[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1378-1447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033]
RIN 1904-AD02


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Portable Air Conditioners

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the 
Act), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various 
consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment. In 
addition to specifying a list of covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment, EPCA contains provisions that enable the 
Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products 
as covered products. On April 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE or the Department) published a final coverage determination to 
classify portable air conditioners (ACs) as covered consumer products 
under the applicable provisions in EPCA. In this final rule, DOE 
establishes new energy conservation standards for portable ACs. DOE has 
determined that the energy conservation standards for these products 
would result in significant conservation of energy, and are 
technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is March 10, 2020. Compliance 
with the standards established for portable ACs in this final rule is 
required on and after January 10, 2025.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for 
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed 
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in 
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033. The docket web page contains simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by 
email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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) 586-0371. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.

[[Page 1379]]

Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
III. General Discussion
    A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    B. Test Procedure
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    E. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
    F. Other Issues
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Definition and Scope of Coverage
    2. Product Classes
    a. Preliminary Analysis and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 
Proposals
    b. Comments and Responses
    3. Technology Options
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened-Out Technologies
    2. Additional Comments
    3. Remaining Technologies
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Levels
    a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels
    2. Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Consumer Samples
    2. Cooling Mode Hours and Sensitivity Analyses
    3. Fan-only Mode and Standby Mode Hours
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Product Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    6. Product Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    9. Payback Period Analysis
    G. Shipments Analysis
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. Product Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    3. Net Present Value Analysis
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Shipment Projections
    c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    d. Markup Scenarios
    3. Discussion of Comments
    K. Emissions Analysis
    L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values
    c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    2. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    3. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels (TSLs)
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Portable AC 
Standards
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
    M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles.\2\ In addition to specifying a list of 
covered residential products and commercial equipment, EPCA contains 
provisions that enable the Secretary of Energy to classify additional 
types of consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) 
In a final determination of coverage published in the Federal Register 
on April 18, 2016 (the ``April 2016 Final Coverage Determination''), 
DOE classified portable ACs as covered consumer products under EPCA. 81 
FR 22514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new 
or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE is adopting energy conservation standards for 
portable ACs. The standards, which correspond to trial standard level 
(TSL) 2 (described in section V.A of this document), are minimum 
allowable combined energy efficiency ratio (CEER) standards, which are 
expressed in British thermal units (Btu) per watt-hour (Wh), and are 
shown in Table I.1. These standards apply to all single-duct portable 
ACs and dual-duct portable ACs that are manufactured in, or imported 
into, the United States starting on January 10, 2025.

[[Page 1380]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.021

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of 
the adopted standards on consumers of portable ACs, as measured by the 
average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period 
(PBP).\3\ The average LCC savings are positive and the PBP is less than 
the average lifetime of portable ACs, which is estimated to be 
approximately 10 years (see section IV.F.6 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected 
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency 
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market 
in the compliance year in the absence of standards (see section IV.F 
of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare 
specific ELs, is measured relative to the baseline product (see 
section IV.C of this document).

 Table I.2--Impacts of New Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of
                        Portable Air Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Average LCC      Simple  payback
           Product class             savings  (2015$)   period  (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-duct and dual-duct portable               125                2.6
 air conditioners.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers 
is described in section IV.F of this document. DOE also performed three 
sensitivity analyses on its primary assertion that portable air 
conditioners are used and operated in a similar manner to room air 
conditioners to further analyze the effects of the benefits and cost to 
consumers from these products. In one sensitivity analysis, DOE found 
that reducing operating hours by 50 percent, resulted in an estimate of 
one-third of the energy cost savings relative to the primary estimate. 
In this low-usage case, the average LCC savings for all consumers under 
the adopted standards would be $35 (compared with $125 in the primary 
estimate), and 42 percent of consumers would be impacted negatively 
(compared with 27 percent in the primary estimate). The simple payback 
period would be 5.1 years (compared with 2.6 years in the primary 
estimate). Further details are presented in section IV.E, V.B.1, and 
appendix 8F and appendix 10E of the final rule TSD.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted 
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the 
analysis period (2017-2051). Using a real discount rate of 6.6 percent, 
DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of portable ACs in the 
case without new standards is $738.5 million in 2015$. Under the 
adopted standards, DOE expects the change in INPV to range from -34.3 
percent to -28.8 percent, which is approximately -$253.4 million to -
$212.4 million. In order to bring products into compliance with new 
standards, DOE expects the industry to incur total conversion costs of 
$320.9 million.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.J and section V.B.2 of this 
document.

C. National Benefits and Costs \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2015 
dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2015 unless 
explicitly stated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation 
standards for portable ACs would save a significant amount of energy. 
Relative to the case without new standards the lifetime energy savings 
for portable ACs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
anticipated year of compliance with the new standards (2022-2051), 
amount to 0.49 quadrillion Btu, or quads.\5\ This represents a savings 
of 6.4 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case 
without new standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. 
FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, 
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 
petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the 
impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the 
FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits 
of the standards for portable ACs ranges from $1.25 billion (at a 7-
percent discount rate) to $3.06 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). 
This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost 
savings minus the estimated increased product costs for portable ACs 
purchased in 2022-2051.

[[Page 1381]]

    In addition, the new standards for portable ACs are projected to 
yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the 
standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same 
period as for energy savings) of 25.6 million metric tons (Mt) \6\ of 
carbon dioxide (CO2), 16.4 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), 32.2 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 124.8 
thousand tons of methane (CH4), 0.4 thousand tons of nitrous 
oxide (N2O), and 0.06 tons of mercury (Hg).\7\ The estimated 
reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 4.0 Mt, 
which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual 
electricity use of more than 0.42 million homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy 
Outlook 2016 (AEO 2016). AEO 2016 represents current legislation and 
environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were 
available as of the end of February 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a 
range of values per metric ton (t) of CO2 (otherwise known 
as the ``social cost of carbon'', or SC-CO2) developed by a 
Federal interagency working group.\8\ The derivation of the SC-
CO2 values is discussed in section IV.L.1 of this document. 
Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SC-CO2 
values, DOE estimates the present value of the CO2 emissions 
reduction is between $0.2 billion and $2.5 billion, with a value of 0.8 
billion using the central SC-CO2 case represented by $40.6/
metric ton (t) in 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Government--Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Carbon. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 
12866. May 2013. Revised July 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also calculated the value of the reduction in emissions of the 
non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), CH4 and 
N2O, using values for the social cost of methane (SC-
CH4) and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-
N2O) recently developed by the interagency working group.\9\ 
See section IV.L.2 for description of the methodology and the values 
used for DOE's analysis. The estimated present value of the 
CH4 emissions reduction is between $0.04 billion and $0.3 
billion, with a value of $0.1 billion using the central SC-
CH4 case, and the estimated present value of the 
N2O emissions reduction is between $0.001 billion and $0.011 
billion, with a value of $0.004 billion using the central SC-
N2O case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. Government--Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of 
Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/august_2016_sc_ch4_sc_n2o_addendum_final_8_26_16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also estimates that the present value of the NOX 
emissions reduction to be $0.02 billion using a 7-percent discount 
rate, and $0.06 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\10\ DOE is 
still investigating appropriate valuation of the reduction in other 
emissions, and therefore did not include any such values in the 
analysis for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX 
emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using 
benefit per ton estimates from the Regulatory Impact Analysis for 
the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, published in August 2015 by 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards. Available at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis. See section 
IV.L of this document for further discussion. The U.S. Supreme Court 
has stayed the rule implementing the Clean Power Plan until the 
current litigation against it concludes. Chamber of Commerce, et al. 
v. EPA, et al., Order in Pending Case, 577 U.S. (2016). However, the 
benefit-per-ton estimates established in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis for the Clean Power Plan are based on scientific studies 
that remain valid irrespective of the legal status of the Clean 
Power Plan. DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton 
estimate for NOX emitted from the Electricity Generating 
Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from 
the American Cancer Society (ACS) study (Krewski et al. 2009). If 
the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study 
(Lepuele et al. 2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half 
times larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to 
result from the adopted standards for portable ACs.

  Table I.3--Selected Categories of Economic Benefits and Costs of New
      Energy Conservation Standards for Portable Air Conditioners *
                                 [TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Present value     Discount rate
              Category                 (billion 2015$)       percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.....               1.8                 7
                                                   4.1                 3
GHG Reduction (using avg. social                   0.2                 5
 costs at 5% discount rate) **.
GHG Reduction (using avg. social                   1.0                 3
 costs at 3% discount rate) **.
GHG Reduction (using avg. social                   1.5               2.5
 costs at 2.5% discount rate) **.
GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile               2.9                 3
 social costs at 3% discount rate)
 **.
NOX Reduction [dagger]                            0.02                 7
                                                  0.06                 3
Total Benefits [Dagger].............               2.8                 7
                                                   5.1                 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Installed Costs               0.5                 7
                                                   1.0                 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including GHG and NOX Reduction                      7
 Monetized Value [Dagger]...........

[[Page 1382]]

 
                                                   4.1                 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with portable
  ACs shipped in 2022-2051. These results include benefits to consumers
  which accrue after 2051 from the products shipped in 2022-2051. The
  incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well
  as installation costs. The costs account for the incremental variable
  and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the proposed
  standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule.
  The GHG reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that
  occur domestically.
** The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-
  N2O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are
  based on the average social costs from the integrated assessment
  models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent.
  The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile of the SC-CO2
  distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included
  to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate change further
  out in the tails of the social cost distributions. The social cost
  values are emission year specific. See section IV.L.1 of this document
  for more details.
[dagger] DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions
  associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates
  from the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final
  Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
  and Standards. (Available at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.) See section IV.L of this
  document for further discussion. DOE is primarily using a national
  benefit-per-ton estimate for NOX emitted from the electricity
  generating sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived
  from the ACS study (Krewski et al. 2009). If the benefit-per-ton
  estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al. 2011),
  the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger.
[Dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are
  presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate.

    The benefits and costs of the adopted standards, for portable ACs 
sold in 2022-2051, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. 
The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the 
reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increases in product 
purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the 
benefits of CO2 and NOX emission reductions, all 
annualized.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2016, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from 
each year to 2016. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 
percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of 
CO2 reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount 
rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using the present value, DOE then 
calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting 
in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. 
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the 
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of portable ACs 
shipped in 2022-2051. The benefits associated with reduced 
CO2 emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards 
are also calculated based on the lifetime of portable ACs shipped in 
2022-2051. Because CO2 emissions have a very long residence 
time in the atmosphere, the SC-CO2 values for CO2 
emissions in future years reflect impacts that continue through 2300. 
The CO2 reduction is a benefit that accrues globally.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the adopted standards 
are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as 
follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other 
than GHG reduction (for which DOE used average social costs with a 3-
percent discount rate,\12\ the estimated cost of the standards in this 
rule is $61 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the 
estimated annual benefits are $202.7 million in reduced equipment 
operating costs, $56.7 million in GHG reductions, and $2.6 million in 
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts 
to $201 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $59 million 
per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual 
benefits are $240.0 million in reduced operating costs, $56.7 million 
in GHG reductions, and $3.3 million in reduced NOX 
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $241 million per 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount 
rate. These values are considered as the ``central'' estimates by 
the interagency group.

                       Table I.4--Selected Categories of Annualized Benefits and Costs of New Standards (TSL 2) for Portable ACs *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Low-net- benefits        High-net- benefits
                                            Discount rate (percent)             Primary estimate              estimate                  estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        (million 2015$/year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....  7....................................  202.7...................  99.1....................  214.4.
                                     3....................................  240.0...................  116.3...................  256.1.
CO2 Reduction (using avg. social     5....................................  18.4....................  8.8.....................  19.9.
 costs at 5% discount rate) **.
CO2 Reduction (using avg. social     3....................................  56.7....................  27.0....................  61.4.
 costs at 3% discount rate) **.
CO2 Reduction (using avg. social     2.5..................................  81.1....................  38.6....................  87.9.
 costs at 2.5% discount rate) **.
CO2 Reduction (using 95th            3....................................  169.9...................  80.9....................  184.1.
 percentile SC-CO2 at 3% discount
 rate) **.
NOX Reduction [dagger].............  7....................................  2.6.....................  1.2.....................  6.2.
                                     3....................................  3.3.....................  1.6.....................  8.1.
Total Benefits [Dagger]............  7 plus CO2 range.....................  224 to 375..............  213 to 354..............  240 to 405.

[[Page 1383]]

 
                                     7....................................  262.....................  249.....................  282.
                                     3 plus CO2 range.....................  262 to 413..............  248 to 389..............  284 to 448.
                                     3....................................  300.....................  283.....................  326.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs.  7....................................  61.0....................  60.8....................  55.6.
                                     3....................................  59.0....................  58.9....................  53.3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [Dagger].....................  7 plus CO2 range.....................  163 to 314..............  48 to 120...............  185 to 349.
                                     7....................................  201.....................  67......................  226.
                                     3 plus CO2 range.....................  203 to 354..............  68 to 140...............  231 to 395.
                                     3....................................  241.....................  86......................  272.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with portable ACs shipped in 2022-2051. These results include benefits to consumers
  which accrue after 2051 from the portable ACs purchased from 2022-2051. The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as
  installation costs. The CO2 reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net
  Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy price trends from the AEO 2016 No-CPP case, a Low Economic Growth case, and a High Economic Growth
  case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low
  Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The Low Benefits Estimate reflects a 50-percent reduction in the operating
  hours relative to the reference case operating hours. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F of this
  document. The benefits and costs are based on equipment efficiency distributions as described in sections IV.F.8 and IV.H.1. Purchases of higher
  efficiency equipment are a result of many different factors unique to each consumer including past purchases, expected usage, and others. For each
  consumer, all other factors being the same, it would be anticipated that higher efficiency purchases in the no-new-standards case may correlate
  positively with higher energy prices. To the extent that this occurs, it would be expected to result in some lowering of the consumer operating cost
  savings from those calculated in this rule. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
** The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the
  average social costs from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent. The fourth set, which
  represents the 95th percentile of the social cost distributions calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-
  expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the social cost distributions The SC-CO2 values are emission year specific. See
  section IV.L.1 of this document for more details.
[dagger] DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the
  Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
  (Available at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.) See section IV.L for further discussion. For the
  Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used national benefit-per-ton estimates for NOX emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector
  based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al. 2009). For the High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton
  estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al. 2011); these are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the ACS study.
[Dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. In the
  rows labeled ``7% plus GHG range'' and ``3% plus GHG range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and
  those values are added to the full range of social cost values.

    DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is 
described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

    Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the 
benefits to the nation of the standards (energy savings, consumer LCC 
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) 
outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some users of 
these products). DOE has concluded that the standards in this final 
rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result 
in significant conservation of energy.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical 
background related to the establishment of standards for portable ACs.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part B of the EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (codified as 42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major 
household appliances (collectively referred to as ``covered 
products''). EPCA authorizes the Secretary of Energy to classify 
additional types of consumer products not otherwise specified in Part A 
as covered products. For a type of consumer product to be classified as 
a covered product, the Secretary must determine that:
    (1) Classifying the product as a covered product is necessary for 
the purposes of EPCA; and
    (2) The average annual per-household energy use by products of such 
type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. (42 U.S.C. 
6292(b)(1))
    Under the authority established in EPCA, DOE published the April 
2016 Final Coverage Determination that established portable ACs as a 
covered product because such a classification is necessary or 
appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, and the average U.S. 
household energy use for portable ACs is likely to exceed 100 kWh per 
year. 81 FR 22514 (Apr. 18, 2016).
    EPCA, as amended, grants DOE authority to prescribe an energy

[[Page 1384]]

conservation standard for any type (or class) of covered products of a 
type specified in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19) \13\ if the requirements of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) are met and the Secretary determines that--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In amending EPCA, Congress added metal halide lamp fixtures 
as a covered product at 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19) and redesignated the 
existing listing for (19) (i.e., any other type of consumer product 
which the Secretary classifies as a covered product under subsection 
(b) of this section) as (20). However, the corresponding reference 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) was not updated. DOE has determined this to 
be a drafting error and is giving the provision its intended effect 
as if such error had not occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) the average per household energy use within the United States 
by products of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kilowatt-hours (kWh) 
(or its Btu equivalent) for any 12-month period ending before such 
determination;
    (2) the aggregate household energy use within the United States by 
products of such type (of class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kWh (or its Btu 
equivalent) for any such 12-month period;
    (3) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of 
such type (or class) is technologically feasible; and
    (4) the application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such 
type (or class) is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers 
to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered 
products of such type (or class) which achieve the maximum energy 
efficiency which is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))
    DOE has determined that portable ACs meet the four criteria 
outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) for prescribing energy conservation 
standards for newly covered products. Specifically, DOE has determined 
that for a 12-month period ending before such determination, the 
average per household energy use within the U.S. by portable ACs 
exceeded 150 kWh (see chapter 7 of this final rule technical support 
document (TSD)). DOE has also determined that the aggregate household 
energy use within the United States by portable ACs exceeded 
4,200,000,000 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for such a 12-month period 
(see chapter 10 of this final rule TSD). Further, DOE has determined 
that substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of portable ACs 
is technologically feasible (see section IV.C of this document and 
chapter 5 of the final rule TSD), and has determined that the 
application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to portable ACs is 
not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and 
consumers and other persons to purchase, portable ACs that achieve the 
maximum energy efficiency which is technologically feasible and 
economically justified (see chapter 17 of this final rule TSD).
    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, 
(3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the 
remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, 
DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Manufacturers of 
covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the 
basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the 
applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when 
making representations to the public regarding the energy use or 
efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Similarly, DOE must 
use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with 
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test 
procedures for portable ACs were established in a final rule published 
on June 1, 2016 (81 FR 35241; hereinafter the ``June 2016 TP Final 
Rule''), and appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix CC (hereinafter ``appendix CC'') 
and 10 CFR 430.23(dd).
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including portable ACs. Any new 
or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of 
Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may 
not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Moreover, DOE may not 
prescribe a standard (1) for certain products, including portable ACs, 
if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if 
DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically 
feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In 
deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE 
must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after 
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the 
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
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 and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA, as codified, states that the Secretary may not prescribe an 
amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the U.S. in any covered product type (or class) 
of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, 
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those 
generally available in the U.S. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of products that has the same function or intended use if DOE

[[Page 1385]]

determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind 
of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type 
(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature 
which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such 
feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In 
determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different 
standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the 
utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an 
explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was 
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140, 
any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards 
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and 
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE 
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if 
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into 
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate 
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for portable ACs 
address standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the new standards 
adopted in this final rule.

B. Background

    DOE has not previously conducted an energy conservation standards 
rulemaking for portable ACs. Consequently, there are currently no 
Federal energy conservation standards for portable ACs.
    On February 27, 2015, DOE published a notice of public meeting and 
notice of availability of a preliminary TSD for portable AC energy 
conservation standards (hereinafter the ``February 2015 Preliminary 
Analysis''). In the preliminary analysis, DOE conducted in-depth 
technical analyses in the following areas: (1) Engineering, (2) markups 
to determine product price, (3) energy use, (4) LCC and PBP, and (5) 
national impacts. 80 FR 10628. The preliminary TSD that presented the 
methodology and results of each of these analyses is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033-
0007.
    DOE also conducted, and discussed in the preliminary TSD, several 
other analyses that supported the major analyses or were expanded upon 
in the later stages of the standards rulemaking. These analyses 
included: (1) The market and technology assessment; (2) the screening 
analysis, which contributes to the engineering analysis; and (3) the 
shipments analysis,\14\ which contributes to the LCC and PBP analysis 
and national impact analysis (NIA). In addition to these analyses, DOE 
began preliminary work on the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) and 
identified the methods to be used for the consumer subgroup analysis, 
the emissions analysis, the employment impact analysis, the regulatory 
impact analysis, and the utility impact analysis. 80 FR 10628 (Feb. 27, 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Industry data track shipments from manufacturers into the 
distribution chain. Data on national unit retail sales are lacking, 
but are presumed to be close to shipments under normal 
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE held a public meeting on March 18, 2015, to discuss the 
analyses and solicit comments from interested parties regarding the 
preliminary analysis it conducted. The meeting covered the analytical 
framework, models, and tools that DOE uses to evaluate potential 
standards; the results of preliminary analyses performed by DOE for 
this product; the potential energy conservation standard levels derived 
from these analyses that DOE could consider for this product; and any 
other issues relevant to the development of energy conservation 
standards for portable ACs.
    Interested parties commented at the public meeting and submitted 
written comments regarding the following major issues: Rulemaking 
schedule with respect to establishing the test procedure, covered 
product configurations, product classes and impacts on consumer 
utility, technology options, efficiency levels (ELs), incremental 
costs, data sources, and cumulative regulatory burden.
    Comments received in response to the February 2015 Preliminary 
Analysis helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the 
preliminary analysis. After reviewing these comments, DOE gathered 
additional information, held further discussions with manufacturers, 
and completed and revised the various analyses described in the 
preliminary analysis.
    On June 13, 2016, DOE published an energy conservation standards 
(ECS) notice of proposed rulemaking (hereinafter the ``June 2016 ECS 
NOPR'') and notice of public meeting. 81 FR 38397. The June 2016 ECS 
NOPR and accompanying TSD presented the results of DOE's updated 
analyses and proposed new standards for portable ACs. On July 20, 2016, 
DOE held a standards public meeting to discuss the issues detailed in 
the June 2016 ECS NOPR (hereinafter the ``July 2016 STD Public 
Meeting''). Interested parties, listed in Table II.1, commented on the 
various aspects of the proposed rule and submitted written comments.

          Table II.1--Interested Parties Providing Comments on the June 2016 ECS NOPR for Portable ACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Name                                     Acronym                          Commenter type *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Project.  ASAP.......................................  EA
ASAP, Natural Resources Defense         The Joint Commenters.......................  EA
 Council, Alliance to Save Energy,
 American Council for an Energy-
 Efficient Economy, Consumers Union,
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance,
 and Northwest Power and Conservation
 Council.
Association of Home Appliance           AHAM.......................................  TA
 Manufacturers.
De' Longhi Appliances s.r.l...........  De' Longhi.................................  M
GE Appliances, a Haier Company........  GE.........................................  M
GREE Electrical Appliance.............  GREE.......................................  M
Industrial Energy Consumers of America  IECA.......................................  TA

[[Page 1386]]

 
Tom[aacute]s Carbonell, Environmental   The Joint Advocates........................  EA
 Defense Fund (EDF); Rachel Cleetus,
 Union of Concerned Scientists; Jayni
 Hein **; Peter H. Howard **; Benjamin
 Longstreth, NRDC; Richard L. Revesz
 **; Jason A. Schwartz **; Peter
 Zalzal, EDF.
Intertek Testing Services.............  Intertek...................................  TL
JMATEK--Honeywell Authorized Licensee.  JMATEK.....................................  M
LG Electronics........................  LG.........................................  M
National Association of Manufacturers.  NAM........................................  TA
Natural Resources Defense Council.....  NRDC.......................................  EA
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,       California IOUs............................  U
 Southern California Gas Company, San
 Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern
 California Edison (the California
 Investor-Owned Utilities).
People's Republic of China............  China......................................  GA
Temp-Air..............................  Temp-Air...................................  M
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American      The Associations...........................  TA
 Chemistry Council, American Forest &
 Paper Association, American Fuel &
 Petrochemical Manufacturers, American
 Petroleum Institute, Brick Industry
 Association, Council of Industrial
 Boiler Owners, National Association
 of Manufacturers, National Mining
 Association, National Oilseed
 Processors Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EA: Efficiency Advocate; GA: Government Agency; M: Manufacturer; RO: Research Organization; TA: Trade
  Association; TL: Third-party Test Laboratory; U: Utility.
** Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law; listed for identification purposes only and does not
  purport to present New York University School of Law's views, if any.

    Following the July 2016 STD Public Meeting, DOE gathered additional 
information and incorporated feedback from comments received in 
response to the June 2016 ECS NOPR. Based on this information, DOE 
revised the analyses presented in the June 2016 ECS NOPR for this final 
rule. The results of these analyses are detailed in the final rule TSD, 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed this final rule after considering verbal and written 
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent 
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues 
raised by these commenters.

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
differing standards. In making a determination whether a 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 determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
    In the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis, DOE did not consider 
energy conservation standards for portable ACs other than single-duct 
or dual-duct portable ACs, as the test procedure proposed at that time 
did not include provisions for testing other portable ACs. Furthermore, 
DOE did not separate portable ACs into multiple product classes for the 
February 2015 Preliminary Analysis following a determination that there 
is no unique utility associated with single-duct or dual-duct portable 
ACs.
    The test procedure established in the June 2016 TP Final Rule 
maintained provisions for testing only single-duct and dual-duct 
portable AC configurations and therefore, in the June 2016 ECS NOPR 
that was published following the June 2016 TP Final Rule, DOE proposed 
standards for a single product class of single-duct and dual-duct 
portable AC configurations. In this final rule, DOE is establishing 
standards for one product class for all single-duct and dual-duct 
portable ACs. Comments received relating to the scope of coverage and 
product classes are discussed in section IV.A of this document.

B. Test Procedure

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation 
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product.
    With respect to the process of establishing test procedures and 
standards for a given product, DOE notes that it generally follows the 
approach laid out in its guidance found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A (Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration 
of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products). 
Pursuant to that guidance, DOE endeavors to issue final test procedure 
rules for a given covered product in advance of the publication of a 
NOPR proposing energy conservation standards for that covered product.
    On May 9, 2014, DOE initiated a test procedure rulemaking for 
portable ACs by publishing a notice of data availability (hereinafter 
the ``May 2014 TP NODA'') to request feedback on potential testing 
options. In the May 2014 TP NODA, DOE discussed various industry test 
procedures and presented results from its investigative testing that 
evaluated existing methodologies and alternate approaches that could be 
incorporated in a future DOE test procedure, should DOE determine that 
portable ACs are covered products. 79 FR 26639.
    On February 25, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (hereinafter the 
``February 2015 TP NOPR'') in which it proposed to establish test 
procedures for single-duct and dual-duct portable ACs. The proposed 
test procedures were based upon industry methods to determine energy 
consumption in active modes, off-cycle mode, standby modes, and off 
mode, with certain modifications to ensure the test procedures are 
repeatable and representative. 80 FR 10211.
    On November 27, 2015, DOE published a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) (hereinafter the ``November 2015 TP 
SNOPR''), in which it proposed revisions to the test procedure proposed 
in the February 2015 TP NOPR to

[[Page 1387]]

improve repeatability, reduce test burden, and ensure the test 
procedure is representative of typical consumer usage. 80 FR 74020.
    On June 1, 2016, following publication of the April 2016 Final 
Coverage Determination, DOE published the June 2016 TP Final Rule that 
established test procedures for portable ACs at appendix CC and 10 CFR 
430.23(dd). 81 FR 35241. The energy conservation standards established 
in this final rule are expressed in terms of CEER, in Btu per Wh, based 
on the seasonally adjusted cooling capacity (SACC), in Btu per hour, as 
determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure for portable ACs 
at appendix CC.
    In response to the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE received comments from 
interested parties regarding DOE's portable AC test procedures and the 
associated impacts on the analysis for new standards. The following 
sections discuss the relevant test procedure comments.
Laboratory Testing Capability
    DOE received several comments regarding the timing of the 
publication of the June 2016 TP Final Rule and manufacturers' 
opportunity to use the final test procedure in evaluating design 
options and the proposed standards level from the June 2016 ECS NOPR. 
GE, AHAM, JMATEK, and China claimed that neither manufacturers nor 
third-party laboratories have the equipment or expertise to conduct 
tests according to appendix CC. GE and China commented that 
laboratories would require additional time and investment to upgrade 
their test chambers to measure the infiltration air and to fully 
understand the repeatability and reproducibility of the new test 
procedure. AHAM stated that, with sufficient time, it expected to 
identify laboratories that could test enough portable AC models to 
provide additional test data for DOE's analysis. JMATEK asserted that 
additional time would be necessary to test its full product line. (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 17, 64, 129-130; AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 14-15, 64; AHAM, No. 43 at p. 3; 
China, No. 34 at p. 3; JMATEK, No. 40 at p. 2) \15\ \16\ Intertek 
stated that it had tested a portable AC according to the test 
procedures in appendix CC and was able to achieve all required test 
conditions. (Intertek, No. 37 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A notation in the form ``GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
39 at pp. 17, 64, 129-130'' identifies an oral comment that DOE 
received on July 20, 2016 during the NOPR public meeting, and was 
recorded in the public meeting transcript in the docket for this 
standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033). This 
particular notation refers to a comment (1) made by GE during the 
public meeting; (2) recorded in document number 39, which is the 
public meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of this test 
procedure rulemaking; and (3) which appears on pages 17, 64, and 129 
through 130 of document number 39.
    \16\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, No. 43 at p. 3'' identifies 
a written comment: (1) Made by the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers; (2) recorded in document number 43 that is filed in 
the docket of this standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0033) and available for review at www.regulations.gov; and (3) 
which appears on page 3 of document number 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a memo published on August 19, 2016, and titled, ``Memo_AHAM 
Request for Info on PACs_2016-08-19'' (hereinafter the ``DOE response 
memo''),\17\ DOE stated that it was aware of at least one third-party 
laboratory capable of testing according to appendix CC. In response to 
that memo, AHAM commented that a single laboratory cannot do all of the 
testing necessary for manufacturers to understand the potential impact 
of the proposed standard within the time allotted, and accordingly, its 
members have been unable to conduct a sufficient amount of testing to 
meaningfully participate in this standards rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 43 at 
p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ DOE's response memo can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section III.F of this document, several interested 
parties requested that DOE extend the June 2016 ECS NOPR comment period 
to provide manufacturers and test laboratories additional time to gain 
expertise with the test procedures in appendix CC and collect and 
analyze performance data to help support the standards rulemaking. To 
address those comments, on August 8, 2016, DOE published a notice to 
extend the original comment period for the June 2016 ECS NOPR by 45 
days. DOE stated that this extension would allow additional time for 
AHAM and its members and other interested parties to test existing 
models to the test procedure; examine the data, information, and 
analysis presented in the STD NOPR TSD; gather any additional data and 
information to address the proposed standards; and submit comments to 
DOE. 81 FR 53961. As discussed further in section IV.C of this final 
rule, DOE believes that the comment period extension addressed the 
concerns presented by commenters as this timeline allowed AHAM and its 
members to conduct testing and provide data for 22 portable AC models, 
which DOE has incorporated into its analysis.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list 
of technology options for consideration in consultation with 
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then 
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are 
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in 
commercially available products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 
section 4(a)(4)(i).
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 
4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv) Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its 
analysis any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to 
achieving a certain efficiency level. Section IV.B of this final rule 
discusses the results of the screening analysis for portable ACs, 
particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and 
those that are the basis for the standards considered in this 
rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this 
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE adopts a new or amended standard for a type or class of 
covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for portable 
ACs, using the design parameters for the most efficient products 
available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels 
that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section

[[Page 1388]]

IV.C.1.b of this document and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the 
TSL to portable ACs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
year of compliance with the standards (2022-2051).\18\ The savings are 
measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year 
analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each 
TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case 
and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a 
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a 
product would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers 
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate national energy 
savings (NES) from potential standards for portable ACs. The NIA 
spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) 
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy 
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For 
electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of primary energy savings, which 
is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the 
site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are 
considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates 
NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. The FFC metric 
includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), 
and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy 
conservation standards.\19\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation 
of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered 
products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see 
section IV.H.2 of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy 
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term ``significant'' is 
not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of 
Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 
768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended 
``significant'' energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings 
that are not ``genuinely trivial.'' The energy savings for all the TSLs 
considered in this rulemaking, including the adopted standards, are 
nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them ``significant'' within 
the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted above, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)(VII)) The 
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven 
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of potential standards on manufacturers, 
DOE conducts a MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE 
first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative 
impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment--based on the 
cost and capital requirements during the period between when a 
regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the 
regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The 
industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the 
industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by 
year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of 
impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on 
different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small 
manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic 
manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the 
potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital 
investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of 
various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These 
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers 
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national NPV of the economic 
impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the 
LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of 
consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national 
standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for 
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific 
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new 
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency 
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected 
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and 
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this 
document.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the

[[Page 1389]]

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section 
III.D.1 of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to 
project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options 
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 
available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not 
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration 
in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It 
also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of 
any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to 
transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the 
publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature 
and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) To assist the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) in making such a determination, DOE 
transmitted copies of its proposed rule and the NOPR TSD to the 
Attorney General for review, with a request that the DOJ provide its 
determination on this issue. In its assessment letter responding to 
DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed energy conservation standards for 
portable ACs are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on 
competition. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's assessment at the 
end of this final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE also considers the need for national energy conservation in 
determining whether a new or amended standard is economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the 
adopted standards are likely to provide improvements to the security 
and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand 
for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the 
reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility 
impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's 
needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this 
document.
    The adopted standards also are likely to result in environmental 
benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs 
associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions 
analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these 
emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document; the emissions 
impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this final rule. DOE also 
estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the 
considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To 
the extent interested parties submit any relevant information regarding 
economic justification that does not fit into the other categories 
described above, DOE could consider such information under ``other 
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period 
for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-
year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. 
In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and 
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The 
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation 
is discussed in section IV.F of this document.

F. Other Issues

    In response to the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE received additional 
comments from interested parties regarding general issues, discussed in 
the following section.
Establishment of New Standards
    AHAM, De' Longhi, GE, Temp-Air, ASAP, and the California IOUs 
supported DOE's efforts to establish a test procedure and initial 
energy conservation standards for portable ACs. GE expects that, with 
the DOE test procedure and standards in place, consumers will be better 
able to select an appropriately sized portable AC for their cooling 
needs. ASAP similarly believes that a portable AC test procedure and 
energy conservation standards would help consumers compare the actual 
performance of portable ACs and reduce energy consumption, particularly 
because this is a growing product category and portable ACs use 
approximately twice as much energy as room ACs. The California IOUs 
claimed that consumers may use portable ACs as replacements for room 
ACs and dehumidifiers, and therefore encouraged DOE to set standards 
that have similar levels of stringency to those products. (AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at p. 12; AHAM, No. 43 at p. 1; De' Longhi, 
No. 41 at p. 1; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 16-17; 
Temp-Air, No. 45 at p. 1; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at p. 
10; California IOUs, No. 42 at p. 1)
    In this final rule, DOE is establishing energy conservation 
standards for portable ACs that, pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A)), are determined to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified.
NOPR Comment Period and Test Procedure Timing
    GE expressed concern about the NOPR proposals due to the lack of 
time manufacturers and third-party laboratories have had to understand 
the test procedure. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 16-18) 
AHAM noted that DOE developed the portable AC test procedure in 
parallel with the standards analysis, which, according to AHAM, 
minimized manufacturers' ability to participate in the rulemaking. AHAM 
suggested that manufacturers need at least 6 months between the date of 
publication of the test procedure and the close of the June 2016 ECS 
NOPR comment period to gain expertise with the test procedure and 
collect a sufficient sample of test results to assess

[[Page 1390]]

the proposed standards. AHAM asserted that its portable AC test 
standard, which is referenced by the DOE test procedure with certain 
adjustments, is not currently used industry-wide by all manufacturers 
and third-party test laboratories. With sufficient time, AHAM stated 
that it expects to collect and aggregate manufacturer-provided data 
under the DOE test procedure to supplement or support DOE's analysis. 
AHAM noted that in its opinion, the analysis must be based on such data 
rather than assumptions. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at 
pp. 13-14, 16, 26-27)
    In response to AHAM's request for a comment period extension, on 
August 15, 2016, DOE extended the comment period for the June 2016 ECS 
NOPR by 45 days from the original comment deadline of August 12, 2016, 
to September 26, 2016. 81 FR 53961.
    Following the comment period extension, AHAM submitted additional 
comments expressing concern with DOE's approach to proceed with a 
standards analysis and development in the absence of a final test 
procedure. AHAM noted that 42 U.S.C. 6295(r) requires that a new 
standard must include test procedures prescribed in accordance with 42 
U.S.C. 6293, and AHAM stated that it believes this requirement is not 
effective if a test procedure is not finalized with sufficient time 
prior to a proposed or final standards rule, limiting the involvement 
and ability for manufacturers and interested parties to evaluate the 
standards. In the case of the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis, AHAM 
asserted that manufacturers, efficiency advocates, and interested 
parties have had little experience with the test procedure and have 
been unable to use it to assess the standards analysis, and in 
particular the estimated impacts on consumers and manufacturers. AHAM 
suggested that DOE should not issue a new portable AC standard without 
determining if it is justified and how consumers, especially those with 
low and fixed incomes, may be impacted via increased product cost and 
loss of functionality, features, and choice. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2, 
30)
    AHAM commented that no standard can pass the substantial evidence 
test if it is not based on a final test procedure, if one is required, 
and noted that such test procedure must have been based on a full and 
useful opportunity for the public to comment on the procedure and its 
impact on proposed standard levels. AHAM additionally noted that 
Section 7 of the Process Improvement Rule (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A) states that DOE will attempt to identify any necessary 
modifications to establish test procedures when ``initiating the 
standards development process.'' Further, AHAM stated that section 7(b) 
states that ``needed modifications to test procedures will be 
identified in consultation with experts and interested parties early in 
the screening stage of the standards development process,'' and section 
7(c) states that ``final, modified test procedures will be issued prior 
to the NOPR on proposed standards.'' AHAM commented that the same 
principles apply to new test procedures and the Process Improvement 
Rule indicates that it also applies to development of new standards. 
(AHAM, No. 43 at p. 2)
    In response, DOE notes that AHAM and several other interested 
parties, including, manufacturers, efficiency advocates, utilities, and 
manufacturer organizations, have participated in every stage of the 
portable AC standards rulemaking, providing valuable feedback to DOE. 
As discussed earlier in this section, DOE extended the comment period 
for the June 2016 ECS NOPR by 45 days from the original comment 
deadline. With this additional time, AHAM's members were able to test 
22 portable ACs according to the test procedures in appendix CC. AHAM 
provided the test data to DOE, performed a similar analysis to 
determine appropriate efficiency levels, and recommended a new 
standards level. Therefore, DOE believes that AHAM has had sufficient 
time to evaluate the June 2016 ECS NOPR proposal. DOE appreciates 
AHAM's feedback and has incorporated their information into this final 
rule analysis.
    In addition to its standard LCC analysis, DOE did consider how the 
standards would affect certain groups of consumers, including senior-
only households, low-income households, and small business. 
Presentation of the approach to the consumer sub-groups development can 
be found in section IV.I of this document and LCC results can be found 
in section V.B.1.b of this final rule.
    China suggested an additional year for manufacturers to comply with 
any portable AC standards. (China, No. 34 at p. 3)
    EPCA requires that newly-established standards shall not apply to 
products manufactured within five years after the publication of the 
final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) In accordance with this requirement, 
compliance with the energy conservation standards established in this 
final rule will be required 5 years after the date of publication of 
this standards final rule in the Federal Register. This 5-year period 
is intended to provide manufacturers ample time to assess their product 
designs and implement any necessary modifications to meet the new 
standards.
Certification and Enforcement Requirements
    The Joint Commenters supported DOE's proposal that portable AC 
certification reports include CEER and SACC, duct configuration, 
presence of a heating function, and primary condensate removal feature, 
noting that these proposed certification reporting requirements will 
provide useful information both to the public and to DOE for use in a 
future rulemaking. (Joint Commenters, No. 44 at p. 6) AHAM opposed 
reporting of the presence of a heating function in the certification 
reports because the test procedure in appendix CC does not test the 
heating function and the heating function is not relevant to compliance 
with DOE's proposed standard. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 30) DOE is including 
the reporting requirement for presence of a heating function in this 
final rule because the information will aid DOE in collecting and 
analyzing product characteristics in support of future rulemakings, and 
does not believe that including this reporting requirement represents a 
substantive burden to manufacturers in preparing certification reports.
    JMATEK requested clarification regarding the acceptable tolerance 
of cooling capacity and efficiency and heating mode measurements, 
specifically the SACC and CEER tolerances, and detailed information 
regarding calculating heating mode performance. (JMATEK, No. 40 at p. 
2) The certification requirements proposed in the NOPR only require 
reporting the presence of heating mode and do not require reporting 
heating mode performance. The provisions in 10 CFR 429.62(a) specify 
the sampling plan to be used to demonstrate compliance with the 
portable AC standards, including 10 CFR 429.62(a)(3) and 10 CFR 
429.62(a)(4) which provide the rounding requirements for SACC and CEER, 
respectively. Appendix CC contains test equipment and measurement 
requirements.
    China asked, under the proposed enforcement provision in 10 CFR 
429.134(n), whether the certified SACC is valid only if the average 
measured SACC is within 5 percent of the certified SACC is an upper or 
lower limit, or both. (China, No. 34 at p. 4) The provision refers to 
the absolute value of the difference between the measured

[[Page 1391]]

SACC and certified SACC, and that difference must be less than 5 
percent for the certified SACC to be used to demonstrate compliance; 
otherwise, the measured value would be used to determine compliance 
with the standard.
    AHAM agreed with DOE's proposed enforcement approach but noted that 
a 5-percent tolerance might not be enough given the inexperience with 
the new test procedure. AHAM suggested that DOE should work to 
understand the variation in that test with regard to determining 
cooling capacity before deciding on a threshold. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 
30) The 5-percent tolerance on cooling capacity for enforcement is 
consistent with the tolerance used for packaged terminal air 
conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs). Because 
cooling mode testing for PTACs and PTHPs utilize the same air enthalpy 
method that is the basis for the cooling mode testing in appendix CC, 
DOE determined that a similar cooling capacity tolerance for 
enforcement is appropriate for portable ACs, and thus establishes 5-
percent tolerance limit in this final rule.
Dual Coverage
    The California IOUs urged DOE to require portable ACs with 
dehumidification mode to meet the Federal standards for dehumidifiers, 
and that DOE should include the presence of dehumidification mode in 
the certification reporting requirements. They noted that the majority 
of portable ACs currently available for purchase from major retailers 
are equipped with a dehumidification mode, and the advertised moisture 
removal capacities for these units are comparable to those of 
residential dehumidifiers. The California IOUs also noted that certain 
retailer websites allow consumers to sort and filter listings for 
portable AC units by moisture removal capacity, and therefore posited 
that consumer purchasing decisions are likely influenced by the 
dehumidification capacity. The California IOUs further suggested that 
consumers may opt for a portable AC unit instead of purchasing a 
separate dehumidifier, or may use their existing portable AC as a 
dehumidifier. The California IOUs stated that DOE opted to exclude 
dehumidification mode from the portable AC test procedure because it 
determined dehumidification mode operating hours are insignificant, 
based on the assessment of a metered study, even though the study 
included only 19 sites from two states and participants were informed 
of the test purpose and scope prior to the study. Therefore, the 
California IOUs suggested that the study did not accurately estimate 
the consumer propensity for using dehumidification mode, as it did not 
capture consumers purchasing, or repurposing, a portable AC with the 
intent of also using it as a dehumidifier. The California IOUs 
suggested that if portable ACs are not covered under the Federal 
standards for dehumidifiers, DOE should require that portable ACs with 
dehumidification mode also meet the Federal energy conservation 
standards for dehumidifiers when operating in that mode and require 
that manufacturers indicate the presence of dehumidification mode as a 
certification requirement, similar to the same requirement for heating 
mode. According to the California IOUs, this additional requirement 
would mandate that moisture removal performed by portable ACs is tested 
and labeled in accordance with DOE requirements for residential 
dehumidifiers, and as a result, consumers would be better-informed when 
making purchasing decisions. The California IOUs stated that this would 
ensure that standards for residential dehumidifiers are not 
circumvented by multi-functional units such as portable ACs. 
(California IOUs, No. 42 at p. 2)
    Dehumidification naturally occurs as a result of the refrigeration-
based air-cooling process. However, air conditioning products are 
typically optimized to remove sensible heat, while dehumidifiers are 
optimized to remove latent heat, so they would achieve different 
operating efficiencies when dehumidifying. Additionally, the definition 
for dehumidifier in 10 CFR 430.2 specifically excludes air conditioning 
products (portable ACs, room ACs, and packaged terminal ACs) to avoid 
ambiguity as to what would be classified as a dehumidifier. Therefore, 
portable ACs would not be subject to energy conservation standards for 
dehumidifiers. Furthermore, requiring portables ACs to be tested, 
labeled, and certified for performance in dehumidification mode 
according to the same requirements as for residential dehumidifiers 
would be de facto establishing coverage of the product as both a 
portable AC and a dehumidifier, and such multiple classification is not 
allowable under the definition of ``covered product'' established in 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6291(2))

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
rulemaking with regard to portable ACs. Separate subsections address 
each component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new 
energy conservation standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet tool 
that provides shipments projections and calculates NES and NPV of total 
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy 
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer 
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are 
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/76. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the 
Energy Information Administration's (EIA)'s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 
for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products 
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available 
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology 
assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) A determination of the 
scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and 
industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments 
information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or 
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of portable 
ACs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized below. 
See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the 
market and technology assessment.
1. Definition and Scope of Coverage
    DOE conducted the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis based on the 
portable AC definition proposed in the February 2015 TP NOPR, which 
stated that a portable AC is an encased assembly, other than a 
``packaged terminal air conditioner,'' ``room air conditioner,'' or 
``dehumidifier,'' that is designed as a portable unit to deliver 
cooled, conditioned air to an enclosed space. A portable AC is powered 
by

[[Page 1392]]

single-phase power and may rest on the floor or elevated surface. It 
includes a source of refrigeration and may include additional means for 
air circulation and heating. 80 FR 10212, 10215 (Feb. 25, 2015).
    In the April 2016 Final Coverage Determination, DOE codified this 
definition at 10 CFR 430.2, with minor editorial revisions that did not 
modify the intent or scope of the definition:
    A portable encased assembly, other than a ``packaged terminal air 
conditioner,'' ``room air conditioner,'' or ``dehumidifier,'' that 
delivers cooled, conditioned air to an enclosed space, and is powered 
by single-phase electric current. It includes a source of refrigeration 
and may include additional means for air circulation and heating. 81 FR 
22514 (April 18, 2016).
    NAM requested clarification regarding what is considered a spot 
cooler and what products are covered under the energy conservation 
standards proposed in the June 2016 ECS NOPR. NAM stated that there are 
approximately five small business manufacturers in the U.S. that 
produce ``portable commercial ACs,'' which they consider to be niche 
products manufactured on a case-by-case basis. NAM suggested that these 
small business manufacturers are unsure if the test procedure is 
applicable to their products, as 90 to 95 percent of them operate on 
single-phase power, and are unsure as well if their products would be 
covered under the proposed energy conservation standards. Temp-Air 
commented that their products are intended for temporary applications 
and the usage environment for their products is different than those 
products currently under consideration. Temp-Air stated that its 
portable AC market share is less than 0.1 percent of DOE's annual 
projected portable AC shipments volume. Therefore, Temp-Air urged DOE 
to revise and clarify its portable AC definition to exclude single-
phase models destined for commercial industrial applications. NAM and 
Temp-Air commented that classifying these products as covered products 
obliges small business manufacturers to expend a significant amount of 
their research and development (R&D) budgets to save a limited amount 
of overall energy due to the low shipments volume. NAM and Temp-Air 
claimed that if the small business manufacturers' products are expected 
to meet the proposed conservation standards, these manufacturers will 
be unable to take on the additional costs and will close. (NAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 19-20, 110; Temp-Air, No. 45 at p. 1) 
During the July 2016 STD Public Meeting, DOE clarified that in the 
April 2016 Final Coverage Determination, DOE established a definition 
of all portable ACs that are considered to be covered products that 
could be subject to test procedures or standards. Under EPCA, a 
``consumer product'' is any article of a type that consumes, or is 
designed to consume, energy and which, to any significant extent, is 
distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals. 
(42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) EPCA further specifies that the definition of a 
consumer product applies without regard to whether the product is in 
fact distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by an 
individual. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(B)) DOE's definition of ``portable air 
conditioner'' excludes units that could normally not be used in a 
residential setting by including only those portable ACs that are 
powered by single-phase electric current. Thus, any product with 
single-phase power that otherwise meets the definition of a portable AC 
is a covered product, regardless of the manufacturer-intended 
application or installation location.
    However, DOE also clarified in the July 2016 STD Public Meeting 
that not every product that meets the definition of portable AC may be 
subject to DOE's test procedures and standards. As DOE explained, only 
those products that meet the definition of single-duct or dual-duct 
portable AC, as established in the June 2016 TP Final Rule, would be 
subject to the appendix CC test procedure and the standards proposed in 
the June 2016 ECS NOPR. DOE maintains this approach in this final rule, 
and establishes energy conservation standards only for products that 
meet the definition of single-duct or dual-duct portable AC as codified 
10 CFR 430.2
2. Product Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product 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 a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such 
factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors 
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
    Portable ACs recently became a covered product when DOE issued the 
April 2016 Final Coverage Determination on April 18, 2016, and 
therefore do not have existing energy conservation standards or product 
class divisions. 81 FR 22514.
a. Preliminary Analysis and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 
Proposals
    Following an evaluation of the portable AC market in preparation of 
the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis, DOE determined that there are 
three types of duct configurations that affect product performance: 
Single-duct, dual-duct, and spot cooler. DOE noted in the February 2015 
Preliminary Analysis that the DOE test procedure proposed in the 
February 2015 TP NOPR did not include measures of spot cooler 
performance, and, therefore, as discussed previously, DOE did not 
consider standards for spot coolers. See chapter 3 of the preliminary 
TSD for more information.
    DOE further evaluated if there was any consumer utility associated 
with the single-duct and dual-duct configurations under consideration. 
As detailed in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD, DOE investigated 
installation locations and noise levels, and found that duct 
configuration had no impact on either of these key consumer utility 
variables. Therefore, DOE determined in the February 2015 Preliminary 
Analysis that a single product class is appropriate for portable ACs.
    In the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE proposed to maintain the February 
2015 Preliminary Analysis approach, in which only single-duct and dual-
duct portable ACs would be considered for potential standards as one 
product class. For portable ACs that can be optionally configured in 
both single-duct and dual-duct configurations, DOE further proposed 
that operation in both duct configurations be certified under any 
future portable AC energy conservation standards. In the June 2016 TP 
Final Rule, DOE subsequently required that if a product is able to 
operate as both a single-duct and dual-duct portable AC as distributed 
in commerce by the manufacturer, it must be tested and rated for both 
duct configurations. 81 FR 35241, 35247 (June 1, 2016).
b. Comments and Responses
    ASAP, the Joint Commenters, and the California IOUs supported a 
single product class for portable ACs and agreed with DOE's conclusion 
that there is no consumer utility associated with duct configuration. 
The California IOUs further stated that although aesthetics is an 
important consumer utility, product images from several major online 
retailers (e.g., Best Buy, Home Depot, and Sears) typically do not 
display the ducts and therefore, duct configuration is likely not a 
major consideration for consumers when assessing the aesthetics of a 
portable AC unit. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at p.

[[Page 1393]]

37; Joint Commenters, No. 44 at p. 4-5; California IOUs, No. 42 at p. 
1)
    AHAM opposed a single product class for portable ACs and instead 
proposed that DOE define separate product classes for single-duct and 
dual-duct portable ACs. AHAM argued that dual-duct units are not as 
portable as single-duct units, primarily due to having two hoses 
instead of one. AHAM also noted that one hose is typically longer with 
a greater pressure drop, so a larger diameter hose is needed. (AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at p. 36; AHAM, No. 43 at p. 9)
    AHAM further asserted that a recent AHAM consumer survey showed 
that size and weight of a unit are important considerations for 
consumers, and that nearly seven of ten portable AC owners indicated 
that duct configuration was a key purchase factor. AHAM concluded from 
this survey that duct configuration does offer a unique consumer 
utility and therefore is a basis for separate product classes. (AHAM, 
No. 43 at p. 9)
    In addition to the consumer utility factors of installation 
locations and product noise, which DOE previously determined did not 
depend on duct configuration, DOE considered other factors raised by 
AHAM that could justify separate product classes for portable ACs based 
on duct configuration. For all units in its test sample, DOE observed 
that the ducts are similarly constructed from plastic in a collapsible 
design, and typically weigh approximately 1 pound, as compared to 
overall product weights ranging from 45 to 86 pounds. DOE also notes 
that all dual-duct units in its test sample had the same size and 
length ducts for the condenser inlet and exhaust ducts. DOE does not 
expect the minimal weight increase associated with a second duct to 
have a significant impact on consumer utility in terms of portability. 
Further, DOE has observed no consistent efficiency improvement 
associated with either single-duct or dual-duct portable ACs. 
Accordingly, duct configuration would not justify different standards. 
Therefore, DOE maintains the approach used in the February 2015 
Preliminary Analysis and June 2016 ECS NOPR and establishes a single 
product class for portable ACs in this final rule.
3. Technology Options
    In the preliminary market and technology assessment, DOE identified 
16 technology options in four different categories that would be 
expected to improve the efficiency of portable ACs, as measured by the 
DOE test procedure, shown in Table IV.1:

 Table IV.1--Technology Options for Portable Air Conditioners--February
                        2015 Preliminary Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Heat-Transfer Surface Area:
  1. Increased frontal coil area.
  2. Increased depth of coil (add tube rows).
  3. Increased fin density.
  4. Add subcooler to condenser coil.
Increased Heat-Transfer Coefficients:
  5. Improved fin design.
  6. Improved tube design.
  7. Spray condensate onto condenser coil.
  8. Microchannel heat exchangers.
Component Improvements:
  9. Improved compressor efficiency.
  10. Improved blower/fan efficiency.
  11. Low-standby-power electronic controls.
  12. Ducting insulation.
  13. Improved duct connections.
  14. Case insulation.
Part-Load Technology Improvements:
  15. Variable-speed compressors.
  16. Thermostatic or electronic expansion valves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE noted that propane refrigerant is 
widely used for portable ACs manufactured and sold internationally, and 
that R-32 is being introduced in some markets outside the U.S. for 
portable and room ACs, albeit primarily because it is has a low global 
warming potential (GWP). Based on this product availability and 
discussions with manufacturers, DOE included alternative refrigerants 
as a potential technology option in the technology assessment.
    DOE also noted in the June 2016 ECS NOPR that a potential means of 
improving portable AC efficiencies, air flow optimization, was not 
included as a technology option in the February 2015 Preliminary 
Analysis. DOE did, however, consider optimized air flow in the 
engineering analysis in the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis, and 
therefore further assessed optimized air flow as a technology option in 
the June 2016 ECS NOPR.
    Therefore, in addition to the technology options considered in the 
February 2015 Preliminary Analysis, DOE considered alternative 
refrigerants and air flow optimization in the June 2016 ECS NOPR, as 
shown in Table IV.2.

 Table IV.2--Technology Options for Portable Air Conditioners--June 2016
                            ECS NOPR Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Heat-Transfer Surface Area:
  1. Increased frontal coil area.
  2. Increased depth of coil (add tube rows).
  3. Increased fin density.
  4. Add subcooler to condenser coil.
Increased Heat-Transfer Coefficients:
  5. Improved fin design.
  6. Improved tube design.
  7. Spray condensate onto condenser coil.
  8. Microchannel heat exchangers.
Component Improvements:
  9. Improved compressor efficiency.
  10. Improved blower/fan efficiency.
  11. Low-standby-power electronic controls.
  12. Ducting insulation.
  13. Improved duct connections.
  14. Case insulation.
Part-Load Technology Improvements:
  15. Variable-speed compressors.
  16. Thermostatic or electronic expansion valves.
Alternative Refrigerants:
  17. Propane and R-32.
Reduced Infiltration Air:
  18. Air flow optimization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying all potential technology options for improving 
the efficiency of portable ACs, DOE performed a screening analysis (see 
section IV.B of this final rule and chapter 4 of the final rule TSD) to 
determine which technologies merited further consideration in the 
engineering analysis.

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing 
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the 
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the U.S. at the time, it will not be considered 
further.

[[Page 1394]]

    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b)
    In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of 
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it 
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis. The subsequent sections include comments from interested 
parties pertinent to the screening criteria and whether DOE determined 
that a technology option should be excluded (``screened out'') based on 
the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
Alternative Refrigerants
    The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) final rule, 
published by the U.S. EPA on April 10, 2015 (hereinafter the ``SNAP 
rule''), limits the maximum allowable charge of alternative 
refrigerants in portable ACs to 300 grams for R-290 (propane), 2.45 
kilograms for R-32, and 330 grams for R-441A. The SNAP rule limits were 
consistent with those included for portable room ACs in Underwriter's 
Laboratories (UL) Standard 484, ``Standard for Room Air Conditioners'' 
(UL 484), eighth edition. However, the most recent version of UL 484, 
the ninth edition, reduces the allowable amount of flammable 
refrigerant (e.g., propane and R-441A) to less than 40 percent of the 
SNAP limits. Manufacturers informed DOE that the new UL charge limits 
for propane and other flammable refrigerants in portable ACs are not 
sufficient for providing the necessary minimum cooling capacity, and 
therefore it would not be feasible to manufacture a portable AC with 
propane or R-441A for the U.S. market while complying with the UL 
safety standard. DOE reviewed propane refrigerant charges for portable 
ACs available internationally and found a typical charge of 300 grams. 
DOE also investigated other similar AC products that utilize propane 
refrigerant and found that the minimum charge for capacities in a range 
expected for portable ACs was 265 grams, which is still greater than 
the maximum allowable propane charge for portable ACs in the ninth 
edition of UL 484. Therefore, although portable ACs are currently 
available internationally with charge quantities of propane acceptable 
under the SNAP rule, manufacturers are unable to sell those products in 
the U.S. market while complying with the ninth edition of UL 484. 
Accordingly, in the June 2016 ECS NOPR DOE screened out propane and 
other flammable refrigerants as a design option for portable ACs as 
they would not be practicable to manufacture while meeting all relevant 
safety standards.
    AHAM agreed with DOE's determination that although portable ACs are 
currently available internationally with amounts of flammable 
refrigerants, such as propane, manufacturers are unable to sell those 
products in the U.S. market while complying with the ninth edition of 
UL 484. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 14)
    The California IOUs disagreed with DOE's decision to screen out 
alternative refrigerants as a technology option, because the most 
common refrigerant for portable air conditioners (R-410A) will likely 
be prohibited in California and Europe in favor of more efficient 
alternatives by the 2021 effective date, and the analysis in the June 
2016 ECS NOPR did not consider the likely state of the industry in 
2021. The California IOUs also suggested that DOE consider the 2016 
strategy proposal by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that is 
likely to push the industry towards more efficient refrigerants, such 
as R-32 and R-290. The California IOUs noted that this climate 
pollutant reduction strategy proposes to limit the 100-year GWP of 
refrigerants in portable ACs to 750, and would also be effective in 
2021. The proposal effectively prohibits the sale of portable ACs that 
use the R-410A refrigerant in California. The authors of the proposal 
note that AC refrigerants are likely to meet this requirement due to a 
fluorinated GHG regulation by the European Union (EU) and a White House 
Council on Environmental Quality pledge of $5 billion over the next 10 
years in research of low-GWP refrigerants for refrigerators and air 
conditioning equipment. The California IOUs noted that while the 2016 
CARB strategy is still in the proposal stage, the EU regulation will 
take effect in 2020, and Article 11 of this regulation prohibits 
placing on the market any ``movable room air-conditioning equipment'' 
that contains hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants with GWP of 150 or 
more. The regulation would likely prohibit both R-410A and R-32. The 
California IOUs stated that, in response, manufacturers such as De' 
Longhi and GREE have begun producing portable ACs using R-290, which is 
claimed to be 10 percent more efficient than its R-410A counterpart. 
(California IOUs, No. 42 at p. 3)
    The Joint Commenters stated that although DOE screened out propane 
due to the refrigerant charge limitations of the UL safety standards, 
UL certification has failed to become an industry standard for portable 
ACs, and TopTenReviews' list of the 10 best portable ACs of 2016 
includes four units that are not UL-certified. (Joint Commenters, No. 
44 at p. 3)
    DOE believes that UL certification is a key consumer protection 
program that ensures the operational safety of portable ACs. 
Manufacturers implementing propane in their portable ACs would not be 
able to receive UL certification for their products, which may result 
in significant adverse safety impacts. Accordingly, DOE continued to 
screen propane (R-290) from further consideration in this final rule 
analysis.
    In the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE noted that certain room ACs 
commercially available on the U.S. market utilize the mildly flammable 
R-32, but it was not aware of any portable ACs available in the U.S. 
market or on other markets that incorporate R-32. Because this 
technology has not been incorporated in commercial products or in 
working prototypes for portable ACs, DOE screened out R-32 refrigerant 
as a technology option.
    In response to the June 2016 ECS NOPR, AHAM agreed with DOE's 
proposal to screen out R-32 refrigerant because the UL standard, which 
is based on the elevation of the installed product and did not 
specifically assess use of R-32 in portable ACs that sit on the floor. 
AHAM and GE noted that the UL standard does not preclude, but also does 
not consider, the high pressure refrigeration system inside the room. 
Instead, it considers a compressor outside the room. Therefore, even if 
the UL safety standard currently does not preclude use of R-32 in 
portable ACs based on charge limits, these commenters urged DOE to 
further consider any safety concerns that might arise from a compressor 
and refrigeration system inside the room. AHAM also commented that 
efficiency gains associated with R-32 are currently unknown, and due to 
higher static pressure, the portable AC refrigeration system would need 
to be redesigned for the use of this refrigerant. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 
13-14; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 45-46)
    In response to the June 2016 ECS NOPR, other commenters generally 
stated that R-32 is a viable alternative refrigerant for portable ACs 
that would improve efficiency. ASAP and LG noted that the R-32 charge 
limit in UL 484 (approximately 1 kilogram) would not preclude use of R-
32 in portable ACs, and ASAP stated that one manufacturer claims a 10-
percent reduction in energy

[[Page 1395]]

use with R-32 as compared to R-410A for other similar products such as 
PTACs. ASAP, NRDC, and the Joint Commenters disagreed with DOE's 
decision to screen out R-32 as a viable technology option and urged DOE 
to include it in the final rule engineering analysis due to the 
expected increase in efficiency as compared to R-410A. The Joint 
Commenters stated that manufacturers claim a 10-percent reduction in 
energy use using R-32 in PTACs and that Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
(ORNL) found that R-32 demonstrates a 1 to 6-percent higher coefficient 
of performance across a range of test conditions compared to R-410A in 
mini-split ACs engineered for R-410A. The Joint Commenters further 
claimed, albeit without further supporting information, that portable 
ACs designed for R-32 should be capable of outperforming R-410A by an 
even higher margin. The California IOUs recommended that DOE consider 
certain non-U.S. models already utilizing the R-32 refrigerant, 
claiming that these models would meet both CARB and UL requirements. 
The California IOUs suggested that DOE test these models when 
determining the maximum observed efficiency level used for TSL 3. ASAP, 
NRDC, and the Joint Commenters further stated that, regardless of DOE's 
approach in the final rule, manufacturers would have the option of 
using R-32 as a way to improve portable AC efficiency and achieve the 
proposed energy conservation standards. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 11-12, 42-43; LG, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 39 at p. 45; NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at p. 43; 
Joint Commenters, No. 44 at pp. 3-4; California IOUs, No. 42 at p. 3)
    To evaluate the commenters' estimates of the reduction in energy 
use and increase in efficiency for R-32 as compared to R-410A and to 
identify any other performance impacts, DOE further investigated 
changes in performance associated with switching to R-32. As discussed 
in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD, DOE reviewed multiple studies and 
experiments conducted on other air conditioning products which 
suggested performance improvements when switching to R-32 ranging from 
2 to 5 percent for cooling capacity and 1 to 4 percent for efficiency, 
depending upon the test conditions. DOE notes that the models 
referenced by the California IOUs are not sold in the U.S., and 
therefore were not included in this rulemaking analysis.
    Nonetheless, because R-32 is a viable refrigerant based on the UL 
safety requirements and because the information provided by interested 
parties and described in various studies consistently indicate 
performance improvements through the use of this refrigerant, in this 
final rule DOE maintained R-32 as a potential design option for 
improving portable AC efficiency.
Duct Insulation
    In the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis, DOE identified duct 
insulation as a potential means for improving portable AC efficiency, 
as less heat from the condenser air would be transferred through the 
duct wall and would instead be transferred out of the conditioned 
space. During interviews, manufacturers indicated that they have 
considered insulated ducts to improve performance but have not 
identified any insulated ducts that are collapsible for packaging and 
shipping. No portable AC in DOE's teardown sample for the engineering 
analysis included insulated ducts. In the absence of a collapsible 
design, such an insulated duct would need to be packaged for shipment 
in its fully expanded configuration, significantly increasing the 
package size. Because of this significantly increased packaging size 
for non-collapsible insulated ducts and unavailability on the market of 
collapsible designs, DOE determined that insulated ducts are not 
technologically feasible, are impractical to manufacture and install, 
and would impact consumer utility. Therefore, DOE screened out 
insulated ducts as a design option for portable ACs in the February 
2015 Preliminary Analysis and in the June 2016 ECS NOPR.
    AHAM agreed with DOE's assessment of duct insulation, because 
incorporating such a design option would significantly increase 
shipping costs and weight of the product, and could also cause it to be 
more difficult for consumers to install and eventually store the 
product in the off season. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 12)
2. Additional Comments
    AHAM noted that DOE modeled and considered only four of the sixteen 
retained design options in the engineering analysis and provided 
reasons for not modeling seven other design options that were retained 
from the screening analysis. AHAM argued that the retention of these 
seven design options is not justified if they are not used in the 
engineering analysis for the various reasons provided in the June 2016 
ECS NOPR and STD NOPR TSD. AHAM proposed that DOE remove the design 
options that were not considered in the June 2016 ECS NOPR engineering 
analysis. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 9-10)
    In the market and technology assessment, DOE identifies all 
technology options that may increase portable AC efficiency. The 
screening analysis eliminates certain technology options from further 
consideration based on the four criteria outlined at 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b). Any technology options meeting 
the four criteria are considered in the engineering analysis. However, 
DOE does not necessarily incorporate all of the retained technologies 
in developing the cost-efficiency relationship. Any technology options 
meeting the screening criteria but not included as a means to improve 
efficiency in the engineering analysis are discussed further in section 
IV.C of this document.
Increased Heat-Transfer Surface Area
    In the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE considered increased heat exchanger 
area as a technology option that passed the screening analysis and was 
implemented in the engineering analysis as a design approach for 
reaching higher efficiency levels. DOE considered up to a 20-percent 
heat exchanger area increase and determined that the associated 
increase in weight and case size would not significantly impact 
consumer utility.
    The Joint Commenters agreed with DOE's conclusion that all 
available data suggest that heat exchanger areas can be increased by 20 
percent and represents a significant improvement to the analysis to 
better capture the full range of potential efficiency improvements. 
(Joint Commenters, No. 44 at p. 5)
    AHAM disagreed with DOE's assertion that ability to move, install, 
or store the product would not be impacted if the case dimensions were 
to change to accommodate a 20 percent larger heat exchanger. AHAM 
argued that an increased heat exchanger size would increase the overall 
case size and increase weight, thereby impacting consumer utility by 
making the product more difficult to move from room to room and, 
particularly, up and down stairs. AHAM therefore urged DOE to remove 
increased heat exchanger area from the design approaches to reach 
higher efficiency levels and screen out this technology option. AHAM 
also commented that, although DOE did not indicate how much weight an 
increased heat exchanger might add to a product, AHAM determined from 
data gathered by its members that a heat exchanger area increase 
associated with a 4,000 Btu/h capacity increase would correlate to an 
average product weight increase of 16.6 pounds. AHAM further suggested 
that current portable ACs are already

[[Page 1396]]

pushing the limits of a ``single lift'' product, and further increases 
in the size and weight could push the product from being a ``single 
lift'' to a ``dual lift'' product, which would impact portability. AHAM 
concluded that because consumers will likely not accept increased size 
and/or weight, DOE should screen out increased heat exchanger area as a 
technology option and should not use it as a design option in its 
analysis of higher efficiency levels. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 39 at pp. 44-45, 72; AHAM, No. 43 at p. 17)
    As discussed in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD, DOE does not 
expect that the increase in heat exchanger size, and the resulting 
increases in case size and weight, would impact product portability. In 
addition to noting that all portable ACs equipped with wheels, which 
assist in changing locations on the same floor, DOE found the typical 
unit weight increase would be limited to about 6 percent, or less than 
5 pounds, at the maximum heat exchanger size increase of 20 percent, 
which did not result in any units in DOE's test sample requiring 
additional lifting assistance compared to what would already be 
required with the currently reported unit weight. Additional detail can 
be found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. DOE also notes that the 
heat exchanger size increases do not necessarily affect the depth of 
the product case, typically a portable AC's smallest dimension, and 
would not preclude any units with this technology option from fitting 
through doorways, hallways, or stairwells.
    For these reasons, DOE retained the technology option of a 20-
percent heat exchanger area increase in the final rule screening 
analysis.
Air Flow Optimization
    As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this document, in the June 2016 
ECS NOPR DOE noted that a potential means of improving portable AC 
efficiencies, air flow optimization, was not included as a technology 
option in the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis. DOE did, however, 
consider optimized air flow in the engineering analysis in the February 
2015 Preliminary Analysis, and therefore further assessed optimized air 
flow and included it as a technology option in the June 2016 ECS NOPR.
    AHAM requested that DOE define ``optimized airflow'' and 
demonstrate a specific efficiency improvement that corresponds to it; 
otherwise, AHAM asserted, this design option is too uncertain and 
should be screened out. AHAM suggested that if optimized airflow means 
reducing the flow over the condenser, that approach would be a safety 
concern for single-duct units, as the condenser must to be cooled for 
safe operation of the unit. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 14)
    Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD explains that optimized airflow refers to 
the reduction of infiltration air. Further, the optimized airflow 
technology option satisfies all four of the screening criteria, and it 
was therefore further considered in the final rule engineering 
analysis. However, as discussed in section IV.C of this document, DOE 
has determined that manufacturers would likely not rely on optimized 
airflow to improve portable AC efficiency because of the limited impact 
on performance under the test procedures in appendix CC.
3. Remaining Technologies
    Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the 
other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.3 of this document 
met all four screening criteria to be examined further as design 
options in DOE's final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen 
out the following technology options, as shown in Table IV.3:

   Table IV.3--Remaining Design Options for Portable Air Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Heat-Transfer Surface Area:
  1. Increased frontal coil area.
  2. Increased depth of coil (add tube rows).
  3. Increased fin density.
  4. Add subcooler to condenser coil.
Increased Heat-Transfer Coefficients:
  5. Improved fin design.
  6. Improved tube design.
  7. Spray condensate onto condenser coil.
  8. Microchannel heat exchangers.
Component Improvements:
  9. Improved compressor efficiency.
  10. Improved blower/fan efficiency.
  11. Low-standby-power electronic controls.
  12. Improved duct connections.
  13. Case insulation.
Part-Load Technology Improvements:
  14. Variable-speed compressors.
  15. Thermostatic or electronic expansion valves.
Reduced Infiltration Air:
  16. Air flow optimization.
Alternative Refrigerants:
  17. R-32.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE determined that these technology options are technologically 
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in 
commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds 
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening 
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do 
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product 
availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4 
of the final rule TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

    In the engineering analysis, DOE establishes the relationship 
between the manufacturer production cost (MPC) and improved portable AC 
efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit 
calculations for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. 
DOE typically structures the engineering analysis using one of three 
approaches: (1) Design option, (2) efficiency level, or (3) reverse 
engineering (or cost assessment). The design-option approach involves 
adding the estimated cost and associated efficiency of various 
efficiency-improving design changes to the baseline product to model 
different levels of efficiency. The efficiency-level approach uses 
estimates of costs and efficiencies of products available on the market 
at distinct efficiency levels to develop the cost-efficiency 
relationship. The reverse-engineering approach involves testing 
products for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed bill of 
materials (BOM) derived from reverse engineering representative 
products. The efficiency ranges from that of the least-efficient 
portable AC sold today (i.e., the baseline) to the maximum 
technologically feasible efficiency level. At each efficiency level 
examined, DOE determines the MPC; this relationship is referred to as a 
cost-efficiency curve.
    In the preliminary engineering analysis, DOE used a hybrid approach 
of the design-option and reverse-engineering approaches described 
above. This approach involved physically disassembling commercially 
available products, reviewing publicly available cost information, and 
modeling equipment cost. From this information, DOE estimated the MPCs 
for a range of products available at that time on the market. DOE then 
considered the steps manufacturers would likely take to improve product 
efficiencies. In its analysis, DOE determined that manufacturers would 
likely rely on certain design options to reach higher efficiencies. 
From this information, DOE estimated the cost and efficiency impacts of 
incorporating specific design options at each efficiency level.
    In the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE followed the same general approach 
as for the preliminary engineering analysis, but modified the analysis 
based on the test procedure for portable ACs in appendix CC, comments 
from interested parties, and the most current available information.

[[Page 1397]]

    For this final rule, DOE largely maintained the approach from the 
NOPR, with slight modifications to incorporate feedback from interested 
parties and further refinements to the engineering analysis. This 
section provides more detail on the development of efficiency levels 
and determination of MPCs in the final rule engineering analysis.
1. Efficiency Levels
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    A baseline unit typically just meets current energy conservation 
standards and provides basic consumer utility. Because there are no 
existing energy conservation standards for portable ACs, DOE observed 
whether units tested with lower efficiencies incorporated similar 
design options or features, and considered these features when defining 
a baseline configuration. To determine energy savings that will result 
from a new energy conservation standard, DOE compares energy use at 
each of the higher efficiency levels to the energy consumption of the 
baseline unit. Similarly, to determine the changes in price to the 
consumer that will result from an energy conservation standard, DOE 
compares the price of a unit at each higher efficiency level to the 
price of a unit at the baseline.
    DOE noted in chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis TSD that the air 
flow pattern through a portable AC has a significant effect on measured 
cooling capacity and energy efficiency ratio, as determined according 
to test method proposed in the February 2015 Test Procedure NOPR (the 
current proposal at the time of the preliminary analysis). For units 
that draw air from the conditioned space over the condenser and then 
exhaust it outside of the conditioned space, an equivalent amount of 
infiltration air must enter the conditioned space due to the net 
negative pressure differential that is created between the conditioned 
and unconditioned spaces. Because the test conditions proposed in the 
February 2015 Test Procedure NOPR specify that infiltration air would 
be at a higher temperature than the conditioned air, the infiltration 
air offsets a portion of the cooling provided by the portable AC. The 
greater the amount of infiltration air, the lower the overall cooling 
capacity will be. Based on the measured condenser exhaust air flow 
rates and the corresponding calculated magnitudes of the infiltration 
air heating effect, DOE determined in the February 2015 Preliminary 
Analysis that single-duct units (i.e., units that draw all of the 
condenser intake air from within the conditioned space and exhaust to 
the unconditioned space via a duct) would represent the baseline 
efficiency level for portable ACs.
    After the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis, DOE established the 
portable AC test procedure in appendix CC, which incorporates two 
cooling mode test conditions and weighting factors to determine overall 
performance. Because the additional test condition is at a lower 
outdoor temperature and has a significantly larger weighting factor 
than the original test condition, the impact of infiltration air on 
overall performance is greatly reduced. Therefore, the approach of 
considering a baseline unit to be a single-duct portable AC with 
typical system components was no longer valid. DOE instead pursued an 
alternate analysis approach in the June 2016 ECS NOPR, which utilized 
the results from all units in DOE's test sample, including 24 portable 
ACs (one test sample was tested in both a single-duct and dual-duct 
configuration) covering a range of configurations, product capacities, 
and efficiency as tested according the DOE test procedure in appendix 
CC.
    DOE developed a relationship between cooling mode power and SACC, 
which is a measure of cooling capacity that weights the performance at 
each of the cooling mode test conditions in appendix CC, using a best 
fit power curve. DOE then used this relationship to develop an equation 
to determine nominal CEER for a given SACC based on the results of 
DOE's testing according to the test procedure in appendix CC, shown 
below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.010

    In the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE then assessed the relative 
efficiency of each unit in the test sample by comparing the measured 
CEER from testing to the nominal CEER as defined by the equation above 
(DOE will refer to this ratio of actual CEER to nominal CEER as the 
performance ratio (PR) for a given unit). DOE proposed to define 
baseline performance as a PR of 0.72, which is based on the minimum PR 
observed for units in the test sample. Additional details on the 
baseline units are in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
    AHAM objected to the methodology used to determine the baseline 
level proposed in the June 2016 ECS NOPR, stating that the limited data 
sample was not representative of the minimum performance of products on 
the market and that it would have been able to provide test data on a 
wide range of products if the test procedure had been finalized 
earlier. Nonetheless, AHAM stated that the combined DOE and newly 
developed AHAM data set suggests that DOE's proposed baseline level is 
reasonable. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 4, 14)
    During the July 2016 STD Public Meeting and in a subsequent request 
for data and information submitted to DOE on July 21, 2016,\20\ AHAM 
requested the R value and R squared value for the regression curve used 
to develop the nominal CEER equation in the June 2016 ECS NOPR. (AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at p. 72) AHAM additionally submitted 
a supplemental request for data and information on July 27, 2016, in 
which it requested the raw tested and modeled data used to perform the 
CEER and SACC calculations for all 24 units in DOE's test sample.\21\ 
DOE provided the R value (0.7420) and R squared value (0.6424) in the 
DOE response memo, which was accompanied by files containing the 
requested data for all of DOE's test units. Although AHAM further 
sought to obtain model numbers for units in the test sample to 
ascertain how representative DOE's 24 test units were of the U.S. 
market, DOE identified test units only by sample number in order to 
maintain confidentiality of the results. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 4, 14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ AHAM's July 21, 2016 request for data and information can 
be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033-0029.
    \21\ AHAM's July 27, 2016 supplemental request for data and 
information can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM also expressed concern that DOE did not appear to have run a 
complete test using the final test procedure and instead relied on a 
significant amount of modeled data. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 4) As discussed 
in the June 2016 ECS NOPR and during the July 2016 STD Public Meeting, 
all

[[Page 1398]]

product capacities and efficiencies considered for the June 2016 ECS 
NOPR analysis were consistent with the appendix CC test procedures. 
Additionally, modeling was not required to determine the performance of 
the 18 single-duct portable ACs in DOE's test sample. DOE modeled the 
performance of the seven dual-duct portable ACs at the lower 
temperature test condition required in appendix CC.
    After the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis, AHAM compiled additional 
test data from its members for 22 portable ACs whose results are listed 
in Table IV.4. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 3, 5-6)

                                                            Table IV.4--AHAM Member Test Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Tested CEER                      Cooling power
                      Unit                                   Configuration                (Btu/Wh)       SACC (Btu/h)         (W)               PR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.81          6507.57           807.75             0.91
E...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.88          6950.00           846.00             0.90
J...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             6.82          8242.83           861.75             0.98
D...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             4.75          4033.24           579.71             0.90
H...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             4.46          4737.80           740.13             0.79
S...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             6.27          7692.11           854.25             0.92
G...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             6.47          8152.20           879.26             0.93
C...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.00          5159.80           636.00             0.86
K...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.20          6702.80           790.50             0.81
N...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.50          8334.20           958.50             0.78
P...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             6.50          9393.00           971.25             0.88
B...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             6.78          6687.50           990.00             1.05
L...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.48          3411.44           581.10             1.11
F...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.97          4474.20           988.90             1.09
M...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.46          6836.43          1206.00             0.84
R...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.01          7031.25          1238.00             0.76
Q...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             4.79          6371.60          1281.00             0.76
O...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.21          5362.36           914.00             0.88
T...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             5.63          5324.20           869.00             0.96
W...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             6.35          7012.40          1031.00             0.97
Z...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             6.17          8190.80          1253.00             0.89
U...............................................  Single-Duct.......................             6.28          8854.60          1312.00             0.87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM analyzed the combined sample set of its and DOE's data, 
totaling 47 units, to determine the best-fit power regression, a new 
nominal CEER equation (shown below), and the relative efficiency of 
each unit in the combined test sample by comparing the measured CEER 
from testing to the new nominal CEER. AHAM confirmed DOE's conclusion 
in the June 2016 ECS NOPR that efficiency would typically increase with 
capacity, but estimated different coefficients in the nominal CEER 
equation. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 3, 5-6)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.011

    In conducting this final rule engineering analysis, DOE included 
the data supplied by AHAM and also reassessed its own test data and 
performance modeling. DOE corrected minor errors in its test data and 
more accurately represented the modeled performance of dual-duct units 
operating at the lower 83 [deg]F test condition. For those units where 
the user manual clearly states that the fan operates continuously 
during off-cycle mode, DOE included the off-cycle mode power in this 
final rule analysis.
    For the final rule, DOE updated the relationship between cooling 
mode power and SACC and the subsequent nominal CEER equation to reflect 
the revised set of test and modeled data. The resulting updated nominal 
CEER equation is shown below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.012

    DOE reassessed the PRs for each unit and found the baseline value 
to be 0.67, which is the minimum PR observed in the combined test 
sample. Although this baseline PR value is lower than the value of 0.72 
presented in the June 2016 ECS NOPR, applying the new value to the 
updated nominal CEER curve results in a baseline efficiency level curve 
for this final rule that closely matches the baseline efficiency level 
analyzed in the June 2016 ECS NOPR. Additional details on the baseline 
units efficiency level are included in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.
b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels
    DOE develops incremental efficiency levels based on the design 
options manufacturers would likely use to improve portable AC 
efficiency. While certain technology options identified in Table IV.1 
of this final rule and discussed in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD 
meet all the screening criteria and may produce energy savings in 
certain real-world situations, DOE did not further consider each of 
them in the engineering analysis because specific efficiency gains were 
either not clearly

[[Page 1399]]

defined or the DOE test procedure would not capture those potential 
improvements. Such technology options that were not considered are: (1) 
Adding a subcooler or condenser coil, (2) increasing the heat transfer 
coefficients, (3) improving duct connections, (4) improving case 
insulation, (5) implementing part-load technologies, and (6) 
substituting R-32 for the commonly used R-410A refrigerant. Further 
discussion of these technology options and the reasons why DOE 
tentatively concluded that they would be unlikely to be implemented to 
improve efficiency can be found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.
i. June 2016 Standards NOPR Proposal
    In the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis, DOE conducted its 
engineering analysis, including defining efficiency levels, assuming 
that manufacturers would rely on airflow optimization to improve 
portable AC efficiencies. However, for the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis, 
DOE updated the efficiency levels to reflect performance based on 
appendix CC, which was different from the proposed test procedure that 
was the basis of the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis. Appendix CC 
includes a second cooling mode outdoor test condition for dual-duct 
units and infiltration air conditions for both single-duct and dual-
duct units. The CEER metric for both single-duct and dual-duct units 
includes a weighted-average measure of performance at the two cooling 
mode test conditions, along with measures of energy use in standby and 
off modes. Appendix CC does not include provisions proposed in the 
February 2015 TP NOPR for measuring case heat transfer.
    As discussed in the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis, although 
the initial test procedure proposal included a CEER metric that 
combined energy use in cooling mode, heating mode, and various low-
power modes, the preliminary analysis was conducted using cooling mode 
energy efficiency ratio (EERcm) as the basis for energy 
conservation standards because cooling is the primary function for 
portable ACs, and DOE expected that manufacturers would likely focus on 
improving efficiency in this mode to achieve higher CEERs. Because 
appendix CC does not include a heating mode test and includes a second 
cooling mode test condition, the CEER metric as codified combines the 
performance at both cooling mode test conditions with energy use in the 
low-power modes. Accordingly, DOE utilized CEER as the basis for its 
proposed portable AC energy conservation standards in the June 2016 ECS 
NOPR. DOE also based the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis on the SACC 
measured in appendix CC, a weighted average of the adjusted cooling 
capacities at the two cooling mode test conditions.
    The two cooling mode test conditions in appendix CC are weighted 
based on the percentage of annual hours for each test condition, on 
average, for geographical locations that correspond to expected 
portable AC ownership. The majority (80 percent) of the total hours 
were estimated to relate to the lower of the two outdoor temperatures, 
83 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) dry-bulb. Because at this lower outdoor 
temperature, there is only a 3 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature differential 
and subsequent 0.38 Btu per pounds of dry air enthalpy differential 
between the indoor and outdoor air, the potential impact of 
infiltration air heating effects on the overall CEER metric is 
substantially reduced. For this reason, DOE found no significant 
relationship between duct configuration or air flow optimization and 
improved efficiency, and therefore alternatively considered component 
efficiency improvements as the primary means to increase CEER in the 
June 2016 ECS NOPR engineering analysis. Accordingly, in the June 2016 
ECS NOPR, DOE defined its efficiency levels, other than the max-tech, 
based on the performance observed in its test sample, independent of 
duct configuration or level of air flow optimization.
    As discussed previously in section IV.C.1.a, in the June 2016 ECS 
NOPR, DOE characterized and compared performance among all portable ACs 
in its test sample and determined a relationship between SACC and a 
general representation of expected CEER. DOE then assessed individual 
unit performance relative to this nominal CEER relationship and 
identified a baseline efficiency level at PR = 0.72, with PR defined as 
the ratio of actual CEER to nominal CEER.
    For Efficiency Level 2 (EL 2), DOE determined the PR that 
corresponded to the maximum available efficiency across a full range of 
capacities (1.14), and then selected an intermediate Efficiency Level 1 
(EL 1) based on a PR between the baseline and EL 2 (0.94). For 
Efficiency Level 3 (EL 3), DOE identified the PR for the single highest 
efficiency unit observed in its test sample (1.31).
    Due to the variations in performance among units in DOE's test 
sample, DOE conducted additional performance modeling to augment its 
test data when estimating efficiency and manufacturing costs at each 
efficiency level. DOE numerically modeled component improvements for 
each of the 21 out of 24 test units for which detailed component 
information were available to estimate potential efficiency 
improvements to existing product configurations. The component 
improvements were performed in three steps for each unit.
    The first incremental improvement for each unit included a 10-
percent increase in heat exchanger frontal area and raising the 
compressor energy efficiency ratio (EER) to 10.5 Btu/Wh, the maximum 
compressor efficiency identified at the time of the February 2015 
Preliminary Analysis.
    The second incremental component efficiency improvement step for 
each unit included a 15-percent increase in heat exchanger frontal area 
from the original test unit and an improvement in compressor efficiency 
to an EER of 11.1 Btu/Wh, which DOE identified as the maximum 
efficiency for currently available single-speed R-410A rotary 
compressors of the type typically found in portable ACs and other 
similar products. As with the 10-percent heat exchanger area increase, 
DOE expected that a chassis size and weight increase would be necessary 
to fit a 15-percent increased heat exchanger, but concluded that 
portability and consumer utility would not be significantly impacted.
    DOE included all available design options in the third efficiency 
improvement step for each unit, including a 20-percent increase in heat 
exchanger frontal area from the original test unit, more efficient 
electronically commutated motor (ECM) blower motor(s), and a variable-
speed compressor with an EER of 13.7 Btu/Wh. DOE concluded that a 20-
percent increase in heat exchanger size was the maximum allowable 
increase for consumer utility and portability to be retained, as 
discussed in section IV.B.2 of this document. DOE also improved standby 
controls efficiency in this final step, adjusting the standby power for 
each test unit to the minimum observed standby power of 0.46 watts (W) 
in its test sample. With these design options modeled for units in its 
test sample, DOE found that the single, theoretical maximum-achievable 
efficiency among all modeled units corresponded to a PR of 1.75, which 
DOE defined as Efficiency Level 4 (EL 4).
    Table IV.5 summarizes the specific improvements DOE considered when 
modeling the performance of higher efficiency design options applied to 
each test unit in the June 2016 ECS NOPR. Depending on the unit, these 
design options could be associated with

[[Page 1400]]

different efficiency levels above the baseline.

                         Table IV.5--Component Improvements Summary--June 2016 ECS NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Standby
  Heat exchanger area (% increase)      Compressor EER  (Btu/Wh)         Blower motor (type)          (watts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10%.................................  10.5 (single-speed).........  (\1\).......................  ..............
15%.................................  11.1 (single-speed).........  ............................  ..............
20%.................................  13.7 (variable-speed).......  ECM (variable-speed)........            0.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No blower motor or standby power changes were applied to the first two incremental steps.

    In the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE analyzed efficiency levels according 
to the original nominal CEER equation previously discussed and the PR 
values listed in Table IV.6:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.013


 Table IV.6--Portable Air Conditioner Efficiency Levels and Performance
                       Ratios--June 2016 ECS NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Efficiency level       Performance
        Efficiency level               description          ratio  (PR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................  Minimum Observed.......            0.72
EL 1...........................  Intermediate Level.....            0.94
EL 2...........................  Maximum Available for              1.14
                                  All Capacities.
EL 3...........................  Maximum Observed.......            1.31
EL 4...........................  Max-Tech (Maximum of               1.75
                                  Modeled Component
                                  Improvements).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure IV.1 plots each efficiency level curve for SACCs from 50 to 
10,000 Btu/h, based on the June 2016 ECS NOPR nominal CEER curve scaled 
by the PR assigned to each efficiency level.

[[Page 1401]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.014

    Additional details on the selection of efficiency levels in the 
June 2016 ECS NOPR may be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
ii. June 2016 Standards NOPR Comments and Responses
Variable Speed Compressors
    ASAP and the Joint Commenters agreed with DOE's consideration of 
variable-speed compressors in the STD NOPR analysis and agreed that 
they can improve both part-load and full-load efficiency. (ASAP, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 72; Joint Commenters, No. 44 at p. 5) 
The California IOUs supported the inclusion of variable-speed 
compressors as a technology option and, although DOE was unable to 
identify any portable AC models that utilize variable-speed 
compressors, they suggested that DOE consider models, such as the 
Climax VS12. (California IOUs, No. 42 at p. 2)
    AHAM noted that the test procedure proposed at the time of the June 
2016 ECS NOPR would not capture any efficiency gains associated with 
implementing a variable-speed compressor for single-duct units, as 
there is no part-load requirement for single-duct portable ACs and the 
test is conducted at one temperature. AHAM therefore suggested that DOE 
not consider variable-speed compressors for single-duct portable ACs in 
the engineering analysis. AHAM suggested that the burden and costs of 
implementing a variable-speed compressor for portable ACs would 
outweigh the efficiency gains and it would also lead to larger and 
heavier enclosures (20-percent larger chassis). AHAM also stated that 
manufacturers would need to use inverter controls that are costly and 
would also require an electronic expansion valve to modulate 
refrigerant flow differently as compared to a single-speed compressor, 
both of which are costly design options. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 13)
    DOE included variable-speed compressors as a design option in the 
June 2016 ECS NOPR because of their high efficiency during continuous 
operation, and not for their part-load capability. As discussed in 
chapter 5 of the June 2016 ECS NOPR TSD, DOE modeled each test unit 
with a variable-speed compressor with an EER of 13.7 Btu/Wh, 
representative of the maximum available compressor efficiency for the 
capacity range appropriate for portable ACs. This EER is consistent 
with the EER of the compressor used in the Climax VS12 unit identified 
by the California IOUs. DOE's estimates for efficiency improvements in 
the June 2016 ECS NOPR were based on the maximum operational efficiency 
and did not consider part-load efficiency gains. Therefore, DOE's 
consideration of variable-speed compressors is appropriate for both 
single-duct and dual-duct portable ACs in this final rule analysis. In 
addition, DOE's analysis accounted for the higher costs when 
incorporating variable-speed compressors, including their more costly 
controls. DOE also modeled larger case sizes that would accommodate 
larger heat exchangers, and the larger case sizes would also 
accommodate variable-speed compressors and their associated components.
Improved Compressor Efficiency and Availability
    AHAM agreed with DOE's assessment of inertia and scroll 
compressors, stating that implementing these compressors would 
significantly affect portability and consumer utility of the product. 
AHAM noted that a portable AC is used entirely inside a home with no 
portion

[[Page 1402]]

of the portable AC located outside, and therefore, noise and vibration 
may be a concern for a more efficient compressor that would be noisier, 
larger, and more costly to implement. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 11)
    Consistent with the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis, DOE did not 
consider inertia or scroll compressors in developing the final rule 
efficiency analysis.
    AHAM commented that determining the sizes of compressors available 
in the future for portable ACs may be difficult considering that 
manufacturers may begin developing compressors for alternative 
refrigerants. AHAM therefore suggested that DOE determine the future 
availability of current compressors through discussions with compressor 
manufacturers. AHAM agreed with DOE's assessment that moving to EL 3 or 
EL 4 would force manufacturers to remove certain portable AC cooling 
capacities from the market due to compressor availability being driven 
by room ACs. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 11, 17)
    The Joint Commenters suggested that DOE's concerns regarding the 
availability of high-efficiency compressors to meet higher efficiency 
levels are unwarranted. They noted that because portable ACs are a 
newly covered product, the lead time between the publication of the 
final rule and the compliance date will be 5 years, and therefore, 
manufacturers and component suppliers, including compressor 
manufacturers, will have 5 years to develop new products and 
components. The Joint Commenters further noted that the markets for 
both room ACs and dehumidifiers will likely drive increased production 
of high-efficiency compressors, especially because the next room AC 
standard is scheduled to take effect no later than 2022 and DOE is 
funding a project conducted by ORNL in partnership with GE to develop a 
13 EER room AC. The Joint Commenters also noted that dehumidifiers use 
similar components as portable ACs and a new ENERGY STAR specification 
for dehumidifiers that will take effect later this year is likely to 
drive increased compressor efficiencies. The Joint Commenters asserted 
that available compressor efficiencies typically increase over time, as 
seen in the recent room AC rulemaking, and it is therefore reasonable 
to expect that the available efficiencies of both single-speed and 
variable-speed compressors will increase in the years before a portable 
AC standard takes effect. The Joint Commenters concluded that the long 
lead time before the portable AC standard would take effect, along with 
multiple market drivers, would ensure adequate availability of high-
efficiency compressors to meet higher efficiency levels. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 44 at pp. 1-3)
    DOE conducts its analyses based on currently available information. 
Accordingly, DOE has analyzed compressor efficiencies for compressors 
currently available to manufacturers. While the highest efficiency 
single-speed and variable-speed compressors are available in the 
appropriate capacity range for portable ACs, the number of models and 
different capacities available may not be sufficient to cover the 
entire range of portable AC capacities a manufacturer would include in 
its product line. The 5-year period prior to compliance with the 
standards established in this final rule may allow compressor 
manufacturers sufficient time to develop components and products for a 
range of efficiencies. However, as stated in the June 2016 ECS NOPR, 
compressor availability for portable ACs is largely driven by the room 
AC market. Compressors optimized for room AC operation are not 
necessarily optimal for portable ACs. Therefore, DOE maintains its 
concerns regarding availability of the highest efficiency single-speed 
and variable-speed compressors for portable ACs, and took these 
concerns into account when establishing the standards in this final 
rule.
Case Insulation
    In chapter 5 of the June 2016 ECS NOPR TSD, DOE concluded that 
adding insulation to the product case would result in little or no 
improvement compared to existing product cases. Because heat transfer 
through the case has a minimal impact on overall cooling capacity, the 
test procedure adopted in appendix CC does not include a measurement of 
case heat transfer.
    AHAM proposed that because DOE is not aware of any portable ACs 
that use additional case insulation, it should be removed as a 
technology option due to the lack of data. AHAM observed that DOE did 
not include a measure of case heat transfer in the CEER metric in 
appendix CC because DOE concluded it was insignificant, and therefore 
any energy savings would not be captured by the test procedure and 
would have no impact on the standards analysis. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 12)
    DOE identified case insulation as a technology option because it 
may improve the efficiency of portable ACs when operated in the field, 
albeit by a small amount. This technology option satisfies all four of 
the screening analysis criteria, and was therefore retained in the 
screening analysis and considered in the engineering analysis. However, 
case insulation was not considered as a means manufacturers would 
likely use to improve efficiency in the June 2016 ECS NOPR engineering 
analysis due to its insignificant impact on capacity. DOE adopts that 
same approach in this final rule.
Improved Duct Connections and Airflow Optimization
    In chapter 5 of the June 2016 ECS NOPR TSD, DOE noted that no units 
in the test sample provided additional sealing in the duct connections. 
DOE, therefore, lacked information regarding leakage rates and 
potential savings associated with reducing condenser air leakage to the 
room, and did not further consider the improvements associated with 
improved duct connections in the June 2016 ECS NOPR.
    The Joint Commenters noted that while DOE was unable to incorporate 
improved duct connections as a technology option in the June 2016 ECS 
NOPR engineering analysis due to lack of data, manufacturers may be 
able to improve duct connections as a way to improve efficiency. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 44 at p. 4)
    AHAM commented that it has no information regarding the heat 
impacts of air leakage at the duct connections and, based on DOE's own 
assessment and lack of data, proposed that DOE remove this as a design 
option. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 12)
    DOE notes that although duct connections were not ultimately 
implemented to reach higher efficiency levels in the June 2016 ECS NOPR 
engineering analysis, this technology option satisfies all four of the 
screening analysis criteria and was therefore retained in the screening 
analysis and considered in the engineering analysis. DOE adopts that 
same approach in this final rule.
Improved Standby Controls
    In chapter 5 of the June 2016 ECS NOPR TSD, DOE discussed improved 
standby efficiency as a component improvement in the engineering 
analysis.
    AHAM asserted that there is no substantial gain from improving 
standby power of electronic controls in terms of improving efficiency 
and therefore proposed that DOE remove it as a technology option as 
there will be an insignificant impact when compared to overall portable 
AC energy consumption. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 11)
    DOE observes that improved standby power would positively impact 
CEER, and the impact would be measurable,

[[Page 1403]]

albeit small, under appendix CC. Because appendix CC can quantify the 
effect of improved standby power and because DOE observed this design 
option in use in its test sample, DOE considered it in the June 2016 
ECS NOPR engineering analysis and in this final rule. Further, DOE 
notes that EPCA requires that DOE address standby mode and off mode 
energy use in its energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(3))
Microchannel Heat Exchangers
    In the chapter 5 of the June 2016 ECS NOPR TSD, DOE concluded that 
because portable ACs already include many design options to improve 
heat transfer in the evaporator and condenser, and because it lacked 
information on the potential efficiency gains with microchannel heat 
exchangers, microchannel heat exchangers were not considered in the 
engineering analysis as a design option to reach increased portable AC 
efficiencies. DOE expected that manufacturers would most likely rely on 
increased heat exchanger cross sectional areas to improve heat transfer 
and increase efficiencies.
    AHAM agreed with DOE and further stated that microchannel heat 
exchangers do not work well for portable ACs because they are more 
suitable for the condenser rather than the evaporator due to the 
difficulty in draining condensing water. AHAM also commented that, 
because portable ACs spray condensed water onto the condenser to 
increase the heat exchange, poor draining capability will also affect 
the condenser. AHAM also asserted that microchannel heat exchangers are 
complicated, extremely expensive to implement, and easily retain more 
dirt in the unit, decreasing cooling performance at a much faster rate. 
(AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 10-11)
    ASAP and the Joint Commenters noted that the NOPR engineering 
analysis did not consider potential efficiency gains from microchannel 
heat exchangers, which may be utilized by manufacturers to meet the 
portable AC energy conservation standards. The Joint Commenters 
referenced research performed in 2006 that found microchannel 
condensers can result in a 6- to 10-percent increase in refrigeration 
system efficiency, and additional research for mobile air conditioning 
that indicated that microchannel heat exchangers can increase 
efficiency by 8 percent. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at 
pp. 67-68; Joint Commenters, No. 44 at p. 4)
    DOE agrees that microchannel heat exchangers are associated with 
efficiency improvements, but also agrees with AHAM regarding the 
complexity of incorporating these heat exchangers into portable ACs. 
Due to the issues in implementing microchannel heat exchangers and the 
lack of information regarding their use in portable ACs, DOE maintains 
the June 2016 ECS NOPR approach for this final rule analysis, in which 
DOE does not consider this design option in the engineering analysis 
because it expects that manufacturers would instead rely on increasing 
heat exchanger cross-sectional areas to increase heat transfer.
Market Distribution
    AHAM analyzed the data in the combined sample of portable ACs and 
concluded that a greater percentage of test units fell short of the 
proposed efficiency level (TSL 2) than DOE estimated for its own test 
sample in the June 2016 ECS NOPR. AHAM determined that 17 percent of 
units in the combined dataset would meet TSL 2, suggesting that 83 
percent of the units would require a redesign. Therefore, AHAM proposed 
that DOE adopt a median PR of 0.90 based on the combined AHAM and DOE 
data. AHAM stated that a PR of 0.90 would better reflect the current 
status of units on the market and also would require more reasonable 
redesigns for manufacturers, especially for a new standard. AHAM noted 
that its proposed level is between DOE's June 2016 ECS NOPR TSL 1 and 
TSL 2, and according to AHAM would require a 50-percent redesign of the 
tested units. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 7-8)
    As discussed in chapter 5 of the June 2016 ECS NOPR TSD, DOE 
assessed the number of units that would require a complete product 
redesign, as opposed to less costly and impactful component 
improvements, and found that 46 percent of units in the test sample 
would require a significant product redesign at TSL 2 (see table 5.5.4 
in the STD NOPR TSD). Also, DOE's energy conservations standards are 
not determined solely based on the number of units that would require 
updates to meet the new levels, but rather the range of criteria 
discussed in section II.A of this document. These considerations are 
discussed at length in the June 2016 ECS NOPR and TSD and are 
reassessed and addressed in this final rule.
    As discussed in the following section, DOE considered the combined 
DOE and AHAM dataset to update its engineering analysis in this final 
rule.
iii. Final Rule Analysis
    For this final rule, DOE maintained the engineering analysis 
approach utilized in the June 2016 ECS NOPR, with additional 
modifications and improvements based primarily on comments and data 
received in response to the June 2016 ECS NOPR. As discussed in in 
section IV.C.1.a, DOE updated the test data and improved the 
performance modeling in this final rule and subsequently updated the 
relationship for nominal CEER based on measured SACC as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.015

    DOE also identified a baseline efficiency level with a PR of 0.67 
for this final rule, based on the updated test unit performance.
    DOE subsequently adjusted its efficiency levels based on the 
updated unit performance data utilized in this final rule. For EL 2, 
DOE determined the PR that corresponded to the maximum available 
efficiency across a full range of capacities (1.04), and then selected 
an intermediate efficiency level for EL 1 based on a PR between the 
baseline and EL 2 (0.85). For EL 3, DOE identified the PR for the 
single highest efficiency unit observed in its test sample (1.18).
    In this final rule, DOE relied on the same numerically modeled 
component improvements for each of the 21 out of 24 test units 
considered in the June 2016 ECS NOPR. DOE also modeled component 
improvements for an additional 2 units for which DOE identified 
detailed component information. The component improvements were 
performed in three steps for each unit, similar to the improvements 
conducted for the June 2016 ECS NOPR engineering analysis. For this 
final rule, DOE utilized the same component efficiency improvements 
outlined in Table IV.5, maintaining the same maximum single-speed and 
variable speed compressor efficiencies (11.1 Btu/Wh and 13.7 Btu/Wh, 
respectively), the same maximum

[[Page 1404]]

percent heat exchanger frontal area increases (20 percent), the switch 
from a permanent split capacitor (PSC) motor to an ECM for the blower, 
and a minimum standby power of 0.46 W.
    With these design options modeled for units in its test sample, DOE 
found that the single, theoretical maximum-achievable efficiency among 
all modeled units corresponded to a PR of 1.62, which DOE defined as EL 
4.
    DOE emphasizes that the changes listed in Table IV.5 do not 
uniquely correlate with efficiency levels beyond the baseline. Baseline 
through EL 3 are defined by the range of test data, while EL 4 is 
defined by the maximum theoretical PR after modeling all design options 
listed in Table IV.5.
    In this final rule, DOE analyzed efficiency levels based on test 
samples and modeled performance according to the following equation and 
the PR values listed in Table IV.7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.016


 Table IV.7--Portable Air Conditioner Efficiency Levels and Performance
                       Ratios--Final Rule Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Efficiency level       Performance
        Efficiency level               description          ratio  (PR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................  Minimum Observed.......            0.67
EL 1...........................  Intermediate Level.....            0.85
EL 2...........................  Maximum Available for              1.04
                                  All Capacities.
EL 3...........................  Maximum Observed.......            1.18
EL 4...........................  Max-Tech (Maximum of               1.62
                                  Modeled Component
                                  Improvements).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure IV.2 plots each efficiency level curve for SACCs from 50 to 
10,000 Btu/h, based on the nominal CEER curve scaled by the PR assigned 
to each efficiency level.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.017

    Additional details on the selection of efficiency levels may be 
found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.
2. Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates
    In the February 2015 Preliminary Analysis, DOE developed 
incremental MPC estimates based on the optimized airflow approach to 
improving efficiencies. For the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis, DOE 
developed new incremental MPC estimates based on the changes to the 
efficiency levels detailed in section IV.C.1 of the June 2016 ECS NOPR, 
and also based on feedback from interested parties and on information

[[Page 1405]]

gathered in additional manufacturer interviews. When assigning costs to 
efficiency levels in the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis, DOE considered 
all units that performed between two efficiency levels as 
representative of the lower of the two efficiency levels. DOE 
determined an average baseline MPC based on the units in DOE's test 
sample with a CEER below EL 1 (PR = 0.94). Six units in the test sample 
with a market-representative range of capacities tested below EL 1. The 
average MPC of these six units reflected the baseline MPC for the 
overall portable AC market.
    DOE subsequently determined the costs for all other torn-down and 
modeled units, and determined the average costs associated with each 
incremental component efficiency improvement when moving between 
efficiency levels. In addition to the costs associated with the 
improved components themselves, DOE also considered the increased costs 
associated with other related product changes, such as increasing case 
sizes to accommodate larger heat exchangers.
    Although DOE's test and modeled data resulted in a range of PRs 
from 0.72 to 1.75, DOE noted in the June 2016 ECS NOPR that not all 
units in its test sample were capable of reaching higher PRs with the 
identified design option changes. For example, the modeled max-tech PR 
represented a unit in the test sample that had a high PR as a starting 
point (near EL 3). Modeling increased heat exchanger sizes and a more 
efficient compressor in that unit resulted in a higher modeled PR than 
could be achieved theoretically by applying the same design options to 
baseline units. For the units that started at lower PRs, DOE expected 
that manufacturers would have to undertake a complete product redesign 
and optimization to reach higher PRs, rather than just applying the 
identified design options. As a result, manufacturers of these units 
would incur higher MPCs to reach the higher efficiency levels and also 
significant conversion costs associated with updating their product 
lines. These conversion costs are discussed further in chapter 12 of 
the June 2016 ECS NOPR TSD.
    In the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE found that only three units in the 
teardown sample would be capable of reaching EL 3 without significant 
product redesign (i.e., the one unit that tested at EL 3 and two units 
that could theoretically achieve EL 3 with the highest efficiency 
single-speed compressors and increasing the heat exchanger area no more 
than 20 percent). At EL 4 (max-tech), DOE determined all products would 
require significant product redesigns, as reaching the maximum modeled 
efficiency would require a 20-percent increase in heat exchanger area 
and the most efficient variable-speed compressor. DOE noted that 
manufacturers would likely undertake a product redesign when switching 
from a single-speed to a variable-speed compressor. Additionally, as 
discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this document, the ability of a 
product to reach EL 3 or EL 4 would be dependent on the availability of 
the most efficient components. However, compressor availability for 
portable ACs is largely driven by the room AC industry, so the most 
efficient single-speed and variable-speed compressors may not be 
available over the entire range of capacities necessary for all 
portable AC product capacities. As a result, DOE determined that moving 
to EL 3 or EL 4 may necessitate manufacturers to remove certain 
portable AC cooling capacities from the market.
    For the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE calculated all MPCs in 2014 dollars 
(2014$), the most recent year for which full-year data was available at 
the time of the analysis. Table IV.8 presents the MPC estimates DOE 
developed for the June 2016 ECS NOPR.

Table IV.8--Portable Air Conditioner Incremental Manufacturer Production
                    Costs (2014$)--June 2016 ECS NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Incremental
                    Efficiency level                       MPC  (2014$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................  ..............
EL1.....................................................          $29.78
EL2.....................................................           45.13
EL3.....................................................           60.35
EL4.....................................................          108.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional details on the development of the incremental cost 
estimates for the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis may be found in chapter 5 
of the June 2016 ECS NOPR TSD.
    During the July 2016 STD Public Meeting, AHAM stated it would work 
to gather and provide to DOE product cost information. (AHAM, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at p. 75-76) GE commented that it was unable 
to provide accurate cost feedback due to concerns regarding conducting 
the test procedure and testing units of all duct configurations. (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at p. 18)
    AHAM subsequently stated that it and its members were unable to 
verify the manufacturer product cost estimates in the June 2016 ECS 
NOPR because all portable ACs are produced overseas, and the new test 
procedures will require reductions in reported capacities of existing 
products. AHAM suggested that manufacturers have not yet fully explored 
the design requirements to reach the various ELs and therefore urged 
DOE to reassess its engineering and costing analysis to incorporate the 
effects of both capacity changes and modifications necessary to meet 
the ELs. AHAM argued that it is not sufficient to say that the costs 
associated with the capacity changes are incorporated in all ELs from 
the base case onward because the constraints on size and portability to 
maintain the product as portable will have significant effects on the 
practicality of technology options, particularly adding evaporator or 
condenser coil area. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 22)
    GREE commented that, based on its calculations, larger chassis 
designs are necessary to meet the proposed standards and consumers are 
likely unwilling to accept the additional costs associated with 
tooling. (GREE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 21-22)
    As discussed in chapter 5 of the June 2016 ECS NOPR TSD, based on 
the range of observed heat exchanger areas in its test sample, DOE 
determined that a 20-percent increase in heat exchanger area is an 
appropriate limit to maintain portability and avoid impacting consumer 
utility. DOE also notes that all costs necessary to increase heat 
exchanger areas and the corresponding chassis design changes were 
considered in the product cost estimates presented in the June 2016 ECS 
NOPR and are also considered in this final rule. Additionally, DOE 
accounted for the changes to both CEER and SACC that would result from 
incorporating the design option changes in its June 2016 ECS NOPR 
engineering analysis.
    AHAM noted that no portable ACs are manufactured in the U.S., and 
some are manufactured by third-party manufactures instead of by those 
who market them. Therefore, AHAM does not believe it is possible to 
characterize the cost structure of Chinese manufacturing plants and 
ultimately determine the manufacturer costs for overseas manufacturers. 
During the July 2016 STD Public Meeting and in its July 21, 2016 
request for data and information, AHAM requested insight into how the 
cost model was developed and how DOE is able to estimate the 
manufacturing costs for portable ACs. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 39 at pp. 76-77)
    The DOE response memo stated that DOE accounts for the location of 
a manufacturing facility when determining labor costs as well as

[[Page 1406]]

tooling and equipment costs.\22\ Industry financial metrics were 
estimated using publically available financial information for both 
manufacturers and importers selling portable ACs in the U.S. DOE also 
noted that the cost estimates in the June 2016 ECS NOPR accounted for 
input received from manufacturers and importers during confidential 
interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See p. 4 of the DOE response memo, found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the final rule analysis, DOE followed the same approach as used 
in the June 2016 ECS NOPR to develop incremental MPC estimates at each 
efficiency level. DOE updated the incremental MPC estimates from the 
June 2016 ECS NOPR based on the changes to the ELs detailed in section 
IV.C.1 of this final rule, feedback from interested parties, improved 
test unit modeling, and updated cost modeling.
    As described in section IV.C.1.a of this final rule, DOE 
incorporated minor updates to its own data set and included the AHAM 
test data to determine performance trends and ELs. The adjusted data 
and slightly different EL curve shape compared to the June 2016 ECS 
NOPR shifted a few of the data points that would be included in each 
EL. Additionally, DOE did not have access to the AHAM test units for 
teardowns or cost modeling, so by necessity relied on its own sample of 
units to define the representative incremental MPCs at each EL. For 
this final rule, DOE also calculated all MPCs in 2015$, the most recent 
year for which full-year data was available at the time of the final 
rule analysis. Table IV.9 presents the updated MPC estimates DOE 
developed for this final rule.

Table IV.9--Portable Air Conditioner Incremental Manufacturer Production
                   Costs (2015$)--Final Rule Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Incremental
                    Efficiency level                       MPC  (2015$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................  ..............
EL1.....................................................          $18.95
EL2.....................................................           50.57
EL3.....................................................           93.84
EL4.....................................................          115.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional details on the development of the incremental cost 
estimates for the final rule analysis may be found in chapter 5 of the 
final rule TSD.

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., 
manufacturer markups, retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor 
markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MPC 
estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which 
are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer 
impact analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies 
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit 
margin. For portable ACs, the main parties in the distribution chain 
are manufacturers, retailers, and consumers.
    The manufacturer markup converts MPC to manufacturer selling price 
(MSP). DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the 
annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by 
publicly-traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance 
manufacturing and whose combined product range includes portable ACs.
    DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for the 
manufacturers and retailers in the distribution chain. Baseline markups 
are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while 
incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between 
baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). 
The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup, and 
is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and 
after new or amended standards.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products 
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the 
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is 
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably 
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a 
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate 
average baseline and incremental markups.
    AHAM commented that it strongly disagrees with the concept of 
incremental markups. According to AHAM, manufacturers, wholesalers, 
retailers and contractors have all provided numerous amounts of data, 
studies, and surveys saying that the incremental markup concept has no 
foundation in actual practice. AHAM asked what additional information 
DOE would need to reassess the markups approach. AHAM further asked if 
DOE would agree to put the concept of incremental markups up for peer 
review. (AHAM, No. 39 at pp. 80-81) AHAM states that DOE persists in 
relying on a simplistic interpretation of economic theory that assumes 
only variable costs can be passed through to customers because economic 
returns on capital cannot increase in a competitive marketplace. 
According to AHAM, they and the other associations and industry 
participants are unanimous in declaring that DOE's conclusions are 
simply incorrect and that percentage margins throughout the 
distribution channels have remained largely constant. In addition, AHAM 
noted that Shorey Consulting has shown that empirical studies of 
industry structure and other variables have only weak correlation with 
profitability, demonstrating that the economic theory DOE relies upon 
is proven not to apply in practice. Rather than continue to debate past 
each other, AHAM commented that DOE should submit both its work and 
that of the various industry groups to an independent peer review 
process. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 20)
    DOE disagrees that the theory behind the concept of incremental 
markups has been disproved. The concept is based on a simple notion: An 
increase in profitability, which is implied by keeping a fixed markup 
percentage when the product price goes up and demand is relatively 
inelastic, is not likely to be viable over time in a business that is 
reasonably competitive. DOE agrees that empirical data on markup 
practices would be desirable, but such information is closely held and 
difficult to obtain.
    Regarding the Shorey Consulting interviews with appliance 
retailers, although the retailers said that they maintain the same 
percentage margin after amended standards for refrigerators took 
effect, it is not clear to what extent the wholesale prices of 
refrigerators actually increased. There is some empirical evidence 
indicating that prices may not always increase following a new 
standard.24 25 26 If this happened to be the case following 
the new refrigerator standard, then there is no reason to suppose that 
percentage margins changed either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Spurlock, C.A. 2013. ``Appliance Efficiency Standards and 
Price Discrimination.'' Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report 
(LBNL) LBNL-6283E.
    \25\ Houde, S. and C.A. Spurlock. 2015. ``Do Energy Efficiency 
Standards Improve Quality? Evidence from a Revealed Preference 
Approach.'' LBNL LBNL-182701.
    \26\ Taylor, M., C.A. Spurlock, and H.-C. Yang. 2015. 
``Confronting Regulatory Cost and Quality Expectations: An 
Exploration of Technical Change in Minimum Efficiency Performance 
Standards.'' Resources for the Future (RFF) 15-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analysis necessarily considers a simplified version of the 
world of

[[Page 1407]]

appliance retailing; namely, a situation in which other than appliance 
product offerings, nothing changes in response to amended standards. 
DOE's analysis assumes that product cost will increase while the other 
costs remain constant (i.e., no change in labor, material, or operating 
costs), and asks whether retailers will be able to keep the same markup 
percentage over time. DOE recognizes that retailers are likely to seek 
to maintain the same markup percentage on appliances if the price they 
pay goes up as a result of appliance standards, but DOE contends that 
over time downward adjustments are likely to occur due to competitive 
pressures. Some retailers may find that they can gain sales by reducing 
the markup and maintaining the same per-unit gross profit as they had 
before the new standard took effect. Additionally, DOE contends that 
retail pricing is more complicated than a simple percentage margin or 
markup. Retailers undertake periodic sales and they reduce the prices 
of older models as new models come out to replace 
them.27 28 29 Even if retailers maintain the same percent 
markup when appliance wholesale prices increase as the result of a 
standard, retailers may respond to competitive pressures and revert to 
pre-standard average per-unit profits by holding more frequent sales, 
discounting products under promotion to a greater extent, or 
discounting older products more quickly. These factors would counteract 
the higher percentage markup on average, resulting in much the same 
effect as a lower percentage markup in terms of the prices consumers 
actually face on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Bagwell, K. and Riordan, M.H., 1991. ``High and declining 
prices signal product quality.'' The American Economic Review, pp. 
224-239.
    \28\ Betts, E. and Peter, J.M., 1995. ``The strategy of the 
retail `sale': Typology, review and synthesis.'' International 
Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 5(3), pp. 303-
331.
    \29\ Elmaghraby, W. and Keskinocak, P., 2003. ``Dynamic pricing 
in the presence of inventory considerations: Research overview, 
current practices, and future directions.'' Management Science, 
49(10), pp. 1287-1309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE acknowledges that its approach to estimating retailer markup 
practices after amended standards take effect is an approximation of 
real-world practices that are both complex and varying with business 
conditions. However, DOE continues to maintain that its assumption that 
standards do not facilitate a sustainable increase in profitability is 
reasonable. Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD provides details on DOE's 
development of markups for portable ACs.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of portable AC at different efficiencies in 
representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and 
commercial settings, and to assess the energy savings potential of 
increased portable AC efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the 
range of energy use of portable AC in the field (i.e., as they are 
actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis 
for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the 
energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could 
result from adoption of amended or new standards.
    DOE determined a range of annual energy consumption of portable ACs 
as a function of the unit's annual operating hours to meet the cooling 
demand, which depends on the efficiency of the unit, power (watts) of 
three modes of operation (cooling, fan, and standby), and the 
percentage of time in each mode. DOE also performed three sensitivity 
analyses on energy consumption, including looking at the effects of 
geographical distribution, room threshold size and overall operation 
time on consumer benefits and costs.
1. Consumer Samples
    EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) provides 
information on whether households use a room AC. Because portable ACs 
and room ACs often serve a similar function,\30\ DOE developed a sample 
of households that use room ACs from RECS 2009, which is the latest 
available RECS.\31\ DOE selected the subset of RECS 2009 records that 
met relevant criteria.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ It is assumed that portable ACs may perform supplemental 
cooling to a particular space, but that the cooling loads between 
room ACs and portable ACs are similar. For example, a portable AC 
may be used to provide cooling to a single room in place of a 
central AC to cool an entire home. For the purposes of estimating 
energy use, DOE assumed that portable ACs are operated under similar 
cooling loads as room ACs, given their similar cooling capacities.
    \31\ DOE-EIA. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. 2009. 
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/.
    \32\ RECS household use criteria: (1) At least one room AC was 
present in the household; (2) The energy consumption of the room AC 
was greater than zero; (3) The capacity of the room AC was less than 
14,000 Btu/hr (a cooling capacity comparable to portable ACs as 
measured by industry test methods); and (4) The room being cooled 
measured no more than 1,000 square feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that DOE's consumer sample based on room ACs does 
not geographically match results AHAM obtained through an online 
survey. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 19) Although DOE has not received the full 
survey results from AHAM, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis using 
data points estimated from Figure 6 in Appendix B of AHAM's comments. 
DOE reweighted its residential and commercial sample such that 24 
percent of the sample was from the Northeast, 13 percent from the 
Midwest, 29 percent from the South, and 34 percent from the West. DOE 
found that this sensitivity marginally increased LCC savings and 
reduced the percent of negatively impacted consumers for both sectors. 
Results for this sensitivity can be found in the final rule TSD 
appendix 8F.
    The California IOUs commented that DOE's estimate for its 
residential room size threshold of 1,000 square feet could be further 
refined using data from 2013 study by the National Association of Home 
Builders. The California IOUs suggested DOE's current method limits the 
sample of potential installations of portable ACs. (California IOUs, 
No. 42 at p. 4)
    Sizing charts provided by vendors indicate that portable ACs are 
intended to cool rooms having an area as large as approximately 525 to 
600 square feet. A review of retail websites, however, indicated 
portable ACs may be used in rooms as large as 1,000 square feet. DOE 
assumed 1,000 square feet to be the maximum room size a user would 
attempt to cool using a portable AC. In practice, only 60 records in 
the RECS 2009 sample (about 2 percent) represent rooms between 600 and 
1,000 square feet.
    As a sensitivity, DOE removed the room size threshold from its 
analysis and calculated LCC results using the full room AC sample. 
Removing this threshold made minimal impact on the results. In this 
scenario, the average LCC savings for residential consumers under the 
proposed standard (TSL 2) would be $107 (compared with $108 in the 
primary estimate), and 28 percent of consumers would be impacted 
negatively (compared with 27 percent in the primary estimate). The 
simple payback period would be 2.8 years (compared with 2.8 years in 
the primary estimate). The full sensitivity results can be found in the 
final rule TSD appendix 8F.
    To estimate the operating hours of portable ACs used in commercial 
settings, DOE developed a building sample from the 2012 Commercial 
Buildings Energy Consumption Survey

[[Page 1408]]

(CBECS),\33\ again using the operating hours of room ACs as a proxy. 
DOE used the 2003 CBECS in the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis. The method 
is described in chapter 7 of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ DOE-EIA. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. 
2012. http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM and the California IOUs encouraged DOE to replace 2003 CBECS 
data with 2012 CBECS data. (AHAM, No. 39 at pp. 85-87; California IOUs, 
No. 42 at p. 4)
    DOE updates its inputs for analyses with credible and verifiable 
sources as data become available. At the time the June 2016 ECS NOPR 
analysis was completed, 2012 CBECS with expenditure microdata was not 
yet available, so DOE used 2003 CBECS. Because the data set was 
released in time for use in the final rule, DOE is using 2012 CBECS in 
its final rule analysis as recommended by AHAM and the California IOUs.
2. Cooling Mode Hours and Sensitivity Analyses
    To estimate the cooling operating hours of portable ACs using 
datasets that are statistically representative, DOE used the same 
method and updated datasets that were used in the 2011 direct final 
rule for room ACs. 76 FR 22454 (Apr. 21, 2011). For each sample 
household, RECS provides the estimated energy use for cooling by room 
ACs. After assigning an efficiency and capacity to the room AC, DOE 
could then estimate its operating hours in cooling mode. DOE adjusted 
the operating hours in cooling mode to account for the likelihood that 
improvement in building shell efficiency would reduce the cooling load 
and operating hours.\34\ The estimated average of cooling operating 
hours for a room AC is 612 hours/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ To account for increased building efficiency at the time 
that the proposed standard would take effect, DOE used the 2022 
building shell index factor of 0.97 for space cooling in all 
residences from the EIA's AEO. (Energy Information Administration. 
Annual Energy Outlook 2016 with Projections to 2040. July 2016.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some interested parties objected to DOE's use of room AC data as a 
proxy for portable AC operating hours. AHAM stated that DOE 
misrepresents portable ACs by referencing and scaling characteristic 
and performance data from room air conditioners. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 
18) AHAM asserted that for a standards rule to be technologically 
feasible and economically justified, it must be based on product-
specific data, not assumptions and estimates. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 1-2) 
De' Longhi stated that from their experience, while room ACs are 
typically used as the main cooling system, portable ACs are often used 
as supplementary systems when central systems are not activated or out 
of order so that the annual hours of use for portable ACs are lower 
than for room ACs. (De' Longhi, No. 41 at p. 1)
    AHAM and De' Longhi stated that a De' Longhi survey \35\ cannot be 
used to conclude that portable ACs and room ACs have similar cooling 
mode annual operating hours. De' Longhi asserted that although both 
portable ACs and room ACs are used in similar periods of the day, that 
does not mean that they are used for the same number of hours in a day 
and for the same number of days in a year. They believed that DOE 
mischaracterized the study and drew conclusions that are not justified 
from the data. De' Longhi stated that the annual hours of use for 
portable ACs are on average sensibly lower than for room ACs. (AHAM, 
No. 43 at pp. 18-19; De' Longhi, No. 41 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ De' Longhi Attachment to Comment on the Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy Office (EERE) Proposed Rule: 2015-02-25 Energy 
Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Portable Air Conditioners; 
NOPR. May 8, 2015. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0014-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE maintains that room AC cooling hours are an appropriate proxy 
for portable AC cooling hours as both products are used for cooling 
defined spaces and their product usage is broadly similar. However, DOE 
agrees with the commenters that the De' Longhi survey cannot be used to 
conclusively draw a relationship between the total annual cooling mode 
hours of portable ACs and room ACs. To account for potential 
differences between consumer use of portable ACs and room ACs, DOE 
conducted a sensitivity analysis which assumes lower annual hours of 
use for portable ACs in comparison to room ACs. Specifically, in this 
sensitivity analysis, DOE scaled the room AC cooling mode hours of use 
by half while maintaining the assumption that portable ACs are used 
during the same time of year as room ACs, since the use of both types 
of cooling equipment is likely to be consistent seasonally. The results 
of this sensitivity analysis estimate one-third of the energy cost 
savings relative to the primary estimate. In this low-usage case, the 
average LCC savings under the adopted standards (TSL 2) would be $35 
(compared with $125 in the primary estimate), and 42 percent of 
consumers would be impacted negatively (compared with 27 percent in the 
primary estimate). The simple payback period would be 5.1 years 
(compared with 2.8 years in the primary estimate). Further details are 
presented in appendix 8F and appendix 10E of the final rule TSD. Thus, 
even if consumers use portable ACs substantially less than room ACs, 
the overall impacts on consumers would be positive. It should be noted 
that lower product usage would imply a longer lifetime; however, in 
this sensitivity analysis, the lifetime was not lengthened. A longer 
lifetime would increase savings, reduce the payback period, and reduce 
the population segment that is negatively impacted.
    AHAM recommended that DOE use data from the study by Burke et al. 
to calculate operating hours.\36\ (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 20) DOE believes 
that it would be inaccurate to use the Burke et al. study for 
estimating operating hours for the nation. As stated in the report 
itself, given the limited number of test sites in two locations in the 
Northeast, the Burke et al. study was not intended to be statistically 
representative of portable AC users in the U.S. It should also be noted 
that the annual energy use estimates presented in the study are based 
on metered average outdoor temperatures which were reportedly lower 
than usual for most summers. In addition, the metering period began in 
July and it is likely that portable AC owners either in warmer years or 
in other areas of the country may operate the units in earlier months 
(May and June), which would contribute to higher annual use. DOE did 
use the Burke et al. study for estimations of the fan-only mode 
operation since the report provided the only publicly available fan-
only information for any cooling product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Burke et al., 2014. ``Using Field-Metered Data to Quantify 
Annual Energy Use of Residential Portable Air Conditioners.'' LBNL, 
Berkeley, CA. LBNL Report LBNL-6469E. September 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM claims that the data DOE has used raise serious and separate 
concerns under the Data Quality Act.\37\ (Public Law 106-554) According 
to AHAM, the law and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
guidelines require agency actions aimed at ``maximizing the quality, 
objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including 
statistical information) disseminated by the agency.'' Id. at Sec.  
515(b)(2)(A). (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Reference can be found at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/fedreg/reproducible2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE maintains that the data sources and methodology used in its 
analyses meet the guidelines developed by OMB in response to the Data 
Quality Act. Data used in DOE's analysis draws from the best available 
statistically-significant representation of how U.S. consumers

[[Page 1409]]

use cooling devices similar in function and cooling capacity to 
portable ACs. Interested parties have been provided opportunities at 
the preliminary analysis and NOPR stages to make data available to 
refine DOE's analysis. When reviewed and verified, DOE has incorporated 
data from comments into its analysis. For example, DOE incorporated 
analysis data and information from interested parties regarding 
historical shipments, and product efficiencies and capacities into the 
final rule. Additionally, DOE performed sensitivity analyses for inputs 
that are subject to uncertainty to assess the impact of alternative 
assumptions and reports those results in the final rule TSD.
    The California IOUs suggested that DOE use projected cooling 
degree-days for the LCC analysis year (2022) to accurately quantify the 
required cooling load. (California IOUs, No. 42 at p. 4) DOE agrees and 
has incorporated this suggestion into its final rule analysis using 
census division cooling degree-day trends from AEO 2016.\38\ Including 
cooling degree-day trends increases operating hours by approximately 4 
percent. DOE also used the projected change in building shell 
efficiencies from AEO 2016 when calculating operating hours to account 
for increased building shell efficiency of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ EIA's Annual Energy Outlook. (Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 with Projections to 2040. 
July 2016.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Fan-Only Mode and Standby Mode Hours
    To estimate the number of hours in fan-only mode, DOE utilized a 
field metering analysis of a sample of portable ACs in 19 homes.\39\ 
The survey provided data on cooling-mode and fan-only mode hours of 
operation. DOE derived a distribution of the ratio of fan-only mode 
hours to cooling-mode hours, and used this distribution to randomly 
assign a ratio to each of the sample households, which allows 
estimation of fan-only mode hours of operation. DOE assumed portable 
ACs would only be plugged in during months with 5 or more cooling 
degree days. The annual hours in standby mode were derived by 
subtracting the cooling-mode and fan-only mode hours of operation from 
the total number of hours in a months with 5 or more cooling degree 
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Burke, Thomas, et al. 2014. Using Field-Metered Data to 
Quantify Annual Energy Use of Portable Air Conditioners. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1166989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD provides details on DOE's energy 
use analysis for portable ACs.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
portable ACs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation 
standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in 
operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following 
two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC (life-cycle cost) is the total consumer expense of 
a product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales 
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy 
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE 
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them 
over the lifetime of the product.
     The simple PBP (payback period) is the estimated amount of 
time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase 
cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower 
operating costs. DOE calculates the simple PBP by dividing the change 
in purchase cost at higher ELs by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given EL, DOE calculates the LCC savings as the change in 
LCC in a standards case relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards 
case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of portable 
ACs in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In 
contrast, the simple PBP for a given EL is measured relative to the 
baseline product.
    For each considered EL, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a 
nationally representative set of housing units and commercial buildings 
that use portable ACs. DOE used the EIA's 2009 RECS to develop 
household samples for portable ACs based on households that use room 
ACs. DOE also used the EIA's 2012 CBECS to develop a sample of 
commercial buildings that use portable ACs, again based on buildings 
that use room ACs. For each sample household or commercial building, 
DOE determined the energy consumption for the portable ACs and the 
appropriate electricity price. By developing a representative sample of 
households, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption 
and energy prices associated with the use of portable ACs.
    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and 
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Note in 
the case of portable ACs, DOE assumed that installation costs would not 
change with efficiency ELs. So the difference of installation cost 
between the baseline and higher ELs is then $0. Inputs to the 
calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, 
energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, 
product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of 
values for product lifetime and discount rates with probabilities 
attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and 
variability. Sales tax and electricity prices are tied to the 
geographic locations of purchasers drawn from the residential and 
commercial samples.
    The model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a Monte 
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the 
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulation randomly samples input values from 
the probability distributions and portable AC user samples. The model 
calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each EL for 10,000 housing 
units or commercial buildings per simulation run.
    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers as if each were to 
purchase a new product in the expected year of compliance with new 
standards. Any new standards would apply to portable ACs manufactured 5 
years after publication of the final standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) 
Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2022 as the first 
year of compliance with new standards.
    Table IV.10 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. For energy use, RECS and CBECS were used 
for number of hours of use in cooling mode. A field metering report 
provided information regarding the fan-mode of portable ACs.\40\ 
Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and 
PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD and its 
appendices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Burke, Thomas, et al. 2014. Using Field-Metered Data to 
Quantify Annual Energy Use of Portable Air Conditioners. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1166989.

[[Page 1410]]



 Table IV.10--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
                                    *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Inputs                           Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost...........................  Derived by multiplying MPCs by
                                          manufacturer and retailer
                                          markups and sales tax, as
                                          appropriate. Producer Price
                                          Index (PPI) series for small
                                          household electronics fit to
                                          an exponential model.
Installation Costs.....................  Assumed no installation costs
                                          with baseline unit and no cost
                                          with EL.
Annual Energy Use......................  Power in each mode multiplied
                                          by the hours per year in each
                                          mode. Average number of hours
                                          based on 2009 RECS, 2012
                                          CBECS, and field metering
                                          data. Variability: Based on
                                          the 2009 RECS and 2012 CBECS.
Energy Prices..........................  Electricity: Based on 2014
                                          average and marginal
                                          electricity price data from
                                          the Edison Electric Institute.
                                          Variability: Marginal
                                          electricity prices vary by
                                          season, U.S. region, and
                                          baseline electricity
                                          consumption level.
Energy Price Trends....................  Based on AEO 2016 No-CPP case
                                          price projections. Trends are
                                          dependent on sector and census
                                          division.
Repair and Maintenance Costs...........  Assumed no change with EL.
Product Lifetime.......................  Weibull distribution using
                                          parameters from room ACs.
Discount Rates.........................  Approach involves identifying
                                          all possible debt or asset
                                          classes that might be used to
                                          purchase the considered
                                          appliances, or might be
                                          affected indirectly. Primary
                                          data source was the Federal
                                          Reserve Board's Survey of
                                          Consumer Finances.
Compliance Date........................  2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
  in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the final rule
  TSD.

1. Product Cost
    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described in 
section IV.D of this document (along with sales taxes). DOE used 
different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products, 
because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP 
associated with higher-efficiency products.
    Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs 
of many products may trend downward over time according to ``learning'' 
or ``experience'' curves. Experience curve analysis implicitly includes 
factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation, 
materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-
wide level.\41\ DOE used the most representative Producer Price Index 
(PPI) series for portable ACs to fit to an exponential model to develop 
an experience curve. DOE obtained historical PPI data for ``small 
electric household appliances, except fans'' from the Labor 
Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for 1983 to 2015.\42\ 
Although this PPI series encompasses more than portable ACs, no PPI 
data specific to portable ACs were available. The PPI data reflect 
nominal prices, adjusted for changes in product quality. DOE calculated 
an inflation-adjusted (deflated) price index by dividing the PPI series 
by the Gross Domestic Product Chained Price Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Taylor, M. and Fujita, K.S. Accounting for Technological 
Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 
LBNL-6195E. LBNL, Berkeley, CA. April 2013. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4#page-1.
    \42\ U.S. Department of Labor BLS. Producer Price Index for 
1983-2013. PPI series ID: PCU33521033521014. (Last accessed 
September 8, 2014.) http://www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts needed to install the product. Available evidence 
indicated that no installation costs would be incurred for baseline 
installation or be impacted with increased ELs.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled household and building, DOE determined the energy 
consumption for a portable AC at different ELs using the approach 
described in section IV.E of this final rule.
4. Energy Prices
    DOE used average prices (for baseline products) and marginal prices 
(for higher-efficiency products) which vary by season, region, and 
baseline electricity consumption level for the LCC. DOE estimated these 
prices using data published with the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 
Typical Bills and Average Rates reports for summer and winter 2014.\43\ 
For the residential sector each report provides, for most of the major 
IOUs in the country, the total bill assuming household consumption 
levels of 500, 750, and 1,000 kWh for the billing period. For the 
commercial sector the report provides typical bills for several 
combinations of monthly electricity peak demand and total consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ EEI. Typical Bills and Average Rates Report. Winter 2014 
published April 2014, Summer 2014 published October 2014. See http://www.eei.org/resourcesandmedia/products/Pages/Products.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For both the residential and commercial sectors, DOE defined the 
average price as the ratio of the total bill to the total electricity 
consumption. For the residential sector, DOE used the EEI data to also 
define a marginal price as the ratio of the change in the bill to the 
change in energy consumption. For the commercial sector, marginal 
prices cannot be estimated directly from the EEI data, so DOE used a 
different approach, as described in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.
    Regionally weighted-average values for each type of price were 
calculated for the nine census divisions and four large states (CA, FL, 
NY and TX). Each EEI utility in a division was assigned a weight based 
on the number of consumers it serves. Consumer counts were taken from 
the most recent EIA Form 861 data (2012).\44\ DOE adjusted these 
regional weighted-average prices to account for systematic differences 
between IOUs and publicly-owned utilities, as the latter are not 
included in the EEI data set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ DOE-EIA. Form EIA-861 Annual Electric Power Industry 
Database. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE assigned seasonal average and marginal prices to each household 
or commercial building in the LCC sample based on its location and its 
baseline monthly electricity consumption for an average summer or 
winter month. For a detailed discussion of the development

[[Page 1411]]

of electricity prices, see appendix 8C of the final rule TSD.
    To estimate future prices, DOE used the projected annual changes in 
average residential and commercial electricity prices that are 
consistent with cases described on p. E-8 in AEO 2016.\45\ AEO 2016 has 
an end year of 2040. The AEO price trends do not distinguish between 
marginal and average prices, so DOE used the same trends for both. DOE 
reviewed the EEI data for the years 2007 to 2014 and determined that 
there is no systematic difference in the trends for marginal vs. 
average prices in the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 with Projections to 2040. 
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. The 
standards finalized in this rulemaking will take effect a few years 
prior to the 2022 commencement of the Clean Power Plan compliance 
requirements. As DOE has not modeled the effect of CPP during the 
30-year analysis period of this rulemaking, there is some 
uncertainty as to the magnitude and overall effect of the energy 
efficiency standards. These energy efficiency standards are expected 
to put downward pressure on energy prices relative to the 
projections in the AEO 2016 case that incorporates the CPP. 
Consequently, DOE used the electricity price projections found in 
the AEO 2016 No-CPP case as these electricity price projections are 
expected to be lower, yielding more conservative estimates for 
consumer savings due to the energy efficiency standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product 
components that have failed in an appliance. Maintenance costs are 
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Based on 
available data and low product purchase prices, DOE concluded that 
repair frequencies are low and do not increase for higher-capacity or 
higher-efficiency units. DOE assumed a zero cost for all ELs.
    AHAM commented that higher ELs may require use of variable-speed 
compressors to meet a potential standard and this would impact the 
repair rate and cost of higher ELs. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 25-26) AHAM 
was unable to provide data to show that variable-speed compressors 
would require an increased repair rate or cost, but suggested DOE 
consult with manufacturers. DOE has not found any evidence that repair 
rates or costs would increase with efficiency for portable ACs nor did 
any manufacturer provide data to suggest this occurs in the market 
today. Therefore, DOE estimates that portable AC repair rates and costs 
do not change with higher efficiency units.
6. Product Lifetime
    The product lifetime is the age at which the product is retired 
from service. Given similar mechanical components and uses, DOE 
considered that the lifetime distribution of portable ACs is the same 
as that of room ACs, as estimated for the 2011 direct final rule. 76 FR 
22454 (April 21, 2011). The average lifetime is 10.5 years.
    AHAM also noted that although room ACs and portable ACs are used 
for similar purposes, they are different products and therefore they 
may have different lifetimes. (AHAM, No. 39 at p. 96) AHAM commented 
that DOE should use an average product lifetime of 7 years for portable 
ACs and referenced a 2010 survey conducted by AHAM. (AHAM, No. 43 at 
pp. 23-24)
    AHAM did not provide the survey in its comments and DOE is unable 
to locate a copy of the survey in the public record; therefore, DOE is 
unable to verify AHAM's estimate and determine whether the lifetime 
estimate is specifically for portable ACs or for a similar product. 
Additionally, if AHAM's estimate is for the portable AC product, it is 
unclear how a 2010 survey could accurately measure the average lifetime 
for a product that has only been available in large residential markets 
since the early 2000s. An accurate calculation of the average lifetime 
requires at least one full turnover of stock to sample the entire age 
distribution to include the longest living units that exceed the 
average lifetime. Assuming the first appreciable number of shipments of 
portable ACs occurred in 2000, the oldest possible lifetime captured in 
AHAM's survey would be 10 years. Excluding longer lived portable ACs 
that have not yet failed would bias an estimate of the average to lower 
values. Without the details of the survey methodology, DOE is unable to 
include AHAM's estimate in derivation of a lifetime distribution.
    ASAP stated that using the lifetime of room ACs or dehumidifiers is 
reasonable, given the similarities of the products and the components 
that make up those products. (ASAP, No. 39 at pp. 98-99) The Joint 
Commenters noted that portable dehumidifiers are very similar to 
portable ACs, as the two products share the same basic refrigeration 
system components and are both portable units placed inside a room. The 
Joint Commenters also noted that DOE estimates the average lifetime of 
a portable dehumidifier (11 years) is slightly longer than the average 
lifetime of a room AC (10.5 years) and therefore, DOE's assumption for 
the average lifetime of portable ACs may be conservative. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 44 at p. 6) DOE continues to use an average lifetime of 
10.5 years derived from room ACs given the similarity in their 
components.
    Chapter 8 of the final rule TSD provides details on DOE's 
development of lifetimes for portable ACs.
7. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to households to estimate the present value of future operating costs. 
DOE estimated a distribution of residential discount rates for portable 
ACs based on consumer financing costs and the opportunity cost of 
consumer funds.
    DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from 
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount 
rates.\46\ DOE notes that the LCC does not analyze the appliance 
purchase decision, so the implicit discount rate is not relevant in 
this model. The LCC estimates NPV over the lifetime of the product, so 
the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost 
of household funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long 
time horizon modeled in the LCC, the application of a marginal interest 
rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. 
Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to 
continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC 
analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt 
payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates 
available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of 
this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: Transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. DOE estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \47\ (SCF) 
for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2013. Using the SCF and 
other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of 
debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may

[[Page 1412]]

apply in the year in which new or amended standards would take effect. 
DOE assigned each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from 
one of the distributions. The average rate across all types of 
household debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of 
each type, is 4.5 percent. See chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for 
further details on the development of consumer discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The Federal Reserve Board, SCF 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 
2007, 2010, 2013. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish commercial discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
estimated the cost of capital for companies that purchase a portable 
AC. The weighted average cost of capital is commonly used to estimate 
the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company 
project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital 
to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted average 
of the cost to the firm of equity and debt financing as estimated from 
financial data for publicly traded firms in the sectors that purchase 
computers. For this analysis, DOE used Damadoran Online \48\ as the 
source of information about company debt and equity financing. The 
average rate across all types of companies, weighted by the shares of 
each type, is 5.6 percent. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further 
details on the development of commercial discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Damodaran, A. Cost of Capital by Sector. January 2014. New 
York, NY. http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/wacc.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that DOE has traditionally used a real (inflation 
adjusted) discount rate in the LCC calculation based on averaging the 
various components of debt and assets. AHAM noted that AHAM and others 
have commented that an average consumer discount rate is inappropriate 
and that DOE should use a marginal rate based on the cost of available 
borrowed funds, generally credit card debt. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 24) In 
response to questions by AHAM, DOE stated in the DOE response memo and 
maintains that when assessing the NPV of an investment in energy 
efficiency, the marginal interest rate alone (assuming it were the 
interest rate on the credit card used to make the purchase, for 
example) would only be the relevant discount rate if either: (1) The 
consumer were restricted from rebalancing their debt and asset holdings 
(by redistributing debt and assets based on the relative interest rates 
available) over the entire time period modeled in the LCC analysis; or 
(2) the risk associated with an investment in energy efficiency was at 
a level commensurate with that reflected by credit card interest rates 
(i.e., that the risk premium required for an investment in energy 
efficiency was very high).\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The DOE response memo, ``Memo_AHAM Request for Info on 
PACs_2016-08-19'' can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reference to the first point, rebalancing, AHAM commented that 
the inherent assumption allowing rebalancing is that consumers will 
defer consumption (i.e., save) in order to generate surplus cash which 
can then be used to pay down debt. AHAM stated that this assumption is 
essential since consumers have no other source of investment capital 
other than savings (e.g., individuals cannot sell ``equity'' in 
themselves). In this case, AHAM suggested that the appropriate discount 
rate would be the implied rate of return for deferring consumption. 
AHAM noted that academic studies on implicit discount rates for the 
consumption/savings tradeoff yield discount rates substantially higher 
than either the 4.43 percent assumed by DOE or the 11.6 percent 
recommended by AHAM.\50\ AHAM noted that it would be pleased if DOE 
adopted a consumer discount rate based on the consumption/savings 
tradeoff. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 24-25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ AHAM noted, for example, Song Yao, Carl F. Mela, Jeongwen 
Chiang and Yuxin Chen (``Determining Consumers' Discount Rates With 
Field Studies,'' Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 3 (May-June), 
447-468.) found a weekly discount factor of .86-.91 (9.8-16.2% 
interest rate) for deferred consumption in empirical consumer 
research and Jean-Pierre Dube, Gunter J. Hitsch and Pranav Jindal 
(``The joint identification of utility and discount functions from 
stated choice data: An application to durable goods adoption'', 
Quant Mark Econ (2014) 12:331-377) found a consumer discount rate of 
43% for deferred consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes that using an average discount rate in the LCC best 
approximates the actual opportunity cost of funds faced by consumers. 
This opportunity cost of funds is the time-value of money for 
consumers. Interest rates, which are set by supply and demand for 
credit and capital in the financial market, vary across consumers and 
across financial investment or credit source based on the risk 
associated with that consumer or with that investment type. Because the 
purpose of the LCC analysis is to determine the distributional impacts 
of the proposed standard across heterogeneous consumers in the 
population, to account for variation in access to rates of return on 
investments and interest rates of debt faced by consumers in the 
population, DOE generates a discount rates based on the average of the 
interest rates associated with debts and assets holdings, weighted by 
the share of funds associates with each of those debts or assets in the 
portfolio. This is the best approximation of the actual opportunity 
cost of funds for each household,\51\ and it is the value of deferred 
consumption as determined by the equilibrium of supply and demand in 
the financial market. Those with very high rates of discounting for 
deferred consumption will hold more debt, potentially at higher rates 
of interest. Those with lower rates will hold less. This is captured in 
the weighted average calculation of the discount rate used by DOE. 
Additionally, DOE disagrees with the statement that consumers have no 
other source of investment capital other than savings. A range of 
assets is included in the weighted average discount rate calculated by 
DOE precisely because that is the equity that consumers may hold. In 
particular, they can either defer putting additional funds towards one 
of these investments or they can extract equity from one of these 
investments if they are able. These financial assets are a part of the 
opportunity cost of funds held by consumers, and that is why they are 
in the weighted average calculation for the discount rate use by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ One of the academic papers cited by AHAM in their comment 
deals with a product purchase decision, which is not the context of 
the LCC model because the LCC does not model purchase decisions. See 
Dub[eacute], J. P., Hitsch, G. J., & Jindal, P. (2014). The joint 
identification of utility and discount functions from stated choice 
data: An application to durable goods adoption. Quantitative 
Marketing and Economics, 12(4), 331-377. The other paper cited by 
AHAM is work done in a setting that is very different from that 
relevant to the LCC analysis. It is based on data from Chinese 
consumer behavior on a cell phone plan that changes from a flat per-
minute rate to two-part tariff.. See Yao, S., Mela, C. F., Chiang, 
J., & Chen, Y. (2012). Determining consumers' discount rates with 
field studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 822-841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reference to the second point concerning risk, AHAM stated DOE 
is carrying the concepts of capital asset pricing (CAPM) used in the 
commercial sector (and used by DOE to set commercial discount rates), 
which, essentially, assumes that the cost of equity is set in 
relationship to a risk free rate and the systemic variance between a 
security (or set of cash flows) and a widely diversified set of 
equities. AHAM commented that DOE, in discussing point (2), focuses on 
``risk premiums'' associated with types of investments. Within the 
context of the CAPM model, AHAM stated that all the risks discussed by 
DOE are diversifiable, non-systemic risk. AHAM suggested that they 
should be incorporated (and are incorporated by the DOE Monte Carlo 
process) in the cash flow

[[Page 1413]]

assessment. AHAM commented that this whole discussion on point (2) is 
irrelevant to a discussion of appropriate discount rates. (AHAM, No. 43 
at p. 25)
    First, DOE raised the issue of risk not in the context of its 
method but rather to explain circumstances in which a higher discount 
rate might be appropriate. In any case, DOE disagrees that the 
discussion regarding the risk premium appropriate for an investment in 
energy efficiency is irrelevant to the choice of discount rate used in 
the LCC. As DOE stated before, while there is limited data available on 
the risk associated with specific types of energy efficiency 
investments, Mills et al. (2006) present results from an analysis 
demonstrating that the risk associated with the returns from investing 
in an ENERGY STAR Building are in line with that of long-term 
government bonds (i.e., quite low). These results are shown in Figure 
IV.3, below. This is suggestive that there is no reason to assume that 
the risk premium required for an investment in energy efficiency should 
be particularly high, and certainly not high enough to justify a 
required rate of return at a level commensurate with a credit card 
interest rate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.018

    AHAM stated that the actual question would be what discount rate 
consumers use to evaluate investments and should that discount rate be 
some theoretical value (consumers ``ought'' to look at investments in 
some manner) or a factual value. AHAM commented that the factual value, 
or imputed, discount rate for energy or any other investment is 
substantially greater than four percent, inflation adjusted. AHAM 
concluded that DOE should either use the short-term marginal cost of 
funds for consumers, the actual rate used to finance most significant 
purchases, or it should use a rate to reflect the time value in 
deferring consumption in the consumption versus saving tradeoff. AHAM 
noted that either rate is substantially higher than the 4.43 percent 
used by DOE. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Mills, E., Kromer, S., Weiss, G. and Mathew, P.A., 2006. 
From volatility to value: Analyzing and managing financial and 
performance risk in energy savings projects. Energy Policy, 34(2), 
pp.188-199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As DOE has responded in the past to comments on this topic, the LCC 
analysis is not modeling a purchase decision. The LCC analysis 
estimates the NPV of financial trade-offs of increased upfront product 
costs weighed against reduced operating costs over the lifetime of the 
covered product, assuming the product has already been obtained and 
installed. Implicit or ``imputed'' discount rates referred to by AHAM 
are not the appropriate rates to use in the context of the LCC analysis 
because such rates deviate from market interest rates due to a variety 
of factors (e.g., imperfect information, option values, transaction 
costs, cognitive biases such as present-based preferences or loss 
aversion, etc.). All of these factors are irrelevant from the 
perspective of the LCC analysis; they are already sunk costs. The 
short-term marginal rate is not the appropriate discount rate to use 
because fixing the discount rate at the marginal rate associated with a 
credit card assumes that consumers purchase the appliance with a credit 
card, and keep that purchase on the credit card throughout the entire 
time it takes to pay off that debt with only operating costs savings 
from the more efficient product. There is little evidence that 
consumers behave in this way.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
EL, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market 
shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-standards case (i.e., 
the case without new energy conservation standards).
    To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of portable ACs for 
2022, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market 
shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-standards case (i.e., 
the case without new energy conservation standards). Based on the 
engineering analysis, DOE found that gains in efficiency were achieved 
by utilizing more efficient components in existing test units. DOE used 
product component characteristics to estimate the current efficiency 
distribution of portable ACs on the market. DOE based EL 1, EL2, and EL 
3 on the performance observed in its test sample used to develop the 
engineering analysis. Therefore, DOE estimated a share of 37 percent at 
the baseline, 48 percent for EL 1, 13 percent for EL 2, 2.2

[[Page 1414]]

percent for EL 3, and no share at EL 4. EL 4 represents the maximum 
theoretical performance based on modeling the max-tech design options. 
The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for portable 
ACs and the average EER and CEER values for each EL are shown in Table 
IV.11. See chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for further information on 
the derivation of the efficiency distributions.

               Table IV.11--Portable Air Conditioner No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Market share
                        Efficiency level                                EER            CEER             (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................            5.35            5.08              37
1...............................................................            6.05            5.94            47.8
2...............................................................            7.15            7.13              13
3...............................................................            8.48            8.46             2.2
4...............................................................           10.75           10.73               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Payback Period Analysis
    The simple PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to 
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient products, 
compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. PBPs are 
expressed in years. PBPs that exceed the life of the product mean that 
the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced 
operating expenses.
    The inputs to the simple PBP calculation for each EL are the change 
in total installed cost of the product and the change in the first-year 
annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The PBP 
calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 
discount rates are not applied.
    As noted above, EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable 
presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary 
finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product 
complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than 
three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from 
the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered EL, DOE determined the 
value of the first year's energy savings by calculating the energy 
savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and 
multiplying those savings by the average energy price projection for 
the year in which compliance with the new standards would be required 
(see section V.B.1.c of this final rule).

G. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation 
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\53\ 
The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market 
shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock. 
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age 
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age 
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to 
calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any 
year depend on the age distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received data on portable AC shipments in 2014 from 
manufacturer interviews. The manufacturer interviews also provided 
information which suggested that the average annual growth in portable 
AC shipments between 2004 and 2013 was 30 percent. To estimate 
historical shipments prior to 2004, DOE interpolated between 1985 (the 
date that portable ACs were introduced to the residential market) and 
2004.
    DOE estimated a saturation rate to project shipments of portable 
ACs. DOE assumed that the portable AC saturation rate would be no 
greater than half the current room AC saturation rate (based on RECS 
2009) by the end of the analysis period, i.e., 2051. For each year of 
the projection period, the saturation rate of portable ACs was 
determined from a combination of the total stock of the product and 
total housing stock. The total stock of portable ACs was based on 
product lifetime and the survival function developed in the LCC 
analysis. DOE used total housing stock from AEO 2016. Based on this 
revised approach, DOE estimated that the shipments of portable ACs 
would increase from 1.32 million in 2014 to 1.67 million in 2051.
    For the final rule analysis, DOE applied price and efficiency 
elasticity parameters to estimate the effect of new standards on 
portable AC shipments. DOE estimated the price and efficiency 
elasticity parameters from a regression analysis that incorporated 
shipments, purchase price, and efficiency data specific to several 
residential appliances during 1989-2009. Based on evidence that the 
price elasticity of demand is significantly different over the short 
run and long run for other consumer goods (i.e., automobiles), DOE 
assumed that these elasticities decline over time. DOE estimated 
shipments in each standards case using the price and efficiency 
elasticity along with the change in the product price and operating 
costs between a standards case and the no-new-standards case.
    AHAM commented that it believes that DOE has under-estimated the 
price/feature elasticity effects on portable ACs. AHAM stated that DOE 
has used a generic elasticity factor without looking at the specific 
conditions of the portable AC marketplace and that importers who 
purchase portable ACs and name-brand report that they are in this 
business because of retailer demand for a full product line. AHAM notes 
that if manufacturers are forced to recalibrate cooling capacity and 
increase size and weight, the dynamic of the portable AC market will 
diminish, with retailers ceasing to require portable ACs as part of a 
perceived full-line of products and leading to a negative impact on 
shipments. As such, AHAM recommended that DOE conduct sensitivity 
analyses on energy saved and on manufacturer impact based on a 15 
percent and a 30 percent decline in shipments from the 1.32 million 
unit base case. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 26)
    AHAM's suggestion of a 15 percent or 30 percent decline in 
shipments does not appear to be based on any data source. At TSL 2, a 
15 percent decline in shipments implies a price elasticity of -1.7. A 
30 percent decline implies a price elasticity of -3.4 which is 
significantly smaller (i.e., more elastic) than any good found in the 
literature review. A literature review of typical price elasticity 
values performed by Fujita \54\ finds a range between -0.14

[[Page 1415]]

and -0.42 for appliances. The value used by DOE, -0.45, exceeds the 
high end of the range, which suggests that it is reasonable to apply to 
portable ACs. The concern raised by AHAM that retailers may cease to 
carry portable ACs is unlikely to come to pass because the adopted 
standards would not necessarily significantly increase size and weight, 
and furthermore portable ACs occupy a unique market niche.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Fujita, K.S. Estimating Price Elasticity using Market-Level 
Appliance Data. 2015 http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-188289.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that the decline in shipments from the no-new-
standards case should not count as a beneficial reduction in energy 
consumption. While the use of energy by portable ACs will decline when 
fewer of them are bought, AHAM stated that this is not a net national 
benefit. Rather, AHAM noted that the loss of consumer utility and the 
decline in consumer purchases of a product are the sort of results that 
the EPCA statute specifically prohibits when it leads to a product or a 
set of product features being withdrawn from the market. AHAM commented 
that in the case of portable ACs, the cost will increase and product 
features will worsen, if not disappear, leading to fewer portable ACs 
being purchased. AHAM suggested that DOE should specifically exclude 
the effects of energy savings from its energy reduction calculations in 
the NIA. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 28-29)
    DOE agrees that the energy savings and the NPV should reflect 
shipments from only the affected stock (i.e., shipments impacted by a 
standard) and has calculated the energy savings and the NPV 
accordingly.
    For details on the shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the final 
rule TSD for further information.

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of 
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from 
new or amended standards at specific ELs.\55\ (``Consumer'' in this 
context refers to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE 
calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered 
based on projections of annual product shipments, along with the annual 
energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use 
and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy 
savings, operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer 
benefits over the lifetime of portable ACs sold from 2022 through 2051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new standards by comparing a case 
without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-new-
standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in 
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of 
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with 
projections characterizing the market if DOE adopted new standards at 
specific energy ELs (i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. 
For the standards cases, DOE considers how a given standard would 
likely affect the market shares of products with efficiencies greater 
than the standard.
    Higher-efficiency portable ACs reduce the operating costs for a 
consumer, which can lead to greater use of the product. A direct 
rebound effect occurs when a product that is made more efficient is 
used more intensively, such that the expected energy savings from the 
efficiency improvement may not fully materialize. DOE examined a 2009 
review of empirical estimates of the rebound effect for various energy-
using products.\56\ 80 FR 13120, 13148. This review concluded that the 
econometric and quasi-experimental studies suggest a mean value for the 
direct rebound effect for household heating of around 20 percent. DOE 
also examined a 2012 ACEEE paper \57\ and a 2013 paper by Thomas and 
Azevedo.\58\ Both of these publications examined the same studies that 
were reviewed by Sorrell, as well as Greening et al.,\59\ and 
identified methodological problems with some of the studies. The 
studies, believed to be most reliable by Thomas and Azevedo, show a 
direct rebound effect for space conditioning products in the 1-percent 
to 15-percent range, while Nadel concludes that a more likely range is 
1 to 12 percent, with rebound effects sometimes higher than this range 
for low-income households who could not afford to adequately heat their 
homes prior to weatherization. Based on DOE's review of these recent 
assessments (see chapter 10 of the final rule TSD), DOE used a 15 
percent rebound effect for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Steven Sorrell, et al, Empirical Estimates of the Direct 
Rebound Effect: A Review, 37 Energy Policy 1356-71 (2009).
    \57\ Steven Nadel, ``The Rebound Effect: Large or Small?'' ACEEE 
White Paper (August 2012) (Available at: www.aceee.org/white-paper/reboundeffect-large-or-small).
    \58\ Brinda Thomas & Ines Azevedo, Estimating Direct and 
Indirect Rebound Effects for U.S. Households with Input-Output 
Analysis, Part 1: Theoretical Framework, 86 Ecological Econ. 199-201 
(2013), available at www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912004764.
    \59\ 65 Lorna A. Greening, et al., Energy Efficiency and 
Consumption--The Rebound Effect--A Survey, 28 Energy Policy 389-401 
(2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and 
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested 
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities 
within the spreadsheet at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as 
opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
    Table IV.12 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the final rule. Discussion of these inputs and methods 
follows the table. See chapter 10 of the final rule TSD for further 
details.

   Table IV.12--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments..............................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                          model.
Compliance Date of Standard............  2022.
Efficiency Trends......................  No-New-Standards case: Annual
                                          increase in efficiency of 0.25
                                          percent between 2022 and 2051.
                                          Standards cases: Roll-up plus
                                          shift scenario.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit.....  Annual weighted-average values
                                          are a function of energy use
                                          at each TSL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit..........  Annual weighted-average values
                                          are a function of cost at each
                                          TSL. Incorporates projection
                                          of future product prices based
                                          on historical data.

[[Page 1416]]

 
Annual Energy Cost per Unit............  Annual weighted-average values
                                          as a function of the annual
                                          energy consumption per unit
                                          and energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit...  Annual values do not change
                                          with EL.
Energy Prices and Price Trends.........  Average and marginal
                                          electricity prices for
                                          residential and commercial
                                          sectors from life-cycle cost
                                          and payback period analysis.
                                          AEO 2016 no-CPP case price
                                          projections (to 2040) and
                                          extrapolation through 2051.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC           A time-series conversion factor
 Conversion.                              based on AEO 2016.
Discount Rate..........................  Three and seven percent.
Present Year...........................  2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards 
cases. Section IV.F.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an 
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which 
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the 
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with 
an amended or new standard. To project the trend in efficiency absent 
new standards for portable ACs over the entire shipments projection 
period, DOE used as a starting point the shipments-weighted cooling 
energy efficiency ratio (SWEER) estimated for 2022 in the LCC analysis 
and assumed an annual increase in efficiency equal to the increase 
estimated for room ACs in the 2011 direct final rule: 0.25 percent 
between 2022 and 2051. 76 FR 22454 (April 21, 2011). The approach is 
further described in chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.
    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective (2022). In this scenario, the market of 
products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard 
under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard level, 
and the market share of products above the standard would remain 
unchanged.
    To develop standards case efficiency trends after 2022, DOE 
developed SWEER growth trends for each standard level that maintained, 
throughout the analysis period (2022-2051), the same difference in per-
unit average cost as was determined between the no-new-standards case 
and each standards case in 2022. The approach is further described in 
chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.
2. National Energy Savings
    The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy 
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards 
case (TSL) and the case with no new or amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE calculated the annual NES by multiplying the number of 
units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the annual energy 
consumption savings per unit (also by vintage). DOE calculated unit 
annual energy consumption savings based on the difference in unit 
annual energy consumption for the no-new-standards case and for each 
higher efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and 
savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption 
and savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power 
plants to generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors 
derived from AEO 2016. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES 
for each year over the timeframe of the analysis.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures of 
energy use and GHG and other emissions in the NIA and emissions 
analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 
76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed 
in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended 
policy in which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National 
Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is the most appropriate tool for its FFC 
analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial 
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \60\ that EIA uses to 
prepare its AEO. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production and 
delivery in the case of natural gas (including fugitive emissions) and 
additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by 
power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use 
and emissions is described in appendix 10B of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581 (2009), October 
2009. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), 
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between 
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total 
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. 
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product 
shipped during the projection period.
    As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed 
portable AC price trends based on historical PPI data. DOE applied the 
same trends to project prices at each considered EL. By 2051, which is 
the end date of the projection period, the average portable AC price is 
projected to drop 53 percent relative to 2013. DOE's projection of 
product prices is described in appendix 10C of the final rule TSD.
    To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend 
estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price 
projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for portable 
ACs. In addition to the default price trend, DOE considered two product 
price sensitivity cases: (1) A

[[Page 1417]]

high price decline case based on the AEO 2016 deflator for ``furniture 
and appliances''; and (2) a low price decline case based on BLS' 
inflation-adjusted PPI for small electric household appliances spanning 
1998-2015. The derivation of these price trends and the results of 
these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10C of the final rule 
TSD.
    The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are 
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the 
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy 
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average electricity prices 
by the projection of annual national-average residential and commercial 
electricity price changes in the Reference case described on p. E-8 in 
AEO 2016.\61\ AEO 2016 has an end year of 2040. To estimate price 
trends after 2040, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices 
from 2030 to 2040. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that 
used inputs from the AEO 2016 Low Economic Growth and High Economic 
Growth cases. Those cases have higher and lower energy price trends 
compared to the Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are 
presented in appendix 10C of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 with Projections to 2040. 
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. The 
standards finalized in this rulemaking will take effect a few years 
prior to the 2022 commencement of the Clean Power Plan compliance 
requirements. As DOE has not modeled the effect of CPP during the 
30-year analysis period of this rulemaking, there is some 
uncertainty as to the magnitude and overall effect of the energy 
efficiency standards. These energy efficiency standards are expected 
to put downward pressure on energy prices relative to the 
projections in the AEO 2016 case that incorporates the CPP. 
Consequently, DOE used the electricity price projections found in 
the AEO 2016 No-CPP case as these electricity price projections are 
expected to be lower, yielding more conservative estimates for 
consumer savings due to the energy efficiency standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
final rule, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-
percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount 
rates in accordance with guidance provided by OMB to Federal agencies 
on the development of regulatory analysis.\62\ The discount rates for 
the determination of NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in 
the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a consumer's 
perspective. The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average 
before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The 
3-percent real value represents the ``social rate of time preference,'' 
which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows 
to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ OMB. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
Section E. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new energy conservation 
standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable 
subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by a new 
or amended national standard. The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 
determine the extent of any such disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates 
impacts on particular subgroups of consumers by analyzing the LCC 
impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative 
standard levels. For this final rule, DOE analyzed the impacts of the 
considered standard levels on three subgroups: (1) Low-income 
households, (2) senior-only households, and (3) small businesses. The 
analysis used subsets of the RECS 2009 sample composed of households 
that meet the criteria and CBECS 2012 for the considered subgroups. DOE 
used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the impacts of the 
considered EL on these subgroups. Chapter 11 in the final rule TSD 
describes the consumer subgroup analysis.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of new 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of portable ACs and to 
estimate the potential impacts of such standards on direct employment 
and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and 
qualitative aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash 
flows, INPV, investments in R&D and manufacturing capital, and domestic 
manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how 
new or amended energy conservation standards might affect manufacturing 
capacity, and competition, as well as how standards contribute to 
overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any 
disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small 
business manufacturers.
    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an 
industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The 
key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit 
production costs, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and 
investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce 
compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is the sum 
of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted 
using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, and the impact to 
domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses standard accounting 
principles to estimate the impacts of more-stringent energy 
conservation standards on a given industry by comparing changes in INPV 
and domestic manufacturing employment between a no-new-standards case 
and the various standards cases (TSLs). To capture the uncertainty 
relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following new or amended 
standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts under 
different markup scenarios.
    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer 
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such 
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, 
competition within the industry, cumulative impact of other DOE and 
non-DOE regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The 
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.
    DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 
1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the portable AC manufacturing 
industry based on the market and technology assessment, preliminary 
manufacturer interviews, and publicly-available information. This 
included a top-down analysis of portable AC manufacturers that DOE used 
to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; 
materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation expenses; selling, 
general, and administrative expenses (SG&A); and R&D expenses). DOE 
also used public sources of information to further calibrate its 
initial characterization of the portable AC manufacturing industry, 
including company filings of form 10-K from the SEC, corporate annual 
reports, the U.S. Census Bureau's ``Economic Census,'' and reports from 
Hoovers.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Available at: http://www.hoovers.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow 
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of portable AC energy 
conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a 
series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the 
standard and extending over a 30-year period

[[Page 1418]]

following the compliance date of the standard. These factors include 
annual expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, 
and capital expenditures. In general, energy conservation standards can 
affect manufacturer cash flow in three distinct ways: (1) Creating a 
need for increased investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, 
and (3) altering revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in 
sales volumes.
    In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to 
distribute to manufacturers of portable ACs in order to develop other 
key GRIM inputs, including product and capital conversion costs, and to 
gather additional information on the anticipated effects of energy 
conservation standards on revenues, direct employment, capital assets, 
industry competitiveness, and subgroup impacts.
    In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed 
interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews, 
DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial 
topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key 
issues or concerns. A description of the key issues raised by portable 
AC manufacturers during interviews conducted for the June 2016 ECS NOPR 
can be found in section IV.J.3 of the June 2016 ECS NOPR. See section 
IV.J.3 of this final rule for a description of public comments received 
by DOE regarding the June 2016 ECS NOPR. DOE also used manufacturer 
feedback to qualitatively assess impacts of new standards on 
manufacturing capacity, direct employment, and cumulative regulatory 
burden. See appendix 12A of the final rule TSD for an example of the 
NOPR-phase interview guide.
    As part of Phase 3, DOE evaluated whether subgroups of 
manufacturers may be disproportionately impacted by new standards or 
may not be accurately represented by the average cost assumptions used 
to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such manufacturer subgroups 
may include small business manufacturers, low-volume manufacturers 
(LVMs), niche players, and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure 
that largely differs from the industry average. DOE identified one 
manufacturer subgroup for a separate impact analysis: Small business 
manufacturers. The small business subgroup is discussed in section VI.B 
of this document, ``Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act'' and 
in chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new 
or amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. 
The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, 
distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that 
could result from a new or amended energy conservation standard. The 
GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash 
flows, beginning in 2017 (the base year of the analysis) and continuing 
to 2051. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual 
discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of portable 
ACs, DOE used a real discount rate of 6.6 percent, which was derived 
from industry financials and then modified according to feedback 
received during manufacturer interviews.
    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles 
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards 
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the new or 
amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed 
previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of 
sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering 
analysis, and information gathered from industry during the course of 
manufacturer interviews. The GRIM results are presented in section 
V.B.2 of this document. Additional details about the GRIM, the discount 
rate, and other financial parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the 
final rule TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing a higher efficiency product is typically more 
expensive than manufacturing a baseline product due to the use of more 
complex and typically more costly components. The changes in the MPCs 
of the analyzed products can affect the revenues, gross margins, and 
cash flow of the industry. For each EL, DOE used the MPCs developed in 
the engineering analysis, as described in section IV.C.2 of this final 
rule and further detailed in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 
Additionally, DOE used information from its teardown analysis, 
described in section IV.C of this final rule, to disaggregate the MPCs 
into material and labor costs. For a complete description of the MPCs, 
see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.
b. Shipment Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by EL. 
Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time can significantly 
affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM used the 
NIA's annual shipment forecasts derived from the shipments analysis 
from 2017 (the base year) to 2051 (the end of the analysis period). See 
chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    New energy conservation standards may cause manufacturers to incur 
conversion costs to bring their production facilities and equipment 
designs into compliance with the new standards. DOE evaluated the level 
of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with 
each considered EL. For the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs 
into two major groups: (1) Product conversion costs; and (2) capital 
conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in R&D, 
testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make 
product designs comply with new or amended energy conservation 
standards. Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, 
and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production 
facilities such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated 
and assembled.
    DOE used multiple sources of data to evaluate the level of product 
and capital conversion costs and stranded assets manufacturers would 
likely face to comply with new energy conservation standards. In 
estimating per-platform conversion costs at each EL considered in this 
final rule, DOE primarily used estimates of capital requirements 
derived from the portable AC product teardown analysis and the 
engineering model (as described in section IV.C of this final rule) in 
combination with the conversion cost assumptions used in the final rule 
for dehumidifiers. DOE also used feedback provided by manufacturers 
during interviews. Using the test sample efficiency distribution 
(including AHAM-provided data points), per-platform conversion cost 
estimates were then aggregated and scaled to derive total industry 
estimates of product and capital conversion costs.
    In general, DOE assumes that all conversion-related investments 
occur

[[Page 1419]]

between the year the final rule is published and the year by which 
manufacturers must comply with the new or amended standards. The 
investment figures used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 of 
this final rule. For additional information on the estimated product 
conversion and capital conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the final 
rule TSD.
d. Markup Scenarios
    MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, 
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production 
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate 
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied non-production cost markups to the 
MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and 
EL. Modifying these markups in the standards case yields different sets 
of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards-
case markup scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the potential 
impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers following the 
implementation of new or amended energy conservation standards: (1) A 
preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario; and (2) a 
preservation of per-unit operating profit markup scenario. These 
scenarios lead to different markup values that, when applied to the 
MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
    Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE 
applied a single uniform ``gross margin percentage'' markup across all 
ELs, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the 
same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all ELs within a 
product class. DOE used the baseline manufacturer markup, 1.42, which 
accounts for the two sourcing structures that characterize the portable 
AC market. Single-duct and dual-duct portable ACs sold in the U.S. are 
manufactured by overseas original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) either 
for sale by contract to an importer or for direct sale to retailers and 
builders. The MPCs developed in the engineering analysis, as detailed 
in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD, reflect the cost of manufacturing 
at the OEM. For the OEM to importer sourcing structure, this production 
cost is marked up once by the OEM and again by the contracting the 
company who imports the product and sells it to retailers. This markup 
was used for all products when modeling the no-new-standards in the 
GRIM. This scenario represents the upper bound of industry 
profitability as manufacturers are able to fully pass on additional 
production costs due to standards to their customers under this 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of per-unit operating profit markup 
scenario, DOE modeled a situation in which manufacturers are not able 
to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 
manufacturer production costs. This scenario represents the lower bound 
of profitability and a more substantial impact on the portable AC 
industry as manufacturers accept a lower margin in an attempt to offer 
price competitive products while maintaining the same level of earnings 
before interest and tax (EBIT) they saw prior to new or amended 
standards.
    A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two markup 
scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this final rule.
3. Discussion of Comments
    During and following the July 2016 STD NOPR public meeting, 
manufacturers and trade organizations commented on the potential impact 
of new energy conservation standards on portable AC manufacturers. 
These comments are outlined below. DOE considered these comments when 
updating the analysis for this final rule.
    During the July 2016 STD Public Meeting, both NAM and AHAM 
requested that DOE provide more details about conversion cost model 
assumptions in order to facilitate more focused feedback from member 
companies. Specific requests included the number of companies and 
production lines that were assumed in developing the industry 
conversion cost estimates. (NAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at 
pp. 118-121; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 120-121)
    Relatedly, during the July 20l6 Public Meeting, ASAP commented that 
the industry capital conversion cost estimated for the portable AC 
industry to reach TSL 2 is approximately eight times greater than the 
industry capital conversion costs estimated for dehumidifier 
manufacturers to comply with the standards adopted in the 2016 final 
rule for dehumidifiers (also TSL 2), despite the fact that, in both 
cases, DOE estimated that approximately 50 percent of platforms will 
require complete redesigns. ASAP requested that DOE provide details 
about the number of platforms assumed in estimates of industry 
conversion costs. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 39 at pp. 122-
123)
    DOE addressed the AHAM, NAM, and ASAP requests for information 
related to the inputs used in the estimation of industry conversion 
costs in the DOE response memo on August 19, 2016.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ DOE's response to AHAM's request can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding ASAP's comments related to differences in the magnitude 
of industry capital conversion cost estimates between the portable AC 
and the dehumidifier rulemakings, multiple factors explain the 
differences in industry conversion cost estimates between this final 
rule and the dehumidifiers final rule. First, on a per-platform capital 
investment basis, DOE estimates that portable ACs are more costly to 
produce than dehumidifiers, and, accordingly, capital changes are more 
costly. Additionally, DOE clarifies that, in the June 2016 ECS NOPR, it 
had estimated that approximately 77 percent of portable AC platforms 
would require at least a partial redesign (including a change in 
chassis size) at TSL 2. 81 FR 38398, 38448 (June 13, 2016). Finally, 
for the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE estimated that there were approximately 
48 portable AC platforms available on the U.S. market (updated to 54 
for this final rule), a substantially greater number of platforms than 
was estimated for the dehumidifier industry (DOE estimated there were 
approximately 30 dehumidifier platforms available on the U.S. market). 
Again, DOE provided information related to conversion cost model 
assumptions used for this final rule in the DOE response memo on August 
19, 2016.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding future shipments of portable ACs, AHAM commented that if 
energy conservation standards result in reduced consumer demand, which, 
in turn, leads to reduced shipments volumes relative to those estimated 
in the June 2016 ECS NOPR, negative impacts to manufacturers will be 
compounded. AHAM suggested that DOE re-examine manufacturer impacts to 
include a significantly reduced shipment scenario reflecting the 
potential reduction in consumer demand. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 28) AHAM 
suggested that after doing this, DOE reevaluate its balancing of costs 
and benefits taking into account the increased burden on manufacturers 
when shipment volumes drop as AHAM projects. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 28)
    As discussed in section IV.G of this document, AHAM's suggestion of 
a decline in shipments relative to what was forecasted in the June 2016 
ECS NOPR does not appear to be based on any data source. Accordingly, 
DOE has not modeled an alternative shipments

[[Page 1420]]

and manufacturer impacts scenario. See section IV.G of this document 
for details on DOE's justification of its portable AC shipments 
forecasts.
    Relatedly, AHAM also commented that the estimated range of percent 
reduction in INPV (28.1 to 30.6) is dramatic for a small industry 
segment and out of proportion to the potential benefits. (AHAM, No. 43 
at p. 28)
    As discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE weighs both the 
benefits and burdens associated with each TSL in order to decide upon a 
final standard level. Please see section V.C.1 for the cost-benefit 
discussion associated with the standard adopted in this final rule.
    Finally, AHAM provided several comments relating to DOE's treatment 
of cumulative regulatory burdens. AHAM suggested that DOE include in 
its analysis of cumulative regulatory impacts any rulemaking that would 
have an overlapping compliance period to that of new the portable ACs 
standard. AHAM stated that this adjustment would more realistically 
reflect regulatory burden because it evaluates all rules with which 
manufacturers must comply at any given point. AHAM also stated that, in 
general, the time and resources needed to evaluate and respond to DOE's 
test procedures and energy conservation standards should not be 
excluded from the cumulative regulatory burden discussion. AHAM further 
commented that cumulative regulatory burden analysis should also 
account for the timing and technical and economic relationship of those 
rulemakings. AHAM stated that, for example, DOE's recent practice of 
amending the test procedure while at the same time proposing amended 
standards increases the burden on manufacturers in responding to DOE's 
proposed rules. AHAM added that home appliances are now in an endless 
cycle of regulation, where as soon as one compliance effort ends or is 
near completion, another round of regulation to change the standard 
again begins. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 29-30)
    For this final rule analysis of cumulative regulatory burdens, DOE 
has extended the analysis to include energy conservation standards for 
other products also produced by portable AC manufacturers with a 
standards compliance year occurring within the compliance period for 
the new portable AC standard, as set forth in this final rule (2017 to 
2022). Additionally, as in the June 2016 ECS NOPR analysis, the 
cumulative regulatory burden analysis includes energy conservation 
standards for products also produced by portable AC manufacturers with 
compliance years occurring within 3 years after the compliance year for 
the new portable AC standard. DOE will consider the remaining issues 
put forth by AHAM in the future as it continues to evaluate its 
approach to assessing cumulative regulatory burden.

K. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional GHGs, CH4 and N2O, as 
well as the reductions to emissions of all species due to ``upstream'' 
activities in the fuel production chain. These upstream activities 
comprise extraction, processing, and transporting fuels to the site of 
combustion. The associated emissions are referred to as upstream 
emissions.
    The analysis of power sector emissions uses marginal emissions 
factors that were derived from data in AEO 2016, as described in 
section IV.M. Details of the methodology are described in the 
appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the final rule TSD.
    Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O are 
estimated using emissions intensity factors published by the EPA--GHG 
Emissions Factors Hub.\66\ The FFC upstream emissions are estimated 
based on the methodology described in chapter 15 of the final rule TSD. 
The upstream emissions include both emissions from fuel combustion 
during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuel, and 
``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH4 and CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Available at www2.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-ghg-emission-factors-hub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. Total emissions 
reductions are estimated using the energy savings calculated in the 
NIA.
    For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated emissions 
reduction in tons and also in terms of units of CO2 
equivalent (CO2eq). Emissions of CH4 and 
N2O are often converted to CO2eq by multiplying 
each ton of gas by the gas' GWP over a 100-year time horizon. Based on 
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change,\67\ DOE used GWP values of 28 for CH4 and 265 for 
N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Anthropogenic 
and Natural Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical 
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 
Chapter 8. 2013. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. 
Midgley, Editors. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United 
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AEO incorporates the projected impacts of existing air quality 
regulations on emissions. AEO 2016 generally represents current 
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government 
actions, for which implementing regulations were available as of the 
end of February 2016. DOE's estimation of impacts accounts for the 
presence of the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs.
    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade 
programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on 
SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and the 
District of Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) SO2 
emissions from 28 eastern States and DC were also limited under the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR 
created an allowance-based trading program that operates along with the 
Title IV program. In 2008, CAIR was remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but it remained in 
effect.\68\ In 2011, EPA issued a replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). On August 21, 
2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR,\69\ and the 
court ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR. On April 29, 2014, 
the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and 
remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme 
Court's opinion.\70\ On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted the 
stay of CSAPR.\71\ Pursuant to this action,

[[Page 1421]]

CSAPR went into effect (and CAIR ceased to be in effect) as of January 
1, 2015.\72\ AEO 2016 incorporates implementation of CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \69\ See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 
(D.C. Cir. 2012).
    \70\ See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 134 S. Ct. 1584 
(U.S. 2014). The Supreme Court held in part that EPA's methodology 
for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated in certain States 
due to their impacts in other downwind States was based on a 
permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Clean Air 
Act provision that provides statutory authority for CSAPR.
    \71\ See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Order (D.C. 
Cir. filed October 23, 2014) (No. 11-1302).
    \72\ On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion 
regarding the remaining issues raised with respect to CSAPR that 
were remanded by the Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit largely upheld 
CSAPR, but remanded to EPA without vacatur certain States' emission 
budgets for reconsideration. EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 
795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs 
and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable 
permits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused 
by the adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit 
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. 
In past years, DOE recognized that there was uncertainty about the 
effects of efficiency standards on SO2 emissions covered by 
the existing cap-and-trade system, but it concluded that negligible 
reductions in power sector SO2 emissions would occur as a 
result of standards.
    Beginning in 2016, however, SO2 emissions will fall as a 
result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants. 
77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, EPA established a 
standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gas hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP), and also established a standard for 
SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent 
surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to 
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions will be 
reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on coal-fired 
power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid gas. AEO 
2016 assumes that, in order to continue operating, coal plants must 
have either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems 
installed by 2016. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas 
emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, 
emissions will be far below the cap established by CSAPR, so it is 
unlikely that excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from 
the lower electricity demand would be needed or used to permit 
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated 
EGU.\73\ Therefore, DOE believes that energy conservation standards 
that decrease electricity generation will generally reduce 
SO2 emissions in 2016 and beyond. CSAPR also applies to 
NOX and it supersedes the regulation of NOX under 
CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ DOE notes that on June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court 
ruled that the EPA erred when the agency concluded that cost did not 
need to be considered in the finding that regulation of hazardous 
air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam 
generating units (EGUs) is appropriate and necessary under section 
112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 
(2015). The Supreme Court did not vacate the MATS rule, and DOE has 
tentatively determined that the Court's decision on the MATS rule 
does not change the assumptions regarding the impact of energy 
conservation standards on SO2 emissions. Further, the 
Court's decision does not change the impact of the energy 
conservation standards on mercury emissions. The EPA, in response to 
the U.S. Supreme Court's direction, has now considered cost in 
evaluating whether it is appropriate and necessary to regulate coal- 
and oil-fired EGUs under the CAA. EPA concluded in its final 
supplemental finding that a consideration of cost does not alter the 
EPA's previous determination that regulation of hazardous air 
pollutants, including mercury, from coal- and oil-fired EGUs, is 
appropriate and necessary. 81 FR 24420 (April 25, 2016). The MATS 
rule remains in effect, but litigation is pending in the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals over EPA's final supplemental finding MATS 
rule. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-04-25/pdf/2016-09429.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in 28 eastern 
States and the District of Columbia. Energy conservation standards are 
expected to have little effect on NOX emissions in those 
States covered by CAIR because excess NOX emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to 
permit offsetting increases in NOX emissions from other 
facilities. However, standards would be expected to reduce 
NOX emissions in the States not affected by the caps, so DOE 
estimated NOX emissions reductions from the standards 
considered in this final rule for these States.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE estimated mercury 
emissions reduction using emissions factors based on AEO 2016, which 
incorporates the MATS.
    The AEO 2016 Reference case (and some other cases) assumes 
implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which is the EPA program 
to regulate CO2 emissions at existing fossil-fired electric 
power plants.\74\ DOE used the AEO 2016 No-CPP case as a basis for 
developing emissions factors for the electric power sector to be 
consistent with its use of the No-CPP case in the NIA.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Carbon Pollution 
Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 
Utility Generating Units'' (Washington, DC: October 23, 2015). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/23/2015-22842/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating.
    \75\ As DOE has not modeled the effect of CPP during the 30-year 
analysis period of this rulemaking, there is some uncertainty as to 
the magnitude and overall effect of the energy efficiency standards. 
With respect to estimated CO2 and NOX 
emissions reductions and their associated monetized benefits, if 
implemented the CPP would result in an overall decrease in 
CO2 emissions from electric generating units (EGUs), and 
would thus likely reduce some of the estimated CO2 
reductions associated with this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this rule, DOE considered the 
estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of 
CO2, CH4, N2O and NOX that 
are expected to result from each of the TSLs considered. In order to 
make this calculation analogous to the calculation of the NPV of 
consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced emissions expected to 
result over the lifetime of products shipped in the projection period 
for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the values used for 
monetizing the emissions benefits and presents the values considered in 
this final rule.
    For this final rule, DOE relied on a set of values for the social 
cost of carbon (SC-CO2) that was developed by a Federal 
interagency process. The basis for these values is summarized in the 
next section, and a more detailed description of the methodologies used 
is provided as an appendix to chapter 14 of the final rule TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SC-CO2 is an estimate of the monetized damages 
associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given 
year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) climate-change-
related changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, 
property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem 
services. Estimates of the SC-CO2 are provided in dollars 
per metric ton of CO2. A domestic SC-CO2 value is 
meant to reflect the value of damages in the U.S. resulting from a unit 
change in CO2 emissions, while a global SC-CO2 
value is meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
    Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to 
the extent permitted by law, ``assess both the costs and the benefits 
of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and 
benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only 
upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended 
regulation justify its costs.'' The purpose of the SC-CO2 
estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the 
monetized social benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into

[[Page 1422]]

cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions. The estimates are 
presented with an acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved 
and with a clear understanding that they should be updated over time to 
reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate 
impacts.
    As part of the interagency process that developed these SC-
CO2 estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met 
on a regular basis to consider public comments, explore the technical 
literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and 
assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range 
of SC-CO2 values using a defensible set of input assumptions 
grounded in the existing scientific and economic literatures. In this 
way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently and 
consistently inform the range of SC-CO2 estimates used in 
the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of 
CO2 emissions, the analyst faces a number of challenges. A 
report from the National Research Council \76\ points out that any 
assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 
information about (1) future emissions of GHGs, (2) the effects of past 
and future emissions on the climate system, (3) the impact of changes 
in climate on the physical and biological environment, and (4) the 
translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages. As a 
result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with 
climate change will raise questions of science, economics, and ethics 
and should be viewed as provisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced 
Consequences of Energy Production and Use. 2009. National Academies 
Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SC-
CO2 estimates can be useful in estimating the social 
benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. Although any numerical 
estimate of the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions is 
subject to some uncertainty, that does not relieve DOE of its 
obligation to attempt to factor those benefits into its cost-benefit 
analysis. Moreover, the interagency working group's (IWG) SC-
CO2 estimates are well supported by the existing scientific 
and economic literature. As a result, DOE has relied on the IWG's SC-
CO2 estimates in quantifying the social benefits of reducing 
CO2 emissions. DOE estimates the benefits from reduced (or 
costs from increased) emissions in any future year by multiplying the 
change in emissions in that year by the SC-CO2 values 
appropriate for that year. The NPV of the benefits can then be 
calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an 
appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years.
    It is important to emphasize that the current SC-CO2 
values reflect the IWG's best assessment, based on current data, of the 
societal effect of CO2 emissions. The IWG is committed to 
updating these estimates as the science and economic understanding of 
climate change and its impacts on society improves over time. In the 
meantime, the IWG will continue to explore the issues raised by this 
analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing 
interagency process.
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values
    In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a 
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from 
reducing CO2 emissions. To ensure consistency in how 
benefits are evaluated across Federal agencies, the Administration 
sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically 
designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change 
damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The IWG did not 
undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SC-CO2 
estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a 
more comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the 
preliminary assessment by the IWG was a set of five interim values that 
represented the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. 
government to develop an SC-CO2 for use in regulatory 
analysis. The results of this preliminary effort were presented in 
several proposed and final rules issued by DOE and other agencies.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    After the release of the interim values, the IWG reconvened on a 
regular basis to generate improved SC-CO2 estimates. 
Specially, the IWG considered public comments and further explored the 
technical literature in relevant fields. It relied on three integrated 
assessment models commonly used to estimate the SC-CO2: The 
FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently cited in the 
peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Each model was given 
equal weight in the SC-CO2 values that were developed.
    Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes 
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of 
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the 
three models, while respecting the different approaches to quantifying 
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of 
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 
for these models: Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions 
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for 
climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In 
addition, the IWG used a range of scenarios for the socio-economic 
parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. All other model 
features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers' best 
estimates and judgments.
    In 2010, the IWG selected four sets of SC-CO2 values for 
use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the 
average SC-CO2 from the three integrated assessment models, 
at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which 
represents the 95th percentile SC-CO2 estimate across all 
three models at a 3-percent discount rate, was included to represent 
higher-than-expected impacts from climate change further out in the 
tails of the SC-CO2 distribution. The values grow in real 
terms over time. Additionally, the IWG determined that a range of 
values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global 
SC-CO2 to calculate domestic effects,\77\ although 
preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing 
CO2 emissions. Table IV.13 presents the values in the 2010 
IWG report.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values 
is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a 
priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 
net global damages over time.
    \78\ U.S. Government--IWG on Social Cost of Carbon. Social Cost 
of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 
12866. February 2010. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf.

[[Page 1423]]



                             Table IV.13--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2010 IWG Report
                                           [2007$ per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistic
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                             5%              3%             2.5%              3%
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Average         Average         Average      95th percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010..........................................             4.7            21.4            35.1              64.9
2015..........................................             5.7            23.8            38.4              72.8
2020..........................................             6.8            26.3            41.7              80.7
2025..........................................             8.2            29.6            45.9              90.4
2030..........................................             9.7            32.8            50.0             100.0
2035..........................................            11.2            36.0            54.2             109.7
2040..........................................            12.7            39.2            58.4             119.3
2045..........................................            14.2            42.1            61.7             127.8
2050..........................................            15.7            44.9            65.0             136.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013 the IWG released an update (which was revised in July 2015) 
that contained SC-CO2 values that were generated using the 
most recent versions of the three integrated assessment models that 
have been published in the peer-reviewed literature.\79\ DOE used these 
values for this final rule. Table IV.14 shows the four sets of SC-
CO2 estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year 
increments from 2010 through 2050. The full set of annual SC-
CO2 estimates from 2010 through 2050 is reported in appendix 
14A of the final rule TSD. The central value that emerges is the 
average SC-CO2 across models at the 3-percent discount rate. 
However, for purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in 
regulatory impact analysis, the IWG emphasizes the importance of 
including all four sets of SC-CO2 values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ U.S. Government--IWG on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical 
Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. May 2013. 
Revised July 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf.

                   Table IV.14--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2013 IWG Update (Revised July 2015)
                                           [2007$ per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistic
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                             5%              3%             2.5%              3%
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Average         Average         Average      95th percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010..........................................              10              31              50                86
2015..........................................              11              36              56               105
2020..........................................              12              42              62               123
2025..........................................              14              46              68               138
2030..........................................              16              50              73               152
2035..........................................              18              55              78               168
2040..........................................              21              60              84               183
2045..........................................              23              64              89               197
2050..........................................              26              69              95               212
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties 
remain, and that current SC-CO2 estimates should be treated 
as provisional and revisable because they will evolve with improved 
scientific and economic understanding. The IWG also recognizes that the 
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 
Council report mentioned previously points out that there is tension 
between the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic 
damages from an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing 
efforts to model these effects. There are a number of analytical 
challenges that are being addressed by the research community, 
including research programs housed in many of the Federal agencies 
participating in the interagency process to estimate the SC-
CO2. The IWG intends to periodically review and reconsider 
those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and 
economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ In November 2013, OMB announced a new opportunity for 
public comment on the interagency technical support document 
underlying the revised SC-CO2 estimates. 78 FR 70586. In 
July 2015 OMB published a detailed summary and formal response to 
the many comments that were received: This is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefits-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions. It also stated its intention to seek 
independent expert advice on opportunities to improve the estimates, 
including many of the approaches suggested by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE converted the values from the 2013 interagency report (revised 
July 2015), to 2015$ using the implicit price deflator for gross 
domestic product (GDP) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. For each 
of the four sets of SC-CO2 cases, the values for emissions 
in 2020 were $13.5, $47.4, $69.9, and $139 per metric ton avoided 
(values expressed in 2015$). DOE derived values after 2050 based on the 
trend in 2010-2050 in each of the four cases in the interagency update.
    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the 
four cases. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary 
values, DOE

[[Page 1424]]

discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CO2 values 
in each case.
    DOE received several comments on the development of and the use of 
the SC-CO2 values in its analyses. A group of trade 
associations led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce objected to DOE's 
continued use of the SC-CO2 in the cost-benefit analysis and 
stated that the SC-CO2 calculation should not be used in any 
rulemaking until it undergoes a more rigorous notice, review, and 
comment process. (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, No. 36 at p. 4) AHAM 
opposed DOE's analysis of the social cost of carbon in this rulemaking 
and supported the comments submitted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 
(AHAM, No. 43 at p. 29) IECA stated that before DOE applies any SC-
CO2 estimate in its rulemaking, DOE must correct the 
methodological flaws that commenters have raised about the IWG's SC-
CO2 estimate. IECA referenced a U.S. Government 
Accountability Office report that IECA believes highlights severe 
uncertainties in SC-CO2 values. (IECA, No. 33 at p. 2)
    In contrast, the Joint Advocates stated that only a partial 
accounting of the costs of climate change (those most easily monetized) 
can be provided, which inevitably involves incorporating elements of 
uncertainty. The Joint Advocates commented that accounting for the 
economic harms caused by climate change is a critical component of 
sound benefit-cost analyses of regulations that directly or indirectly 
limit GHGs. The Joint Advocates stated that several Executive Orders 
direct Federal agencies to consider non-economic costs and benefits, 
such as environmental and public health impacts. (Joint Advocates, No. 
23 at pp. 2-3) Furthermore, the Joint Advocates argued that without an 
SC-CO2 estimate, regulators would by default be using a 
value of zero for the benefits of reducing carbon pollution, thereby 
implying that carbon pollution has no costs. The Joint Advocates stated 
that it would be arbitrary for a Federal agency to weigh the societal 
benefits and costs of a rule with significant carbon pollution effects 
but to assign no value at all to the considerable benefits of reducing 
carbon pollution. (Joint Advocates, No. 23 at p. 3)
    The Joint Advocates stated that assessment and use of the 
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) in developing the SC-CO2 
values has been transparent. The Joint Advocates further noted that 
repeated opportunities for public comment demonstrate that the IWG's 
SC-CO2 estimates were developed and are being used 
transparently. (Joint Advocates, No. 23 at p. 4) The Joint Advocates 
stated that (1) the IAMs used reflect the best available, peer-reviewed 
science to quantify the benefits of carbon emission reductions; (2) 
uncertainty is not a valid reason for rejecting the SC-CO2 
analysis, and (3) the IWG was rigorous in addressing uncertainty 
inherent in estimating the economic cost of pollution. (Joint 
Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 5, 17-18, 18-19) The Joint Advocates added 
that the increase in the SC-CO2 estimate in the 2013 update 
reflects the growing scientific and economic research on the risks and 
costs of climate change, but is still very likely an underestimate of 
the SC-CO2. (Joint Advocates, No. 23 at p. 4)
    In response to the comments on the SC-CO2, in conducting 
the interagency process that developed the SC-CO2 values, 
technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to 
consider public comments, explore the technical literature in relevant 
fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. Key uncertainties 
and model differences transparently and consistently inform the range 
of SC-CO2 estimates. These uncertainties and model 
differences are discussed in the IWG's reports, as are the major 
assumptions. Specifically, uncertainties in the assumptions regarding 
climate sensitivity, as well as other model inputs such as economic 
growth and emissions trajectories, are discussed and the reasons for 
the specific input assumptions chosen are explained. However, the three 
integrated assessment models used to estimate the SC-CO2 are 
frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the 
last assessment of the IPCC. In addition, new versions of the models 
that were used in 2013 to estimate revised SC-CO2 values 
were published in the peer-reviewed literature. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report mentioned by IECA describes the 
approach the IWG used to develop estimates of the SC-CO2 and 
noted that evaluating the quality of the IWG's approach was outside the 
scope of GAO's review. Although uncertainties remain, the revised SC-
CO2 values are based on the best available scientific 
information on the impacts of climate change. The current estimates of 
the SC-CO2 have been developed over many years, using the 
best science available, and with input from the public. DOE notes that 
not using SC-CO2 estimates because of uncertainty would be 
tantamount to assuming that the benefits of reduced carbon emissions 
are zero, which is inappropriate. Furthermore, the commenters have not 
offered alternative estimates of the SC-CO2 that they 
believe are more accurate.
    As noted previously, in November 2013, OMB announced a new 
opportunity for public comment on the interagency technical support 
document underlying the revised SC-CO2 estimates. 78 FR 
70586 (Nov. 26, 2013). In July 2015, OMB published a detailed summary 
and formal response to the many comments that were received. DOE stands 
ready to work with OMB and the other members of the IWG on further 
review and revision of the SC-CO2 estimates as 
appropriate.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefits-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions. OMB also stated its 
intention to seek independent expert advice on opportunities to 
improve the estimates, including many of the approaches suggested by 
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IECA stated that the SC-CO2 places U.S. manufacturing at 
a distinct competitive disadvantage. IECA added that the higher SC-
CO2 cost drives manufacturing companies offshore and 
increases imports of more carbon-intensive manufactured goods. (IECA, 
No. 33 at pp. 1-2) In response, DOE notes that the SC-CO2 is simply a 
metric that Federal agencies use to estimate the societal benefits of 
policy actions that reduce CO2 emissions.
    IECA stated that the SC-CO2 value is unrealistically 
high in comparison to carbon market prices. (IECA, No. 33 at p. 3) In 
response, DOE notes that the SC-CO2 is an estimate of the 
monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon 
emissions in a given year, whereas carbon trading prices in existing 
markets are simply a function of the demand and supply of tradable 
permits in those markets. Such prices depend on the arrangements in 
specific carbon markets, and do not necessarily bear relation to the 
damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions.
    IECA stated that the SC-CO2 estimates must be made 
consistent with OMB Circular A-4, and noted that it uses a lower 
discount rate than recommended by OMB Circular A-4 and values global 
benefits rather than solely U.S. domestic benefits. (IECA, No. 33 at p. 
5)
    OMB Circular A-4 provides two suggested discount rates for use in 
regulatory analysis: 3 percent and 7 percent. Circular A-4 states that 
the 3 percent discount rate is appropriate for ``regulation [that] 
primarily and directly affects private consumption (e.g., through 
higher consumer prices for goods and services).'' The IWG that 
developed the SC-CO2 values for use by Federal agencies 
examined the

[[Page 1425]]

economics literature and concluded that the consumption rate of 
interest is the correct concept to use in evaluating the net social 
costs of a marginal change in CO2 emissions, as the impacts 
of climate change are measured in consumption-equivalent units in the 
three models used to estimate the SC-CO2. The IWG chose to 
use three discount rates to span a plausible range of constant discount 
rates: 2.5, 3, and 5 percent per year. The central value, 3 percent, is 
consistent with estimates provided in the economics literature and 
OMB's Circular A-4 guidance for the consumption rate of interest.
    Regarding the use of global SC-CO2 values, DOE's 
analysis estimates both global and domestic benefits of CO2 
emissions reductions. Following the recommendation of the IWG, DOE 
places more focus on a global measure of SC-CO2. The climate 
change problem is highly unusual in at least two respects. First, it 
involves a global externality: Emissions of most GHGs contribute to 
damages around the world even when they are emitted in the U.S. 
Consequently, to address the global nature of the problem, the SC-
CO2 must incorporate the full (global) damages caused by GHG 
emissions. Second, climate change presents a problem that the U.S. 
alone cannot solve. Even if the U.S. were to reduce its GHG emissions 
to zero, that step would be far from enough to avoid substantial 
climate change. Other countries would also need to take action to 
reduce emissions if significant changes in the global climate are to be 
avoided. Emphasizing the need for a global solution to a global 
problem, the U.S. has been actively involved in seeking international 
agreements to reduce emissions and in encouraging other nations, 
including emerging major economies, to take significant steps to reduce 
emissions. When these considerations are taken as a whole, the IWG 
concluded that a global measure of the benefits from reducing U.S. 
emissions is preferable. DOE's approach is not in contradiction of the 
requirement to weigh the need for national energy conservation, as one 
of the main reasons for national energy conservation is to contribute 
to efforts to mitigate the effects of global climate change.
2. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    The Joint Advocates stated that EPA and other agencies have begun 
using a methodology developed to specifically measure the social cost 
of methane in recent proposed rulemakings, and recommended that DOE use 
the social cost of methane metric to more accurately reflect the true 
benefits of energy conservation standards. They stated that the 
methodology in the study used to develop the social cost of methane 
provides reasonable estimates that reflect updated evidence and provide 
consistency with the Government's accepted methodology for estimating 
the SC-CO2. (Joint Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 19-20)
    While carbon dioxide is the most prevalent GHG emitted into the 
atmosphere, other GHGs are also important contributors. These include 
methane and nitrous oxide. GWP values are often used to convert 
emissions of non-CO2 GHGs to CO2-equivalents to 
facilitate comparison of policies and inventories involving different 
GHGs. While GWPs allow for some useful comparisons across gases on a 
physical basis, using the SC-CO2 to value the damages 
associated with changes in CO2-equivalent emissions is not 
optimal. This is because non-CO2 GHGs differ not just in 
their potential to absorb infrared radiation over a given time frame, 
but also in the temporal pathway of their impact on radiative forcing, 
which is relevant for estimating their social cost but not reflected in 
the GWP. Physical impacts other than temperature change also vary 
across gases in ways that are not captured by GWP.
    In light of these limitations and the paucity of peer-reviewed 
estimates of the social cost of non-CO2 gases in the 
literature, the 2010 Social Cost of Carbon Technical Support Document 
did not include an estimate of the social cost of non-CO2 
GHGs and did not endorse the use of GWP to approximate the value of 
non-CO2 emission changes in regulatory analysis. Instead, 
the IWG noted that more work was needed to link non-CO2 GHG 
emission changes to economic impacts.
    Since that time, new estimates of the social cost of non-
CO2 GHG emissions have been developed in the scientific 
literature, and a recent study by Marten et al. (2015) provided the 
first set of published estimates for the social cost of CH4 
and N2O emissions that are consistent with the methodology 
and modeling assumptions underlying the IWG SC-CO2 
estimates.\82\ Specifically, Marten et al. used the same set of three 
integrated assessment models, five socioeconomic and emissions 
scenarios, equilibrium climate sensitivity distribution, three constant 
discount rates, and the aggregation approach used by the IWG to develop 
the SC-CO2 estimates. An addendum to the IWG's Technical 
Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis under Executive Order 12866 summarizes the Marten et al. 
methodology and presents the SC-CH4 and SC-N2O 
estimates from that study as a way for agencies to incorporate the 
social benefits of reducing CH4 and N2O emissions 
into benefit-cost analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or 
``marginal,'' impacts on cumulative global emissions.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Marten, A.L., Kopits, E.A., Griffiths, C.W., Newbold, S.C., 
and A. Wolverton. 2015. Incremental CH4 and 
N2O Mitigation Benefits Consistent with the U.S. 
Government's SC-CO2 Estimates. Climate Policy. 15(2): 
272-298 (published online, 2014).
    \83\ U.S. Government--IWG on Social Cost of GHGs. Addendum to 
Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the 
Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social 
Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/august_2016_sc_ch4_sc_n2o_addendum_final_8_26_16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology and estimates described in the addendum have 
undergone multiple stages of peer review and their use in regulatory 
analysis has been subject to public comment. The estimates are 
presented with an acknowledgement of the limitations and uncertainties 
involved and with a clear understanding that they should be updated 
over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics 
of climate impacts, just as the IWG has committed to do for the SC-
CO2. OMB has determined that the use of the Marten et al. 
estimates in regulatory analysis is consistent with the requirements of 
OMB's Information Quality Guidelines Bulletin for Peer Review and OMB 
Circular A-4.
    The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates are presented 
in Table IV.15. Following the same approach as with the SC-
CO2, values for 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 are 
calculated by combining all outputs from all scenarios and models for a 
given discount rate. Values for the years in between are calculated 
using linear interpolation. The full set of annual SC-CH4 
and SC-N2O estimates between 2010 and 2050 is reported in 
appendix 14A of the final rule TSD. DOE derived values after 2050 based 
on the trend in 2010-2050 in each of the four cases in the IWG 
addendum.

[[Page 1426]]



                                         Table IV.15--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Estimates From 2016 IWG Addendum
                                                                 [2007$ per metric ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 SC-CH4                                        SC-N2O
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Discount rate and statistic                   Discount rate and statistic
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Year                                  5%         3%        2.5%         3%          5%         3%        2.5%         3%
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   95th                                          95th
                                                               Average    Average    Average    percentile   Average    Average    Average    percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010........................................................        370        870      1,200        2,400      3,400     12,000     18,000       31,000
2015........................................................        450      1,000      1,400        2,800      4,000     13,000     20,000       35,000
2020........................................................        540      1,200      1,600        3,200      4,700     15,000     22,000       39,000
2025........................................................        650      1,400      1,800        3,700      5,500     17,000     24,000       44,000
2030........................................................        760      1,600      2,000        4,200      6,300     19,000     27,000       49,000
2035........................................................        900      1,800      2,300        4,900      7,400     21,000     29,000       55,000
2040........................................................      1,000      2,000      2,600        5,500      8,400     23,000     32,000       60,000
2045........................................................      1,200      2,300      2,800        6,100      9,500     25,000     34,000       66,000
2050........................................................      1,300      2,500      3,100        6,700     11,000     27,000     37,000       72,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the four cases. To 
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH4 and 
SC-N2O estimates in each case. Results for CH4 
and N2O emissions reduction estimates can be found in 
section V.B.6 of this document and are included in the costs and 
benefits for those that contribute to the determination of the economic 
justification of each TSL level.
3. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants
    As noted previously, DOE estimated how the considered energy 
conservation standards would reduce site NOX emissions 
nationwide and decrease power sector NOX emissions in those 
22 States not affected by the CSAPR.
    DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions 
reductions from electricity generation using benefit per ton estimates 
from the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final 
Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards.\84\ The report includes high and low values for 
NOX (as PM2.5) for 2020, 2025, and 2030 using 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent; these values are presented 
in appendix 14B of the final rule TSD. DOE primarily relied on the low 
estimates to be conservative.\85\ The national average low values for 
2020 (in 2015$) are $3,187/ton at 3-percent discount rate and $2,869/
ton at 7-percent discount rate. DOE developed values specific to the 
sector for portable ACs using a method described in appendix 14B of the 
final rule TSD. For this analysis DOE used linear interpolation to 
define values for the years between 2020 and 2025 and between 2025 and 
2030; for years beyond 2030 the value is held constant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Available at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis. See Tables 4A-3, 4A-4, and 
4A-5 in the report. The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the rule 
implementing the Clean Power Plan until the current litigation 
against it concludes. Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al., 
Order in Pending Case, 577 U.S. __ (2016). However, the benefit-per-
ton estimates established in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 
Clean Power Plan are based on scientific studies that remain valid 
irrespective of the legal status of the Clean Power Plan.
    \85\ For the monetized NOX benefits associated with 
PM2.5, the related benefits are primarily based on an 
estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski 
et al. 2009), which is the lower of the two EPA central tendencies. 
Using the lower value is more conservative when making the policy 
decision concerning whether a particular standard level is 
economically justified. If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based 
on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al. 2012), the values would be 
nearly two-and-a-half times larger. (See chapter 14 of the final 
rule TSD for citations for the studies mentioned above.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the emissions reduction (in tons) in each year by 
the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.
    DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of reduction in other 
emissions in energy conservation standards rulemakings. DOE has not 
included monetization of those emissions in the current analysis.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the 
electric power generation industry that would result from the adoption 
of new or amended energy conservation standards. The utility impact 
analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and 
generation that would result for each TSL. The analysis is based on 
published output from the NEMS associated with AEO 2016. NEMS produces 
the AEO Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate 
the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. As 
discussed in section IV.K, DOE is using the AEO 2016 No-CPP case as a 
basis for its analysis. For the current analysis, impacts are 
quantified by comparing the levels of electricity sector generation, 
installed capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the AEO 2016 No-
CPP case and various side cases. Details of the methodology are 
provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the final rule TSD.
    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients 
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a 
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are 
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA 
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of new or amended 
energy conservation standards.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a standard. Employment impacts from new or amended 
energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect impacts. 
Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of 
manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their suppliers, 
and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 
employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to 
the shift in

[[Page 1427]]

expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and 
operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts 
from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the 
national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being 
regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) 
reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) 
increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards 
apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three 
factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's BLS. BLS 
regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million 
dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the economy, as 
well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic 
activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility 
sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than 
expenditures in other sectors of the economy.\86\ There are many 
reasons for these differences, including wage differences and the fact 
that the utility sector is more capital-intensive and less labor-
intensive than other sectors. Energy conservation standards have the 
effect of reducing consumer utility bills. Because reduced consumer 
expenditures for energy likely lead to increased expenditures in other 
sectors of the economy, the general effect of efficiency standards is 
to shift economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., 
the utility sector) to more labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 
and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data suggest that net national 
employment may increase due to shifts in economic activity resulting 
from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See U.S. Department of Commerce--Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government 
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this final rule using an input/output model of the 
U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 
(ImSET).\87\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. Benchmark 
National Input-Output'' (I-O) model, which was designed to estimate the 
national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. 
The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model having 
structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 187 
sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Livingston, O.V, S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. Schultz. 
ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model Description 
and User's Guide. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, 
WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and understands the uncertainties involved in projecting 
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the 
employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job 
impacts over the long run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only 
to generate results for near-term timeframes (2022-2027), where these 
uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact 
analysis, see chapter 16 of the final rule TSD.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for 
portable ACs. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected 
impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation 
standards for portable ACs, and the standards levels that DOE is 
adopting in this final rule. Additional details regarding DOE's 
analyses are contained in the final rule TSD supporting this document.

A. Trial Standard Levels (TSLs)

    DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of four TSLs for portable 
ACs. These TSLs are equal to each of the ELs analyzed by DOE with 
results presented in this document. Detailed results for TSLs that DOE 
analyzed are in the final rule TSD.
    Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding ELs, and average 
EERs and CEERs at each level that DOE has identified for potential new 
energy conservation standards for portable ACs. TSL 4 represents the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') energy efficiency. TSL 
3 consists of an intermediate EL below the max-tech level, 
corresponding to the single highest efficiency observed in DOE's test 
sample. TSL 2 represents the maximum available efficiency across the 
full range of capacities, and TSL 1 represents an intermediate level 
between the baseline and TSL 2.

                         Table V.1--Trial Standard Levels for Portable Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               TSL                                      EL         EER (Btu/Wh)    CEER (Btu/Wh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................               1            6.05            5.94
2...............................................................               2            7.15            7.13
3...............................................................               3            8.48            8.46
4...............................................................               4           10.75           10.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on portable ACs consumers by 
looking at the effects that potential new standards at each TSL would 
have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential 
standards on selected consumer subgroups and three sensitivity analyses 
on energy consumption. These analyses are discussed below.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the final rule 
TSD provides detailed

[[Page 1428]]

information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Table V.2 through Table V.7 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
TSLs considered for portable ACs for both sectors, residential and 
commercial. The LCC results presented in Table V.2 and Table V.3 
combined the results for residential and commercial users, which means 
that DOE had to assign an appropriate weight to the results for each 
type of user. Using the weighting from the room AC rulemaking,\88\ DOE 
assumed that 87 percent of shipments are to the residential sector and 
13 percent are to the commercial sector. In the first of each pair of 
tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline product 
(EL 0). In the second table, the impacts are measured relative to the 
efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the compliance 
year (see section IV.F of this final rule). Because some consumers 
purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-standards case, 
the average savings are less than the difference between the average 
LCC of EL 0 and the average LCC at each TSL. The savings refer only to 
consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those who 
already purchase a product with efficiency at or above a given TSL are 
not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL 
experience a net cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Room AC Standards Rulemaking, Direct Final Rule, Chapter 8, 
page 51. April 18, 2011. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053.

                                      Table V.2--Average LCC and PBP Results for Portable ACs, Residential Setting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2015$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                   TSL                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       0             559             119             995           1,554  ..............              10
1.......................................               1             588             106             892           1,480             2.3              10
2.......................................               2             635              92             769           1,404             2.8              10
3.......................................               3             700              78             655           1,355             3.5              10
4.......................................               4             733              63             533           1,265             3.1              10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline (EL 0) product.


   Table V.3--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Portable ACs, Residential Setting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percent of
                                                                                 Average LCC     consumers that
                             TSL                                    EL            savings *      experience net
                                                                                   (2015$)            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................               1                73                 9
2...........................................................               2               108                27
3...........................................................               3               143                38
4...........................................................               4               229                34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                       Table V.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for Portable ACs, Commercial Setting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2015$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                   TSL                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       0             560             246           1,818           2,378  ..............              10
1.......................................               1             588             221           1,636           2,224             1.2              10
2.......................................               2             636             192           1,419           2,055             1.4              10
3.......................................               3             701             165           1,218           1,919             1.7              10
4.......................................               4             733             135             999           1,732             1.6              10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline (EL 0) product.


    Table V.5--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Portable ACs, Commercial Setting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percent of
                                                                                 Average LCC     consumers that
                             TSL                                    EL            savings *      experience net
                                                                                   (2015$)            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................               1               155                 3

[[Page 1429]]

 
2...........................................................               2               238                 9
3...........................................................               3               342                14
4...........................................................               4               522                12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                          Table V.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for Portable ACs, Both Sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2015$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                   TSL                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       0             559             135           1,103           1,663  ..............              10
1.......................................               1             588             122             990           1,578             2.2              10
2.......................................               2             635             105             855           1,490             2.6              10
3.......................................               3             700              89             729           1,429             3.2              10
4.......................................               4             733              73             594           1,327             2.9              10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline (EL 0) product.


       Table V.7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Portable ACs, Both Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percent of
                                                                                 Average LCC     consumers that
                             TSL                                    EL            savings *      experience net
                                                                                   (2015$)            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................               1                84                 8
2...........................................................               2               125                24
3...........................................................               3               169                35
4...........................................................               4               268                31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

    As discussed in section IV.E, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 
that assumes consumers use portable ACs 50 percent less than room ACs. 
For the proposed standard, TSL 2, the average LCC savings for all 
consumers declines to $35 (from $125) and 42 percent of consumers 
experience a net cost under the sensitivity analysis (from 24 percent). 
See appendix 8F and 10E of the final rule TSD for additional 
information.
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the 
considered TSLs on low-income households, senior-only households, and 
small businesses. Table V.8 compares the average LCC savings and PBP at 
each EL for the three consumer subgroups, along with the average LCC 
savings for the entire sample. In most cases, the average LCC savings 
and PBP for low-income households, senior-only households, and small 
businesses at the considered ELs are not substantially different from 
the average for all households. Chapter 11 of the final rule TSD 
presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the subgroups.

               Table V.8--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households Plus Light-Commercial Establishments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Average life-cycle cost savings (2015$)                           Simple payback period (years)
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              TSL                 Low-income      Senior-only        Small          Both       Low-income      Senior-only        Small          Both
                                  households      households      businesses      sectors      households      households      businesses      sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................              96              72             143           84             1.9             2.3             1.2          2.2
2.............................             142             106             218          125             2.3             2.8             1.4          2.6
3.............................             195             141             312          169             2.9             3.5             1.7          3.2
4.............................             304             226             477          268             2.6             3.2             1.6          2.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1430]]

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section III.E.2, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 
presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically 
justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the 
standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 
savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable 
presumption PBP for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used point values, 
and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on the DOE 
test procedure for portable ACs. In contrast, the PBPs presented in 
section V.B.1.a were calculated using distributions for input values, 
with energy use based on field metering studies and RECS data.
    Table V.9 presents the rebuttable-presumption PBP for the 
considered TSLs for portable ACs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-
presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels 
considered for the final rule are economically justified through a more 
detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to 
the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of 
that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the 
economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification. Table V.9 shows the rebuttable presumption PBPs 
for the considered TSLs for portable ACs.

                              Table V.9--Portable Air Conditioners: Rebuttable PBPs
                                                     [Years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Trial standard level
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1                2                3                4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential.................................             1.7              2.1              2.6              2.3
Commercial..................................             2.3              2.8              3.4              3.1
Both sectors................................             1.8              2.2              2.7              2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new energy 
conservation standards on portable AC manufacturers. The next section 
describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL. 
Chapter 12 of the final rule TSD explains the analysis in further 
detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    The following tables illustrate the estimated financial impacts 
(represented by changes in INPV) of new energy conservation standards 
on portable AC manufacturers, as well as the conversion costs that DOE 
estimates manufacturers would incur at each TSL. To evaluate the range 
of cash-flow impacts on the portable AC manufacturing industry, DOE 
used two different markup scenarios to model the range of anticipated 
market responses to new energy conservation standards.
    To assess the lower (less severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts, DOE modeled a preservation of gross margin percentage markup 
scenario, in which a flat markup of 1.42 (i.e., the baseline 
manufacturer markup) is applied across all ELs. In this scenario, DOE 
assumed that a manufacturer's absolute dollar markup would increase as 
production costs increase in the new energy conservation standards 
case. During interviews, manufacturers have indicated that it is 
optimistic to assume that they would be able to maintain the same gross 
margin markup as their production costs increase in response to a new 
energy conservation standard, particularly at higher TSLs.
    To assess the higher (more severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts, DOE modeled the preservation of per-unit operating profit 
markup scenario, which assumes that manufacturers would not be able to 
preserve the same overall gross margin, but instead would cut their 
markup for minimally compliant products to maintain a cost-competitive 
product offering while maintaining the same overall level of operating 
profit in absolute dollars as in the no-new-standards case. The two 
tables below show the range of potential INPV impacts for manufacturers 
of portable ACs. Table V.10 reflects the lower bound of impacts (higher 
profitability) and Table V.11 represents the upper bound of impacts 
(lower profitability).
    Each scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and 
corresponding industry values at each TSL. In the following discussion, 
the INPV results refer to the sum of discounted cash flows through 
2051, the difference in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case, and the total industry conversion costs required for 
each standards case.

             Table V.10--Manufacturer Impact Analysis Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario for Analysis Period
                                                                       [2017-2051]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          No-new-                    Trial standard level
                                                             Units                       standards   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           case            1            2            3            4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.....................................  2015$ Millions...........................           738.5        684.7        526.1        406.5        373.0
Change in INPV...........................  2015$ Millions...........................  ..............       (53.8)      (212.4)      (332.0)      (365.5)
                                           (%)......................................  ..............       (7.3%)      (28.8%)      (45.0%)      (49.5%)
Free Cash Flow (2021)....................  2015$ Millions...........................            50.5         16.1       (78.6)      (153.4)      (173.0)
Change in Free Cash Flow (2021)..........  (%)......................................  ..............      (68.0%)     (255.5%)     (403.6%)     (442.3%)
Product Conversion Costs.................  2015$ Millions...........................  ..............         33.1        124.4        179.0        192.2
Capital Conversion Costs.................  2015$ Millions...........................  ..............         52.3        196.5        314.3        344.5
Total Conversion Costs...................  2015$ Millions...........................  ..............         85.5        320.9        493.3        536.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.


[[Page 1431]]


            Table V.11--Manufacturer Impact Analysis under the Preservation of Per-Unit Operating Profit Markup Scenario for Analysis Period
                                                                       [2017-2051]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          No-new-                    Trial standard level
                                                             Units                       standards   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           case            1            2            3            4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.....................................  2015$ Millions...........................           738.5        676.8        485.1        324.7        248.1
Change in INPV...........................  2015$ Millions...........................  ..............       (61.8)      (253.4)      (413.9)      (490.4)
                                           (%)......................................  ..............       (8.4%)      (34.3%)      (56.0%)      (66.4%)
Free Cash Flow (2021)....................  2015$ Millions...........................            50.5         16.1       (78.6)      (153.4)      (173.0)
Change in Free Cash Flow (2021)..........  (%)......................................  ..............      (68.0%)     (255.5%)     (403.6%)     (442.3%)
Product Conversion Costs.................  2015$ Millions...........................  ..............         33.1        124.4        179.0        192.2
Capital Conversion Costs.................  2015$ Millions...........................  ..............         52.3        196.5        314.3        344.5
Total Conversion Costs...................  2015$ Millions...........................  ..............         85.5        320.9        493.3        536.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

    Beyond impacts on INPV, DOE includes a comparison of free cash flow 
between the no-new-standards case and the standards case at each TSL in 
the year before new standards take effect to provide perspective on the 
short-run cash flow impacts in the discussion of the results below.
    At TSL 1, DOE estimates the impact on INPV for manufacturers of 
portable ACs to range from -$61.8 million to -$53.8 million, or a 
decrease in INPV of 8.4 percent to 7.3 percent, under the preservation 
of per-unit operating profit markup scenario and the preservation of 
gross margin percentage markup scenario, respectively. At this TSL, 
industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 68.0 
percent to $16.1 million, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $50.5 million in 2021, the year before the projected compliance 
date.
    At TSL 1, the industry as a whole is expected to incur $33.1 
million in product conversion costs attributed to upfront research, 
development, testing, and certification, as well as $52.3 million in 
one-time investments in property, plant, and equipment (PP&E) necessary 
to manufacture updated platforms. The industry conversion cost burden 
at TSL 1 would be associated with updates for portable ACs sold in the 
U.S. that are currently at the baseline, approximately 22 percent of 
platforms and 37 percent of shipments. At TSL 1, roughly 67 percent of 
non-compliant platforms will require some new components, including 
larger heat exchangers (with increases in heat exchanger area of up to 
20 percent), which may necessitate larger chassis sizes. The remaining 
non-compliant portable ACs will likely require a complete platform 
redesign, necessitating all new components and high associated re-
tooling and R&D costs.
    At TSL 2, DOE estimates the impact on INPV for manufacturers of 
portable ACs to range from -$253.4 million to -$212.4 million, or a 
decrease in INPV of 34.3 percent to 28.8 percent, under the 
preservation of per-unit operating profit markup scenario and the 
preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario, respectively. 
At this TSL, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 
approximately 255.5 percent to -$78.6 million, compared to the no-new-
standards case value of $50.5 million in 2021, the year before the 
projected compliance date.
    At TSL 2, the industry as a whole is expected to incur $124.4 
million in product conversion costs associated with the upfront 
research, development, testing, and certification; as well as $196.5 
million in one-time investments in PP&E for products requiring platform 
updates. The industry conversion cost burden at this TSL would be 
associated with updates for portable ACs sold in the U.S. that are 
currently below the EL corresponding to TSL 2, approximately 83 percent 
of platforms and 85 percent of shipments. At TSL 2, roughly 67 percent 
of non-compliant platforms will require some new components, including 
larger heat exchangers (with increases in heat exchanger area of up to 
20 percent), which may necessitate larger chassis sizes. The remaining 
non-compliant portable ACs will likely require a complete platform 
redesign, necessitating all new components and high associated re-
tooling and R&D costs.
    At TSL 3, DOE estimates the impact on INPV for manufacturers of 
portable ACs to range from -$413.9 million to -$332.0 million, or a 
decrease in INPV of 56.0 percent to 45.0 percent, under the 
preservation of per-unit operating profit markup scenario and the 
preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario, respectively. 
At this TSL, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 
approximately 403.6 percent to -$153.4 million, compared to the no-new-
standards case value of $50.5 million in 2021, the year before the 
projected compliance date.
    At TSL 3, the industry as a whole is expected to incur $179.0 
million in product conversion costs associated with the upfront 
research, development, testing, and certification; as well as $314.3 
million in one-time investments in PP&E for products requiring platform 
redesigns. Again, the industry conversion cost burden at this TSL would 
be associated with updates for portable ACs sold in the U.S. that are 
currently below the EL corresponding to TSL 3, approximately 98 percent 
of platforms and 98 percent of shipments. At TSL 3, roughly 14 percent 
of non-compliant platforms will require some new components, including 
larger heat exchangers (with increases in heat exchanger area of up to 
20 percent), which may necessitate larger chassis sizes. The remaining 
86 percent of non-compliant portable ACs will likely require a complete 
platform redesign, necessitating all new components and high associated 
re-tooling and R&D costs.
    At TSL 4, DOE estimates the impact on INPV for manufacturers of 
portable ACs to range from -$490.4 million to -$365.5 million, or a 
decrease in INPV of 66.4 percent to 49.5 percent, under the 
preservation of per-unit operating profit markup scenario and the 
preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario, respectively. 
At this TSL, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 
approximately 442.3 percent to -$173.0 million, compared to the base-
case value of $50.5 million in 2021, the year before the projected 
compliance date.
    At TSL 4, the industry as a whole is expected to spend $192.2 
million in product conversion costs associated with the research and 
development and

[[Page 1432]]

testing and certification, as well as $344.5 million in one-time 
investments in PP&E for complete platform redesigns. The industry 
conversion cost burden at this TSL would be associated with updates for 
portable ACs sold in the U.S. that are currently below the EL 
corresponding to TSL 4, estimated to be 100 percent of platforms and 
shipments. At TSL 4, all of the non-compliant portable ACs will likely 
require a complete platform redesign, necessitating all new components 
and high associated re-tooling and R&D costs.
b. Impacts on Employment
    To quantitatively assess the impacts of energy conservation 
standards on direct employment, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the 
domestic labor expenditures and number of production and non-production 
employees in the no-new-standards case and at each TSL. DOE used 
statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2014 Annual Survey of 
Manufactures (ASM),\89\ results of the engineering analysis, and 
manufacturer feedback to calculate industry-wide labor expenditures and 
direct domestic employment levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Available online at http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing depend on the 
labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an assumption 
that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total labor 
expenditures in each year are calculated by multiplying the MPCs by the 
labor percentage of MPCs. The total labor expenditures in the GRIM were 
then converted to domestic production employment levels. To do this, 
DOE relied on the Production Workers Annual Wages, Production Workers 
Annual Hours, Total Fringe Benefits, Annual Payroll, Production Workers 
Average for Year, and Number of Employees from the ASM to convert total 
labor expenditure to total production employees.
    The total production employees is then multiplied by the U.S. labor 
percentage to convert total production employment to total domestic 
production employment. The U.S. labor percentage represents the 
industry fraction of domestic manufacturing production capacity for the 
covered product. This value is derived from manufacturer feedback, 
product database analysis, and publicly available information.
    However, DOE estimates that none of the portable ACs subject to the 
standards considered in this final rule analysis (single-duct and dual-
duct portable ACs) are produced domestically. Therefore, DOE does not 
provide an estimate of direct employment impacts. Indirect employment 
impacts in the broader U.S. economy are documented in chapter 16 of the 
final rule TSD.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    As noted in the previous section, no single-duct or dual-duct 
portable ACs are manufactured in the U.S. Therefore, new energy 
conservation standards would have no impact on U.S. production 
capacity.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a ``small 
business'' as having 1,250 employees or less for North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) 333415 (``Air-Conditioning and 
Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 
Equipment Manufacturing''). Based on this SBA employee threshold, DOE 
identified one entity involved in the design and distribution of 
portable ACs in the U.S. that qualifies as a small business. Based upon 
available information, DOE does not believe that this company is a 
manufacturer. However, even if this small business does manufacture 
portable ACs, because the product sold by this company incorporates the 
highest-efficiency variable-speed compressor currently available on the 
market, DOE believes that the product will comply with the standard EL 
adopted in this final rule (EL 2). Therefore, DOE believes that costs 
for this company would be limited to testing, certification, and 
updates to marketing materials and product literature. For a discussion 
of the potential impacts on the small manufacturer subgroup, see 
section VI.B of this document and chapter 12 of the TSD.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or 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 
conservation 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.
    Some portable AC manufacturers also make other products or 
equipment that could be subject to energy conservation standards set by 
DOE. DOE looks at the regulations that could affect portable AC 
manufacturers that will take effect approximately 3 years before and 
after the 2022 compliance date of the standards established in this 
final rule.
    The compliance dates and expected industry conversion costs of 
relevant energy conservation standards are indicated in Table V.12. 
Included in the table are Federal regulations that have compliance 
dates 3 years before and after the portable AC compliance date (and 
also 8 years before the portable AC compliance date).

                             Table V.12--Other Energy Conservation Standards Rulemakings Affecting the Portable AC Industry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                                             Number of      manufacturers      Approx.      Industry conversion costs     Industry  conversion  costs/
  Federal energy conservation standard    manufacturers *    in portable      standards            (millions $)                    revenue ***
                                                             ACs rule **        year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dehumidifiers, 81 FR 38338 (June 13,                   30               6            2019  $52.5 million (2014$)......  4.5%.
 2016).
Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, 81 FR 60784                  21               3            2019  $119.2 million (2015$).....  less than 1%.
 (Sep. 2, 2016).
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, 81               48               2            2019  $75.6 million (2015$)......  4.9%.
 FR 75194 (October 28, 2016).
Res. Clothes Washers, 77 FR 32308 (May                 13               1            2018  $418.5 million (2010$).....  2.3%.
 31, 2012) [dagger].

[[Page 1433]]

 
PTACs, 80 FR 43162 (July 21, 2015)                     12               3            2017  N/A [Dagger]...............  N/A [Dagger].
 [dagger].
Microwave Ovens, 78 FR 36316 (June 17,                 12               2            2016  $43.1 million (2011$)......  less than 1%.
 2013) [dagger].
External Power Supplies, 79 FR 7846                   243               1            2015  $43.4 million (2012$)......  2.3%.
 (February 10, 2014) [dagger].
Residential Central Air Conditioners and               45               2            2015  $18.0 million (2009$)......  less than 1%.
 Heat Pumps, 76 FR 37408 (June 27, 2011)
 [dagger].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule contributing to cumulative regulatory
  burden.
** This column presents the number of OEMs producing portable ACs that are also listed as manufacturers in the listed energy conservation standard
  contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
*** This column presents conversion costs as a percentage of cumulative revenue for the industry during the conversion period. The conversion period is
  the timeframe over which manufacturers must make conversion costs investments and lasts from the announcement year of the final rule to the standards
  year of the final rule. This period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the energy conservation standard.
[dagger] Consistent with Chapter 12 of the TSD, DOE has assessed whether this rule will have significant impacts on manufacturers that are also subject
  to significant impacts from other EPCA rules with compliance dates within 3 years of this rule's compliance date. However, DOE recognizes that a
  manufacturer incurs costs during some period before a compliance date as it prepares to comply, such as by revising product designs and manufacturing
  processes, testing products, and preparing certifications. As such, to illustrate a broader set of rules that may also create additional burden on
  manufacturers, DOE has included additional rules with compliance dates that fall within 8 years before the compliance date of this rule by expanding
  the timeframe of potential cumulative regulatory burden. Note that the inclusion of any given rule in this Table does not indicate that DOE considers
  the rule to contribute significantly to cumulative impact. DOE has chosen to broaden its list of rules in order to provide additional information
  about its rulemaking activities. DOE will continue to evaluate its approach to assessing cumulative regulatory burden for use in future rulemakings to
  ensure that it is effectively capturing the overlapping impacts of its regulations. DOE plans to seek public comment on the approaches it has used
  here (i.e., both the 3- and 8-year timeframes from the compliance date) in order to better understand at what point in the compliance cycle
  manufacturers most experience the effects of cumulative and overlapping burden from the regulation of multiple products.
[Dagger] As detailed in the energy conservation standards final rule for PTACs and PTHPs, DOE established amended energy efficiency standards for PTACs
  at the minimum efficiency level specified in the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 for PTACs. For PTHPs, DOE is not amending energy conservation
  standards, which are already equivalent to the PTHP standards in ANSI/ASHRAE/Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Standard 90.1-2013. Accordingly,
  there were no conversion costs associated with amended energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs.

    In addition to other Federal energy conservation standards, 
manufacturers cited potential restrictions on the use of certain 
refrigerants and State-level refrigerant recovery regulations as 
sources of cumulative regulatory burden for portable AC manufacturers. 
For more details, see chapter 12, section 12.7.3, of the final rule 
TSD.
    DOE plans to seek public comment on the approaches it has used here 
(i.e., both the 3- and 8-year timeframes from the compliance date) in 
order to better understand at what point in the compliance cycle 
manufacturers most experience the effects of cumulative and overlapping 
burden from the regulation of multiple product classes.
3. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of 
consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs considered as 
potential new standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential standards 
for portable ACs, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-
new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each 
TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated 
compliance with new standards (2022-2051). Table V.13 presents DOE's 
projections of the NES for each TSL considered for portable ACs. The 
savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.H.2 
of this document.

       Table V.13--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Portable Air Conditioners; 30 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2022-2051]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                     Savings                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              (Quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Energy Savings...........................            0.12            0.47            0.90            1.23
Full Fuel Cycle Energy Savings..................            0.12            0.49            0.95            1.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \90\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 
years of product shipments. The choice of a nine-year period is a proxy 
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\91\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not

[[Page 1434]]

synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles, 
or other factors specific to portable ACs. Thus, such results are 
presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any 
change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis 
results based on a nine-year analytical period are presented in Table 
V.14. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of portable ACs 
purchased in 2022-2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ OMB, ``Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis'' (Sept. 17, 2003) 
(Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/).
    \91\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards 
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before 
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards 
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous 
standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews 
at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance 
date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may 
not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing 
of standards reviews and the fact that for some consumer products, 
the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

       Table V.14--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Portable Air Conditioners; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2022-2030]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                     Savings                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              (Quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Energy Savings...........................            0.04            0.14            0.25            0.36
Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings..................            0.04            0.15            0.26            0.38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for portable ACs. 
In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\92\ DOE 
calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 
rate. Table V.15 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted 
over the lifetime of products purchased in 2022-2051.

    Table V.15--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Portable Air Conditioners; 30 Years of
                                                    Shipments
                                                   [2022-2051]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                  Discount rate                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          (billion 2015$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................            0.81            3.06            5.56            7.96
7 percent.......................................            0.35            1.25            2.17            3.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table V.16. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased in 2022-2030. As mentioned previously, 
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision 
criteria.

   Table V.16--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Portable Air Conditioners; Nine Years of
                                                    Shipments
                                                   [2022-2030]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                  Discount rate                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          (billion 2015$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................            0.34            1.19            1.94            2.96
7 percent.......................................            0.19            0.64            1.02            1.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results in Table V.16 reflect the use of a default trend to 
estimate the change in price for portable ACs over the analysis period 
(see section IV.F.1 of this document). DOE also conducted a sensitivity 
analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of price 
decline and 50 percent fewer operating hours than the reference case, 
and one scenario with a higher rate of price decline than the reference 
case. The results of these alternative cases are presented in appendix 
10C of the final rule TSD. In the high-price-decline case, the NPV of 
consumer benefits is higher than in the default case due to higher 
energy price trends. In the low-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer 
benefits is lower than in the default case due to lower energy price 
trends and the 50 percent fewer operating hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ OMB. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    DOE expects that new energy conservation standards for portable ACs 
will reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those products, with 
the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of economic 
activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could 
affect the demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this 
document, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to 
estimate indirect

[[Page 1435]]

employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered. DOE understands 
that there are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, 
especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE 
generated results for near-term timeframes (2022-2029), where these 
uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the adopted standards are likely to have a 
negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net 
change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national 
labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on 
employment. Chapter 16 of the final rule TSD presents detailed results 
regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this document, DOE has 
concluded that the standards adopted in this final rule will not lessen 
the utility or performance of the portable ACs under consideration in 
this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units 
that meet or exceed the adopted standards.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to 
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section 
III.E.1.e, the Attorney General of the United States (Attorney General) 
is required to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of 
competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit 
such determination in writing to the Secretary within 60 days of the 
publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature 
and extent of the impact. To assist the Attorney General in making this 
determination, DOE provided the DOJ June 2016 ECS with copies of the 
June 2016 ECS NOPR and the NOPR TSD for review. In its assessment 
letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed energy 
conservation standards for portable ACs are unlikely to have a 
significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the 
Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity 
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce 
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, 
particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure of this reduced 
demand, chapter 15 in the final rule TSD presents the estimated 
reduction in generating capacity, relative to the no-new-standards 
case, for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
    Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation 
standards for portable ACs is expected to yield environmental benefits 
in the form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and GHGs. 
Table V.17 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions reductions 
expected to result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The 
emissions were calculated using the multipliers discussed in section 
IV.K. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 
13 of the final rule TSD.

                Table V.17--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Portable ACs Shipped in 2022-2051
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................             6.0            24.2            47.0            63.9
SO2 (thousand tons).............................             4.1            16.2            31.3            42.7
NOX (thousand tons).............................             3.1            12.3            23.9            32.5
Hg (tons).......................................            0.01            0.06            0.12            0.16
CH4 (thousand tons).............................             0.6             2.5             4.9             6.7
N2O (thousand tons).............................            0.09            0.36            0.70            0.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................             0.3             1.4             2.6             3.6
SO2 (thousand tons).............................            0.04            0.16            0.30            0.41
NOX (thousand tons).............................             4.9            19.8            38.6            52.4
Hg (tons).......................................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
CH4 (thousand tons).............................            30.4           122.3           238.0           323.2
N2O (thousand tons).............................            0.00            0.01            0.02            0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................             6.4            25.6            49.6            67.5
SO2 (thousand tons).............................             4.1            16.4            31.6            43.1
NOX (thousand tons).............................             8.0            32.2            62.5            85.0
Hg (tons).......................................            0.01            0.06            0.12            0.16
CH4 (thousand tons).............................            31.1           124.8           242.9           329.8
CH4 (thousand tons COeq) *......................             870           3,495           6,801           9,235
N2O (thousand tons).............................            0.09            0.37            0.71            0.97
N2O (thousand tons COeq) *......................            24.3            97.5           188.9           257.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.


[[Page 1436]]

    As part of the analysis for this rule, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for portable ACs. As 
discussed in section IV.L of this document, for CO2, DOE 
used the most recent values for the SC-CO2 developed by an 
interagency process. The four sets of SC-CO2 values 
correspond to the average values from distributions that use a 5-
percent discount rate, a 3-percent discount rate, and a 2.5-percent 
discount rate, and the 95th-percentile values from a distribution that 
uses a 3-percent discount rate. The actual SC-CO2 values 
used for emissions in each year are presented in appendix 14A of the 
final rule TSD.
    Table V.18 presents the global value of CO2 emissions 
reductions at each TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE calculated a 
present value of the stream of annual values using the same discount 
rate that was used in the studies upon which the dollar-per-ton values 
are based. DOE calculated domestic values as a range from 7 percent to 
23 percent of the global values; these results are presented in chapter 
14 of the final rule TSD.

                               Table V.18--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Portable ACs Shipped in 2022-2051
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      SC-CO2 case
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             TSL                                5% Discount rate,      3% Discount rate,     2.5% Discount rate,     3% Discount rate,
                                                                     average                average                average            95th percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    (million 2015$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total FFC Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................                   45.9                    208                    330                    635
2...........................................................                    182                    829                  1,316                  2,529
3...........................................................                    347                  1,595                  2,535                  4,866
4...........................................................                    477                  2,182                  3,464                  6,656
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE estimated monetary benefits 
likely to result from the reduced emissions of CH4 and 
N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for 
portable ACs. DOE used the recent values for the SC-CH4 and 
SC-N2O developed by the interagency working group.
    Table V.19 presents the value of the CH4 emissions 
reduction at each TSL, and Table V.20 presents the value of the 
N2O emissions reduction at each TSL.

                             Table V.19--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for Portable ACs Shipped in 2022-2051
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      SC-CH4 case
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             TSL                                5% Discount rate,      3% Discount rate,     2.5% Discount rate,     3% Discount rate,
                                                                     average                average                average            95th percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    (million 2015$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................                    9.9                   31.2                   44.2                   83.2
2...........................................................                   39.5                  125.0                  177.2                  333.4
3...........................................................                   76.0                  242.3                  343.9                  646.1
4...........................................................                  104.1                  329.9                  467.8                  879.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table V.20--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for Portable ACs Shipped in 2022-2051
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      SC-N2O case
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             TSL                                5% Discount rate,      3% Discount rate,     2.5% Discount rate,     3% Discount rate,
                                                                     average                average                average            95th percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    (million 2015$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................                    0.2                    1.0                    1.6                    2.8
2...........................................................                    1.0                    4.1                    6.5                   11.0
3...........................................................                    1.9                    7.9                   12.5                   21.1
4...........................................................                    2.6                   10.8                   17.1                   28.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed on 
reduced CO2 emissions in this rulemaking is subject to 
change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to 
review various methodologies for estimating the monetary value of 
reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 
review will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the 
public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other 
methodological assumptions and issues. Consistent with DOE's legal 
obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved with this 
particular issue, DOE has included in this rule the most recent values 
and analyses resulting from the interagency review process. DOE notes, 
however, that the adopted standards would be economically justified, as 
defined by

[[Page 1437]]

EPCA, even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG 
emissions.
    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the economic benefits 
associated with NOX emissions reductions anticipated to 
result from the considered TSLs for portable ACs. The dollar-per-ton 
values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L of this document. 
Table V.21 presents the present values for NOX emissions 
reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent 
discount rates. This table presents results that use the low dollar-
per-ton values, which reflect DOE's primary estimate. Results that 
reflect the range of NOX dollar-per-ton values are presented 
in Table V.21.

          Table V.21--Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction for Portable ACs Shipped in 2022-2051 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                TSL                                    3% Discount rate       7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   (million 2015$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................................                   14.1                    5.8
2.................................................................                   55.8                   22.6
3.................................................................                  106.6                   42.4
4.................................................................                  146.5                   59.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Results are based on the low benefit-per-ton values.

7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No 
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    Table V.22 presents the NPV values that result from adding the 
estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced GHG 
and NOX emissions to the NPV of consumer savings calculated 
for each TSL considered in this rulemaking.

                               Table V.22--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Benefits From Emissions Reductions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with:
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             TSL                              GHG 5% discount rate,    3% Discount rate,      GHG 2.5% discount    GHG 3% discount rate,
                                                                   average case           average case        rate, average case    95th percentile case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    (billion 2015$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................                    0.9                    1.1                    1.2                    1.5
2...........................................................                    3.3                    4.1                    4.6                    6.0
3...........................................................                    6.1                    7.5                    8.6                   11.2
4...........................................................                    8.7                   10.6                   12.1                   15.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                                                     Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with:
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             TSL                              GHG 5% discount rate,  GHG 3% discount rate,  GHG 3% discount rate,  GHG 3% discount rate,
                                                                   average case           average case           average case       95th percentile case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    (billion 2015$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................                    0.4                    0.6                    0.7                    1.1
2...........................................................                    1.5                    2.2                    2.8                    4.2
3...........................................................                    2.6                    4.1                    5.1                    7.7
4...........................................................                    3.9                    5.8                    7.2                   10.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The GHG benefits include the estimated benefits for reductions in CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions using the four sets of SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O
  values developed by the IWG.

    The national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. monetary 
savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered portable ACs, 
and are measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2022-2051. The 
benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions achieved as a result of 
the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of 
portable ACs shipped in 2022-2051. However, the GHG reduction is a 
benefit that accrues globally. Because CO2 emissions have a 
very long residence time in the atmosphere, the SC-CO2 
values for future emissions reflect climate-related impacts that 
continue through 2300.

C. Conclusion

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven

[[Page 1438]]

statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 
The new or amended standard must also result in significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    For this final rule, DOE considered the impacts of potential new 
standards for portable ACs at each TSL, beginning with the maximum 
technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was 
economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE 
then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same 
evaluation until it reached the highest EL that is both technologically 
feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of 
energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than 
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy 
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings 
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of 
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 
of the final rule TSD. However, DOE's current analysis does not 
explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 
preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or 
consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\94\ DOE 
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of 
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify 
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. LBNL. https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Portable AC Standards
    Table V.23 and Table V.24 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for portable ACs. The national impacts are 
measured over the lifetime of portable ACs purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with new 
standards (2022-2051). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and 
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The ELs 
contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this document.

[[Page 1439]]



                                    Table V.23--Summary of Analytical Results for Portable ACs TSLs: National Impacts
                                                                       [2022-2051]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                          TSL 1                         TSL 2                         TSL 3                         TSL 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings (quads)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads...........................  0.12........................  0.49........................  0.95........................  1.28.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits (billion 2015$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate................  0.81........................  3.06........................  5.56........................  7.96.
7% discount rate................  0.35........................  1.25........................  2.17........................  3.21.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emission)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......  6.4.........................  25.6........................  49.6........................  67.5.
SO2 (thousand tons).............  4.1.........................  16.4........................  31.6........................  43.1.
NOX (thousand tons).............  8.0.........................  32.2........................  62.5........................  85.0.
Hg (tons).......................  0.01........................  0.06........................  0.12........................  0.16.
CH4 (thousand tons).............  31.1........................  124.8.......................  242.9.......................  329.8.
N2O (thousand tons).............  0.09........................  0.37........................  0.71........................  0.97.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (billion 2015$) **..........  0.046 to 0.635..............  0.182 to 2.529..............  0.347 to 4.866..............  0.477 to 6.656.
NOX--3% discount rate (million    14.1........................  55.8........................  106.6.......................  146.5.
 2015$).
NOX--7% discount rate (million    5.8.........................  22.6........................  42.4........................  59.0.
 2015$).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.


                           Table V.24--Summary of Analytical Results for Portable ACs TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                         TSL 1 *                       TSL 2 *                       TSL 3 *                       TSL 4 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2015$) (No- 676.8 to 684.7..............  485.1 to 526.1..............  324.7 to 406.5..............  248.1 to 373.0.
 new-standards case INPV = 738.5.
Industry NPV (% change).........  (8.4%) to (7.3%)............  (34.3%) to (28.8%)..........  (56.0%) to (45.0%)..........  (66.4%) to (49.5%).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Consumer Average LCC Savings (2015$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential.....................  73..........................  108.........................  143.........................  229.
Commercial......................  155.........................  238.........................  342.........................  522.
Both Sectors....................  84..........................  125.........................  169.........................  268.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Consumer Simple PBP (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential.....................  2.3.........................  2.8.........................  3.5.........................  3.1.
Commercial......................  1.2.........................  1.4.........................  1.7.........................  1.6.
Both Sectors....................  2.2.........................  2.6.........................  3.2.........................  2.9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential.....................  9...........................  27..........................  38..........................  34.
Commercial......................  3...........................  9...........................  14..........................  12.
Both Sectors....................  8...........................  24..........................  35..........................  31.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2022.

    DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level. TSL 4 would save an estimated 1.28 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $3.21 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$7.96 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 67.5 Mt of 
CO2, 43.1 thousand tons of SO2, 85.0 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.16 ton of Hg, 329.8 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.97 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the GHG emissions reduction at TSL 4 ranges from $477 
million to $6,656 million for CO2, from $104 million to $880 
million for CH4, and from $3 million to $29 million for 
N2O. The estimated monetary value of the NOX 
emissions reduction at TSL 4 is $59.0 million using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $146.5 million using a 3-percent discount rate.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $229 for the 
residential sector, $522 for the commercial sector, and $268 for both 
sectors. The simple payback period is 3.1 years for the residential 
sector, 1.6 years for the commercial sector, and 2.9 years for both 
sectors. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 34 
percent for the residential sector, 12 percent for the commercial 
sector, and 31 percent for both sectors.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$490.4 million to a decrease of $365.5 million, which correspond to 
decreases of 66.4 percent and 49.5 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that no portion of the market will meet the efficiency standard 
specified by this TSL in 2021, the year before the compliance year. As 
such, manufacturers would have to redesign all products by the 2022 
compliance date to meet demand. Redesigning all units to meet the max-
tech efficiency level would require considerable capital and product 
conversion expenditures. At TSL 4, the capital conversion costs

[[Page 1440]]

total as much as $344.5 million, roughly 12.9 times the industry annual 
ordinary capital expenditure in 2021 (the year leading up to new 
standards). DOE estimates that complete platform redesigns would cost 
the industry $192.2 million in product conversion costs. These 
conversion costs largely relate to the extensive research programs 
required to develop new products that meet the efficiency standards at 
TSL 4. These costs are equivalent to 17.0 times the industry annual 
budget for research and development. As such, the conversion costs 
associated with the changes in products and manufacturing facilities 
required at TSL 4 would require significant use of manufacturers' 
financial reserves (manufacturer capital pools), impacting other areas 
of business that compete for these resources and significantly reducing 
INPV. In addition, manufacturers could face a substantial impact on 
profitability at TSL 4. Because manufacturers are more likely to reduce 
their margins to maintain a price-competitive product at higher TSLs, 
DOE expects that TSL 4 would yield impacts closer to the high end of 
the range of INPV impacts. If the high end of the range of impacts is 
reached, as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss to 
manufacturers of 66.4 percent of INPV.
    Beyond the direct financial impact on manufacturers, TSL 4 may also 
contribute to the unavailability of portable ACs at certain cooling 
capacities. The efficiency at TSL 4 is a theoretical level that DOE 
developed by modeling the most efficient components available. However, 
DOE is aware that the highest-efficiency compressors that are necessary 
to meet TSL 4 may not be available to all manufacturers for the full 
range of capacities of portable ACs. Because specific high-efficiency 
components available are driven largely by the markets for other 
products with higher shipments (e.g., room ACs), portable AC 
manufacturers may be constrained in their design choices. This may have 
the potential to eliminate portable ACs of certain cooling capacities 
from the market, should TSL 4 be selected.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for portable ACs, the 
benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some 
consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction 
in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3, which would save an estimated 0.95 quads 
of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be $2.17 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and $5.56 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 49.6 Mt of 
CO2, 31.6 thousand tons of SO2, 62.5 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.12 tons of Hg, 242.9 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.71 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the GHG emissions reduction at TSL 3 ranges from $347 
million to $4,866 million for CO2, from $76 million to $646 
million for CH4, and from $2 million to $21 million for 
N2O. The estimated monetary value of the NOX 
emissions reduction at TSL 4 is $42.4 million using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $106.6 million using a 3-percent discount rate.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $143 for the 
residential sector, $342 for the commercial sector, and $169 for both 
sectors. The simple payback period is 3.5 years for the residential 
sector, 1.7 years for the commercial sector, and 3.2 years for both 
sectors. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 38 
percent for the residential sector, 14 percent for the commercial 
sector, and 35 percent for both sectors.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$413.9 million to a decrease of $332.0 million, which correspond to 
decreases of 56.0 percent and 45.0 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that approximately 2 percent of available platforms and 2 percent of 
shipments will meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL in 
2021, the year before the compliance year. As such, manufacturers would 
have to make upgrades to 98 percent of platforms by the 2022 compliance 
date to meet demand. Redesigning these units to meet the EL would 
require considerable capital and product conversion expenditures. At 
TSL 3, the capital conversion costs total as much as $314.3 million, 
roughly 11.8 times the industry annual ordinary capital expenditure in 
2021 (the year leading up to new standards). DOE estimates that 
complete platform redesigns would cost the industry $179.0 million in 
product conversion costs. These conversion costs largely relate to the 
extensive research programs required to develop new products that meet 
the efficiency standards at TSL 3. These costs are equivalent to 15.8 
times the industry annual budget for research and development. As such, 
the conversion costs associated with the changes in products and 
manufacturing facilities required at TSL 3 would require significant 
use of manufacturers' financial reserves (manufacturer capital pools), 
impacting other areas of business that compete for these resources and 
significantly reducing INPV. In addition, manufacturers could face a 
substantial impact on profitability at TSL 3. Because manufacturers are 
more likely to reduce their margins to maintain a price-competitive 
product at higher TSLs, especially in the lower-capacity portable 
segment, DOE expects that TSL 3 would yield impacts closer to the high 
end of the range of INPV impacts. If the high end of the range of 
impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss to 
manufacturers of 56.0 percent of INPV.
    Similar to TSL 4, beyond the direct financial impact on 
manufacturers, TSL 3 may also contribute to the unavailability of 
portable ACs at certain cooling capacities. TSL 3 is based on the 
single highest efficiency unit in DOE's test sample. However, DOE 
believes few, if any, other units on the market are able to achieve 
these efficiencies and that the highest efficiency single-speed 
compressors likely necessary to meet TSL 3 may not be available to all 
manufacturers for the full range of capacities of portable ACs. Because 
high-efficiency components available at any given time are driven 
largely by the markets for other products with higher shipments (e.g., 
room ACs), portable AC manufacturers may be constrained in their design 
choices. This may have the potential to eliminate portable ACs of 
certain cooling capacities from the market.
    The Secretary concludes that at TSL 3 for portable ACs, the 
benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some 
consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction 
in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2, which would save an estimated 0.49 quads 
of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be $1.25 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and $3.06 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.

[[Page 1441]]

    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 25.6 Mt of 
CO2, 16.4 thousand tons of SO2, 32.2 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.06 tons of Hg, 124.8 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.37 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the GHG emissions reduction at TSL 2 ranges from $182 
million to $2,529 million for CO2, from $40 million to $333 
million for CH4, and from $1 million to $11 million for 
N2O. The estimated monetary value of the NOX 
emissions reduction at TSL 2 is $22.6 million using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $55.8 million using a 3-percent discount rate.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $108 for the 
residential sector, $238 for the commercial sector, and $125 for both 
sectors. The simple payback period is 2.8 years for the residential 
sector, 1.4 years for the commercial sector, and 2.6 years for both 
sectors. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 27 
percent for the residential sector, 9 percent for the commercial 
sector, and 24 percent for both sectors.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$253.4 million to a decrease of $212.4 million, which correspond to 
decreases of 34.3 percent and 28.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that approximately 17 percent of available platforms and 15 percent of 
shipments will meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL in 
2021, the year before the compliance year. As such, manufacturers would 
have to make upgrades to 83 percent of platforms by the 2022 compliance 
date to meet demand. At TSL 2, the capital conversion costs total as 
much as $196.5 million, roughly 7.4 times the industry annual ordinary 
capital expenditure in 2021 (the year leading up to new standards). DOE 
estimates that complete platform redesigns would cost the industry 
$124.4 million in product conversion costs. These conversion costs 
largely relate to the extensive research programs required to develop 
new products that meet the efficiency standards at TSL 2. These costs 
are equivalent to 11.0 times the industry annual budget for R&D. 
Because manufacturers are more likely to reduce their margins to 
maintain a price-competitive product at higher TSLs, especially in the 
lower-capacity portable segment, DOE expects that TSL 2 would yield 
impacts closer to the high end of the range of INPV impacts. If the 
high end of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 2 
could result in a net loss to manufacturers of 34.3 percent of INPV.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has concluded that at TSL 2 for portable ACs, 
the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, 
emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions, and positive average LCC savings would outweigh the 
negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the 
conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for 
manufacturers. Accordingly, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 2 
would offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, as defined by 
EPCA, and would result in the significant conservation of energy.
    Therefore, based on the above considerations, DOE adopts the energy 
conservation standards for portable ACs at TSL 2. The new energy 
conservation standards for portable ACs, which are expressed as CEER as 
a function of SACC, are shown in Table V.25.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.019

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
    The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2015$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the adopted standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, 
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 
monetary value of the benefits of GHG and NOX emission 
reductions.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(2020, 2030, etc.), and then discounted the present value from each 
year to 2015. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent 
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates. Using 
the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over 
a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year that yields the 
same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V.26 shows the annualized values for portable ACs under TSL 
2, expressed in 2015$. The results under the primary estimate are as 
follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than 
GHG reductions (for which DOE used average social costs with a 3-
percent discount rate),\96\ the estimated cost of the adopted standards 
for portable ACs is $61 million per year in increased equipment costs, 
while the estimated annual benefits are $202.7 million in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $56.7 million in GHG reductions, and $2.6 
million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net 
benefit would amount to $201 million per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount 
rate; these values are considered as the ``central'' estimates by 
the IWG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the adopted standards for portable ACs is $59 million 
per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual 
benefits are $240.0 million in reduced operating costs, $56.7 million 
in GHG reductions, and $3.3 million in reduced NOX 
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $241 million per 
year.

[[Page 1442]]



                    Table V.26--Selected Categories of Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards (TSL 2) for Portable ACs *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Low-net- benefits          High-net- benefits
                                                Discount rate                 Primary estimate               estimate                   estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        (million 2015$/year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.....  7%...............................  202.7....................  99.1.....................  214.4.
                                      3%...............................  240.0....................  116.3....................  256.1.
CO2 Reduction (using mean SC-CO2 at   5%...............................  18.4.....................  8.8......................  19.9.
 5% discount rate) **.
CO2 Reduction (using mean SC-CO2 at   3%...............................  56.7.....................  27.0.....................  61.4.
 3% discount rate) **.
CO2 Reduction (using mean SC-CO2 at   2.5%.............................  81.1.....................  38.6.....................  87.9.
 2.5% discount rate) **.
CO2 Reduction (using 95th percentile  3%...............................  169.9....................  80.9.....................  184.1.
 SC-CO2 at 3% discount rate) **.
NOX Reduction [dagger]..............  7%...............................  2.6......................  1.2......................  6.2.
                                      3%...............................  3.3......................  1.6......................  8.1.
    Total Benefits [Dagger].........  7% plus CO2 range................  224 to 375...............  213 to 354...............  240 to 405.
                                      7%...............................  262......................  249......................  282.
                                      3% plus CO2 range................  262 to 413...............  248 to 389...............  284 to 448.
                                      3%...............................  300......................  283......................  326.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..  7%...............................  61.......................  61.......................  56.
                                      3%...............................  59.......................  59.......................  53.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total [Dagger]..................  7% plus CO2 range................  163 to 314...............  48 to 120................  185 to 349.
                                      7%...............................  201......................  67.......................  226.
                                      3% plus CO2 range................  203 to 354...............  68 to 140................  231 to 395.
                                      3%...............................  241......................  86.......................  272.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with portable ACs shipped in 2022-2051. These results include benefits to consumers
  which accrue after 2051 from the portable ACs purchased from 2022-2051. The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as
  installation costs. The CO2 reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net
  Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy price trends from the AEO 2016 No-CPP case, a Low Economic Growth case, and a High Economic Growth
  case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low
  Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The Low Benefits Estimate reflects a 50-percent reduction in the operating
  hours relative to the reference case operating hours. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F of this
  document. The benefits and costs are based on equipment efficiency distributions as described in sections IV.F.8 and IV.H.1 of this document.
  Purchases of higher efficiency equipment are a result of many different factors unique to each consumer including past purchases, expected usage, and
  others. For each consumer, all other factors being the same, it would be anticipated that higher efficiency purchases in the no-new-standards case may
  correlate positively with higher energy prices. To the extent that this occurs, it would be expected to result in some lowering of the consumer
  operating cost savings from those calculated in this rule. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
** The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the
  average social costs from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent. The fourth set, which
  represents the 95th percentile of the social cost distributions calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-
  expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the social cost distributions The SC-CO2 values are emission year specific. See
  section IV.L.1 of this document for more details.
[dagger] DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the
  Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
  (Available at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.) See section IV.L for further discussion. For the
  Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used national benefit-per-ton estimates for NOX emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector
  based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al. 2009). For the High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton
  estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al. 2011); these are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the ACS study.
[Dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. In the
  rows labeled ``7% plus GHG range'' and ``3% plus GHG range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and
  those values are added to the full range of social cost values.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency 
to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where 
applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that 
warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of 
that problem. The problems that the adopted standards for portable ACs 
are intended to address are as follows:
    (1) Insufficient information and the high costs of gathering and 
analyzing relevant information leads some consumers to miss 
opportunities to make cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
    (2) In some cases the benefits of more efficient equipment are not 
realized due to misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An 
example of such a case is when the equipment purchase decision is made 
by a building contractor or building owner who does not pay the energy 
costs.
    (3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy 
efficiency of products or equipment that are not captured by the users 
of such equipment. These benefits include externalities related to 
public health, environmental protection and national energy security 
that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of 
air pollutants and GHGs that impact human health and global warming. 
DOE attempts to qualify some of the external benefits through use of 
social cost of carbon values.
    The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB has determined that the regulatory action in 
this document is a significant regulatory action under section (3)(f) 
of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(B) of the 
Order, DOE has provided to OIRA: (i) The text of the draft regulatory 
action, together with a reasonably detailed description of the need for 
the regulatory action and an explanation of how the regulatory action 
will meet that need; and (ii) an assessment of the potential costs and 
benefits of the regulatory action, including an explanation of the 
manner in which the regulatory action is

[[Page 1443]]

consistent with a statutory mandate. DOE has included these documents 
in the rulemaking record.
    In addition, the Administrator of OIRA has determined that the 
regulatory action is an ``economically'' significant regulatory action 
under section (3)(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 
6(a)(3)(C) of the Order, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, 
including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated 
from the regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a 
quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the 
underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an 
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the 
identified potential alternatives. These assessments can be found in 
the TSD for this rulemaking.
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to E.O. 13563, 
issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011. E.O. 13563 is 
supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, 
and definitions governing regulatory review established in E.O. 12866. 
To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by E.O. 13563 to 
(1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and 
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the 
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory 
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent 
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; 
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance 
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance 
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess 
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing 
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user 
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices 
can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the 
best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, OIRA has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
DOE believes that this final rule is consistent with these principles, 
including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, 
benefits justify costs.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a 
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law 
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that 
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 13272, 
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 
53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 
68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the 
Office of the General Counsel's website (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this final rule pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act and the procedures and policies discussed above. Consistent with 
the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE has concluded that this rule would not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
factual basis for this certification is set forth below.
    For manufacturers of portable ACs, the SBA has set a size 
threshold, which defines those entities classified as ``small 
businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small 
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would 
be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The 
size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry description and 
are available at www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Manufacturing of portable ACs is classified 
under NAICS 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment 
and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing 
Other Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a 
threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as 
a small business for this category.
    To estimate the number of companies that could be small business 
manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a 
market survey using all available public information. To identify small 
business manufacturers, DOE surveyed the AHAM membership directory,\97\ 
California Energy Commission's (CEC's) Appliance Database,\98\ and 
individual company websites. DOE screened out companies that did not 
themselves manufacture products covered by this rulemaking, did not 
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and 
operated. In the June 2016 ECS NOPR, DOE estimated that there were no 
domestic manufacturers of portable ACs that meet the SBA's definition 
of a ``small business.'' DOE subsequently identified one small, 
domestic business responsible for the design and distribution of a 
dual-duct portable AC. Based upon available information, DOE does not 
believe that this company is a manufacturer. Because the product sold 
by this company incorporates the highest-efficiency variable-speed 
compressor currently available on the market, DOE believes that the 
product will comply with the standard EL adopted in this final rule (EL 
2). Therefore, DOE does not expect this small business to incur any 
design or capital-related costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Available at: https://www.aham.org/AHAM/AuxCurrentMembers.
    \98\ Available at: https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This small business may incur costs associated with certification, 
testing, and marketing updates. The product sold by this company is 
listed in the CEC's Appliance Database, indicating that this company 
already allocates a portion of its resources to testing and 
certification of its portable AC product under ANSI/ASHRAE 128-2001. 
Preemption of California's standard by the standard adopted in this 
final rule implies that the small business would divert its existing 
testing budget to testing according to DOE's test procedure in appendix 
CC. Testing and certifying under appendix CC would add costs relative 
to testing to ANSI/ASHRAE 128-2001 due to the dual test condition 
requirement for dual-duct portable ACs (the product configuration sold 
by the small business). While DOE does not have third-party test 
laboratory quotes for portable AC testing costs, DOE expects that the 
costs would be similar to testing whole-home dehumidifiers \99\ because 
both require ducted test setups within environmentally-controlled 
chambers. Based on this assumption, DOE estimates that testing of one 
portable AC

[[Page 1444]]

platform under appendix CC may cost an additional $7,000 compared to 
current testing. Additionally, based on feedback from manufacturers, 
DOE estimates that updates to marketing materials and product 
literature for this company may total $3,000. DOE assumes these upfront 
costs will be spread over a 5-year period leading up to the compliance 
year. Accordingly, on an annual basis, the estimated upfront product 
conversion costs equate to less than 1 percent of this entity's annual 
revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Test Procedure Final Rule for Dehumidifiers, 80 FR 45802 
(July 31, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a FRFA for this rule. DOE 
has transmitted this certification and supporting statement of factual 
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 
U.S.C. 605(b).
Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer of a covered consumer product 
whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed 
$8 million may apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy 
conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the 
effective date of a final rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(t)) Additionally, section 504 of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for the Secretary 
to adjust a rule issued under EPCA in order to prevent ``special 
hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens'' that may be 
imposed on that manufacturer as a result of such rule. Manufacturers 
should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and part 1003 for 
additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    DOE has determined that portable ACs are a covered product under 
EPCA. 81 FR 22514 (April 18, 2016). Because portable ACs are a covered 
product, manufacturers will need to certify to DOE that their products 
comply with the energy conservation standards established in this final 
rule. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products 
according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted 
for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 
products and commercial equipment, including portable ACs. 76 FR 12422 
(Mar. 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The collection-of-
information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is 
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is 
estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 
DOE has determined that the rule fits within the category of actions 
included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the 
requirements for application of a CX. (See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)-(5).) The rule fits within this 
category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy 
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, 
and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. 
Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE 
does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental 
Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX determination for this rule is 
available at http://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional 
and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the 
policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the 
necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an 
accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and 
local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement 
of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will 
follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 
examined this rule and has determined that it would not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA 
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to 
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 
Therefore, no further action is required by E.O. 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to 
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) 
clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies 
any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 
legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and 
burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 
adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues 
affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued 
by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it 
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects

[[Page 1445]]

of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments 
and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 
U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that 
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates 
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national 
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a 
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan 
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially 
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental 
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also 
available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    This final rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental 
mandate because it does not require expenditures of $100 million or 
more in any one year by the private sector. The final rule could result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more, but there is no requirement 
that mandates that result. Potential expenditures may include: (1) 
Investment in R&D and in capital expenditures by portable AC 
manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance 
date for the new standards, and (2) incremental additional expenditures 
by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency portable ACs, starting at 
the compliance date for the applicable standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the final rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content requirements 
of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate 
substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply 
under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document and the TSD for this 
final rule respond to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an 
explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. This final rule establishes 
energy conservation standards for portable ACs that are designed to 
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has 
determined to be both technologically feasible and economically 
justified, as required by 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B). A full 
discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in 
chapter 17 of the TSD for this final rule.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 
8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to 
review most disseminations of information to the public under 
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to 
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB 
and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with 
applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth new 
energy conservation standards for portable ACs, is not a significant 
energy action because the standards are not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 
on this final rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.

[[Page 1446]]

    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process 
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this 
report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using 
objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 
judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or 
anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness 
of programs and/or projects. The ``Energy Conservation Standards 
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been 
disseminated and is available at the following website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/peer-review.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
and Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 28, 2016.
David J. Friedman,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    Note: DOE is publishing this document concerning portable air 
conditioners to comply with an order from the U.S. District Court for 
the Northern District of California in the consolidated cases of 
Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Perry and People of the 
State of California et al. v. Perry, Case No. 17-cv-03404-VC, as 
affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the 
consolidated cases Nos. 18-15380 and 18-15475. DOE reaffirmed the 
original signature and date in the Energy Conservation Standards 
implementation of the court order published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register. This document is substantively identical to the 
signed document DOE had previously posted to its website but has been 
edited and formatted in conformance with the publication requirements 
for the Federal Register and CFR to ensure the document can be given 
legal effect.

    Editorial Note:  This document was received for publication by 
the Office of the Federal Register on December 3, 2019.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, to read as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for Part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
2. Section 429.12 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(13), removing ``Sec. Sec.  429.14 through 429.60'' 
and adding in its place, ``Sec. Sec.  429.14 through 429.62''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d), add a new entry to the end of the table to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.12  General requirements applicable to certification reports.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Portable air conditioners................  February 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 429.62 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.62  Portable air conditioners.

* * * * *
    (b) Certification reports. (1) The requirements of Sec.  429.12 are 
applicable to single-duct and dual-duct portable air conditioners; and
    (2) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following public product-specific information: The combined 
energy efficiency ratio (CEER in British thermal units per Watt-hour 
(Btu/Wh)), the seasonally adjusted cooling capacity in British thermal 
units per hour (Btu/h), the duct configuration (single-duct, dual-duct, 
or ability to operate in both configurations), presence of heating 
function, and primary condensate removal feature (auto-evaporation, 
gravity drain, removable internal collection bucket, or condensate 
pump).

0
4. Section 429.134 is amended by adding paragraph (r) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

* * * * *
    (r) Portable air conditioners. Verification of seasonally adjusted 
cooling capacity. The seasonally adjusted cooling capacity will be 
measured pursuant to the test requirements of 10 CFR part 430 for each 
unit tested. The results of the measurement(s) will be averaged and 
compared to the value of seasonally adjusted cooling capacity certified 
by the manufacturer. The certified seasonally adjusted cooling capacity 
will be considered valid only if the average measured seasonally 
adjusted cooling capacity is within five percent of the certified 
seasonally adjusted cooling capacity.
    (1) If the certified seasonally adjusted cooling capacity is found 
to be valid, the certified value will be used as the basis for 
determining the minimum allowed combined energy efficiency ratio for 
the basic model.
    (2) If the certified seasonally adjusted cooling capacity is found 
to be invalid, the average measured seasonally adjusted cooling 
capacity will be used to determine the minimum allowed combined energy 
efficiency ratio for the basic model.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
5. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
6. Section 430.32 is amended by adding paragraph (cc) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
effective dates.

* * * * *
    (cc) Portable air conditioners. Single-duct portable air 
conditioners and dual-duct portable air conditioners manufactured on or 
after January 10, 2025 must have a combined energy efficiency ratio 
(CEER) in Btu/Wh no less than SACC: Seasonally adjusted cooling 
capacity in Btu/h, as determined in appendix CC of subpart B of this 
part.

[[Page 1447]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JA20.020

    Note: The following letter will not appear in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Renata B. Hesse
Acting Assistant Attorney General
RFK Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
(202) 514-2401 / (202) 616-2645 (Fax)

August 12, 2016

Anne Harkavy
Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, Regulation and Enforcement
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585

Re: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0033
Dear Deputy General Counsel Harkavy:
    I am responding to your June 13, 2016 letter seeking the views of 
the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of 
proposed energy conservation standards for portable air conditioners.
    Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a 
determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is 
likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation 
standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to 
requests from other departments about the effect of a program on 
competition was delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the 
Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g).
    In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether 
a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by 
substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry 
concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices 
to manufacturers and consumers.
    We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (81 FR 38398, June 13, 2016) and the related 
technical support documents. We have also monitored the public meeting 
held on the proposed standards on July 20, 2016, and conducted 
interviews with industry members.
    Based on the information currently available, we do not believe 
that the proposed energy conservation standards for portable air 
conditioners are likely to have a significant adverse impact on 
competition.

Sincerely,

Renata B. Hesse

[FR Doc. 2019-26350 Filed 1-9-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P