[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 27 (Friday, February 9, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6184-6186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2167]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM/STD-01-350]
RIN 1904-AA78


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of data availability and reopening of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: A notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the current 
minimum energy conservation standards for residential furnaces and 
boilers was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2006. 71 FR 
59204. On October 30, 2006, the Department of Energy (DOE) held a 
public meeting for interested parties to provide comments and discuss 
relevant issues. At the public meeting, DOE indicated it would respond 
to two particular questions that stakeholders raised regarding DOE's 
NOPR estimates for potential energy savings associated with regional 
standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces in Northern regions, and 
regarding new installation costs for oil-fired furnaces. This notice 
both addresses the stakeholders questions and reopens the comment 
period to provide an opportunity for public review and comment on DOE's 
response to each question.

DATES: DOE will accept comments until February 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
the proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section. 
Any comments submitted must include the docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350 
and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AA78. Comments may be 
submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail:[email protected]. Include the 
docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350 and/or RIN 1904-AA78 in the subject line 
of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed 
original paper copy.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-
2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy. Electronic comments 
must be submitted in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document 
Format (PDF), or text (ASCII) file format. Avoid the use of special 
characters or any form of encryption.
    Copies of public comments may be examined in the Resource Room of 
the Appliance Standards Office of the Building Technologies Program, 
Room 1J-018 in the Forrestal Building at the U.S. Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 9 
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please 
call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for 
additional information about visiting the Resource Room.


    Please note: the DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room 
(formerly Room 1E-190 at the Forrestal Building) is no longer 
servicing rulemakings.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal 
Building, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121, (202) 586-7892, E-mail: [email protected]; or 
Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, 
Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7432, E-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

[[Page 6185]]

II. Discussion
    A. Regional Analysis
    B. Installation Cost Differences

I. Background

    Part B of Title III of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish energy 
conservation standards for various consumer products including those 
residential furnaces and boilers for which DOE determines that energy 
conservation standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(e)) Pursuant to EPCA, DOE published a NOPR on October 
6, 2006, to amend the energy conservation standards for residential 
furnaces and boilers. 71 FR 59204. Thereafter, DOE held a public 
meeting on October 30, 2006, to address the proposed rule (hereafter 
referred to as the October 2006 public meeting). At the October 2006 
public meeting, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 
(ACEEE) and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) questioned 
DOE's estimates of the energy savings that would likely result from 
regional standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces in Northern regions 
(cold states). (ASAP and ACEEE, No. 107.6 at pp. 153-159) \1\ In 
addition, ACEEE requested further clarification of new installation 
cost increases applied in the proposed rule for oil-fired furnaces that 
were rated between 82 percent and 83 percent for Annual Fuel 
Utilization Efficiency (AFUE). (ACEEE, No. 107.6 at p. 121) Today's 
notice of data availability and extension of the comment period 
addresses both the estimates of energy savings from regional energy 
conservation standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces and the cost 
increases associated with the installation of new oil-fired furnaces. 
In addition, it provides an opportunity for stakeholders to review and 
comment on DOE's revised estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A notation in the form ``ASAP and ACEEE, No. 107.6 at pp. 
153-159,'' identifies a comment in the transcript of the Public 
Meeting on Standards for Furnaces and Boilers held in Washington, 
DC, 10/30/2006, which is document number 107.6 in the docket of this 
rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a comment (1) by the 
American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) and the 
Applicance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), (2) in the document 
number 107.6 in the docket of this rulemaking (maintained in the 
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), and (3) 
appearing on pages 153-159 of document number 107.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Regional Analysis

    During the October 2006 public meeting, ACEEE and ASAP questioned 
DOE's estimates of the energy savings that would likely result from 
regional standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces in cold states. The 
estimates in the NOPR indicated that the energy savings would likely be 
much lower where the regions were defined using 6000 Heating Degree 
Days (HDD), compared to those where the regions were defined using 5000 
HDD (as listed in Table VI.1.--Non-Regulatory Alternatives To 
Standards, 71 FR 59253).
    The results presented in the NOPR for the Northern (cold states) 
and Southern (warm states) regions (using either the 5000 or 6000 HDD 
threshold) (as listed in Table VI.1.--Non-Regulatory Alternatives To 
Standards, 71 FR 59253) were generated by the national impact analysis 
(NIA) spreadsheet, which utilizes inputs generated by life-cycle cost 
spreadsheets constructed to separately analyze each region. DOE 
performed the NIA on the basis of the nine U.S. Census Bureau 
(cartographic) divisions, plus four large states (New York, California, 
Texas, and Florida), rather than on a state-by-state basis (as 
explained in section 10.5 of the NOPR Technical Support Document 
(TSD)).
    Based on condensing gas furnace sales data expressed as a 
percentage of total gas furnace sales, as provided by the Gas Appliance 
Manufacturers Association (GAMA), DOE was able to derive the base case 
for analyzing the potential impacts of regional energy conservation 
standards. Then, DOE applied the state-level GAMA data to the nine U.S. 
Census Bureau divisions, assuming that condensing gas furnaces were 
installed in households solely on the basis of climate (i.e., high 
HDDs). In other words, within each U.S. Census Bureau division, DOE 
assumed that condensing gas furnaces were used primarily by households 
that experienced high HDDs. Thus, in the analysis, DOE assigned 
condensing gas furnaces to 90.4 percent of households with greater than 
6000 HDD. It was this assumption that led to the relatively small 
energy savings estimated to result from a condensing level standard for 
states or regions with more than 6000 HDD (on average), and the 
relatively large increment of energy savings estimated to result from 
the same standard when applied to all states or regions with more than 
5000 HDD (on average). 71 FR 59253.
    Upon further examination, DOE found that its assumption, that the 
existing (and future) market for condensing gas furnaces (absent a 
standard) was likely to be concentrated in the coldest states or 
regions, was not consistent with the state-by-state sales data provided 
by GAMA. Consequently, DOE is considering alternative analyses that 
would reflect a distribution of condensing gas furnaces which is more 
consistent with the GAMA sales data.
    Reliance on an alternative analysis that addresses the distribution 
of condensing gas furnaces will primarily impact the regulatory impact 
analysis. However, DOE does not anticipate that changes to the 
distribution of condensing gas furnaces relied upon in the NOPR 
analysis, will impact the determination of the appropriate energy 
conservation standards levels.
    In view of the above, Table 1 below provides the results of one 
possible alternative analysis under consideration by DOE.

                               Table 1.--Non-Regulatory Alternatives to Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Net present value (billion $)
                                                                  Energy savings -------------------------------
                       Policy alternatives                            (quads)       7% discount     3% discount
                                                                                       rate            rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * * *:
    Cold States (>=5000 HDD) (TSL 4)............................           1.83             0.88            6.43
    Warm States (<5000 HDD) (TSL 2).............................           0.004            0.01            0.03
Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * * *:
    Cold States (>=6000 HDD) (TSL 4)............................           1.32             0.72            4.90
    Warm States (<6000 HDD) (TSL 2).............................           0.005            0.01            0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6186]]

    The alternative assumptions for the state or regional distribution 
of condensing furnaces in the base case are likely to have some effect 
on other facets of DOE's analysis, but none of these other effects are 
likely to be significant.
    While this alternative analysis of the possible impacts of regional 
standards does not have any significant effects on DOE's assessment of 
the benefits and burdens associated with the trial standards levels for 
national standards, it could affect stakeholder assessments of possible 
alternatives to a national standard. For this reason, DOE concluded 
that it should present the alternative results for stakeholder 
consideration and comment.

B. Installation Cost Differences

    At the October 2006 public meeting, ACEEE requested further 
clarification of the new installation cost increases applied in the 
NOPR analysis for oil-fired furnaces rated between 82 percent and 83 
percent AFUE. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 107.6 at p. 121)
    In the Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANOPR), DOE calculated 
the installation costs for oil-fired furnaces by assuming that upgraded 
Category III venting systems would be needed to prevent corrosion in 
100 percent of the installations rated 84 percent AFUE and above (as 
explained in section 6.5.5 in the ANOPR TSD). DOE presented these 
installation costs at the ANOPR public meeting and received the 
following comments from ACEEE and GAMA.
    GAMA commented that Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) had done an 
extensive amount of work on oil venting and that DOE should ask BNL for 
its information as a data resource for oil-fired furnace venting 
systems. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at p. 112.)
    ACEEE commented that there are oil-fired boilers rated 86 percent 
AFUE and oil furnaces rated 84 percent AFUE that have significant 
market share. ACEEE recommended that DOE reexamine the application of 
Category III vents at efficiency levels rated below 84 percent AFUE, 
determine at which efficiency level Category III vents are required 100 
percent of the time, and apply some type of phase-in of the venting 
systems, rather than a single-step function as DOE had done in the 
ANOPR analysis. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at p. 113.)
    In response to the comments both from GAMA and ACEEE, DOE further 
examined oil-fired furnace venting systems and consulted with BNL on 
furnace installation requirements. BNL indicated that some fraction of 
the installations rated at 83 percent AFUE may require Category III 
venting systems. As a result of its consultations with BNL, DOE revised 
its venting-model assumptions, which characterized the rate of required 
Category III venting systems, from using a step function to a more 
linear, ``phase-in'' function, which assigns a Category III-requirement 
rate of 25 percent for oil-fired furnaces rated at 83 percent AFUE, and 
gradually increases the percentage of installations using Category III 
venting systems for oil-fired furnaces rated above 83 percent AFUE. 
DOE's approach is further detailed and explained in section 6.5.6 of 
the NOPR TSD for oil-fired furnaces. DOE used a per-installation cost 
adder for Category III venting systems that does not change with the 
AFUE level of oil-fired furnaces. It is the change in the assumed 
frequency of installations requiring Category III venting systems which 
results in the cost differences. Table 2, below, compares the DOE's 
ANOPR and NOPR assumptions about the fraction of the oil furnaces that 
require Category III venting systems at certain efficiency levels:

  Table 2.--Fraction of the Oil Furnaces Requiring Category III Venting
                                 Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     ANOPR       NOPR
                Efficiency level                   (percent)   (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
82% and below...................................           0           0
83%.............................................           0          25
84%.............................................         100          50
85%.............................................         100          75
86% and above...................................         100         100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE welcomes comment on its assumptions for use of Category III 
venting systems for oil-fired furnaces.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
 [FR Doc. E7-2167 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P