Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Single Package Vertical Units, 75388-75421 [2022-26024]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75388
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0033]
RIN 1904–AE78
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Single
Package Vertical Units
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
notification of proposed determination
and announcement of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),
prescribes energy conservation
standards for various consumer
products and certain commercial and
industrial equipment, including single
package vertical air conditioners
(SPVACs) and single package vertical
heat pumps (SPVHPs), collectively
referred to as single package vertical
units (SPVUs). EPCA also requires the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to
periodically review standards. In this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR);
notification of proposed determination
(NOPD), DOE proposes to amend the
current energy conservation standards
for SPVUs such that the existing
standard levels would be based on a
new cooling efficiency metric of
Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio
(IEER) for SPVACs and SPVHPs, and the
current heating efficiency metric of
Coefficient of Performance (COP) for
SPVHPs (but without any increase in
stringency), In addition, DOE has
initially determined that more-stringent
standards for SPVUs would not be
economically justified and would not
result in a significant conservation of
energy. DOE also announces a public
meeting to receive comment on these
proposed standards and associated
analyses and results.
DATES: Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this NOPR/NOPD no later
than February 6, 2023.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting via webinar on Monday,
January 9th, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m. See section VIII, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for webinar registration
information, participant instructions,
and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
January 9, 2023. DOE notes that the
Department of Justice is required to
transmit its determination regarding the
competitive impact of the proposed
standard to DOE no later than February
6, 2023. Commenters who want to have
their comments considered by DOE as
part of any further rulemaking resulting
from this NOPR/NOPD also should
submit such comments to DOE in
accordance with the procedures detailed
in this proposal.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE–2019–BT–STD–0033.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2019–BT–STD–0033 and/or RIN 1904–
AE78, by any of the following methods:
Email: SPVU2019STD@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number EERE–2019–
BT–STD–0033 and/or RIN 1904–AE78
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
VIII of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as those
containing information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at:
www.regulations.gov/search/
docket?filter=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033.
The docket web page contains
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VIII (Public
Participation) of this document for
information on how to submit
comments through
www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the U.S. Attorney
General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed
standard is likely to lessen competition.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
Antitrust Division invites input from
market participants and other interested
persons with views on the likely
competitive impact of the proposed
standard. Interested persons may
contact the Antitrust Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov in advance
of the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’
line of your email the title and Docket
Number of this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
7335. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC, 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email:
Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting webinar, 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. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of the Current Energy
Conservation Standards Rulemaking for
SPVUs
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Equipment Classes
C. Test Procedure and Efficiency Metrics
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
E. Energy Savings
F. Economic Justification
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
1. Economic Impact on Consumers and
Manufacturers
2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to
Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
3. Energy Savings
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need for National Energy Conservation
7. Other Factors
IV. Crosswalk Analysis
V. Methodology and Discussion of Related
Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Economic Impacts on SPVU Consumers
B. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Economic Justification
3. Significant Additional Energy Savings
4. Summary
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review
VIII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Public Meeting
Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act,1 as amended, Public Law 94–163
(42 U.S.C. 6291–6317, as codified)
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy
efficiency of a number of consumer
products and certain industrial
equipment. Title III, part C 2 of EPCA,
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) This
equipment includes single package
vertical air conditioners (SPVACs) and
single package vertical heat pumps
(SPVHPs), collectively referred to as
single package vertical units (SPVUs),
the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
SPVUs are a category of commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D);
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10))
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE must consider
amending the Federal energy efficiency
standards for certain types of
commercial and industrial equipment,
including the equipment at issue in this
document, whenever the Department is
triggered by the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
acting to amend the standard levels or
design requirements prescribed in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings,’’ (ASHRAE
Standard 90.1). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)–(B)) In addition, EPCA
contains an independent review
requirement for this same equipment
(the 6-year-lookback review), which
requires DOE to consider the need for
amended standards every six years. To
adopt standard levels more stringent
than those contained in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must have clear and
convincing evidence to show that such
standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified and
would save a significant additional
amount of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)) DOE is conducting this
proposed rulemaking under EPCA’s 6year-lookback review authority.
The current Federal energy
conservation standards for SPVUs are
set forth at title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), 10 CFR
431.97(d) and, as specified in 10 CFR
431.96, those standards are
denominated in terms of the cooling
efficiency metric, Energy Efficiency
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 C was redesignated part A–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75389
Ratio (EER) and the heating efficiency
metric, Coefficient of Performance
(COP), and based on the rating
conditions in American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) Standard 390–2003,
‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package
Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat
Pumps’’ (ANSI/AHRI 390–2003).
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 references
this same industry test standard.
On June 24, 2021, AHRI published
AHRI Standard 390–2021, ‘‘Performance
Rating of Single Package Vertical AirConditioners and Heat Pumps’’ (AHRI
390–2021), which supersedes ANSI/
AHRI 390–2003. AHRI 390–2021, which
was developed as part of an industry
consensus process, includes revisions
that DOE determined improve the
representativeness, repeatability, and
reproducibility of the test methods.
Among other things, AHRI 390–2021
maintains the existing efficiency
metrics—EER for cooling mode and COP
for heating mode—but it also added a
seasonal efficiency metric that includes
part-load cooling performance—the
Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio
(IEER). In November 2022, DOE issued
a Test Procedure Final Rule for SPVUs
that amended the test procedures for
SPVUs to incorporate by reference AHRI
390–2021. As discussed in section III.C
of this document, DOE has determined
that the IEER metric is more
representative of the cooling efficiency
for SPVUs on an annual basis than the
current EER metric. As a result, DOE is
proposing to amend the standards for
SPVUs to be based on the seasonal
cooling metric, IEER, and the existing
heating metric, COP. As discussed in
section IV of this document, DOE
conducted a crosswalk analysis to
develop IEER levels that are of
equivalent stringency to the current EER
standard levels.3
To satisfy its review obligations under
EPCA’s 6-year-lookback provision, DOE
analyzed the technological feasibility of
more energy-efficient SPVUs. For those
SPVUs for which DOE determined
higher standards to be technologically
feasible, DOE evaluated whether higher
standards would be economically
justified by conducting life-cycle cost
(LCC) and payback period (PBP)
3 EPCA provides that in the case of any amended
test procedure where DOE deviates from the
industry test standard referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must determine, to what extent,
if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the
measured energy efficiency, measured energy use,
or measured water use of the subject ASHRAE
equipment as determined under the existing test
procedure. (See 42 U.S.C 6293(e); 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(C)) DOE refers to this as the ‘‘crosswalk’’
analysis.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
75390
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
analyses. As discussed in the following
sections, DOE has tentatively
determined that it lacks the clear and
convincing evidence required under the
statute to show that amended standards
would be economically justified. DOE
did not conduct a national impact
analysis to measure the national energy
savings of higher efficiency levels,
because the weighted average LCC
savings were strongly negative across
the four equipment classes.
Based on the results of the analyses
conducted, summarized in section VI of
this document, DOE has tentatively
determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that amended
standards for SPVUs, in terms of IEER
and COP, that are more stringent than
the current standards for SPVUs would
be economically justified. The clear and
convincing threshold is a heightened
standard and would only be met where
the Secretary has an abiding conviction,
based on available facts, data, and
DOE’s own analyses, that it is highly
probable an amended standard would
result in a significant additional amount
of energy savings, and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. See
American Public Gas Association v.
U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 20–1068, 2022
WL 151923, at *4 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 18,
2022) (citing Colorado v. New Mexico,
467 U.S. 310, 316, 104 S.Ct. 2433, 81
L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)). DOE did not
conduct the shipments analysis,
manufacturer impact analysis, and other
such analyses typically conducted at the
NOPR stage due to the results of the
initial analysis conducted (discussed in
further detail elsewhere in this
document).
In this NOPR/NOPD, DOE is
proposing to adopt standards based on
IEER and COP that are of equivalent
stringency as the current DOE energy
conservation standard levels and the
current standard levels specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019. The
proposed standards are presented in
Table I–1. These proposed standards, if
adopted, would apply to all SPVUs
listed in Table I–1 manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States starting
on the tentative compliance date of 360
days after the publication in the Federal
Register of the final rule for this
rulemaking. See section VI.B of this
NOPR/NOPD for a discussion on the
applicable lead-times considered to
determine this compliance date.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
The energy conservation program
TABLE I–1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONunder EPCA consists essentially of four
SERVATION STANDARDS FOR SPVUS
Proposed
standard level
Equipment class
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h ...........
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h ...........
SPVAC ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
SPVHP ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
SPVAC ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
SPVHP ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
IEER = 12.5
IEER = 12.5
COP = 3.3
IEER = 10.3
IEER = 10.3
COP = 3.0
IEER = 11.2
IEER = 11.2
COP = 3.0
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposal, as well as
some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of energy conservation standards for
SPVUs.
A. Authority
EPCA, Pub. L. 94–163, as amended,
among other things, authorizes DOE to
regulate the energy efficiency of a
number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. Title III,
part C of EPCA, added by Public Law
95–619, title IV, section 441(a), (42
U.S.C. 6311–6317, as codified),
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency. This equipment includes
SPVUs, which are a category of small,
large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment and the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D); 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed
initial standards for these products. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)–(2)) Congress updated
the standards for SPVUs through
amendments to EPCA contained in the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110–
140 (Dec. 19, 2007). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)) Additionally, DOE is
triggered to consider amending the
energy conservation standards for
certain types of commercial and
industrial equipment, including the
equipment at issue in this document,
whenever ASHRAE amends the
standard levels or design requirements
prescribed in ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1, and independent of that
requirement, a separate provision of
EPCA requires DOE to consider
amended standards for that equipment
at a minimum, every six years. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(C))
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
parts: (1) testing; (2) labeling; (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), energy conservation standards
(42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to
require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the
procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE is
required to follow when prescribing or
amending test procedures for covered
equipment. EPCA requires that any test
procedures prescribed or amended
under this section must be reasonably
designed to produce test results which
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
given type of covered equipment during
a representative average use cycle and
requires that test procedures not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Manufacturers of
covered equipment must use the Federal
test procedures as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their equipment
complies with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42
U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of
that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)).
Similarly, DOE uses these test
procedures to determine whether the
equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA.
The DOE test procedures for SPVUs
appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F,
appendices G and G1.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry
energy efficiency levels for small, large,
and very large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment,
packaged terminal air conditioners,
packaged terminal heat pumps, warm
air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage
water heaters, instantaneous water
heaters, and unfired hot water storage
tanks (collectively referred to as
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
‘‘ASHRAE equipment’’). For each type
of listed equipment, EPCA directs that
if ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1, DOE
must adopt amended standards at the
new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless
DOE determines, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a
more-stringent level would produce
significant additional conservation of
energy and would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Under EPCA,
DOE must also review energy efficiency
standards for SPVUs every six years and
either: (1) issue a notice of
determination that the standards do not
need to be amended as adoption of a
more-stringent level is not supported by
clear and convincing evidence; or (2)
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed standards
based on certain criteria and procedures
in subparagraph (B) of 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
In deciding whether a more-stringent
standard is economically justified,
under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C),
DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens. DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the maximum extent
practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of equipment subject to the
standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered equipment in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered equipment that
are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy savings likely to result directly
from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered equipment
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy
conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of
Energy considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified if the Secretary finds that the
additional cost to the consumer of
purchasing a product that complies with
the standard will be less than three
times the value of the energy (and, as
applicable, water) savings during the
first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated
under the applicable test procedure. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) However,
while this rebuttable presumption
analysis applies to most commercial and
industrial equipment (42 U.S.C.
6316(a)), it is not a required analysis for
ASHRAE equipment (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(1)).
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. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I))
Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard if interested
75391
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 generally available in the
United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published in the
Federal Register on September 23, 2015
(September 2015 Final Rule), DOE
prescribed the current energy
conservation standards for SPVUs in
accordance with the 3-year review
prescribed by EPCA and in response to
the 2013 update to ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013). 80
FR 57438. As part of the September
2015 Final Rule, DOE evaluated
whether more-stringent standards for
SPVUs were economically justified
consistent with the requirements in
EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–
(VII). For four of the six SPVU
equipment classes, DOE adopted the
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2013. 80 FR 57438, 57439 (Sept.
23, 2015). For the remaining two
equipment classes, DOE concluded that
there was clear and convincing evidence
that standards more stringent than the
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013
were technologically feasible and
economically justified and would save a
significant additional amount of energy.
Id. The current energy conservation
standards are codified at 10 CFR 431.97
and are set forth in Table II–1.
TABLE II–1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR SPVUS
Subcategory
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, single-phase
and three-phase.
<65,000 Btu/h ...............
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps.
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
EER = 11.0 ...................
September 23, 2019.
HP
EER = 11.0 ...................
COP = 3.3 .....................
EER = 10.0 ...................
September 23, 2019.
EER = 10.0 ...................
COP = 3.0 .....................
EER = 10.0 ...................
October 9, 2015.
AC
AC
HP
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has been
updated on several occasions since the
2013 version, the most recently being
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
EER = 10.0 ...................
COP = 3.0 .....................
released on October 24, 2019 (i.e.,
ASHRAE 90.1–2019). The standard
levels for SPVUs were revised in
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Compliance date:
products manufactured
on and after . . .
AC
HP
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps.
Efficiency level
Sfmt 4702
October 9, 2015.
October 9, 2016.
October 9, 2016.
ASHRAE 90.1–2019 to match the
current DOE standard levels.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75392
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
2. History of the Current Energy
Conservation Standards Rulemaking for
SPVUs
On April 24, 2020, DOE published in
the Federal Register a request for
information regarding energy
conservation standards for SPVUs (April
2020 RFI). 85 FR 22958. The April 2020
RFI solicited information from the
public to help DOE determine whether
amended standards for SPVUs would
result in significant additional energy
savings and whether such standards
would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE received
comments in response to the April 2020
RFI from the interested parties listed in
Table II–2.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE II–2—APRIL 2020 RFI WRITTEN COMMENTS
Commenter
type
Commenter(s)
Abbreviation
Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute ..................
AHRI .......................................
9
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
GE Appliances, a Haier company ............................................
Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of
Law.
Lennox International Inc ...........................................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .......................................
ASAP/ACEEE .........................
11
GE ...........................................
NYU ........................................
7
5
Lennox ....................................
NEEA ......................................
8
6
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas
and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison
(SCE); collectively referred to as the California InvestorOwned Utilities.
CA IOUs ..................................
10
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.4
The following provides an overview
of the public comments received on the
April 2020 RFI. In general, AHRI
recommended that DOE not amend the
current minimum energy conservation
standards for SPVUs. The commenter
stated that DOE should wait until the
revised edition of the industry test
procedure for SPVUs has published and
has been referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. AHRI added that a
crosswalk should be developed by
testing and calculation using current
baseline-efficiency SPVU equipment to
establish the energy conservation
standards using the new metric. (AHRI,
No. 9 at p. 6)
The CA IOUs recommended DOE
investigate increasing the baseline
efficiency levels for SPVUs in
conjunction with establishing standards
and test procedures that incorporate
part-load performance. Based on their
analysis of DOE’s Compliance
Certification Database (CCD), the CA
IOUs noted that over 70 percent of
products in each SPVU equipment class
are at the minimum efficiency level, but
many products have varied features and
compressor configurations that are
4 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for SPVUs. (Docket Number: EERE–2019–
BT–STD–0033, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID
number, page of that document).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
likely to translate into differences in
part-load performance. Based on this,
the CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
consider shifting to a more-stringent,
full-load metric. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p.
2)
ASAP and ACEEE commented that
greater energy savings are possible than
those evaluated for the September 2015
Final Rule. ASAP and ACEEE argued
that the most-efficient SPVU models
currently available have either Energy
Efficiency Ratio (EER) or COP ratings
that are higher than the max-tech levels
considered in the September 2015 Final
Rule. (ASAP/ACEEE, No. 11 at pp. 1–2)
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, DOE has amended its test
procedures for SPVUs to incorporate by
reference the updated industry test
procedure, AHRI Standard 390–2021,
‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package
Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat
Pumps’’ (AHRI 390–2021), which
includes the existing efficiency
metrics—EER for cooling mode and COP
for heating mode—but it also adds a
cooling-mode seasonal metric that
includes part-load cooling
performance—the IEER metric.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing to
amend the energy conservation
standards for SPVUs to be based on the
seasonal cooling metric, IEER, and the
existing heating metric, COP. As
discussed in section IV of this
document, DOE conducted a crosswalk
analysis in collaboration with AHRI and
SPVU manufacturers to translate the
current SPVU standard levels based on
EER to the new metric, IEER, to
establish baseline efficiency levels for
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Docket No.
Manufacturer Trade Association.
Efficiency Advocacy Organizations.
Manufacturer.
Educational Institution.
Manufacturer.
Efficiency Advocacy Organization.
Utilities.
the current analysis considering the
potential for more-stringent SPVU
standard levels.
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A
(appendix A), ‘‘Procedures,
Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test
Procedures for Consumer Products and
Certain Commercial/Industrial
Equipment,’’ DOE notes that it is
deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the NOPR/NOPD
stages for an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. See 86 FR 70892
(Dec. 13, 2021).
Section 8(d)(1) of appendix A states
that the Department will finalize
amended test procedures 180 days prior
to the close of the comment period of a
NOPR proposing new or amended
standards or a notice of proposed
determination that standards do not
need to be amended. For the reasons
that follow, DOE finds it necessary and
appropriate to deviate from this step in
appendix A by publishing this NOPR/
NOPD such that the comment period
will end before 180 days has elapsed
from the publication of the test
procedure final rule. As discussed in a
final rule pertaining to Procedures,
Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration in New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test
Procedures for Consumer Products and
Commercial/Industrial Equipment, the
180-day period may not always be
necessary. As an example, DOE noted
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
that it will typically use an industry test
procedure as the basis for a new DOE
test procedure. If DOE adopts the
industry test procedure without
modification, stakeholders should
already be familiar with the test
procedure. In such cases, requiring the
new test procedure to be finalized 180
days prior to the close of the comment
period for a NOPR proposing new
energy conservation standards would
offer little benefit to stakeholders while
delaying DOE’s promulgation of new
energy conservation standards. 86 FR
70892, 70896 (Dec. 13, 2021). In this
analogous case, DOE is deviating from
the 180-day provision because it has
incorporated by reference the industry
consensus test procedure for SPVUs,
AHRI 390–2021. DOE also notes that
AHRI 390–2021 was published in June
2021, so DOE expects that
manufacturers are already familiar with
the test procedure.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after
considering oral and written comments,
data, and information from interested
parties that represent a variety of
interests. The following discussion
addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
A. Scope of Coverage
EPCA, as amended by the EISA 2007
defines ‘‘single package vertical air
conditioner’’ and ‘‘single package
vertical heat pump’’ at 42 U.S.C.
6311(22) and (23), respectively. In
particular, single package vertical air
conditioners can be single- or threephase; must have major components
arranged vertically; must be an encased
combination of components; and must
be intended for exterior mounting on,
adjacent interior to, or through an
outside wall. Single package vertical
heat pumps are single package vertical
air conditioners that use reverse cycle
refrigeration as their primary heat
source and may include secondary
supplemental heating by means of
electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or
gas. DOE codified the statutory
definitions into its regulations at 10 CFR
431.92. Additionally, EPCA established
initial equipment classes and energy
conservation standards for SPVUs based
on cooling capacity, and for those
SPVUs with a capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h, also based on phase. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(A)(i)–(ii) and (v)–(vi))
DOE defines an SPVAC as air-cooled
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment that: (1) is
factory-assembled as a single package
that: (i) has major components that are
arranged vertically; (ii) is an encased
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
combination of cooling and optional
heating components; and (iii) is
intended for exterior mounting on,
adjacent interior to, or through an
outside wall; (2) is powered by a singlephase or three-phase current; (3) may
contain one or more separate indoor
grilles, outdoor louvers, various
ventilation options, indoor free air
discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or
sleeves; and (4) has heating components
that may include electrical resistance,
steam, hot water, or gas, but may not
include reverse cycle refrigeration as a
heating means. 10 CFR 431.92.
Additionally, DOE defines an SPVHP as
a single package vertical air conditioner
that: (1) uses reverse cycle refrigeration
as its primary heat source; and (2) may
include secondary supplemental heating
by means of electrical resistance, steam,
hot water, or gas. Id. The Federal test
procedures are applicable to SPVUs
with a cooling capacity less than
760,000 Btu/h. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)(ii))
DOE currently only prescribes energy
conservation standards for SPVUs less
than 240,000 Btu/h (see section III.B of
this document for details).
As part of the April 2020 RFI, DOE
requested commented on whether the
definitions for SPVUs should be revised.
80 FR 22958, 22961 (April 24, 2020). On
that topic, AHRI commented that the
definitions of SPVAC and SPVHP
generally remain appropriate and did
not suggest any modifications. (AHRI,
No. 9 at p. 3)
As part of the most recent energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
SPVUs, DOE published a notice of data
availability in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2014 (April 2014 NODA). 79
FR 20114. In the April 2014 NODA,
DOE noted that ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2013 created a new equipment
class for SPVACs and SPVHPs used in
space-constrained and replacement-only
applications, with a definition for
‘‘nonweatherized space constrained
single-package vertical unit’’ and
efficiency standards for the associated
equipment class. Id. at 79 FR 20121–
20122. In the April 2014 NODA, DOE
tentatively concluded that there was no
need to establish a separate spaceconstrained class for SPVUs, given that
certain models listed by manufacturers
as SPVUs, most of which would meet
the ASHRAE space-constrained
definition, were being misclassified and
should have been classified as central
air conditioners (in most cases, spaceconstrained central air conditioners). Id.
at 79 FR 20122–20123. DOE reaffirmed
this position in the NOPR published in
the Federal Register on December 30,
2014 NOPR (December 2014 NOPR). 79
FR 78614, 78625–78627. In response to
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75393
the December 2014 NOPR, DOE
received several comments from
stakeholders related to the classification
of products that these commenters are
referring to as space-constrained SPVUs,
the statutory definition of SPVU, how
these products are applied in the field
or specified for purchase, and whether
the products warranted a separate
equipment class within SPVU. In the
final rule published in the Federal
Register on September 23, 2015, DOE
stated that it would consider those
comments and take appropriate action
in a separate rulemaking. 80 FR 57438,
57448. In response to the April 2020
RFI, Lennox commented that this
remains an important outstanding issue
for resolution in order to ensure that
current products and new entries to the
market are treated equitably. (Lennox,
No. 8 at pp. 1–2)
In November 2022, DOE issued a final
rule to amend the test procedure for
SPVUs (the November 2022 Test
Procedure Final Rule).5 As part of the
November 2022 Test Procedure Final
Rule, DOE added specific definitions for
‘‘single-phase single package vertical air
conditioner with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘single-phase
single package vertical heat pump with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’
to explicitly delineate such equipment
from certain covered consumer
products, such as central air
conditioners, based on design
characteristics. DOE defined this
equipment as SPVACs and SPVHPs that
are either: (1) weatherized, or (2) nonweatherized and have the ability to
provide a minimum of 400 CFM of
outdoor air. As discussed in the
November 2022 Test Procedure Final
Rule, single-phase single package
products with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h not meeting these
definitions would be properly classified
as consumer central air conditioners,
not commercial SPVUs.
B. Equipment Classes
EISA 2007, Public Law 110–140,
amended EPCA in relevant part by
establishing equipment classes and
minimum energy conservation
standards for SPVUs. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(A)) In doing so, the EISA
2007 amendments established Federal
energy conservation standards for
SPVUs at levels that generally
corresponded to the levels in the 2004
edition of the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air5 The November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule
is available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
standards.aspx?productid=30.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75394
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2004). On March 23, 2009, DOE
published a final rule technical
amendment in the Federal Register that
codified the statutory equipment classes
and energy conservation standards for
SPVUs into DOE’s regulations in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10
CFR 431.97. 74 FR 12058, 12073–12074.
EPCA generally directs DOE to adopt
the equipment class structure for SPVUs
from ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (See 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) For SVPUs, the
current energy conservation standards
specified in 10 CFR 431.97 are based on
six equipment classes 6 determined
according to the following: (1) cooling
capacity and (2) whether the equipment
is an air conditioner or a heat pump.
These equipment classes are identical to
those described in ASHRAE Standard
90.1.
TABLE III–1—SPVU EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Equipment class
1
2
3
4
5
6
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h.
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
EPCA sets forth generally applicable
criteria and procedures for DOE’s
adoption and amendment of test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment
must use these test procedures to certify
to DOE that their equipment complies
with energy conservation standards and
to quantify the efficiency of their
equipment. DOE’s current energy
conservation standards for SPVUs are
expressed in terms of the full-load
cooling metric, EER, and the heating
metric, COP. (See 10 CFR 431.97(d)(3))
ASHRAE 90.1–2019 references, as the
test procedure for SPVUs, ANSI/AHRI
390–2003, which does not include a
seasonal efficiency metric for cooling
mode. At the time of the April 2020 RFI,
DOE’s test procedure for SPVUs also
incorporated by reference ANSI/AHRI
390–2003, omitting section 6.4. Hence,
DOE’s test procedure for SPVUs at that
time likewise did not include a seasonal
metric that accounted for part-load
performance.
In response to the April 2020 RFI,
NEEA, the CA IOUs, and ASAP/ACEEE
commented that the existing SPVUs test
procedure using the full-load EER
metric does not account for the energy
savings from variable-speed fans, multistage compressors, electronic expansion
valves, and other technologies, and that
there would likely be significant energy
savings potential if a part-load metric
were to be used. (NEEA, No. 6 at p. 2;
CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 1; ASAP/ACEEE,
No. 11 at pp. 1, 2) NEEA and the CA
IOUs commented that nearly 25 percent
of units in the AHRI Directory of
Certified Product Performance are rated
with the integrated part-load value
(IPLV) metric (in addition to EER),
which considers part-load efficiency.
(NEEA, No. 6 at pp. 2–3; CA IOUs, No.
10 at pp. 1–2) NEEA commented that
there is a significant range in IPLV
values for units available on the market
(from approximately 13.5 to 17 IPLV),
whereas EER only ranges from 11 to
12.5, with most units at the minimum
of 11 EER. (NEEA, No. 6 at pp. 2–3)
NEEA, the CA IOUs, and ASAP/ACEEE
recommended that DOE should amend
the test procedure for SPVUs to consider
part-load performance so as to better
represent performance during an
average use cycle. (NEEA, No. 6 at p. 3;
CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2; ASAP/ACEEE,
No. 11 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs added that while partload performance is key to representing
an average use cycle, full-load
performance is critical for enabling
utilities to effectively manage grid
services. The CA IOUs expressed
support for a regulatory model in which
both full-load EER and part-load
efficiency are published in the AHRI
database. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2)
AHRI and GE commented at the time
of the April 2020 RFI that the industry,
in collaboration with DOE, was in the
process of finalizing a revised test
procedure for SPVUs that adopts a
seasonal cooling mode metric, IEER.
(AHRI, No. 9 at p. 2; GE, No. 7 at p. 2)
AHRI stated that any proposal to change
the SPVU efficiency metric should be
developed through the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 process. (AHRI, No. 9 at
p. 2; GE, No. 7 at p. 2)
In response to these comments, DOE
notes that as part of the November 2022
Test Procedure Final Rule, the
Department amended its test procedure
for SPVUs to incorporate by reference
AHRI 390–2021, the latest version of the
relevant industry standard. Among
other things, AHRI 390–2021 maintains
the existing efficiency metrics—EER for
cooling mode and COP for heating
mode—but it also added a seasonal
metric that includes part-load cooling
performance—the IEER metric. As part
of the November 2022 Test Procedure
Final Rule, DOE added a new appendix
G1 at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, that
includes the relevant test procedure
requirements for SPVUs for measuring
with updated cooling efficiency metric,
IEER, and heating efficiency metric,
COP. The relevant test procedure
requirements for SPVUs for measuring
the existing efficiency metrics, EER and
COP were included in appendix G at 10
CFR part 431, subpart F. Beginning 360
days on or after the date of publication
of the test procedure final rule in the
Federal Register, manufacturers must
use appendix G for compliance, but if
manufacturers make voluntary
representations with respect to the
integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER),
such representations must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with
appendix G1. All manufacturers must
use appendix G1 on and after the
compliance date of any amended
standards for single packaged vertical
air conditioners and single package
vertical heat pumps denominated in
terms of IEER, as set forth in 10 CFR
431.97.
6 Although EPCA divided SPVACs and SPVHPs
with < 65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity into
equipment classes based on the phase of the
electrical power (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)), it set
the same energy conservation standards for both
single-phase and three-phase equipment. DOE’s
current standards, as codified in 10 CFR 431.97,
divide SPVU equipment into six equipment classes
based on the cooling capacity and whether the
equipment is an air conditioner or a heat pump, a
class structure consistent with ASHRAE Standard
90.1.
C. Test Procedure and Efficiency Metrics
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DOE notes that SPVUs often operate
at part-load (i.e., less than designed fullload capacity) in the field, depending on
the application and location. The
current Federal metric for cooling
efficiency, EER, captures the system
performance at a single, full-load
operating point (i.e., single outdoor air
temperature). As noted in section 6.2.2
of AHRI 390–2021, the full-load
operating conditions (i.e., 95 °F outdoor
air dry-bulb temperature) accounts for
only 1 percent of the time on average for
SPVU applications. Hence, EER is not
necessarily representative of energy
efficiency over a full cooling season. In
contrast, the IEER metric factors in the
efficiency of operating at full-load
conditions when outdoor temperature is
high, as well as part-load conditions of
75-percent, 50-percent, and 25-percent
of full-load capacity at outdoor
temperatures appropriate for these load
levels. This is accomplished by
weighting the full- and part-load
efficiencies with a representative
average amount of time operating at
each loading point. Under part-load
conditions, SPVUs may cycle off/on,
may operate at lower compressor stage
levels, or (if they have variable-capacity
compressors) may modulate capacity to
match the cooling load. The test
conditions and weighting factors for this
IEER metric in AHRI 390–2021 were
developed specifically for SPVUs based
on an annual building load analysis and
temperature data for buildings
representative of SPVU installations,
including modular classrooms, modular
offices, and telecommunication shelters
across 15 different climate zones.7
Based on the weighting factors specified
in section 6.2.2 of AHRI 390–2021,
SPVUs spend a significant amount of
time operating at milder outdoor air
conditions with lower cooling loads.
DOE’s analysis also indicates that the
efficiency at the milder part-load
operating conditions can be
significantly different than at the fullload operating conditions, and
efficiency also can be significantly
different between single-stage and twostage units. The test conditions and
weighting factors for the four load levels
representing 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent
of full-load capacity for SPVUs under
the IEER metric are different than those
used in the IEER metric in AHRI 340/
360–2019, which were developed based
on CUAC building types. For these
reasons, DOE considers the IEER metric
7 Based on EnergyPlus analysis developed for the
previous energy conservation standards rulemaking
for SPVUs. 80 FR 57438, 57462 (Sept. 23, 2015).
EnergyPlus is a whole building energy simulation
program (Available at: https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/energyplus/).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
to be representative of the cooling
efficiency for SPVUs on an annual basis,
and more representative than the
current EER metric. Accordingly, DOE is
proposing to amend the standards for
SPVUs to be based on the seasonal
cooling metric, IEER, and the existing
heating metric, COP.
DOE notes that the IPLV metric
specified in AHRI 390–2003 integrates
unit performance at each capacity step
provided by the refrigeration system.
However, the IPLV tests at each capacity
step are all conducted at constant
outdoor air conditions of 80 °F dry-bulb
temperature and 67 °F wet-bulb
temperature. As discussed, the IEER
metric was developed considering
climate data to reflect the outdoor
temperatures representative of different
load levels. As a result, DOE considers
the IEER metric specified in AHRI 390–
2021 to be more representative of
annual energy use than the IPLV metric
specified in AHRI 390–2003. DOE has
determined, by clear and convincing
evidence, that AHRI 390–2021 is more
representative on annual energy use
than AHRI 390–2003. As discussed,
SPVUs often operate at part-load
conditions. DOE notes that the IPLV
metric specified in AHRI 390–2003
integrates unit performance at each
capacity step provided by the
refrigeration system. However, the IPLV
tests at each capacity step are all
conducted at constant outdoor air
conditions of 80 °F dry-bulb
temperature and 67 °F wet-bulb
temperature. As discussed, the IEER
metric was developed considering
climate data to reflect the outdoor
temperatures representative of different
load levels. As a result, DOE considers
the IEER metric specified in AHRI 390–
2021 to be more representative of
annual energy use than the IPLV metric
specified in AHRI 390–2003.
NEEA and ASAP/ACEEE commented
that DOE should also amend the test
procedure for SPVUs to fully account
for embedded fan energy use and revise
the external static pressure requirements
to accurately reflect field conditions.
(NEEA, No. 6 at p. 1; ASAP/ACEEE, No.
11 at p. 1) ASAP/ACEEE also
commented that DOE should
incorporate defrost and reflect heating
performance at lower ambient
temperatures in the heating efficiency
metric. (ASAP/ACEEE, No. 11 at pp. 1,
2) DOE has addressed all of these
comments related to test procedure
issues in the November 2022 Test
Procedure Final Rule.
In the November 2022 Test Procedure
Final Rule, DOE determined that it does
not have sufficient information
regarding the operation of fans outside
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75395
of mechanical cooling and heating
modes (e.g., economizing, ventilation),
regarding the installations for SPVHPs
and the frequency of operation of
defrost cycles, or regarding
representative low ambient conditions
during field use that would be necessary
to develop representative testing
procedures for these operating modes.
DOE also determined that that it does
not have information indicating that the
current minimum ESPs are
unrepresentative of field conditions.
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening
analysis based on information gathered
on all current technology options and
prototype designs that could improve
the efficiency of the products or
equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an
analysis, DOE develops a list of
technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design
engineers, and other interested parties.
DOE then determines which of those
means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers
technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in
working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. See generally
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3)(i) and
7(b)(1).
After DOE has determined that
particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further
evaluates each technology option in
light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; (2)
adverse impacts on product utility or
availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway
proprietary technologies. See generally
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3)(ii)–(v)
and 7(b)(2)–(5). Section V.B of this
document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for SPVUs,
particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and
those that are the basis for the standards
considered in this rulemaking. For
further details on the screening analysis
for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the
NOPR/NOPD technical support
document (TSD).
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an
amended energy conservation standard
for a type or class of covered equipment
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75396
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
more stringent than the level in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, the Department
must conduct the requisite analyses to
show by clear and convincing evidence
that such standard would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and would be technologically
feasible and economically justified.
Under such analysis, DOE determines
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
energy use that is technologically
feasible for such equipment. (See 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) Accordingly,
in the engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum
technologically feasible (max-tech)
improvements in energy efficiency for
SPVUs, using the design parameters for
the most-efficient products available on
the market or in working prototypes.
The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this rulemaking are
described in section V.C.1.b of this
proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the
NOPR/NOPD TSD.
E. Energy Savings
In determining whether standards for
the subject equipment should be
amended, DOE would typically
determine whether such standards
would result in significant additional
conservation of energy, as required by
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i). However, as
discussed in section VI of this
document, DOE has tentatively
determined that amended standards for
the subject equipment would not be
economically justified. Because clear
and convincing evidence of economic
justification is necessary to adopt morestringent standards for the subject
equipment, DOE has tentatively
concluded that quantification of energy
savings from potential amended
standards is not necessary in the case of
this proposed rulemaking.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
F. Economic Justification
As noted, EPCA provides seven
factors to be evaluated in determining
whether a potential amended energy
conservation standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)(VII)) The following sections discuss
how DOE has addressed each of those
seven factors in this NOPR/NOPD.
1. Economic Impact on Consumers and
Manufacturers
For individual consumers, DOE
measures the economic impact by
calculating the changes in LCC and PBP
associated with new or amended energy
conservation standards for the
equipment in question. These measures
are discussed further in the following
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
section. For consumers in the aggregate,
DOE also calculates the national net
present value (NPV) of the consumer
costs and benefits expected to result
from particular standards. DOE also
evaluates the impacts of potential
standards on identifiable subgroups of
consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
However, DOE’s analysis showed
negative LCC savings for SPVUs for
nearly all efficiency levels, and,
therefore, DOE is not proposing to
amend standards for SPVUs, because
the Department anticipates that it would
not have the clear and convincing
evidence to support amended standards
more stringent that those set forth in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Accordingly,
DOE did not conduct a consumer
subgroup analysis or a national impact
analysis for this NOPR/NOPD.
In determining the impacts of a
potential standard on manufacturers,
DOE typically conducts a manufacturer
impact analysis (MIA). However,
because DOE is tentatively unable to
determine via clear and convincing
evidence that a more-stringent standard
level would result in significant
additional conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and
economically justified, DOE decided not
to conduct an MIA. Nonetheless, DOE
did examine the potential impacts of
amended energy conservation standards
for SPVUs on small manufacturers in its
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis,
which is presented in section VII.B of
this NOPR/NOPD. The following section
discusses additional comments received
from the April 2020 RFI regarding
manufacturer impacts and cumulative
regulatory burden.
In response to the April 2020 RFI,
AHRI, Lennox, and GE urged DOE to
consider the cumulative regulatory
burden for heating, ventilation, air
conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR)
manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 2; GE,
No. 7 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 8 at p. 2)
AHRI, Lennox, and GE argued that
requirements for new low-GWP
refrigerants will have a significant
impact on the HVAC industry, and these
commenters stated that in certain States,
these requirements will take effect prior
to the compliance date of any amended
standards that would be adopted by
DOE in the course of this proposed
rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 5; GE,
No. 7 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 8 at p. 2)
AHRI stated that because nearly all of
these new refrigerants have been
designated flammable (A2L), all new
safety standards have been developed
that address the application of these
new flammable refrigerants and
subsequent leak mitigation. (AHRI, No.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
9 at p. 5) AHRI stated that DOE’s
analysis should account for the
challenge that manufacturers will face
due to the need to develop, test, and
certify two product lines for models
with current refrigerants and new, A2L
refrigerants. (Id.) AHRI and Lennox also
noted that all current equipment will
need to be tested to the new safety
standard, Underwriters Laboratories/
Canadian Standards Association (UL/
CSA) Standard 60335–2–40, ‘‘Standard
for Household and Similar Electrical
Appliances—Safety—Part 2–40:
Particular Requirements for Electrical
Heat Pumps, Air-Conditioners and
Dehumidifiers,’’ prior to its effective
date of January 1, 2023. (AHRI, No. 9 at
p. 5; Lennox, No. 8 at p. 3)
In addition to the cumulative burden
concerns noted with refrigerants, AHRI
stated that the industry is preparing for
additional new efficiency metrics and
standard levels for residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps; small,
large, and very large commercial
package air conditioners and heat
pump; and air-cooled, water-cooled,
evaporatively-cooled; water-source
unitary air conditioners and heat
pumps; and variable refrigerant flow
equipment. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE notes that a full consideration of
more-stringent levels, if undertaken,
would assess manufacturer impacts,
including cumulative burden. However,
in the absence of proposing morestringent standards, DOE has tentatively
determined that the proposals set forth
in this NOPR/NOPD would not be
unduly burdensome to manufacturers.
For a more complete discussion of
consumer impacts, see chapter 8 of the
NOPR/NOPD TSD.
2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared
To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
equipment in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price
of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered
equipment that are likely to result from
a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) DOE conducts this
comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase
price of a product (including its
installation) and the operating expense
(including energy, maintenance, and
repair expenditures) discounted over
the lifetime of the product. The LCC
analysis requires a variety of inputs,
such as equipment prices (which
includes manufacturer selling price,
distribution channel markups, and sales
tax), equipment energy consumption,
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
energy prices, maintenance and repair
costs, equipment lifetime, discount rates
appropriate for consumers, and the year
that compliance with new or amended
standards would be required. To
account for uncertainty and variability
in specific inputs, such as equipment
lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities
attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of more-efficient
equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by
dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent energy
conservation standard by the change in
annual operating cost for the year that
such standards are assumed to take
effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE
assumes that consumers will purchase
the covered equipment in the first year
of compliance with new or amended
energy conservation standards. The LCC
savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case
that reflects projected market trends in
the absence of new or amended
standards. DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis
is discussed in further detail in section
V.F. of this document.
For a more complete discussion of the
LCC and PBP analysis, see chapter 8 of
the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
3. Energy Savings
Although significant additional
conservation of energy is a separate
statutory requirement for adopting an
energy conservation standard, EPCA
requires DOE, in determining the
economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected quantity of
energy savings that are expected to
result directly from the standard. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(III)) DOE is not
proposing amended standards for
SPVUs due to the negative LCC savings
at nearly all efficiency levels, so,
therefore, DOE did not project the total
energy savings from higher efficiency
levels.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Equipment
In evaluating design options and the
impact of potential standard levels, DOE
evaluates potential amended energy
conservation standards that would not
lessen the utility or performance of the
subject equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(IV)) Because DOE is not
proposing amended standards for
SPVUs, the Department has tentatively
concluded that this NOPR/NOPD would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
not impact the utility or performance of
such equipment.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the
impact of any lessening of competition,
as determined in writing by the
Attorney General that is likely to result
from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V)) Because DOE is not
proposing standards for SPVUs more
stringent than the current Federal
standards for that equipment, DOE did
not transmit a copy of its proposed
determination to the Attorney General
for anti-competitive review.
6. Need for National Energy
Conservation
DOE also considers the need for
national energy conservation in
determining whether a new or amended
standard is economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VI)) Typically,
energy savings from proposed standards
would be likely to provide
improvements to the security and
reliability of the Nation’s energy system,
and reductions in the demand for
electricity also may result in reduced
costs for maintaining the reliability of
the Nation’s electricity system. DOE
conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how potential standards may
affect the Nation’s needed power
generation capacity. However, because
DOE is not proposing amended
standards for SPVUs that increase
stringency beyond the current Federal
standard levels, the Department did not
conduct this analysis for the present
rulemaking.
DOE maintains that environmental
and public health benefits associated
with the more-efficient use of energy are
important to take into account when
considering the need for national energy
conservation. Typically, proposed
standards would be likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of
reduced emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated
with energy production and use.
Therefore, DOE routinely conducts an
emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards might affect these
emissions. DOE also estimates the
economic value of emissions reductions
resulting from the considered TSLs (i.e.,
standards above the base case).
However, because DOE is not proposing
amended standards for SPVUs at levels
more stringent than the current Federal
standard levels, the Department did not
conduct this analysis for the present
rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75397
7. Other Factors
In determining whether a potential
energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may
consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VII)) To the
extent DOE identifies any relevant
information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the
other categories described previously,
DOE could consider such information
under ‘‘other factors.’’ DOE did not
identify any other factors in this NOPR/
NOPD.
IV. Crosswalk Analysis
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this
document, DOE’s current energy
conservation standards for SPVUs are
based on the full-load cooling efficiency
metric, EER, and the heating efficiency
metric, COP. As further discussed in
section III.C of this document, DOE has
amended the Federal test procedures for
SPVUs to incorporate by reference AHRI
390–2021, including the seasonal
cooling efficiency metric, IEER.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing to
amend the energy conservation
standards for SPVUs to rely on the IEER
metric for cooling efficiency (while
retaining the COP metric for
determining the heating efficiency of
SPVHPs). As explained in section III.C
of this document, DOE has tentatively
determined that the IEER metric is
representative of the cooling efficiency
for SPVUs in terms of both an average
use cycle and also on an annual basis,
and that it is more representative than
the current EER metric.
EPCA provides that in the case of any
amended test procedure for covered
ASHRAE equipment for which there is
clear and convincing evidence to
support deviation from the test
procedure for such equipment
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
DOE must determine, to what extent, if
any, the proposed test procedure would
alter the measured energy efficiency,
measured energy use, or measured water
use of the subject ASHRAE equipment
as determined under the existing test
procedure. (See 42 U.S.C 6293(e); 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) If the Secretary
determines that the amended test
procedure will alter the measured
efficiency or measured use, the
Secretary shall amend the applicable
energy conservation standard during the
rulemaking carried out with respect to
such test procedure. In such case, under
the process prescribed in EPCA, DOE is
directed to measure, pursuant to the
amended test procedure, the energy
efficiency or energy use of a
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75398
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
representative sample of covered
products that minimally comply with
the existing standard. (See 42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) The
average of such energy efficiency or
energy use determined under the
amended test procedure constitutes the
amended energy conservation standard
for the applicable covered products.
(Id.)
Pursuant to these statutory directives,
DOE conducted a ‘‘crosswalk’’ analysis
to translate the current SPVU standard
levels based on EER to standard levels
based on the new metric, IEER. DOE
worked with AHRI and SPVU
manufacturers (collectively referred to
as the ‘‘AHRI 390 Task Force’’) to
develop the crosswalk analysis, during
which, both DOE and manufacturers
conducted testing of minimallycompliant units. Pursuant to the
requirements of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)), the
AHRI 390 Task Force conducted testing
on a sample of minimally-compliant
SPVUs. DOE observed instances where
both single-stage and two-stage SPVUs
are minimally compliant with the
current EER standards because the fullload EER metric does not capture the
benefits of part-load technologies. As
discussed in section V.C of this
document, two-stage units have higher
efficiencies than single-stage units when
using the seasonal IEER metric. As a
result, the sample of minimallycompliant SPVUs selected for testing
specifically focused on single-stage
units, as these units are expected to be
the least efficient under the amended
SPVUs test procedure.
Collectively, the AHRI 390 Task Force
conducted testing on 17 SPVUs with
<65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity and 2
SPVUs with ≥65,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity to measure the percentage
change in efficiency between EER and
IEER for each unit.8 The test sample
included a mix of both SPVACs and
SPVHPs. Using these test data, the
average percentage change was
calculated for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h
cooling capacity and ≥65,000 Btu/h
cooling capacity separately. Based on
testing, SPVACs and SPVHPs showed
the same percentage increase from EER
to IEER. These test results are
summarized in Table IV–1.
TABLE IV–1—AHRI 390 CROSSWALK TESTING RESULTS FOR MINIMALLY-COMPLIANT, SINGLE-STAGE SPVUS
SPVU <65,000 Btu/h ...............................................................................................................................................
SPVU ≥65,000 Btu/h ...............................................................................................................................................
Based on these test results, DOE is
proposing baseline IEER levels that are
13.4 percent higher than current EER
standard levels for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/
h cooling capacity and 2.6 percent
higher than the current EER standard
levels for SPVUs ≥65,000 and <135,000
Btu/h cooling capacity. For SPVUs
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity, DOE noted that there were
only eight basic models currently
available on the market. Based on
review of product literature, all of these
larger SPVU models operated with
Average
percentage
change from
EER to IEER
Current
minimum
EER
Equipment class
multiple compressor stages and staged
airflow. The testing conducted as part of
the AHRI 390 Task Force included only
single stage units and, therefore, is not
representative of the baseline IEER
levels for these larger SPVU units
currently available on the market.
Consequently, in order to determine an
appropriate baseline IEER level for these
larger SPVU equipment classes, DOE
applied the crosswalk of 2.6 percent,
then applied the percent improvement
in IEER associated with moving from
single-stage compressor and airflow to
11
10
+13.4%
+2.6%
multiple compressor stages and stage
airflow, consistent with the
improvement used for SPVUs <135,000
Btu/h cooling capacity (i.e., a 9.6
percent increase in IEER, see section
V.C.1.b of this document).
The proposed baseline efficiency
levels for each equipment class,
denominated in terms of IEER and COP
(where appliable), are presented in
Table IV–2. The methodology and
results of the crosswalk analysis are
presented in detail in the chapter 5 of
the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
TABLE IV–2—CROSSWALKED BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Subcategory
Current minimum standard levels
SPVAC <65,000 ......................................................................................
SPVHP <65,000 ......................................................................................
EER = 11.0 ....................................
EER = 11.0 ....................................
COP = 3.3 .....................................
EER = 10.0 ....................................
EER = 10.0 ....................................
COP = 3.0 .....................................
EER = 10.0 ....................................
EER = 10.0 ....................................
COP = 3.0 .....................................
SPVAC ≥65,000 and <135,000 ...............................................................
SPVHP ≥65,000 and <135,000 ...............................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SPVAC ≥135,000 and <240,000 .............................................................
SPVHP ≥135,000 and <240,000 .............................................................
Proposed baseline efficiency
levels*
IEER = 12.5.
IEER = 12.5.
COP = 3.3.
IEER = 10.3.
IEER = 10.3.
COP = 3.0.
IEER = 11.2.
IEER = 11.2.
COP = 3.0.
* Reflects translation of existing energy conservation standards using a full-load EER cooling metric to a proposed equivalent energy conservation standard using a seasonal IEER metric.
Issue–1: DOE requests comment on
the proposed baseline IEER levels for
SPVUs, as well as comment on any
aspect of its crosswalk analysis. DOE
continues to seek information which
compares EER to IEER for the SPVUs
8 The percentage change from EER to IEER was
used to ensure that data was anonymized for
presentation to the AHRI 390 Task Force.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
that are representative of the market
baseline efficiency level for all
equipment classes.
V. Methodology and Discussion of
Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses
DOE has performed for this proposed
rulemaking with regard to SPVUs.
Separate subsections address each
component of DOE’s analyses.
DOE used Python 9-based analytical
tools to estimate the impact of the
potential energy conservation standards
considered as part of this proposed
rulemaking on consumers. These tools
calculate the LCC savings and PBP of
potential amended or new energy
conservation standards for three
consumer sectors: (1) schools, (2)
offices, and (3) telecommunications
structures. The LCC and PBP inputs,
outputs, and summary tables are
available for download in spreadsheet
form at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
standards.aspx?productid=30. DOE did
not perform any analysis beyond the
LCC, as the LCC results were negative
for nearly all product classes, and,
therefore, DOE tentatively determined
that an increased standard level would
not be economically justified.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that
provides an overall picture of the
market for the equipment concerned,
including the purpose of the equipment,
the industry structure, manufacturers,
market characteristics, and technologies
used in the equipment. This activity
includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily
on publicly-available information. The
subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this
75399
rulemaking 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 SPVUs. The key findings of
DOE’s market assessment are
summarized in the following sections.
See chapter 3 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD
for further discussion of the market and
technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes
As discussed in section III.B of this
document, the current energy
conservation standards for SPVUs
specified in 10 CFR 431.97 are based on
six equipment classes determined by:
(1) cooling capacity and (2) whether the
equipment is an air conditioner or a
heat pump.
TABLE V–1—EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR SPVUS
Equipment class
1
2
3
4
5
6
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
In response to the April 2020 RFI,
AHRI commented that it does not
recommend any changes to the existing
equipment classes. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 3)
DOE did not identify any performancerelated features that would justify
creating a new equipment class for
SPVUs. Accordingly, DOE is proposing
to maintain the existing equipment
classes in this NOPR/NOPD.
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE requested
comment on the availability of units on
the market in the following equipment
classes: SPVHP ≥65,000 Btu/h and
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
<65,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h.
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
<135,000 Btu/h, SPVAC ≥135,000 Btu/h
and <240,000 Btu/h, and SPVHP
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. 85
FR 22958, 22962 (April 24, 2020). At the
time AHRI commented, that
organization stated that the largest
SPVHP in the AHRI Directory is 60,000
Btu/h and that the largest SPVAC is
146,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 4)
DOE conducted a more recent review of
DOE’s Compliance Certification
Database,10 and Table V–2 shows the
number of models listed within the DOE
Compliance Certification Database that
DOE has identified for each class of
SPVUs. Based on DOE’s review of
equipment currently available on the
market, DOE determined that there are
SPVHPs available up to 67,000 Btu/h
and SPVACs up to 180,000 Btu/h. As
discussed in section I of this document,
DOE is not proposing to increase the
stringency of the energy conservation
standards for any SPVUs, including
SPVHP ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
TABLE V–2—NUMBER OF MODELS UNDER CURRENT SPVU EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Number of models
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
SPVACs
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
<65,000 ....................................................................................................................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 .............................................................................................................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 ..........................................................................................................................................
2. Technology Options
In the technology assessment, DOE
identifies technology options and
9 Python is an open-source programming
language. For more information, see:
www.python.org.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
SPVHPs
467
43
8
303
2
0
prototype designs that appear to be
feasible mechanisms for improving
equipment efficiency. This assessment
provides the technical background and
structure on which DOE bases its
screening and engineering analyses.
10 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database can
be found at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/
certification-data/products.html#q=Product_
Group_s%3A* (Last accessed Feb. 16, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75400
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE presented
a preliminary list of technology options
primarily based on the technologies
identified in the most recent rulemaking
for SPVUs (i.e., the September 2015
final rule). 85 FR 22958, 22962 (April
24, 2020). In the April 2020 RFI, DOE
requested comment on the technology
options listed in Table V–3 regarding
their applicability to the current market
and how these technologies may impact
the efficiency of SPVUs.
TABLE V–3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS PRESENTED IN APRIL 2020 RFI
Technology options
Heat Exchanger Improvements ................................................................
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements .......................................
Compressor Improvements ......................................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Other Improvements .................................................................................
In response to the April 2020 RFI,
AHRI and GE commented that since the
last rulemaking, there are no new
technology developments for SPVUs
that are commercially available or that
are not already accounted for in the
existing EER metric. (AHRI, No. 9 at p.
4; GE, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI added that
all of the technology options presented
in the April 2020 RFI (now listed in
Table V–3), with the exception of
increased coil size, are incorporated in
minimum-efficiency equipment and
would not increase SPVU efficiencies
beyond the current levels. (AHRI, No. 9
at p. 7)
AHRI commented that in many
replacement applications, the physical
size of the replacement equipment
cabinet is constrained by the original
equipment size, particularly for
classroom applications. (AHRI, No. 9 at
p. 4) According to AHRI, cabinets
project out into the room and are
typically installed under windows, and
as a result, the dimensions are limited
in height by the window, in depth by
the allowable projection into the floor
space, and in length by the footprint of
the original cabinet. (AHRI, No. 9 at p.
4) Therefore, AHRI commented that
increasing heat exchanger size
significantly is not possible in these
cases and that appropriate boundaries
must be established when considering
increasing component sizes in the
analysis, considering ASHRAE Standard
90.1’s definition for non-weatherized
space-constrained SPVU. (AHRI, No. 9
at pp. 4–5) AHRI added that SPVU
manufacturers also need to be cognizant
of product noise levels, particularly for
classroom settings. AHRI stated that
some SPVUs are installed within a
cabinet in the room, which typically
have sound limits, so all individual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
Increased Frontal Coil Area.
Increased Depth of Coil.
Microchannel Heat Exchangers.
Dual Condensing Heat Exchangers.
Improved Fan Motor Efficiency.
Improved Fan Blades.
Variable Speed Condenser Fan/Motor.
Variable Speed Indoor Blower/Motor.
Improved Compressor Efficiency.
Multi-Speed Compressors.
Thermostatic Expansion Valves.
Electronic Expansion Valves.
Thermostatic Cyclic Controls.
components and the combination of
components in the final product are
considered very carefully to achieve a
quiet product. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8)
AHRI noted that SPVU manufacturers
face limitations in terms of available
compressor options; scroll compressors
are not available below 17,000 Btu/h, so
rotary compressors are employed.
(AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8)
As discussed in section V.C.1 of this
document, DOE conducted testing and
physical teardowns on a sample of
currently available SPVUs using the
amended SPVU test procedure and
based on the seasonal IEER metric. DOE
supplemented this approach with a
review of product literature for
currently available models. Through
such efforts, DOE identified technology
options that are used in higherefficiency equipment. Based on this
review, DOE believes that the
technology options identified for this
NOPR/NOPD, as presented
subsequently in Table V–5, are
consistent with existing equipment on
the market (e.g., heat exchanger sizes,
fan and fan motor types, controls, air
flow) with consideration of the
installation constraints noted by AHRI.
DOE notes that where certain design
options may increase cabinet sizes, DOE
considered any additional costs
associated with the installation of the
equipment (e.g., transition curbs to
accommodate existing wall openings in
replacement applications).
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE also noted
that it did not consider improved fin
design, improved tube design, and
hydrophilic coating on fins in the
engineering analysis for the previous
rulemaking because they were
commonly found in most baseline and
higher-efficiency SPVUs. 85 FR 22958,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22963 (April 24, 2020). AHRI
commented that SPVU manufacturers
use the best commercially-available fin
and tube designs in both baseline and
higher-efficiency SPVUs. AHRI stated
that hydrophilic film coating on fins are
not used in SPVUs due to concern about
degradation over time. (AHRI, No. 9 at
p. 6) DOE maintains that improved fin
and tube design are incorporated into
baseline SPVUs and, as a result, DOE
did not consider these as technology
options in this NOPR/NOPD. DOE is
unaware of publicly-available data
quantifying the impact of hydrophilic
film coating on fins or whether this is
used in commercially-available
equipment. As a result, DOE did not
consider hydrophilic film coating as a
technology option in this NOPR/NOPD.
Microchannel Heat Exchangers
As discussed in the April 2020 RFI,
DOE did not evaluate microchannel heat
exchangers for the September 2015
Final Rule engineering analysis because
there was insufficient information
regarding improvements to the overall
system’s energy efficiency. 85 FR 22958,
22962 (April 24, 2020); 80 FR 57438,
57455 (Sept. 23, 2015). On this topic,
AHRI and GE agreed that there is
insufficient information regarding
microchannel heat exchangers impact
on the overall system’s energy
efficiency, and, therefore, such
technology should be excluded from the
analysis. (AHRI, No. 9 at p . 5; GE, No.
7 at p. 2) GE added that microchannel
heat exchangers are of limited
usefulness as a technology option due to
the constraints imposed by the
architecture of the space in which they
are installed (i.e., the size of the exterior
wall and the wall openings). (GE, No. 7
at p. 2) In light of these reasons, DOE
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
maintains that there is insufficient
information regarding improvements to
the overall system’s energy efficiency
for microchannel heat exchangers, and
as a result, DOE did not consider them
as a technology option for further
consideration.
Part-Load Technology Options
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
the test procedure for SPVUs at that
time only measured efficiency at fullload steady-state conditions, while
thermostatic expansion valves (TXVs),
electronic expansion valves (EEVs),
thermostatic cyclic controls, multispeed compressors, variable speed
condenser fan/motor and variable speed
indoor blower/motor technologies only
provide benefit at part-load conditions.
85 FR 22958, 22962–22963 (April 24,
2020).
AHRI commented that changing the
efficiency metric to reflect part-load
performance would change how these
technology options impact the
efficiency of SPVUs. AHRI stated that it
does not support the inclusion of any
technology option that does not impact
efficiency using the current DOE test
procedure. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 5) AHRI
commented that neither variable speed
condenser fan/motors nor indoor
blower/motors will impact efficiency
using the existing EER metric and,
therefore, should not be considered in
this rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 5)
The commenter argued that indoor
blower/fan improvements will impact
unit size, which can be problematic for
space-constrained units. AHRI added
that not all products have condenser
fans to improve, specifically nonweatherized units. (Id.)
AHRI and GE commented that
variable speed compressors, TXVs, and
EEVs do not provide a benefit using the
existing EER metric and, therefore,
should not be considered in this
rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 9 at pp. 5–6; GE,
No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI commented that in
the event that DOE amends the test
procedure and efficiency metric for
SPVUs to account for part-load
performance, variable speed
compressors still may not be a viable
technology option due to cost and
availability. AHRI and GE noted that
SPVUs are designed to accommodate a
wide variety of voltages but that
currently available variable speed
compressors that operate at lower
capacities are designed for residential
applications and voltages.
Consequently, AHRI and GE argued that
because variable speed compressors are
not available that accommodate all
commercial voltages, there is a
limitation on the wide-scale adoption of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
variable speed equipment. (AHRI, No. 9
at p. 6; GE, No. 7 at p. 2) In addition,
AHRI mentioned that compressor
manufacturers are also working to
develop full product lines to
accommodate A2L refrigerants. AHRI
commented that this effort requires
significant research and design
resources, so they do not expect timely
availability of variable speed
compressors for the full voltage range
required for SPVUs. (AHRI, No. 9 at p.
6)
In response, as discussed in section
III.C of this document, DOE has
amended its test procedure for SPVUs to
include a seasonal cooling efficiency
metric that includes part-load
performance, and, therefore, the
Department is proposing to consider
amended energy conservation standards
based on the IEER metric in this NOPR/
NOPD. As a result, DOE considered
multi-speed compressors, TXVs, EEVs,
thermostatic cyclic controls, variable
speed condenser fan/motors, and
variable speed indoor blower/motors as
technology options, because these
technologies improve the performance
of SPVUs during part-load operation.
However, based on DOE’s testing, DOE
does not have sufficient test data
showing that variable-speed
compressors provide a measurable
improvement over two-stage
compressors. As a result, DOE only
considered two-stage compressors as a
technology option for this NOPR/NOPD.
DOE understands that two-stage
compressors are available for the full
range of cooling capacities for SPVUs.
With regards to AHRI’s comment that
indoor blower/fan improvements will
impact unit size and that not all
products have condenser fans to
improve, DOE notes that it considered
application of these technology options
consistent with existing equipment on
the market.
Additionally, DOE is no longer
considering improved compressor
efficiency as a technology option, as the
Department is not aware of any
commercially-available compressors
with improved efficiency that are used
in SPVUs.
Refrigerants
Nearly all SPVUs are currently
designed with R–410A as the
refrigerant. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
Program evaluates and regulates
substitutes for the ozone-depleting
chemicals (such as air conditioning
refrigerants) that are being phased out
under the stratospheric ozone protection
provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75401
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 11 The EPA
SNAP Program currently includes 31 12
acceptable alternatives for refrigerants
used in the new Residential and Light
Commercial Air Conditioning class of
equipment (which includes SPVUs),13
On May 6, 2021, the EPA published a
final rule in the Federal Register
allowing the use of R–32, R–452B, R–
454A, R–454B, R–454C, and R–457A,
subject to use conditions. These
refrigerants may now be used in
commercial HVAC applications, but any
listed available substitute for
Residential and Light Commercial Air
Conditioning may be used as a
refrigerant in SPVU equipment. 86 FR
24444.
On December 27, 2020, the American
Innovation and Manufacturing Act of
2020 was enacted in section 103 in
Division S, Innovation for the
Environment, of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116–
260; codified at 42 U.S.C. 7675). The
American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020 provides
EPA specific authority to address
hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), including to:
(1) phase down HFC production and
consumption of listed HFCs through an
allowance allocation and trading
program; (2) establish requirements for
the management of HFCs and HFC
substitutes in equipment (e.g., air
conditioners); and (3) facilitate sectorbased transitions away from HFCs. (42
U.S.C. 7675(e), (h), (i)) Under the
American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020, EPA is also
authorized to issue rules in response to
petitions to establish sector-based HFC
restrictions. (42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)) On
October 14, 2021, EPA published a
notice in the Federal Register which
granted ten petitions in full, including
one petition by AHRI et al., titled
‘‘Restrict the Use of HFCs in Residential
and Light Commercial Air
Conditioners’’ (AHRI petition), in which
the petitioners requested EPA to require
residential and light commercial air
conditioners (which includes SPVUs) to
use refrigerants with GWP of 750 or less,
with such requirement applying to these
equipment manufactured after January
11 Additional information regarding EPA’s SNAP
Program is available online at: www.epa.gov/ozone/
snap/ (Last accessed July 22, 2022).
12 Refrigerant THR–03 is not included in this
count because it is acceptable for use only in
residential window air conditioners; Refrigerants
R–1270 and R–443A were deemed unacceptable as
of January 3, 2017; Refrigerants R–417C, R427–A
and R–458A are only approved for retrofit
applications.
13 Information available at: www.epa.gov/snap/
substitutes-residential-and-light-commercial-airconditioning-and-heat-pumps (Last accessed July
22, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75402
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
1, 2025, excluding variable refrigerant
flow (VRF) equipment.14 86 FR 57141.
DOE is also aware that the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) finalized a
rulemaking effective January 1, 2022,
which prohibits the use of refrigerants
with a GWP of 750 or greater starting
January 1, 2023 in several new type of
air-conditioning equipment, including
SPVUs.15
In commenting on the April 2020 RFI,
ASAP/ACEEE argued that alternatives to
R410A such as R32, R452B, and R454B
can improve efficiency by at least 5
percent 16 and that DOE should consider
alternative refrigerants in its analysis.
(ASAP/ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2)
In response, DOE is aware of the
changing landscape of refrigerants as
they relate to SPVUs, particularly the
AHRI petition that requested the EPA to
require residential and light commercial
air conditioners to use refrigerants with
GWP of 750 or less, with such
requirement applying to this equipment
manufactured after January 1, 2025
(excluding VRF) and that was granted
by EPA on October 14, 2021. 86 FR
57141 (Oct. 14, 2021).17 In light of this
AHRI petition which would impact
SPVUs, DOE reviewed certain SNAPapproved substitutes that met this
criterion for use of a refrigerant with
GWP of 750 or less.18 These are listed
in Table V–4.
TABLE V–4—POTENTIAL SUBSTITUTES FOR HFCS IN NEW RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONING
EQUIPMENT, WITH GWP OF 750 OR LESS
Approved substitute
Approval date 1
GWP value
R–457A ........................................................................
R–454C .......................................................................
R–454A ........................................................................
R–454B ........................................................................
R–32 ............................................................................
R–452B ........................................................................
140
150
240
470
675
700
May 6, 2021 ................................................................
ASHRAE safety
classification 2
A2L
1 Approved
by EPA. 86 FR 24444.
assigns safety classifications to the refrigerants based on toxicity and flammability data. The capital letter designates a toxicity class
based on allowable exposure and the numeral denotes flammability. For toxicity, Class A denotes refrigerants of lower toxicity, and Class B denotes refrigerants of higher toxicity. For flammability, class 1 denotes refrigerants that do not propagate a flame when tested as per the standard;
class 2 and 2L denotes refrigerants of lower flammability; and class 3, for highly flammable refrigerants such as the hydrocarbons.
2 ASHRAE
DOE reviewed several studies 19 to
gauge the potential efficiency
improvements of the substitute
refrigerants identified in Table V–4, as
compared to R–410A. Most of these
studies suggested comparable
performance to R410A, with some
studies showing slightly reduced
efficiency and others showing
improvement as high as six percent (for
R–32). DOE notes that most of these
studies were performed with drop-in
applications (where an alternate
refrigerant replaces the existing
refrigerant in a system that is optimized
for the existing refrigerant) and were not
performed on SPVUs specifically. It is
possible that these substitute
refrigerants might show efficiencies
higher than R–410A in specific
applications that have been optimized
for such refrigerants. However, given the
uncertainty associated with the studies
reviewed, DOE was unable to conclude
with reasonable confidence that these
refrigerants will result in a specific
improvement in energy efficiency.
Therefore, DOE has tentatively decided
to not consider alternate refrigerants as
a technology option for increasing SPVU
efficiency. On the other hand, DOE does
not expect that the anticipated
refrigerant change will reduce SPVU
efficiency. Also, as discussed in section
III.F.1 of this NOPR, because DOE is not
proposing amended standards for
SPVUs that increase stringency beyond
the current Federal standard levels, DOE
did not assess the cumulative regulatory
burden associated with potential
refrigerant requirements.
NOPR/NOPD Technology Options
Based on the previous discussion,
DOE identified nine technology options
for this NOPR/NOPD, presented in
Table V–5, that would be expected to
improve the efficiency of SPVUs, as
measured by the amended DOE test
procedure.
TABLE V–5—NOPR/NOPD TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Technology options
Heat Exchanger Improvements ................................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements .......................................
14 Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0289-0011 (Last accessed July
22, 2022).
15 Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/
hfc2020 (Last accessed July 22, 2022).
16 See www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2016/
data/papers/3_406.pdf (Last accessed July 22,
2022).
17 After granting a petition, EPA must initiate a
rulemaking and publish a final rule within two
years of the petition grant date (i.e., by Oct. 15,
2023).
18 On December 29, 2021, EPA published in the
Federal Register a notification informing the public
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
Increased Frontal Coil Area.
Increased Depth of Coil.
Dual Condensing Heat Exchangers.
Improved Fan Motor Efficiency.
that they would not be using a negotiated
rulemaking procedure to develop a proposed rule
or rules associated with the eleven American
Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 petitions
(including the AHRI petition) but will instead use
the typical notice-and-comment rulemaking
process. 86 FR 74080.
19 See: (1) https://www.aceee.org/files/
proceedings/2016/data/papers/3_406.pdf;
(2) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4955522.pdf;
(3) https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/1211/;
(4) https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/1235/;
(5) https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=3097&context=icec;
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(6) https://www.optimizedthermalsystems.com/
images/pdf/about/An-Evaluation-of-R32-for-the-USHVACR-Market.pdf;
(7) https://www.nature.com/articles/
ncomms14476;
(8) https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=3089&context=iracc;
(9) https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1823375; and
(10) https://climate.emerson.com/documents/
copeland-scroll-yp-compressors-designed-for-r32en-gb-7125818.pdf.
(All last accessed July 25, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
75403
TABLE V–5—NOPR/NOPD TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS—Continued
Technology options
Compressor Improvements ......................................................................
Other Improvements .................................................................................
Issue–2: DOE requests comment on
the proposed technology options for
SPVUs. DOE also requests data on the
potential improvement in IEER and COP
associated with these technology
options.
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:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in working
prototypes will not be considered
further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production 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
Improved Fan Blades.
Two-Stage Compressors.
Thermostatic Expansion Valves.
Electronic Expansion Valves.
Thermostatic Cyclic Controls.
the time of the projected compliance
date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered
further.
(3) 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/equipment 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, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or
safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant
adverse impacts on health or safety, it
will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary
Technologies. If a design option utilizes
proprietary technology that represents a
unique pathway to achieving a given
efficiency level, that technology will not
be considered further due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3)
and 7(b).
In summary, 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. The reasons
for eliminating any technology are
discussed in the following sections.
After a review of each technology,
DOE tentatively concludes that all of the
other identified technologies listed in
Table V–5 of section V.A.3 of this
document meet all five screening
criteria to be examined further as design
options in DOE’s NOPR/NOPD analysis.
In summary, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options:
TABLE V–6—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS RETAINED FOR ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Technology options
Heat Exchanger Improvements ................................................................
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements .......................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Compressor Improvements ......................................................................
Other Improvements .................................................................................
DOE has initially determined that
these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are
being used or have previously been used
in commercially-available products or
working prototypes. DOE also finds that
all of these technology options meet the
other screening criteria (i.e., practicable
to manufacture, install, and service and
do not result in adverse impacts on
consumer utility, product availability,
health, or safety, and are not uniquepathway proprietary technologies). For
additional details on DOE’s screening
analysis, see chapter 4 of the NOPR/
NOPD TSD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
Increased Frontal Coil Area.
Increased Depth of Coil.
Dual Condensing Heat Exchangers.
Improved Fan Motor Efficiency.
Improved Fan Blades.
Two-Stage Compressors.
Thermostatic Expansion Valves.
Electronic Expansion Valves.
Thermostatic Cyclic Controls.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering
analysis is to establish the relationship
between the efficiency and cost of
SPVUs. There are two elements to
consider in the engineering analysis: (1)
the selection of efficiency levels to
analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’)
and (2) the determination of equipment
cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
‘‘cost analysis’’). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the incremental cost for the equipment
at efficiency levels above the baseline.
The output of the engineering analysis
is a set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that
are used in downstream analyses (i.e.,
the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two
approaches to develop energy efficiency
levels for the engineering analysis: (1)
relying on observed efficiency levels in
the market (i.e., the efficiency-level
approach), or (2) determining the
incremental efficiency improvements
associated with incorporating specific
design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75404
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
efficiency-level approach, the efficiency
levels established for the analysis are
determined based on the market
distribution of existing equipment (in
other words, based on the range of
efficiencies and efficiency level
‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the
market). Using the design-option
approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are
determined through detailed
engineering calculations and/or
computer simulations of the efficiency
improvements from implementing
specific design options that have been
identified in the technology assessment.
DOE may also rely on a combination of
these two approaches. For example, the
efficiency-level approach (based on
actual products on the market) may be
extended using the design option
approach to ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified
efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate
to the max-tech level (particularly in
cases where the max-tech level exceeds
the maximum efficiency level currently
available on the market).
In this rulemaking, DOE relies on a
design-option approach. Consistent with
its previous rulemaking analysis, DOE
focused the analysis on representative
capacities for each equipment class.
Based on market data, DOE identified
representative cooling capacities for
SPVACs and SPVHPs as presented in
Table V–7. More specifically, DOE
identified 36,000 Btu/h, 72,000 Btu/h,
and 180,000 Btu/h as the nominal
cooling capacities representing the most
models in DOE’s CCD for each SPVU
equipment class.
TABLE V–7—SPVU EQUIPMENT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE COOLING CAPACITIES
Representative
cooling capacity
Equipment class
SPVAC and SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................................................................................................
SPVAC and SPVHP ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ...........................................................................................................
SPVAC and SPVHP ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .........................................................................................................
DOE initially considered the range of
efficiencies available on the market
based on the data provided in DOE’s
36,000 Btu/h.
72,000 Btu/h.
180,000 Btu/h.
CCD for SPVUs for EER and COP, as
shown in Figure V–1 and Figure V–2.
13
12.5
12
11.5
u
10.5
10
9.5
9
50000
0
100000
150000
200000
Capacity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
EP08DE22.000</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Figure V–1 DOE SPVu EER
Compliance Certification Data
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
75405
4.5
4
35
Cl..
8
•
• •
••
• • • •• • ••
•
•
,..............................-.
........... ..
. . -. ....... -
3
•
2.5
2
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Capacity (Btu/h)
Figure V–2 DOE SPVu COP
Compliance Certification Data
However, as discussed in section III.C
of this document, DOE is now proposing
to amend the energy conservation
standards for SPVUs so as to be based
on the seasonal cooling metric, IEER,
and the existing heating metric, COP.
Because SPVU manufacturers currently
do not report IEER, DOE conducted
testing on a sample of units that
included a variety of the design options
presented in Table V–6. The results of
DOE’s testing are presented in Table V–
8. DOE used these test results along
with additional information gathered
using reverse engineering (i.e.,
teardown) methodologies, information
from manufacturer product literature,
and consideration of the range of
efficiencies based on EER in DOE’s CCD,
to evaluate the range of design options
used for units available on the market at
different efficiencies in support of
developing efficiency levels for the
NOPR/NOPD analysis. DOE anticipates
that the test results are applicable to all
equipment classes when considering the
relative improvement in efficiency
associated with various design options
due to the similarity in platform design
and cabinet construction for units across
equipment classes.
TABLE V–8—DOE TEST RESULTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AC
AC
HP
AC
AC
HP
HP
AC
HP
HP
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each equipment class, DOE
generally selects a baseline model as a
reference point for each class, and
measures any changes resulting from
potential new or amended energy
conservation standards against the
baseline. The baseline model in each
product/equipment class represents the
characteristics of a product/equipment
typical of that class (e.g., capacity,
physical size). Generally, a baseline
model is one that just meets current
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Rated cooling
capacity
(Btu/h)
Equipment class
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
35,600
35,000
36,000
36,000
35,000
35,000
33,800
54,000
54,000
57,000
energy conservation standards and
provides basic consumer utility. If no
standards are in place, the baseline is
typically the most common or leastefficient unit on the market.
As part of the April 2020 RFI, DOE
requested comment on appropriate
baseline efficiency levels. 85 FR 22958,
22964 (April 24, 2020). On this topic,
AHRI commented that DOE should use
the current baseline efficiency levels for
SPVACs ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h
cooling capacity, noting that there are
only two models on the market and that
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Rated EER
11.25
11
11.1
12.5
12
11
11
11
11.2
11
Tested IEER
12.5
11.6
12.2
13.2
17.7
11.7
13.7
16.1
16.8
12.7
Cooling stages
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
it is doubtful these two models account
for significant sales volume. (AHRI, No.
9 at p. 6)
As discussed in section IV of this
document, DOE’s current cooling mode
efficiency standards for SPVUs are
based on the full-load metric, EER.
AHRI and DOE jointly developed a
crosswalk from EER to IEER based on
testing of a sample of minimallycompliant single-stage units. DOE
considered these crosswalked IEER
levels as the baseline cooling mode
efficiency levels for this analysis. For
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
EP08DE22.001</GPH>
Test unit
75406
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
heating mode for SPVHPs, DOE
considered the current COP standard
levels as the baseline efficiency levels.
The proposed baseline efficiency levels
are shown in Table V–9.
TABLE V–9—BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Current EER
standard
levels
Equipment class
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
<65,000 Btu/h .................................................................................................................
<65,000 Btu/h .................................................................................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ................................................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ................................................................................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ..............................................................................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ..............................................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Based on physical teardowns of units
at the baseline efficiency levels, DOE
noted that baseline units for the <65,000
Btu/h cooling capacity equipment
classes and ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/
h cooling capacity equipment classes
had a single stage of compressor
operation and indoor/outdoor fan
speeds. These units used single-speed
compressors, permanent-split capacitor
(PSC) outdoor fan motors with singlestage outdoor airflow, and
electronically-commutated indoor
blower motors (ECM) with single-stage
indoor airflow. For the ≥135,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity
equipment classes, as discussed in
section V.C.1.b of this document, DOE
notes that all units available on the
market operated with multiple
compressor stages and staged airflow,
using multiple compressors along with
ECM indoor blowers and outdoor fans.
Therefore, DOE expects that all units on
the market in this equipment class can
meet the efficiency level proposed.
Issue–3: DOE requests comment on
the proposed baseline efficiency levels
and the design options associated with
these levels.
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
As part of DOE’s analysis, the
maximum available efficiency level is
the highest-efficiency unit currently
available on the market. DOE also
defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to
represent the maximum possible
efficiency for a given product. In many
cases, the max-tech efficiency level is
not commercially available because it is
not economically feasible.
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
in the previous energy conservation
standards rulemaking for SPVUs for all
equipment classes, DOE determined that
the max-tech efficiency was the
maximum available efficiency.
Accordingly, DOE presented the
maximum available efficiency levels
using the full-load EER cooling
efficiency metric and COP heating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
efficiency metric based on review of the
DOE’s CCD. DOE requested comment on
appropriate max-tech efficiency levels
based on EER and COP and the design
options associated with these levels, as
well as appropriate efficiency levels
based on the seasonal efficiency metric.
85 FR 22958, 22964–22965 (April 24,
2020).
On this topic, AHRI commented that
DOE should only consider currentlyavailable technologies based on DOE’s
CCD for SPVUs as max-tech levels.
AHRI stated that theoretical designoption approaches for max-tech levels
should be avoided, as it precludes
stakeholders from being able to
accurately develop estimates for repair
costs, predict failure modes associated
with such design options, and predict
costs associated with platform/design
changes. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 7) AHRI
further commented that using the DOE
test procedure (i.e., the one available at
the time of the April 2020 RFI), the maxtech efficiency level would be no
different now than it was in DOE’s 2015
standards rulemaking analysis. AHRI
asserted that one of the only design
options that would increase EER is
increasing coil size, but the commenter
cautioned that there are limitations on
this design option due to constraints for
through-the-wall or classroom
replacement installations. According to
AHRI, the incremental and maximum
available efficiency levels and
associated design options for each
equipment class using a part-load
energy efficiency metric would be
substantially different than using a fullload metric, but the commenter argued
that those matters can only be evaluated
properly after the revised AHRI 390 has
published. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 7) DOE
notes that as discussed in section III.C
of this document, DOE is conducting
this analysis with respect to the IEER
metric published in AHRI 390–2021.
The CA IOUs commented that moreefficient models (based on EER) were
added to the DOE’s CCD for SPVUs
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
11.0
11.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Baseline IEER
levels
Baseline COP
levels
12.5
12.5
10.3
10.3
11.2
11.2
........................
3.3
........................
3.0
........................
3.0
since DOE’s review in preparation for
the April 2020 RFI, so DOE should
update the maximum available
efficiency levels. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p.
3)
In response, for this NOPR/NOPD,
DOE considered efficiency levels based
on the seasonal cooling efficiency
metric that includes part-load
performance, IEER, and the heating
efficiency metric, COP. For SPVUs
<65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity, DOE
developed incremental IEER and COP
higher efficiency levels up to the maxtech level based on DOE’s testing of a
sample of units, review of manufacturer
product literature, and consideration of
the range of efficiencies observed in
DOE’s CCD for SPVUs based on EER. As
discussed in section V.C.2 of this
document, DOE conducted physical
teardowns on the units in its test
sample. This allowed DOE to identify
the design options associated with units
at different efficiencies. In selecting
efficiency levels, DOE primarily focused
on the representative cooling capacity
for this equipment class of 36,000 Btu/
h. DOE notes that this method does not
rely on theoretical efficiencies, per
AHRI’s concern.
DOE identified the first efficiency
level of 13.7 IEER for SPVUs with
<65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity based on
units that incorporated 2-speed
compressors and 2-stage indoor airflow
and control logic to provide staged
compressor and airflow operation. In
addition, DOE observed that units at
this efficiency level incorporated an
increase in indoor and outdoor heat
exchanger total volume compared to
baseline efficiency units. Based on
DOE’s test data and review of available
product literature, DOE expects that
13.7 IEER represents the efficiency level
that can be achieved without requiring
a substantial increase in heat exchanger
and cabinet redesign compared to
baseline efficiency units. For the maxtech efficiency level, DOE found that
units with tested cooling mode
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
efficiencies between 16.1 and 17.7 IEER
covered both SPVACs and SPVHPs with
cooling capacities at 35,000 Btu/h and
54,000 Btu/h. DOE noted that these
units were built using the same
platform/cabinet and similar design
options. To ensure that all equipment
across the range of cooling capacities
within this equipment class can achieve
the analyzed efficiency level, DOE
selected 16.1 IEER as the max-tech
efficiency level. DOE further noted that,
in addition to the design changes to
reach efficiency level 1, units at the
max-tech efficiency level also
incorporated substantially larger indoor
and outdoor heat exchangers, along with
higher horsepower indoor and outdoor
blower/fan motors, which require an
increase in cabinet size. DOE’s findings
on the increases in heat exchanger size
align with AHRI’s comments on the
matter, in that at a certain point,
increases in cabinet size would be
necessary to accommodate increases in
heat exchanger size. For heating mode,
DOE used the rated COP values
corresponding to the units in DOE’s test
sample at each IEER efficiency level.
For SPVUs with ≥65,000 and
<135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity, DOE
applied the same design changes and
the equivalent percentage increase to
reach efficiency level 1 as used for the
<65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity
equipment class (i.e., a 9.6 percent
increase in IEER). DOE notes that
baseline IEER units, which were units
with nominal cooling capacities of
72,000 Btu/h or less, had similar
platform design and cabinet
construction as units less than 65,000
Btu/h. Based on this, DOE preliminarily
concluded that the percentage increase
used for less than 65,000 Btu/h units to
reach efficiency level 1 is also
applicable to this equipment class. DOE
noted that larger capacity units in this
equipment class already incorporated
staged compressor and airflow
operation. As a result, DOE believes
these units would be capable of meeting
efficiency level 1. Efficiency level 1
represents the max-tech level for these
two equipment classes.
75407
For SPVUs with ≥135,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity, DOE
found that there are only a small
number of basic models, all of which
were rated at the baseline EER of 10.0.
Per the discussion in section IV of this
document, all of these models operate
with multiple compressor stages and
staged airflow, and incorporate design
options similar to efficiency level 1 for
the equipment classes with cooling
capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h.
Therefore, the baseline efficiency was
assumed to be the percent improvement
in IEER associated with moving from
baseline to efficiency level 1 for SPVUs
<135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity (i.e., a
9.6 percent increase in IEER). Based on
DOE’s review of product literature, DOE
did not have sufficient information to
justify analyzing higher efficiency levels
for this equipment class. Therefore, the
baseline equipment are also the maxtech.
Table V–10 presents the efficiency
levels examined for each SPVU
equipment class.
TABLE V–10—INCREMENTAL EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Equipment class
Baseline
Efficiency level 1
Representative Design Options ............................
Single-speed compressor, singlestage indoor/outdoor airflow, ECM
indoor blower motor, PSC outdoor
fan motor.
12.5 IEER .........................................
12.5 IEER/3.3 COP ..........................
10.3 IEER .........................................
10.3 IEER/3.0 COP ..........................
11.2 IEER * (Max-Tech).
11.2 IEER/3.0 COP * (Max-Tech).
Baseline + 2-speed compressor,
staged indoor airflow, improved
control logic, larger heat exchangers.
13.7 IEER .........................................
13.7 IEER/3.3 COP ..........................
11.2 IEER (Max-Tech).
11.2 IEER/3.0 COP (Max-Tech).
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
<65,000 Btu/h ...........................................
<65,000 Btu/h ...........................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ..........
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ..........
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ........
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ........
Efficiency level 2
Efficiency level 1 + larger indoor
and outdoor heat exchangers,
higher horsepower (hp) indoor
blower/outdoor fan motors.
16.1 IEER (Max-Tech).
16.1 IEER/3.6 COP (Max-Tech).
* Representative design options for baseline SPVU ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h are equivalent to the design options observed at efficiency level 1 for SPVU
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Issue–4: DOE requests comment on
the proposed incremental higher
efficiency levels for each equipment
class. DOE requests data showing the
range of efficiencies based on IEER and
COP available for SPVUs on the market,
as well as the design options associated
with units at different efficiency levels
for each equipment class.
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the
engineering analysis is conducted using
one or a combination of cost
approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors,
including the availability and reliability
of public information, characteristics of
the regulated equipment, and the
availability and timeliness of
purchasing the equipment on the
market. The cost approaches are
summarized as follows:
• Physical teardowns: Under this
approach, DOE physically dismantles
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
commercially-available equipment,
component-by-component, to develop a
detailed bill of materials for that
equipment.
• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of
physically deconstructing equipment,
DOE identifies each component using
parts diagrams (e.g., available from
manufacturer websites or appliance
repair websites) to develop the bill of
materials for that equipment.
• Price surveys: If neither a physical
nor catalog teardown is feasible (e.g., for
tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible
to disassemble and for which parts
diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical
(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE
conducts price surveys using publiclyavailable pricing data published on
major online retailer websites and/or by
soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE
directly analyzed one equipment class
(i.e., SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity), then performed a more
limited analysis of the other equipment
classes based on limited physical/
virtual teardowns and scaling the results
from the analysis conducted for SPVACs
with a cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h. 80 FR 57438, 57459–57460 (Sept.
23, 2015). In the April 2020 RFI, DOE
requested comment on whether using
this same approach for the current
rulemaking is appropriate. DOE also
requested comment on the increase in
manufacturing production costs (MPCs)
associated with each design option and
how the costs estimated in the
September 2015 final rule have
changed. 85 FR 22958, 22965–22966
(April 24, 2020).
In response to this issue raised in the
April 2020 RFI, AHRI expressed support
for once again directly analyzing the
SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75408
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
equipment class and scaling the results
to other equipment classes for a future
SPVU energy conservation standards
rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8) The
commenter suggested extending the
cost-efficiency analyses for equipment
classes with models to those equipment
classes without models on the market,
as was done in the previous standards
rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8) AHRI
also commented that the costs estimated
for each particular design options have
not changed significantly since the
September 2015 Final Rule analysis. In
addition, AHRI cautioned that
incorporating backward curve fans
would require a total redesign of units
and would likely be the last, most
expensive improvement that
manufacturers would implement.
(AHRI, No. 9 at p. 7) As discussed in
section V.A.2 of this document, DOE
conducted the cost-efficiency analysis
consistent with SPVU equipment
available on the market. DOE notes that
backward curve fans were not necessary
to achieve SPVU performance up to the
max-tech efficiency level, and as a
result, DOE did not consider that
technology in its analysis.
In the present case, DOE conducted
its cost analysis using physical
teardowns on units in its test sample
and catalog teardowns to expand the
analysis to additional cooling capacities.
Similar to the previous rulemaking,
DOE conducted physical teardowns
with a focus on SPVUs with <65,000
Btu/h cooling capacity. The resulting
bill of materials provides the basis for
the MPC estimates. As discussed in
section V.C.1 of this document, DOE
selected a cooling capacity of 36,000
Btu/h as the representative cooling
capacity for this equipment class. DOE
developed MPC estimates for SPVACs
with <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity
based on the physical teardowns of
36,000 Btu/h units at each efficiency
level. Where necessary, DOE ensured
that the MPC estimates were based on
minimally-featured equipment design so
that non-efficiency related features (e.g.,
economizers, dust sensors) are not
included in the cost estimates. For
SPVHPs, DOE estimated the costs based
on the design differences between
baseline SPVACs and SPVHPs from the
same model line. DOE assumed that this
cost difference would be applied to the
baseline efficiency level and would
remain constant at incremental
efficiency levels. For the remaining
larger cooling capacity equipment
classes, DOE estimated the MPCs based
on catalog teardowns and information
regarding the design options
implemented at each efficiency level
scaled from the <65,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity equipment class, as discussed
in section V.C.1.b of this document.
To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE
applies a non-production cost multiplier
(the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price
(MSP) is the price at which the
manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. In the April 2020 RFI, DOE
requested comment on whether a
manufacturer markup of 1.28, as used in
September 2015 final rule, is
appropriate for SPVUs. 85 FR 22958,
22966 (April 24, 2020). On this topic,
AHRI commented that a manufacturer
markup of 1.28 continues to be
generally appropriate for SPVUs. (AHRI,
No. 9 at p. 8) Accordingly, DOE has
retained a manufacturer markup of 1.28
for this analysis.
Because the design options associated
with each incremental efficiency level
involved increases in cabinet sizes, DOE
also estimated the incremental shipping
cost at each efficiency level separate
from the MSP. More specifically, DOE
estimated the per-unit shipping costs
based on the outer dimensions
(including shipping pallets) at each
efficiency level, assuming the use of a
typical 53-foot straight-frame trailer
with a storage volume of 4,240 cubic
feet. DOE notes that SPVAC and SPVHP
at the same cooling capacity used the
same cabinet design and that the weight
differential is typically small between
otherwise identical SPVACs and
SPVHPs. For shipping of HVAC
equipment, the size threshold of a
container is typically met before the
weight threshold. Accordingly, because
SPVACs and SPVHPs use the same
cabinet size, DOE estimated the
incremental shipping costs for SPVACs
and SPVHPs would be equivalent.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
The results of the engineering analysis
are reported as cost-efficiency data (or
‘‘curves’’) in the form of IEER (and COP
for SPVHPs) versus MSP (in dollars).
DOE developed separate cost-efficiency
curves for each equipment class. These
results are presented in Table V–11
through Table V–14. As discussed in
section V.C.1.b of this document, DOE
did not analyze any higher efficiency
levels for SPVUs ≥135,000 and <240,000
Btu/h cooling capacity, because all units
available on the market incorporate the
same design features and have the same
rated efficiency. As a result, DOE is not
presenting any cost-efficiency results for
this equipment class. See Chapter 5 of
the NOPR/NOPD TSD for additional
detail on the engineering analysis.
TABLE V–11—COST-EFFICIENCY RESULTS SPVACS <65,000 BTU/H
Incremental cost
($2021)
Efficiency level
Baseline .......................................................................................
EL 1 .............................................................................................
EL 2 .............................................................................................
MPC
MSP
Shipping
........................................
$296.57
1,261.63
........................................
$379.61
1,614.88
........................................
$42.67
57.01
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE V–12—COST-EFFICIENCY RESULTS SPVHPS <65,000 BTU/H
Incremental cost
($2021)
Efficiency level
Baseline .......................................................................................................................................
EL 1 .............................................................................................................................................
EL 2 .............................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
MPC
MSP
Shipping
........................
$296.57
1,261.63
........................
$379.61
1,614.88
........................
$42.67
57.01
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
75409
TABLE V–13—COST-EFFICIENCY RESULTS SPVACS ≥65,000 BTU/H AND <135,000 BTU/H
Incremental cost
($2021)
Efficiency level
Baseline .......................................................................................................................................
EL 1 .............................................................................................................................................
MPC
MSP
Shipping
........................
$360.18
........................
$461.03
........................
$161.94
TABLE V–14—COST-EFFICIENCY RESULTS SPVHPS ≥65,000 BTU/H AND <135,000 BTU/H
Incremental cost
($2021)
Efficiency level
Baseline .......................................................................................................................................
EL 1 .............................................................................................................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Issue–5: DOE requests comment on
the cost-efficiency results. In particular,
DOE requests comment on the costs
associated with the design options
analyzed, as well as the shipping costs
associated with each efficiency level.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops
appropriate markups in the distribution
chain (e.g., retailer markups, distributor
markups, contractor markups) and sales
taxes to convert the MSP estimates for
the subject equipment derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices,
which are then used in the LCC and PBP
analysis 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.
In the September 2015 final rule (and
set forth once again here), DOE
identified four distribution channels for
SPVUs to describe how this equipment
passes from the manufacturer to the
consumer. 80 FR 57438, 57461 (Sept.
23, 2015).
The first two distribution channels are
used in the new construction market:
Manufacturer → HVAC Distributor 20→
Modular Building Manufacturer →
Modular Building Distributor →
End User
Manufacturer → HVAC Distributor →
Modular Building Manufacturer →
General Contractor → End User
The other two distribution channels
are used in the replacement market:
Manufacturer → HVAC Distributor →
Modular Building Distributor →
End User
20 In the 2015 final rule, the second step in the
distribution channel was designated as HVAC
Distributor or Manufacturer Representative.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
MPC
MSP
Shipping
........................
$360.18
........................
$461.03
........................
$161.94
Manufacturer → HVAC Distributor →
Mechanical Contractor → End User
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE requested
information on the existence of any
distribution channels other than the
four distribution channels identified in
the September 2015 final rule. DOE also
requested data on the fraction of SPVU
sales that go through each of the four
identified distribution channels, as well
as the fraction of sales through any other
identified channels. DOE also requested
comment on its approach to estimating
markups and any financial data
available that would assist the
Department in developing markups for
the various segments of the SPVU
distribution channels. 85 FR 22958,
22966 (April 24, 2020).
On this topic, AHRI and NEEA
commented that there are more SPVU
distribution channels than the four
identified in the September 2015 final
rule, although the four from the
previous rule make up the majority of
the market. AHRI and NEEA stated that
SPVUs are also commonly installed in
other non-modular applications such as
multi-family housing, residential care,
lodging, and other applications, and,
therefore, those distribution channels
would differ from the four used in the
September 2015 final rule. (AHRI, No. 9
at p. 8; NEEA, No. 6 at p. 3) For this
reason, AHRI recommended that DOE
should add the following three
distribution channels for SPVUs. (AHRI,
No. 9 at p. 8)
Manufacturer → End User (National
Account)
Manufacturer → Sales Representative →
General Contractor → End User
Manufacturer → Sales Representative →
HVAC Distributor → End User
AHRI did not provide the fraction of
overall SPVU sales that travel through
each of these new distribution channels.
As discussed in section III.A of this
document, DOE updated the definitions
pertaining to SPVUs in the November
2022 Test Procedure Final Rule so as to
distinguish between commercial SPVUs
and consumer central air conditioners.
DOE notes that many of the products
currently certified as SPVUs that are
marketed for multi-family and lodging
applications are being misclassified and
should be properly classified as central
air conditioners. DOE understands that
the distribution channels for this
equipment would be different than that
of SPVUs used in modular buildings,
and the Department believes that the
distribution channels suggested by
AHRI and NEEA fall in this category. To
reiterate, central air conditioners that
are misclassified as SPVUs are not
included in this NOPR/NOPD, so,
therefore, DOE did not adopt any of the
additional distribution channels
suggested by commenters to its analysis
for this NOPR.
In summary, for this NOPR/NOPD,
DOE considered the four distribution
channels shown in Table V–15. The
estimated percentages of the total sales
in the new construction and
replacement markets for each of the four
distribution channels is listed in the
bottom row of Table V–15.
Subsequently, DOE has determined that these
markups are the same, so this step in the channel
is now simply referred to as HVAC Distributor for
consistency with the other HVAC product markups.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75410
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–15—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS FOR SPVU EQUIPMENT
Channel 1
Channel 2
Channel 3
Channel 4
New construction
New construction
Replacement
Replacement
Manufacturer ..................................
HVAC Distributor ............................
Modular Building Manufacturer ......
Modular Building Distributor ...........
Consumer ......................................
12.5% .............................................
Manufacturer .................................
HVAC Distributor ..........................
Modular Building Manufacturer ....
General Contractor .......................
Consumer .....................................
12.5% ............................................
Manufacturer .................................
HVAC Distributor ..........................
Modular Building Distributor .........
Manufacturer.
HVAC Distributor.
Mechanical Contractor.
Consumer .....................................
37.5% ............................................
Consumer.
37.5%.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Once these distribution channels were
developed, DOE developed baseline and
incremental markups for each actor in
the distribution chain. Baseline
markups are applied to the price of
equipment 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
operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.21
DOE updated the sources used in the
September 2015 final rule to derive
markups for each step of the
distribution channel with the following
sources: (1) the 2017 Annual Wholesale
Trade Survey 22 to develop HVAC and
Modular Building wholesaler markups;
(2) the Air Conditioning Contractors of
America’s (ACCA) ‘‘2005 Financial
Analysis for the HVACR Contracting
Industry’’ 23 and 2017 U.S. Census
Bureau economic data 24 to develop
mechanical contractor markups; (3)
2017 U.S. Census Bureau economic data
for the commercial and institutional
building construction industry to
develop general contractor markups; 25
21 Because the projected price of standardscompliant equipment is typically higher than the
price of baseline equipment, 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 in
markets that are reasonably competitive, it is
unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable
increase in profitability in the long run.
22 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Wholesale
Trade Report, NAICS 4236: Household Appliances
and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant
Wholesalers (2017) (Available at: www.census.gov/
wholesale/) (Last accessed June 9, 2022).
23 ‘‘2005 Financial Analysis for the HVACR
Contracting Industry,’’ Air Conditioning Contractors
of America (2005) (Last accessed June 9, 2022).
24 ‘‘Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning
Contractors. Sector 23: 238220. Construction:
Industry Series, Preliminary Detailed Statistics for
Establishments, 2017,’’ U.S. Census Bureau (2017)
(Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/
2017/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-23.html)
(Last accessed June 9, 2022).
25 ‘‘2017 Economic Census, Construction Industry
Series and Wholesale Trade Subject Series,’’ U.S.
Census Bureau (Available at: https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
and (4) the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Annual Survey of Manufacturers.26 The
overall markup is the product of all the
markups (baseline or incremental
markups) for the different steps within
a distribution channel. Replacement
channels include sales taxes, which
were calculated based on State sales tax
data reported by the Sales Tax
Clearinghouse.27
Chapter 6 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD
provides details on DOE’s development
of markups for SPVUs.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of SPVUs at
different efficiencies in representative
commercial buildings, and to assess the
energy savings potential of increased
SPVU efficiency. The energy use
analysis estimates the range of energy
use of SPVUs (unit energy consumption
(UEC)) in the field (i.e., as they are
actually used by commercial
consumers). The energy use analysis
provides the basis for other analyses
DOE performed, particularly
assessments of the energy savings and
the savings in consumer operating costs
that could result from adoption of
amended or new standards.
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE
analyzed the energy consumption of
SPVUs using a whole building energy
simulation approach for three types of
commercial buildings: modular offices,
modular schools, and
telecommunication structures. The
annual energy use was simulated using
Energy Plus.28 80 FR 57438, 57462
(Sept. 23, 2015). For this analysis, DOE
developed three prototypical building
www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economiccensus/naics-sector-23.html) (Last accessed June 9,
2022).
26 U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of
Manufacturers (Available at: https://
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data.html)
(Last accessed: June 9, 2022).
27 Sales Tax Clearinghouse (Available at: https://
thestc.com/) (Last accessed June 9, 2022).
28 EnergyPlus is a whole building simulation
program used to model cooling and heating loads.
(Available at: https://energyplus.net/) (Last accessed
August 15, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
models to simulate modular offices,
modular schools, and
telecommunications structures. For
offices and schools, a 1,568 ft2 woodframe structure was developed with
performance characteristics (lighting
density, ventilation, envelope,
economizer usage) meeting the
requirements of ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2004. Schedules and load profiles
were taken from the DOE commercial
reference buildings 29 for primary
schools and small offices. For
telecommunications shelters, a 240 ft2
precast concrete structure was
developed. These shelters were assumed
to operate with a constant thermal load
of 6.86 kW (23,400 Btu/h) in all hours
of the year, thus requiring year round
cooling. 80 FR 57438, 57462 (Sept. 23,
2015).
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE recounted
the analytical process to determine
energy use taken for the September 2015
SPVU final rule and requested comment
on using that approach in the current
rulemaking, as well as input on any
necessary modifications to such
approach.
On that topic, AHRI suggested that
after the draft AHRI Standard 390 is
adopted, DOE should conduct a
simulation approach that aligns more
with an IEER analysis, rather than
following the analysis for the September
2015 final rule (based on the EER
metric). AHRI supported DOE’s
assumption that telecom cooling loads
are constant throughout the year, and
the commenter agreed that the telecom
cooling loads used in the September
2015 final rule were reasonable.
Regarding economizer usage in
telecommunications structures, AHRI
commented that economizers were
assumed to be present in 50 percent of
the SPVU market in the IEER analysis,
but the organization pointed out that
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and California
29 For more information, please refer to the DOE
Commercial Reference Buildings web pages for
small offices (https://www.energy.gov/eere/
downloads/reference-buildings-building-type-smalloffice) and primary schools (https://
www.energy.gov/eere/downloads/referencebuildings-building-type-primary-school).
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
title 24 have existing and proposed
economizer requirements, some by
climate zone. (AHRI, No. 9 at pp. 8–9)
In response, DOE notes that it used
the same building prototypes and loads
that were used to establish the IEER
metric when developing the annual unit
energy consumption of SPVUs in this
NOPR. Regarding economizers, DOE
notes that the ASHRAE economizer
requirements apply to systems with
cooling capacities >54,000 Btu/h.30 The
representative capacity for SPVUs
<65,000 Btu/h in this NOPR/NOPD is
36,000 Btu/h, and units at this capacity
make up over 95 percent of SPVU
shipments; therefore, DOE did not make
changes to the cooling loads (the same
as those used to develop AHRI 390), as
it would have had little to no impact on
average unit energy consumption of
SPVUs. California title 24 imposes
economizer requirements on covered
equipment, and the 2022 amendments
to that law reduce the cooling capacity
of the equipment subject to those
provisions to 33,000 Btu/h.31 DOE notes
that the cooling operating hours in
southern California would be reduced
by this new building code, leading to
lower UECs. Given the already very
negative LCC savings, DOE did not
make adjustments to the cooling
operating hours for southern California,
as a reduction in the UEC would only
reduce LCC savings further, and
accordingly, it would not be likely to
change DOE’s tentative decision to
proceed with a determination that morestringent energy conservation standards
for SPVUs are not warranted at this
time.
NEEA commented that DOE should
update its energy use analysis to include
the deployment of SPVUs in other types
of commercial buildings beyond
modular buildings. In support of its
recommendation, NEEA cites the 2019
Commercial Building Stock
Assessment,32 a regional dataset of
commercial buildings in the Pacific
Northwest, which shows that SPVUs are
used in residential care facilities,
lodging facilities, and one warehouse.
(NEEA, No. 6 at p. 3) Similarly, AHRI
also suggested that DOE should add
multi-family and lodging buildings in
the energy use analysis. (AHRI, No. 9 at
p. 8)
As discussed in section III.A of this
document, DOE updated the definitions
of SPVUs in the November 2022 Test
Procedure Final Rule to distinguish
30 ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019, p 99.
https://title24stakeholders.com/measures/
cycle-2022/hvac-controls/.
32 Available at: https://neea.org/data/commercialbuilding-stock-assessments.
31 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
between commercial SPVUs and
consumer central air conditioners. DOE
notes that many of the products
currently certified as SPVUs that are
marketed for non-modular applications
are being misclassified and should be
classified as central air conditioners.
Therefore, DOE did not add any further
building types to the energy use analysis
for SPVUs.
In the 2015 final rule, DOE used
hourly energy use simulations to model
the energy use of SPVUs in modular
offices, modular schools, and
telecommunications structures.33 The
IEER metric was developed by the
AHRI–390 committee using the load
profiles from DOE’s 2015 final rule
simulations in 15 cities, each
representing an International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) climate zone.
For telecommunications structures, the
SPVUs were modeled both with and
without economizers. As discussed
previously, the IEER metric captures the
cooling efficiency of SPVUs at four load
conditions: A—100% load; B—75%
load; C—50% load, and D—25% load.
DOE calculated the percentage of full
load by dividing the hourly cooling load
by the design day cooling capacity of
the SPVU by building type and climate
zone. DOE then binned the hours into
one of the four IEER load conditions
based on the percentage of design day
load as shown in Table V–16.
TABLE V–16—IEER LOAD BINS
IEER load condition
A—100% ...................
B—75% .....................
C—50% .....................
D—25% .....................
Percentage of design
day
97% to 100%.
62.5% to 97%.
37.5% to 62.5%.
0 to 37.5%.
Cooling UECs were calculated by
multiplying the hours in each bin by the
estimated power and then summing the
electricity use of the four bins for each
building type, in each climate zone. The
baseline Heating UECs for SPVHPs were
taken from the September 2015 final
rule, and from that baseline, heating
UECs for higher efficiency levels were
scaled by the change in COP.
DOE used county-level population
data from the U.S. Census Bureau,34
along with a Pacific Northwest
33 For more detail on the hourly energy use
simulations, please refer to chapter 7 of the 2015
final rule TSD (Available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BTSTD-0041-0027).
34 Available at: www.census.gov/data/datasets/
time-series/demo/popest/2010s-countiestotal.html#par_textimage_70769902 (Last accessed
April 1, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75411
Laboratory report,35 that assigned a
climate zone to each county in the U.S.
to develop population weighting factors
for each climate zone. Next, DOE used
the county-level population data and
climate zones to determine the
weighted-average UEC for each Census
Division, with Census Division 9 split
into two regions: (1) California and (2)
the remaining States of Census Division
9 (Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and
Alaska). The resulting UECs represent
the average SPVU cooling and heating
energy use, by building type and Census
Division.
Chapter 7 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD
provides details on DOE’s energy use
analysis for SPVUs.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual consumers of
potential energy conservation standards
for SPVUs. The effect of new or
amended energy conservation standards
on individual consumers usually
involves a reduction in operating cost
and an increase in purchase cost. 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,
maintenance, and repair). To compute
the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of
purchase (i.e., the anticipated year of
compliance with new or amended
standards) 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
distribution of SPVUs 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.
35 Available at: www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2015/10/f27/ba_climate_region_guide_7.3.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75412
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
For each considered efficiency level
in each SPVU equipment class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP in modular
schools, modular offices, and telecom
structures and then combined to
develop aggregate results. As stated
previously, DOE developed a sample of
SPVU users by Census Division based
on simulation data that was used to
develop the IEER metric. For each
Census Division, DOE determined the
average energy consumption for an
SPVU in a modular school, modular
office, and telecom structure and the
appropriate electricity price. By
developing a sample of UECs by
building type and Census Division, the
analysis captured the variability in
energy consumption and energy prices
associated with the use of SPVUs.
Inputs to the calculation of total
installed cost include the cost of the
equipment—which includes MPCs,
manufacturer markups, distributor
markups, contractor markups, and sales
taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs,
equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and
the anticipated year that compliance
with new or amended standards is
required. DOE created distributions of
values for equipment 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 SPVU user
samples. The model calculated the LCC
and PBP for equipment at each
efficiency level for 10,000 scenarios 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, equipment efficiency is
chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen equipment efficiency is greater
than or equal to the efficiency of the
standard level under consideration, the
LCC and PBP calculation reveals that an
SPVU owner is not impacted by that
standard level. By accounting for SPVU
owners who already purchase more-
efficient equipment, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from
increasing equipment efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for
all consumers of SPVUs as if each were
to purchase a new SPVU in the expected
year of required compliance with
amended standards. Amended
standards would apply to SPVUs
manufactured on and after the date that
is one year after the date of publication
of any new or amended standard in the
Federal Register. (See section VI.B.4 of
this document for discussion of DOE’s
calculation of lead time for this
rulemaking.) At this time, DOE
estimates publication of a final rule for
amended SPVU energy conservation
standards in 2024. Therefore, for
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2025
as the first year of compliance with any
amended standards for SPVUs.
Table V–17 summarizes the approach
and data DOE used to derive inputs to
the LCC and PBP calculations. The
subsections that follow provide further
related discussion. Details of the
spreadsheet model, as well as all the
inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are
contained in chapter 8 of the NOPR/
NOPD TSD.
TABLE V–17—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS*
Inputs
Source/method
Equipment Cost ..............................
Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer, contractor, and distributor markups and sales tax, as appropriate. A constant price trend was used to project equipment costs.
Typical installation costs are generally not expected to vary by efficiency level; therefore, DOE did not include installation costs in the LCC analysis. However, replacement installations at EL 2 for SPVUs
<65,000 Btu/h require a conversion curb, so this cost was included at EL 2 for replacement installations.
The binned hours in each IEER load bin are multiplied by the power consumption at each of the four IEER
load conditions.
Variability: Census Division and Building Type
Electricity: Based on Edison Electric Institute data of average and marginal prices.
Variability: Regional energy prices by census division, with census division 9 separated into California and
the rest of the census division.
Based on AEO 2022 price projections.
Maintenance costs do not change by efficiency level.
Annualized repair costs determined using RS Means in the 2015 final rule, costs updated to 2021 dollars
using GDP deflator. The materials portion of annualized repair costs scale with the increase in MPC.
Average: 15 years
Commercial discount rates for schools, industrial, offices and utilities (telecom). The approach involves estimating the cost of capital of companies that purchase SPVU equipment.
2025
Installation Costs .............................
Annual Energy Use .........................
Energy Prices ..................................
Energy Price Trends .......................
Repair and Maintenance Costs ......
Product Lifetime ..............................
Discount Rates ................................
Compliance Date ............................
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD
TSD.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Equipment Cost
To calculate consumer equipment
costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs
developed in the engineering analysis
by the markups described previously
(along with sales taxes). DOE used
different markups for baseline
equipment and higher-efficiency
equipment, because DOE applies an
incremental markup to the increase in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
MSP associated with higher-efficiency
equipment.
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE
explained its rationale for using a
constant price trend to project the
equipment prices in the compliance
year. 80 FR 57438, 57466 (Sept. 23,
2015). DOE maintained this approach
for this NOPR/NOPD and used a
constant trend for equipment prices
between 2021 (the year for which MPCs
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
were developed) and 2025 (the
anticipated compliance year of amended
standards). The constant trend is based
on a historical time series of the
inflation-adjusted (deflated) Producer
Price Index (PPI) for all other
miscellaneous refrigeration and air
conditioning equipment between 1990
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
and 2021.36 The deflated PPI does not
indicate a long term upward or
downward trend, and, therefore, DOE
maintained a constant price trend for
SPVUs.
For more information on equipment
costs, please refer to chapter 8 of the
NOPR/NOPD TSD.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor,
overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the
equipment. DOE determined that the
labor required for typical installation
would not change by EL, and, therefore,
DOE did not include typical installation
costs in this analysis. However, DOE
notes that replacement installation at EL
2 would require a conversion curb, so,
therefore, an installation cost is
included for replacement installation at
EL 2 for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h.
For more information on installation
costs, please refer to chapter 8 of the
NOPR/NOPD TSD.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each Census Division and
building type, DOE determined the
annual energy consumption of an SPVU
at different efficiency levels using the
approach described previously in
section V.E of this document.
For more information on annual
energy consumption, please refer to
chapter 7 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity price
reflects the cost to a consumer of a
kilowatt-hour at the highest level of
consumption, it provides a better
representation than average electricity
prices of the value of saving electricity
via more efficient equipment. Therefore,
DOE applied average electricity prices
for the energy use of the equipment
purchased in the no-new-standards
case, and marginal electricity prices for
the incremental change in energy use
associated with the other efficiency
levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2021
using data from Edison Electric Institute
(EEI) Typical Bills and Average Rates
reports.37 Based upon comprehensive,
industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual
report presents typical monthly electric
bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to
the customer as charged by investorowned utilities. With these data, DOE
calculated commercial-sector electricity
36 Available at: https://www.bls.gov/ppi/ (Last
accessed March 25, 2022).
37 Available at: https://netforum.eei.org/eweb/
DynamicPage.aspx?WebCode=COEPub
Search&pager=12 (Last accessed April 14, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
prices using the methodology described
in Coughlin and Beraki (2019).38
DOE’s methodology allows electricity
prices to vary by sector and region. For
a given product, electricity prices are
chosen to be consistent with the way the
consumer economic and energy use
characteristics are defined in the LCC
analysis. To measure the baseline
energy cost for SPVUs, DOE used the
average annual electricity prices for
large commercial customers for modular
schools and offices, and DOE used
average annual electricity prices for
small commercial customers for
telecommunications structures.
Marginal annual electricity prices for
large commercial and small commercial
customers were used to measure the
operating cost savings from higherefficiency SPVUs. See chapter 8 of the
NOPR/NOPD TSD for details.
To estimate energy prices in future
years, DOE multiplied the 2021 energy
prices by the projection of annual
average price changes for each of the
nine Census Divisions from the
Reference Case in AEO 2022, which has
an end year of 2050.39 Because extended
long-term price trends are more
uncertain, DOE kept the energy price
constant at the 2050 level for the years
after 2050.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with
repairing or replacing equipment
components that have failed in an
appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the proper
operation of the equipment. In the
September 2015 final rule, because data
were not available to indicate how
maintenance costs vary with equipment
efficiency, DOE assumed maintenance
costs are constant across each EL by
equipment class. For repairs, DOE
developed an annualized repair cost
estimate, using repair cost data from RS
Means,40 assuming that a repair takes
place in year 10 and that the equipment
lifetime is 15 years. DOE scaled the
materials portion of repair costs with
the increase in the average retail price
to project repair costs of higherefficiency SPVUs. 80 FR 57438, 57466–
38 Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki (2019) Nonresidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data
Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No.
LBNL–2001203 (Available at: ees.lbl.gov/
publications/non-residential-electricity-prices) (Last
accessed Jan. 6, 2020).
39 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with
Projections to 2050 (Available at: www.eia.gov/
forecasts/aeo/) (Last accessed May 9, 2022).
40 RS Means CostWorks 2014, R.S. Means
Company, Inc. (2013) (Available at:
www.meanscostworks.com/) (Last accessed Feb. 27,
2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75413
57467 (Sept. 23, 2015). DOE used
average annualized repair costs of
$173.50 for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h and
$212 for SPVUs >65,000 and < 135,000
Btu/h in the 2015 final rule.41 DOE
requested comment on SPVU
maintenance and repair costs in the
April 2020 RFI. 85 FR 22958, 22967
(April 24, 2020).
On this topic, AHRI confirmed that
maintenance costs are not likely to
differ between baseline and higherefficiency products, but the commenter
stated that the cost for replacement parts
will be higher for higher-efficiency
products. AHRI did not have any
information on failure rates and said
that the repair/replace decision is
usually based on installation location
(e.g., SPVUs in telecommunications
structures are more likely to be
replaced, whereas SPVUs in school
systems are more likely to be repaired).
(AHRI, No. 9 at p. 9)
As mentioned previously, because
maintenance costs do not vary by EL,
DOE did not consider maintenance costs
in this analysis. DOE updated the
annual repair cost in the September
2015 final rule to 2021 dollars using the
GDP implicit price deflator 42 and scaled
the materials portion of repair costs by
the increase in MPC for higher ELs in
this NOPR/NOPD. The annualized
repair cost was applied to all SPVUs as
an annual operating cost in the LCC and
PBP analysis.
For more information on repair and
maintenance costs, please refer to
chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
6. Product Lifetime
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE
used a distribution with a minimum
lifetime of 10 years and a maximum of
25 years, which yielded an average
SPVU life of 15 years. (DOE based these
distribution estimates on a review of a
range of packaged cooling equipment
lifetime estimates found in published
studies and online documents, because
the data did not distinguish between
classes of SPVU equipment.) 80 FR
57438, 57467 (Sept. 23, 2015). DOE
requested comment on this approach in
the April 2020 RFI. 85 FR 22958, 22968
(April 24, 2020).
In response, AHRI commented that
the lifetime estimate from the
September 2015 final rule is reasonable,
41 Technical Support Document: Energy
Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Single Package Vertical Units, chapter
8 (Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0041-0027).
42 Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/
GDPDEF (Last accessed May 9, 2022). A price
deflator of 114.2 was used to adjust the previous
costs (in 2014$) to 2021$.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75414
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
and the commenter stated that it does
not expect SPVU lifetime to vary by
equipment class, efficiency, or end use.
(AHRI, No. 9 at p. 9)
In this NOPR/NOPD, DOE used
assumed that 14.6 percent of SPVUs
would retire per year between years 11
and 15 and afterwards 2.7 percent of
SPVUs would retire through year 25.
For more information on equipment
lifetime, please refer to chapter 8 of the
NOPR/NOPD TSD.
7. Discount Rates
DOE’s method for deriving discount
rates for commercial entities views the
purchase of a higher-efficiency
appliance as an investment that yields
a stream of energy cost savings. DOE
derived the discount rates for the LCC
analysis by estimating the cost of capital
for companies or public entities that
purchase SPVUs. For private firms, the
weighted-average cost of capital
(WACC) is commonly used to estimate
the present value of cash flows to be
derived from a typical company project
or investment. Most companies use both
debt and equity capital to fund
investments, so their cost of capital is
the weighted average of the cost to the
firm of equity and debt financing, as
estimated from financial data for
publicly-traded firms in the sectors that
purchase SPVUs.43 As discount rates
can differ across industries, DOE
estimates separate discount rate
distributions for a number of aggregate
sectors with which elements of the LCC
building sample can be associated.
In this analysis, DOE estimated the
cost of capital of companies that
purchase SPVU equipment. DOE used
the discount rates for healthcare and
industrial sectors for the modular
offices, education sector discount rates
for modular schools, and the utility
sector discount rates for
telecommunications shelters.
For more information on discount
rates, please refer to chapter 8 of the
NOPR/NOPD TSD.
8. 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
equipment efficiencies under the nonew-standards case (i.e., the case
without amended or new energy
conservation standards).
In the present case, DOE estimated the
current energy efficiency distribution of
SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h in terms of IEER,
with 62 percent at the baseline, 27
percent at EL 1, and 11 percent at EL 2.
For SPVUs >65,000 and <135,000 Btu/
h, DOE estimates that 53 percent of the
market is at the baseline and that 47
percent is at EL 1. The estimated market
shares for the no-new-standards case for
SPVUs are shown in chapter 8 of the
NOPR/NOPD TSD.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of
time (expressed in years) it takes the
consumer to recover the additional
installed cost of more-efficient
equipment, compared to baseline
equipment, through operating cost
savings. Payback periods that exceed the
life of the equipment mean that the
increased total installed cost is not
recovered in reduced operating
expenses.
The PBP calculation for each
efficiency level considers the change in
total installed cost of the equipment and
the change in the first-year annual
operating expenditures relative to the
baseline equipment. DOE refers to this
as a ‘‘simple PBP’’ because it does not
consider changes over time in operating
cost savings. The PBP calculation uses
the same inputs as the LCC analysis,
except that energy price trends, repair
costs, and discount rates are not used.
For more information on PBP, please
refer to chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD
TSD.
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the
results from DOE’s analyses with
respect to the considered energy
conservation standards for SPVUs.
Additional details regarding DOE’s
analyses are contained in the NOPR/
NOPD TSD supporting this document.
A. Economic Impacts on SPVU
Consumers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts
of potential amended standards at morestringent levels on SPVU consumers by
calculating the LCC savings and the PBP
at each considered EL. Inputs used for
calculating the LCC and PBP include
total installed costs (i.e., equipment
price plus installation costs) and
operating costs (calculated using annual
energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, repair costs, and maintenance
costs). The LCC calculation also uses
product lifetime and a discount rate.
Chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD
provides detailed information on the
LCC and PBP analyses.
Table VI–1 through Table VI–4 show
the LCC and PBP results for the ELs
considered in this analysis. There are no
results for SPVUs >= 135,000 Btu/h and
< 240,000 Btu/h because there are no
efficiency levels above the baseline.
Note that the simple payback is
measured relative to the baseline
product. The LCC savings are measured
relative to the efficiency distribution in
the no-new-standards case in the
compliance year (see section V.F.8 of
this document). The LCC savings refer
only to consumers who are affected by
a standard at a given EL. Those who
already purchase a product with
efficiency at or above a given EL are not
affected. Consumers for whom the LCC
increases (negative LCC savings) at a
given EL experience a net cost.
TABLE VI–1—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SPVACS <65,000 BTU/H
LCC savings
(2021$)
Efficiency level
¥246
¥2,179
EL 1 .........................................................................................................................................
EL 2 .........................................................................................................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Simple payback period
(years)
12.3
21.6
TABLE VI–2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SPVHPS <65,000 BTU/H
LCC savings
(2021$)
Efficiency level
EL 1 .........................................................................................................................................
43 Modigliani, F. and M. H. Miller, The Cost of
Capital, Corporations Finance and the Theory of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
Simple payback period
(years)
¥608
Investment, American Economic Review (1958)
48(3): pp. 261–297.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
30.1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
75415
TABLE VI–2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SPVHPS <65,000 BTU/H—Continued
LCC savings
(2021$)
Efficiency level
Simple payback period
(years)
¥1,939
EL 2 .........................................................................................................................................
17.8
TABLE VI–3—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SPVACS ≥65,000 BTU/H AND <135,000
BTU/H
LCC savings
(2021$)
Efficiency level
Simple payback period
(years)
EL 1 .........................................................................................................................................
92
8.3
TABLE VI–4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR SPVHPS ≥65,000 BTU/H AND <135,000
BTU/H
LCC savings
(2021$)
Efficiency level
¥703
EL 1 .........................................................................................................................................
B. Proposed Determination
EPCA specifies that for any
commercial and industrial equipment
addressed under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i), which includes SPVUs,
DOE may prescribe an energy
conservation standard more stringent
than the level for such equipment in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ‘‘clear
and convincing evidence’’ shows that a
more-stringent standard would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) The ‘‘clear and
convincing’’ evidentiary threshold
applies both when DOE is triggered by
ASHRAE action and when DOE
conducts a six-year-lookback
rulemaking, with the latter being the
basis for the current proceeding. In light
of these statutory criteria, DOE
conducted an assessment of whether the
current energy conservation standards
for SPVUs should be replaced with
more-stringent standards. DOE’s
tentative conclusions are set forth in the
paragraphs that follow.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Technological Feasibility
DOE considers technologies
incorporated in commercially-available
products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Per the
technology options discussed in section
V.A.2 of this document, DOE has
tentatively determined, based on clear
and convincing evidence, that morestringent energy conservation standards
for SPVUs would be technologically
feasible.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
2. Economic Justification
In determining whether a potential
energy conservation standard is
economically justified, the Secretary
must determine whether the benefits of
the standard exceed its burdens by
considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the seven statutory factors
discussed in section II.A of this
document. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII))
One of those seven factors is the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the product
in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or
maintenance expenses of the products
that are likely to result from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II))
This factor is typically assessed using
the LCC and PBP analysis.
DOE conducted an LCC analysis to
estimate the net costs and benefits to
users from increased efficiency in the
considered SPVUs. The LCC savings are
negative at nearly all ELs considered in
this analysis (see Table VI–1 through
Table VI–4). The one EL with positive
LCC savings is EL 1 for SPVACs ≥65,000
Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, which
represents less than 3 percent of total
SPVU shipments. Given the highly
negative results for all other product
classes, which make up over 97 percent
of SPVU shipments, the LCC savings
across all SPVUs product classes would
be negative on a weighted average basis.
Based on these findings, DOE has
tentatively determined that the
economic impact of more-stringent
standards on the consumers of the
equipment subject to the standard,
which is one the seven factors used to
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Simple payback period
(years)
20.7
evaluate economic justification, would
be strongly negative.
Because of the importance DOE places
on the economic impact of potential
standards on consumers, DOE did not
explicitly analyze the other factors that
it typically considers in determining
economic justification, including the
projected quantity of energy savings
likely to result directly from amended
standards.
3. Significant Additional Energy Savings
DOE has tentatively determined that
quantification of energy savings from
potential amended standards is not
necessary if there is strong evidence that
such standards would not be
economically justified.
4. Summary
DOE may prescribe an energy
conservation standard more stringent
than the level for such equipment in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ‘‘clear
and convincing evidence’’ shows that a
more-stringent standard would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. Based on the
negative LCC savings at all but one EL
for each equipment class, and weighted
average negative LCC savings across all
SPVUs, DOE has tentatively determined
that it lacks ‘‘clear and convincing’’
evidence that more-stringent standards
would be economically justified for
SPVUs. Therefore, DOE is proposing to
determine that more-stringent energy
conservation standards for SPVUs are
not warranted. DOE will consider and
respond to all comments received on
this proposed determination when
issuing any final determination or
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75416
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNOPR).
As a separate matter, DOE is
proposing to amend the energy
conservation standards for SPVUs so as
to be based on the IEER and COP
metrics that are of equivalent stringency
as the current Federal standard levels
(and equivalent to the current standard
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019). The proposed standards are
presented in Table VI–5. These
proposed standards, if adopted, would
apply to all SPVUs manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States starting
on the compliance date, as discussed in
the following paragraphs.
TABLE VI–5—PROPOSED ENERGY
CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR
SPVUS
Equipment class
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h ...........
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h ...........
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SPVAC ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
SPVHP ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
SPVAC ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
SPVHP ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
Proposed
standard level
IEER = 12.5
IEER = 12.5
COP = 3.3
IEER = 10.3
IEER = 10.3
COP = 3.0
IEER = 11.2
IEER = 11.2
COP = 3.0
In instances in which DOE adopts
more-stringent standards under its 6year-lookback review authority, EPCA
states that any such standard shall apply
to equipment manufactured after a date
that is the latter of the date three years
after publication of the final rule
establishing such standard or six years
after the effective date for the current
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv))
As discussed, DOE has tentatively
determined that it does not have clear
and convincing evidence to justify
adopting more-stringent standards for
SPVUs, so, therefore, the three-year and/
or six-year lead time period would not
apply.
Instead, the proposed energy
conservation standards for SPVUs are of
equivalent stringency but based on a
new metric (i.e., IEER), and as discussed
in section III.C of this document, DOE
amended the SPVU test procedure to
include provisions for measuring IEER
in the November 2022 Test Procedure
Final Rule. As required by EPCA,
beginning 360 days following the final
test procedure rule, all representations
of energy efficiency and energy use
must be made in accordance with that
amended test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)(1)) In this case, DOE is
proposing to apply a one-year lead time,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
similar to that provided for the test
procedure update addressing IEER, such
that the compliance date for the
proposed amended energy conservation
standards for SPVUs would be 360 days
after the publication in the Federal
Register of the final rule for amended
energy conservation standards based on
the IEER metric, if adopted.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this proposed
regulatory action does not constitute a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
this action was not submitted to OIRA
for review under E.O. 12866.
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for any rule where the
agency was first required by law to
publish a proposed rule for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003 to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website: energy.gov/gc/officegeneral-counsel.
DOE reviewed this document under
the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and
procedures published on February 19,
2003. DOE has tentatively concluded
that this proposed rule/proposed
determination will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The factual
basis for this determination is as
follows:
For manufacturers of SPVU
equipment, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) considers a
business entity to be a ‘‘small business’’
if, together with its affiliates, it employs
less than a threshold number of workers
specified in 13 CFR part 121. SPVU
manufacturers, who produce the
equipment covered by this document,
are classified under NAICS code
333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm
Air Heating Equipment and Commercial
and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees
or fewer for an entity to be considered
as a small business for this category.
This employee threshold includes all
employees in a business’s parent
company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE identified manufacturers using
DOE’s Compliance Certification
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58
FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011), requires agencies, to the
extent permitted by law, to: (1) propose
or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some
benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has emphasized that such
techniques may include identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes. For the reasons stated in the
preamble, this proposed regulatory
action is consistent with these
principles.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Database (CCD),44 manufacturer
interviews, the California Energy
Commission’s Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System
(MAEDbS),45 and information from
prior DOE rulemakings. Additionally,
DOE used publicly-available
information and subscription-based
market research tools (e.g., reports from
Dun & Bradstreet) 46 to determine
headcount, revenue, and geographic
presence of the small businesses. DOE
has initially identified a total of five
companies that manufacture SPVUs in
the United States. DOE screened out
companies that do not meet the
definition of ‘‘small business’’ or are
foreign-owned and operated. Of these
five companies, DOE identified one as a
domestic small business.
In this document, DOE proposes to
adopt energy conservation standards for
SPVUs based on the Integrated Energy
Efficiency Ratio (IEER) metric for
SPVACs and SPVHPs, and the
Coefficient of Performance (COP) metric
for SPVHPs. In the November 2022 Test
Procedure Final Rule, DOE amended the
test procedures for SPVUs to
incorporate by reference AHRI 390–
2021, which added a seasonal metric
that includes part-load cooling
performance—the IEER metric. DOE has
determined that the IEER metric is more
representative of the cooling efficiency
for SPVUs on an annual basis than the
current EER market. DOE conducted a
crosswalk analysis to develop IEER
levels that are of equivalent stringency
to the current EER standard levels. DOE
has tentatively determined that it lacks
clear and convincing evidence to
support adoption of amended standards
for SPVUs (in terms of IEER and COP)
that are more stringent than the current
standards for SPVUs, because the
Department has tentatively concluded
that such standards would not be
economically justified.
Therefore, DOE determined that
manufacturers would only incur costs as
result of this NOPR/NOPD if a
manufacturer were not already testing to
AHRI 390–2021.47 However, in the
November 2022 Test Procedure Final
Rule, DOE determined that it would be
44 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is
available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (Last
accessed May 2, 2022).
45 California Energy Commission’s MAEDbS is
available at: cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/
ApplianceSearch.aspx (Last accessed May 2, 2022).
46 Dun & Bradstreet reports are available at:
app.dnbhoovers.com (Last access May 2, 2022).
47 DOE estimated the cost for this small business
to re-rate all models to be $30,200 while making use
of an alternative efficiency determination method
(AEDM). DOE determined this cost to represent less
than 1 percent of annual revenue for the small,
domestic manufacturer of SPVUs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
unlikely for manufacturers to incur
testing costs given that most SPVU
manufacturers are AHRI members, and
that DOE is referencing the prevailing
industry test procedure that was
established for use in AHRI’s
certification program. Furthermore, DOE
notes that the sole identified small
business that manufacturers SPVUs is
an AHRI member.
As discussed in the 2022 Test
Procedure Final Rule, DOE determined
that the test procedure impacts to
manufacturers would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses.
Therefore, on the basis of limited small
entities affected and the de minimis
compliance burden, DOE certifies that
this proposed rule would not have a
‘‘significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,’’
and that the preparation of a IRFA is not
warranted. DOE will transmit a
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
Issue–6: DOE requests comment on its
assessment of impacts on domestic,
small manufacturers of SPVUs.
Specifically, DOE requests comment on
its understanding that this proposed
rule/proposed determination will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small
businesses.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
DOE’s regulations pertaining to
certification and compliance activities
ensure accurate and comprehensive
information about the energy and water
use characteristics of covered products
and covered equipment sold in the
United States. (See generally 10 CFR
part 429.) Manufacturers of all covered
products and covered equipment,
including SPVUs, must submit a
certification report before a basic model
is distributed in commerce, annually
thereafter, and if the basic model is
redesigned in such a manner to increase
the consumption or decrease the
efficiency of the basic model such that
the certified rating is no longer
supported by the test data. Additionally,
manufacturers must report when
production of a basic model has ceased
and is no longer offered for sale as part
of the next annual certification report
following such cessation. DOE requires
the manufacturer of any covered
product or covered equipment to
establish, maintain, and retain the
records of certification reports, of the
underlying test data for all certification
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75417
testing, and of any other testing
conducted to satisfy the requirements of
part 429, part 430, and/or part 431.
Certification reports provide DOE and
consumers with comprehensive, up-to
date efficiency information and support
effective enforcement.
The collection-of-information
requirement for certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). OMB Control
Number 1910–1400, Compliance
Statement Energy/Water Conservation
Standards for Appliances, is currently
valid and assigned to the certification
reporting requirements applicable to
covered equipment, including SPVUs.
Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35
hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Revised certification data would be
required for SPVU were this NOPR/
NOPD to be finalized as proposed;
however, DOE is not proposing
amended certification or reporting
requirements for SPVUs in this NOPR.
Instead, DOE may consider proposals to
establish certification requirements and
reporting for SPVUs under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification. DOE will
address changes to OMB Control
Number 1910–1400 at that time, as
necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this NOPR/NOPD, DOE is
proposing amended energy conservation
standards for SPVUs that would utilize
a new cooling efficiency metric (IEER);
however, the amended standards, if
adopted, would be of equivalent
stringency to the current Federal
standards for SPVUs. DOE is analyzing
this proposed regulation in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.;
‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. DOE’s regulations include a
categorical exclusion for rulemakings
that establish energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021,
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75418
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE
anticipates that this rulemaking
qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1
because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, none of the
exceptions identified in categorical
exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no
extraordinary circumstances exist that
require further environmental analysis,
and it otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before
issuing the final rule.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR
43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order
requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this proposed
rule/proposed determination and has
tentatively determined that it would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the equipment that are the subject of
this proposed rule/proposed
determination. States can petition DOE
for exemption from such preemption to
the extent, and based on criteria, set
forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and
(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) Therefore, no
further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;
(2) write regulations to minimize
litigation; (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather
than a general standard, and (4) promote
simplification and burden reduction.
Regarding the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any;
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4)
specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this proposed
rule/proposed determination meets the
relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4,
section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely
to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820. DOE’s policy statement is also
available at energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE examined this proposed rule/
proposed determination according to
UMRA and its statement of policy and
determined that it contains neither a
Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor
a mandate expected to require
expenditures of $100 million or more in
any one year. As a result, the analytical
requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
proposed rule would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),
DOE has determined that this proposed
rule/proposed determination would not
result in any takings that might require
compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for Federal agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under information quality
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to
OMB Memorandum M–19–15,
Improving Implementation of the
Information Quality Act (April 24,
2019), DOE published updated
guidelines which are available at:
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/
12/f70/
DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA
%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf.
DOE has reviewed this proposed rule/
proposed determination under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires
Federal agencies to prepare and submit
to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy
Effects for any proposed significant
energy action. A ‘‘significant energy
action’’ is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected
to lead to promulgation of a final rule,
and that: (1) is a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, or
any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that
this regulatory action, which does not
propose to increase stringency beyond
the current Federal standard levels for
SPVUs, is not a significant energy action
because it is not a significant regulatory
action under E.O. 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as
such by the Administrator at OIRA.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued
its Final Information Quality Bulletin
for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR
2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin
establishes that certain scientific
information shall be peer reviewed by
qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
important public policies or private
sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared
a report describing that peer review.48
Generation of this report involved a
rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and
qualified and independent reviewers to
make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity
and management effectiveness of
programs and/or projects. Because
available data, models, and
technological understanding have
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged
with the National Academy of Sciences
to review DOE’s analytical
methodologies to ascertain whether
modifications are needed to improve the
Department’s analyses. DOE is in the
process of evaluating the resulting
report.49
VIII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Public Meeting
Webinar
The time and date of the webinar
meeting are listed in the DATES section
at the beginning of this document.
Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE’s website:
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/publicmeetings-and-comment-deadlines
Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the
topics addressed in this NOPR/NOPD,
or who is representative of a group or
class of persons that has an interest in
these issues, may request an
opportunity to make an oral
presentation at the public meeting
webinar. Such persons may submit
requests to speak via email to the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program at:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
48 The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the
following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/
downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
49 The report is available at
www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards (Last accessed August 5,
2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75419
ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a
computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft
Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format
that briefly describes the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such
persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be
reached.
DOE requests persons selected to
make an oral presentation to submit an
advance copy of their statements at least
two weeks before the webinar. At its
discretion, DOE may permit persons
who cannot supply an advance copy of
their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative
arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary,
requests to give an oral presentation
should ask for such alternative
arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the public meeting webinar
and may also use a professional
facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or
evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with
section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A
court reporter will be present to record
the proceedings and prepare a
transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and
to establish the procedures governing
the conduct of the public meeting
webinar. There shall not be discussion
of proprietary information, costs or
prices, market share, or other
commercial matters regulated by U.S.
anti-trust laws. After the public meeting
webinar and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may
submit further comments on the
proceedings and any aspect of the
rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an
informal, conference style. DOE will
present a general overview of the topics
addressed in this rulemaking, allow
time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on
issues affecting this rulemaking. Each
participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits
determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will
allow, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly and
comment on statements made by others.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
75420
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the
webinar will accept additional
comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the procedures that may be needed
for the proper conduct of the public
meeting webinar.
A transcript of the public meeting
webinar will be included in the docket,
which can be viewed as described in the
Docket section at the beginning of this
document. In addition, any person may
buy a copy of the transcript from the
transcribing reporter.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule/proposed determination before or
after the public meeting, but no later
than the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this
document. 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
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. With this
instruction followed, 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
Issue–1: DOE requests comment on
the proposed baseline IEER levels for
SPVUs, as well as comment on any
aspect of its crosswalk analysis. DOE
continues to seek information which
compares EER to IEER for the SPVUs
that are representative of the market
baseline efficiency level for all
equipment classes.
Issue–2: DOE requests comment on
the proposed technology options for
SPVUs. DOE also requests data on the
potential improvement in IEER and COP
associated with these technology
options.
Issue–3: DOE requests comment on
the proposed baseline efficiency levels
and the design options associated with
these levels.
Issue–4: DOE requests comment on
the proposed incremental higher
efficiency levels for each equipment
class. DOE requests data showing the
range of efficiencies based on IEER and
COP available for SPVUs on the market,
as well as the design options associated
with units at different efficiency levels
for each equipment class.
Issue–5: DOE requests comment on
the cost-efficiency results. In particular,
DOE requests comment on the costs
associated with the design options
analyzed, as well as the shipping costs
associated with each efficiency level.
Issue–6: DOE requests comment on its
assessment of impacts on domestic,
small manufacturers of SPVUs.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
08DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Specifically, DOE requests comment on
its understanding that this proposed
rule/proposed determination will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small
businesses.
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this proposed rulemaking
that may not specifically be identified in
this document.
IX. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking; notification of proposed
determination.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations,
Laboratories, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on November 22,
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 Monday
November 23, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title
75421
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR
CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C
2461 note.
2. Section 431.97 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
■
§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and
their compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) (1) Each single package vertical air
conditioner and single package vertical
heat pump manufactured on and after
October 9, 2015 (for models ≥65,000
Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h) or October 9,
2016 (for models ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h), or September 23, 2019
(for models <65,000 Btu/h), but before
(compliance date of final rule) must
meet the applicable minimum energy
conservation standard level(s) set forth
in Table 9 of this section.
TABLE 9 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND
SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS
Subcategory
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Single package vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps, single-phase and
three-phase.
Single package vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps.
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
AC
HP
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .....
AC
HP
Single package vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...
AC
HP
(2) Each single package vertical air
conditioner and single package vertical
heat pump manufactured on or after
(compliance date of final rule) must
meet the applicable minimum energy
Efficiency level
EER = 11.0
EER = 11.0
COP = 3.3
EER = 10.0
EER = 10.0
COP = 3.0
EER = 10.0
EER = 10.0
COP = 3.0
Compliance date: products manufactured on and after . . .
.............
.............
September 23, 2019.
September 23, 2019.
.............
.............
October 9, 2015.
October 9, 2015.
.............
.............
October 9, 2016.
October 9, 2016.
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
Table 10 of this section.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE 10 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND
SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS
Subcategory
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Single package vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps, single-phase and
three-phase.
Single package vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps.
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
AC
HP
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .....
AC
HP
Single package vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...
AC
HP
*
*
*
*
Efficiency level
IEER = 12.5
IEER = 12.5
COP = 3.3
IEER = 10.3
IEER = 10.3
COP = 3.0
IEER = 11.2
IEER = 11.2
COP = 3.0
............
............
(compliance date of final rule).
............
............
(compliance date of final rule).
............
............
(compliance date of final rule).
*
[FR Doc. 2022–26024 Filed 12–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Dec 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\08DEP2.SGM
Compliance date: products manufactured on and after . . .
08DEP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75388-75421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26024]
[[Page 75387]]
Vol. 87
Thursday,
No. 235
December 8, 2022
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Single
Package Vertical Units; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 75388]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033]
RIN 1904-AE78
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Single Package Vertical Units
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; notification of proposed
determination and announcement of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including single
package vertical air conditioners (SPVACs) and single package vertical
heat pumps (SPVHPs), collectively referred to as single package
vertical units (SPVUs). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) to periodically review standards. In this notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR); notification of proposed determination
(NOPD), DOE proposes to amend the current energy conservation standards
for SPVUs such that the existing standard levels would be based on a
new cooling efficiency metric of Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio
(IEER) for SPVACs and SPVHPs, and the current heating efficiency metric
of Coefficient of Performance (COP) for SPVHPs (but without any
increase in stringency), In addition, DOE has initially determined that
more-stringent standards for SPVUs would not be economically justified
and would not result in a significant conservation of energy. DOE also
announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed
standards and associated analyses and results.
DATES: Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information
regarding this NOPR/NOPD no later than February 6, 2023.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Monday,
January 9th, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VIII,
``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before January 9, 2023. DOE notes that the
Department of Justice is required to transmit its determination
regarding the competitive impact of the proposed standard to DOE no
later than February 6, 2023. Commenters who want to have their comments
considered by DOE as part of any further rulemaking resulting from this
NOPR/NOPD also should submit such comments to DOE in accordance with
the procedures detailed in this proposal.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033 and/or RIN 1904-AE78,
by any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number EERE-2019-
BT-STD-0033 and/or RIN 1904-AE78 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 VIII of this document (Public Participation).
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as those
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at: www.regulations.gov/search/docket?filter=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VIII (Public Participation) of this document
for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the U.S. Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division
invites input from market participants and other interested persons
with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard.
Interested persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
[email protected] in advance of the date specified in the
DATES section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email
the title and Docket Number of this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7335. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting
webinar, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at
(202) 287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of the Current Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking for SPVUs
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Equipment Classes
C. Test Procedure and Efficiency Metrics
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
F. Economic Justification
[[Page 75389]]
1. Economic Impact on Consumers and Manufacturers
2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
3. Energy Savings
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need for National Energy Conservation
7. Other Factors
IV. Crosswalk Analysis
V. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Economic Impacts on SPVU Consumers
B. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Economic Justification
3. Significant Additional Energy Savings
4. Summary
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VIII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Public Meeting Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act,\1\ as amended, Public Law
94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, part C \2\ of EPCA, established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317) This equipment includes single package vertical air
conditioners (SPVACs) and single package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs),
collectively referred to as single package vertical units (SPVUs), the
subject of this proposed rulemaking. SPVUs are a category of commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-
(D); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 C was redesignated part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE must consider amending the Federal energy
efficiency standards for certain types of commercial and industrial
equipment, including the equipment at issue in this document, whenever
the Department is triggered by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) acting to amend
the standard levels or design requirements prescribed in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings,'' (ASHRAE Standard 90.1). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)-(B)) In addition, EPCA contains an independent review
requirement for this same equipment (the 6-year-lookback review), which
requires DOE to consider the need for amended standards every six
years. To adopt standard levels more stringent than those contained in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must have clear and convincing evidence to
show that such standards would be technologically feasible and
economically justified and would save a significant additional amount
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) DOE is conducting this proposed
rulemaking under EPCA's 6-year-lookback review authority.
The current Federal energy conservation standards for SPVUs are set
forth at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 10 CFR
431.97(d) and, as specified in 10 CFR 431.96, those standards are
denominated in terms of the cooling efficiency metric, Energy
Efficiency Ratio (EER) and the heating efficiency metric, Coefficient
of Performance (COP), and based on the rating conditions in American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 390-2003, ``Performance Rating
of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps'' (ANSI/AHRI
390-2003). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 references this same industry test
standard.
On June 24, 2021, AHRI published AHRI Standard 390-2021,
``Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and
Heat Pumps'' (AHRI 390-2021), which supersedes ANSI/AHRI 390-2003. AHRI
390-2021, which was developed as part of an industry consensus process,
includes revisions that DOE determined improve the representativeness,
repeatability, and reproducibility of the test methods. Among other
things, AHRI 390-2021 maintains the existing efficiency metrics--EER
for cooling mode and COP for heating mode--but it also added a seasonal
efficiency metric that includes part-load cooling performance--the
Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio (IEER). In November 2022, DOE issued
a Test Procedure Final Rule for SPVUs that amended the test procedures
for SPVUs to incorporate by reference AHRI 390-2021. As discussed in
section III.C of this document, DOE has determined that the IEER metric
is more representative of the cooling efficiency for SPVUs on an annual
basis than the current EER metric. As a result, DOE is proposing to
amend the standards for SPVUs to be based on the seasonal cooling
metric, IEER, and the existing heating metric, COP. As discussed in
section IV of this document, DOE conducted a crosswalk analysis to
develop IEER levels that are of equivalent stringency to the current
EER standard levels.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPCA provides that in the case of any amended test procedure
where DOE deviates from the industry test standard referenced in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must determine, to what extent, if any,
the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy
efficiency, measured energy use, or measured water use of the
subject ASHRAE equipment as determined under the existing test
procedure. (See 42 U.S.C 6293(e); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) DOE
refers to this as the ``crosswalk'' analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To satisfy its review obligations under EPCA's 6-year-lookback
provision, DOE analyzed the technological feasibility of more energy-
efficient SPVUs. For those SPVUs for which DOE determined higher
standards to be technologically feasible, DOE evaluated whether higher
standards would be economically justified by conducting life-cycle cost
(LCC) and payback period (PBP)
[[Page 75390]]
analyses. As discussed in the following sections, DOE has tentatively
determined that it lacks the clear and convincing evidence required
under the statute to show that amended standards would be economically
justified. DOE did not conduct a national impact analysis to measure
the national energy savings of higher efficiency levels, because the
weighted average LCC savings were strongly negative across the four
equipment classes.
Based on the results of the analyses conducted, summarized in
section VI of this document, DOE has tentatively determined that it
lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended standards for SPVUs,
in terms of IEER and COP, that are more stringent than the current
standards for SPVUs would be economically justified. The clear and
convincing threshold is a heightened standard and would only be met
where the Secretary has an abiding conviction, based on available
facts, data, and DOE's own analyses, that it is highly probable an
amended standard would result in a significant additional amount of
energy savings, and is technologically feasible and economically
justified. See American Public Gas Association v. U.S. Dep't of Energy,
No. 20-1068, 2022 WL 151923, at *4 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 18, 2022) (citing
Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316, 104 S.Ct. 2433, 81 L.Ed.2d
247 (1984)). DOE did not conduct the shipments analysis, manufacturer
impact analysis, and other such analyses typically conducted at the
NOPR stage due to the results of the initial analysis conducted
(discussed in further detail elsewhere in this document).
In this NOPR/NOPD, DOE is proposing to adopt standards based on
IEER and COP that are of equivalent stringency as the current DOE
energy conservation standard levels and the current standard levels
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. The proposed standards are
presented in Table I-1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would
apply to all SPVUs listed in Table I-1 manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States starting on the tentative compliance date of
360 days after the publication in the Federal Register of the final
rule for this rulemaking. See section VI.B of this NOPR/NOPD for a
discussion on the applicable lead-times considered to determine this
compliance date.
Table I-1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for SPVUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Proposed standard level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h...................... IEER = 12.5
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h...................... IEER = 12.5
COP = 3.3
SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. IEER = 10.3
SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. IEER = 10.3
COP = 3.0
SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. IEER = 11.2
SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. IEER = 11.2
COP = 3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment of energy conservation
standards for SPVUs.
A. Authority
EPCA, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended, among other things, authorizes
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products
and certain industrial equipment. Title III, part C of EPCA, added by
Public Law 95-619, title IV, section 441(a), (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed
to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes SPVUs, which are
a category of small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment and the subject of this document.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed
initial standards for these products. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)-(2))
Congress updated the standards for SPVUs through amendments to EPCA
contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA
2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10))
Additionally, DOE is triggered to consider amending the energy
conservation standards for certain types of commercial and industrial
equipment, including the equipment at issue in this document, whenever
ASHRAE amends the standard levels or design requirements prescribed in
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, and independent of that requirement, a
separate provision of EPCA requires DOE to consider amended standards
for that equipment at a minimum, every six years. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)-(C))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures
(42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures
for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment
during a representative average use cycle and requires that test
procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures
as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies
with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to determine
whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated
under EPCA. The DOE test procedures for SPVUs appear at 10 CFR part
431, subpart F, appendices G and G1.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry energy efficiency levels for
small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged
terminal heat pumps, warm air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water
heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage
tanks (collectively referred to as
[[Page 75391]]
``ASHRAE equipment''). For each type of listed equipment, EPCA directs
that if ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1, DOE must adopt amended standards
at the new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless DOE determines, supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a more-stringent level
would produce significant additional conservation of energy and would
be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Under EPCA, DOE must also review energy efficiency
standards for SPVUs every six years and either: (1) issue a notice of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended as adoption
of a more-stringent level is not supported by clear and convincing
evidence; or (2) issue a notice of proposed rulemaking including new
proposed standards based on certain criteria and procedures in
subparagraph (B) of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
In deciding whether a more-stringent standard is economically
justified, under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE must determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of equipment subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result
directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds
that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product that
complies with the standard will be less than three times the value of
the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year
that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as
calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) However, while this rebuttable presumption analysis
applies to most commercial and industrial equipment (42 U.S.C.
6316(a)), it is not a required analysis for ASHRAE equipment (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(1)).
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. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)) 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 generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published in the Federal Register on September 23,
2015 (September 2015 Final Rule), DOE prescribed the current energy
conservation standards for SPVUs in accordance with the 3-year review
prescribed by EPCA and in response to the 2013 update to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013). 80 FR 57438. As part of the
September 2015 Final Rule, DOE evaluated whether more-stringent
standards for SPVUs were economically justified consistent with the
requirements in EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII). For four
of the six SPVU equipment classes, DOE adopted the levels specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. 80 FR 57438, 57439 (Sept. 23, 2015). For the
remaining two equipment classes, DOE concluded that there was clear and
convincing evidence that standards more stringent than the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 were technologically feasible and
economically justified and would save a significant additional amount
of energy. Id. The current energy conservation standards are codified
at 10 CFR 431.97 and are set forth in Table II-1.
Table II-1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for SPVUs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
products
Equipment type Cooling capacity Subcategory Efficiency level manufactured on
and after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single package vertical air <65,000 Btu/h..... AC EER = 11.0........ September 23,
conditioners and single package 2019.
vertical heat pumps, single-
phase and three-phase.
HP EER = 11.0........ September 23,
2019.
COP = 3.3.........
Single package vertical air >=65,000 Btu/h and AC EER = 10.0........ October 9, 2015.
conditioners and single package <135,000 Btu/h.
vertical heat pumps.
HP EER = 10.0........ October 9, 2015.
COP = 3.0.........
Single package vertical air >=135,000 Btu/h AC EER = 10.0........ October 9, 2016.
conditioners and single package and <240,000 Btu/
vertical heat pumps. h.
HP EER = 10.0........
COP = 3.0......... October 9, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has been updated on several occasions since
the 2013 version, the most recently being released on October 24, 2019
(i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-2019). The standard levels for SPVUs were revised in
ASHRAE 90.1-2019 to match the current DOE standard levels.
[[Page 75392]]
2. History of the Current Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for
SPVUs
On April 24, 2020, DOE published in the Federal Register a request
for information regarding energy conservation standards for SPVUs
(April 2020 RFI). 85 FR 22958. The April 2020 RFI solicited information
from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for
SPVUs would result in significant additional energy savings and whether
such standards would be technologically feasible and economically
justified. DOE received comments in response to the April 2020 RFI from
the interested parties listed in Table II-2.
Table II-2--April 2020 RFI Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Abbreviation Docket No. Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, & AHRI...................... 9 Manufacturer Trade
Refrigeration Institute. Association.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, ASAP/ACEEE................ 11 Efficiency Advocacy
American Council for an Energy- Organizations.
Efficient Economy.
GE Appliances, a Haier company.......... GE........................ 7 Manufacturer.
Institute for Policy Integrity at New NYU....................... 5 Educational Institution.
York University School of Law.
Lennox International Inc................ Lennox.................... 8 Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.... NEEA...................... 6 Efficiency Advocacy
Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), CA IOUs................... 10 Utilities.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE);
collectively referred to as the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for SPVUs. (Docket Number: EERE-2019-
BT-STD-0033, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following provides an overview of the public comments received
on the April 2020 RFI. In general, AHRI recommended that DOE not amend
the current minimum energy conservation standards for SPVUs. The
commenter stated that DOE should wait until the revised edition of the
industry test procedure for SPVUs has published and has been referenced
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. AHRI added that a crosswalk should be
developed by testing and calculation using current baseline-efficiency
SPVU equipment to establish the energy conservation standards using the
new metric. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 6)
The CA IOUs recommended DOE investigate increasing the baseline
efficiency levels for SPVUs in conjunction with establishing standards
and test procedures that incorporate part-load performance. Based on
their analysis of DOE's Compliance Certification Database (CCD), the CA
IOUs noted that over 70 percent of products in each SPVU equipment
class are at the minimum efficiency level, but many products have
varied features and compressor configurations that are likely to
translate into differences in part-load performance. Based on this, the
CA IOUs encouraged DOE to consider shifting to a more-stringent, full-
load metric. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2)
ASAP and ACEEE commented that greater energy savings are possible
than those evaluated for the September 2015 Final Rule. ASAP and ACEEE
argued that the most-efficient SPVU models currently available have
either Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) or COP ratings that are higher
than the max-tech levels considered in the September 2015 Final Rule.
(ASAP/ACEEE, No. 11 at pp. 1-2)
As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE has amended its
test procedures for SPVUs to incorporate by reference the updated
industry test procedure, AHRI Standard 390-2021, ``Performance Rating
of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps'' (AHRI 390-
2021), which includes the existing efficiency metrics--EER for cooling
mode and COP for heating mode--but it also adds a cooling-mode seasonal
metric that includes part-load cooling performance--the IEER metric.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing to amend the energy conservation
standards for SPVUs to be based on the seasonal cooling metric, IEER,
and the existing heating metric, COP. As discussed in section IV of
this document, DOE conducted a crosswalk analysis in collaboration with
AHRI and SPVU manufacturers to translate the current SPVU standard
levels based on EER to the new metric, IEER, to establish baseline
efficiency levels for the current analysis considering the potential
for more-stringent SPVU standard levels.
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (appendix A), ``Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies
for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and
Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial
Equipment,'' DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the NOPR/NOPD stages for an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. See 86 FR 70892 (Dec. 13, 2021).
Section 8(d)(1) of appendix A states that the Department will
finalize amended test procedures 180 days prior to the close of the
comment period of a NOPR proposing new or amended standards or a notice
of proposed determination that standards do not need to be amended. For
the reasons that follow, DOE finds it necessary and appropriate to
deviate from this step in appendix A by publishing this NOPR/NOPD such
that the comment period will end before 180 days has elapsed from the
publication of the test procedure final rule. As discussed in a final
rule pertaining to Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test
Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment,
the 180-day period may not always be necessary. As an example, DOE
noted
[[Page 75393]]
that it will typically use an industry test procedure as the basis for
a new DOE test procedure. If DOE adopts the industry test procedure
without modification, stakeholders should already be familiar with the
test procedure. In such cases, requiring the new test procedure to be
finalized 180 days prior to the close of the comment period for a NOPR
proposing new energy conservation standards would offer little benefit
to stakeholders while delaying DOE's promulgation of new energy
conservation standards. 86 FR 70892, 70896 (Dec. 13, 2021). In this
analogous case, DOE is deviating from the 180-day provision because it
has incorporated by reference the industry consensus test procedure for
SPVUs, AHRI 390-2021. DOE also notes that AHRI 390-2021 was published
in June 2021, so DOE expects that manufacturers are already familiar
with the test procedure.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.
A. Scope of Coverage
EPCA, as amended by the EISA 2007 defines ``single package vertical
air conditioner'' and ``single package vertical heat pump'' at 42
U.S.C. 6311(22) and (23), respectively. In particular, single package
vertical air conditioners can be single- or three-phase; must have
major components arranged vertically; must be an encased combination of
components; and must be intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent
interior to, or through an outside wall. Single package vertical heat
pumps are single package vertical air conditioners that use reverse
cycle refrigeration as their primary heat source and may include
secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance,
steam, hot water, or gas. DOE codified the statutory definitions into
its regulations at 10 CFR 431.92. Additionally, EPCA established
initial equipment classes and energy conservation standards for SPVUs
based on cooling capacity, and for those SPVUs with a capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h, also based on phase. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)(i)-
(ii) and (v)-(vi))
DOE defines an SPVAC as air-cooled commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment that: (1) is factory-assembled as a
single package that: (i) has major components that are arranged
vertically; (ii) is an encased combination of cooling and optional
heating components; and (iii) is intended for exterior mounting on,
adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; (2) is powered by a
single-phase or three-phase current; (3) may contain one or more
separate indoor grilles, outdoor louvers, various ventilation options,
indoor free air discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and (4)
has heating components that may include electrical resistance, steam,
hot water, or gas, but may not include reverse cycle refrigeration as a
heating means. 10 CFR 431.92. Additionally, DOE defines an SPVHP as a
single package vertical air conditioner that: (1) uses reverse cycle
refrigeration as its primary heat source; and (2) may include secondary
supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance, steam, hot
water, or gas. Id. The Federal test procedures are applicable to SPVUs
with a cooling capacity less than 760,000 Btu/h. (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(D)(ii)) DOE currently only prescribes energy conservation
standards for SPVUs less than 240,000 Btu/h (see section III.B of this
document for details).
As part of the April 2020 RFI, DOE requested commented on whether
the definitions for SPVUs should be revised. 80 FR 22958, 22961 (April
24, 2020). On that topic, AHRI commented that the definitions of SPVAC
and SPVHP generally remain appropriate and did not suggest any
modifications. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 3)
As part of the most recent energy conservation standards rulemaking
for SPVUs, DOE published a notice of data availability in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2014 (April 2014 NODA). 79 FR 20114. In the April
2014 NODA, DOE noted that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 created a new
equipment class for SPVACs and SPVHPs used in space-constrained and
replacement-only applications, with a definition for ``nonweatherized
space constrained single-package vertical unit'' and efficiency
standards for the associated equipment class. Id. at 79 FR 20121-20122.
In the April 2014 NODA, DOE tentatively concluded that there was no
need to establish a separate space-constrained class for SPVUs, given
that certain models listed by manufacturers as SPVUs, most of which
would meet the ASHRAE space-constrained definition, were being
misclassified and should have been classified as central air
conditioners (in most cases, space-constrained central air
conditioners). Id. at 79 FR 20122-20123. DOE reaffirmed this position
in the NOPR published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2014 NOPR
(December 2014 NOPR). 79 FR 78614, 78625-78627. In response to the
December 2014 NOPR, DOE received several comments from stakeholders
related to the classification of products that these commenters are
referring to as space-constrained SPVUs, the statutory definition of
SPVU, how these products are applied in the field or specified for
purchase, and whether the products warranted a separate equipment class
within SPVU. In the final rule published in the Federal Register on
September 23, 2015, DOE stated that it would consider those comments
and take appropriate action in a separate rulemaking. 80 FR 57438,
57448. In response to the April 2020 RFI, Lennox commented that this
remains an important outstanding issue for resolution in order to
ensure that current products and new entries to the market are treated
equitably. (Lennox, No. 8 at pp. 1-2)
In November 2022, DOE issued a final rule to amend the test
procedure for SPVUs (the November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule).\5\
As part of the November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE added
specific definitions for ``single-phase single package vertical air
conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and
``single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h'' to explicitly delineate such equipment from
certain covered consumer products, such as central air conditioners,
based on design characteristics. DOE defined this equipment as SPVACs
and SPVHPs that are either: (1) weatherized, or (2) non-weatherized and
have the ability to provide a minimum of 400 CFM of outdoor air. As
discussed in the November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, single-phase
single package products with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h
not meeting these definitions would be properly classified as consumer
central air conditioners, not commercial SPVUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule is available at:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Equipment Classes
EISA 2007, Public Law 110-140, amended EPCA in relevant part by
establishing equipment classes and minimum energy conservation
standards for SPVUs. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)) In doing so, the EISA
2007 amendments established Federal energy conservation standards for
SPVUs at levels that generally corresponded to the levels in the 2004
edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
[[Page 75394]]
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (i.e., ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2004). On March 23, 2009, DOE published a final rule technical
amendment in the Federal Register that codified the statutory equipment
classes and energy conservation standards for SPVUs into DOE's
regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR 431.97.
74 FR 12058, 12073-12074. EPCA generally directs DOE to adopt the
equipment class structure for SPVUs from ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (See 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) For SVPUs, the current energy conservation
standards specified in 10 CFR 431.97 are based on six equipment classes
\6\ determined according to the following: (1) cooling capacity and (2)
whether the equipment is an air conditioner or a heat pump. These
equipment classes are identical to those described in ASHRAE Standard
90.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Although EPCA divided SPVACs and SPVHPs with < 65,000 Btu/h
cooling capacity into equipment classes based on the phase of the
electrical power (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)), it set the same
energy conservation standards for both single-phase and three-phase
equipment. DOE's current standards, as codified in 10 CFR 431.97,
divide SPVU equipment into six equipment classes based on the
cooling capacity and whether the equipment is an air conditioner or
a heat pump, a class structure consistent with ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
Table III-1--SPVU Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h.
2...................................... SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h.
3...................................... SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
4...................................... SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
5...................................... SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
6...................................... SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Test Procedure and Efficiency Metrics
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for SPVUs are expressed in terms
of the full-load cooling metric, EER, and the heating metric, COP. (See
10 CFR 431.97(d)(3))
ASHRAE 90.1-2019 references, as the test procedure for SPVUs, ANSI/
AHRI 390-2003, which does not include a seasonal efficiency metric for
cooling mode. At the time of the April 2020 RFI, DOE's test procedure
for SPVUs also incorporated by reference ANSI/AHRI 390-2003, omitting
section 6.4. Hence, DOE's test procedure for SPVUs at that time
likewise did not include a seasonal metric that accounted for part-load
performance.
In response to the April 2020 RFI, NEEA, the CA IOUs, and ASAP/
ACEEE commented that the existing SPVUs test procedure using the full-
load EER metric does not account for the energy savings from variable-
speed fans, multi-stage compressors, electronic expansion valves, and
other technologies, and that there would likely be significant energy
savings potential if a part-load metric were to be used. (NEEA, No. 6
at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 1; ASAP/ACEEE, No. 11 at pp. 1, 2) NEEA
and the CA IOUs commented that nearly 25 percent of units in the AHRI
Directory of Certified Product Performance are rated with the
integrated part-load value (IPLV) metric (in addition to EER), which
considers part-load efficiency. (NEEA, No. 6 at pp. 2-3; CA IOUs, No.
10 at pp. 1-2) NEEA commented that there is a significant range in IPLV
values for units available on the market (from approximately 13.5 to 17
IPLV), whereas EER only ranges from 11 to 12.5, with most units at the
minimum of 11 EER. (NEEA, No. 6 at pp. 2-3) NEEA, the CA IOUs, and
ASAP/ACEEE recommended that DOE should amend the test procedure for
SPVUs to consider part-load performance so as to better represent
performance during an average use cycle. (NEEA, No. 6 at p. 3; CA IOUs,
No. 10 at p. 2; ASAP/ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs added that while part-load performance is key to
representing an average use cycle, full-load performance is critical
for enabling utilities to effectively manage grid services. The CA IOUs
expressed support for a regulatory model in which both full-load EER
and part-load efficiency are published in the AHRI database. (CA IOUs,
No. 10 at p. 2)
AHRI and GE commented at the time of the April 2020 RFI that the
industry, in collaboration with DOE, was in the process of finalizing a
revised test procedure for SPVUs that adopts a seasonal cooling mode
metric, IEER. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 2; GE, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI stated that
any proposal to change the SPVU efficiency metric should be developed
through the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 process. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 2; GE, No.
7 at p. 2)
In response to these comments, DOE notes that as part of the
November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, the Department amended its
test procedure for SPVUs to incorporate by reference AHRI 390-2021, the
latest version of the relevant industry standard. Among other things,
AHRI 390-2021 maintains the existing efficiency metrics--EER for
cooling mode and COP for heating mode--but it also added a seasonal
metric that includes part-load cooling performance--the IEER metric. As
part of the November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE added a new
appendix G1 at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, that includes the relevant
test procedure requirements for SPVUs for measuring with updated
cooling efficiency metric, IEER, and heating efficiency metric, COP.
The relevant test procedure requirements for SPVUs for measuring the
existing efficiency metrics, EER and COP were included in appendix G at
10 CFR part 431, subpart F. Beginning 360 days on or after the date of
publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federal Register,
manufacturers must use appendix G for compliance, but if manufacturers
make voluntary representations with respect to the integrated energy
efficiency ratio (IEER), such representations must be based on testing
conducted in accordance with appendix G1. All manufacturers must use
appendix G1 on and after the compliance date of any amended standards
for single packaged vertical air conditioners and single package
vertical heat pumps denominated in terms of IEER, as set forth in 10
CFR 431.97.
[[Page 75395]]
DOE notes that SPVUs often operate at part-load (i.e., less than
designed full-load capacity) in the field, depending on the application
and location. The current Federal metric for cooling efficiency, EER,
captures the system performance at a single, full-load operating point
(i.e., single outdoor air temperature). As noted in section 6.2.2 of
AHRI 390-2021, the full-load operating conditions (i.e., 95 [deg]F
outdoor air dry-bulb temperature) accounts for only 1 percent of the
time on average for SPVU applications. Hence, EER is not necessarily
representative of energy efficiency over a full cooling season. In
contrast, the IEER metric factors in the efficiency of operating at
full-load conditions when outdoor temperature is high, as well as part-
load conditions of 75-percent, 50-percent, and 25-percent of full-load
capacity at outdoor temperatures appropriate for these load levels.
This is accomplished by weighting the full- and part-load efficiencies
with a representative average amount of time operating at each loading
point. Under part-load conditions, SPVUs may cycle off/on, may operate
at lower compressor stage levels, or (if they have variable-capacity
compressors) may modulate capacity to match the cooling load. The test
conditions and weighting factors for this IEER metric in AHRI 390-2021
were developed specifically for SPVUs based on an annual building load
analysis and temperature data for buildings representative of SPVU
installations, including modular classrooms, modular offices, and
telecommunication shelters across 15 different climate zones.\7\ Based
on the weighting factors specified in section 6.2.2 of AHRI 390-2021,
SPVUs spend a significant amount of time operating at milder outdoor
air conditions with lower cooling loads. DOE's analysis also indicates
that the efficiency at the milder part-load operating conditions can be
significantly different than at the full-load operating conditions, and
efficiency also can be significantly different between single-stage and
two-stage units. The test conditions and weighting factors for the four
load levels representing 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent of full-load
capacity for SPVUs under the IEER metric are different than those used
in the IEER metric in AHRI 340/360-2019, which were developed based on
CUAC building types. For these reasons, DOE considers the IEER metric
to be representative of the cooling efficiency for SPVUs on an annual
basis, and more representative than the current EER metric.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing to amend the standards for SPVUs to be
based on the seasonal cooling metric, IEER, and the existing heating
metric, COP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Based on EnergyPlus analysis developed for the previous
energy conservation standards rulemaking for SPVUs. 80 FR 57438,
57462 (Sept. 23, 2015). EnergyPlus is a whole building energy
simulation program (Available at: https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the IPLV metric specified in AHRI 390-2003
integrates unit performance at each capacity step provided by the
refrigeration system. However, the IPLV tests at each capacity step are
all conducted at constant outdoor air conditions of 80 [deg]F dry-bulb
temperature and 67 [deg]F wet-bulb temperature. As discussed, the IEER
metric was developed considering climate data to reflect the outdoor
temperatures representative of different load levels. As a result, DOE
considers the IEER metric specified in AHRI 390-2021 to be more
representative of annual energy use than the IPLV metric specified in
AHRI 390-2003. DOE has determined, by clear and convincing evidence,
that AHRI 390-2021 is more representative on annual energy use than
AHRI 390-2003. As discussed, SPVUs often operate at part-load
conditions. DOE notes that the IPLV metric specified in AHRI 390-2003
integrates unit performance at each capacity step provided by the
refrigeration system. However, the IPLV tests at each capacity step are
all conducted at constant outdoor air conditions of 80 [deg]F dry-bulb
temperature and 67 [deg]F wet-bulb temperature. As discussed, the IEER
metric was developed considering climate data to reflect the outdoor
temperatures representative of different load levels. As a result, DOE
considers the IEER metric specified in AHRI 390-2021 to be more
representative of annual energy use than the IPLV metric specified in
AHRI 390-2003.
NEEA and ASAP/ACEEE commented that DOE should also amend the test
procedure for SPVUs to fully account for embedded fan energy use and
revise the external static pressure requirements to accurately reflect
field conditions. (NEEA, No. 6 at p. 1; ASAP/ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 1)
ASAP/ACEEE also commented that DOE should incorporate defrost and
reflect heating performance at lower ambient temperatures in the
heating efficiency metric. (ASAP/ACEEE, No. 11 at pp. 1, 2) DOE has
addressed all of these comments related to test procedure issues in the
November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule.
In the November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE determined that
it does not have sufficient information regarding the operation of fans
outside of mechanical cooling and heating modes (e.g., economizing,
ventilation), regarding the installations for SPVHPs and the frequency
of operation of defrost cycles, or regarding representative low ambient
conditions during field use that would be necessary to develop
representative testing procedures for these operating modes. DOE also
determined that that it does not have information indicating that the
current minimum ESPs are unrepresentative of field conditions.
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. See generally 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. See
generally 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5). Section V.B of this document
discusses the results of the screening analysis for SPVUs, particularly
the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are
the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further
details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of
the NOPR/NOPD technical support document (TSD).
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended energy conservation standard
for a type or class of covered equipment
[[Page 75396]]
more stringent than the level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, the Department
must conduct the requisite analyses to show by clear and convincing
evidence that such standard would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. Under such analysis, DOE determines the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use
that is technologically feasible for such equipment. (See 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) improvements
in energy efficiency for SPVUs, using the design parameters for the
most-efficient products available on the market or in working
prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking
are described in section V.C.1.b of this proposed rule and in chapter 5
of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
E. Energy Savings
In determining whether standards for the subject equipment should
be amended, DOE would typically determine whether such standards would
result in significant additional conservation of energy, as required by
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i).
However, as discussed in section VI of this document, DOE has
tentatively determined that amended standards for the subject equipment
would not be economically justified. Because clear and convincing
evidence of economic justification is necessary to adopt more-stringent
standards for the subject equipment, DOE has tentatively concluded that
quantification of energy savings from potential amended standards is
not necessary in the case of this proposed rulemaking.
F. Economic Justification
As noted, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential amended energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII)) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this NOPR/NOPD.
1. Economic Impact on Consumers and Manufacturers
For individual consumers, DOE measures the economic impact by
calculating the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended
energy conservation standards for the equipment in question. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value
(NPV) of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from
particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential
standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard. However, DOE's analysis showed
negative LCC savings for SPVUs for nearly all efficiency levels, and,
therefore, DOE is not proposing to amend standards for SPVUs, because
the Department anticipates that it would not have the clear and
convincing evidence to support amended standards more stringent that
those set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Accordingly, DOE did not
conduct a consumer subgroup analysis or a national impact analysis for
this NOPR/NOPD.
In determining the impacts of a potential standard on
manufacturers, DOE typically conducts a manufacturer impact analysis
(MIA). However, because DOE is tentatively unable to determine via
clear and convincing evidence that a more-stringent standard level
would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and economically justified, DOE decided not to
conduct an MIA. Nonetheless, DOE did examine the potential impacts of
amended energy conservation standards for SPVUs on small manufacturers
in its Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, which is presented in
section VII.B of this NOPR/NOPD. The following section discusses
additional comments received from the April 2020 RFI regarding
manufacturer impacts and cumulative regulatory burden.
In response to the April 2020 RFI, AHRI, Lennox, and GE urged DOE
to consider the cumulative regulatory burden for heating, ventilation,
air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 9
at p. 2; GE, No. 7 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 8 at p. 2) AHRI, Lennox, and GE
argued that requirements for new low-GWP refrigerants will have a
significant impact on the HVAC industry, and these commenters stated
that in certain States, these requirements will take effect prior to
the compliance date of any amended standards that would be adopted by
DOE in the course of this proposed rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 5;
GE, No. 7 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 8 at p. 2) AHRI stated that because
nearly all of these new refrigerants have been designated flammable
(A2L), all new safety standards have been developed that address the
application of these new flammable refrigerants and subsequent leak
mitigation. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 5) AHRI stated that DOE's analysis
should account for the challenge that manufacturers will face due to
the need to develop, test, and certify two product lines for models
with current refrigerants and new, A2L refrigerants. (Id.) AHRI and
Lennox also noted that all current equipment will need to be tested to
the new safety standard, Underwriters Laboratories/Canadian Standards
Association (UL/CSA) Standard 60335-2-40, ``Standard for Household and
Similar Electrical Appliances--Safety--Part 2-40: Particular
Requirements for Electrical Heat Pumps, Air-Conditioners and
Dehumidifiers,'' prior to its effective date of January 1, 2023. (AHRI,
No. 9 at p. 5; Lennox, No. 8 at p. 3)
In addition to the cumulative burden concerns noted with
refrigerants, AHRI stated that the industry is preparing for additional
new efficiency metrics and standard levels for residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps; small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioners and heat pump; and air-cooled, water-cooled,
evaporatively-cooled; water-source unitary air conditioners and heat
pumps; and variable refrigerant flow equipment. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE notes that a full consideration of more-stringent levels, if
undertaken, would assess manufacturer impacts, including cumulative
burden. However, in the absence of proposing more-stringent standards,
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposals set forth in this
NOPR/NOPD would not be unduly burdensome to manufacturers.
For a more complete discussion of consumer impacts, see chapter 8
of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
equipment prices (which includes manufacturer selling price,
distribution channel markups, and sales tax), equipment energy
consumption,
[[Page 75397]]
energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime,
discount rates appropriate for consumers, and the year that compliance
with new or amended standards would be required. To account for
uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment
lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with
probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent energy conservation standard by the change in
annual operating cost for the year that such standards are assumed to
take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new
or amended energy conservation standards. The LCC savings for the
considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that
reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended
standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in
section V.F. of this document.
For a more complete discussion of the LCC and PBP analysis, see
chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
3. Energy Savings
Although significant additional conservation of energy is a
separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation
standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification
of a standard, to consider the total projected quantity of energy
savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(III)) DOE is not proposing amended standards
for SPVUs due to the negative LCC savings at nearly all efficiency
levels, so, therefore, DOE did not project the total energy savings
from higher efficiency levels.
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
In evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard
levels, DOE evaluates potential amended energy conservation standards
that would not lessen the utility or performance of the subject
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(IV)) Because DOE is not
proposing amended standards for SPVUs, the Department has tentatively
concluded that this NOPR/NOPD would not impact the utility or
performance of such equipment.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V)) Because DOE is not proposing standards for SPVUs
more stringent than the current Federal standards for that equipment,
DOE did not transmit a copy of its proposed determination to the
Attorney General for anti-competitive review.
6. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy conservation in
determining whether a new or amended standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VI)) Typically, energy savings
from proposed standards would be likely to provide improvements to the
security and reliability of the Nation's energy system, and reductions
in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for
maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE
conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how potential standards
may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity. However,
because DOE is not proposing amended standards for SPVUs that increase
stringency beyond the current Federal standard levels, the Department
did not conduct this analysis for the present rulemaking.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more-efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. Typically, proposed standards would be likely to result
in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with energy
production and use. Therefore, DOE routinely conducts an emissions
analysis to estimate how potential standards might affect these
emissions. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs (i.e., standards above
the base case). However, because DOE is not proposing amended standards
for SPVUs at levels more stringent than the current Federal standard
levels, the Department did not conduct this analysis for the present
rulemaking.
7. Other Factors
In determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.'' DOE did not identify any other factors in this NOPR/NOPD.
IV. Crosswalk Analysis
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this document, DOE's current
energy conservation standards for SPVUs are based on the full-load
cooling efficiency metric, EER, and the heating efficiency metric, COP.
As further discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE has amended
the Federal test procedures for SPVUs to incorporate by reference AHRI
390-2021, including the seasonal cooling efficiency metric, IEER.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing to amend the energy conservation
standards for SPVUs to rely on the IEER metric for cooling efficiency
(while retaining the COP metric for determining the heating efficiency
of SPVHPs). As explained in section III.C of this document, DOE has
tentatively determined that the IEER metric is representative of the
cooling efficiency for SPVUs in terms of both an average use cycle and
also on an annual basis, and that it is more representative than the
current EER metric.
EPCA provides that in the case of any amended test procedure for
covered ASHRAE equipment for which there is clear and convincing
evidence to support deviation from the test procedure for such
equipment referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must determine, to
what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the
measured energy efficiency, measured energy use, or measured water use
of the subject ASHRAE equipment as determined under the existing test
procedure. (See 42 U.S.C 6293(e); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) If the
Secretary determines that the amended test procedure will alter the
measured efficiency or measured use, the Secretary shall amend the
applicable energy conservation standard during the rulemaking carried
out with respect to such test procedure. In such case, under the
process prescribed in EPCA, DOE is directed to measure, pursuant to the
amended test procedure, the energy efficiency or energy use of a
[[Page 75398]]
representative sample of covered products that minimally comply with
the existing standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2); 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(C)) The average of such energy efficiency or energy use
determined under the amended test procedure constitutes the amended
energy conservation standard for the applicable covered products. (Id.)
Pursuant to these statutory directives, DOE conducted a
``crosswalk'' analysis to translate the current SPVU standard levels
based on EER to standard levels based on the new metric, IEER. DOE
worked with AHRI and SPVU manufacturers (collectively referred to as
the ``AHRI 390 Task Force'') to develop the crosswalk analysis, during
which, both DOE and manufacturers conducted testing of minimally-
compliant units. Pursuant to the requirements of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)), the AHRI 390 Task Force conducted
testing on a sample of minimally-compliant SPVUs. DOE observed
instances where both single-stage and two-stage SPVUs are minimally
compliant with the current EER standards because the full-load EER
metric does not capture the benefits of part-load technologies. As
discussed in section V.C of this document, two-stage units have higher
efficiencies than single-stage units when using the seasonal IEER
metric. As a result, the sample of minimally-compliant SPVUs selected
for testing specifically focused on single-stage units, as these units
are expected to be the least efficient under the amended SPVUs test
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The percentage change from EER to IEER was used to ensure
that data was anonymized for presentation to the AHRI 390 Task
Force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, the AHRI 390 Task Force conducted testing on 17 SPVUs
with <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity and 2 SPVUs with >=65,000 Btu/h
cooling capacity to measure the percentage change in efficiency between
EER and IEER for each unit.\8\ The test sample included a mix of both
SPVACs and SPVHPs. Using these test data, the average percentage change
was calculated for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity and >=65,000
Btu/h cooling capacity separately. Based on testing, SPVACs and SPVHPs
showed the same percentage increase from EER to IEER. These test
results are summarized in Table IV-1.
Table IV-1--AHRI 390 Crosswalk Testing Results for Minimally-Compliant,
Single-Stage SPVUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Current percentage
Equipment class minimum EER change from
EER to IEER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPVU <65,000 Btu/h...................... 11 +13.4%
SPVU >=65,000 Btu/h..................... 10 +2.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these test results, DOE is proposing baseline IEER levels
that are 13.4 percent higher than current EER standard levels for SPVUs
<65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity and 2.6 percent higher than the current
EER standard levels for SPVUs >=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity. For SPVUs >=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity, DOE
noted that there were only eight basic models currently available on
the market. Based on review of product literature, all of these larger
SPVU models operated with multiple compressor stages and staged
airflow. The testing conducted as part of the AHRI 390 Task Force
included only single stage units and, therefore, is not representative
of the baseline IEER levels for these larger SPVU units currently
available on the market. Consequently, in order to determine an
appropriate baseline IEER level for these larger SPVU equipment
classes, DOE applied the crosswalk of 2.6 percent, then applied the
percent improvement in IEER associated with moving from single-stage
compressor and airflow to multiple compressor stages and stage airflow,
consistent with the improvement used for SPVUs <135,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity (i.e., a 9.6 percent increase in IEER, see section V.C.1.b of
this document).
The proposed baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class,
denominated in terms of IEER and COP (where appliable), are presented
in Table IV-2. The methodology and results of the crosswalk analysis
are presented in detail in the chapter 5 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
Table IV-2--Crosswalked Baseline Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current minimum Proposed baseline
Subcategory standard levels efficiency levels*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPVAC <65,000................... EER = 11.0........ IEER = 12.5.
SPVHP <65,000................... EER = 11.0........ IEER = 12.5.
COP = 3.3......... COP = 3.3.
SPVAC >=65,000 and <135,000..... EER = 10.0........ IEER = 10.3.
SPVHP >=65,000 and <135,000..... EER = 10.0........ IEER = 10.3.
COP = 3.0......... COP = 3.0.
SPVAC >=135,000 and <240,000.... EER = 10.0........ IEER = 11.2.
SPVHP >=135,000 and <240,000.... EER = 10.0........ IEER = 11.2.
COP = 3.0......... COP = 3.0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reflects translation of existing energy conservation standards using a
full-load EER cooling metric to a proposed equivalent energy
conservation standard using a seasonal IEER metric.
Issue-1: DOE requests comment on the proposed baseline IEER levels
for SPVUs, as well as comment on any aspect of its crosswalk analysis.
DOE continues to seek information which compares EER to IEER for the
SPVUs
[[Page 75399]]
that are representative of the market baseline efficiency level for all
equipment classes.
V. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
proposed rulemaking with regard to SPVUs. Separate subsections address
each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used Python \9\-based analytical tools to estimate the impact
of the potential energy conservation standards considered as part of
this proposed rulemaking on consumers. These tools calculate the LCC
savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation
standards for three consumer sectors: (1) schools, (2) offices, and (3)
telecommunications structures. The LCC and PBP inputs, outputs, and
summary tables are available for download in spreadsheet form at
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=30. DOE did not perform any analysis beyond
the LCC, as the LCC results were negative for nearly all product
classes, and, therefore, DOE tentatively determined that an increased
standard level would not be economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Python is an open-source programming language. For more
information, see: www.python.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking 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 SPVUs. The
key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following
sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD for further discussion of
the market and technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes
As discussed in section III.B of this document, the current energy
conservation standards for SPVUs specified in 10 CFR 431.97 are based
on six equipment classes determined by: (1) cooling capacity and (2)
whether the equipment is an air conditioner or a heat pump.
Table V-1--Equipment Classes for SPVUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h.
2...................................... SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h.
3...................................... SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
4...................................... SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
5...................................... SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
6...................................... SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the April 2020 RFI, AHRI commented that it does not
recommend any changes to the existing equipment classes. (AHRI, No. 9
at p. 3) DOE did not identify any performance-related features that
would justify creating a new equipment class for SPVUs. Accordingly,
DOE is proposing to maintain the existing equipment classes in this
NOPR/NOPD.
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on the availability of
units on the market in the following equipment classes: SPVHP >=65,000
Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, and
SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. 85 FR 22958, 22962 (April 24,
2020). At the time AHRI commented, that organization stated that the
largest SPVHP in the AHRI Directory is 60,000 Btu/h and that the
largest SPVAC is 146,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 4) DOE conducted a
more recent review of DOE's Compliance Certification Database,\10\ and
Table V-2 shows the number of models listed within the DOE Compliance
Certification Database that DOE has identified for each class of SPVUs.
Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the market,
DOE determined that there are SPVHPs available up to 67,000 Btu/h and
SPVACs up to 180,000 Btu/h. As discussed in section I of this document,
DOE is not proposing to increase the stringency of the energy
conservation standards for any SPVUs, including SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h
and <240,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database can be found at
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed Feb. 16, 2022).
Table V-2--Number of Models Under Current SPVU Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of models
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) -------------------------------
SPVACs SPVHPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000................................. 467 303
>=65,000 and <135,000................... 43 2
>=135,000 and <240,000.................. 8 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Technology Options
In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options and
prototype designs that appear to be feasible mechanisms for improving
equipment efficiency. This assessment provides the technical background
and structure on which DOE bases its screening and engineering
analyses.
[[Page 75400]]
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE presented a preliminary list of
technology options primarily based on the technologies identified in
the most recent rulemaking for SPVUs (i.e., the September 2015 final
rule). 85 FR 22958, 22962 (April 24, 2020). In the April 2020 RFI, DOE
requested comment on the technology options listed in Table V-3
regarding their applicability to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency of SPVUs.
Table V-3--Technology Options Presented in April 2020 RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Exchanger Improvements............ Increased Frontal Coil Area.
Increased Depth of Coil.
Microchannel Heat Exchangers.
Dual Condensing Heat
Exchangers.
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improved Fan Motor Efficiency.
Improvements.
Improved Fan Blades.
Variable Speed Condenser Fan/
Motor.
Variable Speed Indoor Blower/
Motor.
Compressor Improvements................ Improved Compressor Efficiency.
Multi-Speed Compressors.
Other Improvements..................... Thermostatic Expansion Valves.
Electronic Expansion Valves.
Thermostatic Cyclic Controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the April 2020 RFI, AHRI and GE commented that since
the last rulemaking, there are no new technology developments for SPVUs
that are commercially available or that are not already accounted for
in the existing EER metric. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 4; GE, No. 7 at p. 2)
AHRI added that all of the technology options presented in the April
2020 RFI (now listed in Table V-3), with the exception of increased
coil size, are incorporated in minimum-efficiency equipment and would
not increase SPVU efficiencies beyond the current levels. (AHRI, No. 9
at p. 7)
AHRI commented that in many replacement applications, the physical
size of the replacement equipment cabinet is constrained by the
original equipment size, particularly for classroom applications.
(AHRI, No. 9 at p. 4) According to AHRI, cabinets project out into the
room and are typically installed under windows, and as a result, the
dimensions are limited in height by the window, in depth by the
allowable projection into the floor space, and in length by the
footprint of the original cabinet. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 4) Therefore,
AHRI commented that increasing heat exchanger size significantly is not
possible in these cases and that appropriate boundaries must be
established when considering increasing component sizes in the
analysis, considering ASHRAE Standard 90.1's definition for non-
weatherized space-constrained SPVU. (AHRI, No. 9 at pp. 4-5) AHRI added
that SPVU manufacturers also need to be cognizant of product noise
levels, particularly for classroom settings. AHRI stated that some
SPVUs are installed within a cabinet in the room, which typically have
sound limits, so all individual components and the combination of
components in the final product are considered very carefully to
achieve a quiet product. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8)
AHRI noted that SPVU manufacturers face limitations in terms of
available compressor options; scroll compressors are not available
below 17,000 Btu/h, so rotary compressors are employed. (AHRI, No. 9 at
p. 8)
As discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE conducted
testing and physical teardowns on a sample of currently available SPVUs
using the amended SPVU test procedure and based on the seasonal IEER
metric. DOE supplemented this approach with a review of product
literature for currently available models. Through such efforts, DOE
identified technology options that are used in higher-efficiency
equipment. Based on this review, DOE believes that the technology
options identified for this NOPR/NOPD, as presented subsequently in
Table V-5, are consistent with existing equipment on the market (e.g.,
heat exchanger sizes, fan and fan motor types, controls, air flow) with
consideration of the installation constraints noted by AHRI. DOE notes
that where certain design options may increase cabinet sizes, DOE
considered any additional costs associated with the installation of the
equipment (e.g., transition curbs to accommodate existing wall openings
in replacement applications).
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE also noted that it did not consider
improved fin design, improved tube design, and hydrophilic coating on
fins in the engineering analysis for the previous rulemaking because
they were commonly found in most baseline and higher-efficiency SPVUs.
85 FR 22958, 22963 (April 24, 2020). AHRI commented that SPVU
manufacturers use the best commercially-available fin and tube designs
in both baseline and higher-efficiency SPVUs. AHRI stated that
hydrophilic film coating on fins are not used in SPVUs due to concern
about degradation over time. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 6) DOE maintains that
improved fin and tube design are incorporated into baseline SPVUs and,
as a result, DOE did not consider these as technology options in this
NOPR/NOPD. DOE is unaware of publicly-available data quantifying the
impact of hydrophilic film coating on fins or whether this is used in
commercially-available equipment. As a result, DOE did not consider
hydrophilic film coating as a technology option in this NOPR/NOPD.
Microchannel Heat Exchangers
As discussed in the April 2020 RFI, DOE did not evaluate
microchannel heat exchangers for the September 2015 Final Rule
engineering analysis because there was insufficient information
regarding improvements to the overall system's energy efficiency. 85 FR
22958, 22962 (April 24, 2020); 80 FR 57438, 57455 (Sept. 23, 2015). On
this topic, AHRI and GE agreed that there is insufficient information
regarding microchannel heat exchangers impact on the overall system's
energy efficiency, and, therefore, such technology should be excluded
from the analysis. (AHRI, No. 9 at p . 5; GE, No. 7 at p. 2) GE added
that microchannel heat exchangers are of limited usefulness as a
technology option due to the constraints imposed by the architecture of
the space in which they are installed (i.e., the size of the exterior
wall and the wall openings). (GE, No. 7 at p. 2) In light of these
reasons, DOE
[[Page 75401]]
maintains that there is insufficient information regarding improvements
to the overall system's energy efficiency for microchannel heat
exchangers, and as a result, DOE did not consider them as a technology
option for further consideration.
Part-Load Technology Options
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the test procedure for SPVUs
at that time only measured efficiency at full-load steady-state
conditions, while thermostatic expansion valves (TXVs), electronic
expansion valves (EEVs), thermostatic cyclic controls, multi-speed
compressors, variable speed condenser fan/motor and variable speed
indoor blower/motor technologies only provide benefit at part-load
conditions. 85 FR 22958, 22962-22963 (April 24, 2020).
AHRI commented that changing the efficiency metric to reflect part-
load performance would change how these technology options impact the
efficiency of SPVUs. AHRI stated that it does not support the inclusion
of any technology option that does not impact efficiency using the
current DOE test procedure. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 5) AHRI commented that
neither variable speed condenser fan/motors nor indoor blower/motors
will impact efficiency using the existing EER metric and, therefore,
should not be considered in this rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 5) The
commenter argued that indoor blower/fan improvements will impact unit
size, which can be problematic for space-constrained units. AHRI added
that not all products have condenser fans to improve, specifically non-
weatherized units. (Id.)
AHRI and GE commented that variable speed compressors, TXVs, and
EEVs do not provide a benefit using the existing EER metric and,
therefore, should not be considered in this rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 9 at
pp. 5-6; GE, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI commented that in the event that DOE
amends the test procedure and efficiency metric for SPVUs to account
for part-load performance, variable speed compressors still may not be
a viable technology option due to cost and availability. AHRI and GE
noted that SPVUs are designed to accommodate a wide variety of voltages
but that currently available variable speed compressors that operate at
lower capacities are designed for residential applications and
voltages. Consequently, AHRI and GE argued that because variable speed
compressors are not available that accommodate all commercial voltages,
there is a limitation on the wide-scale adoption of variable speed
equipment. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 6; GE, No. 7 at p. 2) In addition, AHRI
mentioned that compressor manufacturers are also working to develop
full product lines to accommodate A2L refrigerants. AHRI commented that
this effort requires significant research and design resources, so they
do not expect timely availability of variable speed compressors for the
full voltage range required for SPVUs. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 6)
In response, as discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE
has amended its test procedure for SPVUs to include a seasonal cooling
efficiency metric that includes part-load performance, and, therefore,
the Department is proposing to consider amended energy conservation
standards based on the IEER metric in this NOPR/NOPD. As a result, DOE
considered multi-speed compressors, TXVs, EEVs, thermostatic cyclic
controls, variable speed condenser fan/motors, and variable speed
indoor blower/motors as technology options, because these technologies
improve the performance of SPVUs during part-load operation. However,
based on DOE's testing, DOE does not have sufficient test data showing
that variable-speed compressors provide a measurable improvement over
two-stage compressors. As a result, DOE only considered two-stage
compressors as a technology option for this NOPR/NOPD. DOE understands
that two-stage compressors are available for the full range of cooling
capacities for SPVUs. With regards to AHRI's comment that indoor
blower/fan improvements will impact unit size and that not all products
have condenser fans to improve, DOE notes that it considered
application of these technology options consistent with existing
equipment on the market.
Additionally, DOE is no longer considering improved compressor
efficiency as a technology option, as the Department is not aware of
any commercially-available compressors with improved efficiency that
are used in SPVUs.
Refrigerants
Nearly all SPVUs are currently designed with R-410A as the
refrigerant. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program evaluates and regulates
substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals (such as air conditioning
refrigerants) that are being phased out under the stratospheric ozone
protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) \11\ The EPA SNAP Program currently includes 31 \12\ acceptable
alternatives for refrigerants used in the new Residential and Light
Commercial Air Conditioning class of equipment (which includes
SPVUs),\13\ On May 6, 2021, the EPA published a final rule in the
Federal Register allowing the use of R-32, R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-
454C, and R-457A, subject to use conditions. These refrigerants may now
be used in commercial HVAC applications, but any listed available
substitute for Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning may be
used as a refrigerant in SPVU equipment. 86 FR 24444.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Additional information regarding EPA's SNAP Program is
available online at: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/ (Last accessed July 22,
2022).
\12\ Refrigerant THR-03 is not included in this count because it
is acceptable for use only in residential window air conditioners;
Refrigerants R-1270 and R-443A were deemed unacceptable as of
January 3, 2017; Refrigerants R-417C, R427-A and R-458A are only
approved for retrofit applications.
\13\ Information available at: www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-residential-and-light-commercial-air-conditioning-and-heat-pumps
(Last accessed July 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 27, 2020, the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act
of 2020 was enacted in section 103 in Division S, Innovation for the
Environment, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-
260; codified at 42 U.S.C. 7675). The American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020 provides EPA specific authority to address
hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), including to: (1) phase down HFC production
and consumption of listed HFCs through an allowance allocation and
trading program; (2) establish requirements for the management of HFCs
and HFC substitutes in equipment (e.g., air conditioners); and (3)
facilitate sector-based transitions away from HFCs. (42 U.S.C. 7675(e),
(h), (i)) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020,
EPA is also authorized to issue rules in response to petitions to
establish sector-based HFC restrictions. (42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(3)) On
October 14, 2021, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register which
granted ten petitions in full, including one petition by AHRI et al.,
titled ``Restrict the Use of HFCs in Residential and Light Commercial
Air Conditioners'' (AHRI petition), in which the petitioners requested
EPA to require residential and light commercial air conditioners (which
includes SPVUs) to use refrigerants with GWP of 750 or less, with such
requirement applying to these equipment manufactured after January
[[Page 75402]]
1, 2025, excluding variable refrigerant flow (VRF) equipment.\14\ 86 FR
57141. DOE is also aware that the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
finalized a rulemaking effective January 1, 2022, which prohibits the
use of refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or greater starting January 1,
2023 in several new type of air-conditioning equipment, including
SPVUs.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0289-0011 (Last accessed July 22, 2022).
\15\ Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020 (Last
accessed July 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In commenting on the April 2020 RFI, ASAP/ACEEE argued that
alternatives to R410A such as R32, R452B, and R454B can improve
efficiency by at least 5 percent \16\ and that DOE should consider
alternative refrigerants in its analysis. (ASAP/ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2016/data/papers/3_406.pdf (Last accessed July 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, DOE is aware of the changing landscape of refrigerants
as they relate to SPVUs, particularly the AHRI petition that requested
the EPA to require residential and light commercial air conditioners to
use refrigerants with GWP of 750 or less, with such requirement
applying to this equipment manufactured after January 1, 2025
(excluding VRF) and that was granted by EPA on October 14, 2021. 86 FR
57141 (Oct. 14, 2021).\17\ In light of this AHRI petition which would
impact SPVUs, DOE reviewed certain SNAP-approved substitutes that met
this criterion for use of a refrigerant with GWP of 750 or less.\18\
These are listed in Table V-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ After granting a petition, EPA must initiate a rulemaking
and publish a final rule within two years of the petition grant date
(i.e., by Oct. 15, 2023).
\18\ On December 29, 2021, EPA published in the Federal Register
a notification informing the public that they would not be using a
negotiated rulemaking procedure to develop a proposed rule or rules
associated with the eleven American Innovation and Manufacturing Act
of 2020 petitions (including the AHRI petition) but will instead use
the typical notice-and-comment rulemaking process. 86 FR 74080.
Table V-4--Potential Substitutes for HFCs in New Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning Equipment,
With GWP of 750 or Less
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE safety classification
Approved substitute GWP value Approval date \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-457A................................ 140 May 6, 2021.............. A2L
R-454C................................ 150
R-454A................................ 240
R-454B................................ 470
R-32.................................. 675
R-452B................................ 700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Approved by EPA. 86 FR 24444.
\2\ ASHRAE assigns safety classifications to the refrigerants based on toxicity and flammability data. The
capital letter designates a toxicity class based on allowable exposure and the numeral denotes flammability.
For toxicity, Class A denotes refrigerants of lower toxicity, and Class B denotes refrigerants of higher
toxicity. For flammability, class 1 denotes refrigerants that do not propagate a flame when tested as per the
standard; class 2 and 2L denotes refrigerants of lower flammability; and class 3, for highly flammable
refrigerants such as the hydrocarbons.
DOE reviewed several studies \19\ to gauge the potential efficiency
improvements of the substitute refrigerants identified in Table V-4, as
compared to R-410A. Most of these studies suggested comparable
performance to R410A, with some studies showing slightly reduced
efficiency and others showing improvement as high as six percent (for
R-32). DOE notes that most of these studies were performed with drop-in
applications (where an alternate refrigerant replaces the existing
refrigerant in a system that is optimized for the existing refrigerant)
and were not performed on SPVUs specifically. It is possible that these
substitute refrigerants might show efficiencies higher than R-410A in
specific applications that have been optimized for such refrigerants.
However, given the uncertainty associated with the studies reviewed,
DOE was unable to conclude with reasonable confidence that these
refrigerants will result in a specific improvement in energy
efficiency. Therefore, DOE has tentatively decided to not consider
alternate refrigerants as a technology option for increasing SPVU
efficiency. On the other hand, DOE does not expect that the anticipated
refrigerant change will reduce SPVU efficiency. Also, as discussed in
section III.F.1 of this NOPR, because DOE is not proposing amended
standards for SPVUs that increase stringency beyond the current Federal
standard levels, DOE did not assess the cumulative regulatory burden
associated with potential refrigerant requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See: (1) https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2016/data/papers/3_406.pdf;
(2) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4955522.pdf;
(3) https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/1211/;
(4) https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/1235/;
(5) https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3097&context=icec;
(6) https://www.optimizedthermalsystems.com/images/pdf/about/An-Evaluation-of-R32-for-the-US-HVACR-Market.pdf;
(7) https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14476;
(8) https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3089&context=iracc;
(9) https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1823375; and
(10) https://climate.emerson.com/documents/copeland-scroll-yp-compressors-designed-for-r32-en-gb-7125818.pdf.
(All last accessed July 25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPR/NOPD Technology Options
Based on the previous discussion, DOE identified nine technology
options for this NOPR/NOPD, presented in Table V-5, that would be
expected to improve the efficiency of SPVUs, as measured by the amended
DOE test procedure.
Table V-5--NOPR/NOPD Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Exchanger Improvements............ Increased Frontal Coil Area.
Increased Depth of Coil.
Dual Condensing Heat
Exchangers.
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improved Fan Motor Efficiency.
Improvements.
[[Page 75403]]
Improved Fan Blades.
Compressor Improvements................ Two-Stage Compressors.
Other Improvements..................... Thermostatic Expansion Valves.
Electronic Expansion Valves.
Thermostatic Cyclic Controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue-2: DOE requests comment on the proposed technology options
for SPVUs. DOE also requests data on the potential improvement in IEER
and COP associated with these technology options.
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:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production 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.
(3) 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/equipment 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,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections
6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, 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. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
After a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in Table V-5 of section
V.A.3 of this document meet all five screening criteria to be examined
further as design options in DOE's NOPR/NOPD analysis. In summary, DOE
did not screen out the following technology options:
Table V-6--Technology Options Retained for Engineering Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Exchanger Improvements............ Increased Frontal Coil Area.
Increased Depth of Coil.
Dual Condensing Heat
Exchangers.
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improved Fan Motor Efficiency.
Improvements.
Improved Fan Blades.
Compressor Improvements................ Two-Stage Compressors.
Other Improvements..................... Thermostatic Expansion Valves.
Electronic Expansion Valves.
Thermostatic Cyclic Controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has initially determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE
also finds that all of these technology options meet the other
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and
service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility,
product availability, health, or safety, and are not unique-pathway
proprietary technologies). For additional details on DOE's screening
analysis, see chapter 4 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of SPVUs. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis: (1) the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
(2) the determination of equipment cost at each efficiency level (i.e.,
the ``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-
efficiency equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option
combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each
equipment class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the
incremental cost for the equipment at efficiency levels above the
baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the
[[Page 75404]]
efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the
analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing
equipment (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and
efficiency level ``clusters'' that already exist on the market). Using
the design-option approach, the efficiency levels established for the
analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/
or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from
implementing specific design options that have been identified in the
technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two
approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual
products on the market) may be extended using the design option
approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge large gaps between other
identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech
level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the
maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).
In this rulemaking, DOE relies on a design-option approach.
Consistent with its previous rulemaking analysis, DOE focused the
analysis on representative capacities for each equipment class. Based
on market data, DOE identified representative cooling capacities for
SPVACs and SPVHPs as presented in Table V-7. More specifically, DOE
identified 36,000 Btu/h, 72,000 Btu/h, and 180,000 Btu/h as the nominal
cooling capacities representing the most models in DOE's CCD for each
SPVU equipment class.
Table V-7--SPVU Equipment Class Representative Cooling Capacities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Representative cooling capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPVAC and SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h......... 36,000 Btu/h.
SPVAC and SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and 72,000 Btu/h.
<135,000 Btu/h.
SPVAC and SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and 180,000 Btu/h.
<240,000 Btu/h.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE initially considered the range of efficiencies available on the
market based on the data provided in DOE's CCD for SPVUs for EER and
COP, as shown in Figure V-1 and Figure V-2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE22.000
Figure V-1 DOE SPVu EER Compliance Certification Data
[[Page 75405]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE22.001
Figure V-2 DOE SPVu COP Compliance Certification Data
However, as discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE is now
proposing to amend the energy conservation standards for SPVUs so as to
be based on the seasonal cooling metric, IEER, and the existing heating
metric, COP. Because SPVU manufacturers currently do not report IEER,
DOE conducted testing on a sample of units that included a variety of
the design options presented in Table V-6. The results of DOE's testing
are presented in Table V-8. DOE used these test results along with
additional information gathered using reverse engineering (i.e.,
teardown) methodologies, information from manufacturer product
literature, and consideration of the range of efficiencies based on EER
in DOE's CCD, to evaluate the range of design options used for units
available on the market at different efficiencies in support of
developing efficiency levels for the NOPR/NOPD analysis. DOE
anticipates that the test results are applicable to all equipment
classes when considering the relative improvement in efficiency
associated with various design options due to the similarity in
platform design and cabinet construction for units across equipment
classes.
Table V-8--DOE Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated cooling
Test unit Equipment class capacity (Btu/ Rated EER Tested IEER Cooling stages
h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 AC <65,000 Btu/h...... 35,600 11.25 12.5 1
2 AC <65,000 Btu/h...... 35,000 11 11.6 2
3 HP <65,000 Btu/h...... 36,000 11.1 12.2 1
4 AC <65,000 Btu/h...... 36,000 12.5 13.2 2
5 AC <65,000 Btu/h...... 35,000 12 17.7 2
6 HP <65,000 Btu/h...... 35,000 11 11.7 1
7 HP <65,000 Btu/h...... 33,800 11 13.7 2
8 AC <65,000 Btu/h...... 54,000 11 16.1 2
9 HP <65,000 Btu/h...... 54,000 11.2 16.8 2
10 HP <65,000 Btu/h...... 57,000 11 12.7 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as
a reference point for each class, and measures any changes resulting
from potential new or amended energy conservation standards against the
baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents
the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class (e.g.,
capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just
meets current energy conservation standards and provides basic consumer
utility. If no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the
most common or least-efficient unit on the market.
As part of the April 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on appropriate
baseline efficiency levels. 85 FR 22958, 22964 (April 24, 2020). On
this topic, AHRI commented that DOE should use the current baseline
efficiency levels for SPVACs >=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity, noting that there are only two models on the market and that
it is doubtful these two models account for significant sales volume.
(AHRI, No. 9 at p. 6)
As discussed in section IV of this document, DOE's current cooling
mode efficiency standards for SPVUs are based on the full-load metric,
EER. AHRI and DOE jointly developed a crosswalk from EER to IEER based
on testing of a sample of minimally-compliant single-stage units. DOE
considered these crosswalked IEER levels as the baseline cooling mode
efficiency levels for this analysis. For
[[Page 75406]]
heating mode for SPVHPs, DOE considered the current COP standard levels
as the baseline efficiency levels. The proposed baseline efficiency
levels are shown in Table V-9.
Table V-9--Baseline Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current EER
Equipment class standard Baseline IEER Baseline COP
levels levels levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h............................................. 11.0 12.5 ..............
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h............................................. 11.0 12.5 3.3
SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h......................... 10.0 10.3 ..............
SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h......................... 10.0 10.3 3.0
SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h........................ 10.0 11.2 ..............
SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h........................ 10.0 11.2 3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on physical teardowns of units at the baseline efficiency
levels, DOE noted that baseline units for the <65,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity equipment classes and >=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity equipment classes had a single stage of compressor operation
and indoor/outdoor fan speeds. These units used single-speed
compressors, permanent-split capacitor (PSC) outdoor fan motors with
single-stage outdoor airflow, and electronically-commutated indoor
blower motors (ECM) with single-stage indoor airflow. For the >=135,000
and <240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity equipment classes, as discussed in
section V.C.1.b of this document, DOE notes that all units available on
the market operated with multiple compressor stages and staged airflow,
using multiple compressors along with ECM indoor blowers and outdoor
fans. Therefore, DOE expects that all units on the market in this
equipment class can meet the efficiency level proposed.
Issue-3: DOE requests comment on the proposed baseline efficiency
levels and the design options associated with these levels.
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest-efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum
possible efficiency for a given product. In many cases, the max-tech
efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not
economically feasible.
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE noted that in the previous energy
conservation standards rulemaking for SPVUs for all equipment classes,
DOE determined that the max-tech efficiency was the maximum available
efficiency. Accordingly, DOE presented the maximum available efficiency
levels using the full-load EER cooling efficiency metric and COP
heating efficiency metric based on review of the DOE's CCD. DOE
requested comment on appropriate max-tech efficiency levels based on
EER and COP and the design options associated with these levels, as
well as appropriate efficiency levels based on the seasonal efficiency
metric. 85 FR 22958, 22964-22965 (April 24, 2020).
On this topic, AHRI commented that DOE should only consider
currently-available technologies based on DOE's CCD for SPVUs as max-
tech levels. AHRI stated that theoretical design-option approaches for
max-tech levels should be avoided, as it precludes stakeholders from
being able to accurately develop estimates for repair costs, predict
failure modes associated with such design options, and predict costs
associated with platform/design changes. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 7) AHRI
further commented that using the DOE test procedure (i.e., the one
available at the time of the April 2020 RFI), the max-tech efficiency
level would be no different now than it was in DOE's 2015 standards
rulemaking analysis. AHRI asserted that one of the only design options
that would increase EER is increasing coil size, but the commenter
cautioned that there are limitations on this design option due to
constraints for through-the-wall or classroom replacement
installations. According to AHRI, the incremental and maximum available
efficiency levels and associated design options for each equipment
class using a part-load energy efficiency metric would be substantially
different than using a full-load metric, but the commenter argued that
those matters can only be evaluated properly after the revised AHRI 390
has published. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 7) DOE notes that as discussed in
section III.C of this document, DOE is conducting this analysis with
respect to the IEER metric published in AHRI 390-2021.
The CA IOUs commented that more-efficient models (based on EER)
were added to the DOE's CCD for SPVUs since DOE's review in preparation
for the April 2020 RFI, so DOE should update the maximum available
efficiency levels. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 3)
In response, for this NOPR/NOPD, DOE considered efficiency levels
based on the seasonal cooling efficiency metric that includes part-load
performance, IEER, and the heating efficiency metric, COP. For SPVUs
<65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity, DOE developed incremental IEER and COP
higher efficiency levels up to the max-tech level based on DOE's
testing of a sample of units, review of manufacturer product
literature, and consideration of the range of efficiencies observed in
DOE's CCD for SPVUs based on EER. As discussed in section V.C.2 of this
document, DOE conducted physical teardowns on the units in its test
sample. This allowed DOE to identify the design options associated with
units at different efficiencies. In selecting efficiency levels, DOE
primarily focused on the representative cooling capacity for this
equipment class of 36,000 Btu/h. DOE notes that this method does not
rely on theoretical efficiencies, per AHRI's concern.
DOE identified the first efficiency level of 13.7 IEER for SPVUs
with <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity based on units that incorporated 2-
speed compressors and 2-stage indoor airflow and control logic to
provide staged compressor and airflow operation. In addition, DOE
observed that units at this efficiency level incorporated an increase
in indoor and outdoor heat exchanger total volume compared to baseline
efficiency units. Based on DOE's test data and review of available
product literature, DOE expects that 13.7 IEER represents the
efficiency level that can be achieved without requiring a substantial
increase in heat exchanger and cabinet redesign compared to baseline
efficiency units. For the max-tech efficiency level, DOE found that
units with tested cooling mode
[[Page 75407]]
efficiencies between 16.1 and 17.7 IEER covered both SPVACs and SPVHPs
with cooling capacities at 35,000 Btu/h and 54,000 Btu/h. DOE noted
that these units were built using the same platform/cabinet and similar
design options. To ensure that all equipment across the range of
cooling capacities within this equipment class can achieve the analyzed
efficiency level, DOE selected 16.1 IEER as the max-tech efficiency
level. DOE further noted that, in addition to the design changes to
reach efficiency level 1, units at the max-tech efficiency level also
incorporated substantially larger indoor and outdoor heat exchangers,
along with higher horsepower indoor and outdoor blower/fan motors,
which require an increase in cabinet size. DOE's findings on the
increases in heat exchanger size align with AHRI's comments on the
matter, in that at a certain point, increases in cabinet size would be
necessary to accommodate increases in heat exchanger size. For heating
mode, DOE used the rated COP values corresponding to the units in DOE's
test sample at each IEER efficiency level.
For SPVUs with >=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity, DOE
applied the same design changes and the equivalent percentage increase
to reach efficiency level 1 as used for the <65,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity equipment class (i.e., a 9.6 percent increase in IEER). DOE
notes that baseline IEER units, which were units with nominal cooling
capacities of 72,000 Btu/h or less, had similar platform design and
cabinet construction as units less than 65,000 Btu/h. Based on this,
DOE preliminarily concluded that the percentage increase used for less
than 65,000 Btu/h units to reach efficiency level 1 is also applicable
to this equipment class. DOE noted that larger capacity units in this
equipment class already incorporated staged compressor and airflow
operation. As a result, DOE believes these units would be capable of
meeting efficiency level 1. Efficiency level 1 represents the max-tech
level for these two equipment classes.
For SPVUs with >=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity, DOE
found that there are only a small number of basic models, all of which
were rated at the baseline EER of 10.0. Per the discussion in section
IV of this document, all of these models operate with multiple
compressor stages and staged airflow, and incorporate design options
similar to efficiency level 1 for the equipment classes with cooling
capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h. Therefore, the baseline efficiency
was assumed to be the percent improvement in IEER associated with
moving from baseline to efficiency level 1 for SPVUs <135,000 Btu/h
cooling capacity (i.e., a 9.6 percent increase in IEER). Based on DOE's
review of product literature, DOE did not have sufficient information
to justify analyzing higher efficiency levels for this equipment class.
Therefore, the baseline equipment are also the max-tech.
Table V-10 presents the efficiency levels examined for each SPVU
equipment class.
Table V-10--Incremental Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Baseline Efficiency level 1 Efficiency level 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Design Options........ Single-speed Baseline + 2-speed Efficiency level 1 +
compressor, single- compressor, staged larger indoor and
stage indoor/outdoor indoor airflow, outdoor heat
airflow, ECM indoor improved control exchangers, higher
blower motor, PSC logic, larger heat horsepower (hp) indoor
outdoor fan motor. exchangers. blower/outdoor fan
motors.
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h.................. 12.5 IEER.............. 13.7 IEER.............. 16.1 IEER (Max-Tech).
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h.................. 12.5 IEER/3.3 COP...... 13.7 IEER/3.3 COP...... 16.1 IEER/3.6 COP (Max-
Tech).
SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/ 10.3 IEER.............. 11.2 IEER (Max-Tech)...
h.
SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/ 10.3 IEER/3.0 COP...... 11.2 IEER/3.0 COP (Max-
h. Tech).
SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 11.2 IEER * (Max-Tech).
Btu/h.
SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 11.2 IEER/3.0 COP *
Btu/h. (Max-Tech).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Representative design options for baseline SPVU >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h are equivalent to the
design options observed at efficiency level 1 for SPVU >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.
Issue-4: DOE requests comment on the proposed incremental higher
efficiency levels for each equipment class. DOE requests data showing
the range of efficiencies based on IEER and COP available for SPVUs on
the market, as well as the design options associated with units at
different efficiency levels for each equipment class.
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
equipment, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the
equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles commercially-available equipment, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for that equipment.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing
equipment, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (e.g.,
available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites) to
develop the bill of materials for that equipment.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (e.g., for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent
lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams
are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (e.g.,
large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly-
available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/
or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial
channels.
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE directly analyzed one
equipment class (i.e., SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity), then
performed a more limited analysis of the other equipment classes based
on limited physical/virtual teardowns and scaling the results from the
analysis conducted for SPVACs with a cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h. 80 FR 57438, 57459-57460 (Sept. 23, 2015). In the April 2020
RFI, DOE requested comment on whether using this same approach for the
current rulemaking is appropriate. DOE also requested comment on the
increase in manufacturing production costs (MPCs) associated with each
design option and how the costs estimated in the September 2015 final
rule have changed. 85 FR 22958, 22965-22966 (April 24, 2020).
In response to this issue raised in the April 2020 RFI, AHRI
expressed support for once again directly analyzing the SPVACs <65,000
Btu/h cooling capacity
[[Page 75408]]
equipment class and scaling the results to other equipment classes for
a future SPVU energy conservation standards rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 9 at
p. 8) The commenter suggested extending the cost-efficiency analyses
for equipment classes with models to those equipment classes without
models on the market, as was done in the previous standards rulemaking.
(AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8) AHRI also commented that the costs estimated for
each particular design options have not changed significantly since the
September 2015 Final Rule analysis. In addition, AHRI cautioned that
incorporating backward curve fans would require a total redesign of
units and would likely be the last, most expensive improvement that
manufacturers would implement. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 7) As discussed in
section V.A.2 of this document, DOE conducted the cost-efficiency
analysis consistent with SPVU equipment available on the market. DOE
notes that backward curve fans were not necessary to achieve SPVU
performance up to the max-tech efficiency level, and as a result, DOE
did not consider that technology in its analysis.
In the present case, DOE conducted its cost analysis using physical
teardowns on units in its test sample and catalog teardowns to expand
the analysis to additional cooling capacities. Similar to the previous
rulemaking, DOE conducted physical teardowns with a focus on SPVUs with
<65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity. The resulting bill of materials
provides the basis for the MPC estimates. As discussed in section V.C.1
of this document, DOE selected a cooling capacity of 36,000 Btu/h as
the representative cooling capacity for this equipment class. DOE
developed MPC estimates for SPVACs with <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity
based on the physical teardowns of 36,000 Btu/h units at each
efficiency level. Where necessary, DOE ensured that the MPC estimates
were based on minimally-featured equipment design so that non-
efficiency related features (e.g., economizers, dust sensors) are not
included in the cost estimates. For SPVHPs, DOE estimated the costs
based on the design differences between baseline SPVACs and SPVHPs from
the same model line. DOE assumed that this cost difference would be
applied to the baseline efficiency level and would remain constant at
incremental efficiency levels. For the remaining larger cooling
capacity equipment classes, DOE estimated the MPCs based on catalog
teardowns and information regarding the design options implemented at
each efficiency level scaled from the <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity
equipment class, as discussed in section V.C.1.b of this document.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (MSP) is
the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce.
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether a manufacturer
markup of 1.28, as used in September 2015 final rule, is appropriate
for SPVUs. 85 FR 22958, 22966 (April 24, 2020). On this topic, AHRI
commented that a manufacturer markup of 1.28 continues to be generally
appropriate for SPVUs. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8) Accordingly, DOE has
retained a manufacturer markup of 1.28 for this analysis.
Because the design options associated with each incremental
efficiency level involved increases in cabinet sizes, DOE also
estimated the incremental shipping cost at each efficiency level
separate from the MSP. More specifically, DOE estimated the per-unit
shipping costs based on the outer dimensions (including shipping
pallets) at each efficiency level, assuming the use of a typical 53-
foot straight-frame trailer with a storage volume of 4,240 cubic feet.
DOE notes that SPVAC and SPVHP at the same cooling capacity used the
same cabinet design and that the weight differential is typically small
between otherwise identical SPVACs and SPVHPs. For shipping of HVAC
equipment, the size threshold of a container is typically met before
the weight threshold. Accordingly, because SPVACs and SPVHPs use the
same cabinet size, DOE estimated the incremental shipping costs for
SPVACs and SPVHPs would be equivalent.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-
efficiency data (or ``curves'') in the form of IEER (and COP for
SPVHPs) versus MSP (in dollars). DOE developed separate cost-efficiency
curves for each equipment class. These results are presented in Table
V-11 through Table V-14. As discussed in section V.C.1.b of this
document, DOE did not analyze any higher efficiency levels for SPVUs
>=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity, because all units
available on the market incorporate the same design features and have
the same rated efficiency. As a result, DOE is not presenting any cost-
efficiency results for this equipment class. See Chapter 5 of the NOPR/
NOPD TSD for additional detail on the engineering analysis.
Table V-11--Cost-Efficiency Results SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental cost ($2021)
Efficiency level --------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPC MSP Shipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............................. ....................... ....................... .......................
EL 1................................. $296.57 $379.61 $42.67
EL 2................................. 1,261.63 1,614.88 57.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-12--Cost-Efficiency Results SPVHPs <65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental cost ($2021)
Efficiency level -----------------------------------------------
MPC MSP Shipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................ .............. .............. ..............
EL 1............................................................ $296.57 $379.61 $42.67
EL 2............................................................ 1,261.63 1,614.88 57.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75409]]
Table V-13--Cost-Efficiency Results SPVACs >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental cost ($2021)
Efficiency level -----------------------------------------------
MPC MSP Shipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................ .............. .............. ..............
EL 1............................................................ $360.18 $461.03 $161.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-14--Cost-Efficiency Results SPVHPs >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental cost ($2021)
Efficiency level -----------------------------------------------
MPC MSP Shipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................ .............. .............. ..............
EL 1............................................................ $360.18 $461.03 $161.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue-5: DOE requests comment on the cost-efficiency results. In
particular, DOE requests comment on the costs associated with the
design options analyzed, as well as the shipping costs associated with
each efficiency level.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the
distribution chain (e.g., retailer markups, distributor markups,
contractor markups) and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates for
the subject equipment derived in the engineering analysis to consumer
prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis 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.
In the September 2015 final rule (and set forth once again here),
DOE identified four distribution channels for SPVUs to describe how
this equipment passes from the manufacturer to the consumer. 80 FR
57438, 57461 (Sept. 23, 2015).
The first two distribution channels are used in the new
construction market:
Manufacturer [rarr] HVAC Distributor \20\[rarr] Modular Building
Manufacturer [rarr] Modular Building Distributor [rarr] End User
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the 2015 final rule, the second step in the distribution
channel was designated as HVAC Distributor or Manufacturer
Representative. Subsequently, DOE has determined that these markups
are the same, so this step in the channel is now simply referred to
as HVAC Distributor for consistency with the other HVAC product
markups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer [rarr] HVAC Distributor [rarr] Modular Building
Manufacturer [rarr] General Contractor [rarr] End User
The other two distribution channels are used in the replacement
market:
Manufacturer [rarr] HVAC Distributor [rarr] Modular Building
Distributor [rarr] End User
Manufacturer [rarr] HVAC Distributor [rarr] Mechanical Contractor
[rarr] End User
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE requested information on the existence
of any distribution channels other than the four distribution channels
identified in the September 2015 final rule. DOE also requested data on
the fraction of SPVU sales that go through each of the four identified
distribution channels, as well as the fraction of sales through any
other identified channels. DOE also requested comment on its approach
to estimating markups and any financial data available that would
assist the Department in developing markups for the various segments of
the SPVU distribution channels. 85 FR 22958, 22966 (April 24, 2020).
On this topic, AHRI and NEEA commented that there are more SPVU
distribution channels than the four identified in the September 2015
final rule, although the four from the previous rule make up the
majority of the market. AHRI and NEEA stated that SPVUs are also
commonly installed in other non-modular applications such as multi-
family housing, residential care, lodging, and other applications, and,
therefore, those distribution channels would differ from the four used
in the September 2015 final rule. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8; NEEA, No. 6 at
p. 3) For this reason, AHRI recommended that DOE should add the
following three distribution channels for SPVUs. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8)
Manufacturer [rarr] Sales Representative [rarr] HVAC Distributor [rarr]
End User
Manufacturer [rarr] End User (National Account)
Manufacturer [rarr] Sales Representative [rarr] General Contractor
[rarr] End User
AHRI did not provide the fraction of overall SPVU sales that travel
through each of these new distribution channels.
As discussed in section III.A of this document, DOE updated the
definitions pertaining to SPVUs in the November 2022 Test Procedure
Final Rule so as to distinguish between commercial SPVUs and consumer
central air conditioners. DOE notes that many of the products currently
certified as SPVUs that are marketed for multi-family and lodging
applications are being misclassified and should be properly classified
as central air conditioners. DOE understands that the distribution
channels for this equipment would be different than that of SPVUs used
in modular buildings, and the Department believes that the distribution
channels suggested by AHRI and NEEA fall in this category. To
reiterate, central air conditioners that are misclassified as SPVUs are
not included in this NOPR/NOPD, so, therefore, DOE did not adopt any of
the additional distribution channels suggested by commenters to its
analysis for this NOPR.
In summary, for this NOPR/NOPD, DOE considered the four
distribution channels shown in Table V-15. The estimated percentages of
the total sales in the new construction and replacement markets for
each of the four distribution channels is listed in the bottom row of
Table V-15.
[[Page 75410]]
Table V-15--Distribution Channels for SPVU Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New construction New construction Replacement Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer......................... Manufacturer........... Manufacturer........... Manufacturer.
HVAC Distributor..................... HVAC Distributor....... HVAC Distributor....... HVAC Distributor.
Modular Building Manufacturer........ Modular Building Modular Building Mechanical Contractor.
Manufacturer. Distributor.
Modular Building Distributor......... General Contractor.....
Consumer............................. Consumer............... Consumer............... Consumer.
12.5%................................ 12.5%.................. 37.5%.................. 37.5%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once these distribution channels were developed, DOE developed
baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution
chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of equipment 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
operating profit before and after new or amended standards.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant
equipment is typically higher than the price of baseline equipment,
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 in markets that are
reasonably competitive, it is unlikely that standards would lead to
a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE updated the sources used in the September 2015 final rule to
derive markups for each step of the distribution channel with the
following sources: (1) the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey \22\ to
develop HVAC and Modular Building wholesaler markups; (2) the Air
Conditioning Contractors of America's (ACCA) ``2005 Financial Analysis
for the HVACR Contracting Industry'' \23\ and 2017 U.S. Census Bureau
economic data \24\ to develop mechanical contractor markups; (3) 2017
U.S. Census Bureau economic data for the commercial and institutional
building construction industry to develop general contractor markups;
\25\ and (4) the U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Survey of
Manufacturers.\26\ The overall markup is the product of all the markups
(baseline or incremental markups) for the different steps within a
distribution channel. Replacement channels include sales taxes, which
were calculated based on State sales tax data reported by the Sales Tax
Clearinghouse.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report,
NAICS 4236: Household Appliances and Electrical and Electronic Goods
Merchant Wholesalers (2017) (Available at: www.census.gov/wholesale/) (Last accessed June 9, 2022).
\23\ ``2005 Financial Analysis for the HVACR Contracting
Industry,'' Air Conditioning Contractors of America (2005) (Last
accessed June 9, 2022).
\24\ ``Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors.
Sector 23: 238220. Construction: Industry Series, Preliminary
Detailed Statistics for Establishments, 2017,'' U.S. Census Bureau
(2017) (Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-23.html) (Last accessed June 9, 2022).
\25\ ``2017 Economic Census, Construction Industry Series and
Wholesale Trade Subject Series,'' U.S. Census Bureau (Available at:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-23.html) (Last accessed June 9, 2022).
\26\ U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Manufacturers
(Available at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data.html) (Last accessed: June 9, 2022).
\27\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse (Available at: https://thestc.com/)
(Last accessed June 9, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD provides details on DOE's
development of markups for SPVUs.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of SPVUs at different efficiencies in representative
commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of
increased SPVU efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range
of energy use of SPVUs (unit energy consumption (UEC)) in the field
(i.e., as they are actually used by commercial consumers). The energy
use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed,
particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in
consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or
new standards.
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE analyzed the energy
consumption of SPVUs using a whole building energy simulation approach
for three types of commercial buildings: modular offices, modular
schools, and telecommunication structures. The annual energy use was
simulated using Energy Plus.\28\ 80 FR 57438, 57462 (Sept. 23, 2015).
For this analysis, DOE developed three prototypical building models to
simulate modular offices, modular schools, and telecommunications
structures. For offices and schools, a 1,568 ft\2\ wood-frame structure
was developed with performance characteristics (lighting density,
ventilation, envelope, economizer usage) meeting the requirements of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. Schedules and load profiles were taken from
the DOE commercial reference buildings \29\ for primary schools and
small offices. For telecommunications shelters, a 240 ft\2\ precast
concrete structure was developed. These shelters were assumed to
operate with a constant thermal load of 6.86 kW (23,400 Btu/h) in all
hours of the year, thus requiring year round cooling. 80 FR 57438,
57462 (Sept. 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ EnergyPlus is a whole building simulation program used to
model cooling and heating loads. (Available at: https://energyplus.net/) (Last accessed August 15, 2022).
\29\ For more information, please refer to the DOE Commercial
Reference Buildings web pages for small offices (https://www.energy.gov/eere/downloads/reference-buildings-building-type-small-office) and primary schools (https://www.energy.gov/eere/downloads/reference-buildings-building-type-primary-school).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the April 2020 RFI, DOE recounted the analytical process to
determine energy use taken for the September 2015 SPVU final rule and
requested comment on using that approach in the current rulemaking, as
well as input on any necessary modifications to such approach.
On that topic, AHRI suggested that after the draft AHRI Standard
390 is adopted, DOE should conduct a simulation approach that aligns
more with an IEER analysis, rather than following the analysis for the
September 2015 final rule (based on the EER metric). AHRI supported
DOE's assumption that telecom cooling loads are constant throughout the
year, and the commenter agreed that the telecom cooling loads used in
the September 2015 final rule were reasonable. Regarding economizer
usage in telecommunications structures, AHRI commented that economizers
were assumed to be present in 50 percent of the SPVU market in the IEER
analysis, but the organization pointed out that ASHRAE Standard 90.1
and California
[[Page 75411]]
title 24 have existing and proposed economizer requirements, some by
climate zone. (AHRI, No. 9 at pp. 8-9)
In response, DOE notes that it used the same building prototypes
and loads that were used to establish the IEER metric when developing
the annual unit energy consumption of SPVUs in this NOPR. Regarding
economizers, DOE notes that the ASHRAE economizer requirements apply to
systems with cooling capacities >54,000 Btu/h.\30\ The representative
capacity for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h in this NOPR/NOPD is 36,000 Btu/h, and
units at this capacity make up over 95 percent of SPVU shipments;
therefore, DOE did not make changes to the cooling loads (the same as
those used to develop AHRI 390), as it would have had little to no
impact on average unit energy consumption of SPVUs. California title 24
imposes economizer requirements on covered equipment, and the 2022
amendments to that law reduce the cooling capacity of the equipment
subject to those provisions to 33,000 Btu/h.\31\ DOE notes that the
cooling operating hours in southern California would be reduced by this
new building code, leading to lower UECs. Given the already very
negative LCC savings, DOE did not make adjustments to the cooling
operating hours for southern California, as a reduction in the UEC
would only reduce LCC savings further, and accordingly, it would not be
likely to change DOE's tentative decision to proceed with a
determination that more-stringent energy conservation standards for
SPVUs are not warranted at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, p 99.
\31\ See https://title24stakeholders.com/measures/cycle-2022/hvac-controls/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA commented that DOE should update its energy use analysis to
include the deployment of SPVUs in other types of commercial buildings
beyond modular buildings. In support of its recommendation, NEEA cites
the 2019 Commercial Building Stock Assessment,\32\ a regional dataset
of commercial buildings in the Pacific Northwest, which shows that
SPVUs are used in residential care facilities, lodging facilities, and
one warehouse. (NEEA, No. 6 at p. 3) Similarly, AHRI also suggested
that DOE should add multi-family and lodging buildings in the energy
use analysis. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Available at: https://neea.org/data/commercial-building-stock-assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section III.A of this document, DOE updated the
definitions of SPVUs in the November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule to
distinguish between commercial SPVUs and consumer central air
conditioners. DOE notes that many of the products currently certified
as SPVUs that are marketed for non-modular applications are being
misclassified and should be classified as central air conditioners.
Therefore, DOE did not add any further building types to the energy use
analysis for SPVUs.
In the 2015 final rule, DOE used hourly energy use simulations to
model the energy use of SPVUs in modular offices, modular schools, and
telecommunications structures.\33\ The IEER metric was developed by the
AHRI-390 committee using the load profiles from DOE's 2015 final rule
simulations in 15 cities, each representing an International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) climate zone. For telecommunications
structures, the SPVUs were modeled both with and without economizers.
As discussed previously, the IEER metric captures the cooling
efficiency of SPVUs at four load conditions: A--100% load; B--75% load;
C--50% load, and D--25% load. DOE calculated the percentage of full
load by dividing the hourly cooling load by the design day cooling
capacity of the SPVU by building type and climate zone. DOE then binned
the hours into one of the four IEER load conditions based on the
percentage of design day load as shown in Table V-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ For more detail on the hourly energy use simulations,
please refer to chapter 7 of the 2015 final rule TSD (Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0041-0027).
Table V-16--IEER Load Bins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEER load condition Percentage of design day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--100%................................... 97% to 100%.
B--75%.................................... 62.5% to 97%.
C--50%.................................... 37.5% to 62.5%.
D--25%.................................... 0 to 37.5%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooling UECs were calculated by multiplying the hours in each bin
by the estimated power and then summing the electricity use of the four
bins for each building type, in each climate zone. The baseline Heating
UECs for SPVHPs were taken from the September 2015 final rule, and from
that baseline, heating UECs for higher efficiency levels were scaled by
the change in COP.
DOE used county-level population data from the U.S. Census
Bureau,\34\ along with a Pacific Northwest Laboratory report,\35\ that
assigned a climate zone to each county in the U.S. to develop
population weighting factors for each climate zone. Next, DOE used the
county-level population data and climate zones to determine the
weighted-average UEC for each Census Division, with Census Division 9
split into two regions: (1) California and (2) the remaining States of
Census Division 9 (Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and Alaska). The
resulting UECs represent the average SPVU cooling and heating energy
use, by building type and Census Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Available at: www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html#par_textimage_70769902 (Last
accessed April 1, 2022).
\35\ Available at: www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/ba_climate_region_guide_7.3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 7 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD provides details on DOE's energy use
analysis for SPVUs.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
SPVUs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and
an increase in purchase cost. 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,
maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of purchase (i.e., the anticipated
year of compliance with new or amended standards) 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 SPVUs 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.
[[Page 75412]]
For each considered efficiency level in each SPVU equipment class,
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP in modular schools, modular offices, and
telecom structures and then combined to develop aggregate results. As
stated previously, DOE developed a sample of SPVU users by Census
Division based on simulation data that was used to develop the IEER
metric. For each Census Division, DOE determined the average energy
consumption for an SPVU in a modular school, modular office, and
telecom structure and the appropriate electricity price. By developing
a sample of UECs by building type and Census Division, the analysis
captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices
associated with the use of SPVUs.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the equipment--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups,
distributor markups, contractor markups, and sales taxes--and
installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and
the anticipated year that compliance with new or amended standards is
required. DOE created distributions of values for equipment 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 SPVU user samples. The
model calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level
for 10,000 scenarios 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, equipment efficiency is chosen based
on its probability. If the chosen equipment efficiency is greater than
or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration,
the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that an SPVU owner is not impacted
by that standard level. By accounting for SPVU owners who already
purchase more-efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the potential
benefits from increasing equipment efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of SPVUs as if
each were to purchase a new SPVU in the expected year of required
compliance with amended standards. Amended standards would apply to
SPVUs manufactured on and after the date that is one year after the
date of publication of any new or amended standard in the Federal
Register. (See section VI.B.4 of this document for discussion of DOE's
calculation of lead time for this rulemaking.) At this time, DOE
estimates publication of a final rule for amended SPVU energy
conservation standards in 2024. Therefore, for purposes of its
analysis, DOE used 2025 as the first year of compliance with any
amended standards for SPVUs.
Table V-17 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further related discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model,
as well as all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in
chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
Table V-17--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Cost.................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer, contractor, and
distributor markups and sales tax,
as appropriate. A constant price
trend was used to project equipment
costs.
Installation Costs................ Typical installation costs are
generally not expected to vary by
efficiency level; therefore, DOE
did not include installation costs
in the LCC analysis. However,
replacement installations at EL 2
for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h require a
conversion curb, so this cost was
included at EL 2 for replacement
installations.
Annual Energy Use................. The binned hours in each IEER load
bin are multiplied by the power
consumption at each of the four
IEER load conditions.
Variability: Census Division and
Building Type
Energy Prices..................... Electricity: Based on Edison
Electric Institute data of average
and marginal prices.
Variability: Regional energy prices
by census division, with census
division 9 separated into
California and the rest of the
census division.
Energy Price Trends............... Based on AEO 2022 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs...... Maintenance costs do not change by
efficiency level.
Annualized repair costs determined
using RS Means in the 2015 final
rule, costs updated to 2021 dollars
using GDP deflator. The materials
portion of annualized repair costs
scale with the increase in MPC.
Product Lifetime.................. Average: 15 years
Discount Rates.................... Commercial discount rates for
schools, industrial, offices and
utilities (telecom). The approach
involves estimating the cost of
capital of companies that purchase
SPVU equipment.
Compliance Date................... 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD
TSD.
1. Equipment Cost
To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline equipment and higher-efficiency equipment, because DOE applies
an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency equipment.
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE explained its rationale for
using a constant price trend to project the equipment prices in the
compliance year. 80 FR 57438, 57466 (Sept. 23, 2015). DOE maintained
this approach for this NOPR/NOPD and used a constant trend for
equipment prices between 2021 (the year for which MPCs were developed)
and 2025 (the anticipated compliance year of amended standards). The
constant trend is based on a historical time series of the inflation-
adjusted (deflated) Producer Price Index (PPI) for all other
miscellaneous refrigeration and air conditioning equipment between 1990
[[Page 75413]]
and 2021.\36\ The deflated PPI does not indicate a long term upward or
downward trend, and, therefore, DOE maintained a constant price trend
for SPVUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Available at: https://www.bls.gov/ppi/ (Last accessed March
25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on equipment costs, please refer to chapter 8
of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the equipment. DOE determined
that the labor required for typical installation would not change by
EL, and, therefore, DOE did not include typical installation costs in
this analysis. However, DOE notes that replacement installation at EL 2
would require a conversion curb, so, therefore, an installation cost is
included for replacement installation at EL 2 for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h.
For more information on installation costs, please refer to chapter
8 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each Census Division and building type, DOE determined the
annual energy consumption of an SPVU at different efficiency levels
using the approach described previously in section V.E of this
document.
For more information on annual energy consumption, please refer to
chapter 7 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
4. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity price reflects the cost to a consumer
of a kilowatt-hour at the highest level of consumption, it provides a
better representation than average electricity prices of the value of
saving electricity via more efficient equipment. Therefore, DOE applied
average electricity prices for the energy use of the equipment
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other
efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2021 using data from Edison
Electric Institute (EEI) Typical Bills and Average Rates reports.\37\
Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual
report presents typical monthly electric bills and average kilowatt-
hour costs to the customer as charged by investor-owned utilities. With
these data, DOE calculated commercial-sector electricity prices using
the methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2019).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Available at: https://netforum.eei.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?WebCode=COEPubSearch&pager=12 (Last accessed April
14, 2022).
\38\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki (2019) Non-residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203 (Available at: ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices) (Last accessed Jan. 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector and
region. For a given product, electricity prices are chosen to be
consistent with the way the consumer economic and energy use
characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis. To measure the
baseline energy cost for SPVUs, DOE used the average annual electricity
prices for large commercial customers for modular schools and offices,
and DOE used average annual electricity prices for small commercial
customers for telecommunications structures. Marginal annual
electricity prices for large commercial and small commercial customers
were used to measure the operating cost savings from higher-efficiency
SPVUs. See chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD for details.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2021
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for
each of the nine Census Divisions from the Reference Case in AEO 2022,
which has an end year of 2050.\39\ Because extended long-term price
trends are more uncertain, DOE kept the energy price constant at the
2050 level for the years after 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050
(Available at: www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/) (Last accessed May 9,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing equipment
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the proper operation of the equipment. In
the September 2015 final rule, because data were not available to
indicate how maintenance costs vary with equipment efficiency, DOE
assumed maintenance costs are constant across each EL by equipment
class. For repairs, DOE developed an annualized repair cost estimate,
using repair cost data from RS Means,\40\ assuming that a repair takes
place in year 10 and that the equipment lifetime is 15 years. DOE
scaled the materials portion of repair costs with the increase in the
average retail price to project repair costs of higher-efficiency
SPVUs. 80 FR 57438, 57466-57467 (Sept. 23, 2015). DOE used average
annualized repair costs of $173.50 for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h and $212 for
SPVUs >65,000 and < 135,000 Btu/h in the 2015 final rule.\41\ DOE
requested comment on SPVU maintenance and repair costs in the April
2020 RFI. 85 FR 22958, 22967 (April 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ RS Means CostWorks 2014, R.S. Means Company, Inc. (2013)
(Available at: www.meanscostworks.com/) (Last accessed Feb. 27,
2014).
\41\ Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Single Package Vertical Units,
chapter 8 (Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0041-0027).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this topic, AHRI confirmed that maintenance costs are not likely
to differ between baseline and higher-efficiency products, but the
commenter stated that the cost for replacement parts will be higher for
higher-efficiency products. AHRI did not have any information on
failure rates and said that the repair/replace decision is usually
based on installation location (e.g., SPVUs in telecommunications
structures are more likely to be replaced, whereas SPVUs in school
systems are more likely to be repaired). (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 9)
As mentioned previously, because maintenance costs do not vary by
EL, DOE did not consider maintenance costs in this analysis. DOE
updated the annual repair cost in the September 2015 final rule to 2021
dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator \42\ and scaled the
materials portion of repair costs by the increase in MPC for higher ELs
in this NOPR/NOPD. The annualized repair cost was applied to all SPVUs
as an annual operating cost in the LCC and PBP analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF
(Last accessed May 9, 2022). A price deflator of 114.2 was used to
adjust the previous costs (in 2014$) to 2021$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on repair and maintenance costs, please refer
to chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
6. Product Lifetime
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE used a distribution with a
minimum lifetime of 10 years and a maximum of 25 years, which yielded
an average SPVU life of 15 years. (DOE based these distribution
estimates on a review of a range of packaged cooling equipment lifetime
estimates found in published studies and online documents, because the
data did not distinguish between classes of SPVU equipment.) 80 FR
57438, 57467 (Sept. 23, 2015). DOE requested comment on this approach
in the April 2020 RFI. 85 FR 22958, 22968 (April 24, 2020).
In response, AHRI commented that the lifetime estimate from the
September 2015 final rule is reasonable,
[[Page 75414]]
and the commenter stated that it does not expect SPVU lifetime to vary
by equipment class, efficiency, or end use. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 9)
In this NOPR/NOPD, DOE used assumed that 14.6 percent of SPVUs
would retire per year between years 11 and 15 and afterwards 2.7
percent of SPVUs would retire through year 25.
For more information on equipment lifetime, please refer to chapter
8 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
7. Discount Rates
DOE's method for deriving discount rates for commercial entities
views the purchase of a higher-efficiency appliance as an investment
that yields a stream of energy cost savings. DOE derived the discount
rates for the LCC analysis by estimating the cost of capital for
companies or public entities that purchase SPVUs. For private firms,
the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC) is commonly used to
estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical
company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity
capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted
average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt financing, as
estimated from financial data for publicly-traded firms in the sectors
that purchase SPVUs.\43\ As discount rates can differ across
industries, DOE estimates separate discount rate distributions for a
number of aggregate sectors with which elements of the LCC building
sample can be associated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Modigliani, F. and M. H. Miller, The Cost of Capital,
Corporations Finance and the Theory of Investment, American Economic
Review (1958) 48(3): pp. 261-297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this analysis, DOE estimated the cost of capital of companies
that purchase SPVU equipment. DOE used the discount rates for
healthcare and industrial sectors for the modular offices, education
sector discount rates for modular schools, and the utility sector
discount rates for telecommunications shelters.
For more information on discount rates, please refer to chapter 8
of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
8. 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 equipment efficiencies under the no-
new-standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards).
In the present case, DOE estimated the current energy efficiency
distribution of SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h in terms of IEER, with 62 percent
at the baseline, 27 percent at EL 1, and 11 percent at EL 2. For SPVUs
>65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, DOE estimates that 53 percent of the market
is at the baseline and that 47 percent is at EL 1. The estimated market
shares for the no-new-standards case for SPVUs are shown in chapter 8
of the NOPR/NOPD TSD.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it
takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-
efficient equipment, compared to baseline equipment, through operating
cost savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the equipment
mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in
reduced operating expenses.
The PBP calculation for each efficiency level considers the change
in total installed cost of the equipment and the change in the first-
year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline equipment.
DOE refers to this as a ``simple PBP'' because it does not consider
changes over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses
the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that energy price trends,
repair costs, and discount rates are not used.
For more information on PBP, please refer to chapter 8 of the NOPR/
NOPD TSD.
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for SPVUs.
Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the NOPR/
NOPD TSD supporting this document.
A. Economic Impacts on SPVU Consumers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts of potential amended standards at
more-stringent levels on SPVU consumers by calculating the LCC savings
and the PBP at each considered EL. Inputs used for calculating the LCC
and PBP include total installed costs (i.e., equipment price plus
installation costs) and operating costs (calculated using annual energy
use, energy prices, energy price trends, repair costs, and maintenance
costs). The LCC calculation also uses product lifetime and a discount
rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPR/NOPD TSD provides detailed information on
the LCC and PBP analyses.
Table VI-1 through Table VI-4 show the LCC and PBP results for the
ELs considered in this analysis. There are no results for SPVUs >=
135,000 Btu/h and < 240,000 Btu/h because there are no efficiency
levels above the baseline. Note that the simple payback is measured
relative to the baseline product. The LCC savings are measured relative
to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the
compliance year (see section V.F.8 of this document). The LCC savings
refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a given EL.
Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or above a
given EL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases
(negative LCC savings) at a given EL experience a net cost.
Table VI-1--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback period
Efficiency level LCC savings (2021$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.......................................................... -246 12.3
EL 2.......................................................... -2,179 21.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI-2--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for SPVHPs <65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback period
Efficiency level LCC savings (2021$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.......................................................... -608 30.1
[[Page 75415]]
EL 2.......................................................... -1,939 17.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI-3--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for SPVACs >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback period
Efficiency level LCC savings (2021$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.......................................................... 92 8.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI-4--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for SPVHPs >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback period
Efficiency level LCC savings (2021$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.......................................................... -703 20.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed Determination
EPCA specifies that for any commercial and industrial equipment
addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), which includes SPVUs, DOE
may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the
level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ``clear and
convincing evidence'' shows that a more-stringent standard would result
in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) The ``clear and convincing'' evidentiary
threshold applies both when DOE is triggered by ASHRAE action and when
DOE conducts a six-year-lookback rulemaking, with the latter being the
basis for the current proceeding. In light of these statutory criteria,
DOE conducted an assessment of whether the current energy conservation
standards for SPVUs should be replaced with more-stringent standards.
DOE's tentative conclusions are set forth in the paragraphs that
follow.
1. Technological Feasibility
DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially-available
products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Per
the technology options discussed in section V.A.2 of this document, DOE
has tentatively determined, based on clear and convincing evidence,
that more-stringent energy conservation standards for SPVUs would be
technologically feasible.
2. Economic Justification
In determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the seven statutory factors discussed in
section II.A of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II); 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
One of those seven factors is the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the product in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or
maintenance expenses of the products that are likely to result from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) This factor is typically
assessed using the LCC and PBP analysis.
DOE conducted an LCC analysis to estimate the net costs and
benefits to users from increased efficiency in the considered SPVUs.
The LCC savings are negative at nearly all ELs considered in this
analysis (see Table VI-1 through Table VI-4). The one EL with positive
LCC savings is EL 1 for SPVACs >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, which
represents less than 3 percent of total SPVU shipments. Given the
highly negative results for all other product classes, which make up
over 97 percent of SPVU shipments, the LCC savings across all SPVUs
product classes would be negative on a weighted average basis. Based on
these findings, DOE has tentatively determined that the economic impact
of more-stringent standards on the consumers of the equipment subject
to the standard, which is one the seven factors used to evaluate
economic justification, would be strongly negative.
Because of the importance DOE places on the economic impact of
potential standards on consumers, DOE did not explicitly analyze the
other factors that it typically considers in determining economic
justification, including the projected quantity of energy savings
likely to result directly from amended standards.
3. Significant Additional Energy Savings
DOE has tentatively determined that quantification of energy
savings from potential amended standards is not necessary if there is
strong evidence that such standards would not be economically
justified.
4. Summary
DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent
than the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if
``clear and convincing evidence'' shows that a more-stringent standard
would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and economically justified. Based on the
negative LCC savings at all but one EL for each equipment class, and
weighted average negative LCC savings across all SPVUs, DOE has
tentatively determined that it lacks ``clear and convincing'' evidence
that more-stringent standards would be economically justified for
SPVUs. Therefore, DOE is proposing to determine that more-stringent
energy conservation standards for SPVUs are not warranted. DOE will
consider and respond to all comments received on this proposed
determination when issuing any final determination or
[[Page 75416]]
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR).
As a separate matter, DOE is proposing to amend the energy
conservation standards for SPVUs so as to be based on the IEER and COP
metrics that are of equivalent stringency as the current Federal
standard levels (and equivalent to the current standard levels
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019). The proposed standards are
presented in Table VI-5. These proposed standards, if adopted, would
apply to all SPVUs manufactured in, or imported into, the United States
starting on the compliance date, as discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Table VI-5--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for SPVUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Proposed standard level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h...................... IEER = 12.5
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h...................... IEER = 12.5
COP = 3.3
SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. IEER = 10.3
SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. IEER = 10.3
COP = 3.0
SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. IEER = 11.2
SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. IEER = 11.2
COP = 3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In instances in which DOE adopts more-stringent standards under its
6-year-lookback review authority, EPCA states that any such standard
shall apply to equipment manufactured after a date that is the latter
of the date three years after publication of the final rule
establishing such standard or six years after the effective date for
the current standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv)) As discussed, DOE
has tentatively determined that it does not have clear and convincing
evidence to justify adopting more-stringent standards for SPVUs, so,
therefore, the three-year and/or six-year lead time period would not
apply.
Instead, the proposed energy conservation standards for SPVUs are
of equivalent stringency but based on a new metric (i.e., IEER), and as
discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE amended the SPVU test
procedure to include provisions for measuring IEER in the November 2022
Test Procedure Final Rule. As required by EPCA, beginning 360 days
following the final test procedure rule, all representations of energy
efficiency and energy use must be made in accordance with that amended
test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) In this case, DOE is proposing
to apply a one-year lead time, similar to that provided for the test
procedure update addressing IEER, such that the compliance date for the
proposed amended energy conservation standards for SPVUs would be 360
days after the publication in the Federal Register of the final rule
for amended energy conservation standards based on the IEER metric, if
adopted.
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to: (1)
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563
requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble,
this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this document under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February
19, 2003. DOE has tentatively concluded that this proposed rule/
proposed determination will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this
determination is as follows:
For manufacturers of SPVU equipment, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) considers a business entity to be a ``small
business'' if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a
threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. SPVU
manufacturers, who produce the equipment covered by this document, are
classified under NAICS code 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air
Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.'' In 13 CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250
employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business
for this category. This employee threshold includes all employees in a
business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE identified manufacturers using DOE's Compliance Certification
[[Page 75417]]
Database (CCD),\44\ manufacturer interviews, the California Energy
Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System
(MAEDbS),\45\ and information from prior DOE rulemakings. Additionally,
DOE used publicly-available information and subscription-based market
research tools (e.g., reports from Dun & Bradstreet) \46\ to determine
headcount, revenue, and geographic presence of the small businesses.
DOE has initially identified a total of five companies that manufacture
SPVUs in the United States. DOE screened out companies that do not meet
the definition of ``small business'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
Of these five companies, DOE identified one as a domestic small
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at:
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (Last accessed May 2, 2022).
\45\ California Energy Commission's MAEDbS is available at:
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx (Last
accessed May 2, 2022).
\46\ Dun & Bradstreet reports are available at:
app.dnbhoovers.com (Last access May 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this document, DOE proposes to adopt energy conservation
standards for SPVUs based on the Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio
(IEER) metric for SPVACs and SPVHPs, and the Coefficient of Performance
(COP) metric for SPVHPs. In the November 2022 Test Procedure Final
Rule, DOE amended the test procedures for SPVUs to incorporate by
reference AHRI 390-2021, which added a seasonal metric that includes
part-load cooling performance--the IEER metric. DOE has determined that
the IEER metric is more representative of the cooling efficiency for
SPVUs on an annual basis than the current EER market. DOE conducted a
crosswalk analysis to develop IEER levels that are of equivalent
stringency to the current EER standard levels. DOE has tentatively
determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence to support
adoption of amended standards for SPVUs (in terms of IEER and COP) that
are more stringent than the current standards for SPVUs, because the
Department has tentatively concluded that such standards would not be
economically justified.
Therefore, DOE determined that manufacturers would only incur costs
as result of this NOPR/NOPD if a manufacturer were not already testing
to AHRI 390-2021.\47\ However, in the November 2022 Test Procedure
Final Rule, DOE determined that it would be unlikely for manufacturers
to incur testing costs given that most SPVU manufacturers are AHRI
members, and that DOE is referencing the prevailing industry test
procedure that was established for use in AHRI's certification program.
Furthermore, DOE notes that the sole identified small business that
manufacturers SPVUs is an AHRI member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ DOE estimated the cost for this small business to re-rate
all models to be $30,200 while making use of an alternative
efficiency determination method (AEDM). DOE determined this cost to
represent less than 1 percent of annual revenue for the small,
domestic manufacturer of SPVUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE determined
that the test procedure impacts to manufacturers would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses. Therefore, on the basis of limited small entities affected
and the de minimis compliance burden, DOE certifies that this proposed
rule would not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of a IRFA is not
warranted. DOE will transmit a certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Issue-6: DOE requests comment on its assessment of impacts on
domestic, small manufacturers of SPVUs. Specifically, DOE requests
comment on its understanding that this proposed rule/proposed
determination will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
DOE's regulations pertaining to certification and compliance
activities ensure accurate and comprehensive information about the
energy and water use characteristics of covered products and covered
equipment sold in the United States. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.)
Manufacturers of all covered products and covered equipment, including
SPVUs, must submit a certification report before a basic model is
distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is
redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the
efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no
longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must
report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer
offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report
following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered
product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the
records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all
certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy
the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification
reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to date
efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
The collection-of-information requirement for certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance
Statement Energy/Water Conservation Standards for Appliances, is
currently valid and assigned to the certification reporting
requirements applicable to covered equipment, including SPVUs. Public
reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours
per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Revised certification data would be required for SPVU were this
NOPR/NOPD to be finalized as proposed; however, DOE is not proposing
amended certification or reporting requirements for SPVUs in this NOPR.
Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish certification
requirements and reporting for SPVUs under a separate rulemaking
regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will address
changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this NOPR/NOPD, DOE is proposing amended energy conservation
standards for SPVUs that would utilize a new cooling efficiency metric
(IEER); however, the amended standards, if adopted, would be of
equivalent stringency to the current Federal standards for SPVUs. DOE
is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; ``NEPA'') and
DOE's NEPA implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. DOE's
regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that
establish energy conservation standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021,
[[Page 75418]]
subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking
qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a rulemaking
that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in categorical
exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that
require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise meets the
requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR
1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final
rule.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule/proposed
determination and has tentatively determined that it would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the equipment that are the subject of this
proposed rule/proposed determination. States can petition DOE for
exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria,
set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule/proposed
determination meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C.
1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also
available at energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE examined this proposed rule/proposed determination according to
UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that it contains
neither a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate expected to
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year. As a
result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule/proposed
determination would not result in any takings that might require
compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at: www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule/proposed determination under the OMB and
DOE guidelines and has concluded
[[Page 75419]]
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which
does not propose to increase stringency beyond the current Federal
standard levels for SPVUs, is not a significant energy action because
it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Moreover,
it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by
the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14,
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer
review.\48\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
Because available data, models, and technological understanding have
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of
Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies to ascertain whether
modifications are needed to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is
in the process of evaluating the resulting report.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
\49\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards (Last accessed August 5, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Public Meeting Webinar
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines Participants are responsible for ensuring their
systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
NOPR/NOPD, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an
oral presentation at the public meeting webinar. Such persons may
submit requests to speak via email to the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program at: [email protected]. Persons
who wish to speak should include with their request a computer file in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that
briefly describes the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and
the topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a
daytime telephone number where they can be reached.
DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting
webinar and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the public meeting webinar. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the public meeting webinar and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants,
and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others.
[[Page 75420]]
Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar will accept additional
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or
modification of the procedures that may be needed for the proper
conduct of the public meeting webinar.
A transcript of the public meeting webinar will be included in the
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the
beginning of this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of
the transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule/proposed determination before or after the public
meeting, but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document. 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. With this instruction followed, 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 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).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
Issue-1: DOE requests comment on the proposed baseline IEER levels
for SPVUs, as well as comment on any aspect of its crosswalk analysis.
DOE continues to seek information which compares EER to IEER for the
SPVUs that are representative of the market baseline efficiency level
for all equipment classes.
Issue-2: DOE requests comment on the proposed technology options
for SPVUs. DOE also requests data on the potential improvement in IEER
and COP associated with these technology options.
Issue-3: DOE requests comment on the proposed baseline efficiency
levels and the design options associated with these levels.
Issue-4: DOE requests comment on the proposed incremental higher
efficiency levels for each equipment class. DOE requests data showing
the range of efficiencies based on IEER and COP available for SPVUs on
the market, as well as the design options associated with units at
different efficiency levels for each equipment class.
Issue-5: DOE requests comment on the cost-efficiency results. In
particular, DOE requests comment on the costs associated with the
design options analyzed, as well as the shipping costs associated with
each efficiency level.
Issue-6: DOE requests comment on its assessment of impacts on
domestic, small manufacturers of SPVUs.
[[Page 75421]]
Specifically, DOE requests comment on its understanding that this
proposed rule/proposed determination will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this proposed rulemaking that may not specifically be
identified in this document.
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking; notification of proposed determination.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on November
22, 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 Monday November 23, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C 2461 note.
0
2. Section 431.97 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.
* * * * *
(d) (1) Each single package vertical air conditioner and single
package vertical heat pump manufactured on and after October 9, 2015
(for models >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h) or October 9, 2016 (for
models >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h), or September 23, 2019 (for
models <65,000 Btu/h), but before (compliance date of final rule) must
meet the applicable minimum energy conservation standard level(s) set
forth in Table 9 of this section.
Table 9 to Sec. 431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single
Package Vertical Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
products
Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub- category Efficiency level manufactured on and
after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single package vertical air <65,000 Btu/h...... AC EER = 11.0......... September 23, 2019.
conditioners and single package HP EER = 11.0......... September 23, 2019.
vertical heat pumps, single- COP = 3.3..........
phase and three-phase.
Single package vertical air >=65,000 Btu/h and AC EER = 10.0......... October 9, 2015.
conditioners and single package <135,000 Btu/h. HP EER = 10.0......... October 9, 2015.
vertical heat pumps. COP = 3.0..........
Single package vertical air >=135,000 Btu/h and AC EER = 10.0......... October 9, 2016.
conditioners and single package <240,000 Btu/h. HP EER = 10.0......... October 9, 2016.
vertical heat pumps. COP = 3.0..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Each single package vertical air conditioner and single package
vertical heat pump manufactured on or after (compliance date of final
rule) must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in Table 10 of this section.
Table 10 to Sec. 431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single
Package Vertical Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
products
Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub- category Efficiency level manufactured on and
after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single package vertical air <65,000 Btu/h...... AC IEER = 12.5........ (compliance date of
conditioners and single package HP IEER = 12.5........ final rule).
vertical heat pumps, single- COP = 3.3..........
phase and three-phase.
Single package vertical air >=65,000 Btu/h and AC IEER = 10.3........ (compliance date of
conditioners and single package <135,000 Btu/h. HP IEER = 10.3........ final rule).
vertical heat pumps. COP = 3.0..........
Single package vertical air >=135,000 Btu/h and AC IEER = 11.2........ (compliance date of
conditioners and single package <240,000 Btu/h. HP IEER = 11.2........ final rule).
vertical heat pumps. COP = 3.0..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-26024 Filed 12-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
