[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39220-39234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17084]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0021]
RIN 1904-AD90
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an
effort to determine whether to amend the current uniform national
standard for unfired hot water storage tanks (``UFHWSTs''). Under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, DOE must review
this standard at least once every six years and publish either a notice
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to propose an amended standard (or
standards) for UFHWSTs or a notice of determination that the existing
standard does not need to be amended. This request for information
(``RFI'') seeks to solicit information from the public to help DOE
determine whether an amended standard for UFHWSTs would result a
significant energy savings and whether such a standard would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE welcomes
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of
this document (including topics not raised in this RFI).
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before September 23, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0021, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0021 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
[[Page 39221]]
Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0021. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III of this document for information on how
to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. General Approach
2. Representative Equipment
3. Baseline Efficiency Level
4. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible
Efficiency Levels
5. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturer Selling Price
6. Additional Engineering Issues
E. Mark-Ups Analysis
1. Distribution Channels
2. Mark-Ups
F. Energy Use Analysis
1. Sample Development
2. Energy Use Calculations
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Total Installed Cost
2. Operating Costs
H. Shipments Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Market-Based Approaches to Energy Conservation Standards
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended
(``EPCA''),\1\ Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified),
among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title
III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec.
441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed
to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes UFHWSTs, the
subject of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(K)) EPCA prescribed initial
standards for this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)(F)-(G))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (See
42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D).
EPCA contains mandatory 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 (collectively referred to as ``covered ASHRAE equipment''). Id.
In doing so, EPCA established standards that generally correspond to
the efficiency levels in the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1,
``Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings,'' 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).
In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy
efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to
consider amending the existing Federal 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)) If ASHRAE Standard
90.1 is amended with respect to the standard levels or design
requirements applicable under that standard to any covered ASHRAE
equipment, not later than 180 days after the amendment of the standard,
DOE must publish in the Federal Register for public comment an analysis
of the energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs
that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must adopt amended energy
conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard
[[Page 39222]]
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.\3\ (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)) 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)(A)(ii)(II) and (B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In determining whether a more-stringent standard is
economically justified, EPCA directs DOE to determine, after
receiving views and comments from the public, whether the benefits
of the proposed standard exceed the burdens of the proposed standard
by, to the maximum extent practicable, considering the following:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial
cost or maintenance expense;
(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.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term ``amended'' in
the context of what type of revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would
trigger DOE's obligation, DOE's longstanding interpretation has been
that the statutory trigger is an amendment to the standard applicable
to that equipment under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that increases the energy
efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7,
2007). In other words, if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the
energy efficiency level unchanged (or lowers the energy efficiency
level), as compared to the energy efficiency level specified by the
uniform national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, regardless of the
other amendments made to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirement (e.g.,
the inclusion of an additional metric), DOE has stated that it 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). See 74
FR 36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and 77 FR 28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012).
However, DOE notes that Congress adopted amendments to these provisions
related to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 equipment under the American Energy
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18,
2012); ``AEMTCA''). In relevant part, DOE is prompted to act whenever
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to ``the standard levels
or design requirements applicable under that standard'' to any of the
enumerated types of commercial air conditioning, heating, or water
heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i))
EPCA does not detail the exact type of amendment that serves as a
triggering event. However, DOE has considered whether its obligation is
triggered in the context of whether the specific ASHRAE Standard 90.1
requirement on which the most current Federal requirement is based is
amended (i.e., the regulatory metric). For example, if an amendment to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 changed the metric for the standard on which the
Federal requirement was based, DOE would perform a crosswalk analysis
to determine whether the amended metric under ASHRAE Standard 90.1
resulted in an energy efficiency level that was more stringent than the
current DOE standard. Conversely, if an amendment to ASHRAE Standard
90.1 were to add an additional metric by which a class of equipment is
to be evaluated, but did not amend the requirement that is in terms of
the metric on which the Federal requirement was based, DOE would not
consider its obligation triggered.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the May 16, 2012, final rule for small, large, and very
large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air
conditioners, and VRF water-source heat pumps with cooling capacity
less than 17,000 Btu/h, in which DOE states 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). 77 FR 28928, 28929
(emphasis added). See also, 74 FR 36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, DOE has explained that its authority to adopt an
ASHRAE amendment is limited based on the definition of ``energy
conservation standard.'' 74 FR 36312, 36322 (July 22, 2009). In
general, an ``energy conservation standard'' is limited, per the
statutory definition, to either a performance standard or a design
requirement. (42 U.S.C. 6311(18)) Informed by the ``energy conservation
standard'' definition, DOE has stated that adoption of an amendment to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ``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).
As noted, the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 provision in EPCA acknowledges
technological changes that yield energy efficiency benefits, as well as
continuing development of industry standards and test methods.
Amendments to a uniform national standard provide Federal requirements
that continue to reflect energy efficiency improvements identified by
industry. Amendments to a uniform national standard that reflect the
relevant amended versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would also help
reduce compliance and test burdens on manufacturers by harmonizing the
Federal requirements, when appropriate, with industry best practices.
This harmonization would be further facilitated by establishing not
only consistent energy efficiency levels and design requirements
between ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the Federal requirements, but
comparable metrics as well.
As stated previously, DOE has limited its review under the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 provisions in EPCA to the equipment class that was
subject to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment. DOE has stated that if
ASHRAE has not amended a standard for an equipment class subject to 42
U.S.C. 6313, there is no change that would require action by DOE to
consider amending the uniform national standard to maintain consistency
with ASHRAE Standard 90.1. See, 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 2007); 77
FR 36312, 36320-36321 (July 22, 2009); 80 FR 42614, 42617 (July 17,
2015).
In those situations where ASHRAE has not acted to amend the levels
in Standard 90.1 for the equipment types enumerated in the statute,
EPCA also provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the potential for
amending the uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
Specifically, pursuant to the amendments to EPCA under AEMTCA, DOE is
required to conduct an evaluation of each class of covered equipment in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ``every 6 years'' to determine whether the
applicable energy conservation standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must publish either a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) to propose amended standards or a notice of
determination that existing standards do not need to be amended. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) In
[[Page 39223]]
proposing new standards under the 6-year review, DOE must undertake the
same considerations as if it were adopting a standard that is more
stringent than an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II)) This is a separate statutory review obligation,
as differentiated from the obligation triggered by an ASHRAE Standard
90.1 amendment. While the statute continues to defer to ASHRAE's lead
on covered equipment subject to Standard 90.1, it does allow for a
comprehensive review of all such equipment and the potential for
adopting more-stringent standards, where supported by the requisite
clear and convincing evidence. That is, DOE interprets ASHRAE's not
amending Standard 90.1 with respect to a product or equipment type as
ASHRAE's determination that the standard applicable to that product or
equipment type is already at an appropriate level of stringency, and
DOE will not amend that standard unless there is clear and convincing
evidence that a more-stringent level is justified.
As discussed in the paragraphs immediately below, the standard for
unfired hot water storage tanks in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 was last
updated in October 1999. However, as noted previously, EPCA requires
DOE to evaluate the applicable energy conservation standard for unfired
hot water storage tanks every 6 years to determine whether it needs to
be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Thus, DOE is publishing this
RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent
with its obligations under EPCA.
As noted previously, the initial Federal standards for UFHWSTs,
established by EPCA, corresponded to the efficiency levels contained in
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989. On January 12, 2001, DOE amended the
standards for UFHWSTs to be equivalent to the efficiency level in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as revised in October 1999. 66 FR 3336 (``January
2001 final rule''). The January 2001 final rule established an
insulation design requirement of a minimum R-value \5\ of R-12.5. 66 FR
3336, 3356. This remains the current Federal standard (and the standard
level specified in the most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1).
The current standard is located in title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, section 110 (10 CFR 431.110). DOE does
not prescribe a test procedure for UFHWSTs; however, DOE's regulations
define ``R-value,'' in part, as being determined using either ASTM
International (``ASTM'') C177-13, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-
State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by
Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus,'' or ASTM C518-15, ``Standard
Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means
of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus.'' 10 CFR 431.102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE defines ``R-value'' as the thermal resistance of
insulating material as determined using ASTM C177-13 or C518-15 and
expressed in ([deg]F[middot]ft\2\[middot]h/Btu). 10 CFR 431.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended
standards for certain covered equipment. EPCA requires that any amended
uniform national standard result in significant additional conservation
of energy and be technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II) and (B)) To determine whether a
standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine
whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering,
to the maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the affected 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 prices, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for
the covered equipment likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result
directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings............. Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Technological Feasibility.............. Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers and Manufacturer Impact
consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost savings Mark-ups for Product
compared to increased cost for the Price Determination.
equipment. Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy savings...... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or performance.... Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis.
[[Page 39224]]
6. Need for national energy and water Shipments Analysis.
conservation. National Impact
Analysis.
7. Other factors the Secretary Employment Impact
considers relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for
UFHWSTs.
II. Request for Information and Comments
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether an amended uniform national
standard for UFHWSTs may be warranted. Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to this request for information that
may not specifically be identified in this document. In particular, DOE
notes that under Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' Executive Branch agencies such as DOE
are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR
9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Pursuant to that Executive Order, DOE encourages
the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the
cost of its energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, and compliance and certification
requirements applicable to UFHWSTs while remaining consistent with the
requirements of EPCA.
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
This RFI covers equipment that meets the definition for ``unfired
hot water storage tank,'' as codified at 10 CFR 431.102.\6\ The
definition for ``unfired hot water storage tank'' was most recently
amended in a 2004 test procedure final rule for commercial water
heating (CWH) equipment. 69 FR 61974 (Oct. 21, 2004). Specifically,
DOE's regulations define ``unfired hot water storage tank'' as a tank
used to store water that is heated externally, and that is industrial
equipment. 10 CFR 431.102. UFHWSTs do not use energy (i.e., UFHWSTs do
not directly consume electricity or fossil fuel). (42 U.S.C. 6311(4))
Instead, the hot water stored by a UFHWST is supplied by a water heater
or boiler that is paired with the UFHWST. Heat loss that occurs in a
UFHWST does impact the energy consumption of the paired water heater or
boiler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The statute defines ``unfired hot water storage tank'' as a
tank used to store water that is heated externally. (42 U.S.C.
6311(12)(C))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither EPCA nor DOE's regulations include any storage volume
criteria for UFHWSTs. Accordingly, UFHWSTs, regardless of storage
volume, are subject to the current standard.
Issue A.1 DOE seeks comment on whether, in the context of its
consideration of more-stringent standards, there have been sufficient
technological or market changes for UFHWSTs since the most recent
standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more-
stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that
could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no
new standard'' determination because a more-stringent standard: (1)
Would not result in significant additional savings of energy; (2) is
not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4)
any combination of the foregoing.
Issue A.2 DOE requests comment on whether the definition for
UFHWSTs requires any revisions--and if so, how the definition should be
revised. DOE also requests feedback on whether any sub-category
definitions should be added, and if so, DOE seeks specific input on
what terms would be needed and how to define these terms.
Issue A.3 DOE requests comment on whether additional product
definitions are necessary to close any potential gaps in coverage
between product types. DOE also seeks input on whether such products
currently exist in the market or whether they are being planned for
introduction.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended standard
provides information about the UFHWST industry that will be used in
DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative
and quantitative information to assess the past and present industry
structure and market characteristics. DOE identifies manufacturers,
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency
improvements in the design and manufacturing of UFHWSTs. To this end,
DOE reviews product literature, industry publications, and company
websites. Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with
manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market and available
technologies for UFHWSTs.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of
energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that
justify a different standard. In making a determination whether
capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different
standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature
to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
For UFHWSTs, the current standard at 10 CFR 431.110 is applicable
to a single equipment class covering all UFHWSTs.
Issue B.1 DOE requests feedback on whether any division of UFHWSTs
into separate equipment classes is warranted, and whether it would
impact equipment utility by eliminating any performance-related
features or reduce any compliance burdens.
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past
[[Page 39225]]
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
standards under consideration. In consultation with interested parties,
DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to consider in its
analysis. DOE's current standard for UFHWSTs is a prescriptive
requirement for minimum tank insulation R-value. Therefore, only
technology options that improve tank insulation R-value would be
applicable for analyzing more-stringent tank insulation R-value
requirements. However, DOE also seeks input on other technologies that
can reduce heat loss of UFHWSTs, including those that do not improve R-
value.
As described in section II.C of this RFI, some technologies may be
removed from consideration during a subsequent screening analysis. The
resulting list of technologies that are considered by DOE would be used
to establish the maximum technologically feasible design. DOE conducted
preliminary market research by examining manufacturer equipment
literature and public technical literature (e.g., reports, journal
articles, or presentations) which identified the specific technology
options listed subsequently. DOE will consider these technologies along
with any others identified during the analysis following the RFI, and
the rulemaking process should it determine that a rulemaking is
necessary.
Improved insulation R-value
[cir] Increased insulation thickness
[cir] Foam insulation
[cir] Advanced insulation types
[ssquf] Aerogel
[ssquf] Vacuum panels
[ssquf] Inert gas-filled panels
Pipe and fitting insulation
Greater coverage of tank surface area with foam insulation
(e.g., tank bottom)
Issue B.2 DOE seeks information related to these or other
technologies that reduce heat loss. Specifically, DOE is interested in
comments regarding the applicability of such technologies to the
current market, the associated costs, concerns with incorporating them
into UFHWSTs (e.g., impacts on utility, potential safety concerns,
manufacturing/production/implementation issues), and how these
technologies would reduce the heat loss of UFHWSTs.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency (or in the present case,
reduce heat loss) to determine which technologies will be eliminated
from further consideration and which will be passed to the engineering
analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the equipment for significant subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b).
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
Additionally, DOE notes that the four screening criteria do not
directly address the proprietary status of technology options. DOE only
considers potential efficiency levels achieved through the use of
proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if they are not part of
a unique pathway to achieve that efficiency level (i.e., if there are
other non-proprietary technologies capable of achieving the same
efficiency level).
Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the four
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the
technology options identified in section II.B.2 of this RFI. Similarly,
DOE seeks information regarding how these same criteria would affect
any other technology options not already identified in this document
with respect to their potential use in UFHWSTs.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of equipment at different levels of reduced heat loss (``efficiency
levels'').\7\ This relationship serves as the basis for the cost-
benefit calculations for commercial consumers, manufacturers, and the
Nation. In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates
the increase in manufacturing production cost (``MPC'') associated with
reducing the heat loss of equipment above the baseline, up to the
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for
each equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ While the UFHWSTs standard addresses heat loss through
establishing a minimum level of insulation, for the purpose of this
analysis, the levels of improvement are referred to generally as
``efficiency levels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or
reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up''
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and
materials, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. General Approach
In order to develop the cost-efficiency relationship for UFHWSTs,
DOE anticipates that it will structure its engineering analysis using
both a reverse-engineering (or cost-assessment) and a catalog teardown
approach. The catalog-teardown approach relies on a
[[Page 39226]]
teardown analysis of representative units at the baseline efficiency
level and higher efficiency levels up to the maximum technologically
feasible designs. A teardown analysis (or physical teardown) determines
the production cost of a product by disassembling the product ``piece-
by-piece'' and estimating the material and labor cost of each
component. A catalog teardown approach uses published manufacturer
catalogs and supplementary component data to estimate the major
physical differences between equipment that has been physically
disassembled and similar equipment. These two methods would be used
together to help DOE estimate the manufacturer production cost of
equipment at various efficiency levels.
Issue D.1 DOE requests feedback on the planned approach for the
engineering analysis.
2. Representative Equipment
As previously stated, DOE intends to perform a teardown analysis on
a set of models with ``representative'' characteristics to estimate the
cost-efficiency relationship for UFHWSTs. DOE plans to conduct
teardowns at specific storage volumes (referred to as representative
storage volumes) that are the most common on the market, and
extrapolate those results for the entire market. Based on a survey of
models currently on the market, DOE has preliminarily determined the
most common characteristics of UFHWSTs in order to identify a
representative unit(s). In particular, DOE examined the number of
UFHWST models available at distinct rated storage volumes and
identified the most common storage volumes on the market as 80 and 119
gallons. DOE is also aware that UFHWSTs can be either vertical or
horizontal tanks and recognizes that the tank orientation may affect
heat losses from the tank and placement of ports. Based on its market
assessment, DOE has found that vertical tanks are more common than
horizontal tanks and that horizontal tanks do not have sufficiently
different characteristics from vertical tanks to necessitate separate
analysis of representative horizontal units. Finally, DOE is aware that
the number and location of ports can affect standby heat losses;
therefore, DOE may consider a representative configuration of ports.
Issue D.2 DOE requests feedback on the appropriate representative
storage volume to use for analysis of UFHWSTs, whether more than one
representative storage volume is warranted, and on whether 80 and/or
119 gallons would be appropriate.
Issue D.3 DOE requests comment on whether a vertical tank
orientation should be considered representative for the UFHWST market.
Such comments may include, but need not be limited to, data as to the
fraction of UFHWST shipments that are horizontal tanks, and on whether
this fraction depends on storage volume. DOE seeks feedback on whether
horizontal tanks have any differences or limitations regarding
insulation thickness relative to vertical tanks. DOE also requests
comment on whether there is a difference in the utility provided by a
vertical tank, as compared to a horizontal tank, that should be
considered when identifying representative equipment.
Issue D.4 DOE requests comment on whether there is a configuration
of ports (i.e., number and location), or a limited set of port
configurations, that is most common for UFHWSTs and that would,
therefore, be appropriate to analyze as part of the representative
unit(s) in the engineering analysis. DOE further seeks feedback on
whether this representative configuration would depend on storage
volume.
3. Baseline Efficiency Level
DOE selects a baseline model as a reference point against which any
changes resulting from potential new or amended standards can be
measured. The baseline model represents the characteristics of common
or typical equipment. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets the
current minimum standard and provides basic consumer utility.
DOE uses baseline models for comparison in several phases of the
analyses, including the engineering analysis, life-cycle cost (``LCC'')
analysis, payback period (``PBP'') analysis, and national impact
analysis (``NIA''). In the engineering analysis, to determine the
changes in price to the commercial consumer that result from amended
standards, DOE compares the price of a baseline model to the price of a
model at each higher efficiency level.
Consistent with this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to
consider the current minimum standard (which went into effect October
29, 2003) to establish the baseline efficiency level. The current
standard is a prescriptive minimum insulation requirement (R-value of
12.5). 10 CFR 431.110.
Issue D.5 DOE requests feedback on whether using the current
established standard for UFHWSTs is an appropriate baseline efficiency
level for DOE to apply in evaluating whether to amend the current
standard for this equipment. DOE requests data and suggestions to
evaluate the baseline efficiency level in order to better evaluate
amending the standard for this equipment.
Issue D.6 DOE requests comment on the insulation types and
thicknesses typically used in UFHWSTs with R-12.5 tank insulation
(i.e., at the current baseline level). DOE also seeks feedback on
whether any models with R-12.5 insulation use only fiberglass
insulation, and if so, what the maximum feasible R-value is for
insulation of UFHWSTs with fiberglass.
4. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency
Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest-efficiency model currently available on the market. To
identify efficiency levels (including the maximum available efficiency
level) and technology options used above the R-12.5 baseline for
UFHWSTs, DOE conducted a survey of the UFHWST market, including
manufacturer catalogs and other publicly-available literature. Many
models are advertised as having a tank insulation R-value that ``meets
or exceeds'' R-12.5, without specifying the exact R-value. DOE only
identified two model lines for which the manufacturer advertises
specific insulation R-values above the R-12.5 baseline, which were
advertised as having R-12.9 and R-16 insulation. The product literature
for models with these higher insulation R-values identifies the
insulation as polyurethane foam insulation but does not provide the
insulation thickness.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available technology
options are incorporated in a model. In many cases, the max-tech
efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not
economically feasible. However, DOE seeks to determine the max-tech
level for purposes of its analyses.
Issue D.7 DOE seeks comment on what the range of tank insulation R-
values is for the UFHWST market. Such comments may include, but need
not be limited to, whether there are models on the market with tank
insulation R-values other than R-12.5, R-12.9, and R-16. Further, DOE
seeks feedback on the insulation types and thicknesses that typically
correspond with any R-values higher than R-12.5.
Issue D.8 DOE requests comment on performance of UFHWSTs currently
on the market, including, but not limited to, what the highest tank
insulation R-value on the market is (i.e., the maximum available
level), and on what
[[Page 39227]]
insulation type(s) and thickness(es) typically correspond with this
level. DOE also seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency
level is appropriate and technologically feasible for potential
consideration as a possible standard for UFHWSTs--and if not, why not.
Additionally, DOE seeks feedback on whether there are practical
limitations (e.g., shipping or installation concerns) on the thickness
of tank insulation that can be applied to UFHWSTs.
Issue D.9 DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the heat losses
associated with those levels. More specifically, DOE seeks comment on
the theoretical maximum possible tank insulation R-value, and on what
insulation type(s) and thickness(es) would correspond with this level.
As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to whether there
are limitations on the use of certain combinations of design options.
5. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturer Selling Price
As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost
associated with higher-efficiency equipment.
Issue D.10 DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would
incorporate the technology options listed in section II.B.2 to increase
the tank-insulation R-values in UFHWSTs beyond the baseline. This
includes information on the order in which manufacturers would
incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve the R-
value (or otherwise reduce the heat loss) of equipment. DOE requests
feedback on whether increasing tank insulation R-value would lead to
other design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is also
interested in information regarding any potential impact of increased
tank insulation R-value on a manufacturer's ability to incorporate
additional functions or attributes in response to consumer demand.
Issue D.11 DOE seeks comment on the increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular technology option. DOE also requests
information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific
technology options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new
or modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development
efforts to implement each technology option, and manufacturing/
production impacts.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
mark-up) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. For a notice of proposed rulemaking for energy conservation
standards (``ECS'') for certain classes of commercial water heating
equipment published on May 31, 2016, DOE estimated a manufacturer mark-
up of 1.41 for commercial electric storage water heaters. 81 FR 34440,
34497 (``May 2016 CWH ECS NOPR''). DOE's market assessment indicates
that many manufacturers produce both UFHWSTs and electric storage water
heaters and that these equipment categories share many design features.
Additionally, some tanks designed for electric storage water heaters
are used in UFHWST models (see discussion in section II.D.6 of this
RFI). Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that the manufacturer
mark-up for commercial electric storage water heaters is appropriate to
apply for analysis of UFHWSTs.
Issue D.12 DOE requests feedback on whether a manufacturer mark-up
of 1.41 is appropriate for UFHWSTs.
6. Additional Engineering Issues
Due to the need for ports and other openings for service/
maintenance or repair, the entire surface of an UFHWST cannot be
insulated with foam insulation, and, therefore, portions of the UFHWSTs
currently on the market are insulated with fiberglass or uninsulated.
Additionally, DOE research suggests that manufacturers may use a single
tank design for multiple models and plug ports or other openings that
are not designed to be used for a given model but that may be used for
a similar model. In such cases where a single tank design is used for
multiple models, plugged openings sometimes are not covered with tank
foam insulation if the foam insulation is applied before any openings
are plugged. Further, manufacturers may use a tank designed for
electric storage water heaters as the tank for an UFHWST model by
plugging the openings for electric resistance heating elements.
Electric storage water heaters typically include gaps in tank foam
insulation where each heating element and thermostat are located, and
these gaps are often insulated with foam or fiberglass insulation
inserts. DOE has also observed during testing and examination of water
heaters and UFHWSTs that there sometimes are voids in the foam
insulation that is applied to some UFHWSTs that form either during or
after the foaming process.
Issue D.13 DOE requests comment on the current practices and
limitations of foam insulation, including, but not limited to, the
approximate fraction of the tank surface area that can typically be
insulated with foam. Further, DOE seeks feedback on whether there is
significant variation on the market of the fraction of the tank
insulated with foam.
Issue D.14 DOE requests comment on the presence of plugged ports,
such as how commonly UFHWSTs include plugged ports, and if included,
how the plugged ports are insulated (e.g., covered with foam
insulation, fiberglass wrap, a fiberglass insert, or not insulated).
Further, DOE requests comment on the extent to which electric storage
water heater tanks are used for UFHWST models, and when used, how/
whether the areas of the tank containing ports for resistance heating
elements and thermostats are insulated.
Issue D.15 DOE requests comment on the extent to which voids form
in foam insulation on UFHWSTs. Further, DOE seeks comment on the extent
to which voids affect the standby losses of UFHWSTs.
In response to the May 9, 2016 CWH TP NOPR (81 FR 28588), several
stakeholders stated that many UFHWSTs are customized for specific
applications or installations. (Bradford White, Docket No. EERE-2014-
BT-TP-0008-0021 at p. 5; AHRI, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0026 \8\
at p. 12; A.O. Smith, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0027 at p. 4;
Rheem, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0034 at p. 8). However, it is
unclear what share of the market consists of custom models, and to what
extent UFHWSTs are customized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008 is available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue D.16 DOE seeks comment on the customization of UFHWSTs,
including but not limited to, information as to the fraction of UFHWST
shipments that are custom models, and whether this fraction varies by
storage volume; and which aspects are customized in UFHWSTs and whether
aspects other than number and locations of ports are customized. DOE
also seeks feedback on the extent to which the number and location of
ports affect standby heat losses of UFHWSTs. Further, DOE seeks
feedback on whether UFHWSTs included in publicly-available product
literature can be
[[Page 39228]]
customized or if customizable models are not publicly advertised.
E. Mark-Ups Analysis
The mark-ups analysis develops appropriate mark-ups (e.g., for
wholesalers, mechanical contractors, general contractors) in the
distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the manufacturer sales
prices (MSP) derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices,
which are then used in the LCC and PBP analyses and other analyses. At
each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of
the equipment to cover business costs and profit margin.
1. Distribution Channels
In generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and the
NIA, DOE must identify distribution channels (i.e., how the equipment
passes through the chain of commerce from the manufacturer to the
customer), and estimate relative sales volumes through each channel.
Two different markets exist for UFHWST systems: (1) Replacements and
new owners,\9\ and (2) new construction. DOE intends to use similar
distribution channels as found in the May 2016 CWH ECS NOPR TSD.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ New owners are defined as existing buildings that acquire a
UFHWST for the first time during the analysis period.
\10\ Department of Energy, Technical Support Document (TSD):
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and
Industrial Equipment: Commercial Water Heating Equipment (May 2016)
(Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0042-0016) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement and New Owner
For replacement and new owner applications, manufacturers sell
mainly to plumbing distributors. The main distribution path that DOE
intends to consider is a plumbing distributor (i.e., a wholesaler) who
sells an UFHWST to a contractor, who then sells it to a consumer and
installs it. The manufacturer may also utilize a manufacturer's
representative to sell the equipment to a plumbing contractor, who then
sells it to the commercial consumer. The manufacturer may sell the
equipment to a retailer, who in turn may sell it to a plumbing
contractor, who in turn sells it to a commercial consumer.
In addition, DOE plans to consider distribution channels where the
manufacturer sells the UFHWST a wholesaler or retailer that then sells
the equipment to the commercial or industrial consumer. DOE also plans
to consider the distribution channel where the manufacturer sells a
UFHWST directly to a commercial or industrial consumer through a
national account. These three channels reflect those cases where the
installation can be accomplished by site personnel.
In summary, DOE plans to characterize the replacement and new owner
market distribution channels for UFHWST systems as follows:
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Plumbing Contractor [rarr]
Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Manufacturer's Representative [rarr] Plumbing
Contractor [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] Plumbing Contractor [rarr]
Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] National Account [rarr] Commercial Consumer
New Construction
The new construction distribution channel for UFHWST equipment
includes an additional link in the chain--the general contractor. In
most new construction applications, the UFHWST is part of the overall
plumbing package installed by a plumbing contractor or, in the case of
large building companies, by its own master plumber and crew. A
plumbing contractor usually purchases the water heater from a plumbing
distributor, and in this case, it is appropriate to include a
contractor mark-up. In addition, similar to the replacement and new
owner distribution channel, DOE plans to consider distribution channels
where the manufacturer sells the UFHWST to a wholesaler or retailer
that then sells the equipment to the commercial or industrial consumer,
and the distribution channel where the manufacturer sells a UFHWST
directly to a commercial or industrial consumer through a national
account.
In the case of new construction, DOE plans to characterize the
distribution channels as follows:
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Plumbing Contractor [rarr]
General Contractor [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Manufacturer's Representative [rarr] Plumbing
Contractor [rarr] General Contractor [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] Plumbing Contractor [rarr] General
Contractor [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] General Contractor [rarr]
Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] General Contractor [rarr]
Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] National Account [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Issue E.1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the
distribution channels described above are appropriate for UFHWSTs and
are sufficient to characterize this market.
Issue E.2 DOE seeks input on the equipment being distributed
through the identified channels, including but not limited to, the
percentage of equipment being distributed through the different
distribution channels, and whether the share of equipment through each
channel varies based on equipment capacity (storage volume).
2. Mark-Ups
To develop mark-ups for the parties involved in the distribution of
the equipment, DOE plans to primarily utilize: (1) Form 10-K \11\ from
the main consumer water heater wholesalers \12\ and retailers (for
wholesalers and retailers); (2) the Heating, Air Conditioning &
Refrigeration Distributors International (``HARDI'') 2013 Profit Report
\13\ (for wholesalers); (3) the latest U.S. Census Annual Retail Trade
Survey data \14\ (for retailers), and (4) U.S. Census Bureau 2012
Economic Census data \15\ on the residential and commercial building
construction industry (for retailers, general contractors, and
mechanical contractors). DOE also plans to use the 2005 Air
Conditioning Contractors of America's (``ACCA'') Financial Analysis
[[Page 39229]]
on the Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration
(``HVACR'') contracting industry \16\ to disaggregate the mechanical
contractor mark-ups into replacement and new construction markets. DOE
does not currently have enough information to estimate separate mark-
ups for manufacturer's representatives, so DOE plans to assume that the
manufacturer's representative mark-up is the same as the wholesaler
mark-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC 10-K Reports
(Available at: https://www.sec.gov/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
\12\ Clear Seas Research, 2017 Top List--Premier Distributors--
Plumbing, Heating, Cooling (Available at: https://clearseasresearch.com/product/2017-top-list-premier-distributors-plumbing-heating-cooling/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
\13\ Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors
International (HARDI), 2013 HARDI Profit Report, (Available at:
http://hardinet.org/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
\14\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey Data
(Available at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html)
(Last accessed July 8, 2019). At the time this RFI was finalized,
the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey was the most recent full data
release.
\15\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census Data (Available
at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census.html)
(Last accessed April 4, 2019). Note that the 2017 Economic Census
data are planned to be fully released by late 2020. Until that time,
2012 Economic Census remains the most recent full data release.
\16\ Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA), Financial
Analysis for the HVACR Contracting Industry (2005) (Available at:
https://www.acca.org/store) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue E.3 DOE seeks recent data and recommendations regarding data
sources to establish the mark-ups for the parties involved with the
distribution of the UFHWST equipment.
F. Energy Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how equipment is used by commercial consumers, and
thereby determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency
improvements. As discussed, UFHWSTs store hot water and do not directly
consume fuel or electricity for the purpose of heating water, so any
potential amendments to the standard target reducing standby loss
associated with heat loss from the stored water. The energy use
analysis would determine the annual energy consumption of water heaters
and boilers due to standby loss of the paired UFHWSTs and to assess the
energy savings potential of an amended UFHWST standard, as well as of
other technologies that may be applied.
1. Sample Development
DOE intends to base the energy use analysis on key characteristics
from the most current version of the Energy Information
Administration's (``EIA'') Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey (``CBECS'') \17\ for the subset of commercial building types
that use UFHWSTs. DOE also plans to include the industrial sector \18\
using EIA's most current Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
(``MECS'') \19\ for the subset of sectors that use UFHWSTs. DOE also
plans to look at the use of UFHWSTs in residential applications, for
which it plans to include characteristics from EIA's most current
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS'') \20\ for a subset of
building types (primarily multi-family buildings) that use UFHWSTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Presently, the 2012 edition of CBECs is the most recent
version. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2012 Commercial
Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
\18\ Industrial sector includes non-manufacturing (agriculture,
construction, and mining) and manufacturing sectors.
\19\ Presently, the 2014 edition of MECS is the most recent
version. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2014 Manufacturing
Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
\20\ Presently the 2015 edition of RECs is the most recent
version. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2015 Residential
Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBECS and RECS data include information on the physical
characteristics of buildings, water heaters and boilers used, fuels
used, energy consumption and expenditures, and other relevant
characteristics. Neither CBECS nor RECS provide data on whether the
building has an UFHWST. Also, MECS does not provide individual sample
characteristics. Therefore, DOE intends to develop a methodology for
adjusting its building sample to reflect buildings or industrial
sectors that are more likely to include UFHWSTs based on the type of
water heating and space heating equipment used in the building (for
example if the building has a boiler or a commercial water heater).
Based on the most current CBECS, MECS, and RECS data, DOE will develop
a representative population of buildings for UFHWST equipment. In
addition, DOE intends to review other data sets (e.g., data from the
2016 Residential Building Stock Assessment for the Northwest,\21\ 2014
Commercial Building Stock Assessment for the Northwest,\22\ 2014
Industrial Facilities Site Assessment for the Northwest,\23\ 2015
Residential Statewide Baseline Study of New York State,\24\ 2006
California Commercial End-Use Survey,\25\ and 2009 Residential
Appliance Saturation Study \26\) to compare these to the CBECS, MECS,
and RECS data for the corresponding region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Residential
Building Stock Assessment (2016) (Available at: https://neea.org/data/residential-building-stock-assessment) (Last accessed April 4,
2019).
\22\ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Commercial
Building Stock Assessment (2014) (Available at: https://neea.org/data/commercial-building-stock-assessments) (Last accessed April 4,
2019).
\23\ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Industrial
Facilities Site Assessment (2014) (Available at: https://neea.org/data/industrial-facilties-site-assessment) (Last accessed April 4,
2019).
\24\ New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA), Residential Statewide Baseline Study of New York State
(July 2015) (Available at: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Publications/Building-Stock-and-Potential-Studies/Residential-Statewide-Baseline-Study-of-New-York-State) (Last accessed April 4,
2019).
\25\ California Energy Commission (CEC), 2006 California
Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) (2006) (Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/2006_enduse.html) (Last accessed April 4,
2019).
\26\ California Energy Commission (CEC), 2009 Residential
Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) (2009) (Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue F.1 DOE seeks input on the water heating equipment and
associated fuels that are used to heat the water stored in UFHWSTs,
including, but not limited to, information on the fractions of various
space heating and water heating equipment that are associated with
UFHWSTs, as follows: Gas-fired hot water boilers, electric hot water
boilers, oil-fired hot water boilers, gas-fired steam boilers, electric
steam boilers, oil-fired steam boilers, gas-fired storage water
heaters, electric storage water heaters, oil-fired storage water
heaters, gas-fired tankless water heaters, electric tankless water
heaters, heat pump water heaters, solar water heater systems, and heat
from other sources (such as industrial processes).
Issue F.2 DOE requests information on the installation applications
of UFHWSTs, including, but not limited to the fraction of UFHWSTs that
are installed in residential (primarily multi-family buildings),
commercial, and industrial applications.
2. Energy Use Calculations
The relevant energy consumption is the site energy use associated
with offsetting the standby losses incurred by the UFHWST(s) installed
in the building. To determine the field standby loss of the UFHWSTs for
the purposes of the energy use analysis, DOE intends to use a
methodology based on the ``R-value'' defined by DOE's regulations of
UFHWSTs.\27\ DOE's methodology will convert the R-value to field
standby losses based on tank sizes, tank set point temperature, and
surrounding air temperature. The energy use will then be calculated in
terms of the fuel type and efficiency of the water heating equipment
used to offset the standby losses. DOE intends to also consider any
degradation in the R-value over the lifetime of UFHWSTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ DOE defines ``R-value'' as the thermal resistance of
insulating material as determined using ASTM C177-13 or C518-15 and
expressed in ([deg]F[middot]ft\2\[middot]h/Btu). 10 CFR 431.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue F.3 DOE requests relevant information, such as field or test
energy use data, that could assist in the development of an energy use
equation to determine field standby loss.
Issue F.4 DOE requests comment on the methodology for determining
the standby loss for UFHWSTs based on the
[[Page 39230]]
R-value and the impact of ambient conditions, tank set-point
temperature, and draw patterns.
Issue F.5 DOE seeks data and input on typical tank water
temperatures for UFHWSTs used in various residential (primarily multi-
family buildings), commercial, and industrial applications to establish
the fraction of UFHWSTs storing water at different temperatures.
Issue F.6 DOE seeks input on what are typical storage volumes of
UFHWSTs used in various residential (primarily multi-family buildings),
commercial, and industrial applications, including, but not limited to
the fraction of UFHWSTs at different storage volumes (i.e., equal to or
less than 120 gallons, greater than 120 gallons and equal to or less
than 500 gallons, greater than 500 gallons).
Issue F.7 DOE requests comment on the installation location of
UFHWSTs in the context of the ambient air temperature conditions,
including, but not limited to, the fraction of UFHWSTs that are
installed outdoors, in an indoor conditioned space, or an indoor
unconditioned space.
Issue F.8 DOE requests comment and any data concerning the
potential degradation in the R-value over the lifetime of UFHWSTs.
Issue F.9 To better understand the distribution of energy
consumption load profiles, DOE seeks comment on the fraction of UFHWSTs
that are installed in utility grid-enabled storage applications.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE plans to conduct LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on residential (primarily multi-family buildings), commercial,
and industrial consumers of potential standards for UFHWSTs. The effect
of new or amended standards on residential (primarily multi-family
buildings), commercial, and industrial consumers usually involves a
reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost.
DOE intends to analyze the potential for variability by performing
the LCC and PBP calculations on a representative sample of residential
(primarily multi-family buildings), commercial, and industrial
consumers. DOE plans to utilize the sample of buildings developed for
the energy use analysis and the corresponding simulation results. DOE
plans to model uncertainty in many of 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 no-new-standards case (i.e., the case without
amended standards).
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 costs.
Each type of input is discussed in the paragraphs that follow.
1. Total Installed Cost
The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are
the baseline customer price, incremental customer price increases
resulting from a potential standard, and installation costs. Baseline
prices and standard-level price increases will be determined by
applying mark-ups to manufacturer selling price estimates and sales
tax.
The installation cost is added to the customer price to arrive at a
total installed cost. DOE intends to develop installation costs using
the most recent RS Means data available.\28\ DOE also intends to use
regional labor costs to more accurately estimate installation costs by
applying the appropriate regional labor cost from RS Means to each
sampled household or building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ RS Means, 2019 Mechanical Cost Data (Available at: https://www.rsmeans.com/products/books/cost-books.aspx) (Last accessed April
4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conducting its analyses, DOE intends to utilize a basic
installation plan that would apply to all UFHWSTs. For UFHWSTs in new
installations, DOE plans to include costs such as adding water piping,
putting the UFHWST in place, and additional set-up. For replacement
cases, in addition to the costs considered for new installations, DOE
also plans to include the installation cost associated with
disconnecting and removing the old UFHWST, as well as removal/disposal
and permit fees, if applicable. In addition, DOE intends to assess
whether installation costs vary with insulation levels and storage
volume.
Issue G.1 DOE seeks input on any available installation cost data
for UFHWSTs. DOE also seeks input on the approach it intends to use to
develop UFHWST installation costs.
Issue G.2 DOE seeks input on any additional costs associated with
installing UFHWSTs. For example, DOE seeks feedback on any installation
costs associated with potential space-constraint issues when the
original UFHWST location is too small to accommodate the replacement
UFHWST (particularly when installing a UFHWST with a lower heat loss
that may have larger physical dimensions).
2. Operating Costs
The primary inputs for calculating the operating costs of UFHWSTs
are energy consumption, equipment efficiency, energy prices,
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 costs.
The relevant energy consumption is the site energy use associated
with offsetting the standby losses incurred by the UFHWST(s) installed
in the building. DOE intends to utilize the standby loss calculation
methodology described in section II.F of this document to determine
energy use to offset the UFHWST's standby losses.
Maintenance costs are expenses associated with ensuring continued
operation of the covered equipment over time. DOE intends to develop
maintenance costs using the most recent RS Means data available \29\
and manufacturer literature. DOE intends to assess whether maintenance
costs vary with equipment heat loss and storage volume. In addition,
DOE plans to consider the cases in which the equipment is covered by
service and/or maintenance agreements. More specifically, DOE intends
to account for the maintenance cost associated with UFHWSTs being
drained and flushed annually to minimize deposition of sediment,
maintain operating efficiency, and prolong equipment life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ RS Means, 2019 Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data
(Available at: https://www.rsmeans.com/products/books/cost-books.aspx) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue G.3 DOE seeks comment as to whether UFHWST maintenance costs
vary as a function of insulation level and storage volume, for the
technology options listed in section II.B.2. DOE also requests any data
or information on maintenance costs and seeks comment on the extent to
which maintenance costs are covered by service and/or maintenance
agreements.
Repair costs are expenses associated with repairing or replacing
components of the covered equipment that have failed. DOE intends to
develop maintenance costs using the most recent RS Means data available
\30\ and manufacturer literature. DOE intends to assess whether repair
costs vary with insulation level and storage volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ RS Means, 2019 Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data
(Available at: https://www.rsmeans.com/products/books/cost-books.aspx) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue G.4 DOE seeks comment as to whether UFHWST repair costs and
frequency of repair vary as a function of insulation level and storage
volume, for the technology options listed in section
[[Page 39231]]
II.B.2. DOE also requests any data or information on repair costs and
seeks comment on the extent to which repair costs are covered by
service and/or maintenance agreements. DOE is also interested in
whether consumers simply replace the equipment when they fail as
opposed to repairing them.
Equipment lifetime is the age at which a unit is retired from
service. DOE intends to conduct a literature review of UFHWST lifetime
data together with any stakeholder lifetime data to develop a Weibull
probability distribution to characterize UFHWST lifetime.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ A Weibull probability distribution is a continuous
distribution function typically used in reliability engineering and
equipment failure analysis. If the data are available, DOE also
plans to take into account differences in UFHWST lifetime based on
usage and application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue G.5 DOE requests equipment lifetime data and information on
whether equipment lifetime varies based on UFHWST storage volume,
application, or insulation level.
DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels
relative to a no-new-standards case that reflects the likely market in
the absence of amended standards. DOE plans to develop efficiency
market shares (i.e., the distribution of equipment shipments by
insulation level) for the UFHWSTs, for the anticipated year in which
compliance with any potential amended standards would be required. DOE
is not aware of any data to estimate the market shares of different
UFHWST insulation levels in the no-new-standards case. DOE is
particularly interested in receiving such data. If no market share data
become available, DOE intends to use data on the number of water heater
models at different insulation levels, as reported in DOE's compliance
certification database \32\ and from manufacturer literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. Department of Energy, Compliance Certification
Database: Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks--Commercial (Available at
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html)
(Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue G.6 DOE requests information on the UFHWSTs market, including
but not limited to, the current UFHWSTs market share data by different
by insulation levels; similar historic data; and information on
expected future trends in the efficiency of UFHWSTs.
H. Shipments Analysis
DOE develops shipments forecasts of equipment to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended standards on energy consumption,
net present value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE
shipments projections are based on available historical data broken out
by equipment class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales estimates
allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the
market. However, DOE is not aware of any shipment data for UFHWSTs.
Issue H.1 DOE seeks historical shipments data for UFHWSTs, which
may include shipments by storage volume capacity bins.
The shipments model will consider the UFHWSTs in the commercial,
industrial, and residential (primarily multi-family buildings) market
segments.
Issue H.2 DOE seeks comment, which may include historical data, on
the fraction of UFHWST shipments by commercial, industrial, and
residential (primarily multi-family buildings) market segments.
The shipments model will consider three market segments: (1) New
buildings acquiring UFHWSTs; (2) existing buildings replacing old
UFHWSTs; and (3) existing buildings acquiring new UFHWSTs for the first
time.
Issue H.3 DOE seeks comment, which may include historical data, on
the fraction of UFHWSTs shipments by new buildings, replacements, and
new owner market segments.
A table of the types of data requested for historical shipments in
Issues H.1, H.2, and H.3 can be found in Table II.1, Table II.2, and
Table II.3.
Table II.1--Historical Shipments by Storage Volume Capacity Bins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical shipments (millions)
Storage volume (gallons) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 249 gallons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250 to 999 gallons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above 1000 gallons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2--Historical Shipments by Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Market Segments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical shipments (millions)
Market segment -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Primarily muti-family buildings.
[[Page 39232]]
Table II.3--Historical Shipments by New Buildings, Replacement, and New Owner Market Segments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical shipments (millions)
Market segment -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Buildings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Primarily multi-family buildings.
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended standards on manufacturers of
UFHWSTs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such standards on
direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both
quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA
primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''),
an industry cash-flow model adapted for this analysis, with the key
output being the industry net present value (``INPV''), which is used
to assess the financial impact of a potential standard. The qualitative
part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy conservation
standards on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well
as factors such as equipment characteristics, impacts on particular
subgroups of firms, and important market and product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the
applicable Small Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business
size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, which are listed by the applicable North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'') code.\33\ Manufacturing of UFHWSTs is
classified under NAICS 333318, ``Other Commercial and Service Industry
Machinery Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 1,000
employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small
business. This employee threshold includes all employees in a
business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the equipment-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of covered equipment. While any one regulation may not
impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of
several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences
for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry.
Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this
cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy efficiency
standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers'
financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product
lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing
products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative
regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance
efficiency.
Issue I.1 To the extent feasible, DOE seeks company names and
contact information for domestic or foreign-based companies that
manufacture UFHWSTs for the U.S. market.
Issue I.2 DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended
standards. DOE requests company names and contact information of small
businesses, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, which manufacture
UFHWSTs in the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any
other manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted
by amended standards for UFHWSTs. DOE also requests feedback on any
potential approaches that could be considered to address impacts on
manufacturers, including small businesses.
Issue I.3 DOE requests information regarding the impact of
cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers of UFHWSTs associated
with: (1) Other DOE standards applying to different products that these
manufacturers may also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions
of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology
for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any
flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this burden while
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
In comments submitted to DOE in response to the May 2016 CWH TP
NOPR, several stakeholders stated that there are small manufacturers
that make UFHWSTs, but that do not manufacture other types of CWH
equipment. (Bradford White, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0021 at p.
7; A.O. Smith, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0027 at p. 16; Raypak,
Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0028 at p. 2; Rheem, Docket No. EERE-
2014-BT-TP-0008-0034 at p. 8)
Issue I.4 DOE requests comment on the fraction of UFHWST shipments
that are manufactured by small manufacturers who do not manufacture
other types of CWH equipment.
J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of
amended energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs.
2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Equipment
DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging smart technology
appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that
RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and
issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment
that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was
to ensure that DOE did not
[[Page 39233]]
inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory
obligations in setting efficiency standards for covered products and
equipment. Although UFHWSTs themselves do not consume energy or
presumably have a network mode capability, they interact with water
heaters that may have such capabilities. Consequently, to the extent
water heaters have a network mode that may be impacted by a paired
UFHWST, DOE seeks comments, data, and information on the issues
presented in this RFI as they may be applicable to UFHWSTs.
3. Other
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE
welcomes comment on any other aspect of uniform national standards for
UFHWSTs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this
document.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments,
data, and information on matters addressed in this document and on
other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy
conservation standards for UFHWSTs. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the public
comments received and may begin collecting data and conducting analyses
discussed in this RFI.
Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing standards. 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
[[Page 39234]]
this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 1, 2019.
Alexander N. Fitzsimmons,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019-17084 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P