[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7296-7304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02164]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AC95
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Small, Large, and Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information (RFI) and notice of document
availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating an
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for certain commercial air-conditioning and heating
equipment. This notice seeks to solicit information from the public to
help DOE determine whether national standards more stringent than those
that are currently in place would result in a significant amount of
additional energy savings and whether those national standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. Separately, DOE
also seeks information from the public on the merits of adopting the
integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) as the energy efficiency
descriptor for small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before
March 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments
electronically. However, comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
Email to the following address:
[email protected]. Include docket number EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0007 and/or RIN 1904-AC95 in the subject line of the message. All
comments should clearly identify the name, address, and, if
appropriate, organization of the commenter.
Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Request for
Information for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Docket No.
EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007 and/or RIN 1904-AC95, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed paper
original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed paper
original.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number and/or RIN for this rulemaking. No telefacsimilies
(faxes) will be accepted.
Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendees' 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;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007. This Web
page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
For information on how to submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact
Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional
information may be sent to Mr. Joshua Cocciardi, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-287-1656. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, Mailstop GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email: [email protected].
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact
Ms. Brenda Edwards, 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) 586-2945. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
III. Request for Information and Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III, Part C \1\ 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
[[Page 7297]]
Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which includes
provisions covering the commercial heating and air-conditioning
equipment that is the subject of this notice.\2\ In general, this
program addresses the energy efficiency of certain types of commercial
and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of the Act 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act of 2012, Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 342(a) of EPCA concerns energy conservation standards for
small, large, and very large, air-cooled commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment (also known generally as unitary air
conditioning and heating equipment). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) This category
of equipment has a rated capacity between 64,000 Btu/h and 760,000 Btu/
h. The equipment is designed to heat and cool commercial buildings and
is typically located on the building's rooftop. Section 5(b) of the
American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act of 2012 (Pub.
L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012) (AEMTCA)) amended Section 342(a)(6) of EPCA,
which concerns the amendment of energy conservation standards for
certain types of commercial and industrial equipment. At issue here is
the inclusion of a requirement for DOE to consider amending the
standards for ``any covered equipment as to which more than 6 years has
elapsed since the issuance of the most recent final rule establishing
or amending a standard for the product as of the date of AEMTCA's
enactment, December 18, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(vi)) DOE must
issue either a notice of determination that the current standards do
not need to be amended or a notice of proposed rulemaking containing
proposed standards by December 31, 2013. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)
and (vi) (as amended by AEMTCA).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B) refer to 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air
conditioners (ACs) and heating pumps (HPs), the last final rule issued
by DOE was on October 18, 2005, which codified both the amended
standards for small and large equipment and the new standards for very
large equipment set by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58
(Aug. 8, 2005) (EPAct 2005). 70 FR 60407. Consistent with the new
requirements Congress enacted as part of AEMTCA, DOE is required to
publish either a notice of determination that standards for these
equipment types do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking proposing amended energy conservation standards for these
equipment types.
In order to meet the new requirements added by AEMTCA, DOE is
reviewing the standards that are already in place affecting those
products listed in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a) for which more than six years have
elapsed since the issuance of the most recent final rule. Under Section
6313(a), DOE must either adopt those standards developed by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE)--or to adopt levels more stringent than the ASHRAE
levels if there is clear and convincing evidence in support of doing
so. AEMTCA added to this procedure a specified deadline within which
DOE must act with respect to those standards for which more than six
years have elapsed since the issuance of the relevant final rule. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i) and (vi)) Today's notice represents the
initiation of the mandatory review process imposed by AEMTCA and seeks
input from the public to assist DOE with its determination on whether
to amend the current standards pertaining to small, large, and very
large air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heating
equipment ranging in cooling capacity from 65,000 Btu/h to 760,000 Btu/
h. In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether there is
clear and convincing evidence that more stringent national standards
than the ones established pursuant to the ASHRAE-process described
above would result in significant energy savings, be technologically
feasible and economically justified. By statute, DOE may promulgate or
amend existing energy conservation standards only if the resulting
standards would (1) yield a significant savings in energy use and (2)
be both technologically feasible and economically justified. The
current Federal standards, for this equipment, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Minimum Cooling and Heating Efficiency Levels for Air-Cooled Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, >=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance
Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub-category Heating type Efficiency level date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air- >=65,000 Btu/h and AC....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 11.2............. 1/1/2010
Conditioning and Heating Equipment <135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
(Air-Cooled).
All Other Types of EER = 11.0............. 1/1/2010
Heating.
HP....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 11.0............. 1/1/2010
Resistance Heating. COP = 3.3..............
All Other Types of EER = 10.8............. 1/1/2010
Heating. COP = 3.3..............
Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=135,000 Btu/h and AC....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 11.0............. 1/1/2010
Conditioning and Heating Equipment <240,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
(Air-Cooled).
All Other Types of EER = 10.8............. 1/1/2010
Heating.
HP....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 10.6............. 1/1/2010
Resistance Heating. COP = 3.2..............
All Other Types of EER = 10.4............. 1/1/2010
Heating. COP = 3.2..............
[[Page 7298]]
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=240,000 Btu/h and AC....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 10.0............. 1/1/2010
Conditioning and Heating Equipment <760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
(Air-Cooled).
All Other Types of EER = 9.8.............. 1/1/2010
Heating.
HP....................... No Heating or Electric EER = 9.5.............. 1/1/2010
Resistance Heating. COP = 3.2..............
All Other Types of EER = 9.3.............. 1/1/2010
Heating. COP = 3.2..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Background
On October 29, 1999, ASHRAE and the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America (IESNA) adopted Standard 90.1-1999, which
included amended efficiency levels for commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps. DOE evaluated these efficiency levels and subsequently
adopted levels affecting 18 different equipment categories in a 2001
final rule. 66 FR 3336 (Jan. 12, 2001). However, the final rule's
notice also indicated that DOE planned to further evaluate commercial
air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps with rated capacities
between 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h because the initial analyses
indicated that more stringent standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. Id. at 3349. On June 12, 2001, the
Department published a Framework Document that described analytical
approaches to evaluate energy conservation standards for these larger
commercial air conditioners and heat pumps (i.e. capacities between
65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h) and presented this analytical framework
to stakeholders at a public workshop. On July 29, 2004, DOE issued an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) to solicit public
comments on its preliminary analyses for this equipment. 69 FR 45461.
Subsequently, Congress enacted EPAct 2005, which, among other things,
established amended standards for small and large commercial air-cooled
air conditioners and heat pumps and new standards for very large air-
cooled air conditioners and heat pumps. As a result, EPAct 2005
displaced the rulemaking effort that DOE had already begun. DOE
codified these new statutorily-prescribed standards on October 18,
2005. 70 FR 60407.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE generally follows specific criteria when prescribing amended
standards for covered equipment. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)-
(C). An amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified. Furthermore, DOE
may not adopt any amended standard that would not result in the
significant conservation of energy. Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard for certain equipment, if (1) no test procedure has been
established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that,
in cases where a standard has been proposed, the proposed standard is
not technologically feasible or economically justified. In deciding
whether a proposed amended standard is economically justified, DOE must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. DOE
must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed
standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the
standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy savings, or as applicable,
water savings, likely to result directly from the imposition of the
standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the imposition of 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
imposition of the standard;
6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant. (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
As part of this decision-making process, there must also be clear
and convincing evidence that the adoption of a national standard that
is more stringent than the level set by ASHRAE would result in the
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. See generally 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A). Accordingly, EPCA requires that there be clear and
convincing evidence that the adoption of standards more stringent than
those set by ASHRAE would lead to significant energy savings and that
achieving those standards would be both technologically feasible and,
separately, economically justified using the seven criteria listed
above.
In assessing the appropriateness of amending the standards that are
currently in place for small, large, and very large commercial air-
cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE is planning to conduct in-
depth technical analyses in the following areas to meet the statutory
criteria for prescribing amended standards: (1) Engineering; (2) energy
use; (3) markups; (4) life-cycle cost and payback period; (5) national
impacts; (6) manufacturer impacts; (7) emission impacts; (8) utility
impacts; (9) employment impacts; and (10) regulatory impacts. These
analyses are the same ones DOE routinely applies when evaluating
potential standards for a given type of product or equipment. DOE will
also conduct several other analyses that support those previously
listed, including the market and technology assessment, the screening
analysis (which contributes to the engineering analysis), and the
shipments analysis (which contributes to the national impact analysis).
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is specifically publishing this
notice as the
[[Page 7299]]
first step in the analysis process and is specifically requesting input
and data from interested parties to aid in the development of the
technical analyses.
II. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
As part of this analysis, DOE is giving very serious consideration
to the possible replacement of the existing efficiency descriptor
(i.e., energy efficiency ratio (EER)) with a new energy-efficiency
descriptor (i.e., integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER)). Unlike
the EER metric, which utilizes only the efficiency of equipment
operating at full load conditions, IEER factors in the equipment's
efficiency while operating at part-load conditions of 75%, 50%, and 25%
of capacity as well as during full load. This is accomplished by
weighting the full- and part-load efficiencies with the average amount
of time operating at each loading point; IEER provides a more
representative measure of the energy consumption in actual operation.
Moreover, IEER incorporates variations of outside temperature from
design temperatures for part-load operation that further increase the
accuracy of the metric.
Since 2007, ASHRAE has been specifying in its Standard 90.1 the use
of an energy efficiency metric that captures part-load performance.
ASHRAE first published specifications for part-load energy efficiency
in their Standard 90.1-2007 based on the integrated part load value
(IPLV). In Addendum's from the 2008 Supplement to Standard 90.1-2007,
ASHRAE replaced IPLV for commercial air conditioning and heat pump
equipment with IEER, effective January 1, 2010. According to ASHRAE,
that change was made to improve the accuracy when rating part-load
performance of commercial air conditioning and heating equipment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ASHRAE. ASHRAE Addenda. 2008 Supplement. http://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/docLib/Public/20090317_90_1_2007_supplement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA authorizes DOE to establish ``energy conservation standards''
that set either a single performance standard or a single design
requirement--not both. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(18). As such, DOE can choose
to implement an energy conservation standard using one or the other. In
the case of small, large, and very large commercial air-cooled ACs and
HPs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 recommends two performance requirements; EER
and IEER. Because EPCA does not specify a particular metric that DOE
must use when measuring the efficiency of the equipment at issue in
this notice, changing that metric from one type (e.g. EER) to another
(e.g. IEER) is permissible. DOE also notes that in amending standards
for a given type of product or equipment, DOE must ensure that a
potential new standard would not result in reduced stringency when
compared to the current Federal standards. See, e.g. 74 FR 36322 and 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I).
As part of its consideration, DOE examined whether part-load
performance is currently being used and accepted for rating commercial
air conditioners and heat pumps. On January 2, 2009, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft ENERGY STAR specification for
Light Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps products, i.e., small
and large air-cooled air conditioners and air-source heat pumps, which
proposed to adopt IEER as part of the minimum energy efficiency
criteria.\5\ In a January 30, 2009 letter regarding EPA's draft, AHRI
expressed support for IEER as well as for the ENERGY STAR program to
adopt IEER. Recently, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), an
organization for energy efficiency advocates, has adopted IEER for its
Tier 0, 1, and 2 efficiencies for unitary air conditioning and heat
pump products, i.e., small, large, and very large air-, water-, and
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners and air- and water-source heat
pumps.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ENERGY STAR. Re: EPA Proposed Draft Energy Star
Specification for Light Commercial HVAC Equipment. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/lhvac/AHRI_Comments_D1.pdf.
\6\ Consortium for Energy Efficiency. CEE Commercial Unitary AC
and HP Specification. http://www.cee1.org/files/CEE_CommHVAC_UnitarySpec2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEER has also gained support through efforts such as DOE's
Commercial Building Energy Alliance (CBEA) technology transfer program,
which sponsors the High Performance Rooftop Unit Challenge (RTU
Challenge). This program provides a market mechanism that reduces
barriers for manufacturers to procure greater than 18-IEER 10-ton
equipment and encourages the private sector to commit to adopt energy-
efficient equipment. Carrier, Lennox, 7AC Technologies, and Rheem are
participating in the RTU Challenge, while participant McQuay has
already produced certified equipment that meets or exceeds 18 IEER. In
conjunction with manufacturer support, fourteen CBEA-member private
entities,\7\ such as Target Corp., Macy's, Inc., McDonald's Corp., and
others, have also signaled their support and indicated their strong
interest in potentially purchasing high-efficiency rooftop units, a
sign of their confidence in the RTU Challenge and its ability to use
IEER to accurately portray the energy use of commercial air-cooler air
conditioners and heat pumps in the field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Department of Energy. Building Technologies Program.
High Performance Rooftop Unit Challenge Fact Sheet. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/alliances/techspec_rtus.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, DOE conducted a market analysis to compare the two metrics
based on publicly available ratings of equipment currently available in
the market. DOE is making available for comment a document that
provides the methodology and results of the investigation of the
relationship between IEER and EER for commercial air-cooled air
conditioners and heat pumps with cooling capacities between 65,000 Btu/
hr and 760,000 Btu/hr (i.e., 5 and 63 tons). In addition, it looks at
the variance of heating efficiency (i.e., coefficient of performance or
COP) with IEER and EER. The document is available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/77. Ultimately, if DOE were to decide after considering the
comments in response to this notice to migrate to the IEER metric, DOE
would transition the existing Federal energy conservation standards to
the new metric by identifying the appropriate baseline energy-
efficiency levels to use in the analysis. From that point forward, all
of the technical and economic analyses would be conducted using the new
metric, IEER, in the evaluation of potential amended energy
conservation standards for small, large, and very large air-cooled ACs
and HPs. Consequently, DOE seeks comments and data regarding its
consideration of transitioning metrics and the analysis conducted on
the currently available models.
III. Request for Information and Comments
In the next section, DOE identifies a variety of issues on which it
seeks input and data in order to aid its development of the technical
and economic analyses to determine whether amended energy conservation
standards may be warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other
issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not
specifically be identified in this notice.
A. Test Procedure
DOE recently reviewed and adopted amended test procedures for
small,
[[Page 7300]]
large, and very large, air-cooled commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment in a final rule published on May 16, 2012. 77 FR
28928. These test procedures incorporate by reference certain sections
of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute's (AHRI)
2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 340/360-2007)
along with the addition of a handful of other additional testing
specifications. AHRI is an industry trade group representing air
conditioning, heating and refrigeration manufacturers.
In light of DOE's consideration to switch from EER to IEER, DOE
conducted a preliminary review of the current Federal test procedures
for small, large, and very large air-cooled ACs and HPs. As part of its
final rule issued on May 16, 2012, DOE adopted AHRI Test Standard 340/
360-2007. 77 FR 28928. DOE found that the methods and procedures for
testing and rating equipment with an IEER already exist within its test
procedure. However, DOE specifically seeks comment on any test
procedure issues relating to IEER and the existing Federal procedures
that DOE should consider as part of this rulemaking.
(A1) DOE requests comment on the existing DOE test procedure for
small, large, and very large air-conditioning equipment and its
suitability for establishing a performance rating based on IEER.
B. Market Assessment
The market and technology assessment provides information about the
commercial air conditioner and heat pump industry that will be used
throughout the rulemaking process. For example, this information will
be used to determine whether the existing equipment class structure
requires modification based on the statutory criteria for setting such
classes and to explore the potential for technological improvements in
the design and manufacturing of such equipment. The Department uses
qualitative and quantitative information to assess the past and present
industry structure and market characteristics. DOE will use existing
market materials and literature from a variety of sources, including
industry publications, trade journals, government agencies, and trade
organizations. Additionally, DOE will consider conducting interviews
with manufacturers to assess the overall market for commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps.
The current equipment classes as established in EPAct 2005 for
small, large, and very large, air-cooled ACs and HPs divide this
equipment into twelve equipment classes characterized by rated cooling
capacity, equipment type (air conditioner versus heat pump), and
heating type. As a starting point, DOE plans to use the existing
equipment class structure as shown in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97.
However, DOE will consider additional equipment classes for capacities
or other performance-related features that inherently effect efficiency
and justify the establishment of a different energy conservation
standard. For instance, additional equipment classes may be warranted
to differentiate between split and packaged type units or to further
segment the capacities of the equipment covered in this analysis.
(B1) DOE requests feedback on the current equipment classes and
seeks information regarding other equipment classes it should consider
for inclusion in its analysis.
C. Technology Options for Consideration
DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and
prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers
could use to meet and/or exceed energy conservation standards. In
consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of
technologies to consider in its analysis. Initially, this list will
include all those technologies considered to be technologically
feasible and will serve to establish the maximum technologically
feasible design. DOE is currently considering the specific technologies
and design options listed below.
Electro-hydrodynamic enhanced heat transfer.
Copper rotor motor with improved efficiency.
Improved refrigerants.
Evaporator coil area (keeping the number of coil rows the
same).
Condenser coil area (keeping the number of coil rows the
same).
Coil rows (keeping face area the same).
Condenser fan diameters.
Evaporator fan.
Air leakage paths within the unit.
Coil row (keeping coil heat transfer the same).
Microchannel heat exchangers.
Deep coil heat exchangers.
Low-pressure-loss filters.
High efficiency fan motors.
High efficiency compressors.
Multiple compressors.
Thermal expansion valves.
Electronic expansion valves.
Air foil centrifugal fans.
Backward-curved centrifugal fans.
Synchronous (toothed) belts.
Direct-drive fans.
High efficiency propeller condenser.
High-side solenoid valve or discharge line check-valve to
minimize pressure equalization.
Heat-pipes (for high latent loads).
Sub-coolers.
Demand-control ventilation strategy.
(C1) DOE seeks information related to these or other unlisted,
efficiency improving technologies as to their applicability to the
current market and how these technologies improve efficiency of small,
large, and very large commercial air-cooler ACs and HPs as rated by
AHRI 340/360-2007.
(C2) Additionally, DOE requests comment on which of the listed
technologies and/or other technologies not mentioned that may
preferentially improve the IEER more than the EER for commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency. This
relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for
commercial customers, manufacturers, and the nation. In determining the
cost-efficiency relationship, DOE will estimate the increase in
manufacturer cost associated with increasing the efficiency of
equipment above the baseline to the maximum technologically feasible
(``max-tech'') efficiency level for each equipment class. The baseline
model is used as a reference point for each equipment class in the
engineering analysis and the life-cycle cost and payback-period
analyses. Typically, DOE would consider equipment that just meets the
minimum energy conservation standard as baseline equipment. However,
DOE is considering whether to replace the current cooling performance
energy efficiency descriptor, EER, with IEER, and a single EER level
can correspond to a range of IEERs. If DOE decides to transition to a
new efficiency descriptor, DOE would have to establish a baseline IEER
for each equipment class, and could consider the minimum, median,
average, or maximum IEER in the applicable range.
(D1) DOE requests comment on approaches that it should consider
when determining a baseline IEER for each equipment class, including
[[Page 7301]]
information regarding the merits and/or deficiencies of such
approaches.
(D2) DOE also seeks comment on an appropriate baseline IEER for
each equipment class and analysis supporting such selected baseline
efficiency levels.
(D3) DOE requests information on max-tech efficiency levels
achievable in the current market in terms of IEER, EER, and COP as
applicable.
In order to create the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE
anticipates that it will structure its engineering analysis using the
reverse-engineering (or cost-assessment) approach. A reverse-
engineering or cost-assessment approach relies on a teardown analysis
of representative baseline efficient to highly efficient units that
employ maximum technologically feasible designs. A teardown analysis
(or physical teardown) determines the production cost of a piece of
equipment by disassembling the equipment ``piece-by-piece'' and
estimating the material and labor cost of each component. A
supplementary method called a catalog teardown uses published
manufacturer catalogs and supplementary component data to estimate the
major physical differences between a piece of equipment that has been
physically disassembled and another piece of similar equipment. These
two methods would be used together to help DOE determine the cost
effectiveness of any standards that it may consider as part of a
standards rulemaking to amend the levels currently in place.
(D4) DOE requests feedback on using a reverse engineering approach
supplemented with catalog teardowns and requests comment on what the
appropriate representative capacities would be for each equipment
class.
In the 2004 ANOPR, the Department proposed to address the energy
efficiency of commercial air-cooled heat pumps by developing functions
relating COP to EER. This method was also used by industry to establish
minimum performance requirements for ASHRAE 90.1-1999. AHRI supplied
the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 committee with curves relating the COP as a
function of EER, and the committee then set the minimum COP levels
based on EER. 69 FR 45460, 45468. Due to the previous acceptance of
this method, DOE is considering a similar approach for this rulemaking.
If DOE transitions to use IEER as the energy efficiency descriptor,
then DOE may establish minimum COP levels based on IEER. DOE has
conducted a market analysis and evaluated the relationship between IEER
and COP in a technical support document published to coincide with this
notice.\8\ DOE recognizes that COP does not integrate part load
efficiency and that a correlation between COP and IEER may not be
robust for this reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The document is available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D5) DOE seeks information about potential issues related to using
IEER as the cooling performance efficiency metric when developing a
correlation between COP and IEER.
E. Markups Analysis
To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP)
calculations, DOE needs to determine the cost to the commercial
customer of baseline equipment that satisfies the currently applicable
standards, and the cost of the more-efficient unit the customer would
purchase under potential amended standards. By applying a multiplier
called a ``markup'' to the manufacturer's selling price, DOE is able to
estimate the commercial customer's price.
For DOE's 2004 ANOPR, two types of distribution channels were
defined to describe how the equipment passes from the manufacturer to
the customer. In the first distribution channel, the manufacturer sells
the equipment to a wholesaler. The wholesaler sells the equipment to a
mechanical contractor, who then sells it to a general contractor. In
the final step to this first channel, the general contractor sells the
equipment to the customer/end user (and installs it). In the second
distribution channel, the manufacturer sells the equipment directly to
the customer through a national account. 69 FR 45460, 45476. For this
rulemaking, DOE intends to characterize the distribution of equipment
with the same channels developed for the 2004 ANOPR, with modifications
to reflect the current status of equipment distribution.
(E1) DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the distribution
channels described above are still relevant for small and large air-
cooled commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, and whether they are
also relevant for very large air-cooled equipment.
Based on information that equipment manufacturers provided,
commercial customers were estimated to purchase 50 percent of equipment
through small mechanical contractors, 32.5 percent through large
mechanical contractors, and the remaining 17.5 percent through national
accounts. In addition, 30 percent of commercial air-conditioning
equipment was estimated to be purchased for the new construction market
while the remaining 70 percent was estimated to serve the replacement
market. In the case of the replacement market, where equipment is
purchased through a mechanical contractor, the mechanical contractor
purchases equipment directly from the wholesaler (i.e., a general
contractor is not involved). 69 FR 45460, 45476.
(E2) DOE seeks input on the percent of equipment being distributed
through the various types of distribution channels, and whether the
share of equipment through each channel varies based on equipment
capacity.
To develop markups for the parties involved in the distribution of
the equipment, DOE utilized several sources including: (1) The Air-
conditioning & Refrigeration Wholesalers Association's 1998 Wholesaler
PROFIT Survey Report to develop wholesaler markups, (2) the Air
Conditioning Contractors of America's (ACCA) financial analysis for the
heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR)
contracting industry to develop mechanical contractor markups, and (3)
U.S. Census Bureau economic data for the commercial and institutional
building construction industry to develop general contractor markups.
(D3) DOE seeks recent data to establish the markups for the parties
involved with the distribution of the equipment addressed by today's
notice.
F. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to assess the energy and
peak demand savings potential of different equipment efficiencies in
the building types that utilize the equipment. DOE intends to base the
energy use analysis for the current effort on building simulation data
compiled for the 2004 ANOPR. The simulation database includes hourly
profiles for over 1,000 commercial buildings, which were based on
building characteristics from the 1995 Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS) for the subset of buildings using the type
of equipment covered by the standards. Each building was assigned to a
specific location and a typical meteorological year hourly weather file
(referred to as TMY2) was used to represent local weather. The
simulations capture variability in cooling loads due to factors such as
building activity, schedule, occupancy, local weather and shell
characteristics. Because the building simulation data developed for the
2004 ANOPR are based on the 1995 CBECS, DOE intends to take a number of
steps to update the building simulation database for this analytical
effort and with any subsequent
[[Page 7302]]
proposed rulemaking that DOE may issue.
DOE intends to adjust the 1995 CBECS building weights to match the
most recent CBECS (2003), and to account for changes to the
distribution of total floor space by geographic region and building
type. CBECS 2012 is currently in development but will not be available
in time for DOE to use as part of its rulemaking effort. In addition,
the 1995 CBECS sample may not include examples of recent innovations in
building shell or window technologies that reduce cooling loads. DOE
intends on reviewing other data sets, for example, the technology
penetration curves used in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)
commercial demand module,\9\ to determine whether a significant
fraction of the current building population is not represented by the
building simulation database used for the 2004 ANOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is a computer-
based, energy-economy modeling system of the U.S. designed and
implemented by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the
U.S. DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TMY2 weather data set was updated in 2008 to TMY3. For each
location in the building database, the two weather data sets will be
compared to determine whether there has been a change to either the
monthly maximum temperatures or monthly cooling degree days. DOE
intends to adjust the estimated cooling loads and energy use
accordingly.
The range of capacities covered by the current effort that DOE may
consider is likely to be broader than that considered in the 2004
ANOPR, and includes much larger capacity units. For the 2004 ANOPR, a
design day simulation was used to determine the total cooling capacity
requirement for a building. The simulation assumed this would be met by
a number of identical units of fixed capacity. The updated analysis
will consider the possibility that a smaller number of larger capacity
units may be used. Further, DOE intends to apply the building
simulation database to very large equipment (i.e., equipment with
capacities between 240,000 Btu/h and 760,000 Btu/h.)
DOE requests comment or seeks input from stakeholders on the
following issues pertaining to the energy use analysis:
(F1) For different cooling technologies, the relationship between
efficiency and the instantaneous load level;
(F2) The current distribution of equipment efficiencies in the
building population;
(F3) For a given cooling load shape, how equipment energy use
scales as a function of capacity, i.e., whether two air-conditioning
units of a certain capacity use the same total cooling energy as one
air-conditioning unit of twice the capacity; and
(F4) Whether the building simulations developed for small and large
air-conditioning equipment are applicable to very large equipment.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to analyze the effects
of potential amended energy conservation standards on customers of
commercial air-cooled air-conditioning and heating equipment by
determining how a potential amended standard would affect their
operating expenses (usually decreased) and their total installed costs
(usually increased).
DOE intends to analyze the potential for variability and
uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations on a
representative sample of individual commercial buildings. DOE plans to
utilize the sample of buildings developed for the energy use analysis
and the corresponding simulations results. Within a given building, one
or more air-conditioning units may serve the building's space-
conditioning needs, depending on the cooling load requirements of the
building. As a result, the Department intends to express the LCC and
PBP results as the number of ACs and HPs experiencing economic impacts
of different magnitudes. DOE plans to model both the uncertainty and
the variability in the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis using Monte
Carlo simulation and probability distributions. As a result, the LCC
and PBP results will be displayed as distributions of impacts compared
to the base case conditions.
(G1) DOE requests comment from stakeholders on the overall method
that it intends to use when conducting the LCC and PBP analysis.
Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs
for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total
installed cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the operating expense.
The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are
the baseline customer price, standard-level customer price increases,
and installation costs. Baseline customer prices and standard-level
customer price increases will be determined by applying markups to
manufacturer price estimates. The installation cost is added to the
customer price to arrive at a total installed cost. For DOE's 2004
ANOPR, DOE developed installation costs from RS Means Mechanical Cost
Data. 69 FR 45460, 45480. DOE intends to develop installation costs for
any potential rulemaking it may conduct for the equipment addressed by
today's notice using the most recent RS Means data available. For the
2004 ANOPR, DOE varied installation cost as a function of equipment
weight. Because weight tends to increase with equipment efficiency,
installation cost increased with equipment efficiency. 69 FR 45460,
45481. DOE intends to develop similar relationships for this analysis
and for any proposed rulemaking that may be issued.
(G2) DOE seeks input on the approach and data sources it intends to
use to develop installation costs, specifically, its intention to use
the most recent RS Means Mechanical Cost Data and to vary installation
cost based on equipment weight.
The primary inputs for calculating the operating costs are
equipment energy consumption and power demand, equipment efficiency,
electricity prices and forecasts, maintenance and repair costs,
equipment lifetime, and discount rates. Both equipment lifetime and
discount rates are used to calculate the present value of future
operating expenses.
The equipment energy consumption is the site energy use associated
with providing space-conditioning to the building. The power demand is
the maximum power requirement of the equipment (i.e., the peak demand)
for a specific period of time. DOE intends to utilize updated building
simulation results from its 2004 ANOPR to establish equipment energy
use and demand.
For projecting equipment efficiency, DOE will use the most
appropriate metric to characterize efficiency, whether it is EER or
IEER. The building simulations conducted for the 2004 ANOPR assigned
specific baseline and standard level EERs to the equipment to determine
its corresponding energy consumption and peak demand. 69 FR 45460,
45482. If DOE utilizes an IEER as the metric for equipment efficiency,
the updating of the building simulation results will address how
equipment efficiency, expressed as IEER, will impact energy use and
demand.
Electricity prices are the price per kilowatt-hour paid by each
customer for electricity. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE determined
electricity prices based on tariffs from a representative sample of
electric utilities. 69 FR 45460, 45481-82. This approach calculates
energy
[[Page 7303]]
expenses based on actual electricity prices that customers are paying.
DOE intends to retain the tariff-based approach for its analysis and
plans to update its electricity prices based on recent or current
tariffs. Future electricity prices will likely be forecasted using
trends from the Energy Information Administration's most recent Annual
Energy Outlook.
(G3) DOE seeks comment on its tariff-based approach for developing
electricity prices. DOE seeks input on specific data sources available
for collecting tariffs.
Maintenance costs are costs associated with maintaining the
operation of the equipment. For DOE's 2004 ANOPR, DOE developed
maintenance costs from RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost
Data. 69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends to develop maintenance costs for
its analysis using the most recent RS Means data available. For the
2004 ANOPR, DOE estimated that maintenance costs do not vary with
equipment efficiency. 69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends to use the same
assumption as part of its analysis in determining whether amending the
current standards is appropriate under the statutory criteria.
(G4) DOE seeks input on the approach and data sources it intends to
use to develop maintenance costs, specifically, its intention to use
the most recent RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data and
in assuming that maintenance costs do not vary with equipment
efficiency.
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components
that have failed. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE estimated that repair costs
varied as function of customer equipment price. 69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE
intends to determine whether repair costs continue to vary with
equipment prices as part of its determination analysis.
(G5) DOE seeks comment as to whether repair costs vary as a
function of equipment price. DOE also requests any data or information
on developing repair costs.
Equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired
from service. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE based equipment lifetime on a
retirement function, which was based on the use of a Weibull
probability distribution, with a resulting median lifetime of 15 years.
69 FR 45460, 45486. DOE intends to use the same retirement function for
its analysis.
(G6) DOE seeks comment on its approach of using a Weibull
probability distribution to characterize equipment lifetime. DOE also
requests any data or information that demonstrates whether equipment
lifetime has a median value of 15 years and whether equipment lifetime
varies based on equipment class.
The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are
discounted to establish their present value. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE
derived the discount rates by estimating the cost of capital of
companies that purchase air-cooled air-conditioning equipment. 69 FR
45460, 45486-87. DOE intends to apply this approach for its analysis
and to update its data sources for calculating the cost of capital of
companies that purchase air-cooled air-conditioning equipment.
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels
relative to a base case that reflects the likely market in the absence
of amended standards. DOE plans to develop market-share efficiency data
(i.e., the distribution of equipment shipments by efficiency) for the
equipment classes DOE is considering, for the year in which compliance
with any amended standards would be required.
(G7) DOE requests data on current efficiency market shares (of
shipments) by equipment class, and also similar historic data. In
particular, DOE needs efficiency data for very large equipment.
(G8) DOE also requests information on expected trends in efficiency
over the next five years.
H. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses shipment projections by equipment class to calculate the
national impacts of standards on energy consumption, net present value
(NPV), and future manufacturer cash flows.
For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE developed a shipments model for small and
large air-cooled air-conditioning and heating equipment driven by
historical shipments data. 69 FR 45492. The accuracy of the shipments
model is highly dependent on historical shipments data as the data is
used not only to build up an equipment stock but also to calibrate the
shipments model.
(H1) DOE seeks recent historical shipments data for small, large,
and very large air conditioners and heat pumps. Because very large
equipment were not considered in the 2004 ANOPR, DOE is especially in
need of shipments data for this class of equipment.
The shipments model for the 2004 ANOPR considered three market
segments: (1) New commercial buildings acquiring equipment, (2)
existing buildings replacing broken equipment, and (3) existing
buildings acquiring new equipment for the first time. It considered two
stock categories: (1) Equipment that has received only normal
maintenance repairs, and (2) equipment that has had its useful life
extended through additional repairs. To determine whether a customer
would choose to repair rather than replace their air-conditioning
equipment, the shipments model explicitly accounted for the combined
effects of changes in purchase price, annual operating cost, and the
value of commercial floor space on the purchase versus repair decision.
Changes to the purchase price and operating costs due to standards were
the drivers for shipment estimates for the standards cases relative to
the base case (the case without standards). Because purchase price had
more of an effect on shipments than operating costs, standards case
shipments estimated for the 2004 ANOPR were 0.2-percent to 5-percent
lower than the base case, depending on the increased price associated
with the standard level. Extended repairs, i.e., repairing the
equipment rather than purchasing a new unit, accounted for 80-percent
of the shipments decrease with the remaining 20-percent due to forgone
shipments to new construction. DOE intends to utilize the same approach
to develop the shipments model for this rulemaking
(H2) DOE requests comment on the approach it intends on using to
develop the shipments model and shipments forecasts for this
rulemaking.
For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE utilized U.S. Census Bureau data to
establish historical new construction floor space as well as historical
stock floor space. The Annual Energy Outlook was used to forecast both
new construction and stock floor space. Together with historical
equipment saturation data from CBECS, DOE was able to estimate
shipments to the three market segments identified above. The utility
function to estimate the repair versus replacement decision was based
on income per square foot data from the Building Owners and Managers
Association (BOMA) Commercial Building Survey reports, purchase price
data estimated from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and operating cost
data derived from the LCC and PBP analysis. 69 FR 45493. DOE intends to
update all of the above data sources for the development of the
shipments model for its analysis.
(H3) DOE seeks input on the approach and data sources it intends to
use in developing the shipments model and shipments forecasts for this
analysis.
I. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the national impact analysis (NIA) is to estimate
aggregate impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national
level. Impacts that DOE reports include the national energy savings
(NES) from potential standards
[[Page 7304]]
and the national NPV of the total customer benefits.
To develop the NES, DOE calculates annual energy consumption for
the base case and the standards cases. DOE calculates the annual energy
consumption using per-unit annual energy use data multiplied by
projected shipments.
To develop the national NPV of customer benefits from potential
standards, DOE calculates annual energy expenditures and annual
equipment expenditures for the base case and the standards cases. DOE
calculates annual energy expenditures from annual energy consumption by
incorporating forecasted energy prices, using shipment projections and
average energy efficiency projections. DOE calculates annual equipment
expenditures by multiplying the price per unit times the projected
shipments. The difference each year between energy bill savings and
increased equipment expenditures is the net savings or net costs.
A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV are the equipment
energy efficiencies forecasted over time for the base case and for each
of the standards cases. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE used a combination of
historical commercial and residential equipment efficiency data to
forecast efficiencies for the base case. To estimate the impact that
standards have in the year compliance becomes required, DOE used a
``roll-up'' scenario which assumes that equipment efficiencies in the
base case that do not meet the standard level under consideration would
``roll up'' to meet the new standard level and equipment shipments at
efficiencies above the standard level under consideration are not
affected. 69 FR 45460, 45489-90. DOE intends to use the same methods
for conducting the NIA for this analysis.
(I1) In addition to historical efficiency data (see section III.H),
DOE also requests information on expected trends in efficiency over the
long run.
J. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by March 4,
2013, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and
on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of a new efficiency
descriptor and amended energy conservations standard for commercial
air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps. After the close of the
comment period, DOE will begin collecting data, conducting the
analyses, and reviewing the public comments, as needed. These actions
will be taken to aid in the development of a NOPR for commercial air-
cooled air conditioners and heat pumps if DOE decides to replace EER
with IEER and amend the standards for such equipment.
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures. DOE actively encourages the
participation and interaction of the public during the comment period
in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between
members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and
assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to
the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about
this rulemaking should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945, or
via email at [email protected].
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 25, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2013-02164 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P