[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28927-29000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10650]
[[Page 28927]]
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 95
May 16, 2012
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-
Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 28928]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029]
RIN 1904-AC47
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment:
Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial
Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its energy
conservation standards for small, large, and very large water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, and
variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps less than
17,000 Btu/h. DOE is adopting new energy conservation standards for
computer room air conditioners and VRF water-source heat pumps with a
cooling capacity at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000
Btu/h. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(EPCA), as amended, DOE must assess whether the uniform national
standards for these covered equipment need to be updated each time the
corresponding industry standard--the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1)--is amended,
which most recently occurred on October 29, 2010. The levels DOE is
adopting are the same as the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010. DOE has determined that the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 efficiency levels for the equipment types listed above are more
stringent than existing Federal energy conservation standards and will
result in economic and energy savings compared existing energy
conservation standards. Furthermore, DOE has concluded that clear and
convincing evidence does not exist, as would justify more-stringent
standard levels than the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
for any of the equipment classes. DOE is also updating the current
Federal test procedures or, for certain equipment, adopting new test
procedures to incorporate by reference the most current versions of the
relevant industry test procedures specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010. Furthermore, DOE is adopting additional test procedure provisions
to include with modification certain instructions from Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) operations
manuals in that organization's test procedures that would clarify the
application of the DOE test procedures and harmonize DOE testing with
the testing performed by industry.
DATES: This rule is effective July 16, 2012.
Compliance Dates:
See Table 1 of section II.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this final rule for the compliance dates associated with the
new/amended test procedures, the new/amended energy conservation
standards, and the representation requirements by equipment type.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July
16, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking is available for review at
www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the
index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EER
E-2011-BT-STD-0029. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7892. Email:
Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference
into part 431 the following standards:
American National Standards Institute Z21.47-2006 (ANSI
Z21.47-2006), ``Gas-Fired Central Furnaces,'' approved on July 27,
2006.
American National Standards Institute Z21.10.3-2011, (ANSI
Z21.10.3-2011), ``Gas Water Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters
With Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and
Instantaneous,'' approved on March 7, 2011.
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2006 and ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 can be obtained
from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th
Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to http://www.ansi.org.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
Standard 210/240-2008 (AHRI 210/240-2008), ``Performance Rating of
Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,'' approved
by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by addendum 1 in June 2011 and
addendum 2 in March 2012.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
Standard 340/360-2007 (AHRI 340/360-2007), ``Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by
addendum 1 in December 2010 and addendum 2 in June 2011.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
Standard 390-2003 (AHRI 390-2003), dated 2003, ``Performance Rating of
Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps.''
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
Standard 1230-2010 (AHRI 1230-2010), ``Performance Rating of Variable
Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on August 2, 2010 and updated by addendum
1 in March 2011.
Copies of AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 340/360-2007, AHRI 390-2003, and
AHRI 1230-2010 can be obtained from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA
22201, (703) 524-8800, or go to http://www.ahrinet.org.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 127-2007, (ASHRAE 127-2007),
``Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room
Unitary Air
[[Page 28929]]
Conditioners,'' approved on June 28, 2007
Copies of ASHRAE 127-2007 can be obtained from American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie
Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329, (404) 636-8400, or go to http://www.ashrae.org.
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Standard 727-2006 (UL 727-
2006), ``Standard for Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces,'' approved
April 7, 2006.
Copies of UL 727-2006 can be obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (847)
272-8800, or go to http://www.ul.com.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Final Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
2. Previous Rulemaking Documents
C. Compliance Dates for Amended/New Federal Test Procedures,
Amended/New Federal Energy Conservation Standards, and
Representations for Certain ASHRAE Equipment
III. General Discussion of Comments Received
A. The Definition of ``Amendment'' With Respect to the
Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
B. DOE's Review of ASHRAE Equipment Independent of the ASHRAE
Standards Process
C. General Discussion of the Changes to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 and Determination of Scope
D. The Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
E. Coverage of Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating
Equipment Used Exclusively as Part of Industrial or Manufacturing
Processes
F. Definitions for Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems
IV. Test Procedure Amendments and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
B. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces and Commercial Water Heaters
C. Computer Room Air Conditioners
D. Variable Refrigerant Flow Air-Conditioning and Heating
Equipment
E. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments for Computer Room Air
Conditioners
A. Market Assessment
1. Definition of ``Computer Room Air Conditioner''
2. Equipment Classes
3. Review of Current Market for Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Trade Association Information
b. Manufacturer Information
c. Market Data
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Representative Input Capacities for Analysis
2. Baseline Equipment
3. Identification of Efficiency Information and Efficiency
Levels for Analysis
4. Pricing Data
5. Equipment Classes for Analysis and Extrapolation to
Unanalyzed Equipment Classes
6. Engineering Analysis Results
C. Markups To Determine Equipment Price
D. Energy Use Characterization
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
1. Approach
2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs
a. Equipment Prices
b. Installation Costs
c. Annual Energy Use
d. Electricity Prices
e. Maintenance Costs
f. Repair Costs
g. Equipment Lifetime
h. Discount Rate
3. Payback Period
F. National Impact Analysis
1. Approach
2. Shipments Analysis
3. Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasted Distribution of
Efficiencies
G. Emissions Analysis
H. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
1. Social Cost of Carbon
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
I. Other Issues
1. Compliance Dates of the Amended and New Energy Conservation
Standards
VI. Analytical Results
A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
B. Energy Savings and Economic Justification
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers
b. National Impact Analysis
C. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
D. Amended and New Energy Conservation Standards
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
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 Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
N. Congressional Notification
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Final Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291 et
seq.), as amended, requires DOE to consider amending the existing
Federal energy conservation standard for certain types of listed
commercial and industrial equipment (generally, commercial water
heaters, commercial packaged boilers, commercial air-conditioning and
heating equipment, and packaged terminal air conditioners and heat
pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, is amended with respect to such
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of equipment, EPCA
directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,\1\ DOE must adopt
amended energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a
determination that adoption of a more-stringent efficiency level as a
national standard would produce significant additional energy savings
and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the
efficiency levels specified in the
[[Page 28930]]
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not
later than 18 months after publication of the amended industry
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines that a
more-stringent standard is appropriate under the statutory criteria,
DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not later than 30
months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 on October 29, 2010, thereby triggering DOE's above-referenced
obligations pursuant to EPCA to determine for those equipment with
efficiency level changes beyond the current Federal standard, whether:
(1) The amended industry standard should be adopted; or (2) clear and
convincing evidence exists to justify more-stringent standard levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term
``amended'' in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided its
interpretation of what would constitute an ``amended standard'' in a
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2007
(hereafter referred to as the ``March 2007 final rule''). 72 FR
10038. In that rule, DOE stated that the statutory trigger requiring
DOE to adopt uniform national standards based on ASHRAE action is
for ASHRAE to change a standard for any of the equipment listed in
EPCA section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) by
increasing the energy efficiency level for that equipment type. Id.
at 10042. In other words, if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves
the standard level unchanged or lowers the standard, as compared to
the level specified by the national standard adopted pursuant to
EPCA, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to
consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A). DOE subsequently reiterated this position in a final
rule published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2009. 74 FR
36312, 36313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking on January 17, 2012
(January 2012 NOPR), in the Federal Register describing DOE's
determination of scope for considering new and amended energy
conservation standards with respect to certain heating, ventilating,
air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment addressed in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010. 77 FR 2356, 2366-79. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
amended its efficiency levels for small, large, and very large water-
cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners and variable
refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity less
than 17,000 Btu/h, and adopted new efficiency levels for variable
refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity equal
to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h,with and
without heat recovery. In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 expanded
its scope to include certain process cooling equipment, namely ``air
conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms'' (hereafter
referred to as ``computer room air conditioners''). ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010 also updated its referenced test procedures for several
equipment types.
In determining the scope of the rulemaking, DOE is statutorily
required to ascertain whether the revised ASHRAE efficiency levels have
become more stringent than the current Federal energy conservation
standard, thereby ensuring that any new amended national standard would
not result in ``backsliding,'' which is prohibited under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1). For those equipment classes for which ASHRAE set more-
stringent or new efficiency levels (i.e., small, large, and very large
water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable
refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either
less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and
less than 760,000 Btu/h, with and without heat recovery; and computer
room air conditioners), DOE analyzed the energy savings potential of
amended national energy conservation standards (at both the new ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 efficiency levels and more-stringent efficiency levels)
in the May 5, 2011 notice of data availability (NODA) (76 FR 25622) and
the January 17, 2012 NOPR (77 FR 2356). For equipment where more-
stringent standard levels than the ASHRAE efficiency levels would
result in significant energy savings (i.e., computer room air
conditioners), DOE analyzed the economic justification for more-
stringent levels in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2382-98 (Jan.
17, 2012).
The energy conservation standards being adopted in today's final
rule, which apply to small, large, and very large water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow water-
source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either less than 17,000 Btu/h
or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h,
with and without heat recovery; and computer room air conditioners,
satisfy all applicable requirements of EPCA and will achieve the
maximum improvements in energy efficiency that are technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE has
concluded that, based on the information presented and its analyses,
there is not clear and convincing evidence justifying adoption of more-
stringent efficiency levels for this equipment.
Thus, in accordance with the criteria discussed in this notice, DOE
is amending the energy conservation standards (or for certain equipment
adopting new standards) for small, large, and very large water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow
water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either less than 17,000
Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000
Btu/h, with and without heat recovery; and computer room air
conditioners by adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010. Pursuant to EPCA, the compliance date for amended
energy conservation standards based upon the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 is either two or three years after the effective date of the
requirement in the amended ASHRAE standard, depending on the type and
size of the equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) In the present
case, the amended standards apply to equipment manufactured on and
after the date either 2 or 3 years after the effective date specified
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, depending on the type of equipment. Table
I.1 presents the energy conservation standards that DOE is adopting in
today's final rule and their respective compliance dates.
Table I.1--Current and Amended/New Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Certain ASHRAE Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date
Amended or new Federal of amended/new
Equipment class Current Federal energy energy conservation Federal energy
conservation standard standard conservation
standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Water-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.5 EER..................... 12.1 EER............... 6/1/2013
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.3 EER..................... 11.9 EER............... 6/1/2013
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h,
All Other Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER..................... 12.5 EER............... 6/1/2014
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER..................... 12.3 EER............... 6/1/2014
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h,
All Other Heating.
[[Page 28931]]
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER..................... 12.4 EER............... 6/1/2014
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 10.8 EER..................... 12.2 EER............... 6/1/2014
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
All Other Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Evaporatively-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.5 EER..................... 12.1 EER............... 6/1/2013
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.3 EER..................... 11.9 EER............... 6/1/2013
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h,
All Other Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER..................... 12.0 EER............... 6/1/2014
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER..................... 11.8 EER............... 6/1/2014
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h,
All Other Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, 11.0 EER..................... 11.9 EER............... 6/1/2014
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, 10.8 EER..................... 11.7 EER............... 6/1/2014
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h,
All Other Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Refrigerant Flow Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water- 11.2 EER..................... 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP...... 10/29/2012
source, <17,000 Btu/h, without heat
recovery.
VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water- 11.2 EER..................... 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP...... 10/29/2012
source, <17,000 Btu/h, with heat
recovery.
VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water- N/A.......................... 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP...... 10/29/2013
source, >=135,000 and <760,000 Btu/
h, without heat recovery.
VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water- N/A.......................... 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP....... 10/29/2013
source, >=135,000 and <760,000 Btu/
h, with heat recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air Conditioner, air- N/A.......................... 2.20 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2012
cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. 2.09 SCOP (upflow).
Computer Room Air Conditioner, air- N/A.......................... 2.10 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 1.99 SCOP (upflow).
Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, air- N/A.......................... 1.90 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 1.79 SCOP (upflow).
Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water- N/A.......................... 2.60 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2012
cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. 2.49 SCOP (upflow).
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water- N/A.......................... 2.50 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 2.39 SCOP (upflow).
Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water- N/A.......................... 2.40 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 2.29 SCOP (upflow).
Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water- N/A.......................... 2.55 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2012
cooled with fluid economizer, 2.44 SCOP (upflow).
<65,000 Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water- N/A.......................... 2.45 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled with fluid economizer, 2.34 SCOP (upflow).
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water- N/A.......................... 2.35 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled with fluid economizer, 2.24 SCOP (upflow).
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A.......................... 2.50 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2012
cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. 2.39 SCOP (upflow).
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A.......................... 2.15 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 2.04 SCOP (upflow).
Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A.......................... 2.10 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 1.99 SCOP (upflow).
Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A.......................... 2.45 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2012
cooled with fluid economizer, 2.34 SCOP (upflow).
<65,000 Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A.......................... 2.10 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled with fluid economizer, 1.99 SCOP (upflow).
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A.......................... 2.05 SCOP (downflow), 10/29/2013
cooled with fluid economizer, 1.94 SCOP (upflow).
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28932]]
In addition, DOE is adopting amendments to its test procedures for
a number of ASHRAE equipment types, which manufacturers will be
required to use to certify compliance with energy conservation
standards mandated under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4) and 10 CFR
parts 429 and 431. Specifically, these amendments, which were proposed
in the January 2012 NOPR, update the citations and incorporations by
reference to the most recent version of the following industry
standards: (1) AHRI 210/240-2008 (Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment); (2) AHRI 340/360-2007
(Performance Rating of Unitary Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment); (3) UL 727-2006 (Standard for
Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces); (4) ANSI Z21.47-2006 (Standard
for Gas-Fired Central Furnaces); and (5) ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 \2\ (Gas
Water Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with Input Ratings
Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous). DOE is also
adopting three new test procedures for VRF equipment (AHRI 1230-2010),
computer room air conditioners (ASHRAE 127-2007), and single package
vertical units (AHRI 390-2003). In addition to harmonizing the test
procedures with the latest versions in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE also
reviewed each of these test procedures in their totality as part of
DOE's seven-year review required by EPCA. DOE is including several
additional provisions in its test procedures based on a review of AHRI
operations manuals. The additional provisions include an optional
``break-in'' period for testing for commercial air-conditioning and
heating equipment, which was proposed in the January 2012 NOPR (77 FR
2356, 2374 and 2378 (Jan. 17, 2012)), as well as provisions for setting
up the equipment (determining refrigerant charge and indoor air flow
quantity), allowing for manufacturer involvement and for the use of
correction factors for refrigerant line length in VRF testing, which
were proposed in DOE's March 2012 supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNOPR). 77 FR 16769, 16777-79 (March 22, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ At certain places in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE mistakenly
referred to ``ANSI Z.21.10.3-2006,'' which does not exist, so DOE
clarified in the March 2012 SNOPR that it meant to refer to ``ANSI
Z.21.10.3-2004'' in all instances where ANSI Z21.10.3-2006 was
mentioned in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 16769, 16779-80 (March 22,
2012). However, as explained in section IV.B of this final rule, DOE
has decided to adopt an updated version of that standard, ANSI
Z.21.10.3-2011, based on comments from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying today's final rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of energy
conservation standards for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air
conditioners, variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pump systems,
and computer room air conditioners.
A. Authority
Title III, Part C \3\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as
codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which includes the commercial heating, air-conditioning, and
water-heating equipment that is the subject of this rulemaking.\4\ In
general, this program addresses the energy efficiency of certain types
of commercial and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of the Act
specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labelling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information
and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\4\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Public Law 110-140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for
commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small,
large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged
terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers,
storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot
water storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy
conservation standards that generally correspond to the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as in effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e., ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-1989), for each type of covered equipment listed in 42
U.S.C. 6313(a). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA
2007) amended EPCA by adding definitions and setting minimum energy
conservation standards for single-package vertical air conditioners
(SPVACs) and single-package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(A)) The efficiency standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs
established by EISA 2007 correspond to the levels contained in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2004, which originated as addendum ``d'' to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2001.
In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy
efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to
consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for
each type of equipment listed, each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
amended with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For
each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
amended, DOE must publish in the Federal Register an analysis of the
energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards within
180 days of the amendment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs that DOE must adopt amended
standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless
clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of
a more-stringent level would produce significant additional energy
savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national
standard the efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard
90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 months after
publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE determines that a more-stringent
standard is justified under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), then it
must establish such more-stringent standard not later than 30 months
after publication of the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)) (In addition, DOE notes that pursuant to the EISA 2007
amendments to EPCA, under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), the agency must
periodically review its already-established energy conservation
standards for ASHRAE equipment. Under this requirement, the next review
that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six years from
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a
covered type of equipment.)
EISA 2007 also amended EPCA to require that DOE review the most
recently published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010) with respect to SPVACs and SPVHPs in accordance with the
procedures established for ASHRAE equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6).
(42 U.S.C.
[[Page 28933]]
6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE believes that this one-time requirement is
separate and independent from the requirement described in the
paragraph above for all ASHRAE products and that it requires DOE to
evaluate potential standards higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
level for single-package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, even
if the efficiency levels for SPVACs and SPVHPs have not changed since
the last version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1.\5\ DOE is conducting a
separate rulemaking to further evaluate the efficiency levels for this
equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Once DOE has completed its rulemaking obligations under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B), SPVACs and SPVHPs will be treated similar to
other ASHRAE equipment going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA also requires that if a test procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must update its test procedure to be
consistent with the amended test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
unless DOE determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably
designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency,
energy use, or estimated operating costs of the ASHRAE equipment during
a representative average use cycle. In addition, DOE must determine
that the amended test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4))
Additionally, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140) amended EPCA to require that at least once
every 7 years, DOE must conduct an evaluation of each test procedure
for any covered equipment and either amend the test procedure (if the
Secretary determines that the amended test procedure would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)-(3)) or publish notice in the Federal Register of any
determination not to amend a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A))
Under this requirement, DOE must review each test procedure for the
various types of ASHRAE equipment not later than December 19, 2014
(i.e., 7 years after the enactment of EISA 2007). Thus, the final rule
resulting from this rulemaking will satisfy the requirement to review
the test procedures for the certain types of ASHRAE equipment addressed
in this rulemaking (i.e., those equipment for which DOE has been
triggered) within seven years.
On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE officially released and made public
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. This action triggered DOE's obligations
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined above.
When considering the possibility of a more-stringent standard,
DOE's more typical rulemaking requirements under EPCA apply (i.e., a
determination of technological feasibility, economic justification, and
significant energy savings). For example, EPCA provides that in
deciding whether such a standard is economically justified, DOE must
determine, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, whether
the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in
the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result
directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that such standard would likely result in
the unavailability in the United States of 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 at the time of
the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy (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) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as
ASHRAE equipment, has two or more subcategories, DOE often specifies
more than one standard level. DOE generally will adopt a different
standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class
of products for any group of covered products that have the same
function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such
group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by
other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a
capacity or other performance-related feature which other products
within such type (or class) do not have and which justifies a higher or
lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In
determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different
standard for a group of products, DOE generally considers such factors
as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE
deems appropriate. In a rule prescribing such a standard, DOE includes
an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2); 6316(a)) DOE followed a similar
process in the context of today's rulemaking.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)).
Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 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
[[Page 28934]]
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 Executive Order 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 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,
DOE believes that today's final rule is consistent with these
principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by
law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.
Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and the range of impacts
analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy efficiency standard adopted
herein by DOE achieves maximum net benefits.
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
As noted above, ASHRAE released a new version of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 on October 29, 2010. The ASHRAE standard addresses efficiency
levels for many types of commercial heating, ventilating, air-
conditioning (HVAC), and water-heating equipment covered by EPCA.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 revised its efficiency levels for certain
commercial equipment and revised its scope to include additional
equipment, but for the remaining equipment, ASHRAE left in place the
preexisting levels (i.e., the efficiency levels specified in EPCA or
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007). Specifically, DOE
determined in the January 2012 NOPR that ASHRAE updated its efficiency
levels for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-
cooled commercial package air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow
(VRF) water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h; and VRF water-
source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than
760,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 also revised its scope to
include certain commercial equipment used for industrial and process
cooling, namely ``air conditioners and condensing units serving
computer rooms.'' 77 FR 2356, 2361-63 (Jan. 17, 2012).
In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated the following
referenced test procedures to the most recent version of the industry
standards: AHRI 210/240-2008 (small commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment); AHRI 340/360-2007 (large and very large
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment);
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727-2006 (oil-fired commercial warm-air
furnaces); ANSI Z21.47-2006 (gas- fired commercial warm-air furnaces);
and ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 \6\ (commercial water heaters). Lastly, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 specified new test procedures for certain equipment,
including: ASHRAE 127-2007 (computer room air conditioners); and AHRI
1230-2010 (variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A later edition of the ANSI Z21.10.3 standard, ANSI
Z21.10.3-2011, was approved by ANSI on March 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Previous Rulemaking Documents
Subsequent to the release of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE
published a notice of data availability (NODA) in the Federal Register
on May 5, 2011 (May 2011 NODA) and requested public comment as a
preliminary step required pursuant to EPCA when DOE considers amended
energy conservation standards for certain types of commercial equipment
covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 76 FR 25622. Specifically, in the May
2011 NODA, DOE presented a discussion of the changes found in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010, which included a description of DOE's evaluation of
each ASHRAE equipment type in order for DOE to determine whether the
amendments in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 have increased efficiency
levels. Id. at 25630-37. As an initial matter, DOE sought to determine
which requirements for covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if
any, were revised solely to reflect the level of the current Federal
energy conservation standard (where ASHRAE is merely ``catching up'' to
the current national standard), were revised but lowered, were revised
to include design requirements without changes to the efficiency level,
or were revised to include any other revisions made that did not
increase the standard level, in which case, DOE was not triggered to
act under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for that particular equipment type. For
those types of equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for which ASHRAE
actually increased efficiency levels above the current Federal standard
(i.e., water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; two
classes of VRF water-source heat pumps with and without heat recovery;
and computer room air conditioners (which were not previously
covered)), DOE subjected that equipment to the potential energy savings
analysis for amended national energy conservation standards based on:
(1) The modified efficiency levels contained within ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010; and (2) more-stringent efficiency levels. DOE presented its
methodology, data, and results for the preliminary energy savings
analysis developed for the water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
equipment classes in the May 2011 NODA for public comment. Id. at
25637-46. For the remaining equipment classes, DOE requested data and
information that would allow it to accurately assess the energy savings
potential of those equipment classes. Additionally, for single package
vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, although the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 were unchanged, DOE performed an analysis of their
potential energy savings as required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B).
Lastly, DOE presented an initial assessment of the test procedure
changes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Id. at 25644-47.
Following the NODA, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register on January 17, 2012 (the January 2012 NOPR),
and requested public comment. 77 FR 2356. In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE
proposed amended energy conservation standards for small, large, and
very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air
conditioners; variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps
less than 17,000 Btu/h; VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than
135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h; and new energy conservation
standards for computer room air conditioners. DOE presented its
methodology, data, and results for its analysis of two classes of
variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps and for its analysis
of computer room air conditioners.
In addition, DOE's NOPR also proposed the adoption of amended test
procedures for small commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment; large and very large commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment; commercial warm-air furnaces; and commercial water
heaters. Furthermore, DOE proposed to adopt new test procedures
[[Page 28935]]
for variable refrigerant flow equipment, single package vertical air
conditioners and heat pumps, and computer room air conditioners.
Following the publication of the NOPR, DOE held a public meeting on
February 14, 2012, to receive feedback from interested parties on its
proposals and analyses.
At the public meeting, a variety of issues were discussed,
including DOE's proposed definition for ``computer room air
conditioner,'' DOE's proposed adoption of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners and other
equipment, and DOE's proposed adoption of the most recent industry test
methods. In response to concerns raised at the public meeting regarding
DOE's proposed definition of ``computer room air conditioner'' and
recommendations to include in DOE's test procedures certain provisions
in AHRI operations manuals, DOE published an SNOPR on March 22, 2012,
which proposed a refined definition of ``computer room air
conditioner'' and proposed to adopt several clarifications to its test
procedures based on information found in AHRI operations manuals. 77 FR
16769.
C. Compliance Dates for Amended/New Federal Test Procedures, Amended/
New Federal Energy Conservation Standards, and Representations for
Certain ASHRAE Equipment
This final rule specifies the compliance dates for new and amended
test procedures, new and amended energy conservation standards, and
representations as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Compliance Dates for Amended/New Federal Test Procedures, Amended/New Federal Energy Conservation
Standards, and Representations for Certain ASHRAE Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All representations of
Compliance with the amended/ energy use/efficiency must Compliance with the
Equipment class new test procedure is be made using the amended amended/new standard is
required on or after: test procedures on or required on or after:
after:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired and Oil-fired May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... N/A
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Air-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled Air Conditioner May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... N/A
and Heat Pump, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... N/A
and Heat Pump, >=65,000 Btu/
h and <135,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... N/A
and Heat Pump, >=135,000 Btu/
h and <240,000 Btu/h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... N/A
and Heat Pump, >=240,000 Btu/
h and <760,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Water-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... 6/1/2013
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000
Btu/h.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... 6/1/2014
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner, May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... 6/1/2014
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Evaporatively-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporatively-cooled Air May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... 6/1/2013
Conditioner, >=65,000 Btu/h
and <135,000 Btu/h.
Evaporatively-cooled Air May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... 6/1/2014
Conditioner, >=135,000 Btu/h
and <240,000 Btu/h.
Evaporatively-cooled Air May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... 6/1/2014
Conditioner, >=240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged Terminal Air May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... N/A
Conditioners and Heat Pumps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... N/A
Conditioners and Heat Pumps,
Air-Cooled, <760,000 Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, October 29, 2012........... May 13, 2013............... 10/29/2012
Water-source, <17,000 Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... N/A
Water-source, >=17,000 Btu/h
and <135,000 Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... 10/29/2013
Water-source, >=135,000 and
<760,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air October 29, 2012........... May 13, 2013............... 10/29/2012
Conditioner, air-cooled/
water-cooled/water-cooled
with fluid economizer/glycol-
cooled, <65,000 Btu/h.
Computer Room Air May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... 10/29/2013
Conditioner, air-cooled/
water-cooled/water-cooled
with fluid economizer/glycol-
cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
[[Page 28936]]
Computer Room Air May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... 10/29/2013
Conditioner, air-cooled/
water-cooled/water-cooled
with fluid economizer/glycol-
cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Package Vertical Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Package Vertical Air July 16, 2012.............. May 13, 2013............... N/A
Conditioners and Heat Pumps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Storage and May 13, 2013............... May 13, 2013............... N/A
Instantaneous Water Heaters
and Hot Water Supply
Boilers, Oil-fired Storage
and Instantaneous Water
Heaters and Hot Water Supply
Boilers, and Electric
Storage and Instantaneous
Water Heaters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For those basic models of variable refrigerant flow equipment currently being tested using a test procedure
waiver, the methods prescribed by the test procedure waiver may continue to be used until the mandatory
compliance date of the amended test procedure prescribed by this final rule.
III. General Discussion of Comments Received
In response to its request for comment on the January 2012 NOPR and
March 2012 SNOPR, DOE received nine written comments from
manufacturers, trade associations, utilities, and energy efficiency
advocates. As discussed above, these comments are available in the
docket for this rulemaking and are available for review by following
the instructions in the ADDRESSES section. The following sections
summarize the issues raised in these comments, along with DOE's
responses.
A. The Definition of ``Amendment'' With Respect to the Efficiency
Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE reiterated its position about what
constitutes an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, thereby triggering
DOE review. 77 FR 2356, 2364 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE maintained its
position originally taken in the July 22, 2009 final rule for ASHRAE
equipment (74 FR 36312, 36320 (July 22, 2009)) that the trigger to
review the Federal standard levels for ASHRAE equipment is an increase
in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level, and that other changes do
not qualify as a trigger for review. Id. Further, DOE noted that
because EPCA does not explicitly define the term ``amended'' in the
context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of
what would constitute an ``amended standard'' in a final rule published
in the Federal Register on March 7, 2007. 72 FR 10038. In that rule,
DOE stated that the statutory trigger requiring DOE to adopt uniform
national standards based on ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to change a
standard for any of the equipment listed in EPCA section
342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) by increasing the energy
efficiency level for that equipment type. Id. at 10042. DOE noted in
the January 2012 NOPR that the section cited above refers to ``the
minimum level * * * specified in the amended ASHRAE standard,'' which
DOE interprets as referring to an energy efficiency level. 77 FR 2356,
2364 (Jan. 17, 2012). Consequently, DOE did not review the standard
levels for commercial warm-air furnaces because the incorporation of
design requirements did not meet DOE's interpretation of an amendment
to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that would trigger DOE action. Id.
Earthjustice stated that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has amended levels
for warm-air furnaces requiring incorporation of an interrupted or
intermittent ignition device, a maximum level of jacket losses, and
either power venting or a flue damper, and that this amendment triggers
DOE to review the efficiency levels for commercial warm-air furnaces.
(Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3) Earthjustice stated that DOE's reasoning
for why no review of commercial warm-air furnaces is needed is flawed,
because there is nothing in the language of EPCA that suggests that
only amendments that alter a numeric performance metric trigger DOE's
obligation for review. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3)
Earthjustice commented that in the NOPR, DOE's view that ``the
minimum level'' only refers to the numeric value of an ASHRAE Standard
90.1 performance standard ignores the fact that EPCA frequently uses
``level'' and ``standard'' interchangeably. It stated that the language
of section 342(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) shows that Congress meant for the total
content of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 to serve as the baseline for DOE's
amended standards, and not for any ASHRAE Standard 90.1 numeric
performance metric alone to be definitive. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p.
4) Earthjustice also stated that EPCA uses the word ``level'' to
characterize both performance standards and design requirements,
arguing that section 342(a)(5) specifies ``standard levels'' for
storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired water
storage tanks, and includes under this heading design requirements for
tank insulation and ignition devices. Earthjustice also stated that
section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA provides that there is a rebuttable
presumption that a ``standard level'' is justified if its costs to the
consumer can be recouped in three years, and that DOE has applied this
provision when evaluating design requirements for gas cooking products.
Earthjustice commented that these other uses of ``level'' in EPCA
indicates that Congress did not intend to withhold DOE's obligation to
review the standards for warm-air furnaces when ASHRAE increases the
stringency of Standard 90.1 while leaving the existing thermal
efficiency level unchanged. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 4-5)
Earthjustice stated that even if DOE adopts the position that it
cannot adopt the particular standards contained in ASHRAE Standard
90.1, DOE still is
[[Page 28937]]
obligated to examine potential standards for warm-air furnaces.
(Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3) Earthjustice also asserted that DOE's
view that EPCA bars it from adopting standards that impose multiple
metric requirements has been refuted in multiple analyses and is
erroneous, and attached a memorandum on the central air conditioner
rule as an example and justification of why multiple metrics are
allowable. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 5) Earthjustice argued that
DOE's refusal to grant any weight to the acceptance of multiple design
requirements for warm-air furnaces into ASHRAE Standard 90.1 contrasts
with the Department's recognition in the residential furnace rulemaking
that consensus recommendations enabling the achievement of the
congressional objectives underlying EPCA should be given special
consideration when resolving ambiguities in the statutory language. The
commenter stated that DOE has recognized in the NOPR that the
``efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are the result of a
consensus process'' (77 FR 2356, 2364 (Jan. 17, 2012)) and that ``EPCA
generally directs DOE to follow ASHRAE Standard 90.1 when it is
amended'' (77 FR 2356, 2372 (Jan. 17, 2012)). (Earthjustice, No. 34 at
p. 5)
DOE does not agree with Earthjustice's assertion that DOE is
required to review changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 that do not
increase the efficiency level when compared to the current Federal
energy conservation standards for a given type of equipment. As it did
in the July 2009 final rule for ASHRAE products, DOE views the trigger
as attached to an increased efficiency level. 74 FR 36312, 36320 (July
22, 2009). Further, as noted above, since EPCA does not explicitly
define the term ``amended'' in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE
provided its interpretation of what would constitute an ``amended
standard'' in a final rule published in the Federal Register on March
7, 2007. 72 FR 10038. In that rule, DOE stated that the statutory
trigger requiring DOE to adopt uniform national standards based on
ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to change a standard for any of the
equipment listed in EPCA section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) by increasing the energy efficiency level for that
equipment type. Id. at 10042. The section cited above refers to ``the
minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1,''
which DOE interprets as referring to an energy efficiency level.
If ASHRAE adds a prescriptive requirement for equipment where an
efficiency level is already specified, DOE has concluded that it does
not have the authority to use a dual descriptor for a single equipment
type. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), the Secretary has authority to
amend the energy conservation standards for specified equipment, but
under 42 U.S.C. 6311(18), the statute's definition of the term ``energy
conservation standard'' is limited to: (A) A performance standard that
prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity
of energy use for a product; or (B) a design requirement for a product.
The language of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a performance
standard or a single design standard. As such, DOE maintains its
position stated in the July 2009 final rule that a standard that
establishes both a performance standard and a design requirement is
beyond the scope of DOE's legal authority, as would be a standard that
included more than one design requirement. 74 FR 36312, 36322 (July 22,
2009). In this case, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 recommends three design
requirements, which goes beyond EPCA's limit of one design requirement
for the specified covered equipment.
In summary, the statutory scheme envisions DOE being triggered by
ASHRAE action which provides DOE with a regulatory choice between
increased ASHRAE levels and even more stringent levels. If ASHRAE has
not changed the standard level, the regulatory choice contemplated
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) cannot be made. Furthermore, DOE
disagrees with the suggestion that Earthjustice's views on the issue of
the ASHRAE trigger reflects the broad consensus of interested parties,
thereby deserving special consideration; although ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 may be the result of a consensus process, DOE believes
Earthjustice's view does not represent a broad consensus position among
all stakeholders, particularly among manufacturers. Moreover, in
seeking greater deference for consensus recommendations, the commenter
is alluding to a separate EPCA provision (codified at 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)) in which Congress authorized publication of direct final
rules upon DOE's receipt of a consensus agreement with recommended
standards submitted by interested parties who are fairly representative
of relevant points of view. However, that statutory provision is not
applicable to the ASHRAE products at issue here. In light of the above,
DOE maintains its position that if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1
leaves the standard level unchanged or lowers the standard, as compared
to the level specified by the national standard adopted pursuant to
EPCA, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to
consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A).
B. DOE's Review of ASHRAE Equipment Independent of the ASHRAE Standards
Process
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE noted that it plans to implement the
six-year look back provision in EPCA prospectively and believes that
the clock for the six-year look back does not commence until a final
rule is published for a given product or equipment after the enactment
of EISA 2007 (which occurred on December 19, 2007). 77 FR 2356, 2365-66
(Jan. 17, 2012). For any type of ASHRAE equipment that has not been the
subject of a final rule since the enactment of EISA 2007, review under
the look back provision will not be required until after the next
update of standards is completed following a trigger by updates to the
corresponding ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels. After that point,
if ASHRAE does not update standards within six years, DOE will be
compelled to review the standards under the six-year look back
provision. Id.
ASAP and NRDC stated that DOE must consider updating standards for
the ASHRAE products for which there was not a revision if DOE last set
standards more than six years ago. The commenters referred to the Joint
Comment on the NODA for the basis of the argument. (ASAP and NRDC, No.
35 at p. 1-2) Earthjustice also alleged that the NOPR failed to fulfill
EPCA's legal mandates with respect to multiple products. (Earthjustice,
No. 34 at p. 1) Earthjustice stated that DOE's position that it has no
authority to act pursuant to section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) to amend standards
for ASHRAE equipment until ASHRAE first amends its own standards
undermines the plain intent of Congress by insulating equipment from
review, potentially in perpetuity. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 2)
Earthjustice stressed that ``any final rule'' in section 342(a)(6)
includes all final rules for a covered product no matter when it was
finalized. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 2)
Earthjustice stated that Congress granted DOE the authority to
proceed in the face of ASHRAE inaction through a provision added to
EPCA by section 342(a)(6) of EPACT 2005, which gave DOE the ability to
act on ASHRAE standards without a trigger. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6),
subsequently amended by EISA 2007) In the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA,
Earthjustice stated that Congress then directed DOE to review standards
when ASHRAE left
[[Page 28938]]
them unaltered for too long. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) Earthjustice
asserted that the NOPR's reading of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) rolls back the
clock to 2004, leaving in limbo equipment as to which ASHRAE has been
inattentive. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 2-3) Earthjustice expressed
its view that DOE must abandon the NOPR's flawed rationale and commence
a review of the standards for all products for which the existing
standards are more than six years old. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3)
In response, DOE notes that it has determined previously that it
plans to implement the six-year look back provision prospectively and
believes that the clock for the six-year look back does not commence
until a final rule is published for a given product or equipment after
the enactment of EISA 2007 (which occurred on December 19, 2007). DOE
does not believe it was Congress's intention to apply these
requirements retroactively, so that DOE would immediately be in
violation of its legal obligations upon passage of the statute, thereby
failing from its inception.
C. General Discussion of the Changes to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and
Determination of Scope
As discussed above, before beginning an analysis of economic
impacts and energy savings that would result from adopting the
efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or more-
stringent efficiency levels, DOE first sought to determine whether the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels represented an increase
in efficiency above the current Federal standard levels. DOE discussed
each equipment class where these levels differ from the current Federal
standard level, along with DOE's preliminary conclusion as to the
action DOE would take with respect to that equipment in the January
2012 NOPR. See 77 FR 2356, 2366-73 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE tentatively
concluded from this analysis that the only efficiency levels that
represented an increase in efficiency above the current Federal
standards were those for certain classes of water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, VRF water-
source heat pumps, and computer room air conditioners. For a more
detailed discussion of this approach, readers should refer to the
preamble to the January 2012 NOPR. See Id. DOE received two comments on
this approach.
AHRI did not agree with DOE's conclusion that it cannot adopt
separate minimum efficiency standards for three-phase Small Duct High-
Velocity Heat Pumps. AHRI stated that these products are a unique
subcategory of commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment and that the removal of minimum efficiency standards for
these products from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 was an error.
Accordingly, AHRI recommended that DOE specify distinct minimum
efficiency standards for these models. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 2)
In response, DOE maintains its position as stated in the January
2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2370-71 (Jan. 17, 2012). More specifically, DOE
notes that EPCA does not separate small-duct high-velocity (SDHV) heat
pumps from other types of small commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment in its definitions. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) Therefore,
EPCA's definition of ``small commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment'' would include SDHV heat pumps. (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(B)) Furthermore, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 did not propose a
higher standard for this equipment, and the minimum Federal efficiency
standards for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h small commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment, at 13 SEER and 7.7
HSPF, are more stringent than the levels originally proposed for SDHV
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE cannot adopt lower efficiency levels
due to the prohibition against ``backsliding.'' As such, DOE is
prohibited from adopting the original ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 SEER
requirement for three-phase SDHVs as the Federal standard, and DOE has
no requirement to consider higher levels for three-phase SDHV
equipment.
Mitsubishi expressed its support for DOE's proposal to adopt the
amended efficiency standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for small,
large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial
package air conditioners and especially for the two categories of VRF
water-source heat pumps. However, Mitsubishi also recommended that DOE
adopt the full range of capacities for both categories of VRF systems.
(Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1)
In response, DOE reiterates its position as stated in the January
2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2368-69 (Jan. 17, 2012). The efficiency
requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for air-cooled VRF heat pumps
with heat recovery are equivalent to the Federal minimum energy
conservation standards defined for air-cooled heat pumps with ``all
other heating system types that are integrated into the equipment,''
and the efficiency requirements for air-cooled VRF heat pumps without
heat recovery are equivalent to the Federal minimum standards for air-
cooled heat pumps with electric resistance or no heating. The VRF
systems with heat recovery specified by ASHRAE may also be provided
with electric resistance heating systems as a back-up. For air-cooled
VRF heat pump systems that have both electric resistance heating and
heat recovery heating capability, the Department has concluded that
these systems must meet the efficiency requirements contained in EPCA
for small, large, and very large air-cooled central air-conditioning
heat pumps with electric resistance heating, which are codified at 10
CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)-(9)) In addition, the Department
has concluded that air-cooled VRF systems without electric resistance
heating but with heat recovery can qualify as having an ``other'' means
of heating, and that these systems must meet the efficiency
requirements contained in EPCA for small, large, and very large air-
cooled central air-conditioning heat pumps with other heating, which
are codified at 10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)-(9))
For water-source VRF heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
generally maintains efficiency levels equivalent to the existing
Federal minimum energy conservation standards for water-source heat
pumps. DOE has decided that under the statutory scheme for commercial
equipment standards, a water-source heat pump in which condenser heat
is rejected to water, not air, is the corresponding existing product
class for water-source VRF heat pumps. There are only two equipment
classes for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels are not equivalent
to the existing Federal minimum energy conservation standards: (1) For
VRF water-source heat pumps under 17,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 raises the efficiency levels above current Federal energy
conservation standards; (2) For VRF water-source heat pumps over
135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE sets standards for
products where DOE did not previously have standards.
In addition to the changes for the equipment classes discussed
above, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 includes efficiency levels for VRF
water-source heat pumps that provide for a 0.2 EER reduction in the
efficiency requirement for systems with heat recovery. However, the
current Federal minimum standards for water-source heat pumps do not
provide for any reduction in the EER requirements for equipment with
``other'' heating types. Therefore, the 0.2
[[Page 28939]]
EER reduction below the current Federal standard levels for the VRF
water-source heat pump equipment classes in which ASHRAE did not raise
the standard from the existing Federal minimum for water-source heat
pumps (i.e., water-source heat pumps with cooling capacities greater
than or equal to 17,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000 Btu/h and for water-
source heat pumps with cooling capacities greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h) would result in a decrease in
stringency in comparison to current standards.
As such, DOE is prohibited from adopting an efficiency level lower
than the current Federal standards for water-source heat pumps less
than 135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity due to the ``anti-backsliding''
provision, regardless of the provision in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
providing for adoption of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels.
In summary, after considering the public comments, DOE has decided
to retain its approach, as stated in the January 2012 NOPR, that the
only efficiency levels that represented an increase in efficiency above
the current Federal standards were those for certain classes of water-
cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners and
heat pumps, VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h and at
or above 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h in cooling capacity,
and computer room air conditioners.
D. The Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for twelve classes of water-cooled
and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, four classes of VRF water-
source heat pumps, and thirty classes of computer room air
conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2415-18 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE received several
comments in response to its proposal.
EEI endorsed DOE's proposal to adopt the energy efficiency
standards for the equipment that were updated and published in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 2) AHRI and Mitsubishi supported
DOE's adoption of the amended efficiency standards for small, large,
and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package
air conditioners and the two categories of variable refrigerant flow
water-source heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 1; Mitsubishi, No. 33 at
p. 1) The Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded that the proposed
standards are not likely to have an adverse effect on competition.
(DOJ, No. 37 at p. 2) In reaching this conclusion, DOJ noted the
absence of any competitive concerns raised by industry participants at
the public meeting and that the proposed levels corresponded to the
latest version of the relevant industry consensus standard. Id. Thus,
for the reasons stated previously, in today's final rule, DOE is
adopting efficiency levels at the levels published in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010 for twelve classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
air conditioners and four classes of VRF water-source heat pumps.
Regarding computer room air conditioners (CRACs), ASAP expressed
concern that the levels set by DOE should not be weaker than the
existing California energy conservation standards or lower than the
levels for other commercial package air conditioners. (ASAP, NOPR
Public Meeting Transcript at p. 78, 149) ASAP argued: (1) That
significantly higher efficiency levels are technically feasible for
CRACs; (2) that there are many models of CRACs on the market that
exceed the levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010; and (3) that
the potential energy savings associated with CRACs are significant and
should be fully captured to the extent possible. (ASAP, NOPR Public
Meeting Transcript at p. 132) ASAP and NRDC stated that DOE should
evaluate whether greater cost-effective savings could be achieved
through more-stringent standards for CRACs. These commenters suggested
that the efficiency levels set by the California Energy Commission
(CEC) may be higher than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for air-
cooled CRACs. In particular, they urged DOE to further evaluate raising
the standard for air-cooled CRACs >=65,000 Btu/h and <240, 000 Btu/h
and air-cooled CRACs >=240,000 Btu/h, stating that according to DOE's
analysis in the NOPR, efficiency level three for units at and above
65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000 Btu/h would be cost-effective and
would save 0.20 quads, and that efficiency level four for units at and
above 240,000 Btu/h would be cost-effective and would save 0.21 quads.
(NRDC and ASAP, No. 35 at p. 2)
In response, DOE notes that the requirements for adopting Federal
energy conservation standards for ASHRAE equipment are explicitly set
forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)) Of particular relevance here, DOE
must determine if clear and convincing evidence exists that standards
that are more stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would
save a significant additional amount of energy and would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE determined that
more-stringent levels would save a significant amount of energy and are
technologically feasible. 77 FR 2356, 2416-17 (Jan. 17, 2012).
Accordingly, as required by EPCA, DOE undertook an analysis to examine
the economic justification of more-stringent energy conservation
standards for computer room air conditioners. As explained in further
detail in section VI.D.3 of this notice, due to the limited amount of
data available regarding equipment cost and efficiency and shipments,
and the resulting uncertainties in the economic analysis, DOE has
concluded that it lacks clear and convincing evidence as would justify
the adoption of more-stringent levels. In considering the comments from
ASAP and NRDC, DOE examined the analysis leading to the adoption of the
CEC computer room air conditioner standards. Upon reviewing the
documentation of the CEC efficiency requirements, DOE did not discover
any data or information that provided clear and convincing evidence
that the levels set by the CEC were economically justified on a
National level. Therefore, consistent with its earlier position, DOE
has concluded that clear and convincing evidence does not exist that
would allow the adoption of Federal energy conservation standards for
computer room air conditioners that are more stringent than the
efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. However, DOE
anticipates that the adoption of CRAC energy conservation standards in
today's final rule will lead to the generation of CRAC shipments data
and other information that will be useful in considering more-stringent
standards in DOE's next rulemaking related to computer room air
conditioners.
E. Coverage of Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating
Equipment Used Exclusively as Part of Industrial or Manufacturing
Processes
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE offered clarification of how it views
equipment that is used exclusively for industrial or manufacturing
processes. DOE explained that if equipment meets the definition of
``commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'' in 10 CFR
431.92, is used exclusively for manufacturing and/or industrial
processes, and is not listed as one of the equipment types specifically
added to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, then DOE believes it is not covered
under DOE's regulatory program. 77 FR 2356, 2372-73 (Jan. 17, 2012).
Further, DOE stated that it will make this
[[Page 28940]]
determination on a case-by-case basis after considering the facts of
the particular model in question, including how the model is
advertised, marketed, and/or sold for use in buildings, the extent to
which the equipment provides comfort conditioning to occupants, and how
the equipment is designed and manufactured. Id. DOE requested comment
on ways that manufacturers differentiate between equipment that is used
solely for manufacturing and industrial processes and that used for
comfort cooling in buildings.
In response, AHRI commented that manufacturers differentiate air
conditioners used for manufacturing and industrial processing by: (1)
Omission (by not rating the model to the Federal efficiency test
procedure or not listing the model in the manufacturer's catalog of
comfort cooling and heating products); (2) by incorporating special
operation features which would not be appropriate for the purpose of
comfort cooling or heating; or (3) by listing the equipment as
complying with a safety standard specific for industrial uses and
processes. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 2) Carrier commented that it does not
differentiate between commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment used in buildings versus those used solely for manufacturing
and industrial processes. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3) Engineered Air
stated that a unit for a single-focus, process-driven use should be
exempt from standards, and the company provided the specific example of
preconditioned air units that are used under jet bridges at airports to
cool jet planes. (Engineered Air, No. 36 at p. 1)
DOE notes that none of the responses provide DOE with a set of
feature(s) or characteristic(s) associated with the equipment, such as
a physical characteristic or component, that would allow manufacturers
and DOE to objectively and consistently differentiate between comfort-
cooling equipment and equipment that is intended solely for industrial
processes. But the comment responses, in particular Carrier's, point to
the fact that some manufacturers use the same equipment to serve both
markets. DOE believes the comment responses illustrate the importance
for DOE to clearly explain the decision process for DOE and
manufacturers to determine whether a given basic model is covered by
DOE's regulatory program.
As mentioned in the March 2012 SNOPR, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
expanded the scope of its coverage as compared to previous versions of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 77 FR 16769, 16770 (March 22, 2012). Previous
versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 did not apply to equipment and
portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for
industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes (see ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2007, section 2.3(c)). As discussed in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE
still believes it is ASHRAE's intent to continue to exclude most of
those equipment types that are used for manufacturing and industrial
processes, despite the fact that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 now applies
to new equipment or building systems used in manufacturing or
industrial processes that are specifically identified in the standard
(i.e., ``air conditioners and condensing units serving computer
rooms''). Id. at 16774. DOE did not receive any comments suggesting
that ASHRAE intended a general, rather than limited, broadening of
coverage regarding these types of equipment.
In order to aid regulated entities in determining whether their
equipment falls within the scope of DOE's definition of ``commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment'' and, thus, is subject
to DOE's regulatory requirements, DOE is providing the following
guidance. If the equipment meets the definition of ``commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment'' in 10 CFR 431.92, is used
exclusively for manufacturing and/or industrial processes, and is not
listed as one of the equipment types specifically added to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1's scope, then DOE does not consider such equipment to be
covered under DOE's regulatory program. Manufacturers need to make this
determination by comparing the characteristics of each basic model to
DOE's regulatory definitions. Just like manufacturers, DOE will make
this determination on a case-by-case basis after considering the facts
of the particular basic model in question if questions arise regarding
coverage. In making such determination, DOE will consider factors such
as how the model is advertised, marketed, and/or sold for use in
buildings, the extent to which the equipment provides comfort
conditioning to occupants, and how the equipment is designed and
manufactured. For equipment that is used in commercial or industrial
buildings, that has a design similar to that of equipment used in
manufacturing processes, but provides comfort conditioning, DOE
considers such equipment to meet the definition of ``commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment'' and consequently to be covered
under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE notes that the fact that equipment
may be advertised, marketed, and/or sold as part of industrial or
manufacturing processes is not a mutually exclusive determination that
the models are exempt them from coverage by DOE's standards for
equipment in buildings. In the example of identical equipment used to
serve both markets, DOE would consider that covered under DOE's
regulatory program unless a specific basic model had an attribute that
would preclude it from meeting the definition of ``commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment.''
All equipment distributed in U.S. commerce that meets DOE's
definition of ``commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' and is not subject to the Department's exclusion guidance
set forth above must meet the applicable Federal energy conservation
standards regardless of technology or design.
F. Definitions for Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed the following three
definitions relating to the newly-covered variable refrigerant flow
equipment classes--``variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioners,'' ``variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pumps,''
and ``heat recovery'':
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioner means a
unit of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment
that is configured as a split system air-conditioner incorporating a
single refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least
one variable-speed compressor or an alternate compressor combination
for varying the capacity of the system by three or more steps, and
multiple indoor fan coil units, each of which is individually
metered and individually controlled by an integral control device
and common communications network and which can operate
independently in response to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable
refrigerant flow implies three or more steps of capacity control on
common, inter-connecting piping.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Heat Pump means a unit of
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that is
configured as a split system heat pump that uses reverse cycle
refrigeration as its primary heating source and which may include
secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance,
steam, hot water, or gas. The equipment incorporates a single
refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least one
variable-speed compressor or an alternate compressor combination for
varying the capacity of the system by three or more steps, and
multiple indoor fan coil units, each of which is individually
metered and individually controlled by a control device and common
communications network and which can operate independently in
response to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable
[[Page 28941]]
refrigerant flow implies three or more steps of capacity control on
common, inter-connecting piping.
Heat Recovery (in the context of variable refrigerant flow
multi-split air conditioners or variable refrigerant flow multi-
split heat pumps) means that the air conditioner or heat pump is
also capable of providing simultaneous heating and cooling
operation, where recovered energy from the indoor units operating in
one mode can be transferred to one or more other indoor units
operating in the other mode. A variable refrigerant flow multi-split
heat recovery heat pump is a variable refrigerant flow multi-split
heat pump with the addition of heat recovery capability.
77 FR 2356, 2379-80 (Jan. 17, 2012).
On this issue, AHRI, Mitsubishi, and Carrier submitted comments
agreeing with these proposed definitions. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 5,
Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2, and Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3) DOE received
no other comments from stakeholders on these definitions. Thus, DOE is
adopting the definitions as proposed in today's final rule.
IV. Test Procedure Amendments and Discussion of Related Comments
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the DOE test
procedures for several types of ASHRAE equipment by incorporating the
most recent version of the industry test methods referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010. For certain types of equipment that had not
previously been subject to energy conservation standards, DOE proposed
to adopt new test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
Additionally, DOE conducted a substantive review of all of the test
procedures that were updated in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 in their
entirety in order to satisfy the 7-year review provision for test
procedures discussed in section II.A. As part of its review, DOE
proposed to allow for an optional break-in period to allow the unit to
achieve optimal performance before testing for small, large, and very
large commercial air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow air
conditioners and heat pumps, and single package vertical air
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. 77 FR 2356, 2424-
33 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to include in
its test procedures several clarifying provisions, along with certain
provisions (with some modification) from AHRI operations manuals (AHRI
OMs) that would harmonize equipment testing so that it is performed
consistently at all test laboratories. 77 FR 16769, 16781-82 (March 22,
2012). The updates to the test procedures being adopted as part of
today's rule are discussed in the subsections immediately below.
DOE received a general comment about the 7-year review process for
test procedure updates from AHRI. AHRI commented that the 7-year review
requirement is too infrequent, because most AHRI and ASHRAE standards
are amended at intervals of 5 years or less. Therefore, AHRI asserted
that DOE should conduct test procedure rulemakings to incorporate by
reference new or revised industry test procedures once they are
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 2)
In response, DOE notes that the 7-year requirement stems from 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A), which requires that DOE shall conduct an
evaluation of the test procedures for any covered equipment class and
either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary determines that
amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3)) or publish a notice in the
Federal Register of any determination not to amend a test procedure.
This requirement compels DOE to take action on any test procedure that
has not been reviewed within a 7-year timeframe. For the test
procedures for covered ASHRAE equipment, DOE is also guided by EPCA
that if an industry test procedure referenced in DOE's regulations is
updated, DOE must assess the updated industry procedure and amend the
test procedure for the product as necessary to be consistent with the
amended industry test procedure or rating procedure, unless DOE
determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably designed
to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy
use, or estimated annual operating costs of the ASHRAE product during a
representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(4)) Thus,
given that DOE has two triggers for reviewing the test procedures for
covered ASHRAE equipment--the 7-year review requirement and the
requirement for review subsequent to an update of the industry
standard--DOE will consider any industry test procedure revisions in a
timely manner.
As noted above, in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE examined the AHRI
operations manuals to identify areas where potential clarification to
the DOE test procedure for commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment may be needed and proposed to include several
clarifications in the Federal test procedures. 77 FR 16769, 16774-79
(March 22, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to omit section
6.5 from AHRI 210/240-2008, section 6.3 of AHRI 340/360-2007, section
5.11 from ASHRAE 127-2007, section 6.4 from AHRI 390-2003, and section
6.6 from AHRI 1230-2010 from its regulations at 10 CFR 431.96, which
provide tolerance values for ratings of tested equipment to comply with
that standard. Instead, DOE clarified that manufacturers must follow
the equipment type-specific procedures in 10 CFR 429 when determining
whether equipment ratings are within acceptable tolerance limits. DOE
also issued guidance on various other aspects of testing, including
defective samples, test set-up, enhancement devices, refrigerant
charge, and rating air flow rates. 77 FR 16769, 16777-78 (March 22,
2012). DOE determines whether a unit is defective on a case-by-case
basis as part of its certification and enforcement program as listed in
10 CFR 429.110(d)(3). As a general guidance for remaining topics, DOE
will only consider information contained in the equipment's
installation and operations manual (I&O manual) for conducting
assessment and enforcement testing. That is, DOE will install the
equipment for testing as is outlined in the I&O manual using any
enhancement devices that are documented in the I&O manual as being a
part of the equipment's basic model. If the I&O manual specifies a
range of refrigerant charge or pressure, it will be valid for the
equipment to be tested using any refrigerant charge within that range,
unless the manufacturer specifies otherwise in the I&O manual. If the
I&O manual does not specify a rating air flow rate for testing, DOE
will use the nominal air flow rate (typically 400 scfm/ton) for
testing.
In response to the SNOPR, stakeholders submitted comments on DOE's
clarifications related to tolerances in its test procedures. Rheem did
not support DOE's decision with regard to the tolerances. Rheem stated
that the current DOE regulations clearly incorporate by reference the
entire ARI Standard 340/360-2004, including section 6.3 relating to
tolerances, and that DOE's attempt to excise this protocol is
procedurally inappropriate and at odds with the congressional balancing
or regulatory determination that resulted in the current energy
conservation standards; and, thus, it is illegal. (Rheem, No. 32 at p.
2) EEI recommended that DOE not tighten the tolerance of test procedure
results because this would increase costs to the manufacturers of
testing equipment and to commercial customers. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 1)
Carrier commented that the issue of AHRI 340/360 tolerances does not
apply to initial ratings, and it also stated that AHRI is in the
process of modifying
[[Page 28942]]
this requirement to adopt the note in section 6.5 of AHRI 210/240,
which states that ``[p]roducts covered by the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act (NAECA) shall be rated in accordance with 10 CFR Part
430, Section 24 m (1)(i)-(ii)'' so that DOE will not have to make an
exception to the AHRI procedure. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 5) AHRI stated
that the tolerances specified in AHRI 340/360 do not apply to ratings
that are certified to DOE but applies only to verification testing
conducted by AHRI. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 3) AHRI also commented that any
issues pertaining to certification and enforcement should be addressed
in a future NOPR for that topic. However, AHRI commented that DOE's
policy of not applying a tolerance to the results of an assessment test
is inconsistent with both DOE's certification procedures and the
fundamental nature of any empirical test method. AHRI reasoned that is
it wrong for DOE to employ a ``zero tolerance'' policy for assessment
tests, arguing that DOE should try to harmonize the sampling plan
probability levels between enforcement and assessment testing and
further noting that the sampling plan for three-phase HVAC systems
should not be more stringent than residential HVAC systems. (AHRI, No.
30 at p. 6-8) Rheem also encouraged DOE to open a separate rulemaking,
including public hearings and stakeholder discussions, with regard to
the proposed changes related to testing and compliance with energy
conservation standards. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 1)
In response, DOE reiterates what it stated in the March 2012 SNOPR,
that it has its own tolerances as part of its certification and
enforcement program that have been established since 2006. 77 FR 16769,
16777 (March 22, 2012). As AHRI notes in its comments, the tolerances
in the AHRI standards do not apply to DOE's regulatory program and only
apply to AHRI's verification program. Omitting the specific section on
the tolerances used in AHRI's verification program from being
incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure does not change how
manufacturers have to conduct testing for DOE's regulatory program and
how DOE conducts verification or enforcement testing. Omission of the
AHRI verification program tolerances only serves to clarify to
manufacturers that DOE does not employ AHRI's verification tolerance,
which is a flat 5-percent tolerance, in its regulatory program. DOE
believes this will help alleviate any confusion that may be introduced
from the different tolerances used as part of DOE's regulatory program
and AHRI's verification program.
As to AHRI's specific comment regarding a tolerance associated with
assessment testing conducted by DOE, DOE's regulations do not include a
specific tolerance that is applied to an assessment test. DOE disagrees
with commenters who suggest that DOE employs a zero-percent tolerance
policy on any assessment test conducted. DOE specifically adopted
provisions, which allow it to conduct enforcement testing if DOE has
reason to believe that a basic model is not in compliance. 10 CFR
429.110. While DOE has the authority under the statute to, at any time,
test a basic model to assess whether the basic model is in compliance
with the applicable energy conservation standard(s), assessment testing
is only one method DOE utilizes to better inform its decision making
when deciding whether to pursue enforcement testing. See 10 CFR
429.104; 76 FR 12422, 12495 (March 7, 2011). Should DOE decide to
revisit its current approach for assessment testing, it would do so in
the next certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking.
DOE also received other comments on its guidance on other aspects
of testing as well. AHRI stated that the AHRI operation manuals only
provide clarification and detailed instructions on how the AHRI
certification program conducts those test procedures and do not counter
or revise the Federal efficiency test methods. The commenter
acknowledged that DOE is not required to consider including guidelines
or checklists in AHRI operations manuals in the Federal test procedure,
but it did encourage DOE to use the guidelines in any verification
testing. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 6) Rheem commented that DOE should use the
guidelines in the AHRI operations manual in any testing done by DOE to
ensure proper and consistent testing and evaluation of a product's
performance. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 2) Rheem also commented that DOE's
proposed changes in 10 CFR 431.96(e) are new and previously
unannounced, and the company does not see the logic or utility in
providing certification or testing specifications in installation and
operations manuals used in the field. Rheem argued that the industry
would need a minimum of 6 months to revise its technical literature if
this requirement were to be imposed and that the industry should be
allowed to supplement printed material through its Web site or other
electronic means. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 2)
In response to these comments, DOE agrees that testing should be
done in a consistent manner to achieve a level playing field for all
manufacturers, as reflected in the proposed test procedure amendments
which DOE published for notice and comment. By adopting some of the
guidance in the AHRI OMs, DOE hopes to clarify what is and is not
allowed during testing conducted by manufacturers for DOE's regulatory
program and DOE-initiated testing. In certain cases, the AHRI OMs
require manufacturers to provide information related to testing that is
not publically disclosed. DOE reiterates its position in the January
2012 NOPR and the March 2012 SNOPR that if manufacturers have specific
conditions or instructions used in generating their energy efficiency
ratings, they must be clearly provided in the I&O manual shipped with
the unit. 77 FR 2356, 2378 (Jan. 17, 2012); 77 FR 16769, 16778 (March
22, 2012). In DOE's view, the commercial customer has a right to know
the operating conditions that are used to generate the certified
efficiency values, including rated airflow and rated capacity.
Regarding Rheem's assertion that a minimum of 6 months would be
required to update technical literature to accommodate this
requirement, DOE notes that the compliance dates are as specified in
the DATES section of this notice and any testing done after the
compliance dates would incorporate all additions to the DOE test
procedure in this final rule; these compliance dates generally provide
6 months or more for manufacturers to make any requisite changes to
their I&O manuals. DOE may also reference online specification sheets
for rated information prior to the compliance date of the test
procedure amendments, provided that those specification sheets contain
specific version numbers, revision dates, and rating information;
however, DOE reiterates that it is adopting provisions that require
manufacturers to disclose any rated conditions for testing in the
information shipped with the units themselves in this final rule. DOE
notes that when manufacturers are required to comply with the
certification provisions for most types of the commercial equipment
subject to this rulemaking, DOE will use the rated values certified by
the manufacturers in addition to any information in the installation
and operation manuals.
A. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
As explained in the May 2011 NODA and the January 2012 NOPR, DOE
examined the differences between the current DOE test procedure and the
[[Page 28943]]
updated industry test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 for small,\7\ large, and very large commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment. 76 FR 25622, 25634-36 (May 5,
2011); 77 FR 2356, 2373-74 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the January 2012 NOPR,
DOE proposed to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-2008 into the
Federal test procedure for small (<65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity)
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment and AHRI 340/
360-2007 into the Federal test procedure for small (>=65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity), large, and very large commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment. Id. Additionally, in
the January 2012 NOPR, DOE also proposed to add an optional ``break-
in'' period (no more than 16 hours) for small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPCA defines ``small commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment'' as ``commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment that is rated below 135,000 Btu/h (cooling
capacity).'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)) ASHRAE 90.1-2010 generally
divides covered commercial package air conditioners into the
following class sizes: (1) <65,000 Btu/h; (2) >=65,000 and <135,000
Btu/h; (3) >=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h; and (4) >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h. Thus, ``small'' commercial package air conditioners,
as defined by EPCA, are split into two size classes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010: (1) <65,000 Btu/h and (2) >=65,000 and <135,000
Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi and EEI supported DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 210/
240-2008 and AHRI 340/360-2007. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1-2 and EEI,
No. 29 at p. 2) Rheem and Engineered Air also supported DOE's proposed
adoption of AHRI 340/360-2007. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 3 and Engineered
Air, No. 36 at p. 2) AHRI recommended that DOE should also include
addenda 1 and 2 to AHRI 210/240-2008 as part of the review process and
adopt them as appropriate. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 3) These addenda made
several updates to the test standard, which are discussed in detail in
the paragraphs immediately below. Carrier urged DOE to adopt addenda 1
and 2 to AHRI 210/240-2008 as well. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 2) Carrier
also noted that DOE should also adopt addenda 1 and 2 to AHRI 340/360-
2007, which specify tolerances on external static pressures and include
a correction on the test method for integrated energy efficiency ratio
(IEER), and encouraged DOE to check with AHRI regarding the latest
addenda prior to finalizing its rulemaking. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 2)
In response to stakeholder comments, DOE reviewed the addenda to
AHRI 210/240-2008 and to AHRI 340/360-2007. The addenda to AHRI 210/
240-2008 generally replace any references to the part-load metric
(i.e., integrated part load value (IPLV)) with references to the new
part load metric (i.e., IEER). The addenda to AHRI 340/360-2007 expand
the scope of the standard to include air-cooled package unitary air
conditioners with cooling capacities from 250,000 Btu/h to less than
760,000 Btu/h, add a -0.00 inch H2O to a 0.05 inch
H2O tolerance to the external static pressure test
condition, and add an external static pressure equation and a tolerance
to the leaving dry-bulb temperature to the IEER part-load test. Because
DOE does not regulate part-load performance of commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment and because the external static
pressure tolerance update harmonizes the required measurements with
those in the test procedure for residential air-conditioning equipment,
DOE determined that the addenda would not impact the Federal energy
efficiency ratings for small, large, and very large commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps. As noted above, EPCA directs DOE to review
and adopt the most recent version of industry test procedures for
equipment covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, provided that the industry
test procedures are not unduly burdensome to conduct and provide an
accurate assessment of the energy efficiency or energy use of the
equipment. Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-
2008 with addenda 1 and 2 and AHRI 340/360-2008 with addenda 1 and 2 in
10 CFR 431.96.
On the topic of compressor break-in periods, Rheem supported DOE's
proposal of a break-in period of 16 hours for small commercial
equipment and recommended the same amount of time for large and very
large equipment. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 3) Carrier also supported the
inclusion of a compressor break-in period for small, large, and very
large commercial air conditioners and heat pumps and stated that a 16-
to 20-hour compressor break-in period at 95 [deg]F would be sufficient.
However, Carrier also commented that to reduce the time equipment is in
the test room, the break-in run may sometimes be conducted outside the
test room, in which case ambient air temperature may be lower than the
95 [deg]F specified in the test method. When the ambient air
temperature is lower than 95 [deg]F, Carrier stated that longer break-
in times of up to 50 hours may be necessary. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 2)
AHRI also agreed that a compressor break-in period is necessary for
small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment, but it recommended, based on AHRI's experience, that
the compressor break-in should be at minimum 16 hours. AHRI recommended
that DOE allow a compressor break-in period to be the longer of 16
hours or the amount of time it takes for the system to achieve four
consecutive 30-minute averages of cooling capacity that do not deviate
more than 2 percent between each average and 1 percent from hour to
hour. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 3) Mitsubishi supported the same approach as
AHRI. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1-2)
DOE believes that setting a minimum compressor break-in period, as
suggested by AHRI and Mitsubishi, would unnecessarily increase testing
cost to manufacturers whose equipment could stabilize in less than 16
hours. Interested parties did not provide additional data supporting
how ambient temperatures may impact compressor break-in time and why a
longer break-in time may be warranted. To Carrier's comment regarding
the ambient conditions for the break-in period, DOE does not always
perform the break-in period in a conditioned space at 95 [deg]F. DOE
believes that running the break-in period in a conditioned room adds
unnecessary burden on both the industry and on DOE for testing, given
the unknown impact on product performance. DOE is reluctant to add an
ambient temperature requirement to the break-in period in absence of
data suggesting there is a large impact on product performance. DOE's
proposal in the NOPR matched the 16-hour maximum period used by AHRI in
its Operations Manual for Unitary Large Equipment Certification
Program, so DOE is puzzled by AHRI's comment suggesting deviation from
this approach. Therefore, DOE is not adopting a minimum length for the
break-in period. Rather, DOE is adopting a break-in period that will
allow manufacturers to run equipment for any amount of time up to a
maximum time limit of up to 20 hours, as suggested by Carrier, because
DOE believes that the comments indicate that a break-in period of
slightly longer than the 16 hours proposed in the NOPR may be required
for certain equipment. DOE recognizes that different compressors will
require different amounts of break-in time to achieve optimal
performance and appreciates the suggestion by AHRI and Mitsubishi to
determine the length of the break-in period based on the stabilization
of equipment's cooling capacity. However, DOE notes that determining
the break-in period using a method based on stabilizing cooling
capacity would require the testing entity
[[Page 28944]]
to continually monitor cooling capacity, which DOE believes may
increase the testing burden. Therefore, DOE is not adopting a provision
requiring that the break-in period, if used, be determined in any
specific manner, but rather is adopting a provision that gives the
manufacturer the option of determining the appropriate length of the
break-in period using any method deemed appropriate up to a maximum
time limit of 20 hours. The lack of a minimum time limit allows the
manufacturer to conduct the break-in at its discretion or to allow any
break-in period below the maximum time limit that the manufacturer
feels is necessary and appropriate, and, thus, minimizes the burden of
this addition to the test procedure. The maximum time limit on the
optional compressor break-in period prevents an indefinite amount of
time being allowed if a unit were to not stabilize and achieve optimal
performance. Thus, DOE is adopting an optional compressor break-in
allowing manufacturers to conduct a break-in period for any amount of
time deemed necessary by the manufacturer, up to a maximum period of 20
hours. Any manufacturer who elects to use this optional compressor
break-in period in its certification testing should record this
information (including the duration) in the test data underlying the
certified ratings that is required to be maintained under 10 CFR
429.71. DOE will use the exact same break-in period for any DOE-
initiated testing as the manufacturer used in its certified ratings. In
the case an alternate efficiency determination method (AEDM) is used to
develop the certified ratings, DOE will use the maximum 20-hour break-
in period, which DOE believes will provide the unit sufficient time to
stabilize and achieve optimal performance.
B. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces and Commercial Water Heaters
In the May 2011 NODA and the January 2012 NOPR, DOE examined and
proposed to incorporate by reference the three updated test procedures
for commercial warm-air furnaces and commercial water heaters
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010: UL 727-2006 for commercial
oil-fired warm-air furnaces, ANSI Z21.47-2006 for commercial gas-fired
warm-air furnaces, and ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 for commercial water heaters.
76 FR 25622, 25636-37 (May 5, 2011); 77 FR 2356, 2374-76 (Jan. 17,
2012). DOE tentatively determined that the changes in the updated test
procedures do not substantially impact the measurement of energy
efficiency for commercial warm-air furnaces or commercial water
heaters. In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE also explained its position on
tolerances and test-set up for conducting the tests for this equipment.
77 FR 16769, 16777-78 (March 22, 2012).
In response to the January 2012 NOPR, AHRI supported DOE's proposal
for adopting UL 727-2006 and ANSI Z21.47-2006, but it recommended that
DOE should incorporate the latest version of ANSI Z21.10.3 (i.e., the
2011 version of the standard). AHRI added that the thermal efficiency
and standby loss tests in that edition of the ANSI standard have not
changed from the 2004 edition, which is the version that DOE had
proposed to adopt in the NOPR. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 1 and 3) Rheem also
supported the adoption of ANSI Z21.10.3 for commercial water heating
equipment but similarly urged DOE to adopt the 2011 version of that
standard. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 3) EEI endorsed DOE's adoption of all
the proposed test procedures for commercial warm-air furnaces and
commercial water heaters. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 2)
DOE was triggered under EPCA to review and adopt the most recent
version of the industry test methods for equipment covered by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, provided that the industry test method meets the
requirements of EPCA for test procedures. In response to the comments
from AHRI and Rheem, DOE reviewed the 2011 version of ANSI Z21.10.3.
DOE agrees with Rheem and AHRI that adopting ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 would
not alter the DOE test method or the energy efficiency ratings for
commercial water heaters as compared to adopting ANSI Z21.10.3-2004,
which was proposed for adoption in the NOPR. However, when reviewing
ANSI Z21.10.3-2011, DOE discovered an apparent error in the text of
Exhibit G, Efficiency Test Procedures, in section G.1, Thermal
Efficiency Test. The relevant text states that ``[w]ater-tube water
heaters shall be installed as shown in Figure 3, Arrangement for
Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters.''
DOE notes that Figure 3 in ANSI Z1.10.3-2011 deals with direct vent
terminal clearances, and that Figure 2 is titled ``Arrangement for
Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters,''
and depicts the test set-up for water-tube water heaters. Therefore,
DOE believes this was a drafting error and that the correct figure to
reference would be Figure 2. DOE is adopting such correction in today's
final rule. In all other regards, DOE has concluded that ANSI Z21.10.3-
2011 meets the requirements of EPCA for incorporation into DOE's test
procedures, and it is the most up-to-date version of the industry
standard that is currently available. Thus, DOE is incorporating by
reference ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 for commercial water heaters. DOE is also
incorporating by reference UL 727-2006 for commercial oil-fired warm-
air furnaces, ANSI Z21.47-2006 for commercial gas-fired warm-air
furnaces, as proposed in the January 2012 NOPR.
DOE did not receive any comments specifically related to commercial
warm-air furnaces and commercial water heaters on the issues of
tolerances, defective units, and test set-up. For the same reasons
explained in section IV.A, DOE is not adopting AHRI's tolerances, will
determine if a unit is defective on a case-by-case basis according to
10 CFR 429.110(d)(3), and will set up equipment for testing using only
the equipment's I&O manual shipped with the unit.
C. Computer Room Air Conditioners
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
ASHRAE 127-2007 as the basis for the Federal test procedure for
computer room air conditioners, which was the test procedure referenced
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. 77 FR 2356, 2376 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE
believes that this industry test procedure is best suited to measure
the energy efficiency of computer room air conditioners due to its
emphasis on the sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) metric. SCOP
emphasizes the computer room air conditioners' sensible cooling \8\
ability, which is the predominant type of heating load in computer
rooms. Energy efficiency ratio (EER), on the other hand, incorporates
latent cooling, which could be detrimental in large quantities for
computer rooms, because too much latent cooling could dry out the
computer room, potentially causing harmful static discharges. DOE also
asked for comment regarding the use of a compressor ``break-in'' period
for this equipment, part-load performance and potential shortcomings of
the SCOP metric, and how to treat the potential revisions of ASHRAE
127-2007 released as draft for public review on July 14, 2011 . The new
ASHRAE 127-2012, officially released on February 24, 2012, introduces a
new efficiency metric
[[Page 28945]]
called net sensible coefficient of performance (NSenCOP) to replace the
SCOP metric, which had caused some confusion with another term in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with the same acronym. Also, NSenCOP now
incorporates the electric usage of the heat rejection equipment used by
fluid-cooled computer room air conditioners (SCOP omitted this electric
power in its equations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Sensible cooling'' is the cooling effect that causes an
increase in the dry-bulb temperature, which is the actual
temperature of the air. ``Latent cooling'' is the cooling effect
that causes a decrease in the wet-bulb temperature or the moisture
content of the air, which is similar to the temperature one feels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also notes that even though AHRI does not currently have a
certification program or operations manual for this equipment, the same
DOE guidance that applies to commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment for determining the appropriate test set-up,
enhancement devices, refrigerant charge, rating air flow rates, and
whether a test sample is defective (as explained in section IV.A) is
applicable for this equipment.
In response to the January 2012 NOPR and the March 2012 SNOPR, EEI
endorsed DOE's adoption of the ASHRAE 127 test procedures for computer
room air conditioners. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 2) NEEA stated that DOE
should review the possibility of adopting ASHRAE 127-2012 as the test
procedure for computer room air conditioners because the updated test
procedure has now been finalized. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 1) AHRI and NEEA
commented that there are significant improvements in the new draft of
ASHRAE 127 (ASHRAE 127-2012) which would provide a more representative
efficiency rating and allow for a better selection of models for any
specific application and would provide some new efficiency metrics.
(AHRI, No. 30 at p. 4 and NEEA, No. 31 at p. 1) AHRI suggested that DOE
should delay the rulemaking in order to adopt the revised ASHRAE 127-
2012 test procedure and not adopt the current ASHRAE 127-2007 test
procedure. AHRI further commented that if DOE adopts the ASHRAE 127-
2007 test procedure, it would be an injudicious use of resources and an
unnecessary burden on manufacturers, because manufacturers would have
to spend significant time and money to comply with the 2007 version of
ASHRAE and then more time and money to retest all their models using
ASHRAE 127-2012, when it is adopted in the next ASHRAE Standard 90.1
rulemaking. AHRI asserted that delaying the rulemaking in order to
adopt the revised ASHRAE Standard 127 would not be a lost opportunity
for energy savings but that it would provide a better opportunity for
effective energy savings because of improved metrics, additional
application classes, and added rating conditions. (AHRI, No. 30 at p.
4) In addition, ASAP commented that the SCOP metric (in ASHRAE 127-
2007) does not reflect very well how computer room air conditioners
perform in the field and that energy saving technologies such as
variable speed fans are not captured in the SCOP metric. Instead, ASAP
urged DOE to consider a test procedure with a metric that does capture
part-load performance. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp.
43-44). Similarly, NEEA urged DOE to value part-load operation
efficiency of CRACs more than full-load operation efficiency, because
in the field, computer room air conditioners tend to be oversized and
operate at part-load most or all of the time. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2)
In response, DOE notes that EPCA provides the requirements for
adopting amended or new standards for ASHRAE equipment. When the
efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are updated with respect to
covered equipment, DOE must either adopt those levels as Federal
standards within 18 months of the publication of the most recent
version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, or adopt more stringent Federal levels
within 30 months. Once ASHRAE decides to act by amending Standard 90.1,
EPCA does not provide DOE with discretion to delay the adoption of
minimum standards pending test procedure updates as AHRI suggests.
Because DOE must adopt energy conservation standards for computer room
air conditioners within the time constraints laid out by EPCA, DOE must
also adopt a test method for determining compliance with the minimum
standard. DOE has found that ASHRAE Standard 127-2007 meets the
statutory requirements for incorporation into DOE's test procedures and
is appropriate for rating CRACs using the SCOP metric. In contrast, the
new ASHRAE 127-2012 standard is not referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010, and, as a result, the efficiency levels that DOE considered were
based on ASHRAE 127-2007. In order to justify the adoption of
efficiency levels other than those contained in the most recent version
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE notes that it would have to provide clear
and convincing evidence that such levels are technologically feasible
and economically justified. Due to the fact that ASHRAE 127-2012 has
only been recently finalized, DOE was unable to find any test data
showing the results of testing to this standard, and how the results
compare to those obtained using the previous version of ASHRAE Standard
127. Therefore, there is no basis for DOE to adopt ASHRAE 127-2012 and
corresponding standards at this time. DOE believes that pursuing the
use of the updated industry test procedure standard would unnecessarily
delay the rulemaking for computer room air conditioners, and
ultimately, the result would be that not enough information is
available to promulgate standards at levels other than those in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010. If the ASHRAE 127-2012 test method and
corresponding efficiency levels using the new metric are included in
the next version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE will review the amended
test procedure and efficiency levels at that time, as required by EPCA.
For the above reasons, in today's rulemaking, DOE is adopting a
test procedure for computer room air conditioners by incorporating by
reference ASHRAE 127-2007.
Regarding the break-in period for computer room air conditioners,
AHRI commented that computer room air conditioners should be allowed
the same opportunity for a compressor break-in period as the other
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment. (AHRI, No.
30 at p. 6) At the February 14, 2012 NOPR public meeting, Emerson
stated that for all compressors, the break-in period is essential to
stabilize the compressor's performance and efficiency. (Emerson, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 49)
Because computer room air conditioners mainly use scroll
compressors like other commercial package air conditioners, DOE agrees
that computer room manufacturers should be allowed the same opportunity
for an optional compressor ``break-in'' period. Thus, DOE is adopting
the same provision for an optional compressor break-in as it is
adopting for other commercial air-conditioning equipment. Manufacturers
may opt to use a break-in period for computer room air conditioners for
any length of time, up to a maximum time of 20 hours. Manufacturers who
elect to use this optional compressor break-in period in its
certification testing should record this information (including the
duration) as part of the test data underlying the certified ratings
that is required to be maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.
D. Variable Refrigerant Flow Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 1230-
2010 with addendum 1 as the basis for the Federal test procedure for
variable refrigerant
[[Page 28946]]
flow equipment and is adopting the use of an optional compressor break-
in period for variable refrigerant flow equipment. DOE initially
discussed its proposals for testing this equipment in the January 2012
NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2377-78 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE
asked for comment regarding the need for a compressor break-in period
longer than 16 hours for this equipment class. 77 FR 16769, 16776-77
(March 22, 2012). Also in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to allow a
manufacturer representative to witness assessment and enforcement
testing and to adjust the compressor speed during testing, and DOE
requested comment on these proposals. Id. at 16778-79. In the SNOPR,
DOE also stated that manufacturers must document their certification
set-up (including the fixed compressor speed) and maintain this
documentation as part of their test data underlying certification so
that DOE can request the documentation from the manufacturer on an as-
needed basis. Id. Lastly, DOE proposed in the March 2012 SNOPR to adopt
correction factors for the refrigerant line lengths for VRF systems
only in instances where the physical constraints of the testing
laboratory require a longer than minimum refrigerant line length. Id.
at 16779. DOE also sought comment from stakeholders about its proposal
to include these refrigerant line length correction factors.
Mitsubishi, Carrier, and EEI agreed with DOE's proposed adoption of
AHRI 1230-2010 with addenda 1 for VRF systems. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at
p. 2, Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3, and EER, No. 29 at p. 2) There were no
comments from stakeholders objecting to this proposal. DOE agrees with
the submitted comments and is incorporating by reference AHRI 1230-2010
with addenda 1 into the Federal test procedure for VRF systems as part
of today's final rule.
With respect to the break-in period for VRF systems, AHRI commented
that VRF systems should be allowed the same compressor break-in period
as it recommended for small, large, and very large commercial package
air conditioners and heat pumps--the longer of 16 hour or the amount of
time it takes for the system to complete 4 consecutive 30-minute cycles
where the cooling capacity does not vary by more than 2 percent between
each average and 1 percent from hour to hour. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 4)
Carrier stated that the compressor break-in period for VRF systems
should be the same as for other commercial package air conditioners and
heat pumps, as noted in section IV.A.
DOE agrees with these comments and believes that the break-in
period for VRF equipment should be the same as that for other
commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps. Thus, DOE is
adopting an optional compressor break-in period that allows
manufacturers to break in VRF equipment prior to testing for any length
of time up to a maximum of 20 hours. Manufacturers who elect to use
this optional compressor break-in period during certification testing
should record this information (including the duration) as part of the
test data underlying the certified ratings that is required to be
maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.
DOE also received several comments regarding the limited
manufacturer involvement in assessment and enforcement testing proposed
in the SNOPR. AHRI agreed with DOE's proposal to allow limited
manufacturer involvement in the testing of VRF systems. (AHRI, No. 30
at p. 9) Carrier also supported allowing limited manufacturer
involvement during testing of VRF systems in order to ensure that the
system has been set up properly and to lock compressor speeds for
regulatory testing. However, Carrier extended that logic, arguing that
the need for limited manufacturer involvement is not unique to VRF
systems and that all commercial equipment is typically commissioned by
a factory-trained person and should be allowed limited manufacturer
involvement during testing as well. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 5)
Mitsubishi agreed with DOE's proposal to allow limited manufacturer
involvement but suggested that the language be revised to allow the
manufacturer representative to adjust the ``modulating components'' and
not just to fix the compressor speed in order to achieve stabilization.
(Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 3) More specifically, Mitsubishi commented
that permissible manufacturer involvement should be clarified to allow
manufacturers to properly interface with the unit control and
communication system, to modulate control equipment in response to test
room cycles, and to require factory-trained and certified installation
technicians. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2)
DOE believes that due to the unusually complicated nature of VRF
systems, manufacturer involvement is necessary to ensure that the
system operates properly during testing; however, DOE does not agree
with Carrier's suggestion that the manufacturers also be allowed to
assist in testing for other more typical commercial equipment. As noted
in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE believes that, unlike the conventional
unitary market, a representative from the VRF manufacturer's company
will typically provide on-site expertise when a VRF system is installed
in a building in order to help ensure proper operation. 77 FR 16769,
16779 (March 22, 2012). In the conventional unitary market, trained
general contractors can set up the commercial unitary equipment in the
field without direct involvement from a manufacturer representative,
and, thus, it would be reasonable to assume that test laboratories will
be able to set up and run the test procedure for commercial unitary
equipment without manufacturer involvement. DOE agrees with
Mitsubishi's comment that VRF manufacturers might need to adjust more
than just the compressor speed and is revising the language to allow
manufacturers to adjust only the ``modulating components'' during
testing in the presence of a DOE representative in order to achieve
steady-state operation. Thus, DOE will allow manufacturer involvement
in the testing of VRF systems under the condition that the manufacturer
representative adjust only the modulating components in the presence of
a DOE representative and that the manufacturer documents the test set-
up and fixed compressor speeds as part of the test data underlying the
certified ratings.
Lastly, regarding the refrigerant line correction factors proposed
in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE received several comments. AHRI and
Mitsubishi agreed with DOE's proposal to incorporate the refrigerant
line length correction factors into the DOE test procedure for VRF
equipment. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 9 and Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 3)
Carrier also commented that all VRF equipment should be tested with the
standard line lengths as defined by the appropriate rating standard for
which minimum efficiency requirements were developed. (Carrier, No. 28
at p. 5)
DOE agrees that manufacturers should be required to use the minimum
refrigerant line lengths in AHRI 1230-2010 but also recognizes that
there may be circumstances (i.e., the physical limitations of the
laboratory) where this is not possible. Only in such cases, DOE will
allow manufacturers to use correction factors in their calculations.
Thus, DOE is adopting the minimum refrigerant line length correction
factors, which are only to be used in instances where it is not
possible to set up the test using the line lengths listed in Table 3 of
AHRI 1230-2010.
[[Page 28947]]
E. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 390-2003 as the basis for the Federal test procedure for single
package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps and proposed to adopt an optional compressor ``break-in'' period
of no more than 16 hours. 77 FR 2356, 2378 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the
March 2012 SNOPR DOE asked for comment about the need for a longer
break-in period for this equipment class. 77 FR 16769, 16776-77 (March
22, 2012).
Mitsubishi and EEI agreed with DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 390-
2003 for single package vertical air conditioners and single package
vertical heat pumps. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2 and EEI, No. 29 at p.
2) Carrier commented that single package vertical equipment with a
cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h should be rated
according to AHRI 340/360-2007 with addenda 1 and 2 in order to ensure
consistency in testing and rating vertical package and other commercial
packaged equipment. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3)
In response to stakeholder comment, DOE notes that EPCA directs DOE
to review the test procedures as referenced in the most recent version
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 references AHRI 390-
2003 as the test method for all classes of SPVUs. Upon reviewing AHRI
390-2003, DOE believes that the standard is reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and
estimated operating costs of all classes of single package vertical air
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, as required by
EPCA for adoption. Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI
390-2003 as the Federal test procedure for single package vertical air
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps as required by
EPCA.
Regarding the break-in period for SPVUs, AHRI commented that SPVUs
should be allowed the same compressor break-in period as AHRI
recommended for small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioners and heat pumps, as noted in section IV.A (AHRI, No. 30 at
p. 4) DOE agrees that the break-in period for SPVUs should be the same
as for other air-conditioning and heating equipment, and, thus, DOE is
adopting an optional compressor break-in period that allows the
manufacturer to break in equipment for up to a maximum time of 20 hours
before commencing testing.
Similar to commercial package air conditioners, as discussed in
section IV.A, DOE reiterates that DOE will only use information
contained in a manufacturer's I&O manual for setting up testing, using
enhancement devices, setting refrigerant charges, and setting rating
air flow rates.
V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments for Computer Room Air
Conditioners
A. Market Assessment
To begin its analysis on computer room air conditioners, DOE
researched publicly-available information to provide an overall outlook
in terms of the market for this type of equipment. DOE researched
information on the structure of the industry, the purpose of the
equipment, manufacturers, and market characteristics. This assessment
included both quantitative and qualitative information. The topics
discussed in this market assessment include definitions, equipment
classes, manufacturers, and efficiencies. For more details on any of
these subjects, see Chapter 2 of the final rule TSD.
1. Definition of ``Computer Room Air Conditioner''
As discussed in the May 2011 NODA and the January 2012 NOPR, ASHRAE
expanded the scope in Standard 90.1-2010 to include air conditioners
and condensing units serving computer rooms. 76 FR 25622, 25633-34 (May
5, 2011); 77 FR 2356, 2382-83 (Jan. 17, 2012). Because of this
expansion of scope, DOE has determined that it has the authority to
consider and adopt standards for this equipment. Id. However, because
DOE did not previously cover this equipment type and is only now
considering standards for this equipment class, DOE does not currently
have a definition for ``computer room air conditioner'' and must define
this type of equipment. DOE initially proposed a definition of this
term in the January 2012 NOPR and asked for comment on ways in which
manufacturers differentiate commercial air conditioners used for
manufacturing and industrial processes from commercial air conditioners
used for comfort cooling. 77 FR 2356, 2383 (Jan. 17, 2012). Then, in
light of stakeholder feedback at the NOPR public meeting, DOE published
an SNOPR in the Federal Register on March 22, 2012, revising its
proposed definition to read as follows:
Computer room air conditioner means a basic model of commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is: (1) Used in
computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other purpose-specific
cooling applications; (2) rated for sensible coefficient of
performance (SCOP) and tested in accordance with 10 CFR 431.96; and
(3) not a covered, consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and
6292. A computer room air conditioner may be provided with, or have
as available options, an integrated humidifier, temperature, and/or
humidity control of the supplied air, and reheating function.
77 FR 16769, 16773.
In response, Carrier commented that it does believe there is a
basis to differentiate computer room air conditioners from commercial
package air conditioners used for comfort conditioning because computer
room units are designed to handle different load characteristics, most
notably by focusing on sensible load and not latent cooling. (Carrier,
No. 28 at p. 1) Panasonic commented that computer room air conditioners
have a different operating range and that the tolerances on the
relative humidity and temperature control is tighter. Panasonic stated
that the very sophisticated computer rooms and data centers require 50
percent relative humidity, with a 10 percent tolerance, and a specific
temperature; however, the commenter also said that 95 percent of data
centers are less sensitive with regard to the operating ranges.
(Panasonic, No. 20 at pp. 68-69) Mitsubishi commented that the DOE
definition for ``computer room air conditioner'' should allow for dual
ratings and certification for equipment and allow that products be used
for multiple applications if they meet all applicable standards.
(Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2) At the NOPR public meeting, Danfoss
commented that DOE should not restrict the use of a product and leave
it up to competitive pressures to determine where manufacturers rate
and market their products and that DOE's vigilance would prevent
manufacturers from constantly switching equipment classes. (Danfoss,
No. 20 at p. 64-66)
AHRI expressed disagreement with the proposed definition for
``computer room air conditioner,'' because the commenter argued that it
is unnecessarily complex and overly broad. AHRI commented that the list
of options that may be available with a computer room air conditioner
is not necessary to the basic definition of the product and that the
term ``purpose-specific cooling application'' is vague and confusing.
AHRI recommended the following for a definition of ``computer room air
conditioner'': ``Computer room air conditioners means a unit of
commercial air conditioning equipment (packaged or split) that's
intended by the manufacturer for use in computer
[[Page 28948]]
rooms, data processing rooms, or other information technology cooling
applications, and is rated for sensible coefficient of performance
(SCOP) using ASHRAE Standard 127.'' (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 8)
In response, DOE notes that its authority to cover computer room
air conditioners stems from the expansion of ASHRAE Standard 90.1's
scope and DOE's obligations pursuant to EPCA with regards to ASHRAE
equipment. DOE is not aware of, nor did commenters identify, any
distinct physical characteristic(s) that would consistently
differentiate computer room air conditioners from other comfort-cooling
commercial package air conditioners. DOE agrees with AHRI's assertion
that ``purpose-specific cooling application is vague'' and, therefore,
is removing that term from the definition. DOE acknowledges that the
list of illustrative features of computer room air conditioners is not
essential to the definition; however, DOE is retaining that language,
because DOE believes that a recitation of such characteristics would
provide useful assistance to manufacturers, industry, and DOE in
determining which equipment should be considered to meet the definition
of ``computer room air conditioner.'' Furthermore, DOE agrees with
Mitsubishi's comment that the ``computer room air conditioner''
definition should allow for dual rating and certification for equipment
if the basic model meets all applicable Federal standards, and notes
that the definition proposed in the SNOPR would not preclude dual
rating. Although DOE agrees with several points made by commenters, and
is modifying the definition of ``computer room air conditioner''
accordingly, DOE is not adopting AHRI's proposed definition wholesale
because it lacks several important clarifications. First, as discussed
above, DOE believes that the list of features of computer room air
conditioners provides useful assistance to DOE and industry in
distinguishing computer room air conditioners from other types of
covered commercial air conditioners. Second, DOE believes that the
definition must clarify that the unit is tested for SCOP, which must be
determined in accordance with DOE's test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96.
In addition, DOE believes the clarification that a computer room air
conditioner cannot be a covered product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and
6292 is important to distinguish this equipment from residential
products. Thus, DOE is adopting the following definition for ``computer
room air conditioner,'':
Computer Room Air Conditioner means a basic model of commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment (packaged or split)
that is: (1) Used in computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other
information technology cooling applications; (2) rated for sensible
coefficient of performance (SCOP) and tested in accordance with 10
CFR 431.96, and (3) not a covered consumer product under 42 U.S.C.
6291(1)-(2) and 6292. A computer room air conditioner may be
provided with, or have as available options, an integrated
humidifier, temperature, and/or humidity control of the supplied
air, and reheating function.
DOE believes that this definition does not prohibit manufacturers
of commercial package air conditioners used for comfort cooling from
advertising equipment for use in computer rooms or from making
representations using the SCOP rating for computer air conditioners.
However, DOE notes that if manufacturers of commercial package air
conditioners used for comfort cooling wish to make representations of
SCOP ratings, they must do so using only the procedures established by
DOE in 10 CFR 431.96 for computer room air conditioners.
In addition, in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify that
any basic model that meets the definition of ``commercial package air-
conditioning and heat equipment'' must be classified as one of the
equipment types (e.g., small, large, or very large commercial package
air-conditioning and heat equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners
or heat pumps, variable refrigerant flow systems, computer room air
conditioners, and single package vertical units) for the purposes of
determining the primary applicable test procedure and energy
conservation standard. 77 FR 16769, 16773-74 (March 22, 2012). DOE
proposed adding a new section to the beginning of 10 CFR 431.97 to make
it clear that each manufacturer of a basic model that meets this
definition does have a regulatory obligation in terms of standards
compliance. In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed a revision to 10 CFR
431.97 to read as follows:
(a) All basic models of commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment must be tested for performance using the
applicable DOE test procedure in Sec. 431.96, be compliant with the
applicable standards set forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this
section, and be certified to the Department under 10 CFR part 429,
where required.
Id.
In response to this proposed change, AHRI commented that it does
not agree with the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 431.97(a), because
AHRI believes it is unnecessary and does not provide added clarity, but
rather, it simply repeats the basic concept of DOE's certification,
compliance, and enforcement regulations. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 8)
DOE recognizes that the additional language in 10 CFR 431.97
repeats the basic concepts from DOE's certification compliance and
enforcement regulations. However, DOE believes that including this
statement in 10 CFR 431.97 will serve as a reminder to manufacturers of
commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment that their basic
models must be certified to one of the equipment classes according to
the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 429. In addition, the
paragraph clarifies that all commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment must be tested for performance using the applicable
test procedure in 10 CFR 431.96. DOE, therefore, believes that this
statement will help clarify its requirements, and accordingly, DOE is
adopting this change in the final rule.
Finally, with regard to the third part of its definition for
computer room air conditioners, specifically, that the equipment cannot
be a covered consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 6292,
manufacturers should compare the characteristics of each basic model to
the definition of a ``central air conditioner,'' as specified in 42
U.S.C. 6291(21). If any basic model in question meets the definition of
a ``central air conditioner,'' the onus is on the manufacturer to
provide justification that the equipment is not a covered consumer
product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and is instead subject to a
different definition in DOE's regulatory program. In other words, all
equipment meeting the definition of ``central air conditioner'' must be
in compliance with the test procedure, standard, and certification
provisions applicable to that product type. DOE will review the
manufacturer's justification and make its own determination of coverage
if questions arise regarding a given basic model.
2. Equipment Classes
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 divides computer room air conditioners
into 30 different equipment classes based on the net sensible cooling
capacity (i.e., <65,000 Btu/h; >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; or
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h), orientation of airflow (i.e.,
upflow or downflow), heat rejection method (i.e., air-cooled, water-
cooled, glycol-cooled), and the presence of a fluid economizer.\9\ DOE
generally
[[Page 28949]]
divides equipment and product classes by the type of energy used or by
capacity or other performance-related features that affect efficiency.
Different energy conservation standards may apply to different
equipment classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Because DOE believes that net
sensible cooling capacity, orientation, heat rejection method, and use
of a fluid economizer are all performance-related features that affect
computer room air conditioner efficiency (i.e., SCOP), DOE is dividing
computer room air conditioners into the 30 equipment classes shown in
Table V.1. These are the same equipment classes DOE proposed to adopt
in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2383-84; 2431 (Jan. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A ``fluid economizer'' is a system configuration potentially
available where an external fluid-cooler is utilized for heat
rejection (i.e., for glycol-cooled or water-cooled equipment). The
fluid economizer utilizes a separate liquid-to-air cooling coil
within the CRAC unit and the cooled water or glycol fluid returning
from the external fluid cooler to cool return air directly, much
like a chilled water air handling unit (i.e., without the use of
compressors). The ``economizer'' cooling can either augment or can
take the place of compressor cooling, but only when returning water
or glycol fluid temperatures are low enough to provide significant
direct cooling from the liquid-to-air cooling coil.
Table V.1--Computer Room Air Conditioners Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum SCOP efficiency
Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity -------------------------------
Downflow units Upflow units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled.................. <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.20 2.09
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.10 1.99
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 1.90 1.79
h.
Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled................ <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.60 2.49
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.50 2.39
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 2.40 2.29
h.
Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled with a Fluid <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.55 2.44
Economizer.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.45 2.34
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 2.35 2.24
h.
Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled............... <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.50 2.39
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.15 2.04
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 2.10 1.99
h.
Air Conditioner, Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.45 2.34
Economizer.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.10 1.99
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 2.05 1.94
h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Review of Current Market for Computer Room Air Conditioners
DOE consulted a wide variety of sources, including manufacturer
literature, manufacturer Web sites, and the California Energy
Commission (CEC) Appliance Efficiency Database to obtain the
information needed for the market assessment for computer room air
conditioners. The information gathered from these sources serves as a
basis for the analyses preformed in this rulemaking. The sections below
provide a general overview of the computer room air conditioner market.
More detail, including citations to relevant sources, of the computer
room air conditioner market can be found in Chapter 2 of the final rule
TSD.
a. Trade Association Information
AHRI is the trade association representing most manufacturers of
commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment; however, at the time
of this final rule, AHRI did not have a certification program for
computer room air conditioners, and with one exception, the major
manufacturers of computer room air conditioners that DOE identified are
not currently AHRI members. \10\ However, in its public comments, AHRI
indicated that earlier this year, it added a Datacom Cooling Section
and certification program which covers manufacturers of computer room
air conditioners. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For more information see: http://www.ahrinet.org/
ahri+members.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Manufacturer Information
DOE initially identified manufacturers of computer room air
conditioners by conversing with industry experts, by examining the CEC
appliance efficiency database,\11\ and by examining individual
manufacturers' Web sites. Manufacturers that DOE identified include
American Power Conversion, Compu-Aire, Data Aire, Liebert, and Stulz.
DOE reviewed their manufacturer literature to gain insight into product
availability, technologies used to improve efficiency, and product
characteristics (e.g., cooling capacities) of the models in each of the
30 equipment classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See: http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Market Data
Using the CEC database and manufacturer literature, DOE compiled a
database of 1,364 computer room air conditioner models from the five
manufacturers it identified. Because manufacturers are not required to
report efficiency information about computer room air conditioners,
most manufacturers do not publish this information in their product
literature. DOE gathered efficiency data in the form of energy
efficiency ratio (EER) from the CEC database (where manufacturers are
required to report efficiency information if they sell models in
California) and an individual manufacturer's product literature. Of the
1,364 models in DOE's database, DOE was only able to obtain efficiency
information for 208 units (from three of the five manufacturers), which
accounts for 15.2 percent of the database (see chapter 2 of the final
rule TSD for information about how DOE estimated efficiency data in
SCOP). As noted above, DOE was only able to obtain efficiency
information from three of the five known manufacturers because two of
the manufacturers did not provide SCOP or EER information in product
literature or in the CEC database. The full breakdown of these 1,364
units into the 30 equipment classes can be found in chapter 2 of the
final rule TSD, along with information on the typical performance
characteristics (e.g.,
[[Page 28950]]
average sensible cooling capacity, average SCOP) for each equipment
class. DOE used the market data as a foundation for developing price-
efficiency curves in the engineering analysis. Additionally, DOE used
the market data, along with other sources, to estimate shipments of
computer room air conditioners. Further details regarding the
development of shipment estimates and forecasts can be found in section
V.F.2. of this final rule.
B. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between
higher-efficiency equipment and the cost of achieving that higher
efficiency when evaluating energy conservation standards. The results
from the engineering analysis serve as the basis for the cost-benefit
calculations for the individual consumers and the Nation. As explained
in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE used an efficiency-level approach in
conjunction with a pricing survey to develop the price-efficiency
relationships for the 30 classes of computer room air conditioners. 77
FR 2356, 2385-86 (Jan. 17, 2012). An efficiency-level approach allowed
DOE to estimate the cost of achieving different SCOP levels in a timely
manner (which was necessary to allow DOE to meet the statutorily-
required deadlines for ASHRAE equipment in EPCA). The efficiency-level
approach allowed DOE to focus on the price of the computer room air
conditioners at different SCOP ratings while capturing a variety of
designs available of the market. The efficiency levels that DOE
analyzed in the engineering analysis were within the range of
efficiencies of computer room air conditioners on the market at the
time the engineering analysis was developed. DOE relied on data
collected from equipment distributors of three large computer room air
conditioner manufacturers to develop its price-efficiency relationship
for computer room air conditioners. (See chapter 3 of the final rule
TSD for further detail.)
Although there are certain benefits to using an efficiency-level
approach with a pricing survey (namely the ability to conduct an
analysis in a limited amount of time that spans a variety of equipment
and technologies), DOE notes there are also drawbacks to this approach.
The most significant drawback of such an approach is that equipment
pricing is not always based solely on equipment cost and is often
influenced by a variety of other factors. Factors such as whether the
unit is a high-volume seller, whether the unit has premium features
(such as more sophisticated controls or a longer warranty), and the
differences in markup between different manufacturers all have an
effect on the prices of computer room air conditioners. In certain
instances, this can make it difficult to compare prices across
manufacturers because of the number of different ways that
manufacturers can decide to set pricing based on features that are not
part of the basic equipment costs. As a result, the relationship
between price and efficiency could be different from the relationship
between manufacturer cost and efficiency that might be revealed through
other engineering methods such as a design-option approach or a
reverse-engineering approach. However, given the limited analysis time
allowed by EPCA, DOE proceeded with an efficiency-level approach for
computer room air conditioners in which it gathered the price of
equipment at various efficiency levels. Nonetheless, DOE believes this
approach provides a reasonable approximation of the cost increases
associated with efficiency increases and could be conducted in a timely
manner that would allow DOE to meet the deadlines specified in EPCA for
ASHRAE products. The approach allowed DOE to provide an estimate of
equipment prices at different efficiencies and spanned a range of
technologies currently on the market that are used to achieve the
increased efficiency levels. However, DOE also notes that there is a
high level of uncertainty in the results based on such an approach due
to the limited amount of data and information available about this
particular type of equipment.
The following provides an overview of the engineering analysis. DOE
first determined which equipment classes it would need to analyze. DOE
only analyzed the downflow equipment classes because after examining
equipment designs, DOE found that that upflow and downflow units have
the same interior components and technologies, and that every upflow
model could be optionally arranged by the manufacturer in a downflow
orientation (but not vice-versa). DOE assumed that the efficiency cost
and benefit of a given technology would be the same in both the
downflow and upflow orientations, which allowed for an analysis in
downflow orientation only (the results of which would be assumed to be
true for upflow models as well). This reduced the number of equipment
classes that DOE needed to analyze from 30 to 15. Then, DOE chose a
representative baseline computer room air conditioner, which is the
starting point for analyzing possible benefits of energy efficiency
improvements. Next, DOE used efficiency data from the market assessment
to identify higher efficiency levels above the baseline. DOE collected
contractor pricing information for models at the baseline and those
higher efficiency levels, and used that information to estimate the
cost increase of achieving those higher efficiency levels. Then, for
equipment classes where there was too little data available to directly
analyze the cost of increasing efficiency, DOE estimated the cost-
efficiency relationship based on the analysis done for the other
classes where data were available. Further detail regarding the key
inputs to the engineering analysis and the results generated are
presented immediately below and in further detail in chapter 3 of the
final rule TSD.
1. Representative Input Capacities for Analysis
As explained in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE reviewed the 15 analyzed
equipment classes of computer room air conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2386
(Jan.17, 2012). For each equipment class, DOE chose a representative
net sensible input capacity as a starting point for the engineering
analysis. In summary, DOE chose a representative capacity at the
average sensible capacity for each of the three size categories
regardless of heating type, orientation, or the presence of a fluid
economizer. For computer room air conditioners with a sensible cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE chose 36,000 Btu/h; for those with
a sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and
less than 240,000 Btu/h, DOE chose 132,000 Btu/h; and for those with a
sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h and
less than 760,000 Btu/h, DOE chose 288,000 Btu/h. These representative
capacities also corresponded to the net sensible capacity of most the
models in the corresponding equipment class. DOE attained pricing
information for models with sensible cooling capacities that were
generally within 15 percent of these representative sensible capacities
for all equipment classes for which adequate efficiency data were
available. In response to the January 2012 NOPR, DOE did not receive
any comments regarding the representative sensible capacities for
analysis. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for more information
about the representative sensible capacities DOE selected.
2. Baseline Equipment
Next, DOE selected baseline efficiency levels for 15 of the 30
equipment
[[Page 28951]]
classes. DOE uses these baseline models as the basis against which it
measures changes resulting from potential higher energy conservation
standards. The engineering analysis, LCC analysis, and PBP analysis use
the baseline efficiency as a reference point to compare the technology,
energy savings, and the cost of equipment with higher efficiency
levels. A baseline equipment model typically contains the features and
technologies that are most common in a certain equipment class
currently offered for sale. As explained in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE
chose the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as baseline
efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners, because DOE
cannot adopt minimum standards at levels that are less stringent than
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels. 77 FR 2356, 2386 (Jan.
17, 2012). In response to the January 2012 NOPR, DOE did not receive
any comments regarding the baseline efficiency levels selected. Table
V.2 shows the baseline efficiency level for each computer room air
conditioner equipment class in the downflow orientation.
Table V.2--Baseline SCOP Efficiency Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downflow
Equipment class Size category Representative sensible orientation
cooling capacity baseline SCOP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled............................ <65,000 Btu/h............ 36,000 Btu/h............. 2.2
>=65,000 Btu/h and 132,000 Btu/h............ 2.1
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 288,000 Btu/h............ 1.9
<760,000 Btu/h.
Water-Cooled.......................... <65,000 Btu/h............ 36,000 Btu/h............. 2.6
>=65,000 Btu/h and 132,000 Btu/h............ 2.5
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 288,000 Btu/h............ 2.4
<760,000 Btu/h.
Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer.. <65,000 Btu/h............ 36,000 Btu/h............. 2.55
>=65,000 Btu/h and 132,000 Btu/h............ 2.45
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 288,000 Btu/h............ 2.35
<760,000 Btu/h.
Glycol-Cooled......................... <65,000 Btu/h............ 36,000 Btu/h............. 2.5
>=65,000 Btu/h and 132,000 Btu/h............ 2.15
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 288,000 Btu/h............ 2.1
<760,000 Btu/h.
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer. <65,000 Btu/h............ 36,000 Btu/h............. 2.45
>=65,000 Btu/h and 132,000 Btu/h............ 2.1
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and 288,000 Btu/h............ 2.05
<760,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Identification of Efficiency Information and Efficiency Levels for
Analysis
As reported in detail in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE selected
multiple efficiency levels for analysis for each of the 15 equipment
classes directly analyzed. 77 FR 2356, 2387 (Jan. 17, 2012). In
summary, because DOE does not currently regulate computer room air
conditioners, manufacturers are not required to report or rate the
efficiency of their equipment, and efficiency data are often either not
available or only available as an EER value determined through testing
with a previous version of the ASHRAE 127 standard. Thus, DOE had to
translate the EER information found in manufacturer literature and in
the CEC database into SCOP using a ``rule-of-thumb'' equation found in
ASHRAE 127-2007. The ``rule-of-thumb'' equation uses the EER as
measured by ASHRAE 127-2001 and the sensible heat ratio (SHR) \12\
found in manufacturer specification sheets to estimate the SCOP. For
more detail about this conversion, see chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Sensible heat ratio'' is the ratio of a unit's sensible
cooling capacity to its total (i.e., sensible and latent) cooling
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to select efficiency levels for analysis, DOE examined
available market data and concluded that enough efficiency information
was available in only four equipment classes that would allow DOE to
reasonably select SCOP efficiency levels for analysis for that
equipment class. For the equipment classes where DOE did not have
enough SCOP data to select efficiency levels, DOE translated the
efficiency levels from one of the four previously mentioned equipment
classes based on the SCOP differences between the different equipment
classes as specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. The efficiency
levels selected for analysis for each equipment class are shown in
Table V.3. Chapter 3 of the final rule TSD shows additional details on
the efficiency levels selected for analysis. In response to the January
2012 NOPR, DOE did not receive any comments regarding the efficiency
levels selected for analysis.
Table V.3--Efficiency Levels for Analysis of Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency levels (SCOP)
Equipment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h....... 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00
Air-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and 2.10 2.35 2.60 2.85 3.10
<240,000 Btu/h.................
Air-Cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and 1.90 2.15 2.40 2.65 2.90
<760,000 Btu/h.................
Water-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h..... 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40
Water-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and 2.50 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30
<240,000 Btu/h.................
Water-Cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20
and <760,000 Btu/h.............
Water-Cooled with a Fluid 2.55 2.75 2.95 3.15 3.35
Economizer, <65,000 Btu/h......
Water-Cooled with a Fluid 2.45 2.65 2.85 3.05 3.25
Economizer, >=65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.................
[[Page 28952]]
Water-Cooled with a Fluid 2.35 2.55 2.75 2.95 3.15
Economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.................
Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.50 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30
Glycol-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h 2.15 2.35 2.55 2.75 2.95
and <240,000 Btu/h.............
Glycol-Cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.70 2.90
and <760,000 Btu/h.............
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid 2.45 2.65 2.85 3.05 3.25
Economizer, <65,000 Btu/h......
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.70 2.90
Economizer, >=65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.................
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid 2.05 2.25 2.45 2.65 2.85
Economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Pricing Data
Once DOE identified representative capacities and baseline units,
and selected equipment classes and efficiency levels to analyze, DOE
contacted three of the manufacturers of computer room air conditioners
\13\ to obtain pricing information for individual models in quantities
of 10 units. DOE used 10 as a standard request that would be typical of
a contractor installing the units in an office space. DOE received
pricing information for 32 models total. DOE then used the pricing
information in conjunction with the SCOP data (estimated from EER data)
to build price-efficiency curves. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD
for additional details about the pricing data DOE received. DOE did not
receive any comment about its approach of obtaining pricing
information. DOE did receive a comment on the results of the pricing
analysis which is addressed in section V.B.6. below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ As noted in section VA.3.c, DOE was able to obtain
efficiency data for three of the five manufacturers. DOE obtained
pricing from all manufacturers for which it had efficiency data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Equipment Classes for Analysis and Extrapolation to Unanalyzed
Equipment Classes
As explained in section V.B and in detail in the January 2012 NOPR,
DOE did not directly analyze all 30 equipment classes of computer room
air conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2387-88 (Jan. 17, 2012). Rather, DOE
analyzed the equipment classes with the largest number of models on the
market (and as a result the most data available) and used a variety of
assumptions to extrapolate the analysis to those equipment classes with
less information available. In addition to only directly analyzing the
downflow equipment classes (as explained above), DOE also only directly
analyzed those equipment classes without a fluid economizer and assumed
what the potential cost of adding a fluid economizer and what the
potential efficiency effects of the economizer coil would be for those
classes with a fluid economizer.
As in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE found that there was only enough
efficiency information to directly analyze four equipment classes: (1)
Small (i.e., sensible cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) air-
cooled; (2) large (i.e., sensible cooling capacity greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h) air-cooled; (3)
small water-cooled; and (4) and large water-cooled. For the other 11
downflow equipment classes, DOE extrapolated the analysis based on
these four primary equipment classes because of a lack of efficiency
and pricing data for those other equipment classes. DOE did not receive
any comments from stakeholders on the methodology of extrapolating the
results to the equipment classes with inadequate data. Thus, DOE has
not changed the methodology of extrapolating this data in this final
rule. For information about how DOE extrapolated to these 11 equipment
classes, see the January 2012 NOPR (77 FR 2356, 2387-88 (Jan. 17,
2012)) and chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
6. Engineering Analysis Results
The results of the engineering analysis are reported in the form of
price-efficiency tables that represent the cost to a contractor for
equipment at the baseline levels and at more-stringent efficiency
levels for each equipment class. The results of the engineering
analysis are the basis for the downstream LCC and PBP analyses. Table
V.4 and Table V.5 below show the engineering analysis results for the
four equipment classes that were directly analyzed. Chapter 3 of the
final rule TSD contains the price-efficiency tables for all 15
equipment classes of computer room air conditioners, including those
that were not directly analyzed. In summary, when examining the pricing
information for each individual manufacturer, DOE found there was no
correlation between pricing and efficiency. Only when all the
manufacturer data points were aggregated across all manufacturers for
each equipment class did a correlation appear. Generally, there were
manufacturers who sold lower-priced, lower-SCOP equipment and those who
sold higher-priced, higher-SCOP equipment. DOE also notes that the
results for the small (<65,000 Btu/h) water-cooled and glycol-cooled
equipment classes are counter-intuitive because the correlation between
price and efficiency showed an inverse trend. This result can be
attributed to the lack of data points, which prevented a statistically
significant trend between price and efficiency. In DOE's experience, an
inverse correlation between price and efficiency is not typical, and
thus, DOE believes additional data and analysis would possibly reveal a
different relationship than this pricing analysis.
[[Page 28953]]
Table V.4--Air-Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners Price-Efficiency Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000 Btu/h >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOP Price SCOP Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.20................................................... $6,681.09 2.10 $22,621.45
2.40................................................... 7,853.51 2.35 24,383.30
2.60................................................... 9,231.68 2.60 26,282.38
2.80................................................... 10,851.69 2.85 28,329.36
3.00................................................... 12,755.99 3.10 30,535.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.5--Water-Cooled Computer Air Conditioners Price-Efficiency Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000 Btu/h >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOP Price SCOP Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.60................................................... $14,232.84 2.50 $12,883.01
2.80................................................... 11,527.69 2.70 17,315.28
3.00................................................... 9,336.69 2.90 23,272.43
3.20................................................... 7,562.12 3.10 31,279.07
3.40................................................... 6,124.84 3.30 42,040.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEI commented at the February 14, 2012, public meeting that DOE
should state that its analyses for computer room air conditioners were
limited and would affect the downstream life-cycle analysis. (EEI,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 85) DOE agrees with EEI in that
its analysis was limited and contained a lot of uncertainty in its data
because computer room air conditioners were not previously regulated
and limited efficiency and price information is available. Because of
this lack of clear data and other uncertainties in the analyses
performed, DOE does not have clear and convincing evidence to adopt
higher efficiency levels than ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, as discussed
in section VI.D.3. of this final rule.
C. Markups To Determine Equipment Price
DOE understands that the price of CRAC equipment depends on the
distribution channel the customer uses to purchase the equipment.
Typical distribution channels for most commercial HVAC equipment
include shipments that may pass through manufacturers' national
accounts, or through entities including wholesalers, mechanical
contractors, and/or general contractors. However, DOE understands that
the typical distribution channel for CRAC equipment for either new
construction or replacement involves a mechanical contractor ordering
the equipment from a manufacturer representative or distributor who
delivers the equipment to the job site at a ``contractor's price.'' The
contractor's price includes the distributor's sales commission. The
distributor does not take a separate markup. The manufacturer's sales
price in both the NOPR and the final rule reflects the contractor's
price. The mechanical contractor takes delivery, then adds a markup and
provides installation services. Because the equipment is specialized,
general contractors are not involved in the transaction, nor did DOE
find any evidence of wholesaler involvement or national accounts for
distribution of this specialized CRAC equipment. DOE developed
equipment costs for mechanical contractors directly in the engineering
analysis and estimated the cost to customers using a markup chain
beginning with the mechanical contractor cost. Because of the
complexity of installation, DOE assumed most sales of CRAC equipment
involved mechanical contractors. Consequently, DOE did not develop
separate markups for other distribution channels.
DOE developed supply chain markups in the form of multipliers that
represent increases above the mechanical contractor cost. DOE applied
these markups (or multipliers) to the mechanical contractor costs it
developed from the engineering analysis. DOE then added sales taxes and
installation costs to arrive at the final installed equipment prices
for baseline and higher-efficiency equipment. See chapter 5 of the
ASHRAE final rule TSD for additional details on markups. DOE identified
two separate distribution channels for CRAC equipment to describe how
the equipment passes from the mechanical contractor to the customer
(Table V.6).
Table V.6--Distribution Channels for CRAC Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel 1 (Replacements) Channel 2 (New Construction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributor or Manufacturer Distributor or Manufacturer
Representative Representative
(No Separate Markup) (No Separate Markup)
Mechanical Contractor Mechanical Contractor
Customer Customer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated a baseline markup and an incremental markup. DOE
defined a ``baseline markup'' as a multiplier that converts the
mechanical contractor cost of equipment with baseline efficiency to the
customer purchase price for the equipment at the same baseline
efficiency level. An ``incremental markup'' is defined as the
multiplier used to convert the incremental increase in mechanical
contractor cost of higher-efficiency equipment into the customer
[[Page 28954]]
purchase price for the same equipment. Both baseline and incremental
markups are independent of the CRAC equipment efficiency levels.
DOE developed the markups based on available financial data. DOE
based the mechanical contractor markups on data from the 2007 U.S.
Census Bureau financial data \14\ for the plumbing, heating, and air-
conditioning industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The 2007 U.S. Census Bureau financial data for the
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning industry is the latest
version data set and was issued in August 2009. (Available by
searching for Table EC0723A1 at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall markup is the product of all the markups (baseline or
incremental) for the different steps within a distribution channel plus
sales tax. DOE calculated sales taxes based on 2012 State-by-State
sales tax data reported by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\15\ Because
both contractor costs and sales tax vary by State, DOE developed
distributions of markups within each distribution channel by State. No
information was available to develop State-by-State distributions of
CRAC equipment by building or business type, so the percentage
distributions of sales by business type are assumed to be the same in
all States. The National distribution of the markups varies among
business types. Chapter 5 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD provides
additional detail on markups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Table of state sales tax rates
along with combined city and county rates. (Last accessed January
11, 2012) (Available at: https://thestc.com/STRates.stm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the January 2012 NOPR, DOE received a comment from
Panasonic Air Conditioning Group (Panasonic) that at least some
distribution channels may include distributors, manufacturer's
representatives, or sales representatives, and that, therefore, one
link in the distribution channel was missing. (Panasonic, Public
Meeting Transcript, pp. 97-98) However, DOE determined that the
manufacturer sales prices used in the NOPR were contractor prices that
included manufacturer sales representative or distributor charges and,
therefore, did not require a separate markup. Chapter 5 of the ASHRAE
final rule TSD provides additional detail on markups.
D. Energy Use Characterization
DOE's building energy use characterization assesses the annual
energy use for each of the 15 classes of computer room air conditioners
at the efficiency levels established in the engineering analysis.
Because of the fixed 0.11 SCOP difference between upflow and downflow
CRAC units established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and presumed in the
engineering analysis for all higher efficiency levels, DOE determined
that the per-unit energy savings benefits for corresponding upflow
computer room air conditioners at higher efficiency levels could be
represented using these 15 downflow equipment classes. The energy use
characterization assessed the energy use of computer room air
conditioners using a purpose-built spreadsheet that estimates the
annual energy consumption for each equipment class at each efficiency
level. The spreadsheet uses a modified outside temperature bin
analysis. For each air-cooled equipment class, the spreadsheet
calculates fan energy and condensing unit power consumption at each 5
[deg]F outdoor air dry bulb temperature bin. The condensing unit power
in this context includes the compressor(s) and condenser fan(s) and/or
pump(s) included as part of the equipment rating. For water-cooled and
glycol-cooled equipment, the spreadsheet first estimates the condensing
water supply temperature from either an evaporative cooling tower or a
dry cooler for water-cooled and for glycol-cooled CRAC equipment,
respectively, based on binned weather data. Using these results, DOE
then estimates the condensing unit power consumption and adds to this
the estimated supply fan power. The sum of the CRAC condensing unit
power and the CRAC supply fan power is the estimated average CRAC total
power consumption for each temperature bin. Annual estimates of energy
use are developed by multiplying the power consumption at each
temperature bin by the number of hours in that bin for each climate
analyzed.
To implement DOE's analytical methodology, DOE estimated the
average heat load on each type and size of CRAC equipment based on an
average thermal load set at 65 percent of the nominal sensible capacity
based on an estimate provided in an Australian energy performance
standards report.\16\ As CRAC equipment is used to cool internally-
generated thermal loads which are generally not climate dependent, DOE
believes that this figure would also apply to CRAC equipment in the
United States. DOE did not have manufacturer efficiency or performance
data as a function of the outdoor temperature or the fraction of full
load. Accordingly, DOE used an example of the variation in full-load
performance as a function of ambient air temperature (for air-cooled
equipment) or entering fluid temperature (for water-cooled and glycol-
cooled equipment) provided in the ASHRAE 127-2007 test procedure and
based on computer simulations to adjust full-load performance from the
SCOP rating condition. A part-load performance degradation was also
included, based on the methodology outlined for unitary direct-
expansion air-conditioning equipment presented in the DOE EnergyPlus
simulation tool documentation.\17\ For water-cooled and glycol-cooled
equipment with economizer coils, DOE reduced the thermal load on the
condensing unit during hours when the economizer would be expected to
meet some or all of the sensible cooling load. Because the primary heat
load met with computer room air conditioners is a sensible load and
because DOE did not have data to adequately estimate the relative
sensible load versus latent load during the year for computer rooms,
DOE did not separately examine the latent load on the equipment as a
function of conditions, but determined that the total energy use could
be based on the SCOP performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ EnergyConsult Pty Ltd., Equipment Energy Efficiency
Committee Regulatory Impact Statement Consultation Draft: Minimum
Energy Performance Standards and Alternative Strategies for Close
Control Air Conditioners, Report No 2008/11 (2008) (Available at:
www.energyrating.gov.au).
\17\ U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. EnergyPlus Documentation, Engineering Reference
(Available at: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/pdfs/engineeringreference.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the computer room heat load met by CRAC equipment is
generally not climate sensitive, the performance of the equipment is
climate sensitive. DOE estimated the annual energy consumption for each
equipment class at each efficiency level for 239 climate locations
using typical meteorological year (TMY3) weather data.\18\ DOE relied
on population-based climate location weights to map the results for
individual TMY locations to State-level annual energy consumption
estimates for each U.S. State. DOE used the resulting State-by-State
annual energy consumption estimates for each efficiency level in the
subsequent life-cycle cost analysis. DOE received no comments on the
January 2012 NOPR regarding the energy use analysis for CRAC equipment
and retains the approach for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ S. Wilcox and W. Marion, Users Manual for TMY3 Data Sets,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO., Report No. NREL/
TP-581-43156 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28955]]
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
DOE conducted the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP)
analyses to estimate the economic impacts of potential standards on
individual customers of CRAC equipment. DOE first analyzed these
impacts for CRAC equipment by calculating the change in customer LCCs
likely to result from higher efficiency levels compared with the ASHRAE
baseline efficiency levels for the 15 downflow CRAC classes discussed
in the engineering analysis. DOE determined that the LCC benefits for
higher efficiency levels for each downflow class of CRAC equipment
would adequately represent LCC benefits for the corresponding upflow
class. The LCC calculation considers total installed cost (contractor
cost, sales taxes, distribution chain markups, and installation cost),
operating expenses (energy, repair, and maintenance costs), equipment
lifetime, and discount rate. DOE calculated the LCC for all customers
as if each would purchase a new CRAC unit in the year the standard
takes effect. Since DOE is considering both the efficiency levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and more-stringent efficiency levels, the
compliance date for a new DOE energy conservation standard for any
equipment class would depend on the efficiency level adopted. This is
because the statutory lead times for DOE adoption of the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels and the adoption of more-stringent
efficiency levels are different. (See section V.I.1. for additional
explanation regarding compliance dates.) However, the LCC benefits to
the customer of standards higher than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 can begin to accrue only after the compliance date for such a
higher standard is adopted by DOE. To account for this fact and to
facilitate comparison, DOE presumed that the purchase year for all CRAC
equipment for purposes of the LCC calculation is 2017, the earliest
year in which DOE can establish an amended energy conservation level at
an efficiency level more stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency level. To
compute LCCs, DOE discounted future operating costs to the time of
purchase and summed them over the lifetime of the equipment.
Next, DOE analyzed the effect of changes in installed costs and
operating expenses by calculating the PBP of potential standards
relative to baseline efficiency levels. The PBP is the amount of time
it would take the customer to recover the incremental increase in the
purchase price of more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. The PBP is the change in purchase price divided by the change in
annual operating cost that results from the energy conservation
standard. DOE expresses the PBP in years. Similar to the LCC, the PBP
is based on the total installed cost and the operating expenses.
However, unlike the LCC, DOE only considers the first year's operating
expenses in the PBP calculation. Because the PBP does not account for
changes in operating expense over time or the time value of money, it
is also referred to as a simple PBP.
DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analyses using a commercially-
available spreadsheet tool and a purpose-built spreadsheet model,
available online.\19\ This spreadsheet model developed by DOE accounts
for variability in energy use and prices, installation costs, repair
and maintenance costs, and energy costs. It uses weighting factors to
account for distributions of shipments to different building types and
States to generate national LCC savings by efficiency level. The
results of DOE's LCC and PBP analyses are summarized in section VI.B.3.
and described in detail in chapter 6 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD. DOE
received comments on specific aspects of the LCC and PBP methods and
input data. These comments are addressed in the appropriate subsections
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOE's Life-Cycle Cost spreadsheet model can be found on the
DOE's ASHRAE Products Web site at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Approach
Recognizing that each business that uses CRAC equipment is unique,
DOE analyzed variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP
calculations assuming a correspondence between business types and
market segments (characterized as building types) for customers located
in three types of commercial buildings (health care, education, and
office). DOE developed financial data appropriate for the customers in
each building type. Each type of building has typical customers who
have different costs of financing because of the nature of the
business. DOE derived the financing costs based on data from the
Damodaran Online site.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Damodaran Online, The Data Page (Last Accessed Jan. 2012)
(Available at: ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LCC analysis used the estimated annual energy use for selected
size units in each CRAC equipment class described in section V.B. The
energy use characterization is described in section V.D and in greater
detail in Chapter 4 of the final rule TSD. Because energy use of CRAC
equipment is sensitive to climate, energy use varies by State. Aside
from energy use, other important factors influencing the LCC and PBP
analyses are energy prices, installation costs, equipment distribution
markups, and sales tax. All of these are assumed to vary by State. At
the national level, the LCC spreadsheets explicitly modeled both the
uncertainty and the variability in the model's inputs, using
probability distributions based on State population, which serves as a
proxy for the shipment of CRAC equipment to different States.
As mentioned above, DOE generated LCC and PBP results by building
type and State and used weighting factors to generate national average
LCC savings and PBP for each efficiency level. Because there is a
unique LCC and PBP for each calculated value at the building type and
State level, the outcomes of the analysis can also be expressed as
probability distributions with a range of LCC and PBP results. A
distinct advantage of this type of approach is that DOE can identify
the percentage of customers achieving LCC savings or attaining certain
PBP values due to an increased efficiency level, in addition to the
average LCC savings or average PBP for that efficiency level. DOE
received no comments on its general LCC and PBP approach and has
retained it for the final rule.
2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs
For each efficiency level DOE analyzed, the LCC analysis required
input data for the total installed cost of the equipment, its operating
cost, and the discount rate. Table V.7 summarizes the inputs and key
assumptions DOE used to calculate the customer economic impacts of all
energy efficiency levels analyzed in this rulemaking. A more detailed
discussion of the inputs follows.
[[Page 28956]]
Table V.7--Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions Used in the LCC and PBP
Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes for the
Inputs NOPR final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affecting Installed Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Price.................. Equipment price was Sales taxes
derived by updates to
multiplying 2012 rates. No
manufacturer sales other changes.
price or MSP
(distributor's or
manufacturer's
representative's
price delivered to
a mechanical
contractor at the
job site,
calculated in the
engineering
analysis) by
mechanical
contractor markups,
as needed, plus
sales tax from the
markups analysis.
Installation Cost................ Installation cost Updated
includes installation
installation labor, costs and
installer overhead, relative
and any regional cost
miscellaneous multipliers
materials and from 2011 to
parts, derived from 2012
RS Means CostWorks conditions
2011.\21\ using RS Means
CostWorks
2012.\22\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affecting Operating Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Energy Use................ Annual unit energy No change.
consumption for
each class of
equipment at each
efficiency level
estimated on a per-
State basis using a
spreadsheet model
and a population-
based mapping of
climate locations
to States.
Electricity Prices............... DOE developed Updated from
average electricity 2010 to 2011
prices based on using EIA Form
EIA's Form 861 data 826 data for
for 2010.\23\ Price 2011.\25\
projections based Price
on AEO 2011.\24\ projections
based on AEO
2011.
Maintenance Cost................. DOE estimated annual Updated
maintenance costs maintenance
based on RS Means using RS Means
CostWorks 2011 for CostWorks 2012
CRAC equipment. and to reflect
Annual maintenance more frequent
cost did not vary maintenance
as a function of schedules for
efficiency. all CRAC
equipment.
Repair Cost...................... DOE estimated the Updated repair
annualized repair costs using RS
cost for baseline Means
efficiency CRAC CostWorks
equipment based on 2012.
cost data from RS
Means CostWorks
2011 (2010 data).
DOE assumed that
the materials
components portion
of the repair costs
would vary in
direct proportion
with the MSP at
higher efficiency
levels because it
generally costs
more to replace
components that are
more efficient.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Lifetime............... DOE estimated CRAC No change.
equipment lifetime
ranged between 10
and 25 years, with
an average lifespan
of 15 years, based
on estimates cited
in available CRAC
literature.
Discount Rate.................... Mean real discount Updated to
rates for business early 2012
types considered conditions.
range from 2.68 Additional
percent for business
education to 4.51 included in
percent for office
offices. Health category.
care was 4.10 Education was
percent based on a 2.98 percent.
limited sample. Office was
4.46 percent.
Health care
was 4.98
percent, based
on an expanded
sample.
Analysis Start Year.............. Start year for LCC No change.
is 2017, which is
the earliest
compliance date
that DOE can set
for new standards
if it adopts any
efficiency level
for energy
conservation
standards higher
than that shown in
ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed Efficiency Levels....... DOE analyzed the No change.
baseline efficiency
levels (ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010)
and four higher
efficiency levels
for all 15
equipment classes.
See the engineering
analysis for
additional details
on selections of
efficiency levels
and cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ RS Means Company Inc., RS Means CostWorks 2011 (2011)
(Available at: <www.meanscostworks.com/>).
\22\ RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means CostWorks 2012 (2012)
(Available at: <www.meanscostworks.com/>).
\23\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Sales,
Revenue, and Average Price 2009 (Last accessed May 10, 2011)
(Available at: <www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_sum.html>). Inflator--2009 to 2010 dollars from EIA AEO 2011 GDP
Price Index. (Last accessed April 27, 2011 at <www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011&subject=0-AEO2011&table=18-AEO2011®ion=0-0&cases=ref2011-d020911a>).
\24\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy
Outlook 2011 (Available at: <http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/data.cfm>).
\25\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Sales and Revenue
Data by State, Monthly Back to 1990 (Form EIA-826) (Last accessed
Jan. 27, 2012) (Available at: <http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/sales_revenue.xls>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Equipment Prices
The price of CRAC equipment reflects the application of
distribution channel markups (mechanical contractor markups) and sales
tax to the manufacturer sales price (distributor's price, delivered to
the job site), which is the cost established in the engineering
analysis. As described in section V.C, DOE determined mechanical
contractor costs and markup for air-conditioning equipment. For each
equipment class, the engineering analysis provided contractor costs for
the baseline equipment and up to four higher equipment efficiencies.
The markup is the percentage increase in price as the CRAC
equipment passes
[[Page 28957]]
through the distribution channel. As explained in section V.C, all CRAC
equipment is assumed to be delivered to the mechanical contractor at
the job site for installation without the involvement of a general
contractor. This is assumed to happen whether the equipment is being
purchased for the new construction market or to replace existing
equipment.
To project a price trend for the final rule, DOE initially derived
an inflation-adjusted index of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for
miscellaneous refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment over 1990-
2010.\26\ These data show a general price index decline from 1990 to
2004, followed by a sharp increase, primarily due to rising prices of
copper and steel products that go into this equipment. Given the
slowdown in global economic activity in 2011, DOE believes that the
extent to which the trends of the past few years will continue is very
uncertain and that the observed data do not provide a firm basis for
projecting future costs trends for CRAC equipment. Therefore, DOE used
a constant price assumption as the default price factor index to
project future computer room air conditioner prices in 2017. Thus,
prices projected for the LCC and PBP analysis are equal to the 2011
values for each efficiency level in each equipment class. Appendix 8D
of the final rule TSD describes the historical data and the derivation
of the price projection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Series ID PCU3334153334159; <http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requested comments on the most appropriate trend to use for
real (inflation-adjusted) computer room air conditioner prices. DOE
received no comments on this issue and has retained the same approach
for the final rule.
b. Installation Costs
For the NOPR, DOE derived national average installation costs for
CRAC equipment from data provided in RS Means CostWorks 2011 (RS Means)
specifically for CRAC equipment.\27\ RS Means provides estimates for
installation costs for CRAC units by equipment capacity, as well as
city cost indices that reflect the variation in installation costs. DOE
uses the RS Means cost indexes for 288 cities in the United States to
determine State-level markups. The RS Means data identify several
cities in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. DOE incorporated
location-based cost indices into the analysis to capture variation in
installation cost, depending on the location of the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ R.S. Means Company, Inc., RS Means CostWorks 2011 (2011)
(Available at: <www.meanscostworks.com/>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more-stringent efficiency levels, DOE recognized that
installation costs could potentially be higher with larger units and
higher-efficiency CRAC equipment due to larger sizes and more complex
setup requirements. DOE utilized RS Means installation cost data from
RS Means CostWorks 2011 to derive installation cost curves by size of
unit for the base-efficiency unit. These cost curves were updated for
the final rule using RS Means CostWorks 2012.\28\ DOE did not have data
to calibrate the extent to which installation cost might change as
efficiency increased. This was identified as Issue 13 under ``Issues on
Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section X.E of the January 2012 NOPR. 77
FR 2356, 2424 (Jan. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means CostWorks 2012 (2012)
(Available at: <www.meanscostworks.com/>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received two comments on the NOPR concerning its installation
costs for the LCC analysis. Danfoss commented that installation costs
in replacement and retrofit applications might be higher than for new
applications, because higher-efficiency equipment may be larger and
harder to adapt to existing spaces. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript
at p. 110) Emerson commented that installation costs in situations
where much attention is paid to efficiency may be higher because of the
intentions of the designer interested in energy efficiency, not the
equipment itself. (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 110-111)
DOE acknowledges that either of these comments may be correct under
certain circumstances, but it does not have quantitative information
that would allow computation of an installation cost curve that is
sensitive to efficiency level. Accordingly, DOE is using average
installation cost data from RS Means that spans a variety of
installation circumstances at a range of capacities. These data
indicated that installation costs for replacements overall were
slightly less costly than new installations. In this final rule, DOE is
maintaining the approach used in the NOPR, specifically that
installation costs do not vary with efficiency level.
c. Annual Energy Use
DOE estimated the annual electricity consumed by each class of CRAC
equipment, by efficiency level, based on the energy use
characterization described in section V.D and in chapter 4 of the final
rule TSD. DOE received no comments on energy use. Accordingly, DOE is
maintaining the same approach in the final rule.
d. Electricity Prices
Electricity prices are used to convert the electric energy savings
from higher-efficiency equipment into energy cost savings. Because
annual electricity consumption savings and equipment costs vary across
the country, it is important to consider regional differences in
electricity prices. DOE used average effective commercial electricity
prices at the State level from U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA) data for 2011.\29\ This approach captured a wide range of
commercial electricity prices across the United States. Furthermore,
different kinds of businesses typically use electricity in different
amounts at different times of the day, week, and year, and therefore,
face different effective prices. To make this adjustment, DOE used
EIA's 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) \30\
data set to identify the average prices the three building types paid
and compared them with the average prices paid by all commercial
customers.\31\ DOE used the ratios of prices paid by the three types of
businesses to the national average commercial prices seen in the 2003
CBECS as multipliers to adjust the average commercial 2011 State price
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Not all of the 2011 data had been posted by EIA by the time
calculations for the final rule were required. Consequently, prices
for the period November 2010 through October 2011 were used.
\30\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, CBECS Public Use
Microdata Files (Last Accessed April 2012) (Available at:
<www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/public_use_2003/cbecs_pudata2003.html>).
\31\ EIA's 2003 CBECS is the most recent version of the data
set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated the relative prices each building type paid in each
State and the estimated relative sales of CRAC equipment to each
building type in each State. The relative prices were compared with a
weighted-average national electricity price for 2011. The State/
building type weights reflect the probabilities that a given unit of
CRAC equipment shipped will operate with a given fuel price. The
original State-by-State average commercial prices in the NOPR (adjusted
to 2011$) range from $0.066 per kWh to approximately $0.216 per kWh.
The commercial electricity prices for each State used in the final rule
were updated through October 2011 and range from $0.065 per kWh to
$0.312 per kWh (See chapter 6 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD for further
details.)
The electricity price trends provide the relative change in
electricity costs
[[Page 28958]]
for future years. DOE applied the AEO 2011 reference case as the
default scenario and extrapolated the trend in values at the Census
Division level from 2025 to 2035 of the projection to establish prices
in 2036 to 2060. This method of extrapolation is in line with methods
EIA uses to project fuel prices for the Federal Energy Management
Program (FEMP). DOE provides a sensitivity analysis of the LCC savings
and PBP results to different fuel price scenarios using both the AEO
2011 high-price and low-price projections in the ASHRAE final rule TSD.
DOE received no comments concerning either electricity prices or
electricity price trends. Accordingly, DOE updated the data used in the
NOPR to reflect the latest available prices and price forecasts and
retained the same analytical approach for the final rule.
e. Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs are the costs to the customer of maintaining
equipment operation. Maintenance costs include services such as
cleaning heat-exchanger coils and changing air filters. For the NOPR,
DOE estimated annual routine maintenance costs for CRAC equipment as
$84 per year for capacities up to 288 kBtu per hour and $102 per year
for larger capacities, as reported in the RS Means CostWorks 2011
database. For the final rule, these values were increased to account
for recommended CRAC quarterly and semi-annual maintenance schedules
and for changes in unit costs reflected in RS Means CostWorks 2012.
Because data did not indicate how maintenance costs vary with equipment
efficiency, DOE used preventive maintenance costs that remain constant
as equipment efficiency increases. DOE received no comments on the NOPR
concerning the maintenance cost estimates. DOE made no changes to the
maintenance cost estimates for this final rule other than those
updating the RS Means maintenance schedules and unit costs.
f. Repair Costs
The repair cost is the cost to the customer of replacing or
repairing components that have failed in the CRAC equipment. For the
NOPR, DOE estimated the one-time repair cost in RS Means CostWorks 2011
as a percentage of MSP for capacities between 5 tons (T) (60,000 Btu/h)
and 15 T (180,000 Btu/h), with the curve flattening at the 15 T
percentage thereafter. DOE applied the percentage to the MSP for more-
efficient equipment at each capacity for the one-time repair, then
annualized the resulting repair costs. For the final rule, DOE updated
repair costs using data in RS Means CostWorks 2012. DOE determined that
annualized repair costs would increase in direct proportion with
increases in equipment prices. Because the price of CRAC equipment
increases with efficiency, the cost for component repair will also
increase as the efficiency of equipment increases. See chapter 6 of the
ASHRAE final rule TSD for details on the development of repair costs.
DOE received two comments on the January 2012 NOPR concerning
repair cost estimates. The Appliance Standard Awareness Project (ASAP)
questioned whether annualizing the present value of a future outlay
results in the same value as directly calculating the present value of
that outlay. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript at pp.114-116) Emerson
commented that the time profile of failure rates for compressors, which
would represent a significant portion of repair costs, are basically
constant over time. Therefore, according to the comment, it makes no
difference whether the cost was calculated for a single year or an
equivalent annual cost. (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 116-
117) For the final rule, DOE calculated annualized repair costs for
CRAC equipment by first calculating the present value of a major repair
at the mid-point of the average lifetime and then calculating the
equivalent annual payment that would yield the same present value.
g. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defines ``equipment lifetime'' as the age at which a unit of
CRAC equipment is retired from service. DOE reviewed available
literature to establish typical equipment lifetimes. The literature
offered a wide range of typical equipment lifetimes, ranging from 10 to
25 years. The data did not distinguish between classes of CRAC
equipment. Consequently, DOE used a distribution of lifetimes between
10 and 25 years, with an average of 15 years based on review of a range
of CRAC lifetime estimates found in published studies and online
documents. DOE applied this distribution to all classes of CRAC
equipment analyzed. Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD discusses
equipment lifetime. DOE received no comments on the January 2012 NOPR
regarding the distribution of equipment lifetimes or the average
equipment lifespan used in the LCC analysis. Accordingly, no changes
were made to this analysis for the final rule.
h. Discount Rate
The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are
discounted to establish their present value. DOE determined the
discount rate by estimating the cost of capital for purchasers of CRAC
equipment. Most purchasers use both debt and equity capital to fund
investments. Therefore, for most purchasers, the discount rate is the
weighted-average cost of debt and equity financing, or the weighted-
average cost of capital (WACC), less the expected inflation.
DOE updated the data sources for the final rule. As was done in the
NOPR, to estimate the WACC of computer room air conditioner equipment
purchasers that are private firms, DOE used a sample of more than 2,000
companies, grouped to represent operators of each of three commercial
building types (health care, education, and office). These companies
were drawn from a database of 5,891 U.S. companies presented on the
Damodaran Online Web site in January 2012.\32\ This database includes
most of the publicly-traded companies in the United States. For most
educational buildings and a portion of the office buildings occupied by
public schools, universities, and State and local government agencies,
DOE estimated the cost of capital based on a 40-year geometric mean of
the Bond Buyer Go 20-Bond Municipal Bond Index.\33\ Federal office
space was assumed to use the Federal bond rate, derived as the 40-year
geometric mean of long-term (>10 years) U.S. government securities.\34\
When one or more of the variables needed to estimate the discount rate
in the Damodaran dataset were missing or could not be obtained, DOE
discarded the firm from the analysis. DOE further reduced the sample to
exclude firms that were unlikely to use the computer rooms served by
CRAC equipment. The WACC approach for determining discount rates
accounts for the current tax status of individual firms on an overall
corporate basis. DOE did not evaluate the marginal effects of increased
costs, and, thus, depreciation due to more expensive equipment, on the
overall tax status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Damodaran financial data used for determining cost of
capital is available at http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ for
commercial businesses (Last accessed Jan. 27, 2012).
\33\ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, State and Local Bonds-
Bond Buyer Go 20-Bond Municipal Bond Index (Last accessed April 6,
2012) (Available at: <http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MSLB20/downloaddata?cid=32995).
\34\ Calculated as a 40-year geometric average of long-term (>10
year) U.S. government securities. Rate calculated with 1972-2011
data. Data source: U.S. Federal Reserve (Last accessed Jan. 23, 2012
at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received a comment on the January 2012 NOPR concerning the
discount rates used in the LCC analysis.
[[Page 28959]]
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) requested that major retail and
internet service companies be added to the businesses that would use
computer rooms having CRAC equipment. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript
at p. 120) For the final rule, DOE added several additional types of
businesses into the ``office'' category to broaden that classification.
Retail and internet firms were included.
DOE used the final sample of companies to represent purchasers of
CRAC equipment. For each company in the sample, DOE derived the cost of
equity, cost of debt, percent debt financing, and systematic company
risk from information on the Damodaran Online Web site. DOE estimated
the cost of debt financing as the ``risk-free'' rate--long-term Federal
government bond rate (6.61 percent)--added to a company-specific risk
premium based on the standard deviation of its stock price. DOE
estimated the cost of equity financing based on the risk-free rate,
plus the product of the company-specific risk premium and an expected
equity risk premium for firms facing average market risk. DOE then
determined WACC for each company and the weighted average WACC for each
category of the sample companies. Deducting expected inflation from the
cost of capital provided estimates of real discount rate for each
company. Based on this database, DOE calculated the weighted average
after-tax discount rate for CRAC equipment purchases, adjusted for
inflation, in each of the three building types used in the analysis.
Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD contains the detailed
calculations on the discount rate.
3. Payback Period
DOE also determined the economic impact of potential amended energy
conservation standards on customers by calculating the PBP of more-
stringent efficiency levels relative to a baseline efficiency level.
The PBP measures the amount of time it takes the commercial customer to
recover the assumed higher purchase expense of more-efficient equipment
through lower operating costs. Similar to the LCC, the PBP is based on
the total installed cost and the operating expenses for each building
type and State, weighted on the probability of shipment to each market.
Because the simple PBP does not take into account changes in operating
expense over time or the time value of money, DOE considered only the
first year's operating expenses to calculate the PBP, unlike the LCC,
which is calculated over the lifetime of the equipment. Chapter 6 of
the ASHRAE final rule TSD provides additional details about the PBP.
DOE received no comments on the January 2012 NOPR concerning the PBP
analysis. Accordingly, no changes were made to this analysis for the
final rule.
F. National Impact Analysis
The national impact analysis (NIA) evaluates the effects of a
proposed energy conservation standard from a national perspective
rather than from the customer perspective represented by the LCC. This
analysis assesses the net present value (NPV) (future amounts
discounted to the present) and the national energy savings (NES) of
total commercial customer costs and savings that are expected to result
from amended and new standards at specific efficiency levels. For each
efficiency level analyzed, DOE calculated the NPV and NES for adopting
more-stringent standards than the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010.
The NES refers to cumulative energy savings from 2012 through 2041
or 2013 through 2042, depending on the equipment class. DOE calculated
energy savings in each year relative to a base case, which reflects DOE
adoption of the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010. DOE also calculated energy savings from adopting efficiency
levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 compared to the current
market base case. The NPV refers to cumulative monetary savings. DOE
calculated net monetary savings in each year relative to the base case
(ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010) as the difference between total operating
cost savings and increases in total installed cost. Cumulative savings
are the sum of the annual NPV over the specified period. DOE accounted
for operating cost savings until 2055 or 2056, when the equipment
installed in the 30th year after the compliance date of the amended
standards should be retired.
1. Approach
The NES and NPV are a function of the total number of units in use
and their efficiencies. Both the NES and NPV depend on annual shipments
and equipment lifetime. Both calculations start by using the shipments
estimate and the quantity of units in service derived from the
shipments model.
With regard to estimating the NES, because more-efficient computer
room air conditioners are expected to gradually replace less-efficient
ones, the energy per unit of capacity used by the computer room air
conditioners in service gradually decreases in the standards case
relative to the base case. DOE calculated the NES by subtracting energy
use under a standards-case scenario from energy use in the base case.
Unit energy savings for each equipment class are taken from the LCC
spreadsheet for each efficiency level and weighted based on market
efficiency distributions. To estimate the total energy savings for each
efficiency level, DOE first calculated the national site energy
consumption (i.e., the energy directly consumed by the units of
equipment in operation) for each class of computer room air
conditioners for each year of the analysis period. The analysis period
begins with the earliest expected compliance date of amended Federal
energy conservation standards (i.e., 2012 or 2013), assuming DOE
adoption of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels. For the
analysis of DOE's potential adoption of more-stringent efficiency
levels, the earliest compliance date would be 2017, four years after
DOE would likely issue a final rule requiring such standards. Second,
DOE determined the annual site energy savings, consisting of the
difference in site energy consumption between the base case and the
standards case for each class of computer room air conditioner. Third,
DOE converted the annual site energy savings into the annual amount of
energy saved at the source of electricity generation (the source
energy), using a site-to-source conversion factor. Finally, DOE summed
the annual source energy savings over a 30-year period to calculate the
total NES. DOE performed these calculations for each efficiency level
considered for computer room air conditioners in this rulemaking.
DOE considered whether a rebound effect is applicable in its NES
analysis. A rebound effect occurs when an increase in equipment
efficiency leads to increased demand for its service. EIA in its
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) model assumes an efficiency
rebound to account for an increased demand for service due to the
increase in cooling (or heating) efficiency.\35\ For the computer room
air conditioning equipment market, there are two ways that a rebound
effect could occur: (1) Increased use of the air-conditioning equipment
within the commercial buildings in which such units are installed; and
(2) additional instances of air-conditioning computer rooms that were
not being cooled before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ An overview of the NEMS model and documentation is found
at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE believes that the first instance does not occur often because
computer rooms are generally cooled to the level
[[Page 28960]]
required for safe operation of the servers and other equipment. Persons
maintaining the equipment have no reason to deviate from the optimal
range of environmental conditions. With regard to the second instance,
computer room air conditioners are unlikely to be installed in
previously uncooled computer rooms, because servers and other equipment
that need to be cooled or otherwise space conditioned to the degree of
precision that requires a computer room air conditioner already would
be. Given the potential for computer equipment damage or diminished
performance, running a computer room without the appropriate
environmental controls from the outset is highly unlikely. DOE received
no public comments in response to the January 2012 NOPR on the issue of
rebound effect. Therefore, DOE did not assume a rebound effect in the
analysis.
To estimate NPV, DOE calculated the net impact as the difference
between total operating cost savings and increases in total installed
costs. DOE calculated the NPV of each considered standard level over
the life of the equipment using the following three steps. First, DOE
determined the difference between the equipment costs under the
standard-level case and the base case in order to obtain the net
equipment cost increase resulting from the higher standard level.
Second, DOE determined the difference between the base-case operating
costs and the standard-level operating costs in order to obtain the net
operating cost savings from each higher efficiency level. Third, DOE
determined the difference between the net operating cost savings and
the net equipment cost increase in order to obtain the net savings (or
expense) for each year. DOE then discounted the annual net savings (or
expenses) to 2012 for computer room air conditioners bought on or after
2012 or 2013, depending on product class, and summed the discounted
values to provide the NPV for an efficiency level. An NPV greater than
zero shows net savings (i.e., the efficiency level would reduce
customer expenditures relative to the base case in present value
terms). An NPV that is less than zero indicates that the efficiency
level would result in a net increase in customer expenditures in
present value terms.
To make the analysis more transparent to all interested parties,
DOE used a commercially-available spreadsheet tool to calculate the
energy savings and the national economic costs and savings from
potential amended standards. Chapter 8 of the final rule TSD explains
the models and how to use them. Interested parties can review DOE's
analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet.
Unlike the LCC analysis, the NES spreadsheet does not use
distributions for inputs or outputs, but relies on national average
equipment costs and energy costs developed from the LCC spreadsheet.
DOE used the NES spreadsheet to perform calculations of energy savings
and NPV using the annual energy consumption and total installed cost
data from the LCC analysis. DOE forecasted the energy savings, energy
cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV of benefits for equipment sold
in each computer room air conditioner class from 2012 through 2041 or
2013 through 2042, depending on the product class. The forecast
provided annual and cumulative values for all four output parameters
described above. DOE received no public comments on these calculations.
Accordingly, DOE maintained the same approach in this final rule.
2. Shipments Analysis
DOE developed shipment projections and, in turn, calculated
equipment stock by assuming that in each year, each existing computer
room air conditioners either age by one year or break down after a 15-
year equipment life. DOE used the shipments projection and the
equipment stock to determine the NES. The shipments portion of the
spreadsheet model forecasts computer room air conditioner shipments
from 2012 or 2013 to 2041 or 2042, depending on the product class.
Data on computer room air conditioner shipments in the U.S. were
not available. To estimate U.S. shipments, DOE obtained historical and
projected (2000-2020) computer room air conditioner shipment data from
an Australian energy performance standards report.\36\ DOE then used
the ratio of business establishments in the U.S. compared to Australia
to inflate Australian shipments to reflect the U.S. market. The
inflator used was 13.2. Table V.8 exhibits the shipment data provided
for a selection of years, while the full data set and the complete
discussion of energy use indicators can be found in chapter 7 of the
ASHRAE final rule TSD. DOE used these shipments data to extend a
shipments trend into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ EnergyConsult Pty Ltd., Equipment Energy Efficiency
Committee Regulatory Impact Statement Consultation Draft: Minimum
Energy Performance Standards and Alternative Strategies for Close
Control Air Conditioners, Report No. 2008/11 (Sept. 2008) (Available
at: www.energyrating.gov.au).
Table V.8--Total Shipments of Computer Room Air Conditioners
[Units]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units shipped
Year (Australian Units shipped
data) (U.S. estimate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000................................ 850 11,228
2005................................ 985 13,011
2010................................ 1,140 15,058
2015................................ 1,320 17,436
2020................................ 1,526 20,157
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE allocated overall shipments into product classes using a two-
step process. First, DOE used Australian market shares to allocate
shipments to six broad product classes. DOE then used the relative
fraction of models for each equipment class reflected in DOE's market
database to allocate shipments further into the 15 product classes
analyzed. The complete discussion of shipment allocation and forecasted
shipments for the different equipment classes can be found in chapter 7
of the ASHRAE final rule TSD.
As equipment purchase price and repair costs increase with
efficiency, DOE recognizes that higher first costs and repair costs can
result in a drop in shipments. However, DOE had no basis for estimating
the elasticity of shipments for computer room air conditioners as a
function of first costs, repair costs, or operating costs. In addition,
because computer room air conditioners are necessary for their
application, DOE believes shipments would not change as a result of the
[[Page 28961]]
higher first costs and repair costs considered in this rulemaking.
Therefore, DOE assumed that the shipments projection does not change
with higher standard levels. DOE received no comments on its shipments
analysis in response to the January 2012 NOPR. Accordingly, DOE
maintained its approach for this final rule.
3. Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasted Distribution of Efficiencies
DOE reviewed the distribution of efficiency levels for
commercially-available models within each equipment class in order to
develop base-case efficiency distributions. DOE bundled the efficiency
levels into ``efficiency ranges'' and determined the percentage of
models within each range. DOE applied the percentages of models within
each efficiency range to the total unit shipments for a given equipment
class to estimate the distribution of shipments for the base case.
Then, from those market shares and projections of shipments by
equipment class, DOE extrapolated future equipment efficiency trends
both for a base-case scenario and for standards-case scenarios.
For each efficiency level analyzed, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario
to establish the market shares by efficiency level for the year that
compliance would be required with amended standards (i.e., 2017 if DOE
adopts more-stringent efficiency levels than those in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010). DOE collected information that suggests the efficiencies of
equipment in the base case that did not meet the standard level under
consideration would roll up to meet the standard level. This
information also suggests that equipment efficiencies in the base case
that were above the standard level under consideration would not be
affected. The base-case efficiency distributions for each equipment
class are presented in chapter 7 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD.
For the base case, DOE had no basis to estimate potential change in
efficiency market shares. Therefore, DOE assumed that, absent amended
standards, forecasted market shares would remain constant until the end
of the forecast period (30 years after the compliance date). This
prediction could cause DOE to overestimate the savings associated with
the higher efficiency levels discussed in this notice because computer
room air conditioner efficiencies or relative efficiency class
preferences could change over time.
In response to this approach in the January 2012 NOPR, AHRI stated
that the analysis of the NES-forecasted base-case distribution of
efficiencies and DOE's prediction of how amended energy conservation
standards might affect the distribution of efficiencies in the
standards case should be redone, with the assumption being that the
applicable industry test procedure will be the new edition of ASHRAE
Standard 127 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 127-2012). AHRI stated that the
result should be an improved forecast of energy savings. (AHRI, No. 30
at p. 6) In response, DOE notes that as mentioned in section IV.C, it
is unable to adopt ASHRAE 127-2012, because there are no test data
showing the results of testing to this standard (using the NSenCOP
metric) and how they compare to those obtained using ASHRAE 127-2007
(using the SCOP metric, which is also the metric of the standard levels
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010), so DOE could not obtain clear and
convincing evidence that any new efficiency levels based on ASHRAE 127-
2012 would be technologically feasible or economically justified.
Therefore, DOE is retaining the approach taken in the NOPR.
NEEA asked whether the national energy savings take into account
the energy presumably lost due to reduced energy efficiency standards
in the markets regulated by the California Energy Commission (CEC).
NEEA provided a table comparing the CEC levels to the ASHRAE levels
using the rule-of-thumb with a sensible heat ratio of 0.9, which
suggested that in contrast to the CEC's EER requirement for several
equipment classes, the corresponding SCOP level in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010 may be less stringent. (NEEA, No. at p. 2) In response, DOE
notes that the rule-of-thumb method is approximate, and no test data
are available to provide an accurate comparison between the EER
standards required by the CEC and the SCOP levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010. Commenters provided no data that would help clarify this
matter. In addition, DOE has no information on how the markets
regulated by the CEC would react to a national standard and, therefore,
how the distribution of efficiencies would be expected to change. As a
result, DOE was not able to take this issue into account in its
analyses.
G. Emissions Analysis
In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power
sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and mercury (Hg) from amended energy conservation
standards for ASHRAE equipment. DOE used the NEMS-BT computer
model,\37\ which is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, except that
equipment energy use is reduced by the amount of energy saved (by fuel
type) at each efficiency level. The inputs of national energy savings
come from the NIA spreadsheet model, while the output is the forecasted
physical emissions. The net benefit of each efficiency level in today's
final rule is the difference between the forecasted emissions estimated
by NEMS-BT at each efficiency level and the AEO 2011 Reference case,
which incorporates projected effects of all emissions regulations
promulgated as of January 31, 2011. NEMS-BT tracks CO2
emissions using a detailed module that provides results with broad
coverage of all sectors and inclusion of interactive effects. For
today's final rule, DOE used the version of NEMS-BT based on AEO 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ EIA approves the use of the name ``NEMS'' to describe only
an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or
data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code
modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that
deviate from AEO assumptions, the name ``NEMS-BT'' refers to the
model as used here. (BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies
Program.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade
programs, and DOE has preliminarily determined that these programs
create uncertainty about the impact of energy conservation standards on
SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual
emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous
States and the District of Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions
from 28 eastern States and D.C. are also limited under the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an
allowance-based trading program. Although CAIR was remanded to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) (see North Carolina v.
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), it remained in effect
temporarily, consistent with the D.C. Circuit's earlier opinion in
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 6, 2010,
EPA issued the Transport Rule proposal, a replacement for CAIR. 75 FR
45210 (August 2, 2010). On July 6, 2011, EPA issued the final Transport
Rule, titled the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 8,
2011). (See http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/). On December 30, 2011,
however, the D.C. Circuit stayed the new rules while a panel of judges
[[Page 28962]]
reviews them, and told EPA to continue enforcing CAIR (see EME Homer
City Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302, Order at *2 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30,
2011)). The AEO 2011 NEMS-BT used for today's final rule assumes the
implementation of CAIR.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ DOE notes that future iterations of the NEMS-BT model will
incorporate any changes necessitated by the Transport Rule, if and
when regulatory and judicial review of the rule is complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attainment of emissions caps typically is flexible among EGUs
and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable
permits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused
by the imposition of an energy conservation standard could be used to
permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any
regulated EGU. However, if the new and amended standards resulted in a
permanent increase in the quantity of unused emissions allowances,
there would be an overall reduction in SO2 emissions from
the standards. While there remains some uncertainty about the ultimate
effects of energy conservation standards on SO2 emissions
covered by the existing cap-and-trade system, the NEMS-BT modeling
system that DOE uses to forecast emissions reductions currently
indicates that no physical reductions in power sector emissions would
occur for SO2. DOE acknowledges, however, that even though
there is a cap on SO2 emissions and uncertainty whether
efficiency standards would reduce SO2 emissions, it is
possible that standards could reduce the compliance cost by reducing
demand for SO2 allowances.
As discussed above, the AEO 2011 NEMS used for today's final rule
assumes the implementation of CAIR, which established a cap on
NOX emissions in 28 eastern States and the District of
Columbia. With CAIR in effect, the energy conservation standards that
are the subject of today's final rule are expected to have little or no
physical effect on NOX emissions in those States covered by
CAIR, for the same reasons that they may have little effect on
SO2 emissions. However, the final standards would be
expected to reduce NOX emissions in the 22 States not
affected by CAIR. For these 22 States, DOE is using the NEMS-BT to
estimate NOX emissions reductions from the standards
considered in today's final rule.
On February 16, 2012, EPA published national emissions standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury and certain other
pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired EGUs. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16,
2012) (Final Rule). The NESHAPs do not include emissions caps and, as
such, DOE's energy conservation standards would likely reduce Hg
emissions. For the emissions analysis for this rulemaking, DOE
estimated mercury emissions reductions using NEMS-BT based on AEO 2011,
which does not incorporate the NESHAPs. DOE expects that future
versions of the NEMS-BT model will reflect the implementation of the
NESHAPs.
H. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of this final rule, DOE considered the
estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions
of CO2 and NOX that are expected to result from
each of the considered efficiency levels. In order to make this
calculation similar to the calculation of the NPV of customer benefit,
DOE considered the reduced emissions expected to result over the
lifetime of products shipped in the forecast period for each efficiency
level. This section summarizes the basis for the monetary values used
for each of these emissions and presents the values considered in this
rulemaking.
For today's final rule, DOE is relying on a set of values for the
social cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an interagency
process. A summary of the basis for those values is provided below, and
a more detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as an
appendix to chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to
the extent permitted by law, assess both the costs and the benefits of
the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits
are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is
to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of
reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of
regulatory actions that have small, or ``marginal,'' impacts on
cumulative global emissions. The estimates are presented with an
acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear
understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect
increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts.
As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in
relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main
objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a
defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific
and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model
differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC
estimates used in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is
intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk,
and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided
in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide.
When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of
carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious
challenges. A recent report from the National Research Council \39\
points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty,
speculation, and lack of information about: (1) Future emissions of
greenhouse gases; (2) the effects of past and future emissions on the
climate system; (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical
and biological environment; and (4) the translation of these
environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to
quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate change will
raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be
viewed as provisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ National Research Council, ``Hidden Costs of Energy:
Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use,'' National
Academies Press: Washington, DC (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization,
SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Consistent with the directive in
Executive Order 12866 discussed above, the purpose of the SCC estimates
presented here is to make it possible for agencies to incorporate the
social benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions into cost-
benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or
``marginal,'' impacts on cumulative global emissions. Most
[[Page 28963]]
Federal regulatory actions can be expected to have marginal impacts on
global emissions.
For such policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from
reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by
multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC value
appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits can
then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an
appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years. This
approach assumes that the marginal damages from increased emissions are
constant for small departures from the baseline emissions path, an
approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects on
emissions that are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide
emissions. For policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on
global cumulative emissions, there is a separate question of whether
the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits of reduced
emissions. This concern is not applicable to this notice, and DOE does
not attempt to answer that question here.
At the time of the preparation of this notice, the most recent
interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from
reduced CO2 emissions in 2010, expressed in 2010$, were
$4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton avoided. For emissions
reductions that occur in later years, these values grow in real terms
over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range
of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the
global SCC to calculate domestic effects,\40\ although preference is
given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing
CO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values
is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a
priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of
net global damages over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is
committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic
understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves
over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a preliminary
goal of revisiting the SCC values within 2 years or at such time as
substantially updated models become available, and to continue to
support research in this area. In the meantime, the interagency group
will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and
consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency process.
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide
range of values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing
carbon dioxide emissions. In the model year 2011 CAFE final rule, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a ``domestic'' SCC value
of $2 per ton of CO2 and a ``global'' SCC value of $33 per
ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$),
increasing both values at 2.4 percent per year. It also included a
sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of CO2. See Average Fuel
Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 74
FR 14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final Environmental Impact
Statement Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-90 (Oct. 2008) (Available at:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A domestic SCC value is meant to
reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit
change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant
to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of
$7 per ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission reductions
(with a range of $0 to $14 for sensitivity analysis), also increasing
at 2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008)
(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2011-2015 at 3-58 (June 2008) (Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A regulation for packaged terminal air conditioners and
packaged terminal heat pumps finalized by DOE in October of 2008 used a
domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007
emission reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008). In
addition, EPA's 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act identified
what it described as ``very preliminary'' SCC estimates subject to
revision. 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA's global mean values were
$68 and $40 per ton CO2 for discount rates of approximately
2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 emissions).
In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how
benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to
develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for
the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from
reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group did not
undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC estimates
from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more
comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the
preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five
interim values: Global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33,
$19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2. These interim values
represent the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S.
government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The
results of this preliminary effort were presented in several proposed
and final rules and were offered for public comment in connection with
proposed rules, including the joint EPA-DOT fuel economy and
CO2 tailpipe emission proposed rules.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group
reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates, which
were considered for this final rule. Specifically, the group considered
public comments and further explored the technical literature in
relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated
assessment models (IAMs) commonly used to estimate the SCC: The FUND,
DICE, and PAGE models.\41\ These models are frequently cited in the
peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each model was given equal
weight in the SCC values that were developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The models are described in appendix 15-A of the final rule
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the
three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters
for these models: Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for
[[Page 28964]]
climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In
addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the
socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate.
All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model
developers' best estimates and judgments.
The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in
regulatory analyses. Three values are based on the average SCC from
three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3
percent, and 5 percent. The fourth value, which represents the 95th-
percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount
rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from
temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution.
For emissions (or emission reductions) that occur in later years, these
values grow in real terms over time, as depicted in Table V.9.
Table V.9--Social Cost of CO2, 2010-2050
[In 2007 dollars per metric ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate (%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 5 3 2.5 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Average Average 95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010................................ 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9
2015................................ 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8
2020................................ 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7
2025................................ 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4
2030................................ 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0
2035................................ 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7
2040................................ 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3
2045................................ 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8
2050................................ 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional
and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research
Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between
the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from
an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to
model these effects. There are a number of concerns and problems that
should be addressed by the research community, including research
programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the
interagency process to estimate the SCC.
DOE recognizes the uncertainties embedded in the estimates of the
SCC used for cost-benefit analyses. As such, DOE and others in the U.S.
Government intend to periodically review and reconsider those estimates
to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate
impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this context,
statements recognizing the limitations of the analysis and calling for
further research take on exceptional significance.
In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting
from reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the most recent values
identified by the interagency process, adjusted to 2010$ using the GDP
price deflator. For each of the four cases specified, the values used
for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton
avoided (values expressed in 2010$).\42\ To monetize the CO2
emissions reductions expected to result from new or amended standards
for the product classes in today's final rule, DOE used the values
identified in Table A1 of the ``Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866,'' which is reprinted in
appendix 10-A of the final rule TSD, appropriately escalated to 2010$.
To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE
discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. For DOE's
calculation, it derived values after 2050 using the 3-percent per
year escalation rate used by the interagency group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced
NOX emissions from the efficiency levels it considered. As
noted above, DOE has taken into account how new or amended energy
conservation standards would reduce NOX emissions in those
22 States not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized value
of NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the
efficiency levels considered for today's final rule based on
environmental damage estimates found in the relevant scientific
literature. Available estimates suggest a very wide range of monetary
values, ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX
from stationary sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a range of
$450 to $4,623 per ton in 2010$).\43\ In accordance with OMB guidance,
DOE conducted two calculations of the monetary benefits derived using
each of the economic values used for NOX, one using a real
discount rate of 3 percent and the other using a real discount rate of
7 percent.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities, Washington, DC.
\44\ OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the
appropriate range of values used in evaluating the potential economic
benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further
guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions
before it monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.
I. Other Issues
1. Compliance Dates of the Amended and New Energy Conservation
Standards
Generally, covered equipment to which a new or amended energy
conservation standard applies must comply with the standard if such
[[Page 28965]]
equipment is manufactured or imported on or after a specified date. In
today's final rule, DOE is evaluating whether more-stringent efficiency
levels than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 would be technologically
feasible, economically justified, and result in a significant amount of
energy savings. If DOE were to adopt a rule prescribing energy
conservation standards at the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010, EPCA states that compliance with any such standards
shall be required on or after a date which is two or three years
(depending on equipment size) after the compliance date of the
applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended ASHRAE/
IES standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) DOE has applied this two-year
or three-year implementation period to determine the compliance date of
any energy conservation standard equal to the efficiency levels
specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 proposed by this rulemaking.
Thus, if DOE decides to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010, the compliance date of the rulemaking would be dependent
upon the date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or its publication
date, if none is specified.
The rule would apply to equipment <65,000 Btu/h (10 product classes
\45\) manufactured on and after October 29, 2012, which is two years
after the publication date of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, and to
equipment >=65,000 Btu/h (20 product classes \46\) manufactured on and
after October 29, 2013, which is three years after the publication date
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Typically, equipment equal to or greater
than 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h would have a compliance
date two years after the publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. However,
because ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 established a product class for
computer room air conditioners that combines traditional small and
large categories, DOE has decided to assign the later compliance date
of three years after the publication of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 to all
computer room air conditioner product classes that cover products
between 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The analysis only shows five product classes for this
equipment size because DOE was able to analyze downflow and upflow
units in combination. These units are nearly identical, but ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 identifies a 0.11 SCOP reduction in efficiency
levels for upflow units as compared to downflow units (likely as a
result of the additional static pressure that the blower fan must
overcome in the upflow orientation). By adjusting the upflow units
by 0.11 SCOP, DOE could analyze upflow and downflow units in
combination.
\46\ The analysis only shows ten product classes for this
equipment size for the same reasons mentioned for equipment <65,000
Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If DOE were to adopt a rule prescribing energy conservation
standards higher than the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010, EPCA states that compliance with any such standards
is required for products manufactured on and after a date which is four
years after the date the rule is published in the Federal Register. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) DOE has applied this 4-year implementation period
to determine the compliance date for any energy conservation standard
higher than the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 that might be prescribed. Thus, for products for which DOE might
adopt a level more stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency levels, the
rule would apply to products manufactured on and after a date four
years from the date of publication of the final rule, which the statute
requires to be completed by April 29, 2013 (thereby resulting in a
compliance date no later than April 29, 2017).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Since ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 on October
29, 2010, EPCA requires that DOE publish a final rule adopting more-
stringent standards than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, if
warranted, within 30 months of ASHRAE action (i.e., by April 2013).
Thus, four years from April 2013 would be April 2017, which would be
the anticipated compliance date for DOE adoption of more-stringent
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.10 presents the anticipated compliance dates of a new
energy conservation standard for each equipment class of computer room
air conditioners.
Table V.10--Compliance Dates for an Energy Conservation Standard for Each Equipment Class of Computer Room Air
Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date for adopting more-
Compliance date for adopting the stringent efficiency levels than
Equipment class efficiency levels in ASHRAE those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
Standard 90.1-2010 (no later than * * *)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 October 29, 2012................... April 29, 2017.
Btu/h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=65,000 October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
and <240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled, October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled, October 29, 2012................... April 29, 2017.
<65,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled, October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled, October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with October 29, 2012................... April 29, 2017.
fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
fluid economizers, >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
fluid economizers, >=240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, October 29, 2012................... April 29, 2017.
<65,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with October 29, 2012................... April 29, 2017.
fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
fluid economizers, >=65,000 and
<240,000 Btu/h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with October 29, 2013................... April 29, 2017.
fluid economizers, >=240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28966]]
VI. Analytical Results
A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
The methodology for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled products
was presented in the May 2011 NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25637-40 (May 5,
2011). Table VI.1 presents the baseline efficiency level and the higher
efficiency levels analyzed for each equipment class of water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled products subject to today's final rule. The
baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels
currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the
baseline represent efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 and higher efficiency levels where equipment is currently
available on the market.
Table VI.1--Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative
Equipment class capacity (tons) Efficiency levels analyzed (EER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric 8 Baseline--11.5
or No Heat, >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--12.1
13.0
14.0
................. 15.0
................. Max-Tech--16.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other 8 Baseline--11.3
Heat, >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--11.9
13.0
14.0
................. 15.0
................. Max-Tech--16.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric 15 Baseline--11.0
or No Heat, >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--12.5
13.0
14.0
................. 15.0
................. Max-Tech--16.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other 15 Baseline--11.0
Heat, >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--12.3
13.0
14.0
................. 15.0
................. Max-Tech--16.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, 35 Baseline--11.0
Electric or No Heat, >=240,000 Btu/h and ASHRAE--12.4
<760,000 Btu/h. 13.0
................. 14.0
................. Max-Tech--14.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other 35 Baseline--10.8
Heat, >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--12.2
13.0
................. 14.0
................. Max-Tech--14.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air 40 Baseline--11.0
Conditioner, Electric or No Heat, >=240,000 ASHRAE--11.9
Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 12.5
................. Max-Tech--13.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air 40 Baseline--10.8
Conditioner, Other Heat, >=240,000 and ASHRAE--11.7
<760,000 Btu/h. 12.5
................. Max-Tech--13.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
The methodology for VRF water-source heat pumps was presented in
the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2379-82 (Jan. 17, 2012). Table VI.2
presents the baseline efficiency level and the higher efficiency levels
analyzed for each equipment class of VRF water-source heat pumps
subject to today's final rule and with equipment on the market. The
baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels
currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the
baseline represent efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 and higher efficiency levels where equipment is currently
available on the market.
[[Page 28967]]
Table VI.2--Efficiency Levels Analyzed for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative
Equipment class capacity kBtu/h Efficiency levels analyzed (EER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps, >=135,000 Btu/h 242 Baseline--9.5
and <760,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery. ASHRAE--10
11
12
................. 13
................. Max-Tech--14.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps, >=135,000 Btu/h 215 Baseline--9.5
and <760,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery. ASHRAE--9.8
11
12
................. 13
................. Max-Tech--14.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
The methodology for computer room air conditioners was presented in
section V of today's final rule. Table VI.3 presents the market
baseline efficiency level and the higher efficiency levels analyzed for
each equipment class of computer room air conditioners subject to
today's final rule. The market baseline efficiency levels correspond to
the lowest efficiency levels currently available on the market. The
efficiency levels above the baseline represent efficiency levels
specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and efficiency levels above
those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 where equipment is
currently available on the market. Note that for the economic analysis,
efficiency levels above those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
are compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as the baseline rather than
the market baseline.
Table VI.3--Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative
Equipment class capacity kBtu/h Efficiency levels analyzed (SCOP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h.... 36 Market Baseline--2.00
ASHRAE--2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
Max-Tech--3.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h 132 Market Baseline--2.10
and <240,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--2.10
2.35
2.60
2.85
Max-Tech--3.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h 288 Market Baseline--1.90
and <760,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--1.90
2.15
2.40
2.65
Max-Tech--2.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h.. 36 Market Baseline--2.40
ASHRAE--2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
Max-Tech--3.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h 132 Market Baseline--2.30
and <240,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--2.50
2.70
2.90
3.10
[[Page 28968]]
Max-Tech--3.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h 288 Market Baseline--2.20
and <760,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Max-Tech--3.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 36 Market Baseline--2.35
economizers, <65,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--2.55
2.75
2.95
3.15
Max-Tech--3.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 132 Market Baseline--2.25
economizers, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
Max-Tech--3.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 288 Market Baseline--2.15
economizers, >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ ASHRAE--2.35
h. 2.55
2.75
2.95
Max-Tech--3.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. 36 Market Baseline--2.30
ASHRAE--2.50
2.70
2.90
3.10
Max-Tech--3.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=65,000 and 132 Market Baseline--1.95
<240,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--2.15
2.35
2.55
2.75
Max-Tech--2.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=240,000 Btu/ 288 Market Baseline--1.90
h and <760,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--2.10
2.30
2.50
2.70
Max-Tech--2.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 36 Market Baseline--2.25
economizers, <65,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
Max-Tech--3.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28969]]
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 132 Market Baseline--1.90
economizers, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE--2.10
2.30
2.50
2.70
Max-Tech--2.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 288 Market Baseline--1.85
economizers, >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ ASHRAE--2.05
h. 2.25
2.45
2.65
Max-Tech--2.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Energy Savings and Economic Justification
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
DOE estimated the potential primary energy savings in quads (i.e.,
10\15\ Btu) for each efficiency level considered within each equipment
class analyzed. Table VI.4 to Table VI.11 show the potential energy
savings resulting from the analyses conducted as part of the May 2011
NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25637 (May 5, 2011). As discussed in the January
2012 NOPR, DOE did not conduct an economic analysis for this equipment
category, because of the minimal energy savings. 77 FR 2356, 2405 (Jan.
17, 2012).
Table VI.4--Potential Energy Savings for Small Water-Cooled Equipment With Electric Resistance or No Heat
[2013-2042]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy savings * (quads)
-------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Historical shipment
trend Shipments fixed to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--12.1 EER..................................... 0.000005 0.000011
Level 2--13 EER............................................... 0.000018 0.000060
Level 3--14 EER............................................... 0.000044 0.000144
Level 4--15 EER............................................... 0.000074 0.000238
Level 5--``Max-Tech''--16.4 EER............................... 0.000121 0.000388
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
standards were adopted.
Table VI.5--Potential Energy Savings for Small Water-Cooled Equipment With Other Heat
[2013-2042]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy savings * (quads)
-------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Historical shipment
trend Shipments fixed to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--11.9 EER..................................... 0.0000005 0.0000013
Level 2--13 EER............................................... 0.0000024 0.0000082
Level 3--14 EER............................................... 0.0000053 0.0000174
Level 4--15 EER............................................... 0.0000085 0.0000276
Level 5--``Max-Tech''--16.4 EER............................... 0.0000137 0.0000441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
standards were adopted.
Table VI.6--Potential Energy Savings for Large Water-Cooled Equipment With Electric Resistance or No Heat
[2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy savings * (quads)
-------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Historical shipment
trend Shipments fixed to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--12.5 EER..................................... 0.00014 0.00027
[[Page 28970]]
Level 2--13 EER............................................... 0.00002 0.00008
Level 3--14 EER............................................... 0.00013 0.00032
Level 4--15 EER............................................... 0.00024 0.00056
Level 5--``Max-Tech''--16.1 EER............................... 0.00039 0.00089
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
standards were adopted.
Table VI.7--Potential Energy Savings for Large Water-Cooled Equipment With Other Heat
[2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy savings * (quads)
-------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Historical shipment
trend Shipments fixed to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--12.3 EER..................................... 0.00001 0.00003
Level 2--13 EER............................................... 0.00001 0.00001
Level 3--14 EER............................................... 0.00002 0.00004
Level 4--15 EER............................................... 0.00003 0.00007
Level 5--``Max-Tech''--16.1 EER............................... 0.00005 0.00010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
standards were adopted.
Table VI.8--Potential Energy Savings for Very Large Water-Cooled Equipment With Electric Resistance or No Heat
[2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy savings * (quads)
-------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Historical shipment
trend Shipments fixed to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--12.4 EER..................................... 0.0002 0.0001
Level 2--13 EER............................................... 0.0001 0.0001
Level 3--14 EER............................................... 0.0005 0.0003
Level 4--``Max-Tech''--14.8 EER............................... 0.0008 0.0005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
standards were adopted.
Table VI.9--Potential Energy Savings for Very Large Water-Cooled Equipment With Other Heat
[2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy savings * (quads)
-------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Historical shipment
trend Shipments fixed to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--12.2 EER..................................... 0.002 0.001
Level 2--13 EER............................................... 0.001 0.001
Level 3--14 EER............................................... 0.005 0.003
Level 4--``Max-Tech''--14.8 EER............................... 0.008 0.005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
standards were adopted.
Table VI.10--Potential Energy Savings for Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment With Electric Resistance or
No Heat
[2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy savings * (quads)
-------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Historical shipment
trend Shipments fixed to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--11.9 EER..................................... 0.00013 0.00009
Level 2--12.5 EER............................................. 0.00008 0.00005
[[Page 28971]]
Level 3--``Max-Tech''--13.1 EER............................... 0.00017 0.00011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
standards were adopted.
Table VI.11--Potential Energy Savings for Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment With Other Heat
[2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy savings * (quads)
-------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Historical shipment
trend Shipments fixed to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--11.7 EER..................................... 0.0011 0.0007
Level 2--12.5 EER............................................. 0.0010 0.0007
Level 3--``Max-Tech''--13.1 EER............................... 0.0019 0.0012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
standards were adopted.
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
DOE estimated the potential primary energy savings in quads (i.e.,
10\15\ Btu) for each efficiency level considered within the two
equipment classes of VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than
135,000 Btu/h. Table VI.12 and Table VI.13 show the potential energy
savings resulting from the analyses conducted as part of the January
2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2379-82 (Jan. 17, 2012). Because there appear to
be no models on the market below ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels,
there are no energy savings from adopting ASHRAE. However, there are
also extremely minimal energy savings from adopting a higher standard.
As discussed in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE did not conduct an economic
analysis for this equipment category. Id. at 2368-70. In addition, DOE
did not identify any models on the market less than 17,000 Btu/h, and,
therefore, did not conduct any analyses for this equipment category.
Id. at 2368.
Table VI.12--Potential Energy Savings for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps,
>=135,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery
[2013-2042]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy
Efficiency level savings *
(quads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--10.0 EER............................. ................
Level 2--11 EER....................................... 0.0009
Level 3--12 EER....................................... 0.0174
Level 4--13 EER....................................... 0.0416
Level 5--``Max-Tech''--14.5 EER....................... 0.0761
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than
those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 were calculated relative
to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 standards were adopted.
Table VI.13--Potential Energy Savings for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps,
>=135,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h With Heat Recovery
[2013-2042]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy
Efficiency level savings *
(quads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--9.8 EER.............................. ................
Level 2--11 EER....................................... 0.0008
Level 3--12 EER....................................... 0.0083
Level 4--13 EER....................................... 0.0195
Level 5--``Max-Tech''--14.5 EER....................... 0.0358
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than
those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 were calculated relative
to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 standards were adopted.
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers
i. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
To evaluate the economic impact of the efficiency levels on
commercial customers, DOE conducted an LCC analysis for each efficiency
level. More-efficient computer room air conditioners would affect these
customers in two ways: (1) Annual operating expense would decrease; and
(2) purchase price would increase. Inputs used for calculating the LCC
include total installed costs (i.e., equipment price plus installation
costs), operating expenses (i.e., annual energy savings, energy prices,
energy price trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs), equipment
lifetime, and discount rates.
The output of the LCC model is a mean LCC savings (or cost \48\)
for each equipment class, relative to the baseline CRAC efficiency
level. The LCC analysis also provides information on the percentage of
customers that are negatively affected by an increase in the minimum
efficiency standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ An LCC cost is shown as a negative savings in the results
presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also performed a PBP analysis as part of the LCC analysis. The
PBP is the number of years it would take for the customer to recover
the increased costs of higher-efficiency equipment as a result of
energy savings based on the operating cost savings. The PBP is an
economic benefit-cost measure that uses benefits and costs without
discounting. Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD provides
[[Page 28972]]
detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
DOE's LCC and PBP analyses provided five key outputs for each
efficiency level above the baseline (i.e., efficiency levels more
stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010), as reported in
Table VI.14 through Table VI.28 These outputs include the proportion of
CRAC purchases in which the purchase of a computer room air conditioner
that is compliant with the new energy conservation standard creates a
net LCC increase, no impact, or a net LCC savings for the customer.
Another output is the average net LCC savings from standard-compliant
equipment, as well as the average PBP for the customer investment in
standard-compliant equipment.
Table VI.14--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years)
Installed operating LCC savings ----------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................................... 12,003 33,563 45,566 ........... ........... ........... ............ ...........
1.............................................. 13,491 31,554 45,045 584 2 89 9 8.6
2.............................................. 15,239 29,905 45,144 122 18 68 14 10.3
3.............................................. 17,295 28,548 45,842 (648) 67 23 10 12.2
4.............................................. 19,711 27,436 47,147 (1,828) 91 5 4 14.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
Table VI.15--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled, >=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 38,943 118,114 157,057 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 41,179 108,190 149,369 8,535 0 98 2 2.6
2............................................... 43,588 100,283 143,871 6,378 0 78 22 3.0
3............................................... 46,185 93,872 140,057 5,894 0 33 67 3.5
4............................................... 48,984 88,606 137,590 6,474 0 2 98 3.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.16--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled, >=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 56,633 288,343 344,977 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 59,852 262,649 322,501 24,709 0 98 2 1.4
2............................................... 63,322 242,741 306,063 18,947 0 78 22 1.7
3............................................... 67,061 227,026 294,087 18,146 0 33 67 2.0
4............................................... 71,092 214,460 285,553 20,871 0 2 98 2.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.17--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years *)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 23,716 30,844 54,560 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 20,284 29,008 49,292 5,286 0 72 28 (21.7)
2............................................... 17,504 27,426 44,930 7,264 0 49 51 (21.1)
3............................................... 15,253 26,051 41,303 7,896 0 13 87 (20.5)
4............................................... 13,429 24,845 38,274 10,089 0 3 97 (19.9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.
[[Page 28973]]
Table VI.18--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 22,767 106,535 129,302 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 28,390 101,751 130,141 (774) 21 72 7 14.2
2............................................... 35,948 98,421 134,370 (4,582) 56 42 2 19.9
3............................................... 46,106 96,571 142,677 (11,622) 80 20 0 29.3
4............................................... 59,759 96,331 156,090 (23,097) 96 4 0 47.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
Table VI.19--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled, >=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 42,240 240,877 283,117 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 52,910 230,552 283,462 (196) 17 72 11 12.6
2............................................... 67,250 224,068 291,318 (7,906) 54 42 4 18.6
3............................................... 86,522 221,566 308,088 (22,491) 79 20 1 29.7
4............................................... 112,423 223,494 335,917 (46,570) 96 4 0 54.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
Table VI.20--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, <65,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years *)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 25,025 21,485 46,510 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 21,393 20,449 41,842 4,686 0 72 28 (40.7)
2............................................... 18,451 19,563 38,015 6,400 0 49 51 (39.7)
3............................................... 16,069 18,798 34,867 6,908 0 13 87 (38.7)
4............................................... 14,139 18,132 32,272 8,772 0 3 97 (37.7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.
Table VI.21--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years *)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 23,952 71,670 95,622 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 29,903 69,964 99,867 (4,179) 28 72 0 36.8
2............................................... 37,901 69,297 107,198 (9,336) 58 42 0 48.1
3............................................... 48,651 69,771 118,421 (17,987) 80 20 0 35.8
4............................................... 63,099 71,578 134,677 (31,244) 96 4 0 (73.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate either negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs.
[[Page 28974]]
Table VI.22--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, >=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years *)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 44,489 161,303 205,792 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 55,781 158,228 214,009 (8,064) 28 72 0 32.3
2............................................... 70,956 157,979 228,935 (18,795) 58 42 0 22.6
3............................................... 91,351 160,896 252,247 (36,931) 80 20 0 (43.7)
4............................................... 118,760 167,577 286,337 (64,864) 96 4 0 (57.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate either negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs.
Table VI.23--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years *)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 23,764 31,335 55,099 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 20,332 29,414 49,746 5,372 0 72 28 (20.5)
2............................................... 17,552 27,768 45,321 7,375 0 49 51 (20.0)
3............................................... 15,301 26,345 41,646 8,009 0 13 87 (19.5)
4............................................... 13,477 25,104 38,581 10,226 0 3 97 (19.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.
Table VI.24--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years *)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................................... 22,857 118,862 141,719 ............ ........... ........... ........... ...........
1.............................................. 28,473 112,743 141,215 588 14 72 14 10.9
2.............................................. 36,020 108,621 144,642 (3,117) 51 42 7 15.5
3.............................................. 46,164 106,463 152,626 (10,236) 79 20 1 23.0
4.............................................. 59,795 106,392 166,188 (22,091) 96 4 0 37.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
Table VI.25--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled, >=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................................... 42,419 268,376 310,795 ............ ........... ........... ........... ...........
1.............................................. 53,089 256,260 309,349 1,633 13 72 15 10.6
2.............................................. 67,430 249,398 316,828 (6,637) 51 42 7 16.3
3.............................................. 86,702 247,905 334,607 (22,582) 79 20 1 28.0
4.............................................. 112,602 252,346 364,948 (49,159) 96 4 0 48.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
[[Page 28975]]
Table VI.26--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, <65,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years *)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 25,073 26,615 51,689 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 21,441 25,108 46,550 5,162 0 72 28 (28.4)
2............................................... 18,500 23,823 42,323 7,064 0 49 51 (27.8)
3............................................... 16,117 22,716 38,833 7,640 0 13 87 (27.1)
4............................................... 14,187 21,755 35,942 9,722 0 3 97 (26.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.
Table VI.27--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................ 24,041 99,288 123,328 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1............................................... 29,984 95,100 125,083 (1,652) 23 72 5 18.0
2............................................... 37,971 92,626 130,597 (6,282) 55 42 3 27.3
3............................................... 48,705 91,890 140,595 (14,548) 79 20 1 45.3
4............................................... 63,131 93,060 156,191 (27,719) 96 4 0 49.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.
Table VI.28--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, >=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Period
Efficiency level Discounted Average % of Consumers that experience (years *)
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost (2011$ *) Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................................... 44,668 224,664 269,332 ............ ........... ........... ........... ...........
1.............................................. 55,960 216,938 272,898 (3,338) 22 72 6 19.4
2.............................................. 71,136 213,811 284,947 (13,598) 55 42 3 26.8
3.............................................. 91,530 215,533 307,063 (31,974) 79 20 1 17.6
4.............................................. 118,939 222,769 341,709 (61,294) 96 4 0 (45.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs.
b. National Impact Analysis
i. Amount and Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings through 2041 or 2042 due to amended
or new energy conservation standards, DOE compared the energy
consumption of computer room air conditioners under the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010 efficiency levels to energy consumption of computer room air
conditioners under higher efficiency standards. DOE also compared the
energy consumption of computer room air conditioners under the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels to energy consumption of computer
room air conditioners under the current market base case. DOE examined
up to four efficiency levels higher than those of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010. Table VI.29 shows the forecasted national energy savings at each
of the considered standard levels. (See chapter 8 of the final rule
TSD.) As mentioned in section V.B, DOE adjusted the efficiency rating
(SCOP) upward for all upflow units in order to analyze the energy
savings from only 15 classes of computer room air conditioners, with
upflow and downflow units combined.
Table VI.29--Summary of Cumulative National Energy Savings for Computer Room Air Conditioners
[2012-2041 or 2013-2042]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National energy savings (quads) *
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency
ASHRAE level level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, 0.00018 0.0006 0.0021 0.0052 0.0086
<65,000 Btu/h..................
Air conditioners, air-cooled, ** 0.006 0.059 0.196 0.364
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h....
Air conditioners, air-cooled, ** 0.004 0.034 0.112 0.206
>=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h...
[[Page 28976]]
Air conditioners, water-cooled, 0.00003 0.0001 0.0003 0.0007 0.0010
<65,000 Btu/h..................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, 0.0009 0.0088 0.0246 0.0435 0.0634
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h....
Air conditioners, water-cooled, 0.0008 0.0079 0.0220 0.0388 0.0565
>=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h...
Air conditioners, water-cooled 0.00001 0.00004 0.00011 0.00021 0.00031
with fluid economizers, <65,000
Btu/h..........................
Air conditioners, water-cooled 0.0004 0.0038 0.0106 0.0188 0.0273
with fluid economizers,
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h....
Air conditioners, water-cooled 0.0002 0.0016 0.0043 0.0076 0.0111
with fluid economizers,
>=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h...
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, 0.00003 0.00013 0.00033 0.00063 0.00092
<65,000 Btu/h..................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, 0.001 0.011 0.031 0.054 0.078
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h....
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, 0.0008 0.0080 0.0220 0.0384 0.0554
>=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h...
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled 0.00002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0005 0.0007
with fluid economizers, <65,000
Btu/h..........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled 0.001 0.010 0.027 0.047 0.067
with fluid economizers,
>=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h....
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled 0.0005 0.0054 0.0147 0.0257 0.0370
with fluid economizers,
>=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All energy savings from efficiency levels above ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are calculated with those ASHRAE
levels as a baseline.
** For these equipment classes, no models were identified below the efficiency levels shown in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010, so there are no energy savings for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels.
ii. Net Present Value
The NPV analysis measures the cumulative benefit or cost of
standards to equipment customers from a national perspective. In
accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular
A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003)), DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-
percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an
estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on private capital in
the U.S. economy, and reflects the returns to real estate and small
business capital, as well as corporate capital. It approximates the
opportunity cost of capital in the private sector. The 3-percent rate
represents the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows
to their present value. This rate can be approximated by the real rate
of return on long-term government debt (e.g., yield on Treasury notes
minus annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index), which has
averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 30 years.
Table VI.30 and Table VI.31 provide an overview of the NPV results.
(See chapter 7 of the final rule TSD for further detail.)
Table VI.30--Cumulative Net Present Value for Potential Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners
[Discounted at seven percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net present value (billion 2011$ *)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency
level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. $0.0004 $(0.0000) $(0.0048) $(0.0154)
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=65,000 and 0.01 0.12 0.34 0.54
<240,000 Btu/h.............................
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=240,000 and 0.01 0.08 0.24 0.40
<760,000 Btu/h.............................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/ 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.009
h..........................................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=65,000 and (0.004) (0.041) (0.140) (0.332)
<240,000 Btu/h.............................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=240,000 (0.001) (0.026) (0.102) (0.251)
and <760,000 Btu/h.........................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005
economizers, <65,000 Btu/h.................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid (0.02) (0.07) (0.18) (0.38)
economizers, >=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h...
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid (0.005) (0.024) (0.064) (0.134)
economizers, >=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h..
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/ 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.008
h..........................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=65,000 0.002 (0.028) (0.123) (0.316)
and <240,000 Btu/h.........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=240,000 0.002 (0.018) (0.083) (0.215)
and <760,000 Btu/h.........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.008
economizers, <65,000 Btu/h.................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid (0.01) (0.07) (0.20) (0.46)
economizers, >=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h...
[[Page 28977]]
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid (0.004) (0.033) (0.106) (0.242)
economizers, >=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV.
Table VI.31--Cumulative Net Present Value for Potential Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners
[Discounted at three percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net present value (billion 2011$ *)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency
level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. $0.002 $0.003 $(0.002) $(0.017)
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=65,000 and 0.03 0.29 0.88 1.48
<240,000 Btu/h.............................
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=240,000 and 0.02 0.19 0.58 1.00
<760,000 Btu/h.............................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/ 0.003 0.007 0.012 0.018
h..........................................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=65,000 and 0.003 (0.051) (0.220) (0.566)
<240,000 Btu/h.............................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=240,000 0.007 (0.029) (0.160) (0.435)
and <760,000 Btu/h.........................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.009
economizers, <65,000 Btu/h.................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid (0.02) (0.12) (0.33) (0.69)
economizers, >=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h...
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid (0.008) (0.042) (0.117) (0.251)
economizers, >=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h..
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/ 0.003 0.006 0.012 0.017
h..........................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=65,000 0.02 (0.02) (0.18) (0.53)
and <240,000 Btu/h.........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=240,000 0.01 (0.02) (0.13) (0.38)
and <760,000 Btu/h.........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 0.002 0.006 0.011 0.015
economizers, <65,000 Btu/h.................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid (0.01) (0.10) (0.34) (0.82)
economizers, >=65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h...
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid (0.004) (0.052) (0.187) (0.447)
economizers, >=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV.
C. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts or costs of energy production. Reduced
electricity demand from energy conservation standards is also likely to
reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity
system, particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure of this
reduced demand, Table VI.32 presents the estimated reduction in
generating capacity in 2042-relative to the AEO Reference case-
attributable to the efficiency levels that DOE considered in this
rulemaking.
Table VI.32--Reduction in National Electric Generating Capacity in 2042 Under Considered Efficiency Levels
(Gigawatts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE
(baseline) 1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively- 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Cooled Products................
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps..... 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.23
Computer Room Air Conditioners.. 0.01 0.12 0.47 1.09 1.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy savings from standards for the equipment classes covered in
today's final rule could also produce environmental benefits in the
form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases
associated with electricity production. Table VI.33 provides DOE's
estimate of cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions
reductions projected to result from the efficiency levels considered in
this rulemaking. DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and
Hg emissions reductions for each efficiency level in chapter 9 of the
final rule TSD.
As discussed in section V.G, DOE did not report SO2
emissions reductions from power plants because there is uncertainty
about the effect of energy conservation standards on the overall level
of SO2 emissions in the United States due to SO2
emissions caps. DOE
[[Page 28978]]
also did not include NOX emissions reduction from power
plants in States subject to CAIR, because an energy conservation
standard would not affect the overall level of NOX emissions
in those States due to the emissions caps mandated by CAIR.
Table VI.33--Summary of Emissions Reduction Estimated for Considered Efficiency Levels
[Cumulative in 2012-2041 or 2013-2042]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE
(baseline) 1 2 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....... 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.36 0.37
NOX (thousand tons)............. 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.30 0.31
Hg (tons)....................... 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....... 0.00 0.05 0.82 1.96 3.58
NOX (thousand tons)............. 0.00 0.04 0.68 1.60 2.93
Hg (tons)....................... 0.000 0.001 0.009 0.022 0.040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....... 0.18 2.14 8.06 18.7 31.1
NOX (thousand tons)............. 0.14 1.76 6.62 15.4 25.6
Hg (tons)....................... 0.001 0.023 0.087 0.203 0.337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the analysis for this final rule, DOE estimated monetary
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2
and NOX that DOE estimated for each of the efficiency levels
considered. As discussed in section V.H, DOE used values for the SCC
developed by an interagency process. The four values for CO2
emissions reductions resulting from that process (expressed in 2010$)
are $4.9/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 5-
percent discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average value from a
distribution that uses a 3-percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the
average value from a distribution that uses a 2.5-percent discount
rate), and $67.6/ton (the 95th-percentile value from a distribution
that uses a 3-percent discount rate). These values correspond to the
value of emission reductions in 2010; the values for later years are
higher due to increasing damages as the magnitude of climate change
increases.
Table VI.34 presents the global value of CO2 emissions
reductions at each efficiency level. For each of the four cases, DOE
calculated a present value of the stream of annual values using the
same discount rate as was used in the studies upon which the dollar-
per-ton values are based. DOE calculated domestic values as a range
from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values, and these results
are presented in chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.
Table VI.34--Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under Considered Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount
Efficiency level 5% discount 3% discount 2.5% discount rate, 95th
rate, average rate, average rate, average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2011$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline)....................... 0.5 2.4 4.1 7.4
1....................................... 0.5 2.5 4.3 7.7
2....................................... 1.2 6.3 10.6 19.1
3....................................... 1.8 9.0 15.2 27.4
4....................................... 1.8 9.2 15.6 28.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline)....................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1....................................... 0.3 1.4 2.3 4.2
2....................................... 4.3 22.5 38.1 68.4
3....................................... 10.3 53.7 91.1 163.4
4....................................... 18.9 98.1 166.5 298.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline)....................... 0.9 4.7 7.9 14.4
1....................................... 11.2 57.5 97.4 175.2
2....................................... 48.2 246.7 417.5 751.4
[[Page 28979]]
3....................................... 119.9 613.9 1038.7 1869.3
4....................................... 214.6 1099.0 1859.6 3346.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the
contribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
to changes in the future global climate and the potential resulting
damages to the world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any
value placed in this rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions is
subject to change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will
continue to review various methodologies for estimating the monetary
value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This
ongoing review will consider the comments on this subject that are part
of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other
methodological assumptions and issues. However, consistent with DOE's
legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved
with this particular issue, DOE has included in this final rule the
most recent values and analyses resulting from the ongoing interagency
review process.
DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the
economic benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions
anticipated to result from amended standards for the equipment that is
the subject of today's final rule. The low and high dollar-per-ton
values that DOE used are discussed in section V.H. Table VI.35 presents
the cumulative present values of NOX emissions reductions
for each efficiency level calculated using seven-percent and three-
percent discount rates.
Table VI.35--Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction Under Considered Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2011$
Efficiency level -------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline)..................... 0.02 to 0.25....................... 0.01 to 0.12.
1..................................... 0.02 to 0.24....................... 0.01 to 0.10.
2..................................... 0.06 to 0.64....................... 0.03 to 0.28.
3..................................... 0.09 to 0.92....................... 0.04 to 0.40.
4..................................... 0.09 to 0.95....................... 0.04 to 0.42.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline)..................... 0.0 to 0.0......................... 0.0 to 0.0.
1..................................... 0.01 to 0.13....................... 0.01 to 0.05.
2..................................... 0.2 to 2.2......................... 0.1 to 0.9.
3..................................... 0.5 to 5.2......................... 0.2 to 2.2.
4..................................... 0.9 to 9.5......................... 0.4 to 4.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline)..................... 0.04 to 0.46....................... 0.02 to 0.22.
1..................................... 0.6 to 6.1......................... 0.3 to 2.7.
2..................................... 2.4 to 24.6........................ 1.0 to 10.7.
3..................................... 6.0 to 61.4........................ 2.6 to 26.6.
4..................................... 10.7 to 109.8...................... 4.6 to 47.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Amended and New Energy Conservation Standards
1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and industrial equipment
addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an energy
conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, 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)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled equipment than those specified by ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010, DOE reviewed the results in terms of the significance of
their energy savings. As noted in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE does not
have ``clear and convincing evidence'' that significant additional
conservation of energy would result from adoption of more-stringent
standard levels. 77 FR 2356, 2415 (Jan. 17, 2012). Commenters on the
NOPR did not provide any additional information to alter this
conclusion. Therefore, DOE did not examine whether the levels are
economically justified, and DOE is adopting the energy efficiency
levels for these products as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
Table VI.36 presents the energy conservation standards and compliance
dates for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment.
[[Page 28980]]
Table VI.36--Energy Conservation Standards for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency
Equipment type Subcategory Size category (Input) level (EER) Compliance date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners... Electric or No Heat....................... >=65,000 Btu/h and 12.1 June 1, 2013.
<135,000 Btu/h.
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners... Other Heat................................ >=65,000 Btu/h and 11.9 June 1, 2013.
<135,000 Btu/h.
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners... Electric or No Heat....................... >=135,000 Btu/h and 12.5 June 1, 2014.
<240,000 Btu/h.
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners... Other Heat................................ >=135,000 Btu/h and 12.3 June 1, 2014.
<240,000 Btu/h.
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Electric or No Heat....................... >=240,000 Btu/h and 12.4 June 1, 2014.
Conditioners. <760,000 Btu/h.
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Other Heat................................ >=240,000 Btu/h and 12.2 June 1, 2014.
Conditioners. <760,000 Btu/h.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled Air Electric or No Heat....................... >=65,000 Btu/h and 12.1 June 1, 2013.
Conditioners. <135,000 Btu/h.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled Air Other Heat................................ >=65,000 Btu/h and 11.9 June 1, 2013.
Conditioners. <135,000 Btu/h.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Electric or No Heat....................... >=135,000 Btu/h and 12.0 June 1, 2014.
Conditioners. <240,000 Btu/h.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Other Heat................................ >=135,000 Btu/h and 11.8 June 1, 2014.
Conditioners. <240,000 Btu/h.
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Electric or No Heat....................... >=240,000 Btu/h and 11.9 June 1, 2014.
Conditioners. <760,000 Btu/h.
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Other Heat................................ >=240,000 Btu/h and [dagger] 11.7 June 1, 2014.
Conditioners. <760,000 Btu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 specifies this efficiency level as 12.2 EER. However, DOE has determined and AHRI has concurred that this level was
mistakenly reported and that the correct level is 11.7 EER. (AHRI, No. 1 at p. 1).
2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
As noted previously, EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and
industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE
may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the
level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, 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)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for VRF water-source
heat pumps than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE
reviewed the results in terms of the significance of their energy
savings. As discussed in the January 2012 NOPR, the energy savings for
more-stringent efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps equal
to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h would be minimal. 77 FR 2356, 2416
(Jan. 17, 2012). In addition, there are no models on the market of VRF
water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, so there are no energy
savings predicted for this product class. As such, DOE does not have
``clear and convincing evidence'' that significant additional
conservation of energy would result from adoption of more-stringent
efficiency levels than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
Therefore, DOE did not examine whether the levels are economically
justified, and DOE is adopting the energy efficiency levels for these
products as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.\49\ Table VI.37
presents the amended energy conservation standards and compliance dates
for VRF water-source heat pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ For other classes of VRF systems introduced by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010, DOE is not adopting new standards but is
clarifying that existing standards for air-cooled or water-source
heat pumps continue to apply. In addition, DOE is adopting a new
test procedure for all classes of VRF equipment. The changes to the
Code of Federal Regulations are found at the end of this final rule.
Table VI.37--Energy Conservation Standards for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size category
Equipment type Subcategory (Input) Efficiency level Compliance date **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps... Without Heat <17,000 Btu/h.... 12.0 EER 4.2 COP October 29, 2012.
Recovery. *.
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps... With Heat <17,000 Btu/h.... 11.8 EER 4.2 COP October 29, 2012.
Recovery. *.
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps... Without Heat >=135,000 Btu/h 10.0 EER 3.9 COP October 29, 2013.
Recovery. and <760,000 Btu/
h.
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps... With Heat >=135,000 Btu/h 9.8 EER 3.9 COP. October 29, 2013.
Recovery. and <760,000 Btu/
h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 4.2 COP is the existing Federal minimum energy conservation standard for water-source heat pumps <17,000 Btu/
h. Although ASHRAE did not increase the COP level in Standard 90.1, it did increase the corresponding EER
level for this equipment.
** ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 did not provide an effective date for these products, so it is assumed to be
publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, or October 29, 2010. Compliance dates for Federal standards are two
or three years after the effective date in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, depending on product size.
[[Page 28981]]
3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
As noted previously, EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and
industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE
may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the
level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, 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)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for computer room
air conditioners than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE
reviewed the results in terms of their technological feasibility,
significance of energy savings, and economic justification.
DOE has concluded that all of the SCOP levels considered by DOE are
technologically feasible, as units with equivalent efficiency appeared
to be available in the current market at all levels examined. As noted
in section V.B.3., manufacturers are currently not reporting CRAC
equipment efficiencies in terms of SCOP as defined and tested for in
ASHRAE 127-2007. As a result, the efficiency data used to determine the
SCOP levels for analysis were obtained using a rule-of-thumb method to
convert EER (as determined using ASHRAE Standard 127-2001) to an
estimate of the SCOP (as determined by ASHRAE Standard 127-2007), which
lends some uncertainty to the SCOP ratings of computer room air
conditioners. However, based on this mapping between EER and SCOP, DOE
believes that all SCOP levels analyzed are technically feasible.
DOE examined the potential energy savings that would result from
the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and
compared these to the potential energy savings that would result from
efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010. DOE estimates that 0.01 quad of energy would be saved if DOE
adopts the efficiency levels set in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for each
computer room air conditioner equipment class specified in that
standard. If DOE were to adopt efficiency levels more stringent than
those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, the potential additional
energy savings range from 0.07 quad to 0.98 quad. Associated with
proposing more-stringent efficiency levels is a three-and-a-half to
four-and-a-half-year delay in implementation (depending on equipment
size) compared to the adoption of energy conservation standards at the
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (see section V.I.1.).
This delay in implementation of amended energy conservation standards
would result in a small amount of energy savings being lost in the
first years (2012 through 2016) compared to the savings from adopting
the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (approximately 0.0001 quad);
however, this loss may be compensated for by increased savings in later
years. Taken in isolation, the energy savings associated with more-
stringent standards might be considered significant enough to warrant
adoption of such standards. However, as noted above, energy savings are
not the only factor which DOE must consider.
In considering whether potential standards are economically
justified, DOE also examined the NPV that would result from adopting
efficiency levels more stringent than those set forth in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010. With a 7-percent discount rate, all of the
efficiency levels examined by DOE resulted in negative NPV. With a 3-
percent discount rate, Levels 1 and 2 create positive NPV, while Levels
3 and 4 create negative NPV. These results indicate that adoption of
efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 as Federal energy conservation standards would likely lead to
negative economic outcomes for the Nation. Consequently, this criterion
for adoption of more-stringent standard levels does not appear to have
been met.
Furthermore, although DOE based it analyses on the best available
data when examining the potential energy savings and the economic
justification of efficiency levels more stringent than those specified
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE believes there are several
limitations regarding that data which should be assessed when
considering amended energy conservation standards for computer room air
conditioners. As explained below, none of these concerns are likely to
run in the direction of more-stringent standards.
First, DOE reexamined the uncertainty in its analysis of computer
room air conditioners. As noted in section V.B.3, due to the lack of
current coverage and certification requirements, no manufacturers
currently test for the SCOP of their computer room air conditioner
models, nor do they all report such information in their literature.
DOE's efficiency information used in the analysis was the result of a
``rule-of-thumb'' method that provides an approximation of SCOP, but
DOE did not obtain any actual SCOP efficiency information that resulted
from testing, leading to uncertainty over whether the levels considered
(particularly at the max-tech level) are technologically feasible and
also adding uncertainty in the energy savings estimates. In addition,
for certain equipment classes, DOE was unable to obtain enough
information even to estimate SCOP for a useful portion of the models on
the market. For those equipment classes, DOE had to analyze various
efficiency levels above the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels using SCOP
levels that were estimated based on the SCOP differences established by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 between the different equipment classes. The
combination of these factors leads to concerns about the viability of
using the estimated SCOP data for the basis of this analysis. Such
concerns are heightened the further one moves away from the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 in the context of this rulemaking.
Second, to assess the cost of increasing efficiency, DOE conducted
a pricing survey in which DOE collected contractor price data across a
range of efficiency levels, and examined the trend in price as
efficiency increased. As noted in section V.B, the primary drawback to
this approach is that contractor pricing can be based on a variety of
factors, some of which have little or nothing to do with changes in
equipment efficiency (e.g., differences in manufacturer markups). This
leads to unexpected results for certain equipment classes, including an
observed trend of decreasing price with increasing efficiency for small
water-cooled equipment based on the data collected, which reduces the
certainty of the analysis in terms of economic justification.
Therefore, the trends developed through such analyses may not be
representative of the actual relationship between manufacturer cost and
efficiency, or of what DOE would find if it used a design option
approach with reverse engineering analysis (which is more time-
intensive). Further, although there was generally a trend of increasing
price with increased efficiency across all manufacturers for most
product classes, there was little discernable trend between price and
efficiency for each individual manufacturer, leading to additional
doubts about the role of equipment efficiency in determining pricing.
As a result, DOE believes the results of this analysis are highly
uncertain, and that a more in-depth analysis of the relationship
between cost of
[[Page 28982]]
manufacturing and efficiency could lead to different results.
Third, due to the limited data on the existing distribution of
shipments by efficiency level or historical efficiency trends, DOE was
not able to assess possible future changes in either the available
efficiencies of equipment in the computer room air conditioner market
or the sales distribution of shipments by efficiency level in the
absence of setting more-stringent standards. DOE recognizes that
manufacturers may continue to make future improvements in the computer
room air conditioner efficiencies even in the absence of mandated
energy conservation standards. This possibility increases the
uncertainty of the energy savings estimates. To the extent that
manufacturers improve product efficiency and customers choose to
purchase improved products in the absence of standards, the energy
savings estimates would likely be reduced.
Fourth, as a result of a lack of shipment information for the
United States, DOE's shipment analysis rests primarily on a single
market report from Australia. While DOE attempted to use an appropriate
inflator to adjust Australian shipments to the United States market,
DOE recognizes the uncertainty inherent in this approach. DOE also
based its equipment class allocations on market share for a few classes
from the Australian report, as well as model availability in the United
States. It is unknown whether the United States market mirrors the
Australian market or whether model availability approximates shipment
distributions. Any inaccuracy in the shipment forecast in total or by
product class contributes to the uncertainty of the energy savings
results and thus makes it difficult for DOE to determine that any
energy savings are significant.
To repeat, to adopt energy conservation standards more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must have ``clear and
convincing'' evidence in order to adopt efficiency levels more
stringent than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. For the
reasons explained in the preceding paragraphs, the totality of
information does not meet the level necessary to support more-stringent
efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners. Consequently,
although certain stakeholders have recommended that DOE adopt higher
efficiency levels for some CRAC classes (as discussed in section
III.D), DOE has decided to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 as amended energy conservation standards for all 30
computer room air conditioner equipment classes. Table VI.38 presents
the energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners.
By adopting the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as
energy conservation standards, DOE is setting a minimum floor for these
previously unregulated products. This allows the industry time to
transition to coverage of these products, requires manufacturers to
begin submitting efficiency data, and will spur the tracking of
shipments. These data will improve DOE's future analysis of computer
room air conditioners. DOE notes that it will be able to undertake such
an analysis without waiting for the trigger of a subsequent amendment
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, because of the six-year look back provision in
the relevant EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
Table VI.38--Energy Conservation Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency
Equipment type Subcategory Size category level (SCOP- Compliance date
(input) 127)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled.. Downflow.......... <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.20 October 29, 2012.
Air conditioners, air-cooled.. Upflow............ <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.09 October 29, 2012.
Air conditioners, air-cooled.. Downflow.......... >=65,000 Btu/h 2.10 October 29, 2013.
and <240,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled.. Upflow............ >=65,000 Btu/h 1.99 October 29, 2013.
and <240,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled.. Downflow.......... >=240,000 Btu/h 1.90 October 29, 2013.
and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled.. Upflow............ >=240,000 Btu/h 1.79 October 29, 2013.
and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Downflow.......... <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.60 October 29, 2012.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Upflow............ <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.49 October 29, 2012.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Downflow.......... >=65,000 Btu/h 2.50 October 29, 2013.
and <240,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Upflow............ >=65,000 Btu/h 2.39 October 29, 2013.
and <240,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Downflow.......... >=240,000 Btu/h 2.40 October 29, 2013.
and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Upflow............ >=240,000 Btu/h 2.29 October 29, 2013.
and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Downflow.......... <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.55 October 29, 2012.
with fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Upflow............ <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.44 October 29, 2012.
with fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Downflow.......... >=65,000 Btu/h 2.45 October 29, 2013.
with fluid economizer. and <240,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Upflow............ >=65,000 Btu/h 2.34 October 29, 2013.
with fluid economizer. and <240,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Downflow.......... >=240,000 Btu/h 2.35 October 29, 2013.
with fluid economizer. and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled Upflow............ >=240,000 Btu/h 2.24 October 29, 2013.
with fluid economizer. and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, glycol- Downflow.......... <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.50 October 29, 2012.
cooled.
Air conditioners, glycol- Upflow............ <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.39 October 29, 2012.
cooled.
Air conditioners, glycol- Downflow.......... >=65,000 Btu/h 2.15 October 29, 2013.
cooled. and <240,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, glycol- Upflow............ >=65,000 Btu/h 2.04 October 29, 2013.
cooled. and <240,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, glycol- Downflow.......... >=240,000 Btu/h 2.10 October 29, 2013.
cooled. and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, glycol- Upflow............ >=240,000 Btu/h 1.99 October 29, 2013.
cooled. and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, glycol- Downflow.......... <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.45 October 29, 2012.
cooled with fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol- Upflow............ <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.34 October 29, 2012.
cooled with fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol- Downflow.......... >=65,000 Btu/h 2.10 October 29, 2013.
cooled with fluid economizer. and <240,000 Btu/
h.
[[Page 28983]]
Air conditioners, glycol- Upflow............ >=65,000 Btu/h 1.99 October 29, 2013.
cooled with fluid economizer. and <240,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, glycol- Downflow.......... >=240,000 Btu/h 2.05 October 29, 2013.
cooled with fluid economizer. and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Air conditioners, glycol- Upflow............ >=240,000 Btu/h 1.94 October 29, 2013.
cooled with fluid economizer. and <760,000 Btu/
h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify
the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable,
the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new
agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem.
The problems that today's standards address are as follows:
(1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information
processing capability about energy efficiency opportunities in the
commercial equipment market.
(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has
more and better information than the other) and/or high transactions
costs (costs of gathering information and effecting exchanges of goods
and services).
(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy
efficiency of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package
air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow air conditioners, and
computer room air conditioners that are not captured by the users of
such equipment. These benefits include externalities related to
environmental protection and energy security that are not reflected in
energy prices, such as reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.
In addition, DOE has determined that today's regulatory action is
not an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for today's rule, and the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)).
Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 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 Executive Order 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 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,
DOE believes that today's final rule is consistent with these
principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by
law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs and select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits.
Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and the range of impacts
analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy conservation standards adopted
in this final rule maximize net benefits to the extent permitted by
EPCA.
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 that by law must be proposed for public comment, and a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency
adopts as a final rule, 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 rulemaking process.
68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the
Office of the General Counsel's Web site (www.gc.doe.gov). DOE reviewed
the January 2012 NOPR and today's final rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003.
For manufacturers of small, large, and very large air-conditioning
and heating equipment (including water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
equipment, CRACs, VRF systems, and SPVUs), commercial warm-air
furnaces, and commercial water heaters, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533,
53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size
standards are listed by North American
[[Page 28984]]
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description
and are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. The ASHRAE equipment covered by this rule, with
the exception of commercial water heaters, are classified under NAICS
333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' The
SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business for this category. Commercial water
heaters are classified under NAICS 333319, ``Other Commercial and
Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing,'' for which SBA sets a size
threshold of 500 employees or fewer for being considered a small
business.
DOE examined each of the manufacturers it found during its market
assessment and used publicly-available information to determine if any
manufacturers identified qualify as a small business under the SBA
guidelines discussed above. (For a list of all manufacturers of ASHRAE
equipment covered by this rule, see Chapter 2 of the TSD.) DOE's
research involved individual company Web sites, marketing research
tools (e.g., Hoovers reports \50\), and contacting individual companies
to create a list of companies that manufacture the types of ASHRAE
equipment affected by this rule. DOE screened out companies that do not
have domestic manufacturing operations for ASHRAE equipment (i.e.,
manufacturers that produce all of their ASHRAE equipment
internationally). DOE also did not consider manufacturers which are
subsidiaries of parent companies that exceed the employee threshold set
by the SBA to be small businesses. DOE identified 46 total
manufacturers impacted by the proposed amendments related to energy
conservation standards and test procedures, including 14 that qualify
as a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ For more information, see http://www.hoovers.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. As part of this rulemaking, DOE examined
not only the impacts on manufacturers of revised standard levels, but
also the existing compliance costs manufacturers already bear as
compared to the revised compliance costs, based on the revisions to the
test procedures. Since DOE is adopting the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010, which are part of the prevailing industry standard,
DOE believes that manufacturers of water-cooled and evaporatively-
cooled commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment,
computer room air conditioners, and VRF water-source heat pumps with a
cooling capacity equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than
760,000 Btu/h are already producing equipment at these efficiency
levels. For VRF water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity below
17,000 Btu/h, DOE believes the efficiency levels being adopted in
today's final rule are also part of the prevailing industry standard
and that manufacturers would experience no impacts, because no such
equipment is currently manufactured. Furthermore, DOE believes the
industry standard was developed through a process which would attempt
to mitigate the impacts on manufacturers, including any impacted small
business manufacturers, while increasing the efficiency of this
equipment.
In addition, DOE does not find that the costs associated with the
adoption of updated test procedures for commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment, commercial water-heating equipment,
or commercial warm-air furnaces in this document would result in any
significant increase in testing or compliance costs. For these types of
equipment, DOE already has testing requirements, which have only minor
differences from those being adopted in this notice. Furthermore, the
provisions that DOE is adopting from AHRI operations manuals, are
already general practice within the industry when conducting testing,
and DOE does not expect these changes to have an impact on how the DOE
test procedure is conducted. DOE notes that this document also adopts
new test procedures for VRF systems and computer room air conditioners.
However, VRF systems currently must be tested using the DOE test
procedures for commercial package air conditioners and heating
equipment. The procedure being adopted in this final rule is tailored
to VRF systems, and DOE does not believe this procedure is more
burdensome than the currently applicable test procedures. For computer
room air conditioners, this notice adopts the use of a new test
procedure where none was previously required. However, for all
equipment types (including computer room air conditioners) the test
procedures are part of the prevailing industry standard to test and
rate equipment. DOE believes that manufacturers generally already use
the accepted industry test procedures when testing their equipment, and
that given its inclusion in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, they would
continue to use it in the future. Therefore, DOE has concluded that the
additional burden imposed by today's rule will not have a significant
adverse impact on a substantial number of small manufacturers.
DOE reached similar conclusions to those discussed above in the
January 2012 NOPR and requested comment on the impacts of this
rulemaking on small manufacturers. 77 FR 2356, 2420 (Jan. 17, 2012). In
responding to this request for comment, Carrier stated generally that
significant energy efficiency increases and consequently higher pricing
can lead to decreased sales, especially in an economic downturn.
(Carrier, No. 28 at p. 4) Engineered Air commented that their company
is a small business and stated that the cost for complying with DOE
standards was not at issue since DOE and ASHRAE 90.1-2010 were going to
be closely aligned. Engineered Air stated that once October 18, 2013
passes, the building codes will require compliance to ASHRAE 90.1-2010,
which would essentially force compliance with DOE regulations.
(Engineered Air, No. 36 at pp. 3-4) DOE believes that Carrier's
concerns about decreased sales are mitigated because the levels being
adopted are part of the prevailing industry standard, which indicates
that industry believes that these levels are both technologically
achievable and economically justified, and that the impacts on
manufacturers of complying with such standard levels would not be
significant enough to warrant lower levels. Additionally, Engineered
Air supports DOE's position that the impacts on small businesses will
be minimal from the adoption of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
efficiency levels.
For the reasons stated above, DOE reaffirms its certification that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Therefore, DOE did not prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposed rule or a final
regulatory flexibility analysis for the final rule. DOE has transmitted
its certification and a supporting statement of factual basis to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of ASHRAE equipment addressed in today's final rule
must
[[Page 28985]]
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy
conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must
test their equipment according to the DOE test procedures for ASHRAE
equipment, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures.
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial
equipment, including ASHRAE equipment. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 20 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.
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
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), DOE has determined that this rule fits within
the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and
otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR
Part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b), and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The
rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking
that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified
in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for
this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX
determination for this rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 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
final rule and has 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 is the subject of today's final
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297 and
6316(b)(2)(D)) 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 Executive Order 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; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 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 final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 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, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a 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 ``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 small governments. 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 www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE has concluded that this final rule contains neither an
intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that would likely require
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any year.
Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the UMRA.
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
[[Page 28986]]
that may affect family well-being. This 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
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation 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
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). DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 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 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 significant energy action, the
agency must provide 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 concluded that today's regulatory action, which sets forth
energy conservation standards for certain types of ASHRAE equipment, is
not a significant energy action because the new and amended standards
are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and
are not likely to 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 on the final rule.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), DOE must comply with all laws
applicable to the former Federal Energy Administration, including
section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L.
93-275), as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization
Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-70). (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32
essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications to the test procedures addressed by this action
incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the
following commercial standards: (1) AHRI 210-240-2008; (2) AHRI 340-
360-2007; (3) AHRI 390-2003; (4) AHRI 1230-2010; (5) UL 727-2006; (6)
ANSI Z21.47-2006; (7) ANSI Z21.10.3-2011; (8) ASHRAE 127-2007. DOE has
evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully
comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e.,
whether each was developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review). DOE has consulted with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact on
competition of requiring use of the methods contained in these
standards, and neither recommended against incorporation of these
standards.
M. 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. Id. at 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. 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. The ``Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been
disseminated and is available at the following Web site:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.
N. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 28987]]
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27, 2012.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY 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.
0
2. Section 431.2 is amended by revising the definition of ``Commercial
HVAC & WH product'' to read as follows:
Sec. 431.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Commercial HVAC & WH product means any small, large, or very large
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, packaged
terminal air conditioner, packaged terminal heat pump, single package
vertical air conditioner, single package vertical heat pump, computer
room air conditioner, variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioner, variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump,
commercial packaged boiler, hot water supply boiler, commercial warm
air furnace, instantaneous water heater, storage water heater, or
unfired hot water storage tank.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 431.75 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.75 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following test
procedures into subpart D of part 431. The materials listed have been
approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any
subsequent amendment to the listed materials by the standard-setting
organization will not affect the DOE regulations unless and until such
regulations are amended by DOE. Materials are incorporated as they
exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any changes in the
materials will be published in the Federal Register. All approved
materials are available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, these materials are available for inspection at
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza
SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. The referenced
test procedure standards are listed below by relevant standard-setting
organization, along with information on how to obtain copies from those
sources.
(b) ANSI. American National Standards Institute. 25 W. 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to: http://www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI Z21.47-1998, (``ANSI Z21.47-1998''), ``Gas-Fired Central
Furnaces,'' approved by ANSI on June 9, 1998, IBR approved for Sec.
431.76.
(2) ANSI Z21.47-2006, (``ANSI Z21.47-2006''), ``Gas-Fired Central
Furnaces,'' approved on July 27, 2006, IBR approved for Sec. 431.76.
(3) Reserved.
(c) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30329, (404) 636-8400, or go to: http://www.ashrae.org.
(1) ASHRAE Standard 103-1993, sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, and
11.3.7, ``Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of
Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers,'' approved on June 26, 1993,
IBR approved for Sec. 431.76.
(2) [Reserved].
(d) HI. Hydronics Institute Division of AHRI, 35 Russo Place, P.O.
Box 218, Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922, (703) 600-0350, or go to: http://
www.ahrinet.org/hydronics+institute+section.aspx.
(1) HI BTS-2000, sections 8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2,
``Method to Determine Efficiency of Commercial Space Heating Boilers,''
published January 2001, IBR approved for Sec. 431.76.
(2) [Reserved].
(e) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road,
Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800, or go to: http://www.ul.com.
(1) UL 727 (UL 727-1994), ``Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central
Furnaces,'' published on August 1, 1994, IBR approved for Sec. 431.76.
(2) UL 727 (UL 727-2006), ``Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central
Furnaces,'' approved April 7, 2006, IBR approved for Sec. 431.76.
(3) [Reserved].
0
4. Section 431.76 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.76 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces.
(a) This section covers the test procedures you must follow if,
pursuant to EPCA, you are measuring the steady-state thermal efficiency
of a gas-fired or oil-fired commercial warm air furnace with a rated
maximum input of 225,000 Btu per hour or more. Where this section
prescribes use of ANSI Z21.47 or UL 727, (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 431.75), perform only the procedures pertinent to the
measurement of the steady-state efficiency. Before May 13, 2013, where
you see instructions to use ANSI Z21.47-2006 or UL 727-2006 in this
section, you may use the relevant procedures in ANSI Z21.47-1998 or UL
727-1994. On or after May 13, 2013, you must use the relevant
procedures in ANSI Z21.47-2006 or UL 727-2006.
(b) Test setup--(1) Test setup for gas-fired commercial warm air
furnaces. The test setup, including flue requirement, instrumentation,
test conditions, and measurements for determining thermal efficiency is
as specified in sections 1.1 (Scope), 2.1 (General), 2.2 (Basic Test
Arrangements), 2.3 (Test Ducts and Plenums), 2.4 (Test Gases), 2.5
(Test Pressures and Burner Adjustments), 2.6 (Static Pressure and Air
Flow Adjustments), 2.39 (Thermal Efficiency) (note, this is 2.38 in
ANSI Z21.47-1998 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.75)), and
4.2.1 (Basic Test Arrangements for Direct Vent Control Furnaces) of
ANSI Z21.47-2006 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.75). The
thermal efficiency test must be conducted only at the normal inlet test
pressure, as specified in section 2.5.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2006, and at the
maximum hourly Btu input rating specified by the manufacturer for the
product being tested.
(2) Test setup for oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. The test
setup, including flue requirement, instrumentation, test conditions,
and measurement for measuring thermal efficiency is as specified in
sections 1 (Scope), 2 (Units of Measurement), 3 (Glossary), 37
(General), 38 and 39 (Test Installation), 40 (Instrumentation, except
40.4 and 40.6.2 through 40.6.7, which are not required for the thermal
efficiency test), 41 (Initial Test Conditions), 42 (Combustion Test--
Burner and Furnace), 43.2 (Operation Tests), 44 (Limit Control Cutout
Test),
[[Page 28988]]
45 (Continuity of Operation Test), and 46 (Air Flow, Downflow or
Horizontal Furnace Test), of UL 727-2006 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 431.75). You must conduct a fuel oil analysis for heating
value, hydrogen content, carbon content, pounds per gallon, and
American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity as specified in section
8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.75). The
steady-state combustion conditions, specified in Section 42.1 of UL
727-2006, are attained when variations of not more than 5[emsp14][deg]F
in the measured flue gas temperature occur for three consecutive
readings taken 15 minutes apart.
(c) Additional test measurements--(1) Measurement of flue
CO2 (carbon dioxide) for oil-fired commercial warm air
furnaces. In addition to the flue temperature measurement specified in
section 40.6.8 of UL 727-2006, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.75) you must locate one or two sampling tubes within six inches
downstream from the flue temperature probe (as indicated on Figure 40.3
of UL 727-2006). If you use an open end tube, it must project into the
flue one-third of the chimney connector diameter. If you use other
methods of sampling CO2, you must place the sampling tube so
as to obtain an average sample. There must be no air leak between the
temperature probe and the sampling tube location. You must collect the
flue gas sample at the same time the flue gas temperature is recorded.
The CO2 concentration of the flue gas must be as specified
by the manufacturer for the product being tested, with a tolerance of
0.1 percent. You must determine the flue CO2
using an instrument with a reading error no greater than 0.1 percent.
(2) Procedure for the measurement of condensate for a gas-fired
condensing commercial warm air furnace. The test procedure for the
measurement of the condensate from the flue gas under steady state
operation must be conducted as specified in sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and
9.2 of ASHRAE Standard 103-1993 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.75) under the maximum rated input conditions. You must conduct this
condensate measurement for an additional 30 minutes of steady state
operation after completion of the steady state thermal efficiency test
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Calculation of thermal efficiency--(1) Gas-fired commercial
warm air furnaces. You must use the calculation procedure specified in
section 2.39, Thermal Efficiency, of ANSI Z21.47-2006 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.75). (Note, this is section 2.38 in ANSI
Z21.47-1998 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.75))
(2) Oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. You must calculate the
percent flue loss (in percent of heat input rate) by following the
procedure specified in sections 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of the HI
BTS-2000 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.75). The thermal
efficiency must be calculated as:
Thermal Efficiency (percent) = 100 percent - flue loss (in percent).
(e) Procedure for the calculation of the additional heat gain and
heat loss, and adjustment to the thermal efficiency, for a condensing
commercial warm air furnace. (1) You must calculate the latent heat
gain from the condensation of the water vapor in the flue gas, and
calculate heat loss due to the flue condensate down the drain, as
specified in sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE Standard 103-
1993, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.75), with the exception
that in the equation for the heat loss due to hot condensate flowing
down the drain in section 11.3.7.2, the assumed indoor temperature of
70 [deg]F and the temperature term TOA must be replaced by
the measured room temperature as specified in section 2.2.8 of ANSI
Z21.47-2006 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.75).
(2) Adjustment to the Thermal Efficiency for Condensing Furnace.
You must adjust the thermal efficiency as calculated in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section by adding the latent gain, expressed in percent,
from the condensation of the water vapor in the flue gas, and
subtracting the heat loss (due to the flue condensate down the drain),
also expressed in percent, both as calculated in paragraph (e)(1) of
this section, to obtain the thermal efficiency of a condensing furnace.
0
5. Section 431.92, is amended by adding the definitions ``Computer Room
Air Conditioner,'' ``Heat Recovery,'' ``Sensible Coefficient of
Performance, or SCOP,'' ``Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air
Conditioner'' and ``Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Heat Pump,''
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 431.92 Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps.
* * * * *
Computer Room Air Conditioner means a basic model of commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment (packaged or split) that
is: Used in computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other information
technology cooling applications; rated for sensible coefficient of
performance (SCOP) and tested in accordance with 10 CFR 431.96, and is
not a covered consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 6292. A
computer room air conditioner may be provided with, or have as
available options, an integrated humidifier, temperature, and/or
humidity control of the supplied air, and reheating function.
* * * * *
Heat Recovery (in the context of variable refrigerant flow multi-
split air conditioners or variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat
pumps) means that the air conditioner or heat pump is also capable of
providing simultaneous heating and cooling operation, where recovered
energy from the indoor units operating in one mode can be transferred
to one or more other indoor units operating in the other mode. A
variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat recovery heat pump is a
variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump with the addition of
heat recovery capability.
* * * * *
Sensible Coefficient of Performance, or SCOP means the net sensible
cooling capacity in watts divided by the total power input in watts
(excluding reheaters and humidifiers).
* * * * *
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioner means a unit
of commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is
configured as a split system air conditioner incorporating a single
refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least one
variable-speed compressor or an alternate compressor combination for
varying the capacity of the system by three or more steps, and multiple
indoor fan coil units, each of which is individually metered and
individually controlled by an integral control device and common
communications network and which can operate independently in response
to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable refrigerant flow implies three
or more steps of capacity control on common, inter-connecting piping.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Heat Pump means a unit of
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is
configured as a split system heat pump that uses reverse cycle
refrigeration as its primary heating source and which may include
secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance,
steam, hot water, or gas. The equipment incorporates a single
refrigerant circuit,
[[Page 28989]]
with one or more outdoor units, at least one variable-speed compressor
or an alternate compressor combination for varying the capacity of the
system by three or more steps, and multiple indoor fan coil units, each
of which is individually metered and individually controlled by a
control device and common communications network and which can operate
independently in response to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable
refrigerant flow implies three or more steps of capacity control on
common, inter-connecting piping.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 431.95 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.95 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following test
procedures into subpart F of part 431. The materials listed have been
approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any
subsequent amendment to the listed materials by the standard-setting
organization will not affect the DOE regulations unless and until such
regulations are amended by DOE. Materials are incorporated as they
exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any changes in the
materials will be published in the Federal Register. All approved
materials are available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is available for inspection at U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. The referenced
test procedure standards are listed below by relevant standard-setting
organization, along with information on how to obtain copies from those
sources.
(b) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or
go to: http://www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ARI Standard 210/240-2003, ``2003 Standard for Unitary Air-
Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,'' published in 2003
(AHRI 210/240-2003), IBR approved for Sec. 431.96.
(2) ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240-2008, ``2008 Standard for
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by
addendum 1 in June 2011 and addendum 2 in March 2012 (AHRI 210/240-
2008), IBR approved for Sec. 431.96.
(3) ARI Standard 310/380-2004, ``Standard for Packaged Terminal
Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' published September 2004 (AHRI 310/
380-2004), IBR approved for Sec. 431.96.
(4) ARI Standard 340/360-2004, ``2004 Standard for Performance
Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat
Pump Equipment,'' published in 2004 (AHRI 340/360-2004), IBR approved
for Sec. 431.96.
(5) ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, ``2007 Standard for
Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on October 27,
2011 and updated by addendum 1 in December 2010 and addendum 2 in June
2011 (AHRI 340/360-2007), IBR approved for Sec. 431.96.
(6) ANSI/AHRI Standard 390-2003, ``2003 Standard for Performance
Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,''
dated 2003, (AHRI 390-2003), IBR approved for Sec. 431.96.
(7) ANSI/AHRI Standard 1230-2010, ``2010 Standard for Performance
Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning
and Heat Pump Equipment,'' approved August 2, 2010 and updated by
addendum 1 in March 2011 (AHRI 1230-2010), IBR approved for Sec.
431.96.
(8) [Reserved].
(c) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30329, (404) 636-8400, or go to: http://www.ashrae.org.
(1) ASHRAE Standard 127-2007, ``Method of Testing for Rating
Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners,'' approved
on June 28, 2007, (ASHRAE 127-2007), IBR approved for Sec. 431.96.
(2) [Reserved].
(d) ISO. International Organization for Standardization, 1, ch. De
la Voie-Creuse, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, +41 22
749 01 11 or go to: http://www.iso.ch/.
(1) ISO Standard 13256-1, ``Water-source heat pumps--Testing and
rating for performance--Part 1: Water-to-air and brine-to-air heat
pumps,'' approved 1998, IBR approved for Sec. 431.96.
(2) [Reserved].
0
7. Section 431.96 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.96 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
efficiency of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps.
(a) Scope. This section contains test procedures for measuring,
pursuant to EPCA, the energy efficiency of any small, large, or very
large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment,
packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps,
computer room air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow systems, and
single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical
heat pumps.
(b) Testing and calculations. (1) Determine the energy efficiency
of each covered product by conducting the test procedure(s) listed in
the rightmost column of Table 1 of this section, that apply to the
energy efficiency descriptor for that product, category, and cooling
capacity, until compliance with this test procedure version is no
longer required per the date shown in the 5th most column from the left
of Table 1 of this section.
Table 1 to Sec. 431.96--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test procedure
Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency required for Use tests, conditions,
descriptor compliance until and procedures \1\ in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air- Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, AC <65,000 Btu/h...... SEER and HSPF........ May 13, 2013......... ARI 210/240-2003.
Conditioning and Heating and HP. >=65,000 Btu/h and EER and COP.......... May 13, 2013......... ARI 340/360-2004.
Equipment. Air-Cooled AC and HP...... <135,000 Btu/h.
[[Page 28990]]
Water-Cooled and <65,000 Btu/h...... EER.................. May 13, 2013......... ARI 210/240-2003.
Evaporatively-Cooled AC. >=65,000 Btu/h and EER.................. May 13, 2013......... ARI 340/360-2004.
<135,000 Btu/h.
Water-Source HP........... <135,000 Btu/h..... EER and COP.......... May 13, 2013......... ISO Standard 13256-1
(1998).
Large Commercial Packaged Air- Air-Cooled AC and HP...... >=135,000 Btu/h and EER and COP.......... May 13, 2013......... ARI 340/360-2004.
Conditioning and Heating Water-Cooled and <240,000 Btu/h. EER.................. May 13, 2013......... ARI 340/360-2004.
Equipment. Evaporatively-Cooled AC. >=135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-Cooled AC and HP...... >=240,000 Btu/h and EER and COP.......... May 13, 2013......... ARI 340/360-2004.
Air-Conditioning and Heating Water-Cooled and <760,000 Btu/h. EER.................. May 13, 2013......... ARI 340/360-2004.
Equipment. Evaporatively-Cooled AC. >=240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
Packaged Terminal Air AC and HP................. <760,000 Btu/h..... EER and COP.......... May 13, 2013......... AHRI 310/380-2004.
Conditioners and Heat Pumps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.95.
(2) On or after the compliance dates listed in Table 2 of this
section, determine the energy efficiency of each type of covered
equipment by conducting the test procedure(s) listed in the rightmost
column of Table 2 of this section along with any additional testing
provisions set forth in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section,
that apply to the energy efficiency descriptor for that equipment,
category, and cooling capacity. Note, the omitted sections of the test
procedures listed in the rightmost column of Table 1 of this section
shall not be used.
Table 2 to Sec. 431.96--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance with
Energy efficiency test procedure Use tests, conditions, and
Equipment type Category Cooling capacity descriptor required on or procedures \1\ in
after
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air- Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, AC <65,000 Btu/h... SEER and HSPF...... May 13, 2013....... AHRI 210/240-2008 (omit section
Conditioning and Heating and HP. >=65,000 Btu/h EER and COP........ May 13, 2013....... 6.5).
Equipment. Air-Cooled AC and HP.... and <135,000 AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
Btu/h. 6.3).
Water-Cooled and <65,000 Btu/h... EER................ May 13, 2013....... AHRI 210/240-2008 (omit section
Evaporatively-Cooled AC. >=65,000 Btu/h EER................ May 13, 2013....... 6.5).
and <135,000 AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
Btu/h. 6.3).
Water-Source HP......... <135,000 Btu/h.. EER and COP........ May 13, 2013....... ISO Standard 13256-1 (1998).
Large Commercial Packaged Air- Air-Cooled AC and HP.... >=135,000 Btu/h EER and COP........ May 13, 2013....... AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
Conditioning and Heating Water-Cooled and and <240,000 EER................ May 13, 2013....... 6.3).
Equipment. Evaporatively-Cooled AC. Btu/h. AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
>=135,000 Btu/h 6.3).
and <240,000
Btu/h.
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-Cooled AC and HP.... >=240,000 Btu/h EER and COP........ May 13, 2013....... AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
Air-Conditioning and Heating Water-Cooled and and <760,000 EER................ May 13, 2013....... 6.3).
Equipment. Evaporatively-Cooled AC. Btu/h. AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
>=240,000 Btu/h 6.3).
and <760,000
Btu/h.
Packaged Terminal Air AC and HP............... <760,000 Btu/h.. EER and COP........ May 13, 2013....... AHRI 310/380-2004 (omit section
Conditioners and Heat Pumps. 5.6).
Computer Room Air Conditioners AC...................... <65,000 Btu/h... SCOP............... October 29, 2012... ASHRAE 127-2007 (omit section
<65,000 Btu/h SCOP............... May 13, 2013....... 5.11).
and <760,000 ASHRAE 127-2007 (omit section
Btu/h. 5.11).
Variable Refrigerant Flow AC...................... <760,000 Btu/h.. EER and COP........ May 13, 2013....... AHRI 1230-2010 (omit sections
Multi-split Systems. 5.1.2 and 6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow HP...................... <760,000 Btu/h.. EER and COP........ May 13, 2013....... AHRI 1230-2010 (omit sections
Multi-split Systems, Air- 5.1.2 and 6.6).
cooled.
[[Page 28991]]
Variable Refrigerant Flow HP...................... <17,000 Btu/h... EER and COP........ October 29, 2012... AHRI 1230-2010 (omit sections
Multi-split Systems, Water- 5.1.2 and 6.6).
source.
Variable Refrigerant Flow HP...................... >=17,000 Btu/h EER and COP........ May 13, 2013....... AHRI 1230-2010 (omit sections
Multi-split Systems, Water- and <760,000 5.1.2 and 6.6).
source. Btu/h.
Single Package Vertical Air AC and HP............... <760,000 Btu/h.. EER and COP........ July 16, 2012...... AHRI 390-2003 (omit section 6.4).
Conditioners and Single
Package Vertical Heat Pumps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.95.
(c) Optional break-in period for tests conducted using AHRI 210/
240-2008, AHRI 340/360-2007, AHRI 390-2003, AHRI 1230-2010, and ASHRAE
127-2007. Manufacturers may optionally specify a ``break-in'' period,
not to exceed 20 hours, to operate the equipment under test prior to
conducting the test method specified by AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 340/
360-2007, AHRI 390-2003, AHRI 1230-2010, or ASHRAE 127-2007
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.95). A manufacturer who
elects to use an optional compressor break-in period in its
certification testing should record this information (including the
duration) in the test data underlying the certified ratings that is
required to be maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.
(d) Refrigerant line length corrections for tests conducted using
AHRI 1230-2010. For test setups where it is physically impossible for
the laboratory to use the required line length listed in Table 3 of the
AHRI 1230-2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.95), then the
actual refrigerant line length used by the laboratory may exceed the
required length and the following correction factors are applied:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piping length beyond minimum, Piping length beyond Cooling capacity
X (ft) minimum, Y (m) correction %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0> X <=20.................... 0> Y <=6.1........... 1
20> X <=40................... 6.1> Y <=12.2........ 2
40> X <=60................... 12.2> Y <=18.3....... 3
60> X <=80................... 18.3> Y <=24.4....... 4
80> X <=100.................. 24.4> Y <=30.5....... 5
100 > X <=120................ 30.5> Y <=36.6....... 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Additional provisions for equipment set-up. The only
additional specifications that may be used in setting up the basic
model for test are those set forth in the installation and operation
manual shipped with the unit. Each unit should be set up for test in
accordance with the manufacturer installation and operation manuals.
Paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section provide specifications
for addressing key information typically found in the installation and
operation manuals.
(1) If a manufacturer specifies a range of superheat, sub-cooling,
and/or refrigerant pressure in its installation and operation manual
for a given basic model, any value(s) within that range may be used to
determine refrigerant charge or mass of refrigerant, unless the
manufacturer clearly specifies a rating value in its installation and
operation manual, in which case the specified rating value shall be
used.
(2) The air flow rate used for testing must be that set forth in
the installation and operation manuals being shipped to the commercial
customer with the basic model and clearly identified as that used to
generate the DOE performance ratings. If a rated air flow value for
testing is not clearly identified, a value of 400 standard cubic feet
per minute (scfm) per ton shall be used.
(3) For VRF systems, the test set-up and the fixed compressor
speeds (i.e., the maximum, minimum, and any intermediate speeds used
for testing) should be recorded and maintained as part of the test data
underlying the certified ratings that is required to be maintained
under 10 CFR 429.71.
(f) Manufacturer involvement in assessment or enforcement testing
for variable refrigerant flow systems. A manufacturer's representative
will be allowed to witness assessment and/or enforcement testing for
VRF systems. The manufacturer's representative will be allowed to
inspect and discuss set-up only with a DOE representative and adjust
only the modulating components during testing in the presence of a DOE
representative that are necessary to achieve steady-state operation.
Only previously documented specifications for set-up as specified under
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section will be used.
0
8. Section 431.97 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.
(a) All basic models of commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment must be tested for performance using the applicable
DOE test procedure in Sec. 431.96, be compliant
[[Page 28992]]
with the applicable standards set forth in paragraphs (b) through (f)
of this section, and be certified to the Department under 10 CFR part
429.
(b) Each commercial air conditioner or heat pump (not including
single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical
heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal
heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, and variable refrigerant
flow systems) manufactured on and after the compliance date listed in
the corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this
section.
Table 1 to Sec. 431.97--Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
[Not including single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal
heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, and variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub- category Heating type Efficiency level products manufactured
on and after . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air- <65,000 Btu/h.......... AC.............. All...................... SEER = 13.............. June 16, 2008.
Conditioning and Heating HP.............. All...................... SEER = 13.............. June 16, 2008.
Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3 Phase)
Small Commercial Packaged Air- >=65,000 Btu/h and AC.............. No Heating or Electric EER = 11.2............. January 1, 2010.
Conditioning and Heating <135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 11.0............. January 1, 2010.
Equipment (Air-Cooled) All Other Types of
Heating.
HP.............. No Heating or Electric EER = 11.0............. January 1, 2010.
Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of EER = 10.8............. January 1, 2010.
Heating.
Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=135,000 Btu/h and AC.............. No Heating or Electric EER = 11.0............. January 1, 2010.
Conditioning and Heating <240,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 10.8............. January 1, 2010.
Equipment (Air-Cooled) All Other Types of
Heating.
Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).. >240,000 Btu/h......... HP.............. No Heating or Electric EER = 10.6............. January 1, 2010.
Resistance heating.
All Other Types of EER = 10.4............. January 1, 2010.
Heating.
Very Large Commercial Packaged >=240,000 Btu/h and AC.............. No Heating or Electric EER = 10.0............. January 1, 2010.
Air-Conditioning and Heating <760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 9.8.............. January 1, 2010.
Equipment (Air-Cooled) All Other Types of
Heating.
HP.............. No Heating or Electric EER = 9.5.............. January 1, 2010.
Resistance Heating.
................ All Other Types of EER = 9.3.............. January 1, 2010.
Heating.
Small Commercial Packaged Air- <17,000 Btu/h.......... AC.............. All...................... EER = 12.1............. October 29, 2003.
Conditioning and Heating >=17,000 Btu/h and HP.............. All...................... EER = 11.2............. October 29, 2003.
Equipment (Water-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h. AC.............. All...................... EER = 12.1............. October 29, 2003.
Evaporatively-Cooled, and Water- HP.............. All...................... EER = 12.0............. October 29, 2003.
Source).
>=65,000 Btu/h and AC.............. No Heating or Electric EER = 11.5............. October 29, 2003.\1\
<135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of EER = 11.3............. October 29, 2003.\1\
Heating.
HP.............. All...................... EER = 12.0............. October 29, 2003.\1\
Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=135,000 Btu/h and AC.............. All...................... EER = 11.0............. October 29, 2004.\2\
Conditioning and Heating <240,000. HP.............. All...................... EER = 11.0............. October 29, 2004.\2\
Equipment (Water-Cooled, Btu/h..................
Evaporatively-Cooled, and Water-
Source).
Very Large Commercial Packaged >=240,000 Btu/h and AC.............. No Heating or Electric EER = 11.0............. January 10, 2011.\2\
Air-Conditioning and Heating <760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 10.8............. January 10, 2011.\2\
Equipment (Water-Cooled, All Other Types of
Evaporatively-Cooled, and Water- Heating.
Source).
HP.............. No Heating or Electric EER = 11.0............. January 10, 2011.\2\
Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of EER = 10.8............. January 10, 2011.\2\
Heating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ And manufactured before June 1, 2013. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards.
\2\ And manufactured before June 1, 2014. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards.
[[Page 28993]]
Table 2 to Sec. 431.97--Minimum Heating Efficiency Standards for Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
[Heat pumps]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: Products
Equipment type Cooling capacity Efficiency level manufactured on and after .
. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air- <65,000 Btu/h...... HSPF = 7.7................. June 16, 2008.
Conditioning and Heating
Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3 Phase).
Small Commercial Packaged Air- >=65,000 Btu/h and. COP = 3.3.................. January 1, 2010.
Conditioning and Heating <135,000 Btu/h.....
Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=135,000 Btu/h and COP = 3.2.................. January 1, 2010.
Conditioning and Heating <240,000 Btu/h.....
Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Very Large Commercial Packaged >=240,000 Btu/h and COP = 3.2.................. January 1, 2010.
Air-Conditioning and Heating <760,000 Btu/h.....
Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Small Commercial Packaged Air- <135,000 Btu/h..... COP = 4.2.................. October 29, 2003.
Conditioning and Heating
Equipment (Water-Source).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Sec. 431.97--Updates to the Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Air-Conditioning and Heating
Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: Products
Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type Efficiency level manufactured on and after . .
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air- >=65,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric EER = 12.1................... June 1, 2013.
Conditioning and Heating <135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 11.9................... June 1, 2013.
Equipment (Water-Cooled). All Other Types of Heating
Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=135,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric EER = 12.5................... June 1, 2014.
Conditioning and Heating <240,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 12.3................... June 1, 2014.
Equipment (Water-Cooled). All Other Types of Heating
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=240,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric EER = 12.4................... June 1, 2014.
Conditioning and Heating <760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 12.2................... June 1, 2014.
Equipment (Water-Cooled). All Other Types of Heating
Small Commercial Packaged Air- >=65,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric EER = 12.1................... June 1, 2013.
Conditioning and Heating <135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 11.9................... June 1, 2013.
Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled). All Other Types of Heating
Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=135,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric EER = 12.0................... June 1, 2014.
Conditioning and Heating <240,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 11.8................... June 1, 2014.
Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled). All Other Types of Heating
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=240,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric EER = 11.9................... June 1, 2014.
Conditioning and Heating <760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating. EER = 11.7................... June 1, 2014.
Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled). All Other Types of Heating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Each packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) and packaged
terminal heat pump (PTHP) manufactured on or after January 1, 1994, and
before October 8, 2012 (for standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and before
October 7, 2010 (for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
Table 4 of this section. Each PTAC and PTHP manufactured on or after
October 8, 2012 (for standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and on or after
October 7, 2010 (for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
Table 5 of this section.
[[Page 28994]]
Table 4 to Sec. 431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for PTAC and PTHP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: products
Equipment type Cooling capacity Efficiency level manufactured on and after . .
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC............................... <7,000 Btu/h......... EER = 8.88........... January 1, 1994.
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 10.0--(0.16 x January 1, 1994.
<15,000 Btu/h. Cap \1\).
>=15,000 Btu/h....... EER = 7.6............ January 1, 1994.
PTHP............................... <7,000 Btu/h......... EER = 8.88........... January 1, 1994.
COP = 2.72...........
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 10.0--(0.16 x January 1, 1994.
<15,000 Btu/h. Cap \1\).
COP = 1.3 + (0.16 x
EER \2\).
>=15,000 Btu/h....... EER = 7.6............ January 1, 1994.
COP = 2.52...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Cap'' means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95[emsp14][deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
\2\ The applicable minimum cooling EER prescribed in this table.
Table 5 to Sec. 431.97 Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for PTAC and PTHP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
products
Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub-category Efficiency level manufactured on and
after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC.............................. Standard Size........ <7,000 Btu/h......... EER = 11.7.......... October 8, 2012.
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 13.8-(0.3 x October 8, 2012.
<15,000 Btu/h. Cap\1\).
>=15,000 Btu/h....... EER = 9.3........... October 8, 2012.
Non-Standard Size.... <7,000 Btu/h......... EER = 9.4........... October 7, 2010.
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 10.9-(0.213 x October 7, 2010.
<15,000 Btu/h. Cap\1\).
>=15,000 Btu/h....... EER = 7.7........... October 7, 2010.
PTHP.............................. Standard Size........ <7,000 Btu/h......... EER = 11.9.......... October 8, 2012.
COP = 3.3...........
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 14.0-(0.3 x October 8, 2012.
<15,000 Btu/h. Cap\1\).
COP = 3.7--(0.052 x
Cap\1\).
>=15,000 Btu/h....... EER = 9.5........... October 8, 2012.
COP = 2.9...........
Non-Standard Size.... <7,000 Btu/h......... EER = 9.3........... October 7, 2010.
COP = 2.7...........
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 10.8-(0.213 x October 7, 2010.
<15,000 Btu/h. Cap\1\).
COP = 2.9-(0.026 x
Cap\1\).
>=15,000 Btu/h....... EER = 7.6........... October 7, 2010.
COP = 2.5...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ``Cap'' means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
(d) Each single package vertical air conditioner and heat pump
manufactured on or after January 1, 2010, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this section.
Table 6 to Sec. 431.97 Minimum Efficiency Standards for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single
Package Vertical Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub-category Efficiency level Products manufactured on
and after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single package vertical air <65,000 Btu/h... AC............... EER = 9.0........ January 1, 2010.
conditioners and single HP............... EER = 9.0........ January 1, 2010.
package vertical heat pumps, COP = 3.0........
single-phase and three-phase.
Single package vertical air >=65,000 Btu/h AC............... EER = 8.9........ January 1, 2010.
conditioners and single and <135,000 HP............... EER = 8.9........ January 1, 2010.
package vertical heat pumps. Btu/h. COP = 3.0........
Single package vertical air >=135,000 Btu/h AC............... EER = 8.6........ January 1, 2010.
conditioners and single and <240,000 HP............... EER = 8.6........ January 1, 2010.
package vertical heat pumps. Btu/h. COP = 2.9........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Each computer room air conditioner with a net sensible cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after October 29,
2012, and each computer room air conditioner with a net sensible
cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on
or after October 29, 2013, must meet the applicable minimum energy
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this section.
[[Page 28995]]
Table 7 to Sec. 431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum SCOP efficiency Compliance date: Products
Equipment type Net sensible ------------------------------------ manufactured on and
cooling capacity Downflow unit Upflow unit after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.20 2.09 October 29, 2012.
Conditioners, Air-Cooled. >=65,000 Btu/h 2.10 1.99 October 29, 2013.
and <240,000 Btu/
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h 1.90 1.79 October 29, 2013.
and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Computer Room Air <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.60 2.49 October 29, 2012.
Conditioners, Water-Cooled. >=65,000 Btu/h 2.50 2.39 October 29, 2013.
and <240,000 Btu/
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h 2.40 2.29 October 29, 2013.
and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Computer Room Air <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.55 2.44 October 29, 2012.
Conditioners, Water-Cooled >=65,000 Btu/h 2.45 2.34 October 29, 2013.
with a Fluid Economizer. and <240,000 Btu/ 2.35 2.24 October 29, 2013.
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Computer Room Air <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.50 2.39 October 29, 2012.
Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled. >=65,000 Btu/h 2.15 2.04 October 29, 2013.
and <240,000 Btu/
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h 2.10 1.99 October 29, 2013.
and <760,000 Btu/
h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, <65,000 Btu/h.... 2.45 2.34 October 29, 2012.
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid >=65,000 Btu/h 2.10 1.99 October 29, 2013.
Economizer. and <240,000 Btu/ 2.05 1.94 October 29, 2013.
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000 Btu/
h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Each variable refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat pump
manufactured on or after the compliance date listed in this table must
meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set
forth in this section.
Table 8 to Sec. 431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type\1\ Efficiency level Products manufactured
on and after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air <65,000 Btu/h.... All............. 13.0 SEER........ June 16, 2008.
Conditioners (Air-Cooled). >=65,000 Btu/h No Heating or 11.2 EER......... January 1, 2010.
and <135,000 Btu/ Electric
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.0 EER......... January 1, 2010.
of Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h No Heating or 11.0 EER......... January 1, 2010.
and <240,000 Btu/ Electric
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 10.8 EER......... January 1, 2010.
of Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h No Heating or 10.0 EER......... January 1, 2010.
and <760,000 Btu/ Electric
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 9.8 EER.......... January 1, 2010.
of Heating.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps.... <65,000 Btu/h.... All............. 13.0 SEER........ June 16, 2008.
(Air-Cooled).................. 7.7 HSPF.........
>=65,000 Btu/h No Heating or 11.0 EER......... January 1, 2010.
and <135,000 Btu/ Electric 3.3 COP..........
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 10.8 EER......... January 1, 2010.
of Heating. 3.3 COP..........
>=135,000 Btu/h No Heating or 10.6 EER......... January 1, 2010.
and <240,000 Btu/ Electric 3.2 COP..........
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 10.4 EER......... January 1, 2010.
of Heating. 3.2 COP..........
>=240,000 Btu/h No Heating or 9.5 EER.......... January 1, 2010.
and <760,000 Btu/ Electric 3.2 COP..........
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 9.3 EER.......... January 1, 2010.
of Heating. 3.2 COP..........
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps.... <17,000 Btu/h.... Without heat 12.0 EER......... October 29, 2012.
(Water-Source)* * *........... recovery. 4.2 COP.......... October 29, 2003.
With heat 11.8 EER......... October 29, 2012.
recovery. 4.2 COP.......... October 29, 2003.
>=17,000 Btu/h All............. 12.0 EER......... October 29, 2003.
and <65,000 Btu/ 4.2 COP..........
h.
>=65,000 Btu/h All............. 12.0 EER......... October 29, 2003.
and <135,000 Btu/ 4.2 COP..........
h.
>=135,000 Btu/h Without heat 10.0 EER......... October 29, 2013.
and <760,000 Btu/ recovery. 3.9 COP..........
h.
With heat 9.8 EER.......... October 29, 2013
recovery. 3.9 COP..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ``All Other Types of
Heating'' unless they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for
``No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.''
0
9. Add Sec. 431.104 to read as follows:
Sec. 431.104 Sources for information and guidance.
(a) General. The standards listed in this paragraph are referred to
in the DOE test procedures and elsewhere in this part but are not
incorporated by reference. These sources are given here for information
and guidance.
(b) ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19438-2959, 1-(877)
909-2786, or go to: http://www.astm.org/index.shtml.
(1) ASTM Standard Test Method C177-97, ``Standard Test Method for
[[Page 28996]]
Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties
by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus.''
(2) ASTM Standard Test Method C518-91, ``Standard Test Method for
Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties
by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus.''
(3) ASTM Standard Test Method D2156-80, ``Method for Smoke Density
in Flue Gases from Burning Distillate Fuels.''
0
10. Section 431.105 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.105 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following test
procedures into subpart G of part 431. The materials listed have been
approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any
subsequent amendment to the listed materials by the standard-setting
organization will not affect the DOE regulations unless and until such
regulations are amended by DOE. Materials are incorporated as they
exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in the
materials will be published in the Federal Register. All approved
materials are available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is available for inspection at U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards The referenced test
procedure standards are listed below by relevant standard-setting
organization, along with information on how to obtain copies from those
sources.
(b) ANSI. American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to: http://www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI Z21.10.3-1998 (``ANSI Z21.10.3-1998''), ``Gas Water
Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters With Input Ratings Above
75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous, Z21.10.3-1998, CSA
4.3-M98, and its Addenda, ANSI Z21.10.3a-2000, CSA 4.3a-M00,'' approved
by ANSI on October 18, 1999, IBR approved for Sec. 431.106.
(2) ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 (``ANSI Z21.10.3-2011''), ``Gas Water
Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters With Input Ratings Above
75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous,'' approved on March
7, 2011, IBR approved for Sec. 431.106.
(3) [Reserved].
0
11. Section 431.106 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.106 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
efficiency of commercial water heaters and hot water supply boilers
(other than commercial heat pump water heaters).
(a) Scope. This section covers the test procedures you must follow
if, pursuant to EPCA, you are measuring the thermal efficiency or
standby loss, or both, of a storage or instantaneous water heater or
hot water supply boiler (other than a commercial heat pump water
heater).
(b) Testing and Calculations. Determine the energy efficiency of
each covered product by conducting the test procedure(s), set forth in
the two rightmost columns of the following table, that apply to the
energy efficiency descriptor(s) for that product:
Table 1 to Sec. 431.106--Test Procedures for Commercial Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers
[Other than commercial heat pump water heaters]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use test setup,
equipment and
Energy efficiency procedures in Test procedure With these
Equipment type descriptor subsection required for additional
labeled ``Method compliance until stipulations
of Test'' of
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Storage and Thermal ANSI Z21.10.3- May 13, 2013.......... A. For all
Instantaneous Water Heaters Efficiency. 1998 **, Sec. May 13, 2013.......... products, the
and Hot Water Supply Boilers *. Standby Loss..... 2.9. duration of the
ANSI Z21.10.3- standby loss
1998 **, Sec. test shall be
2.10. until whichever
of the following
occurs first
after you begin
to measure the
fuel and/or
electric
consumption: (1)
The first cutout
after 24 hours
or (2) 48 hours,
if the water
heater is not in
the heating mode
at that time.
B. For oil and
gas products,
the standby loss
in Btu per hour
must be
calculated as
follows: SL (Btu
per hour) = S (%
per hour) x 8.25
(Btu/gal-F) x
Measured Volume
(gal) x 70
(degrees F).
[[Page 28997]]
C. For oil-fired
products, apply
the following in
conducting the
thermal
efficiency and
standby loss
tests: (1)
Venting
Requirements--Co
nnect a vertical
length of flue
pipe to the flue
gas outlet of
sufficient
height so as to
meet the minimum
draft specified
by the
manufacturer.
(2) Oil Supply--
Adjust the
burner rate so
that: (a) The
hourly Btu input
rate lies within
2
percent of the
manufacturer's
specified input
rate, (b) the
CO2 reading
shows the value
specified by the
manufacturer,
(c) smoke in the
flue does not
exceed No. 1
smoke as
measured by the
procedure in
ASTM-D-2156-80,
and (d) fuel
pump pressure
lies within
10
percent of
manufacturer's
specifications.
D. For electric
products, apply
the following in
conducting the
standby loss
test: (1) Assume
that the thermal
efficiency (Et)
of electric
water heaters
with immersed
heating elements
is 98 percent.
(2) Maintain the
electrical
supply voltage
to within 5 percent
of the center of
the voltage
range specified
on the water
heater
nameplate. (3)
If the set up
includes
multiple
adjustable
thermostats, set
the highest one
first to yield a
maximum water
temperature in
the specified
range as
measured by the
topmost tank
thermocouple.
Then set the
lower
thermostat(s) to
yield a maximum
mean tank
temperature
within the
specified range.
E. Install water-
tube water
heaters as shown
in Figure 2,
``Arrangement
for Testing
Water-tube Type
Instantaneous
and Circulating
Water Heaters.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As to hot water supply boilers with a capacity of less than 10 gallons, these test methods become mandatory on
October 21, 2005. Prior to that time, you may use for these products either (1) these test methods if you rate
the product for thermal efficiency, or (2) the test methods in Subpart E if you rate the product for
combustion efficiency as a commercial packaged boiler.
** Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.105.
[[Page 28998]]
Table 2 to Sec. 431.106--Test Procedures for Commercial Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers
[Other than commercial heat pump water heaters]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use test setup,
equipment and Test procedure
Energy procedures in required for With these
Equipment type efficiency subsection compliance on and additional
descriptor labeled ``Method after stipulations
of Test'' of
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Storage and Thermal ANSI Z21.10.3- May 13, 2013.......... A. For all
Instantaneous Water Heaters Efficiency. 2011 **, Exhibit May 13, 2013.......... products, the
and Hot Water Supply Boilers *. Standby Loss..... G1. May 13, 2013.......... duration of the
Oil-fired Storage and Thermal ANSI Z21.10.3- May 13, 2013.......... standby loss
Instantaneous Water Heaters Efficiency. 2011 **, Exhibit May 13, 2013.......... test shall be
and Hot Water Supply Boilers *. Standby Loss..... G2. until whichever
Electric Storage and Standby Loss..... ANSI Z21.10.3- of the following
Instantaneous Water Heaters. 2011 **, Exhibit occurs first
G1. after you begin
ANSI Z21.10.3- to measure the
2011 **, Exhibit fuel and/or
G2. electric
ANSI Z21.10.3- consumption: (1)
2011 **, Exhibit The first cutout
G2. after 24 hours
or (2) 48 hours,
if the water
heater is not in
the heating mode
at that time.
B. For oil and
gas products,
the standby loss
in Btu per hour
must be
calculated as
follows: SL (Btu
per hour) = S (%
per hour) x 8.25
(Btu/gal-F) x
Measured Volume
(gal) x 70
(degrees F).
C. For oil-fired
products, apply
the following in
conducting the
thermal
efficiency and
standby loss
tests: (1)
Venting
Requirements--Co
nnect a vertical
length of flue
pipe to the flue
gas outlet of
sufficient
height so as to
meet the minimum
draft specified
by the
manufacturer.
(2) Oil Supply--
Adjust the
burner rate so
that: (a) The
hourly Btu input
rate lies within
2
percent of the
manufacturer's
specified input
rate, (b) the
CO2 reading
shows the value
specified by the
manufacturer,
(c) smoke in the
flue does not
exceed No. 1
smoke as
measured by the
procedure in
ASTM-D-2156-80,
and (d) fuel
pump pressure
lies within
10
percent of
manufacturer's
specifications.
D. For electric
products, apply
the following in
conducting the
standby loss
test: (1) Assume
that the thermal
efficiency (Et)
of electric
water heaters
with immersed
heating elements
is 98 percent.
(2) Maintain the
electrical
supply voltage
to within 5 percent
of the center of
the voltage
range specified
on the water
heater
nameplate. (3)
If the set up
includes
multiple
adjustable
thermostats, set
the highest one
first to yield a
maximum water
temperature in
the specified
range as
measured by the
topmost tank
thermocouple.
Then set the
lower
thermostat(s) to
yield a maximum
mean tank
temperature
within the
specified range.
E. Install water-
tube water
heaters as shown
in Figure 2,
``Arrangement
for Testing
Water-tube Type
Instantaneous and
Circulating
Water Heaters.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As to hot water supply boilers with a capacity of less than 10 gallons, these test methods become mandatory on
October 21, 2005. Prior to that time, you may use for these products either (1) these test methods if you rate
the product for thermal efficiency, or (2) the test methods in Subpart E if you rate the product for
combustion efficiency as a commercial packaged boiler.
** Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.105.
Note: The following will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 28999]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY12.000
[[Page 29000]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY12.001
[FR Doc. 2012-10650 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C