which
escapes the spa or enters the water at unknown proportions. At the same
time, the foam itself is subject to voids and other variations. Rather
than attempting to find an analytical solution that considers factors
such as the number of jets and amount of piping, the physical size of
internal components, or the distance of each from the outside of the
spa, DOE used a simplified model that considers the heat loss through
these ``thermal bridges'' as the amount of heat loss that could not be
predicted by the one-dimensional model described above. DOE used this
assumption to reformulate the thermal circuit of a spa as consisting of
one-part thermal bridge section and one-part insulated section, which
is subdivided into walls, floor, and cover, as described previously.
Bridge sections were modeled as smaller but responsible for a
disproportionate amount of heat flux. Specifically, the proportion of
areas were estimated to be 90 percent insulated area to 10 percent
bridge area. As a result, it was possible to calculate an average R-
value for bridge sections in a spa. Using the average R-value for
bridge sections and the modeled area ratios of insulated area to bridge
area, the energy consumption model calculated total energy use with a
median 0.9 percent error and an average of -4.38 percent error.
DOE requests comment on the method of analyzing thermal bridges as
a single section of low R-value on the spa. Additionally, DOE requests
information about techniques and models which are used in industry to
predict spa performance.
DOE requests comment and data on the discrepancy between heat loss
through the wall where the components are housed and through other
walls.
DOE requests comment on any strategies for considering the effects
of hot water traveling through plumbing on a spa's heat loss.
The R-value of a typical spa's bridge section was important to
infer insulation thickness of Spa J, the chosen baseline unit for non-
inflatable spas. Although Spa J's ``equivalent insulation thickness''
was calculated using the measured heat loss rate, this value cannot be
used to represent the spa's insulation thickness because it does not
consider bridge sections of relatively low thermal resistance.
Consequently, it would underestimate the amount of insulation in Spa J
and overestimate both the space available for additional insulation and
ultimately the amount by which it would be possible to lower heat
losses. Using the average R-value for bridge sections, DOE found what
may be a more representative insulation equivalent resistance, which is
then able to be decomposed into individual walls, cover, and floor
equivalent resistances.
With estimated insulation characteristics for its baseline non-
inflatable spa, it was possible to calculate the expected effects of
additional insulation on the baseline spa's normalized average standby
power consumption. DOE used these calculations to evaluate additional
insulation in the walls of the spa, the floor, and the cover. These
calculations, along with data from DOE's testing a non-inflatable spa
and from the 2012 Hamill study, were used to establish proposed
efficiency levels for non-inflatable spas. DOE selected efficiency
levels in the order of increasing dollar to implement per expected watt
savings using costs described below in the cost analysis.
DOE was also able to conduct its own testing on an inflatable spa
baseline unit. Because DOE's energy consumption model relies to a large
extent on R-values, and as DOE found less data on the R-value of
inflatable spa materials, the effects of most inflatable design options
were related to test data rather than calculations. For design options
utilizing additional insulation and for which DOE did not have test
data, a model similar to the one described previously was used. And
efficiency levels for inflatable spas were chosen in the order of
increasing dollar to implement per expected watt savings, similar to
non-inflatable spas.
After the normalized standby power consumption was calculated for
the baseline non-inflatable and inflatable spas, the standby power of
spas with other volumes was extrapolated using a scaling relationship.
DOE used the relationship defined in APSP-14 2019 standards levels,
which vary energy consumption proportionally to the volume of the spa
raised to the two-thirds power. Several manufacturers recounted during
correspondence with DOE that a constant term was added to the scaling
relationship to account for energy demands unrelated to size during the
most recent revision of APSP-14 2019. Consequently, DOE chose to again
break total standby power losses into heat losses and non-heat losses,
and to scale only heat losses proportionally to volume raised to the
two-thirds power, while holding non-heat losses constant at different
fill volumes.
DOE requests comment describing its appropriation of the scaling
relationship defined in APSP-14 2019 and whether there are any other
traits with which DOE might vary energy consumption.
The efficiency analysis above was informed by data acquired by
testing to the current industry standard test procedure, APSP-14 2019.
However, DOE has proposed a test procedure for PESs, which made it
necessary to
[[Page 69093]]
convert initial results into those which might be expected if spas were
to be tested under that proposed test procedure. In particular, this
conversion accounted for a higher temperature gradient between spa
water and ambient air temperatures during testing, and for the removal
of the foam and plywood foundation allowed by APSP-14 2019.\18\ To
account for the change in temperature gradient, original values were
multiplied by a re-normalization factor of 1.243, the ratio of the
proposed temperature difference of 46 [deg]F to the industry standard
of 37 [deg]F. DOE removed R-13 of insulation from the floor section of
the spa in its model to account for the loss of two inches of
polyisocyanurate foam underneath the spa. While the converted values
will be used for downstream analyses, DOE is also releasing the values
before conversion so that manufacturers may consider them in the
context of existing data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Appendix A of APSP-14 states the following: The floor may
be insulated with 2in. (51mm) thick R-13 polyisocyanurate with
radiant barrier on both sides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on whether there are other factors DOE should
consider in converting normalized average standby power values to
reflect the proposed test procedure.
2. Cost Analysis
DOE gathered data through manufacturer interviews, sample unit
teardowns, and publicly available retail data to estimate the costs of
both whole baseline units and of incremental design options. When
necessary, profit margins for inflatables and non-inflatable spa
manufacturers, as well as certain distributors, were estimated to
convert MPC to MSP to final sale price.
DOE requests comment and data on typical markups from MPC to MSP
and from MSP to final sale price.
Once the costs of baseline units and individual design options were
estimated, DOE investigated a scaling function that could relate the
price of a spa to its fill volume. As a first approximation, DOE
estimated that the cost of a spa would be directly proportional to its
fill-volume to the two-thirds power. DOE analyzed a small sample of
retail data and found that, for units otherwise equal in qualities and
features, such a relationship appears to slightly overestimate the cost
of smaller spas and underestimate the cost of larger spas.
DOE requests comment and data characterizing the relationship
between MPC and the size of a PES and whether there are better methods
for approximating the effects of size changes on MPC than the one
described previously.
DOE requests comment and data characterizing to what degree sales
margins vary with spa size.
3. Engineering Results
The initial results of the efficiency analysis contained the
estimated energy consumption of PESs at each efficiency level, as would
be measured according to the current industry test procedure, APSP-14.
These initial results are not used in the energy use analysis or other
downstream analyses because they do not reflect DOE's proposed test
procedure. However, as manufacturers are most likely to have data as
measured with the current industry standard test procedure, the initial
results of the efficiency analysis are summarized in the tables which
follow. In the sets of efficiency levels for both non-inflatable and
inflatable spas, Efficiency Level 1 is equivalent to the maximum
consumption limit set by APSP-14 2019.
Table III.3--Energy Consumption for Non-Inflatable Spas Using Industry TP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy consumption using industry TP Energy consumption of a 334-
Efficiency level (watts) gal unit (watts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 (Baseline)................................ 40 + 6.88 * Vol 2/3................. 371
1........................................... 40 + 3.75 * Vol 2/3................. 220
2........................................... 40 + 2.92 * Vol 2/3................. 180
3........................................... 40 + 2.74 * Vol 2/3................. 172
4........................................... 40 + 2.74 * Vol 2/3................. 152
5........................................... 40 + 2.63 * Vol 2/3................. 146
6........................................... 40 + 2.38 * Vol 2/3................. 135
7........................................... 40 + 1.88 * Vol 2/3................. 111
8 (Max-Tech)................................ 40 + 1.80 * Vol 2/3................. 107
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.4--Energy Consumption for Inflatable Spas Using Industry TP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy consumption using industry TP Estimated energy consumption
Efficiency level (watts) of a 200-gal unit (watts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 (Baseline)................................ 9.20 * Vol 2/3...................... 315
1........................................... 7.00 * Vol 2/3...................... 239
2........................................... 4.78 * Vol 2/3...................... 164
3(Max-Tech)................................. 4.73 * Vol 2/3...................... 162
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the efficiency levels described in tables
Table III.3 and Table III.4, including whether any do not align with
expected effects design options associated with them, as described in
Table III.7 and Table III.8.
As discussed previously in this document, on October 18, 2022, DOE
proposed a test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of PESs.
87 FR 63356. DOE's proposed test procedure aligns with the current
industry test procedure in many regards, including in its use of
normalized average standby power as a metric for the energy consumption
of PESs. However, DOE's proposed test procedure includes changes to the
specified ambient air temperature and to the amount of insulation
allowed under the spa during
[[Page 69094]]
testing. These changes can be expected to increase the measured
normalized average standby power of all PESs. Section III.C.1 discusses
DOE's method of converting standby power values measured under the
industry test procedure to the values expected if the standby power
values for the same spas were measured under DOE's proposed test
procedure. The converted and final results are summarized in the tables
below. These values are used in the analyses described in later
sections of this document.
The tables below also summarize the expected percent change in
energy consumption on each efficiency level as a result of DOE's
proposed test procedure. The increased temperature gradient is not
expected to affect any efficiency levels differently. However, the
effect of removing additional insulation from underneath the spa will
depend on the amount of foam present in the base section of the spa and
on the presence of other design options. As a result, the percent
change is not constant across efficiency levels. The change in
normalized average standby power at a given efficiency level due to
DOE's proposed test procedure is expected to remain constant for spas
of all volumes at that efficiency level.
Table III.5--Energy Consumption for Non-Inflatable Spa Using Proposed TP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
Energy consumption using consumption of a % Increase from
Efficiency level proposed TP (watts) 334-gal unit industry TP (%)
(watts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 40 + 9.55 * Vol 2/3............. 500 35
1....................................... 40 + 5.37 * Vol 2/3............. 299 36
2....................................... 40 + 4.34 * Vol 2/3............. 249 38
3....................................... 40 + 4.12 * Vol 2/3............. 238 38
4....................................... 40 + 4.02 * Vol 2/3............. 213 40
5....................................... 40 + 3.88 * Vol 2/3............. 207 42
6....................................... 40 + 3.04 * Vol 2/3............. 167 24
7....................................... 40 + 2.73 * Vol 2/3............. 152 37
8....................................... 40 + 2.63 * Vol 2/3............. 147 37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.6--Energy Consumption for Inflatable Spa Using Proposed TP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
Energy consumption using consumption of a % Increase from
Efficiency level proposed TP (watts) 200-gal unit industry TP (%)
(watts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 14.39 * Vol 2/3................. 492 56
1....................................... 12.03 * Vol 2/3................. 411 72
2....................................... 7.50 * Vol 2/3.................. 257 57
3....................................... 7.44 * Vol 2/3.................. 254 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the expected effects of DOE's proposed test
procedure, as described in Table III.5 and Table III.6, including on
whether its effects on normalized average standby power would be
greater than or less than DOE's estimates.
Efficiency levels for PESs were established by estimating the
effects of adding each design option to a representative unit at the
previous efficiency level. The design option, which presented the
lowest cost in dollars per watt expected to be saved, was selected as
characteristic of the next efficiency level. Although potential
standards at different efficiency levels will not prescribe specific
design options, this approach resulted in the possibility of
characterizing each efficiency level by the addition of a specific
design option. DOE's estimates of the cost to manufacture each design
option, as well as the baseline spa, are described in section III.C.2
of this NODA. The characteristic design options and their estimated
costs on 334-gallon non-inflatable spas and a 200-gallon inflatable spa
are summarized in the tables III.7 and III.8.
Table III.7--Characteristic Design Options for Non-Inflatable Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic design option Total MPC for Marginal MPC for
Efficiency level added from previous EL 334-gal unit 334-gal unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... The baseline spa, Spa J, was $3,120 $0
estimated to have R-10 worth of
insulation in the walls and
floor and an R-14 cover.
1....................................... Additional R-6 in the wall 3,186 66
sections and R-3.5 in the floor
section.
2....................................... Additional R-6 in the wall 3,252 66
sections.
3....................................... Additional inch of cover 3,280 28
thickness (equivalent to an
additional R-4).
4....................................... Switch from two-speed pump to 3,405 125
dedicated jet and circulation
pumps.
5....................................... Additional inch of cover 3,433 28
thickness (equivalent to an
additional R-4).
6....................................... Replace two inches of 0.5lb foam 3,607 174
with 2lb foam insulation.
7....................................... Add radiant barrier around 3,697 90
perimeter of spa.
8....................................... Increase cover density from 1lb 3,767 70
foam to 2lb foam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69095]]
Table III.8--Characteristic Design Options for Inflatable Spa Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic design option Total MPC on 200- Marginal MPC on
Efficiency level added from previous EL gal unit 200-gal unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... None............................ $122 $0
1....................................... Flexible foam jacket and 165 43
inflatable cover insert.
2....................................... Additional reflective blanket 297 132
around spa.
3....................................... \1/2\ inch thick foam ground 329 32
cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment and data regarding the design options and
associated estimated costs described in tables Table III.7 and Table
III.8 of this NODA.
Section III.C.2 also discusses the conversion of MPC to MSP using
manufacturer markups, and the scaling relationship used to extrapolate
from the price of the baseline unit to units of other sizes. In
particular, the price of a spa was modeled as growing proportionally to
the fill volume to the two thirds power. The manufacturer markups used
and the ultimate MSP scaling relationships are described in Tables
III.9 and III.10.
Table III.9--Manufacturer Markups by Manufacturer Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Manufacturer types manufacturer
markup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflatable Spa Manufacturer.......................... 1.17
Non-Inflatable Spa Manufacturer...................... 1.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.10--Portable Electric Spa MSP by Volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSP for
Efficiency level MSP for non-inflatable inflatable spas
spas ($) ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................. 92.69 * Vol 2/3....... 4.07 * Vol 2/3
1............................. 94.64 * Vol 2/3....... 5.50 * Vol 2/3
2............................. 98.54 * Vol 2/3....... 9.92 * Vol 2/3
3............................. 103.27 * Vol 2/3...... 10.98 * Vol 2/3
4............................. 111.72 * Vol 2/3...... n/a
5............................. 120.99 * Vol 2/3...... n/a
6............................. 136.22 * Vol 2/3...... n/a
7............................. 154.10 * Vol 2/3...... n/a
8............................. 174.05 * Vol 2/3...... n/a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those estimates describe a relationship between the marginal cost
and the marginal efficiency of a PES as the PES is made progressively
more efficient. The relationship is the basis of analyses described in
sections D, E, F, G, and H of this NODA.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analyses and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step
in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product
to cover business costs and profit margin.
1. Distribution Channels
For this NODA, DOE has identified separate distribution channels
into groups for hard-sided (standard, exercise, and combination) and
inflatable spas. DOE based the market shares on confidential
manufacturer interviews conducted under non-disclosure agreements. For
PESs, the main parties in the distribution chains are shown in Table
III.11.
Table III.11--Distribution Channels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market share (%)
-------------------------------
Index Distribution channel agents Hard-sided Inflatable
spas spas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] 5 ..............
Spa Product Contractor [rarr] Consumer.
2..................................... Manufacturer [rarr] Spa Product Retailer 60 ..............
[rarr] Consumer.
3..................................... Manufacturer [rarr] Big Box Retailer 20 50
[rarr] Consumer.
4..................................... Manufacturer [rarr] Big Box Internet 10 50
Retailer [rarr] Consumer.
5..................................... Manufacturer [rarr] Consumer (direct 5 ..............
sale).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Markups
Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline
efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in
price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental
cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the
baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit
[[Page 69096]]
operating profit before and after new or amended standards.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that it is unlikely that standards would
lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run in
markets that are reasonable competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this NODA, DOE did not develop PES-specific baseline and
incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Instead,
based on supply chain similarities, DOE used the markups analysis
developed for its Pool Heater energy conservation standard as a
proxy.\20\ If DOE decides to pursue minimum efficiency standards for
PESs, DOE will examine the PES supply chain in detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Please see chapter 6 of the Technical Support Document:
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and
Industrial Equipment: Consumer Pool Heaters. DOE. 2022. Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0020-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE applied the following baseline and incremental markups for each
step of the distribution channels listed in Table III.11, which are
shown in Table III.12.
Table III.12--Agent Specific Markups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Incremental
Agent markup markup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wholesaler.............................. 1.41 1.15
Spa Product Retailer.................... 1.76 1.22
Big Box Retailer........................ 1.31 1.07
Big Box Internet Retailer............... 1.31 1.07
Consumer (direct sale).................. 1.70 1.22
Spa Product Contractor.................. 1.40 1.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests information on the existence of any distribution
channels other than the distribution channels listed in Table III.11 of
this document. Further, DOE requests comment on whether the same
distribution channels are applicable to installations of new and
replacement PESs.
DOE requests information on the fraction of shipments that are
distributed through the channels shown in Table III.11 of this
document.
3. Sales Taxes
The sales tax represents state and local sales taxes that are
applied to the consumer product price. The sales tax is a
multiplicative factor that increases the consumer product price.
DOE derived state and local taxes from data provided by the Sales
Tax Clearinghouse.\21\ DOE derived population-weighted average tax
values for each Census Region, as shown in Table III.13.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc. State Sales Tax Rates Along
with Combined Average City and County Rates. July 2021. Available at
https://thestc.com/STrates.stm (Last accessed July 1, 2021.)
\22\ See: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf.
Table III.13--Average Sales Tax Rates by Census Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales tax rate
Census region Description (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................. Northeast.............. 6.90
2.............................. Midwest................ 7.10
3.............................. South.................. 7.36
4.............................. West................... 7.53
---------------
Population-weighted average ....................... 7.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Summary of Markups
Table III.14 summarizes the markups at each stage in the
distribution channel and provides the average sales tax to arrive at
overall markups for the potential product classes considered in this
analysis.
Table III.14--Summary of Markups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Incremental
Equipment class markup markups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard................................ 1.75 1.27
Exercise................................ 1.75 1.27
Combination............................. 1.75 1.27
Inflatable.............................. 1.41 1.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of PESs during stand-by operation at different
efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes and to assess
the energy savings potential of increased PES efficiency. The energy
use analysis estimated the range of energy use of PESs in the field
(i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis
provided the basis for other analyses DOE performed,
[[Page 69097]]
particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in
consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of new
standards.
The energy use analysis uses the energy use models developed in the
engineering analysis. The engineering analysis calculated the rate of
heat loss from the spa as a function of the difference between the spa
operating temperature and the ambient temperature. For this analysis,
DOE developed distributions of binned hourly ambient temperature data
using the dry-bulb temperature from the Typical Meteorological Year 3
(``TMY3'') \23\ weather data as a function of climate zone, as
described in section III.E.3 of this document. The annual energy use
(``AEU'') in kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr) for each climate zone, z,
for all spas, other than combination spas, is expressed as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The TMY data sets hold hourly values of solar radiation and
meteorological elements for a 1-year period. Their intended use is
for computer simulations of solar energy conversion systems and
building systems to facilitate performance comparisons of different
system types, configurations, and locations in the United States and
its territories. Because the values represent typical rather than
extreme conditions, they are not suited for designing systems to
meet the worst-case conditions occurring at a location.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17NO22.000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
AEUz = the annual energy use, in kWh, of the spa installed in
climate zone z; if there are any hours where Tamb exceeds Top, AEU
is set equal to zero,
j = a bin index representing the ambient temperature at which the
spa is operating,
wz,j = the probability of the monthly ambient temperature for
climate zone z,
Sysnon-heat = the energy use of non-heat producing
systems, i.e., water pumps, controls, etc., which does not scale
with spa water volume,
z = climate zone,
Sysheat = a coefficient representing heating system energy use,
which scales with spa water volume,
Vol = the spa's water volume,
Top = the spa's operating temperature (87 for exercise spas, and the
exercise portion of combination spas, 102 for all other products)
([deg]F),
TopTP = the spa's operating temperature as defined in the test
procedure (102 [deg]F),
Tamb j = the ambient temperature ([deg]F),
TambTP = the national average ambient temperature, as defined in the
test procedure (56 [deg]F), and
npyz = number of months of operation per year for PESs installed in
climate zone z.
DOE seeks comment on its energy use model. Specifically, DOE seeks
comment on the energy use model for combination spas, where the Sysnon-
heat variable is normalized with volume of water portioned to the
standard spa pool.
1. Consumer Sample
DOE conducts its analysis in support of a potential new minimum
energy conservation standard at the national level. This means that DOE
must distribute consumers of PES products throughout the nation to
capture variability of key inputs of PES operation. Specifically, for
the annual energy use estimate, DOE had concern regarding distributing
the population of PES installations across different regions to capture
variability in outdoor (ambient) temperatures, which impact PES stand-
by energy consumption. This distribution of installations is referred
to as the ``Consumer Sample.''
For this NODA, DOE used the statistical household data available in
the Energy Information Administration. Residential Energy Consumption
Survey: 2015 (``RECS'').\24\ \25\ DOE used the data from RECS of
households with a hot tub (RECBATH=1, FUELTUB=5, and TYPEHUQ=[2, 3]) to
define the national spatial sample of PES installations over analysis
regions defined by the intersection of census regions r and climate
zones z. The climate zones are those defined in the RECS microdata. The
percent distribution of consumers over census region/climate zone is
provided in Table III.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2015 RECS
Survey Data. 2015. Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/. (Last accessed August 5, 2021.)
\25\ At the time of drafting, the Residential Energy Consumption
Survey has released a new version based on 2020 inputs as a
preliminary analysis. If DOE elects to pursue new minimum efficiency
standards for PESs, DOE will update the consumer sample to the 2020
version of RECS.
[[Page 69098]]
Table III.15--Region and Climate Zone Probabilities of Hot Tub Installations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate zone (z)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census region (r ) Hot-dry/ mixed-
Cold/very cold dry Hot-humid Marine Mixed-humid Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 20.1
2....................................................... 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 22.9
3....................................................... 1.1 0.0 9.8 0.0 14.5 25.4
4....................................................... 8.8 9.0 0.7 13.1 0.0 31.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 44.5 9.0 10.5 13.1 22.9 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Typical Annual Operating Hours (npy)
A key input to the energy use analysis is the number of annual
operating hours of the product. Available data indicated that PESs
operate in stand-by mode for the majority of hours that they are on.
During the process of updating PES standards for California in 2018,
CEC reported a duty cycle between 5,040 hours per year for inflatable
spas (which are intended for seasonal use) and 8,760 hours per year for
standard, exercise, and combination spas.\26\ DOE notes that these
estimates may be typical for California, but are not represented in the
existing data in RECS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Final Staff Report, Analysis of Efficiency Standards and
Marking for Spas, 2018 Appliance Efficiency Rulemaking for Spas
Docket Number 18-AAER-02 TN 222413. See: pg. 35, Available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=222413&DocumentContentId=31256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RECS data include a field (MONTUB) quantifying the number of
months per year that the hot tub is considered in use. For this
analysis, DOE considered the term ``in use'' to mean plugged-in and
running. RECS does not specify which months the spa is in use, only the
quantity of months. Therefore, for this NODA, DOE interpreted these
data as that the spas in RECS will be operating during the warmest
months of the year, as shown in Table III.16. For inflatable PES, DOE
made the modeling assumption that they would be in operation up to a
maximum of warmest 6 months of the year.
Table III.16--Mapping of RECS Months of Operation to Calendar Months
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Months of operation (npy)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan......................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1
Feb......................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 1
Mar......................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 1 1 1
Apr......................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 1 1 1 1 1
May......................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Jun......................................... ....... ....... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Jul......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Aug......................................... ....... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sep......................................... ....... ....... ....... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Oct......................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nov......................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 1 1 1 1
Dec......................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 1 1
Hours/year.................................. 744 1,488 2,208 2,928 3,672 4,416 5,136 5,856 6,600 7,344 8,016 8,760
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used RECS data to estimate the probability that a spa would be
in use npy months per year as a function of climate zone. Given the
sparsity of RECS data and to estimate the probabilities, DOE first
binned the recorded value of MONTUB into 4 bins: 1 to 3 months per
year, 4 to 6 months per year, 7 to 9 months per year, and 10 to 12
months per year. Then DOE calculated the percent of RECS households
falling in each bin for each climate zone. Finally, DOE used the
modelling assumption that the 3 values in each bin are equally
probable. The resulting distribution of the expected number of months
per year (npy) are shown in Table III.17. Once the number of months of
operation is known, the hours of operation are calculated as if the spa
is in operation over the full month.
Table III.17--Assignment of Climate Zone (z) by Months of Operation (npy) for Hard-Sided Spas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot-dry/ mixed-
Months per year (npy) Cold/very cold dry Hot-humid Marine Mixed-humid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.04
2............................... 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.04
3............................... 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.04
4............................... 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.04
5............................... 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06
6............................... 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06
7............................... 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06
8............................... 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06
9............................... 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.15
[[Page 69099]]
10.............................. 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.15
11.............................. 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.15
12.............................. 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.18--Assignment of Climate Zone (z) by Months of Operation (npy) for Inflatable Spas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot-dry/ mixed-
Months per year (npy) Cold/very cold dry Hot-humid Marine Mixed-humid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.13
2............................... 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.13
3............................... 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.13
4............................... 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.13
5............................... 0.16 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.23
6............................... 0.16 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its approach to estimating annual operating
hours. Additionally, DOE requests comment on its modeling assumption
that PES would be operated during the warmest months of the year.
3. Ambient Temperature (Tamb)
For the purposes of the NODA, DOE has made the modeling assumption
that all PESs are installed outdoors and their energy use will be a
function of the ambient temperature of the PESs' location. Losses to
the external environment depend both on how many months per year the
spa operates, and the distribution of ambient temperatures for those
months in the given climate zone. To establish representative hourly
temperatures for each of the PESs' installations as a function of
climate zone (z), DOE calculated the probability distribution of
temperatures, binned into 5 [deg]F segments, denoted j, based on TMY3
data. For this NODA, DOE averaged over one TMY3 weather station for
each state within a climate zone to determine a single hourly
temperature series for each zone, z. For each value of npy, DOE binned
the temperature time series for the appropriate months to create a
distribution. The distribution was normalized by the total number of
hours for that selection of months. The result is a distribution
w(z,j,npy), which defines the percent of hours allocated to each bin j
for climate zone z, with npy months of operation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For the treatment of TMY3 data and mapping weather stations
to regions, climate zones and states please see Appendix 7C or the
Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer
Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Consumer Furnaces.
U.S. Department of Energy. 2022. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example of the probability distribution of ambient temperatures
for PESs operating for 1 and 7 months a year installed in census region
2 (Midwest), which covers climate zones: cold/very cold and mixed-
humid, are shown in Table III.19.
Table III.19--Example Ambient Temperature Probabilities for Census Region 2 (Midwest), Where PESs Are Operated
for 1 and 7 Months per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probability (w)
Temperature bin -------------------------------------
Months of operation npy [deg]F (j ) Cold/very cold
(z) Mixed-humid (z)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................... 62.5 0.095 .................
1...................................................... 67.5 0.223 0.067
1...................................................... 72.5 0.219 0.266
1...................................................... 77.5 0.249 0.215
1...................................................... 82.5 0.172 0.196
1...................................................... 87.5 0.042 0.179
1...................................................... 92.5 ................. 0.077
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. ................. 1.000 1.00
7...................................................... 32.5 0.003 .................
7...................................................... 37.5 0.033 0.001
7...................................................... 42.5 0.052 0.022
7...................................................... 47.5 0.084 0.049
7...................................................... 52.5 0.102 0.071
7...................................................... 57.5 0.117 0.123
7...................................................... 62.5 0.155 0.135
7...................................................... 67.5 0.165 0.156
7...................................................... 72.5 0.134 0.168
7...................................................... 77.5 0.102 0.116
7...................................................... 82.5 0.046 0.099
7...................................................... 87.5 0.008 0.048
7...................................................... 92.5 ................. 0.012
--------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69100]]
Total.............................................. ................. 1.000 1.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative values of the distribution are provided in Table
III.19 for one month of operation and for seven months of operation per
year. In general, the smaller the npy, the more usage is concentrated
in warmer months.
DOE requests comment on its approach to determining regional
ambient temperatures.
4. Operating Water Temperature (Top)
An input to the energy use analysis is the typical stand-by mode
operating temperature of the spa. DOE understands that the typical
operating temperature for any given spa would be determined by the
personal preference of the consumer. Further, DOE understands that all
potential product classes of PESs can be operated over a range of
temperatures, with a recommended safe operating maximum temperature of
104 [deg]F.\28\ DOE recognizes that this maximum temperature would not
apply to exercise spas not capable of maintaining a minimum water
temperature of 100 [deg]F. DOE was unable to find a credible source to
create a lower bound, minimum stand-by operating temperature. In a
guidance document to dutyholders of spas, the Health and Safety
Executive determined a typical operating range of 30-40 [deg]C (86-104
[deg]F).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC Warns of Hot
Tub Temperatures, December 31, 1979. Available at www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/1980/CPSC-Warns-Of-Hot-Tub-Temperatures (Last
accessed: January 14, 2022.)
\29\ The Control of Legionella and Other Infectious Agents in
Spa-Pool Systems, Health and Safety Executive, 2017. Available at
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg282.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For any future potential energy conservation standards for PESs,
DOE tentatively concludes that the typical stand-by mode operating
temperatures aligns with the minimum operating temperatures stated in
APSP-14 2019, and that these temperatures are representative of the
average. These values are shown in Table III.20.
Table III.20--Typical Operating Water Temperature ([deg]F) by Spa
Potential Product Class Defined in
APSP-14 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temp. [deg]F Product class Requirement Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
102 2. the exercise maintaining a
portion of a minimum water
combination spa. temperature of 100
[deg]F.
87 2. the exercise maintaining a
portion of a minimum water
combination spa. temperature of 100
[deg]F.
102 2. standard spa
portion of a
combination spa,
or inflatable spas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For spas capable of maintaining a minimum water temperature of 100
[deg]F, DOE assumed for modelling a single point temperature of 102
[deg]F. For spas not capable of maintaining a minimum water temperature
of 100 [deg]F, DOE assumed for modelling a single point temperature of
87 [deg]F. DOE split the fraction of exercise, and the exercise portion
of combination spas, where 30 percent of installations would operate at
87 [deg]F and the remaining 70 percent of installations would operate
at 102 [deg]F. DOE made the modeling assumption that the spa would be
maintained at this temperature for the operating hours that the spa is
in stand-by mode. However, in the field, DOE expects that spas will be
operated over a range of temperatures to meet the comfort of the
consumer.
DOE requests data or comment on the typical operating temperature
for exercise spas not capable of maintaining a minimum temperature of
100 [deg]F. And DOE requests data or comment on the distribution of
typical operating temperature for exercise spas not capable of
maintaining a minimum temperature of 100 [deg]F.
DOE requests data or comment on the distribution of typical
operating temperature for spas capable of maintaining a minimum
temperature of 100 [deg]F. And DOE requests data or comment on the
distribution of typical operating temperature for exercise spas capable
of maintaining a minimum temperature of 100 [deg]F.
5. Annual Energy Use Results
Table III.21--Average Annual Energy Use by Potential Product Class (kWh/Year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spa type
Efficiency level ---------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Exercise Inflatable Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................................... 8,978 6,869 988 2,570
1............................................... 5,118 3,937 816 1,542
2............................................... 4,182 3,219 511 1,283
3............................................... 3,978 3,063 507 1,228
4............................................... 3,783 2,902 N/A 1,101
5............................................... 3,654 2,803 N/A 1,066
6............................................... 2,894 2,223 N/A 860
[[Page 69101]]
7............................................... 2,605 2,002 N/A 781
8............................................... 2,512 1,931 N/A 756
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers defined in the consumer sample (see section
III.E.1) of potential energy conservation standards for PESs. The
effect of potential energy conservation standards on individual
consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an
increase in purchase cost. In this NODA, DOE used the following two
metrics to measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them
over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of PESs in the absence of new or
amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each potential product
class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative
set of housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household
samples from the 2015 RECS. For each sample household, DOE determined
the energy consumption for the PESs and the appropriate electricity
price. By developing a representative sample of households, the
analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy
prices associated with the use of PESs.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor 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, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on
a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability
into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input
values from the probability distributions and PES's user samples. For
this NODA the Monte Carlo approach was implemented in a computer
simulation. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each
efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run. The
analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing
the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the
no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a
consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for
consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of PESs as if each
were to purchase a new product in the expected year of required
compliance with new standards. Any new standards would apply to PESs
manufactured 5 years after the date on which any new standard is
published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) For purposes of its analysis, DOE
used 2029 as the first year of compliance with any new standards for
PESs.
Table III.22 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion on the approach and data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Coughlin, K., Beraki, B. Residential Electricity Prices A
Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Energy Analysis and
Environmental Impacts Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Energy Efficiency Standards Group. 2018. Available at https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-2001169.pdf.
Table III.22--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost...................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer and retailer markups
and sales tax, as appropriate.
Installation Costs................ Assumed no change with efficiency
level and not considered in the
NODA.
Annual Energy Use................. The total annual energy use
multiplied by the hours per year.
Average number of hours based on
RECS 2015.
Variability: Based on the Census
region, and Climate Zone.
Energy Prices..................... Electricity: Determined as per LBNL-
2001169.\30\
Energy Price Trends............... Based on AEO2022 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs...... Assumed not to change with
efficiency level.
Product Lifetime.................. Average: 10.5 years for hard-sided
spas, 3.0 for inflatable spas.
[[Page 69102]]
Discount Rates.................... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the
considered appliances or might be
affected indirectly. Primary data
source was the Federal Reserve
Board's Survey of Consumer
Finances.
Compliance Date................... 2029.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Inputs to the Life-Cycle Cost Model
The LCC is the total consumer expense during the life of an
appliance, including purchase expense and operating costs (including
energy expenditures). DOE discounts future operating costs to the time
of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. DOE defines
LCC by the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17NO22.001
Where:
LCC = life-cycle cost in dollars,
TIC = total installed cost in dollars,
[sum] = sum over product lifetime, from year 1 to year N,
N = lifetime of appliance in years,
OCt = operating cost in dollars in year t,
r = discount rate, and
t = year for which operating cost is being determined.
DOE expresses dollar values in 2021$ for the LCC.
a. Inputs to Total Installed Cost
Product Costs
To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline products and higher-efficiency products because DOE applies an
incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency products.
Future Product Costs
Examination of historical price data for certain appliances and
equipment that have had energy conservation standards indicates that
the assumption of constant real prices and costs may overestimate long-
term trends in appliance and equipment prices in many cases. Economic
literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of these
products may, in fact, trend downward over time according to
``learning'' or ``experience'' curves. Desroches et al. (2013)
summarizes the data and literature currently available that is relevant
to price projections for selected appliances and equipment.\31\ The
extensive literature on the ``learning'' or ``experience'' curve
phenomenon is typically based on observations in the manufacturing
sector.\32\ In the experience curve method, the real cost of production
is related to the cumulative production or ``experience'' with a
manufactured product. This experience is usually measured in terms of
cumulative production. Thus, as experience (production) accumulates,
the cost of producing the next unit decreases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Desroches, Louis-Benoit, et al., ``Incorporating Experience
Curves in Appliance Standards Analysis'', Energy Policy 52 (2013):
402-416.
\32\ In addition to Desroches (2013), see Weiss, M., Junginger,
H.M., Patel, M.K., Blok, K., (2010a). A Review of Experience Curve
Analyses for Energy Demand Technologies. Technological Forecasting &
Social Change. 77:411-428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If DOE proceeds with new efficiency standards for PESs, DOE may
derive the learning rate parameter for all PESs from the historical
Producer Price Index (``PPI'') data for ``326191--Plastics Plumbing
Fixture Manufacturing'' for the time period between 1993 and 2021 from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (``BLS'').33 34 If DOE
determines that new efficiency standards for PESs are warranted, DOE
will inflation-adjust the price indices calculation by dividing the PPI
series by the implicit Gross Domestic Product price deflator for the
same years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ This U.S. industry consists of establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing plastics or fiberglass plumbing fixtures.
Examples of products made by these establishments are plastics or
fiberglass bathtubs, hot tubs, portable toilets, and shower stalls.
See www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?code=326191
\34\ Product series ID: NDU3261913261911, see more information
at www.bls.gov/ppi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its proposed methodology to project future
equipment prices.
DOE requests information or data related to the past trends in
production costs of PESs. Additionally, DOE requests data or
information related to the cost of PES production over time.
Installation Costs
As noted, inputs to the calculation of total install cost include
the installation costs. Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and
any miscellaneous materials and parts needed to install the product. As
part of its Title 20 regulatory activities for PESs, CEC examined
potentially available technologies that can be employed to improve the
efficiency of PESs. CEC's report includes several technology options
but states that improved insulation (in terms of improved insulation
coverage, type, and quantity) within the tub walls and of the tub cover
offer the greatest opportunity for improved efficiency. The report also
mentions further attainable efficiency improvements through, but not
limited to, improved spa cover design and improved pump and motor
system design within in the spa itself.\35\ DOE tentatively finds that
none of these technologies would impact the quantity of labor,
overhead, or materials needed to install a PES if DOE were to adopt new
energy efficiency standards. Based on these findings, DOE tentatively
concludes that installation costs should not be included in any future
life-cycle cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Final Staff Report, Analysis of Efficiency Standards and
Marking for Spas, 2018 Appliance Efficiency Rulemaking for Spas
Docket Number 18-AAER-02 TN 222413. Available at
efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=222413&DocumentContentId=31256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its decision to exclude installation costs
from any future efficiency standard calculation.
DOE requests data and details on the installation costs of PESs,
and whether those costs vary by product type or any other factor
affecting their efficiency.
b. Inputs to Operating Costs
Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption
for a PES at different efficiency levels using the approach described
previously in section III.E of this document.
Electricity Prices
Using data from EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports, DOE
derived annual electricity prices in 2021 for all the census regions in
RECS.36 37 DOE calculated electricity prices using the
[[Page 69103]]
methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2018), where for each
purchase sampled, DOE assigned the average and marginal electricity
price for the census region in which the PES is located.\38\ Because
marginal electricity price captures more accurately the incremental
costs or savings associated with a change in energy use relative to the
consumer's bill in the reference case, it may provide a better
representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average
electricity prices. Therefore, DOE used average electricity prices to
characterize the baseline energy level and marginal electricity prices
to characterize the incremental change in energy costs associated with
the other energy levels considered. The regional average and marginal
electricity prices are shown in Table III.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Edison Electric Institute, Typical Bills and Average Rates
Report, Winter 2021, 2021.
\37\ Edison Electric Institute, Typical Bills and Average Rates
Report, Summer 2021, 2021.
\38\ Coughlin, K., Beraki, B. Residential Electricity Prices A
Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Energy Analysis and
Environmental Impacts Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Energy Efficiency Standards Group. 2018. Available at https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-2001169.pdf.
Table III.23--Regional Average and Marginal Electricity Prices
[$/kWh, 2021$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census region Geographic area Average $/kWh Marginal $/kWh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................. Northeast....................... 0.1834 0.1687
2............................................. Midwest......................... 0.1380 0.1240
3............................................. South........................... 0.1164 0.0994
4............................................. West............................ 0.1959 0.2145
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Electricity Price Trends
To arrive at prices in future years, DOE will multiply the 2021
electricity prices by the forecast of annual average price changes for
each census division from the most recent Energy Information
Administration's Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO'').\39\ To estimate price
trends after 2050, DOE maintained prices constant at 2050 levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its use of AEO to project electricity
prices into the future.
Maintenance and Repair Costs
As noted, inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include
repair and maintenance costs, among other factors. For this NODA, DOE
made the modeling assumption that maintenance costs would not change
with increased product stand-by efficiency. DOE understands that PES
maintenance broadly falls into two categories: (1) maintaining water
quality, and (2) the care and upkeep of the PES itself. DOE does not
foresee a difference in costs to consumers in maintaining water quality
under a new potential efficiency standard to stand-by power. Further,
DOE understands the maintenance to the PES itself to be cleaning
activities (i.e., cleaning of the filters, spa interior, spa exterior,
and cover).\40\ Based on these understandings, DOE does not consider
that these cleaning activities would cost the consumer more under a new
potential energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See https://staging-na01-jacuzzi.demandware.net/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-jacuzzi-shared-content/default/v44de813235d8b46eb8c84da693ec1bed8e8ec186/pdf-documents/Jacuzzi_Swim_Spa_Collection_Owners_Manual_English.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, DOE notes that the costs to repair more efficient PES
mechanical systems and insulation may be greater in the case of a
potential new energy conservation standard.
DOE requests feedback and specific data on whether maintenance
costs differ in comparison to the baseline maintenance costs for any of
the specific efficiency improving technology options applicable to
PESs.
DOE requests comment on the typical repairs to PESs and how they
may differ in the case of a potential new energy conservation standard.
2. Product Lifetime
The product lifetime is the age at which a product is retired from
service. Rather than use a single average value for the lifetime of
PESs, DOE developed lifetime distributions to characterize the age, in
years, when hard- and inflatable PESs will be retired from service. To
model PES lifetimes, DOE assumed that the probability function for the
annual survival of PESs would take the form of a Weibull distribution.
A Weibull distribution is a probability distribution commonly used to
measure failure rates.41 42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ For reference on the Weibull distribution, see sections
1.3.6.6.8 and 8.4.1.3 of the NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical
Methods. Available at www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
\42\ For an example methodology of how DOE approaches its
survival calculation, see section 8.3.4 of chapter 8 of the
Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program For Consumer
Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Consumer Furnaces.
DOE. 2022. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Hard-Sided Spas
DOE examined historical hard-sided spa installation data from PK
Data, Inc. (``PK Data'') for the years from 2015 through 2020 and fit a
Weibull distribution to these data with minimum and maximum lifetimes
of 1 year and 30 years, respectively. This Weibull distribution yielded
an average lifetime of 9.3 years.
b. Inflatable Spas
DOE did not have equivalent data from which to estimate lifetimes
for inflatable spas. As a result, DOE used the average lifetime on the
design life from the CEC CASE report on PESs.\43\ To estimate the
lifetime of inflatable spas, DOE fit a Weibull function based on the
modeling assumptions of an average and maximum lifetimes of 3.0 and 5.0
years, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ California Energy Commission. ``Final Staff Report--
Analysis of Efficiency Standards and Marking for Spas.'' February 2,
2018.
[[Page 69104]]
Table III.24--Lifetime Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value Weibull parameters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Average Maximum
(years) (years) (years) Alpha (scale) Beta (shape)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard-Sided Spas................. 1 9.3 30 9.91 1.85
Inflatable Spas................. 1 3.0 5 3.20 7.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its lifetime analysis.
3. Rebound Effect
DOE considered the possibility that some consumers may use a
higher-efficiency PES more than a baseline one, thereby negating some
or all the energy savings from the more-efficient product. Such a
change in consumer behavior when operating costs decline is known as a
(direct) rebound effect. Because the heating and pumping systems
operation in ``stand-by mode'' also function when the PES is operated
in ``active mode,'' an increase in PES usage due to a rebound effect
would not impact any potential energy savings in a new standards case.
For this reason, DOE tentatively finds that the rebound effect should
not apply to PES stand-by power.
DOE requests comment on its reasoning to not apply a rebound effect
to PES stand-by power energy use.
4. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considers the projected
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards).
To establish the fraction of PES purchases that exceed baseline
equipment in terms of energy efficiency in the absence of potential new
standards, DOE examined information provided by PHTA and U.S. Census
data.
The information provided by the PHTA shows the adoption of state
level minimum efficiency requirements for PESs. These state level
programs are related to different editions of APSP-14 2019, and this
variation in state-level adoption creates a fractured regulatory
environment where different states have different minimum energy
efficiency requirements.
For this NODA, DOE has made the simplified modeling assumption that
all spas sold in states with an existing standard would adhere to APSP-
14 2019 and will be considered above the baseline in 2029. Further, DOE
notes that the RECS 2015 data does not have state-level information
from which to derive the relative spa owning probability for each
state, and, for the purposes of estimating the efficiency distribution
in the no-new standards case, DOE used state populations published in
the 2021 Census.\44\ DOE acknowledges that this modeling assumption may
overrepresent the state of national efficiency adoption to the
detriment of national energy savings as states with less stringent
standards are modeled with greater minimum efficiency levels. However,
this potential overrepresentation may be balanced by those consumers in
non-regulated states purchasing more efficient products. These
populations are shown in Table III.25 and are held constant over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United
States, Regions, States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico:
April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 (NST-EST2021-POP). U.S. Census Bureau,
Population Division. December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the projected distribution of efficiencies for PESs, DOE
randomly assigned a product efficiency to each household drawn from the
consumer sample. If a consumer is assigned a product efficiency that is
greater than or equal to the efficiency under consideration, the
consumer would not be affected by a standard at that efficiency level.
Table III.25--PESs Minimum Efficiency Standards by State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Standard Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona........................... AZ Title 44......... 7,276,316
California........................ APSP 14-2019........ 39,237,836
Connecticut....................... CA Title 20 (2006).. 3,605,597
District of Columbia.............. APSP 14-2019........ 670,050
Massachusetts..................... APSP 14-2019........ 6,984,723
New Jersey........................ APSP 14-2019........ 9,267,130
Oregon............................ APSP 14-2019........ 4,246,155
Pennsylvania...................... APSP 14-2019........ 12,964,056
Rhode Island...................... APSP 14-2019........ 1,095,610
Colorado.......................... APSP 14-2014........ 5,812,069
Maryland.......................... APSP 14-2019........ 6,165,129
Nevada............................ APSP 14-2019........ 3,143,991
Vermont........................... APSP 14-2014........ 645,570
Washington........................ APSP 14-2014........ 7,738,692
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population Covered by Standards................... 108,852,924
U.S. Population......................................... 331,893,745
Fraction above Baseline................................. 32.8%
Fraction at Baseline.................................... 67.2%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69105]]
Table III.26--Distribution of Efficiencies in the No-New Standards Case (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
Type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Spas.......................... 67.2 32.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to households to estimate the present value of future operating cost
savings in the year of compliance. DOE estimated a distribution of
discount rates for PESs based on the opportunity cost of consumer
funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates.\45\ The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the
lifetime of the product. As a result, the appropriate discount rate
will reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking
this time scale into account. Given the long-time horizon modeled in
the LCC analysis, the application of a marginal interest rate
associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of
the method of purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance
their debt and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on
the restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and
the relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets.
DOE estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the
historical distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and
response to uncertainty; time preferences; and interest rates at
which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount
rate is not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a
range of factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather
than the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes to approximate
a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost
savings. Then DOE estimated the average percentage shares of the
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (``SCF'')
for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019.\46\ Using
the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for
each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that
may apply in the year in which new energy conservation standards would
take effect. DOE assigned each sample household a specific discount
rate drawn from one of the distributions. The average rate across all
types of household debt and equity and income groups were then mapped
to RECS income bins for the fraction of homes with portable electric
spas.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Note that two older versions of the SCF are also available
(1989 and 1992); these surveys are not used in this analysis because
they do not provide all of the necessary types of data (e.g., credit
card interest rates, etc.). DOE has tentatively determined that the
time span covered by the eight surveys included is sufficiently
representative of recent debt and equity shares and interest rates.
\47\ A detailed discussion of DOE discount rate methodology for
residential consumers can be found in the Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Consumer Furnaces. DOE, 2022,
in chapters 8, and appendix 8H. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0320.
Table III.27--Mapping of SCF Income Groups to RECS 2015 Income Bin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECS income bins 1 2 3 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 100.0%
2....................................................... 2.9% 86.6% 10.6%
3....................................................... 100.0%
4....................................................... 15.4% 84.6%
5....................................................... 100.0%
6....................................................... 13.4% 86.6%
7....................................................... 88.4% 11.6%
8....................................................... 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.28--Average Real Effective Discount Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCF income group Discount rate (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... 4.76
2...................................... 4.99
3...................................... 4.54
4...................................... 3.84
5...................................... 3.47
6...................................... 3.23
Overall Average........................ 4.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Survey of
Consumer Finances (1995-2019).
[[Page 69106]]
6. Payback Period Analysis
The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the
additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to
baseline products, through energy cost savings. PBP are expressed in
years. PBP that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased
total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.
The equation for PBP is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17NO22.002
Where:
PBP = payback period in years,
[Delta]IC = difference in the total installed cost between the more
efficient product (efficiency levels 1, 2, 3, etc.) and the baseline
product, and
[Delta]OC = difference in first-year annual operating costs between
the more efficient product and the baseline product.
The data inputs to PBP are the total installed cost of the product
to the consumer for each efficiency level and the annual (first year)
operating costs for each efficiency level. As for the LCC, the inputs
to the total installed cost are the product price and installation
cost. The inputs to the operating costs are the annual energy and
annual maintenance costs. The PBP uses the same inputs as does the LCC
analysis, except that electricity price trends are not required.
Because the PBP is a simple payback, the required electricity cost is
only for the year in which a potential new energy conservation standard
would take effect--in this case, 2029.
7. Consumer Results
Table III.29--Standard Spas: Average LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$) Simple
---------------------------------------------------------------- payback Average
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years) (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 8,507 352 2,648 11,644 .............. 8.8
1....................................................... 8,594 246 1,849 10,937 0.8 8.8
2....................................................... 8,852 207 1,555 10,918 2.4 8.8
3....................................................... 9,165 198 1,491 11,188 4.5 8.8
4....................................................... 9,725 179 1,345 11,638 7.8 8.8
5....................................................... 10,338 174 1,305 12,251 11.9 8.8
6....................................................... 11,347 142 1,068 13,088 16.5 8.8
7....................................................... 12,530 130 978 14,258 23.9 8.8
8....................................................... 13,851 126 949 15,636 34.6 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.30--Standard Spas: Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-
Standards Case Efficiency Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
savings--
Efficiency level % Consumers impacted
with net cost consumers
(2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 6.4 1,056
2....................................... 35.2 726
3....................................... 51.2 456
4....................................... 65.9 6
5....................................... 77.0 -607
6....................................... 84.6 -1,444
7....................................... 91.4 -2,614
8....................................... 96.1 -3,992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.31--Exercise Spas: Average LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 26,791 930 6,937 35,077 .............. 8.8
1....................................................... 27,063 631 4,715 33,144 0.9 8.8
2....................................................... 27,876 521 3,892 33,187 2.7 8.8
3....................................................... 28,862 497 3,715 34,060 5.1 8.8
4....................................................... 30,624 472 3,530 35,751 9.4 8.8
5....................................................... 32,556 457 3,417 37,696 14.6 8.8
6....................................................... 35,731 368 2,756 40,415 20.2 8.8
7....................................................... 39,459 335 2,504 44,132 29.7 8.8
8....................................................... 43,618 324 2,423 48,479 44.0 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69107]]
Table III.32--Exercise Spas: Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-
Standards Case Efficiency Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
savings--
Efficiency level % Consumers impacted
with net cost consumers
(2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 7.9 2,889
2....................................... 39.5 1,889
3....................................... 55.8 1,017
4....................................... 72.1 -674
5....................................... 82.1 -2,619
6....................................... 88.5 -5,338
7....................................... 94.2 -9,055
8....................................... 97.5 -13,403
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.33--Combination Spas: Average LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$) Simple
---------------------------------------------------------------- payback Average
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years) (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 34,175 1,218 9,093 44,965 .............. 8.8
1....................................................... 34,523 823 6,143 42,387 0.9 8.8
2....................................................... 35,560 678 5,064 42,412 2.7 8.8
3....................................................... 36,818 647 4,831 43,519 4.9 8.8
4....................................................... 39,065 617 4,609 45,690 9.1 8.8
5....................................................... 41,531 597 4,460 48,167 14.1 8.8
6....................................................... 45,581 481 3,592 51,611 19.5 8.8
7....................................................... 50,336 437 3,262 56,345 28.6 8.8
8....................................................... 55,642 422 3,155 61,888 42.2 8.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.34--Combination Spas: Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-
New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
savings--
Efficiency level % Consumers impacted
with net cost consumers
(2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 7.5 3,835
2....................................... 38.4 2,553
3....................................... 54.2 1,446
4....................................... 70.6 -724
5....................................... 81.0 -3,201
6....................................... 88.2 -6,646
7....................................... 94.1 -11,379
8....................................... 97.4 -16,923
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.35--Inflatable Spas: Average LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$) Simple
---------------------------------------------------------------- payback Average
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years) (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 244 147 424 780 .............. 3.0
1....................................................... 287 130 375 778 2.8 3.0
2....................................................... 549 83 238 924 5.5 3.0
3....................................................... 858 82 237 1,256 13.0 3.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69108]]
Table III.36--Inflatable Spas: Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-
New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution: Combination Spas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
savings--
Efficiency level % Consumers impacted
with net cost consumers
(2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 38.7 3
2....................................... 84.6 -143
3....................................... 99.6 -475
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\48\
The shipments model takes an accounting approach in tracking market
shares of each potential product class and the vintage of units in the
stock. Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate
the age distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The
age distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the NES and NPV because operating costs for any
year depend on the age distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Approach to Shipments and Stock Models
DOE developed a national stock model to estimate annual shipments
of products under potential energy efficiency standards. The model
considers market segments as distinct inputs to projected shipments.
DOE considered new home installations and replacements in existing
households as the primary market segments for PESs.
DOE's shipments model takes a stock accounting approach, tracking
the vintage of units in the existing stock and expected housing stock
trends. The stock accounting uses product shipments, a retirement
function, and initial in-service product stock as inputs to develop an
estimate of the age distribution of in-service product stock for all
years. The age distribution of in-service product stock is a key input
to calculations of both the NES and NPV because the operating costs for
any year depend on the age distribution of the stock. The dependence of
operating cost on the product age distribution occurs under a
standards-case scenario that produces increasing efficiency over time,
whereby older, less efficient units may have higher operating costs,
while younger, more-efficient units have lower operating costs.
2. Initial Stock Estimates
a. Hard-Sided Spas Stock
DOE used industry data from PK Data to estimate the initial stock
for hard-sided spas.\49\ The PK Data were compiled from manufacturer
data and other sources, including dealers, retailers, and consumers,
and provide an estimated installation base for these spas. However,
these data did not specify the fraction of installations that are
standard, exercise, or combination spas. For this NODA, DOE has made
the modeling assumptions that the fraction of the market for standard,
exercise, and combination spas will follow the model count in
MAEDbS.\50\ The stock breakdown based on the data received by DOE from
PK Data and the weights from MAEDbS are shown in Table III.37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ P.K. Data Inc. 2022 Hot Tube Market Data: Custom
Compilation for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (through
2021). 2022. Alpharetta, GA. (Last accessed April 12, 2022.)
Available at https://www.pkdata.com/reports-store.html#/.
\50\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System. Available at https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx.
Table III.37--PK Data and DOE Stock Estimates of Hard-Sided Spas
[Units, 2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All spas PK
data Standard Exercise Combination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction (%).................................... 100 85 12 3
Units (2020).................................... 5,454,117 4,635,999 654,494 163,624
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its stock ratios for hard-sided spas.
Additionally, DOE seeks input on the market shares of standard,
exercise, and combination spas.
b. Inflatable Spas Stock
Inflatable spas (inflatable spas) are a relatively new product to
the spa industry. As such, DOE was unable to find comprehensive,
publicly available information to indicate either their shipments or
existing stock. The CEC's ``2018 Appliance Efficiency Rulemaking for
Spas, Final Staff Report'' projected California's stock of inflatable
spas in 2020 to be 20,101 units. When this value is scaled by
population, it produces a national stock estimate of 170,025 units, or
approximately 3 percent of the stock of hard-sided Spas. For this NODA,
DOE has made the modeling assumption that stock of inflatable spas in
2020 was 170,025 units.
[[Page 69109]]
Table III.38--Estimated Total PES Stocks, and Market Weight, 2020
(Units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential
Potential product class product class Units
weight, M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard................................ 82.5 4,635,999
Exercise................................ 11.7 654,494
Combination............................. 2.9 163,624
Inflatable.............................. 2.9 170,025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on its 2020 stock estimates for all spa types.
3. Product Saturations
PES stocks are distributed nationally according to the number of
single-family houses by census region, r, and climate zone, z, derived
from RECS. These regional distributions are considered static over the
analysis period. PES saturations are expressed as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17NO22.003
Where:
Stockt = the total PES stock in 2022, i.e., 5,624,142 units,
i = an index indicating the location (r, z) of the spa,
S = the saturation (count) of spas per single-family household, and
H = total single-family households.
4. Determining Annual Spa Shipments
a. Initial Shipments
Initial shipments for each potential product class of PESs are
derived from the stock estimates in section III.G.2, as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17NO22.004
Where:
Ships = total PES shipments for each product class,
M = PES market weight (see Table III.38), and
Lavg = the average potential product class's lifetime.
b. New Spa Shipments
To estimate shipments of new purchases, DOE used projections of
total housing stock from AEO2022 coupled with the estimated PES
saturation. In other words, to project the shipments for new purchases
for any given year, DOE multiplied the regional stock housing
projections by the estimated saturation of PES. New shipments in each
year are determined as:
Shipn (y) = N(y)S(y)
Where:
Shipn = new shipments,
y = year of analysis, and
N = new housing starts.
c. Spa Replacements
Over time, some units will be retired and removed from stock,
thereby triggering the shipment of a replacement unit. Depending on the
vintage, a certain percentage of each type of unit will fail and need
to be replaced. To determine when a unit fails, DOE used a Weibull
survival function based on a product lifetime distribution with an
average lifetime of 9.3 years and 3.5 years for hard-sided, and
inflatable spas, respectively. For a more complete discussion of
lifetimes, refer to section III.F.2. Shipments for replacements are
defined as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17NO22.005
Where:
Shipr = shipments for replacement,
Lmax = product maximum lifetime, and
pr = a product's retirement probability.
d. Demolitions
Demolitions refer to the destruction of in-service spas that are
not replaced with new equipment. For this NODA, DOE defined the
demolition rate as follows. For each location (r, z), and analysis
year, y.
E = T-N
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17NO22.006
Where:
[sigma] = the demolition rate, and
E = existing single-family house count, derived from RECS.
e. Product Lifetimes
The methodology used to determine the distribution of PESs'
lifetimes is discussed in section III.F.2.
f. Future Portable Electric Spa Shipments
To project future shipments, DOE typically uses new housing starts
projections from AEO as market drivers for products sold to the
residential sector. For this NODA, DOE used the Single-Family
Households trend from AEO2022 to drive future spa shipments.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2022. 2022. Washington, DC.
(Last accessed July 10, 2022.) See: Table 4. Residential Sector Key
Indicators and Consumption--Case: Reference case Available at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=4-AEO2022&cases=ref2022&sourcekey=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its proposed use of future residential
construction to project future shipments of PESs.
g. Calculating Shipments and Stock
DOE calculates the total in-service stock of products by
integrating historical shipments data starting from a specified year.
The start year depends on the historical data available for each
product, which for this NODA is based on data from PK Data in 2020. As
units are added to the in-service stock, some older units retire and
exit the stock. In this NODA, for each year in the analysis period from
2029 through 2058, DOE calculated the shipments and stock as:
Stock(y) = Stock(y-1) (1-[sigma]) + Shipn(y), and
Ships(y) = Shipn(y) + Shipr(y) + [sigma]Stock(y-1).
As the last unit shipped during the analysis period will survive
beyond 2056, their presence was be accounted for as:
Stock(y) = Stock(y-1)-Shipr(y),
5. Impacts of Increased Product Costs on Shipments
Because DOE's projections of shipments and national impacts from
potential energy conservation standards consider a 30-year period, DOE
needed to consider how price elasticity evolves in the years after a
new standard takes effect in this NODA. Price elasticity is a factor
that reflects the percent change in quantity purchased of a product
[[Page 69110]]
given a 1 percent change in price. DOE conducted a literature review
and an analysis of appliance price and efficiency data to estimate the
effects on product shipments from increases in product purchase price
and product energy efficiency.
Existing studies of appliance markets suggest that the demand for
durable goods, such as appliances, is price-inelastic. Other
information in the literature suggests that appliances are a normal
good, such that rising incomes increase the demand for appliances, and
that consumer behavior reflects relatively high implicit discount rates
when comparing appliance prices and appliance operating costs.
DOE considered the price elasticity developed above to be a short-
term value but was unable to identify sources specific to PESs that
would be sufficient to model differences in short- and long-term price
elasticities. Therefore, to estimate how the price elasticity changes
through time, DOE relied on a study pertaining to automobiles.\52\ This
study shows that the price elasticity of demand for automobiles changes
in the years following a change in purchase price, a trend also
observed in appliances and other durables.\53\ \54\ As time passes from
the change in purchase price, the price elasticity becomes more
inelastic until it reaches a terminal value around the tenth year after
the price change. Table III.39 shows the relative change over time in
the price elasticity of demand for automobiles. As shown in the table,
DOE developed a time series of price elasticity for residential
appliances based on the relative change over time in the price
elasticity of demand for automobiles. For years not shown in the table,
DOE performed a linear interpolation to obtain the price
elasticity.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Saul H. Hymans, Gardner Ackley, and F. Thomas Juster.
Consumer durable spending: Explanation and prediction. Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity, 1970(2):173-206, 1970. (Last accessed
August 28, 2021.) Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2534239.
\53\ Philip Parker and Ramya Neelamegham. Price elasticity
dynamics over the product life cycle: A study of consumer durables.
Marketing Letters, 8(2):205-216, April 1997. (Last accessed August
28, 2021.) Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1007962520455.
\54\ DOE relies on Hymens et al. (1970) for efficiency scaling
factors because it provides the greatest detail out of all the
available studies on price elasticity over time.
\55\ For an example methodology of how DOE approaches its
product price elasticity calculation, please see section 9.4 of
chapter 9 of the Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency
Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Room Air Conditioners. DOE. 2022. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0059-0030.
Table III.39--Change in Relative Price Elasticity Following a Change in Purchase Price
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years following price change
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 5 10 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in elasticity relative to first year............. 1.00 0.78 0.63 0.46 0.35 0.33
Price elasticity........................................ -0.45 -0.35 -0.28 -0.21 -0.16 -0.15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Results for 30-years of Shipment (2029-2058)
Table III.40--PES Shipments for Select Years in the Absence of Potential New Standards (EL 0), (Units)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spa type
Year ---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Exercise Combination Inflatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2029............................................ 558,863 78,898 19,725 50,809
2030............................................ 562,920 79,471 19,868 51,194
2035............................................ 580,511 81,954 20,489 53,077
2040............................................ 598,725 84,526 21,131 54,708
2045............................................ 615,313 86,868 21,717 56,357
2050............................................ 631,547 89,160 22,290 57,934
2055............................................ 648,129 91,501 22,875 59,488
2058............................................ 657,934 92,885 23,221 60,416
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.41--PES Affected Stock for Select Years in the Absence of Potential New Standards (EL 0), (Units)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spa type
Year ---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Exercise Combination Inflatable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 558,863 78,898 19,725 50,809
2030............................................ 1,113,813 157,244 39,311 101,988
2035............................................ 3,474,943 490,580 122,645 184,055
2040............................................ 4,828,630 681,689 170,422 190,031
2045............................................ 5,420,218 765,207 191,302 195,793
2050............................................ 5,684,921 802,577 200,644 201,380
2055............................................ 5,858,365 827,063 206,766 206,848
2060............................................ 4,697,420 663,165 165,791 90,521
2065............................................ 2,075,344 292,990 73,247 0
2070............................................ 660,865 93,299 23,325 0
2075............................................ 150,756 21,283 5,321 0
2080............................................ 24,229 3,421 855 0
[[Page 69111]]
2085............................................ 2,259 319 80 0
2090............................................ 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\56\
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the product being
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard
levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments,
along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data
from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE
projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs,
and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of PESs sold from 2029
through 2058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and
Washington D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the effects of potential new standards by comparing a
case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each
potential product class in the absence of new or amended energy
conservation standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical
trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the
mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case
with projections characterizing the market for each potential product
class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy
efficiency levels (i.e., the ELs or standards cases) for that class.
For the standards cases, DOE considers how a given standard would
likely affect the market shares of products with efficiencies greater
than the standard.
Table III.42 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the NODA. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows
the table.
Table III.42--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.............................. Annual shipments from shipments
model.
Modeled Compliance Date of Standard.... 2029.
Efficiency Trends...................... No-new-standards case.
Standards cases.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit..... Annual average values are a
function of energy use at each
EL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit.......... Annual average values are a
function of cost at each EL.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit............ Annual weighted-average values
as a function of the annual
energy consumption per unit
and energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit... Annual values do not change
with efficiency level.
Energy Prices.......................... AEO2022 projections (to 2050),
constant 2050 prices
thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC A time-series conversion factor
Conversion. based on AEO2022.
Discount Rate.......................... 3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year........................... 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Products Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards
cases. Section III.F.4 of this document describes how DOE developed an
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the
considered potential product classes for the year of anticipated
compliance with an amended or new standard.
For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards
are assumed to become effective (2029). In this scenario, the market
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard
level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain
unchanged.
For this NODA, DOE's modeling assumed that the distribution of
product efficiencies will remain constant over time.
DOE requests comment on its modeling assumption that PES efficiency
will remaining constant over time in the absence of potential new
standards.
2. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards
case (EL) and the case with no new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by
multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or
age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated
annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for
the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case.
DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and
converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO2022.
Cumulative energy
[[Page 69112]]
savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the timeframe of the
analysis.
The following equation shows that DOE calculated annual NES as the
difference between two projections: a no-new-standards case (without
new standards) and a standards case. Positive values of NES represent
energy savings (that is, they show that national annual energy
consumption (``AEC'') under a standards case is less than in the no-
new-standards).
NESy = AECBase-AECSTD
Where:
NES = annual national energy savings (quads),
AEC = annual national energy consumption each year in quadrillion
Btus (quads) summed over vintages of the product stock, and
y = year in the forecast.
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of annual NES from products
shipped between the years 2029 through 2058.
DOE calculated the national annual site energy consumption by
multiplying the number or stock of the product (by vintage) by its unit
annual energy consumption (AEC; also, by vintage). National annual
energy consumption is calculated using the following equation.
AECy = [Sigma] STOCKV x UECV
Where:
AEC = annual national energy consumption each year in quadrillion
Btus (quads), summed over vintages of the product stock, STOCKV,
STOCKV = stock of product (millions of units) of vintage V that
survive in the year for which DOE calculated annual energy
consumption,
UECV = annual energy consumption of PESs in kilowatt-hours (kWh),
V = year in which the product was purchased as a new unit, and
y = year in the forecast.
The stock of a product depends on annual shipments and the lifetime
of the product. DOE projected product shipments under the no-new-
standards case and standards cases. To avoid including savings
attributable to shipments displaced (units not purchased) because of
standards, DOE used the projected standards-case shipments and, in
turn, the standards-case stock, to calculate the national AEC for the
no-new-standards.
a. Site-to-Power-Plant Energy Conversion Factors
In determining annual NES, DOE initially considered the AEC at a
residence (for electricity, the energy, expressed in kWh, consumed by a
household). DOE then calculated primary (source) energy use from site
energy consumption by applying a conversion factor to account for
losses associated with the generation, transmission, and distribution
of electricity. The site-to-source conversion factor is a
multiplicative factor used to convert site energy consumption into
primary, or source, energy consumption, expressed in quadrillion Btus
(quads).
DOE used annual site-to-power-plant conversion factors based on the
version of the national energy modeling system (``NEMS'') \57\ that
corresponds to AEO2022 \58\ The factors are marginal values, which
represent the response of the national power system to incremental
changes in consumption. For electricity, the conversion factors change
over time in response to projected changes in generation sources (the
types of power plants projected to provide electricity). There is not a
specific end-use for PES in NEMS. As such, DOE applied the
refrigeration end-use as a proxy, as the load profile of the equipment
would be similar--equipment that when plugged-in and running does not
respond to the cyclical dynamics of the electricity grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ For more information on NEMS, refer to the U.S. Department
of Energy, Energy Information Administration documentation. A useful
summary is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2000, DOE/
EIA-0581(2000), March 2000. EIA approves use of the name NEMS to
describe only an official version of the model with no modification
to code or data. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050. 2022. Washington, DC (Last
accessed July 20, 2022.) Available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
\58\ See www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Full-Fuel Cycle Multipliers
In 2011, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy
use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the NIA and emissions
analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings
in response to the recommendations of a committee on ``Point-of-Use and
Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards''
appointed by the National Academy of Sciences. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18,
2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011
notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in which DOE
explained its determination that EIA's NEMS is the most appropriate
tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that
purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-
sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \59\ that
EIA uses to prepare its AEO. The FFC factors incorporate losses in
production, and delivery in the case of natural gas, (including
fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to produce and deliver
the various fuels used by power plants. The approach used for deriving
FFC measures of energy use and emissions can be found in other DOE
analysis.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581(2009)index.php (last
accessed September 2022).
\60\ An example methodology of deriving FFC measures can be
found in the Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program
for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment:
Commercial Water Heating Equipment, 2022, appendix 10D. Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0027-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs),
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs.
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product
shipped during the projection period.
The NPV is the value in the present of a time-series of costs and
savings. The NPV is described by the equation:
NPV = PVS-PVC
Where:
PVS = present value of operating cost savings, and
PVC = present value of increased total installed costs
(including purchase price and installation costs).
DOE determined the PVS and PVC according to the following
expressions.
PVS = [Sigma] OCSy x DFy
PVC = [Sigma] TICy x DFy
Where:
OCS = total annual savings in operating costs each year summed over
vintages of the product stock, STOCKV,
DF = discount factor in each year,
TIC = total annual increases in installed cost each year summed over
vintages of the product stock, STOCKV and
y = year in the forecast.
DOE calculated the total annual consumer savings in operating costs
by multiplying the number or stock of the product (by vintage) by its
per-unit operating cost savings (also by vintage). DOE calculated the
total annual increases in consumer product price by multiplying the
number or shipments of the product (by vintage) by its per-unit
[[Page 69113]]
increase in consumer cost (also by vintage). Total annual operating
cost savings and total annual product price increases are calculated by
the following equations.
OCSy = [Sigma] STOCKy x UOCSv
TICy = [Sigma] SHIPy x UTICy
Where:
OCSy = operating cost savings per unit in year y,
STOCKV = stock of products of vintage V that survive in the year for
which DOE calculated annual energy consumption,
UOCSV = annual operating cost savings per unit of vintage V,
V = year in which the product was purchased as a new unit,
TICy = total increase in installed product cost in year y,
SHIPy = shipments of the product in year y, and
UTICy = annual per-unit increase in installed product cost in year
y.
The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy
prices by the projection of annual national-average residential energy
price changes in the Reference Case from AEO2022, which has an end year
of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE maintained
electricity prices constant at 2050 levels.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
NODA, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE used these discount rates in
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory
analysis.\61\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are
designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last accessed Aug 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year, and the
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy
prices by the projection of annual national-average residential energy
price changes in the Reference Case from AEO2022, which has an end year
of 2050.
4. Candidate Standards Levels
In general, DOE typically evaluates potential new or amended
standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency
levels for each class into candidate standard levels (``CSLs''). Use of
CSLs allows DOE to identify and consider manufacturer cost interactions
between the product classes and market cross elasticity from consumer
purchasing decisions that may change when different standard levels are
set, to the extent that there are such interactions.
In the analysis conducted for this NODA, DOE analyzed the benefits
and burdens of up to eight CSLs for PESs. DOE developed CSLs that
combine efficiency levels for each analyzed product class. These CSLs
were developed by directly mapping specific efficiency levels for each
of the PES product classes analyzed by DOE. For this NODA, CSL 1
represents PES efficiency at APSP-14 2019. And the remaining CSLs
represent the increase in efficiency determined by each efficiency
level in the engineering analysis. DOE notes that for inflatable spas
DOE did not examine efficiency levels greater than EL 3, and mapped EL
3 to the CSLs greater than 3.
Table III.43 presents the CSLs and the corresponding efficiency
levels that DOE has identified for potential new energy conservation
standards for PESs.
Table III.43--Candidate Standard Levels for PESs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spa type
Candidate standard level ---------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Exercise Inflatable Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1
2............................................... EL 2 EL 2 EL 2 EL 2
3............................................... EL 3 EL 3 EL 3 EL 3
4............................................... EL 4 EL 4 EL 3 EL 4
5............................................... EL 5 EL 5 EL 3 EL 5
6............................................... EL 6 EL 6 EL 3 EL 6
7............................................... EL 7 EL 7 EL 3 EL 7
8............................................... EL 8 EL 8 EL 3 EL 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Results for 30-years of Shipments (2029-2058)
Table III.44--Cumulative Full-Fuel Cycle National Energy Savings (Quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spa type
Candidate standard level ---------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Exercise Inflatable Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 0.11 0.35 0.01 0.86
2............................................... 0.14 0.43 0.02 1.09
3............................................... 0.15 0.46 0.03 1.14
4............................................... 0.16 0.48 0.03 1.26
5............................................... 0.16 0.50 0.03 1.31
[[Page 69114]]
6............................................... 0.19 0.57 0.03 1.48
7............................................... 0.20 0.60 0.03 1.56
8............................................... 0.20 0.61 0.03 1.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.45--Cumulative Consumer Net Present (Billion, 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spa type
Candidate standard level ---------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Exercise Inflatable Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 0.078 0.235 0.007 0.598
2............................................... 0.074 0.221 0.015 0.592
3............................................... 0.047 0.134 0.006 0.407
4............................................... -0.007 -0.033 0.006 0.089
5............................................... -0.068 -0.226 0.006 -0.333
6............................................... -0.158 -0.507 0.006 -0.941
7............................................... -0.277 -0.883 0.006 -1.769
8............................................... -0.416 -1.318 0.006 -2.739
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 0.037 0.112 0.003 0.285
2............................................... 0.034 0.102 0.007 0.275
3............................................... 0.020 0.056 0.001 0.177
4............................................... -0.008 -0.031 0.001 0.009
5............................................... -0.040 -0.131 0.001 -0.211
6............................................... -0.087 -0.279 0.001 -0.532
7............................................... -0.149 -0.474 0.001 -0.962
8............................................... -0.221 -0.700 0.001 -1.465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Publication Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NODA
no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning
of this NODA. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the 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 www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No
[[Page 69115]]
telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email 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).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this NODA, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the previously description of the
target technology and the scope of this product, including whether any
modifications or additions are necessary to characterize this product.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether the distinction between
categories of PESs, as described in section III.A.2 of this NODA, is
significant enough to warrant the establishment of different product
classes for each type.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on the above description of the PES
manufacturers and the PES industry structure and whether any other
details are necessary for characterizing the industry or for
determining whether energy conservation standards for PESs might be
justified.
Issue 4: DOE requests information on any voluntary or mandatory
test procedure and energy conservation standards for PESs that are not
mentioned in section III.A.4 of this NODA.
Issue 5: DOE seeks comment generally on the descriptions of
relevant energy-saving technology options as described in section
III.A.5 of this document, including whether any options require revised
or additional details to characterize each option's effects on a PES's
energy consumption.
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment regarding use of additional or improved
insulation as a technology option for PESs, and in particular what
would limit adding further insulation to a PES.
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment regarding use of improved covers as a
technology option for PESs, and in particular what would limit further
energy performance increases of PES covers.
Issue 8: DOE seeks comment regarding use of improved sealing as a
technology option for PESs, regarding whether air leakage is
significant at PES locations other than the cover, and regarding what
would limit further sealing improvements energy performance increases
of PES covers.
Issue 9: DOE seeks comment on the description of radiant barriers
and data on the relative effects of radiant barriers when paired with
different amounts of insulation and different thicknesses of adjacent
air gaps.
Issue 10: DOE requests comment regarding whether insulated ground
covers warrant inclusion in the set of technology options for non-
inflatable PESs.
Issue 11: DOE seeks comment and data on the degree to which two-
speed pump inefficiencies manifest as waste heat and to which that
waste heat is absorbed by the portable electric spa's water.
Issue 12: DOE requests comment regarding whether heat pumps would
be likely to reduce energy consumption in PESs and, if so, quantified
estimates of the effects of heat pump integration on both energy
consumption and manufacturer production cost.
Issue 13: DOE requests comment regarding the availability of heat
pumps compatible with PESs.
Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on its selection of baseline units,
including whether any other units on the market would better represent
the most consumptive spas available for purchase.
Issue 15: DOE requests comment on the range of filtration system
power demands in PESs as described in Table III.1. DOE also requests
comment on any correlation between power demand and whether a spa uses
a high horsepower two-speed pump or a lower horsepower dedicated
circulation pump.
Issue 16: DOE requests comment on its assumption of a standard
shell shape as described in Table III.2, especially whether it is
representative and whether DOE should consider certain shapes that
result in maximum or minimum amounts of insulation.
Issue 17: DOE requests data and comment on the effectiveness of
radiant barriers in reducing the normalized average standby power of
PES and on what factors make radiant barriers more or less effective.
Issue 18: DOE requests data and comment on the extent to which spas
lose heat through air convection out of unsealed regions of the spa and
on the factors that affect heat losses due to sealing.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on the best way to quantify varying
degrees of cover seal, including perimeter seal against the spa flange
and hinge seal through the center of the cover.
Issue 20: DOE requests comment on the method of analyzing thermal
bridges as a single section of low R-value on the spa. Additionally,
DOE requests information about techniques and models which are used in
industry to predict spa performance.
Issue 21: DOE requests comment and data on the discrepancy between
heat loss through the wall where the components are housed and through
other walls.
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on any strategies for considering
the effects of hot water traveling through plumbing on a spa's heat
loss.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment describing its appropriation of the
scaling relationship defined in APSP-14 2019 and whether there are any
other traits with which DOE might vary energy consumption.
Issue 24: DOE requests comment on whether there are other factors
DOE should consider in converting normalized average standby power
values to reflect the proposed test procedure.
Issue 25: DOE requests comment and data on typical markups from MPC
to MSP and from MSP to final sale price.
Issue 26: DOE requests comment and data characterizing the
relationship between MPC and the size of a PES and whether there are
better methods for
[[Page 69116]]
approximating the effects of size changes on MPC than the one described
previously.
Issue 27: DOE requests comment and data characterizing to what
degree sales margins vary with spa size.
Issue 28: DOE requests comment on the efficiency levels described
in tables Table III.3 and Table III.4, including whether any do not
align with expected effects design options associated with them, as
described below in Table III.7 and Table III.8.
Issue 29: DOE requests comment on the expected effects of DOE's
proposed test procedure, as described in Table III.5 and Table III.6,
including on whether its effects on normalized average standby power
would be greater than or less than DOE's estimates.
Issue 30: DOE requests comment and data regarding the design
options and associated estimated costs described in tables Table III.7
and Table III.8 of this NODA.
Issue 31: DOE requests information on the existence of any
distribution channels other than the distribution channels listed in
Table III.11 of this document. Further, DOE requests comment on whether
the same distribution channels are applicable to installations of new
and replacement PES.
Issue 32: DOE requests information on the fraction of shipments
that are distributed through the channels shown in Table III.11 of this
document.
Issue 33: DOE seeks comment on its energy use model. Specifically,
DOE seeks comment on the energy use model for combination spas, where
the Sysnon-heat variable is normalized with volume of water portioned
to the standard spa pool.
Issue 34: DOE requests comment on its approach to estimating annual
operating hours. Additionally, DOE requests comments on its modeling
assumption that PES would be operated during the warmest months of the
year.
Issue 35: DOE requests comment on its approach to determining
regional ambient temperatures.
Issue 36: DOE requests data or comment on the typical operating
temperature for exercise spas not capable of maintaining a minimum
temperature of 100 [deg]F. And DOE requests data or comment on the
distribution of typical operating temperature for exercise spas not
capable of maintaining a minimum temperature of 100 [deg]F.
Issue 37: DOE requests data or comment on the distribution of
typical operating temperature for spas capable of maintaining a minimum
temperature of 100 [deg]F. And DOE requests data or comment on the
distribution of typical operating temperature for exercise spas capable
of maintaining a minimum temperature of 100 [deg]F.
Issue 38: DOE requests comment on its proposed methodology to
project future equipment prices.
Issue 39: DOE request information or data related to the past
trends in production costs of PESs. Additionally, DOE request data or
information related to the cost of PES production over time.
Issue 40: DOE requests comment on its decision to exclude
installation costs from any future efficiency standard calculation.
Issue 41: DOE requests data and details on the installation costs
of PESs, and whether those costs vary by product type or any other
factor affecting their efficiency.
Issue 42: DOE requests comment on its use of AEO to project
electricity prices into the future.
Issue 43: DOE requests feedback and specific data on whether
maintenance costs differ in comparison to the baseline maintenance
costs for any of the specific efficiency improving technology options
applicable to PESs.
Issue 44: DOE requests comment on the typical repairs to PESs and
how they may differ in the case of a potential new energy conservation
standard.
Issue 45: DOE requests comment on its lifetime analysis.
Issue 46: DOE requests comment on its reasoning and assumption to
not apply a rebound effect to PES stand-by power energy use.
Issue 47: DOE requests comment on its stock ratios for hard-sided
spas. Additionally, DOE seeks input on the market shares of standard,
exercise, and combination spas.
Issue 48: DOE seeks comment on its assumed 2020 stock estimates for
all spa types.
Issue 49: DOE requests comment on its proposed use of future
residential construction to project future shipments of PESs.
Issue 50: DOE requests comment on its modeling assumption that PES
efficiency will remaining constant over time in the absence of
potential new standards.
Issue 51: Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues
relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be
identified in this document.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of data availability and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 31,
2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, 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 November 2, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-24290 Filed 11-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
