[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12802-12851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04151]
[[Page 12801]]
Vol. 87
Monday,
No. 44
March 7, 2022
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Computer
Room Air Conditioners; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12802]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008]
RIN 1904-AF01
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Computer Room Air Conditioners
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including small,
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, of which computer room air conditioners (CRACs) are a
category. EPCA requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the
Department) to consider the need for amended standards each time the
relevant industry standard is amended with respect to the standard
levels or design requirements applicable to that equipment, or
periodically under a six-year-lookback review provision. In this
document, DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards for
CRACs that rely on a new efficiency metric and are equivalent to those
levels specified in the industry standard. DOE has preliminarily
determined that it lacks the clear and convincing evidence required by
the statute to adopt standards more stringent than the levels specified
in the industry standard. This document also announces a public meeting
webinar to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated
analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday,
April 13, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept written comments, data, and information
regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on and before May
6, 2022.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before April 6, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments by email to the following address:
[email protected]. Include docket number EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0008 and/or RIN 1904-AF01 in the subject line of the message.
Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or
ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form
of encryption.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII (Public Participation) of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking
Portal, email, postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department
has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment
submission process in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. DOE is
currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and
hand delivery/courier. DOE is currently accepting only electronic
submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this change poses
an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at
(202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once
the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, 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: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII.D ``Public Participation,'' for
information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard for CRACs.
Interested persons may contact the Division at
[email protected] on or before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7335. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the webinar, contact
the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445
or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for CRACs
III. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
A. General
B. Test Procedure
C. Methodology for Efficiency and Capacity Crosswalk Analyses
1. Increase in Return Air Dry-Bulb Temperature From 75 [deg]F to
85 [deg]F
2. Decrease in Entering Water Temperature for Water-Cooled CRACs
3. Changes in External Static Pressure Requirements for Upflow
Ducted CRACs
4. Power Adder To Account for Pump and Heat Rejection Fan Power
in NSenCOP Calculation for Water-Cooled and Glycol-Cooled CRACs
5. Calculating Overall Changes in Measured Efficiency and
Capacity From Test Procedure Changes
(a) Calculation of Crosswalked NSenCOP Levels
[[Page 12803]]
(b) Calculation of Translated NSCC Boundaries
D. Crosswalk Results
E. Comments Received Regarding DOE's Crosswalk Methodology
IV. Methodology for Estimates of Potential Energy Savings From
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 Levels
A. Annual Energy Use
1. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
2. Analysis Method and Annual Energy Use Results
B. Shipments Analysis
C. No-New-Standards-Case Efficiency Distribution
D. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Equipment Lifetime
2. Compliance Dates and Analysis Period
E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
V. Conclusions
A. Consideration of More-Stringent Efficiency Levels
B. Review Under Six-Year Lookback Provision
C. Definition for Ducted Condenser
D. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
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. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes CRACs, the subject of this proposed
rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is triggered to consider amending the energy
conservation standards for certain types of commercial and industrial
equipment, including the equipment at issue in this document, whenever
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) amends the standard levels or design requirements
prescribed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings'' (ASHRAE Standard 90.1). Under a
separate provision of EPCA, DOE is required to review the existing
energy conservation standards for those types of covered equipment
subject to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every six years to determine whether
those standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)-(C)) For
each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
amended, DOE must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the
new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and
convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more-
stringent efficiency level would produce significant additional energy
savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE adopts as a uniform national standard
the efficiency level specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE
must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication
of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If
DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the
statutory criteria, DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not
later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard
90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) ASHRAE last updated ASHRAE Standard
90.1 on October 24, 2019 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019), thereby
triggering DOE's previously referenced obligations pursuant to EPCA to
determine for CRACs, whether: (1) The amended industry standard should
be adopted; or (2) clear and convincing evidence exists to justify
more-stringent standard levels.
The current Federal energy conservation standards for CRACs are set
forth at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 10 CFR
431.97 and, as specified in 10 CFR 431.96, those standards are
denominated in terms of Sensible Coefficient of Performance (SCOP) and
based on the rating conditions in American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)/ASHRAE 127-2007, ``Method of Testing for Rating Computer and
Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners'' (ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007).
However, the efficiency levels for CRACs set forth in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 are specified in terms of Net Sensible Coefficient of
Performance (NSenCOP) and based on rating conditions in Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard
1360-2017, ``Performance Rating of Computer and Data Processing Room
Air Conditioners'' (AHRI 1360-2017), which differ from the rating
conditions specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 for most configurations of
CRACs. Therefore, while SCOP and NSenCOP are both ratios of the net
sensible cooling capacity (NSCC) to the power consumed by the unit,
they are measured at different rating conditions for most
configurations of CRACs \3\ and correspondingly provide different
representations of efficiency. DOE has compared the stringency of
standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (in terms of NSenCOP) to the
corresponding current Federal energy conservation standards (in terms
of SCOP) by conducting a crosswalk analysis. Based on the results of
that analysis, DOE has tentatively concluded that the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 levels are equivalent in stringency to the current Federal
standards for six equipment classes and are more stringent than the
current Federal standards for the remaining 46 equipment classes of
CRACs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Additionally, for water-cooled and glycol-cooled CRACs,
NSenCOP includes power adders to account for power that would be
consumed in field installations by pumps and heat rejection
component (e.g., cooling tower or dry cooler) fans. See section
III.C of this NOPR for further discussion of the evaluation of
differences between SCOP and NSenCOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all CRAC equipment classes, DOE has tentatively determined that
there is not clear and convincing evidence of significant additional
energy savings to justify amended standards for CRACs that are more
stringent than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels. Clear and
convincing evidence would exist only where the specific facts and data
made available to DOE regarding a particular ASHRAE amendment
demonstrate that there is no substantial doubt that a standard more
stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment is
permitted because it would result in a significant additional amount of
energy savings, is technologically feasible and economically justified.
[[Page 12804]]
DOE normally performs multiple in-depth analyses to determine
whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support more
stringent energy conservation standards (i.e., whether more stringent
standards would produce significant additional conservation of energy
and be technologically feasible and economically justified). However,
as discussed in this notice in section V.A, due to the lack of
available market and performance data, DOE is unable to conduct the
analysis necessary to evaluate the potential energy savings or evaluate
whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible or
economically justified, with sufficient certainty. Therefore, in
accordance with the statutory provisions discussed in this section and
elsewhere in this document, DOE is proposing amended energy
conservation standards for CRACs corresponding to the efficiency levels
specified for CRACs in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. The proposed
standards, which are expressed in NSenCOP, are presented in Table I-1
and Table I-2. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all
CRACs listed in Table I-1 and Table I-2 manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States starting on the tentative compliance date of
360 days after the publication date of the final rule adopting amended
energy conservation standards. See section V.D of this NOPR for a
discussion on the applicable lead-times considered to determine this
compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For downflow and upflow-ducted CRACs, the NSCC measured per
AHRI 1360-2017 and the latest draft of AHRI 1360 is higher than the
NSCC measured per the current Federal test procedure (which
references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007). Therefore, to ensure equipment
currently covered by Federal standards is not removed from coverage,
DOE translated the currently applicable upper capacity limit for
these classes (760,000 Btu/h) to NSCC as measured per AHRI 1360-2017
and the latest draft of AHRI 1360, resulting in a crosswalked upper
capacity boundary of 930,000 Btu/h. Consequently, DOE has used
930,000 Btu/h as the translated upper capacity limit for downflow
and upflow-ducted CRACs in the analysis presented in this notice.
For up-flow non-ducted CRACs, because there is no change in return
air temperature conditions between ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 and AHRI
1360-Draft, the capacity boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
remain the same as those specified in the current Federal standards,
and DOE correspondingly proposes to retain the current capacity
boundaries. For horizontal-flow CRACs, DOE does not currently
prescribe standards; therefore, a crosswalk of current capacity
boundaries is not applicable. See section III.C.5 of this NOPR for
further discussion of DOE's crosswalk analysis of capacity
boundaries for CRACs.
\5\ Btu/h refers to ``British thermal units per hour.''
\6\ The proposed standard for this equipment class is of
equivalent stringency to the currently applicable Federal standard--
the proposed level is a translation from the current metric (SCOP)
to the proposed metric (NSenCOP) and aligns with the corresponding
level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
Table I-1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Floor-Mounted CRACs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum NSenCOP Minimum NSenCOP
efficiency efficiency
Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity -------------------------- Net sensible cooling capacity -------------------------
\4\ Upflow Upflow non- Horizontal
Downflow ducted ducted flow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled............................ <80,000 Btu/h \5\............ 2.70 2.67 <65,000 Btu/h................ 2.16 2.65
>=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 2.58 \6\ 2.55 >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 2.04 2.55
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 2.36 2.33 >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 1.89 2.47
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Air-Cooled with Fluid Economizer...... <80,000 Btu/h................ 2.70 2.67 <65,000 Btu/h................ \6\ 2.09 2.65
>=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 2.58 \6\ 2.55 >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 \6\ 1.99 2.55
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 2.36 2.33 >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 1.81 2.47
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Water-Cooled.......................... <80,000 Btu/h................ 2.82 2.79 <65,000 Btu/h................ 2.43 2.79
>=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 2.73 \6\ 2.70 >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 2.32 2.68
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 2.67 2.64 >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 2.20 2.60
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Water-Cooled with Fluid Economizer.... <80,000 Btu/h................ 2.77 2.74 <65,000 Btu/h................ 2.35 2.71
>=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 2.68 \6\ 2.65 >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 2.24 2.60
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 2.61 2.58 >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 2.12 2.54
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Glycol-Cooled......................... <80,000 Btu/h................ 2.56 2.53 <65,000 Btu/h................ 2.08 2.48
>=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 2.24 2.21 >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 1.90 2.18
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 2.21 2.18 >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 1.81 2.18
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid Economizer... <80,000 Btu/h................ 2.51 2.48 <65,000 Btu/h................ 2.00 2.44
>=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 2.19 2.16 >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 1.82 2.10
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 2.15 2.12 >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 1.73 2.10
Btu/h. Btu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I-2--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling-Mounted CRACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum NSenCOP efficiency
Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity -------------------------------
Ducted Non-ducted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge <29,000 Btu/h...................... 2.05 2.08
Condenser.
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h... 2.02 2.05
>=65,000 Btu/h..................... 1.92 1.94
[[Page 12805]]
Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge <29,000 Btu/h...................... 2.01 2.04
Condenser and Fluid Economizer. >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h... 1.97 2.00
>=65,000 Btu/h..................... 1.87 1.89
Air-Cooled with Ducted Condenser........... <29,000 Btu/h...................... 1.86 1.89
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h... 1.83 1.86
>=65,000 Btu/h..................... 1.73 1.75
Air-Cooled with Ducted Condenser and Fluid <29,000 Btu/h...................... 1.82 1.85
Economizer. >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h... 1.78 1.81
>=65,000 Btu/h..................... 1.68 1.70
Water-Cooled............................... <29,000 Btu/h...................... 2.38 2.41
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h... 2.28 2.31
>=65,000 Btu/h..................... 2.18 2.20
Water-Cooled with Fluid Economizer......... <29,000 Btu/h...................... 2.33 2.36
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h... 2.23 2.26
>=65,000 Btu/h..................... 2.13 2.16
Glycol-Cooled.............................. <29,000 Btu/h...................... 1.97 2.00
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h... 1.93 1.98
>=65,000 Btu/h..................... 1.78 1.81
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid Economizer........ <29,000 Btu/h...................... 1.92 1.95
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h... 1.88 1.93
>=65,000 Btu/h..................... 1.73 1.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of energy
conservation standards for CRACs.
A. Authority
EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among
other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a
number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title
III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section
441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This
covered equipment includes small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes CRACs,
the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
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 covered equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6314) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test
procedures as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment
complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making
representations about the energy use or efficiency of that equipment
(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to
determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA. The DOE test procedures for CRACs appear at 10
CFR part 431, subpart F.
DOE is to consider amending the energy efficiency standards for
certain types of commercial and industrial equipment, including the
equipment at issue in this document, whenever ASHRAE amends the
standard levels or design requirements prescribed in ASHRAE Standard
90.1, and at a minimum, every six years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)-(C))
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry energy efficiency levels for small,
large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged terminal heat
pumps, warm air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters,
instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks
(collectively ``ASHRAE equipment''). For each type of listed equipment,
EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must adopt
amended standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency levels, unless DOE
determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence,\7\ that
adoption of a more stringent level would produce significant additional
conservation of energy and would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE makes such
a determination, it must publish a
[[Page 12806]]
final rule to establish the more stringent standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The clear and convincing threshold is a heightened standard,
and would only be met where the Secretary has an abiding conviction,
based on available facts, data, and DOE's own analyses, that it is
highly probable an amended standard would result in a significant
additional amount of energy savings, and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. American Public Gas Association v. U.S.
Dep't of Energy, No. 20-1068, 2022 WL 151923, at *4 (D.C. Cir.
January 18, 2022) (citing Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316,
104 S.Ct. 2433, 81 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term ``amended'' in
the context of what type of revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would
trigger DOE's obligation, DOE's longstanding interpretation has been
that the statutory trigger is an amendment to the standard applicable
to that equipment under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that increases the energy
efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7,
2007). If the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the energy efficiency
level unchanged (or lowers the energy efficiency level) as compared to
the energy efficiency level specified by the uniform national standard
adopted pursuant to EPCA, regardless of the other amendments made to
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirement (e.g., the inclusion of an
additional metric) DOE has stated that it does not have authority to
conduct a rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) to consider a
higher standard for that equipment, though this does not limit DOE's
authority to consider higher standards as part of a six-year lookback
rulemaking analysis (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C); see
discussion in the following paragraphs). See 74 FR 36312, 36313 (July
22, 2009) and 77 FR 28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012). If an amendment to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 changes the metric for the standard on which the
Federal requirement was based, DOE performs a crosswalk analysis to
determine whether the amended metric under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 results
in an energy efficiency level more stringent than the current DOE
standard.
Under EPCA, DOE must also review energy efficiency standards for
CRACs every six years and either: (1) Issue a notice of determination
that the standards do not need to be amended as adoption of a more
stringent level is not supported by clear and convincing evidence; or
(2) issue a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed
standards based on certain criteria and procedures in subparagraph
(B).\8\ (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that: (1) In
making a determination of economic justification, DOE must consider,
to the maximum extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an
amended standard based on the seven criteria described in EPCA; (2)
DOE may not prescribe any standard that increases the energy use or
decreases the energy efficiency of a covered equipment; and (3) DOE
may not prescribe any standard that interested persons have
established by a preponderance of evidence is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States of any product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability,
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes) that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)-(iii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In deciding whether a more-stringent standard is economically
justified, under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE must determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or
maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to
result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to
result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered equipment likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds
that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product that
complies with the standard will be less than three times the value of
the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year
that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as
calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) However, while this rebuttable presumption analysis
applies to most commercial and industrial equipment (42 U.S.C.
6316(a)), it is not a required analysis for ASHRAE equipment (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(1)).
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)) Also, 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 United States 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 United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))
B. Background
Current Standards
EPCA defines ``commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' as air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, or water
source (not including ground water source) electrically operated,
unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat
pumps for commercial application. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92)
EPCA further classifies ``commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment'' into categories based on cooling capacity (i.e.,
small, large, and very large categories). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)-(D); 10
CFR 431.92) ``Small commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' means equipment rated below 135,000 Btu/h (cooling
capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment'' means equipment rated:
(i) At or above 135,000 Btu/h; and (ii) below 240,000 Btu/h (cooling
capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'' means
equipment rated: (i) At or above 240,000 Btu/h; and (ii) below 760,000
Btu/h (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
Pursuant to its authority under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) and
in response to updates to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE has established the
category of CRAC, which meets the EPCA definition of ``commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment,'' but which EPCA did
not expressly identify. See 10 CFR 431.92 and 431.97. Within this
additional equipment category, further distinctions are made at the
equipment class level based on capacity and other equipment attributes.
DOE defines ``computer room air conditioner'' as commercial package
air-conditioning and heating equipment (packaged or split) that is:
Used in computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other information
technology cooling applications; rated for SCOP and tested in
accordance with 10 CFR 431.96, and is not a covered product under 42
U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6292. A
[[Page 12807]]
computer room air conditioner may be provided with, or have as
available options, an integrated humidifier, temperature, and/or
humidity control of the supplied air, and reheating function. 10 CFR
431.92.
In a final rule published on May 16, 2012 (``May 2012 final
rule''), DOE established energy conservation standards for CRACs.
Compliance with standards was required for units manufactured (1) on
and after October 29, 2012, for equipment classes with NSCC less than
65,000 Btu/h and (2) on or after October 29, 2013, for equipment
classes with NSCC greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than
760,000 Btu/h. 77 FR 28929, 28995. These standards are set forth in
DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.97 and are repeated in Table II-1.
Table II-1--Current Federal Energy Conservation Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum SCOP efficiency
Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity -------------------------------
Downflow Upflow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled.................................... <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.20 2.09
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.10 1.99
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 1.90 1.79
h.
Water-Cooled.................................. <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.60 2.49
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.50 2.39
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 2.40 2.29
h.
Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer.......... <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.55 2.44
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.45 2.34
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 2.35 2.24
h.
Glycol-Cooled................................. <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.50 2.39
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.15 2.04
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 2.10 1.99
h.
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer......... <65,000 Btu/h................... 2.45 2.34
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ 2.10 1.99
h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 2.05 1.94
h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's current equipment classes for CRACs are differentiated by
condenser heat rejection medium (air-cooled, water-cooled, water-cooled
with fluid economizer, glycol-cooled, or glycol-cooled with fluid
economizer), NSCC (less than 65,000 Btu/h, greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h, or greater than or equal to
240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h), and direction of
conditioned air over the cooling coil (upflow or downflow). 10 CFR
431.97.
DOE's test procedure for CRACs, set forth at 10 CFR 431.96,
currently incorporates by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 127-2007 (omit
section 5.11), with additional provisions indicated in 10 CFR 431.96(c)
and (e). The energy efficiency metric is SCOP for all CRAC equipment
classes.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for CRACs
As discussed, the energy conservation standards for CRACs were most
recently amended in the May 2012 final rule. 77 FR 28928. The May 2012
final rule established equipment classes for CRACs and adopted energy
conservation standards that correspond to the levels in the 2010
revision of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010).
ASHRAE released the 2016 version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016) on October 26, 2016, which updated its test
procedure reference for CRACs from ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 to AHRI
Standard 1360-2016, ``Performance Rating of Computer and Data
Processing Room Air Conditioners'' (AHRI 1360-2016), which in turn
references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2012, ``Method of Testing for Rating
Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners'' (ANSI/
ASHRAE 127-2012). The energy efficiency metric for CRACs in AHRI 1360-
2016 is NSenCOP. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 established new equipment
classes and added efficiency levels for horizontal-flow CRACs,
disaggregated the upflow CRAC equipment classes into upflow ducted and
upflow non-ducted equipment classes, and established different sets of
efficiency levels for upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted equipment
classes based on the corresponding rating conditions specified in AHRI
1360-2016.
DOE published a notice of data availability and request for
information (NODA/RFI) in response to the amendments to the industry
consensus standard contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 in the
Federal Register on September 11, 2019 (September 2019 NODA/RFI). 84 FR
48006. In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE explained its methodology
and assumptions to compare the current Federal standards for CRACs (in
terms of SCOP) to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 (in terms of
NSenCOP) and requested comment on its methodology and results. 84 FR
48006, 48014-48019. DOE received a number of comments from interested
parties in response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI.
On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE officially released for distribution
and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
updated its test procedure reference for CRACs from AHRI 1360-2016 to
AHRI 1360-2017, which also references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2012. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 maintained the equipment class structure for floor-
mounted CRACs as established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, and updated
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for all but three of
those equipment classes. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 also added classes
for air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers and a new table with new
efficiency levels for ceiling-mounted CRAC equipment classes. The
equipment in the horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted classes is
currently not subject to Federal standards set forth in 10 CFR
431.97.\9\ In contrast, upflow and downflow air-cooled CRACs with fluid
economizers are currently subject to the
[[Page 12808]]
Federal standards in 10 CFR 431.97 for air-cooled equipment classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ DOE issued a draft guidance document on October 7, 2015 to
clarify that horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted CRACs are covered
equipment and are required to be tested under the current DOE test
procedure for purposes of making representations of energy
consumption. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0022, No. 3, pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also published a NODA/RFI in response to the amendments in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and the comments received in response to the
September 2019 NODA/RFI, in the Federal Register on September 25, 2020
(September 2020 NODA/RFI). 85 FR 60642. In the September 2020 NODA/RFI,
DOE conducted a crosswalk analysis (similar to the September 2019 NODA/
RFI) to compare the current Federal standards for CRACs (in terms of
SCOP) to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (in terms of NSenCOP)
and requested comment on its methodology and results. 85 FR 60642,
60653-60660. DOE received comments in response to the September 2020
NODA/RFI from the interested parties listed in Table II-2 of this NOPR
regarding CRACs, the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
Table II-2--September 2020 NODA/RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) NOPR Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Joint Commenters.. Efficiency
Project, Natural Resources Organizations.
Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI.............. Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
California Investor Owned CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Utilities.
Rheem........................... Rheem............. Manufacturer.
Trane........................... Trane............. Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record for
the September 2020 NODA/RFI docket.\10\ For cases in which this NOPR
references comments received in response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI
(which are contained within a different docket), the full docket number
(rather than just the document number) is included in the parenthetical
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for CRACs. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0008, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, on February 6, 2022, DOE published a test procedure
NOPR (February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR), in which DOE proposed an amended
test procedure for CRACs that incorporates by reference the substance
of the draft version of the latest AHRI 1360 standard, AHRI Standard
1360-202X, Performance Rating of Computer and Data Processing Room Air
Conditioners (AHRI 1360-202X Draft) and adopts NSenCOP as the test
metric for CRACs. 87 FR 6948. AHRI Standard 1360-202X Draft is in draft
form and its text was provided to the Department for the purposes of
review only during the drafting of the February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR. As
stated in the February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR, DOE intends to update the
reference to the final published version of AHRI 1360-202X Draft in the
test procedure final rule, unless there are substantive changes between
the draft and published versions, in which case DOE may adopt the
substance of the AHRI 1360-202X Draft or provide additional opportunity
for comment. 87 FR 6948, 6951.
III. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
A. General
As mentioned, DOE presented an efficiency crosswalk analysis in the
September 2020 NODA/RFI to compare the stringency of the current
Federal standards (represented in terms of SCOP based on the current
DOE test procedure) for CRACs to the stringency of the efficiency
levels for this equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (represented in
terms of NSenCOP and based on AHRI 1360-2017). 85 FR 60642, 60648
(Sept. 25, 2020). And in the February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR DOE proposed to
incorporate by reference the latest draft version of AHRI Standard
1360, AHRI 1360-202X Draft, and adopt NSenCOP as the test metric in the
DOE test procedure for CRACs. 87 FR 6948. Because the rating conditions
specified in AHRI 1360-2017 and AHRI 1360-202X Draft are the same for
the classes covered by DOE's crosswalk analysis (upflow ducted, upflow
non-ducted, and downflow), the same crosswalk as described in the
September 2020 NODA/RFI can be used to compare DOE's current SCOP-based
CRAC standards to relevant NSenCOP values determined according to AHRI
1360-202X Draft.
In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE's analysis focused on whether
DOE had been triggered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 updates to minimum
efficiency levels for CRACs and whether more-stringent standards were
warranted. As discussed in detail in section III.C of this NOPR, DOE
conducted a crosswalk analysis of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
standard levels (in terms of NSenCOP) and the corresponding current
Federal energy conservation standards (in terms of SCOP) to compare the
stringencies. 85 FR 60642, 60653-60658. DOE has tentatively determined
that the updates in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 increased the stringency
of efficiency levels for 48 equipment classes and maintained equivalent
levels for 6 equipment classes of CRACs relative to the current Federal
standard. 85 FR 60642, 60658-60660. In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 includes efficiency levels for 18 classes of horizontal-flow CRACs
and 48 classes of ceiling-mounted CRACs which are not currently subject
to Federal standards and therefore require no crosswalk. As discussed
in section V of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt standards for
horizontal-flow CRACs and ceiling-mounted CRACs.
Table III-1 show the equipment classes and efficiency levels for
CRACs provided in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 alongside the current
Federal energy conservation standards. Table III-1 also displays the
corresponding existing Federal equipment classes for clarity and
indicates whether the updated levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
trigger DOE's evaluation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) (i.e.,
whether the update results in a standard level more stringent than the
current Federal level). The remainder of this section explains DOE's
methodology for evaluating the updated levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 and addresses comments received regarding CRAC efficiency levels
and associated analyses discussed in the September 2020 NODA/RFI.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 12809]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.003
[[Page 12810]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.004
[[Page 12811]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.005
[[Page 12812]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.006
[[Page 12813]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.007
[[Page 12814]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.008
[[Page 12815]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.009
[[Page 12816]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.010
[[Page 12817]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.011
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
B. Test Procedure
As noted in section III.A of this document, ASHRAE adopted
efficiency levels for all CRAC equipment classes denominated in terms
of NSenCOP in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (measured per AHRI 1360-2017)
whereas DOE's current standards are denominated in terms of SCOP
(measured per ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
incorporates by references AHRI 1360-2017. In the February 2022 CRAC TP
NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt an amended test procedure for CRACs that
incorporates by reference the substance of the updated draft version of
the AHRI 1360 Standard, AHRI 1360-202X Draft. 87 FR 6948. Because the
rating conditions specified in AHRI 1360-202X Draft and AHRI 1360-2017
are the same for the classes for which DOE requires a crosswalk (upflow
ducted, upflow non-ducted, and downflow), DOE has tentatively concluded
that the NSenCOP levels specified for equipment classes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 as measured per AHRI 1360-2017 would remain
unchanged if measured per AHRI 1360-202X Draft. Therefore, in the
crosswalk analysis presented in the following sections, DOE considers
that the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 NSenCOP levels are measured per AHRI
1360-202X Draft.
C. Methodology for Efficiency and Capacity Crosswalk Analyses
For the efficiency crosswalk, DOE analyzed the CRAC equipment
classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 that are currently subject to
Federal standards (i.e., all upflow and downflow classes).\11\ As
discussed in the subsequent paragraphs, for certain CRAC classes,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies classes that disaggregate the
current Federal equipment classes into additional classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes efficiency levels for
horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted classes of CRACs. DOE does not
currently prescribe standards for horizontal-flow or ceiling-mounted
classes, so these classes were not included in the crosswalk
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For upflow CRACs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes separate sets
of efficiency levels for ducted and non-ducted units. This reflects the
differences in rating conditions for upflow ducted and upflow non-
ducted units in AHRI 1360-202X Draft (e.g., return air temperature and
external static pressure (ESP). The current Federal test procedure does
not specify different rating conditions for upflow ducted as compared
to upflow non-ducted CRACs, and DOE's current standards set forth in 10
CFR 431.97 also do not differentiate between upflow ducted and upflow
non-ducted CRACs. For the purpose of the efficiency crosswalk analysis,
DOE converted the single set of current Federal SCOP standards, which
encompasses all upflow CRACs, to two sets of ``crosswalked'' NSenCOP
levels for both the upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted classes present
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
Similarly, for air-cooled CRACs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes
separate sets of efficiency levels for equipment with and without fluid
economizers. Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies less
stringent efficiency levels for equipment with fluid economizers,
reflecting the additional pressure drop in the indoor air stream from
the presence of the fluid economizer that the indoor fan must overcome.
DOE's current standards set forth in 10 CFR 431.97 do not distinguish
air-cooled CRACs based on the presence of fluid economizers. Therefore,
DOE's crosswalk analysis converted the single set of current Federal
standards for air-cooled classes (in terms of SCOP) to two sets of
standards in terms of NSenCOP for air-cooled classes distinguishing
CRACs with and without fluid economizers. However, there is no
difference between the rating conditions in AHRI 1360-202X Draft for
air-cooled CRACs with and without fluid economizers, so the results of
the crosswalk analysis converting the current standards to NSenCOP
standards are identical for these classes.
As explained previously, the efficiency levels for CRACs in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 rely on a different metric (NSenCOP) and test
procedure (AHRI 1360-2017, and now by extension AHRI 1360-202X Draft)
than
[[Page 12818]]
the metric and test procedure required under the current Federal
standards (relying on SCOP and ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, respectively).
AHRI 1360-202X Draft and ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 notably also specify
different rating conditions. These differences are listed in Table III-
2, and are discussed in detail in sections III.C.1 through III.C.4 of
this document.
Table III-2--Differences in Rating Conditions Between DOE's Current Test Procedure and AHRI Standard 1360-202X Draft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test parameter Affected equipment Current DOE test procedure (ANSI/ASHRAE 127-
categories. 2007)
AHRI 1360-202X Draft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return air dry-bulb temperature Upflow ducted and 75 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature
(RAT). downflow.
85 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entering water temperature (EWT)... Water-cooled.......... 86 [deg]F
83 [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESP (varies with NSCC)............. Upflow ducted......... <20 kW................ 0.8 in H2O........... <80 kBtu/h........... 0.3 in H2O.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20 kW............... 1.0 in H2O........... >=80 kBtu/h and <295 0.4 in H2O.
kBtu/h.
---------------------------------------------
>=295 kBtu/h and <760 0.5 in H2O.
kBtu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adder for heat rejection fan and Water-cooled and No added power consumption for heat rejection
pump power (add to total power glycol-cooled. fan and pump
consumption).
5 percent of NSCC for water-cooled CRACs.
7.5 percent of NSCC for glycol-cooled CRACs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The differences between these specified rating conditions in AHRI
1360-202X Draft compared to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 impacts the capacity
boundaries for CRAC equipment classes. The capacity values that bound
the CRAC equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and in DOE's
current standards at 10 CFR 431.97 are in terms of NSCC. In ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019, the capacity boundaries for downflow and upflow-
ducted CRAC equipment classes are increased relative to the boundaries
of the analogous classes in the current Federal standards. For certain
equipment classes, NSCC values determined according to AHRI 1360-202X
Draft's different rating conditions are higher than the NSCC values
determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007. Therefore, the test
conditions in AHRI 1360-202X Draft result in an increased NSCC value
for certain equipment classes, as compared to the NSCC measured in
accordance with the current Federal test procedure requirement. This
means that some CRACs would switch classes (i.e., move into a higher
capacity equipment class) if the test conditions in AHRI 1360-202X
Draft are used without shifting current equipment class boundaries to
match the impact of the changes in rating conditions.
The stringency of both the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level
and the current Federal standard decreases as the equipment class
capacity increases for upflow and downflow CRAC classes. Therefore,
class switching would subject some CRAC models to an efficiency level
under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 that is less stringent than the
standard level that is applicable to that model under the current
Federal requirements. Lowering the stringency of the efficiency level
in the Federal requirements is impermissible under EPCA's anti-
backsliding provision at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I).
To evaluate the capacity boundaries under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
and allow for an appropriate comparison between current Federal
efficiency standards and the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 and to avoid potential backsliding, a capacity crosswalk was
conducted to translate the NSCC boundaries that separate equipment
classes in the Federal efficiency standards to account for the expected
increase in measured NSCC values for affected equipment classes (i.e.,
equipment classes with test procedure changes that increase NSCC).
DOE's capacity crosswalk calculated the increases in the capacity
boundaries of affected equipment classes from the Federal efficiency
standards if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 were adopted, to evaluate this
equipment class switching issue and to avoid backsliding that would
occur from class switching if capacity boundaries did not account for
the changed rating conditions in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
Both the efficiency and capacity crosswalk analyses have a similar
structure and the data for both analyses came from several of the same
sources. The crosswalk analyses were informed by numerous sources,
including public manufacturer literature, manufacturer performance data
obtained through non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), results from DOE's
testing of two CRAC units, and DOE's Compliance Certification Database
\12\ for CRACs. DOE analyzed each test procedure change (e.g., change
in rating conditions) independently, and used the available data to
determine an aggregated percentage by which that change impacted
efficiency (SCOP) and/or NSCC. Updated SCOP levels and NSCC equipment
class boundaries were calculated for each class (as applicable) by
combining the percentage changes for every test procedure change
applicable to that class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at:
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sub-sections describe the approaches used to analyze
the impacts on the measured efficiency and capacity of each difference
in rating conditions between DOE's current test procedure and AHRI
1360-202X Draft. As discussed, the crosswalk analysis methodology
described in the following sub-sections is the same as presented in the
September 2020 NODA/RFI. No additional data sources were added to the
analysis for this NOPR.
1. Increase in Return Air Dry-Bulb Temperature From 75 [deg]F to 85
[deg]F
ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced by DOE's current test
procedure, specifies a return air dry-
[[Page 12819]]
bulb temperature (RAT) of 75 [deg]F for testing all CRACs. AHRI 1360-
202X Draft specifies a RAT of 85 [deg]F for upflow ducted and downflow
CRACs, but specifies an RAT for upflow non-ducted units of 75 [deg]F.
SCOP and NSCC both increase with increasing RAT for two reasons.
First, a higher RAT increases the cooling that must be done for the air
to approach its dew point temperature (i.e., the temperature at which
water vapor will condense if there is any additional cooling). Second,
a higher RAT will tend to raise the evaporating temperature of the
refrigerant, which in turn raises the temperature of fin and tube
surfaces in contact with the air--the resulting reduction in the
portion of the heat exchanger surface that is below the air's dew point
temperature reduces the potential for water vapor to condense on these
surfaces. This is seen in product specifications which show that the
sensible heat ratio \13\ is consistently higher at a RAT of 85 [deg]F
than at 75 [deg]F. Because increasing RAT increases the fraction of
total cooling capacity that is sensible cooling (rather than latent
cooling), the NSCC increases. Further, because SCOP is calculated with
NSCC in the numerator of the calculation, an increase in NSCC also
inherently increases SCOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Sensible heat ratio'' is the ratio of sensible cooling
capacity to the total cooling capacity. The total cooling capacity
includes both sensible cooling capacity (cooling associated with
reduction in temperature) and latent cooling capacity (cooling
associated with dehumidification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To analyze the magnitude of the impacts of increasing RAT for
upflow ducted and downflow CRACs on SCOP and NSCC, DOE gathered data
from three separate sources and aggregated the results for each
crosswalk analysis. First, DOE used product specifications for several
CRAC models that provide SCOP and NSCC ratings for RATs ranging from 75
[deg]F to 95 [deg]F. Second, DOE analyzed manufacturer performance data
obtained under NDAs that showed the performance impact of individual
test condition changes, including the increase in RAT. Third, DOE used
results from testing two CRAC units: One air-cooled upflow ducted and
one air-cooled downflow unit. DOE combined the results of these sources
to find the aggregated increases in SCOP and NSCC due to the increase
in RAT. The increase in SCOP due to the change in RAT was found to be
approximately 19 percent, and the increase in NSCC was found to be
approximately 22 percent.
2. Decrease in Entering Water Temperature for Water-Cooled CRACs
ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced by DOE's current test
procedure, specifies an entering water temperature (EWT) of 86 [deg]F
for water-cooled CRACs, while AHRI 1360-202X Draft specifies an
entering water temperature of 83 [deg]F. A decrease in the EWT for
water-cooled CRACs increases the temperature difference between the
water and hot refrigerant in the condenser coil, thus increasing
cooling capacity and decreasing compressor power. To analyze the impact
of this decrease in EWT on SCOP and NSCC, DOE analyzed manufacturer
data obtained through NDAs and a publicly-available presentation from a
major CRAC manufacturer and calculated a SCOP increase of approximately
2 percent and an NSCC increase of approximately 1 percent.
3. Changes in External Static Pressure Requirements for Upflow Ducted
CRACs
For upflow ducted CRACs, AHRI 1360-202X Draft specifies lower ESP
requirements than ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced in DOE's
current test procedure. The ESP requirements in all CRAC industry test
standards vary with NSCC; however, the capacity bins (i.e., capacity
ranges over which each ESP requirement applies) in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007
are different from those in AHRI 1360-202X Draft. Testing with a lower
ESP decreases the indoor fan power input without a corresponding
decrease in NSCC, thus increasing the measured SCOP. Additionally, the
reduction in fan heat entering the indoor air stream that results from
lower fan power also slightly increases NSCC, further increasing SCOP.
To analyze the impacts on measured SCOP and NSCC of the changes in
ESP requirements between DOE's current test procedure and AHRI 1360-
202X Draft, DOE aggregated data from its analysis of fan power
consumption changes, manufacturer data obtained through NDAs, and
results from DOE testing. Notably, the impact of changes in ESP
requirements on SCOP and NSCC was calculated separately in DOE's
analysis for each capacity range specified in AHRI 1360-202X Draft
(i.e., <80 kBtu/h, 80-295 kBtu/h, and >=295 kBtu/h). As discussed in
III.C of this document, NSCC values determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE
127-2007 are lower than NSCC values determined according to AHRI 1360-
202X Draft for certain CRAC classes, including upflow-ducted classes.
The increase in NSCC in AHRI 1360-202X Draft also impacts the ESP
requirements in AHRI 1360-202X Draft for upflow-ducted units, because
the ESP requirements are specified based on NSCC. Different ESP
requirements impact the stringency of the test--as discussed, testing
with a lower ESP increases the measured SCOP. AHRI 1360-202X Draft
addresses this issue by updating the NSCC capacity bin boundaries
associated with the applicable ESP. For the purposes of the efficiency
and capacity crosswalk analyses in this NOPR, DOE used the adjusted
capacity boundaries in AHRI 1360-202X Draft for upflow ducted classes
presented in Table III-4 (as discussed in section III.C.5 of this
document) to specify the applicable ESP requirement.
DOE conducted an analysis to estimate the change in fan power
consumption due to the changes in ESP requirements using performance
data and product specifications for 77 upflow CRAC models with
certified SCOP ratings at or near the current applicable SCOP standard
level in DOE's Compliance Certification Database. Using the certified
SCOP and NSCC values, DOE determined each model's total power
consumption for operation at the rating conditions specified in DOE's
current test procedure. DOE then used fan performance data for each
model to estimate the change in indoor fan power that would result from
the lower ESP requirements in AHRI 1360-202X Draft and modified the
total power consumption for each model by the calculated value. For
several models, detailed fan performance data were not available, so
DOE used fan performance data for comparable air conditioning units
with similar cooling capacity, fan drive, and fan motor horsepower.
DOE also received manufacturer data (obtained through NDAs) showing
the impact on efficiency and NSCC of the change in ESP requirements.
Additionally, DOE conducted tests on an upflow-ducted CRAC at ESPs of 1
in. H2O and 0.4 in. H2O (the applicable ESP
requirements specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 and AHRI 1360-202X
Draft, respectively), and included the results of those tests in this
analysis.
For each of the three capacity ranges for which ESP requirements
are specified in AHRI 1360-202X Draft, Table III-3 shows the
approximate aggregated percentage increases in SCOP and NSCC associated
with the decreased ESP requirements specified in AHRI 1360-202X Draft
for upflow ducted units.
[[Page 12820]]
Table III-3--Percentage Increase in SCOP and NSCC From Decreases in External Static Pressure Requirements for
Upflow Ducted Units Between DOE's Current Test Procedure and AHRI 1360-202X Draft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESP requirements
in DOE's current
Net sensible cooling capacity test procedure ESP requirements Approx. average Approx. average
range (kBtu/h) * (ANSI/ASHRAE 127- in AHRI 1360-202X percentage percentage
2007) (in H2O) draft (in H2O) increase in SCOP increase in NSCC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65............................. 0.8 0.3 7 2
>=65 to <240:
>=65 to <68.2 **............ 0.8 0.4 *** 8 *** 2
>=68.2 to <240 **........... 1
>=240 to <760................... 1 0.5 6 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These boundaries are consistent with the boundaries in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 and differ from the boundaries in
AHRI 1360-202X Draft, which reflect the expected capacity increases for upflow-ducted and downflow equipment
classes at the AHRI 1360-202X Draft return air temperature test conditions.
** 68.2 kBtu/h is equivalent to 20 kW, which is the capacity value that separates ESP requirements in ANSI/
ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced in DOE's current test procedure.
*** This average percentage increase is an average across upflow ducted CRACs with net sensible cooling capacity
>=65 and <240 kBtu/h, including models with capacity <20 kW and >=20 kW. DOE's Compliance Certification
Database shows that most of the upflow CRACs with a net sensible cooling capacity >=65 kBtu/h and <240 kBtu/h
have a net sensible cooling capacity >=20 kW.
4. Power Adder To Account for Pump and Heat Rejection Fan Power in
NSenCOP Calculation for Water-Cooled and Glycol-Cooled CRACs
Energy consumption for heat rejection components for air-cooled
CRACs (i.e., condenser fan motor(s)) is measured in the current DOE
test procedure for CRACs; however, for water-cooled and glycol-cooled
CRACs energy consumption for heat rejection components is not measured
because these components (i.e., water/glycol pump, dry cooler/cooling
tower fan(s)) are not considered to be part of the CRAC unit. ANSI/
ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced in DOE's current test procedure,
does not include any factor in the calculation of SCOP to account for
the power consumption of heat rejection components for water-cooled and
glycol-cooled CRACs.
In contrast, AHRI 1360-202X Draft specifies to increase the
measured total power input for CRACs to account for the power
consumption of fluid pumps and heat rejection fans. Specifically,
Sections 6.3.1.3 and 6.3.1.4 of AHRI 1360-202X Draft specify to add a
percentage of the measured NSCC (5 percent for water-cooled CRACs and
7.5 percent for glycol-cooled CRACs) in kW to the total power input
used to calculate NSenCOP. DOE calculated the impact of these additions
on SCOP using Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.012
Where, x is equal to 5 percent for water-cooled CRACs and 7.5
percent for glycol-cooled CRACs, and SCOP1 is the SCOP value
adjusted for the energy consumption of heat rejection pumps and fans.
5. Calculating Overall Changes in Measured Efficiency and Capacity From
Test Procedure Changes
Different CRAC equipment classes are subject to different
combinations of the test procedure changes between DOE's current test
procedure and AHRI 1360-202X Draft analyzed in the crosswalk analyses.
To combine the impact of the changes in rating conditions, DOE
calculated the crosswalked NSenCOP levels and translated NSCC
boundaries as detailed in the following sections.
(a) Calculation of Crosswalked NSenCOP Levels
To combine the impact on SCOP of the changes to rating conditions
(i.e., increase in RAT, decrease in condenser EWT for water-cooled
units, and decrease of the ESP requirements for upflow ducted units),
DOE multiplied together the calculated adjustment factors representing
the measurement changes corresponding to each individual rating
condition change, as applicable, as shown in Equation 2. These
adjustment factors are equal to 100 percent (which represents SCOP
measured per the current Federal test procedure) plus the calculated
percent change in measured efficiency.
To account for the impact of the adder for heat rejection pump and
fan power for water-cooled and glycol-cooled units, DOE used Equation
3. Hence, DOE determined crosswalked NSenCOP levels corresponding to
the current Federal SCOP standards for each CRAC equipment class using
the following two equations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.013
[[Page 12821]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.014
In these equations, NSenCOP1 refers to a partially-
crosswalked NSenCOP level that incorporates the impacts of changes in
RAT, condenser EWT, and indoor fan ESP (as applicable), but not the
impact of adding the heat rejection pump and fan power; x1,
x2, and x3 represent the percentage change in
SCOP due to changes in RAT, condenser EWT, and indoor fan ESP
requirements, respectively; and x4 is equal to 5 percent for
water-cooled equipment classes and 7.5 percent for glycol-cooled
equipment classes. For air-cooled classes, x4 is equal to 0
percent; therefore, for these classes, NSenCOP is equal to
NSenCOP1.
(b) Calculation of Translated NSCC Boundaries
To combine the impact on NSCC of the changes to rating conditions,
DOE used a methodology similar to that used for determining the impact
on SCOP. To determine adjusted NSCC equipment class boundaries, DOE
multiplied together the calculated adjustment factors representing the
measurement changes corresponding to each individual rating condition
change, as applicable, as shown in Equation 4. These adjustment factors
are equal to 100 percent (which represents NSCC measured per the
current Federal test procedure) plus the calculated percent change in
measured NSCC. In this equation, Boundary refers to the original NSCC
boundaries (i.e., 65,000 Btu/h, 240,000 Btu/h, or 760,000 Btu/h as
determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007), Boundary1
refers to the updated NSCC boundaries as determined according to AHRI
1360-202X Draft, and y1, y2, and y3
represent the percentage changes in NSCC due to changes in RAT,
condenser EWT, and indoor fan ESP requirements, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.015
As mentioned, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and AHRI 1360-202X Draft
include updated equipment class capacity boundaries for only upflow-
ducted and downflow equipment classes. The updated class ranges for
these categories are <80,000 Btu/h, >=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/h,
and >=295,000 Btu/h. In previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
these ranges are <65,000 Btu/h, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, and
>=240,000 Btu/h. The capacity range boundaries for upflow non-ducted
classes were left unchanged at 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019.
DOE's capacity crosswalk analysis indicates that the primary driver
for increasing NSCC is increasing RAT. The increases in RAT in AHRI
1360-202X Draft, as compared to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, only apply to
upflow ducted and downflow equipment classes. Based on the analysis
performed for this document, DOE found that all the equipment class
boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, which are in increments of
5,000 Btu/h, vary by no more than 1.4 percent of the boundary
translations calculated from DOE's capacity crosswalk. DOE considers
this 1.4 percent variance to be de minimis because the only difference
appears to be rounding--when rounded to increments of 5,000 Btu/h,
DOE's crosswalk boundary translations are equivalent to the equipment
class boundaries in ASHRAE 90.1-2019. As such, to align DOE's analysis
more closely with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, DOE has used the equipment
class boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 as the preliminary
translated boundaries for the crosswalk analysis. Use of the equipment
class boundaries from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 allows for an
appropriate comparison between the energy efficiency levels and
equipment classes specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and those in the
current DOE standards, while addressing the backsliding potential from
class switching discussed previously.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 does not include an upper capacity limit
for coverage of CRACs. DOE's current standards are applicable only to
CRACs with an NSCC less than 760,000 Btu/h, which is the upper boundary
for very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, the statutory limits on DOE's authority.\14\ 10 CFR
431.97(e). However, the change in the ratings conditions in AHRI 1360-
202X Draft means this boundary (calculated according to the current
Federal test procedure, which references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007) must be
expressed in its calculated equivalent for AHRI 1360-202X Draft under
the crosswalk analysis. Otherwise, equipment currently covered and
subject to the Federal standards may be removed from coverage,
violating the anti-backsliding provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ At the time EPCA was amended to include the definition for
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, equipment covered by ASHRAE that met the statutory
definition of ``commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' was generally comfort cooling equipment, which was rated
according to the corresponding test procedures at 80 [deg]F/67
[deg]F indoor air. The upper boundary of 760,000 Btu/h specified by
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)) reflects a capacity rating at 80 [deg]F/
67 [deg]F indoor air. As discussed, DOE has tentatively translated
the 760,000 Btu/h limit to an equivalent rating that is based on
testing according to the conditions specified in the updated
industry test procedure for CRAC. Consequently, DOE does not have
authority to set standards for models with a capacity beyond the
760,000 Btu/h limit specified by EPCA, as translated to a rating
measured per AHRI 1360-202X Draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to account for all equipment currently subject to the
Federal standards, DOE calculated the AHRI 1360-202X Draft equivalent
of the 760,000 Btu/h equipment class boundary for certain equipment
classes as part of its capacity crosswalk analysis. This translation of
the upper boundary of the equipment classes applies only for downflow
and upflow-ducted classes (the classes for which the RAT increase
applies). Consistent with the adjustments made in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019, DOE averaged the crosswalked capacity results across the affected
equipment classes, and rounded to the nearest 5,000 Btu/h. Following
this approach, DOE has derived 930,000 Btu/h as the translated upper
capacity limit for downflow and upflow-ducted CRACs in the analysis
presented in this notice. The 930,000
[[Page 12822]]
Btu/h upper capacity limit (as measured per AHRI 1360-202X Draft) used
in the crosswalk analysis is equivalent to the 760,000 Btu/h upper
capacity limit (as measured per ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007) established in
the current DOE standards.
D. Crosswalk Results
The ``crosswalked'' DOE efficiency levels (expressed in terms of
NSenCOP) and equipment class capacity boundaries (adjusted to account
for changes in rating conditions) were then compared with the NSenCOP
efficiency levels and capacity boundaries specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 to determine the stringency of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
requirements relative to current Federal standards.
Table III-4 presents the preliminary results for the crosswalk
analyses (see section III.C of this document for a discussion of the
methodology for the crosswalk analyses). The last column in the table,
labeled ``Crosswalk Comparison,'' indicates whether the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 levels are less stringent, equivalent to, or more stringent
than the current Federal standards, based on DOE's analysis.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.016
[[Page 12823]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.017
[[Page 12824]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.018
[[Page 12825]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.019
[[Page 12826]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.020
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
As indicated by the crosswalk, the standard levels established for
CRACs in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are equivalent to the current
Federal standards for six equipment classes and are more stringent than
the current Federal standards for 48 equipment classes of CRACs. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 also added 66 equipment classes of ceiling-mounted
and horizontal-flow CRACs that did not require a crosswalk because
there are currently no Federal standards for classes. As discussed in
section V of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt standards for
horizontal-flow CRACs and ceiling-mounted CRACs. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 also incorporates shifted capacity bin boundaries for upflow
ducted and downflow CRAC equipment classes. DOE's crosswalk analysis
indicates that these updated boundaries appropriately reflect the
increase in NSCC that results from the changes in test procedure
adopted under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and are equivalent to the
capacity boundaries in the current Federal standards once those changes
are accounted for (as discussed in previous sections).
E. Comments Received Regarding DOE's Crosswalk Methodology
DOE presented and requested comments on the crosswalk analysis and
preliminary results in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 FR 60642, 60653-
60660 (Sept. 25, 2020).
AHRI and Joint Advocates agreed with DOE's crosswalk methodology
and supported DOE's conclusion that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 energy
efficiency levels generally increase efficiency compared to current DOE
Federal standards levels. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 6
at p. 2). AHRI noted that the AHRI members and DOE staff and
consultants met extensively in 2018 to develop the crosswalk analysis.
(AHRI, No. 2 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any other comments regarding
the crosswalk analysis or the preliminary results.
For this NOPR, DOE relies on the crosswalk analysis and preliminary
results as presented in the September 2020 NODA/RFI in which DOE
identifies 48 equipment classes for which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
efficiency levels are more stringent than current DOE efficiency levels
(expressed in NSenCOP), six equipment classes for which the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 efficiency levels are equal to the current DOE
efficiency levels, and 66 classes of CRACs that are not currently
subject to DOE's standards but for which standards are specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (i.e., horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted
classes).
IV. Methodology for Estimates of Potential Energy Savings From ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 Levels
In the September 2020 NODA/RFI DOE performed an analysis to
determine the energy-savings potential of amending Federal standards to
the amended ASHRAE levels for CRACs for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
specifies amended energy efficiency levels more stringent than the
corresponding Federal energy conservation standards, as required under
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). 85 FR 60642, 60663 (Sept. 25, 2020). DOE's
energy savings analysis was limited to equipment classes for which a
market exists and for which sufficient data were available.
For the equipment classes where ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies
more-stringent levels than the
[[Page 12827]]
corresponding Federal energy conservation standard, DOE calculated the
potential energy savings to the Nation associated with adopting ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 as the difference between a no-new-standards case
projection (i.e., without amended standards) and the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 standards-case projection (i.e., with adoption of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 levels).
The national energy savings (NES) refers to cumulative lifetime
energy savings for equipment purchased in a 30-year period that differs
by equipment (i.e., the compliance date differs by equipment class
(i.e., capacity) depending upon whether DOE is acting under the ASHRAE
trigger or the 6-year-lookback (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)). In the
standards case, equipment that is more efficient gradually replaces
less-efficient equipment over time. This affects the calculation of the
potential energy savings, which are a function of the total number of
units in use and their efficiencies. Savings depend on annual shipments
and equipment lifetime. Inputs to the energy savings analysis are
presented in the following sections.
A. Annual Energy Use
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to assess the energy
savings potential of different equipment efficiencies in the building
types that utilize the equipment. The Federal standard and ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 levels are expressed in terms of an efficiency
metric. For each equipment class, the description of how DOE developed
estimates of annual energy consumption at the Federal baseline
efficiency level and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 level can be found
in section III.A.1 of the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 FR 60642, 60664-
60666 (Sept. 25, 2020). In this NOPR, DOE briefly summarizes that
analysis and responds to stakeholder comments. The annual unit energy
consumption (UEC) estimates are displayed in Table IV-1 of this NOPR
and form the basis of the national energy savings estimates discussed
in section IV.E of this document.
1. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE conducted an energy savings
analysis for the 42 CRAC classes that currently have both DOE standards
and more-stringent standards under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. 85 FR
60642, 60664 (Sept. 25, 2020). DOE was unable to identify market data
that would allow for disaggregating results for the six equipment
classes of air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers that have ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 levels more stringent than current Federal
standards. Furthermore, although ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 included
levels for the 66 horizontal flow and ceiling-mounted equipment classes
which currently are not subject to Federal standards, DOE was unable to
identify market data that could be used to establish a market baseline
for these classes in order to estimate energy savings at the time the
September 2020 NODA/RFI was published. 85 FR 60642, 60663-60664 (Sept.
25, 2020). DOE did not receive any efficiency data in response to the
September 2020 NODA/RFI, and is unaware of any publicly available data.
Therefore, DOE was unable to develop a market baseline and estimate
energy savings for the horizontal flow and ceiling mounted equipment
classes for this NOPR. The UEC estimates (provided in Table IV-1) were
only developed for equipment classes for which DOE could develop a
market baseline; therefore, they do not include the horizontal flow and
ceiling-mounted classes.
Efficiency Levels
DOE analyzed the energy savings potential of adopting ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 levels for CRAC equipment classes that currently
have a federal standard and have an ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 standard
more stringent than the current Federal standard. For each equipment
class, energy savings are measured relative to the baseline (i.e., the
current Federal standard for that class). 85 FR 60642, 60664 (Sept. 25,
2020).
2. Analysis Method and Annual Energy Use Results
In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, to derive UECs for the equipment
classes analyzed in this document, DOE started with the UECs based on
the current DOE standards for downflow equipment classes as analyzed in
the May 2012 final rule. DOE assumed that these UECs correspond to the
NSenCOP that was derived through the crosswalk analysis (i.e., ``Cross-
walked Current Federal Standard'' column in Table III-4). DOE
determined the UEC for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 level by dividing
the baseline NSenCOP level by the NSenCOP for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 level and multiplied the resulting percentage by the baseline UEC.
85 FR 60642, 60664 (Sept. 25, 2020).
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE assumed that energy savings
estimates derived for downflow equipment classes would be
representative of upflow equipment classes, which differed by a fixed
0.11 SCOP. 77 FR 28928, 28954 (May 16, 2012). Because of the fixed 0.11
SCOP difference between upflow and downflow CRAC units in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2013, DOE determined that the per-unit energy savings
benefits for corresponding CRACs at higher efficiency levels could be
represented using the 15 downflow equipment classes. Id. However, in
this NOPR's analysis, the efficiency levels for the upflow non-ducted
equipment classes do not differ from the downflow equipment class by a
fixed amount. For the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE assumed that the
fractional increase/decrease in NSenCOP between upflow and downflow
units corresponds to a proportional decrease/increase in the baseline
UEC within a given equipment class grouping of condenser system and
capacity. 85 FR 60642, 60665 (Sept. 25, 2020). DOE sought comment on
its energy-use analysis methodology in the September 2020 NODA/RFI.
AHRI stated that they continue to support DOE's proposed approach
to determine the UEC of upflow units using the fractional increase or
decrease in NSenCOP relative to the baseline downflow unit in a given
equipment class grouping of condenser system and capacity. (AHRI, No. 2
at p. 3) Joint Advocates stated that they support DOE's conclusion that
the UEC values for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels can be
calculated based on the ratio of the baseline NSenCOP level and the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 NSenCOP level. (Joint Advocates, No. 6 at p.
2) Based on the discussion above and consideration of the comments
received, DOE has maintained its methodology for estimating UEC.
CA IOUs requested that DOE publish the efficiency curves used to
calculate performance of CRACs at temperatures other than AHRI test
conditions and provide background on how the curves were created. (CA
IOUs, No. 5 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also requested that DOE publish the
methodology employed to determine the effect of fluid economizers in
the energy analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 3)
DOE notes that the UECs were derived from the analysis performed in
the May 2012 final rule and the temperature bin analysis used to derive
those UECs was published in Appendix 4B of the May 2012 final rule
technical support document.\15\ The methodology to determine the effect
of fluid economizers, can be found in Chapter 4
[[Page 12828]]
of the May 2012 final rule technical support document.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029-0021.
\16\ www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-1 shows UEC estimates for the equipment classes triggered
by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (i.e., equipment classes for which the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 energy efficiency level is more stringent
than the current applicable Federal standard).
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.021
[[Page 12829]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.022
[[Page 12830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.023
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
B. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses shipment projections by equipment class to calculate the
national impacts of standards on energy consumption, as well as net
present value and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments
projections typically are based on available historical data broken out
by equipment classes. Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate
model that captures recent trends in the market.
In the analysis presented in the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE
performed a ``bottom-up'' calculation to estimate CRAC shipments based
on the cooling demand required from CRAC-cooled data centers. 84 FR
48006, 48027-48030 (Sept. 11, 2019). In response to the September 2019
NODA/RFI, DOE received a confidential data submission from AHRI which
provided DOE with a CRAC shipments time series from 2012-2018 and
market shares broken out by the 30 Federal equipment classes.
Accordingly, in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE calibrated the stock
of CRACs in the 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS 2012) \17\ to an amount that would be equal to the number of
2012 shipments multiplied by the average lifetime of a CRAC (i.e., 15
years). Additional detail on the shipment and stock methodology can be
found in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 FR 60642, 60666-60668 (Sept.
25, 2020). DOE requested comments on this revised methodology in the
September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 FR 60642, 60668 (Sept. 25, 2020). AHRI
commented that in the absence of better information, AHRI supports
DOE's modified analysis using CBECS 2012. AHRI stated that the 2018
edition of CBECS (CBECS 2018) will better map equipment to end-use
categories and that CBECS 2018 is expected to be published in November
of this year. They commented that if DOE was able to use data from
CBECS 2018, AHRI recommends modifying the analysis to include this
updated information. AHRI also commented that there have been
significant advances in the data center industry within the past decade
and as a snapshot, the 2012 CBECS does not capture the industry
shifting from enterprise data rooms in commercial buildings and data
centers to the current strategy of edge computing on site, with data
centers focused on co-location servers and cloud computing support.
AHRI suggested that DOE review material published by organizations that
study data center growth such as Gartner and the Uptime Institute.
(AHRI No. 2 at p. 3) Trane suggested that using CBECS 2012 data might
lead to underestimating the fast-moving CRAC market. They suggested
using data from research and advisory companies that have updated
definitions and attributes of data centers to 2020 and beyond. (Trane,
No. 8 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration, 2012 CBECS Survey Data (Last accessed March 9, 2020)
(Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/ 2012/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to AHRI's comment on using CBECS 2018 data, DOE notes
that the full data set from CBECS 2018 is not expected to be available
until mid-2022.\18\ Furthermore, in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, CBECS
2012 was used to develop a stock of CRACs that would match the
shipments provided by AHRI in 2012, so the main driver of shipments
analysis was the shipments time series and not CBECS 2012. To the
extent that updated CBECS data becomes available, DOE will consider
such data in the evaluation of a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not update the analysis based on third party research from
entities such as Uptime or Gartner because it was able to use the
[[Page 12831]]
confidential national shipments data from AHRI to develop the shipments
and stock model. Much of the third-party research is on the broader
data center industry and not specifically CRACs, therefore DOE
determined that the CRAC shipments data from AHRI was the best source
for conducting the shipments analysis.
The CA IOUs sought clarification on the methodology to estimate
data centers, particularly the following two statements: (1) In this
NODA/RFI, DOE assumed that any building with a data center, regardless
of the building's main cooling system, would use a CRAC, in order to
account for the use of CRACs in edge computing centers and to align
with the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 definition of a ``computer room'' and (2)
all data centers without central chillers were assumed to have CRACs.
(CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 3)
The CA IOUs also suggested that to help estimate the number of data
centers using CRACs as compared to chilled water units, DOE should
consider requesting shipment data from manufacturers for direct
expansion (DX) CRACs and chilled water computer room air handlers.
Alternatively, the CA IOUs suggested DOE could consider the data used
in the California 2022 Title 24 Nonresidential Computer Room Efficiency
CASE report which shows that \1/3\ of computer room cooling uses
chilled water. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 3) (Id.)
In response to the comment by the CA IOUs asking for clarification
on the methodology to estimate data centers, DOE notes that the second
statement is a typographical error in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85
FR 60642, 60668 (Sept. 25, 2020). The first statement reflects the
methodology used to develop a stock of equipment for the September 2020
NODA/RFI, using CBECS 2012 to estimate the stock of CRACs to match the
confidential shipments data provided by AHRI for the year 2012. 85 FR
60642, 60667 (Sept. 25, 2020). The second statement should read ``all
data centers were assumed to have CRACs.'' The reference to excluding
CRACs in buildings with chilled water systems was based on the
methodology DOE used in the September 2019 NODA/RFI. 84 FR 48006, 48027
(Sept. 11, 2019). Subsequently, DOE updated its approach based on
stakeholder comments and a confidential data submission of CRAC
shipments received in response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI. The
updated approach was included in the September 2020 NODA/RFI despite
the typographical error. 85 FR 60642, 60667 (Sept. 25, 2020). In this
NOPR, DOE is using the same analysis as the September 2020 NODA/RFI.
Regarding the suggestion for additional shipments data requests and
the use of the California 2022 Title 24 Nonresidential Computer Room
Efficiency CASE report, DOE notes that it relied on national shipments
data for CRACs from 2012 to 2018 from AHRI and that was used to update
the shipments analysis in the September 2020 NODA/RFI.
In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE modeled oversizing in CRAC
units with an oversize factor of 1.2, reduced from 1.3 in the September
2019 NODA/RFI based on stakeholder comments. 85 FR 60642, 60668 (Sept.
25, 2020). DOE requested comment on the methodology for estimating
server power consumption and for any information or data on
expectations of future server stock and energy use in small data
centers.
In response, AHRI stated that they support DOE's proposal to reduce
oversizing from a factor of 1.3 to 1.2; however, they contended that
data center equipment was sized correctly but that the actual installed
equipment includes redundant units. AHRI asserted that it is essential
to understand that cooling equipment is sized to accommodate the
maximum Information Technology (IT) load for the space, and that this
load may not be present at the initial start-up of the data center but
grows quickly as more IT load is added (AHRI, No. 2, p. 4).
DOE notes that while oversizing is intended for future growth, the
speed at which that growth occurs can vary. Also, in response to the
September 2019 NODA/RFI, the CA IOUs provided evidence of oversizing in
the range of 20 to 30 percent. (CA IOUs, EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017-0006 at
p. 3) Therefore, DOE reduced its oversizing factor but did not remove
it altogether.
In the analysis conducted in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE used
the confidential shipments data provided by AHRI to calibrate its
shipment model to produce a revised breakdown by equipment class. DOE
then used a stock turnover model to project shipments over the 30-year
shipments analysis period. The stock turnover model was broken into
three cooling capacities (<65,000 Btu/h, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h, and >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h) and stock projections
for each cooling capacity grew at a constant rate through the 30-year
analysis period. 85 FR 60642, 60668-60669 (Sept. 25, 2020). Total
shipments are projected to grow slightly over the analysis period as
shown in Table IV-2 of this document.
Table IV-2--Projected Shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65,000 Btu/h >=240,000 Btu/h
<65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 and <760,000 Btu/ Total
Btu/h h shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Shipments................................ 3,208 2,132 3,190 8,530
2052 Shipments................................ 2,634 3,650 3,178 9,462
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AHRI market share data provided to DOE in response to the
September 2019 NODA/RFI were broken out by the 30 currently defined
Federal equipment classes. DOE assumed upflow market share split evenly
between the upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted equipment classes. DOE
did not have any market share data on horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted,
and air-cooled with fluid economizer CRAC equipment classes; therefore,
DOE was unable to disaggregate savings for these classes in the
September 2020 NODA/RFI.
In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE requested shipments data on
horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted, and air-cooled with fluid economizer
CRAC equipment classes. AHRI commented that they were in the process of
collecting shipments data on horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted, and air-
cooled with fluid economizer CRAC equipment classes, and that if the
data met AHRI data collection requirements it would be submitted to
DOE. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 3)
DOE received data from AHRI that provided the percentage of total
CRAC shipments by equipment class for horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted,
and floor mounted air-cooled with fluid economizer CRACs. However, the
data provided did not include the available
[[Page 12832]]
efficiency levels (in NSenCOP) of CRACs for sale within each equipment
class, which would enable DOE to derive a market baseline for these
equipment classes. DOE was unable to otherwise obtain such efficiency
data. Without a market baseline, DOE is unable to estimate the
potential energy savings from more efficient equipment. As such, the
energy saving analysis does not include horizontal-flow, ceiling-
mounted, or air-cooled with fluid economizer CRACs.
C. No-New-Standards-Case Efficiency Distribution
The no-new-standards case efficiency distribution is used to
establish the market share of each efficiency level in the case where
there is no new or amended standard. DOE is unaware of available market
data that reports CRAC efficiency in terms of NSenCOP that can be used
to determine the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In the
September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE requested efficiency data for CRACs in
terms of NSenCOP that can be used to estimate the no-new-standards case
efficiency distribution. 85 FR 60642, 60669-60670 (Sept. 25, 2020). DOE
did not receive efficiency data in terms of NSenCOP and DOE is not
aware of such data being available. Therefore, DOE has maintained the
efficiency distribution used in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, which
relied on DOE's Compliance Certification Database for CRACs which
reports efficiency in terms of SCOP. DOE applied the crosswalk
methodology discussed in section III.C. of this NOPR to translate each
model's reported SCOP into NSenCOP.
DOE estimated the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution for
each CRAC equipment class using model counts from DOE's Compliance
Certification Database. DOE calculated the fraction of models that are
above the current Federal baseline and below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 level and assigned this to the Federal baseline. All models that
are at or above that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are assigned to the
ASHRAE level. The no-new-standard case distribution for CRACs are
presented in Table IV-3.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.024
[[Page 12833]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.025
[[Page 12834]]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
D. Other Analytical Inputs
1. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defines ``equipment lifetime'' as the age at which a unit is
retired from service. For the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE used a 15-
year lifetime for all CRAC equipment classes based on the lifetime used
in the May 2012 final rule. 84 FR 48006, 48030 (Sept. 11, 2019) (citing
the May 2012 final rule at 77 FR 28928, 28958 (May 16, 2012)). In
response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI and Trane agreed that 15
years was a reasonable average lifetime. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017-
0007 at p. 7; Trane, EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017-0005 at p. 2) DOE maintained
the 15-year average lifetime in the September 2020 NODA/RFI and
received no comments on this issue. DOE continued to rely on a 15-year
equipment lifetime for this NOPR.
2. Compliance Dates and Analysis Period
If DOE were to prescribe energy conservation standards at the
efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, EPCA provides
that the compliance date shall be on or after a date that is two or
three years (depending on the equipment type or size) after the
effective date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement
in the amended ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) If ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 does not specify an effective date, then the compliance
date specified by statute would be dependent upon the publication date
of ASHRAE 90.1-2019.
In this case, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 does not specify an
effective date for CRAC levels, therefore the publication date of
October 23, 2019, was used to determine the compliance dates for
estimating the energy savings potential of adopting ASHRAE Standard
90.1-levels.
For equipment classes for which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels are
more stringent than the current Federal standards (i.e., classes for
which DOE is triggered), if DOE were to prescribe standards more
stringent than the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019, EPCA dictates that the compliance date must be on or after a date
which is four years after the date of publication of a final rule in
the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) For equipment classes
for which DOE is acting under its 6-year lookback authority, if DOE
were to adopt more-stringent standards, EPCA states that the compliance
date for any such standard shall be after a date that is the later of
the date three years after publication of the final rule establishing a
new standard or the date six years after the effective date for the
current standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv)) As discussed in Section
V of this NOPR, DOE is not proposing standards for CRACs that are more
stringent than the levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
For purposes of calculating the NES for the equipment in this
evaluation, DOE used a 30-year analysis period starting with the
assumed year of compliance listed in Table IV-4 for equipment analyzed
in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. This is the standard analysis period of
30 years that DOE typically uses in its NES analysis. For equipment
classes with a compliance date in the last six months of the year, DOE
starts its analysis period in the first full year after compliance. For
example, if CRACs less than 65,000 Btu/h were to have a compliance date
of October 23, 2021, the analysis period for calculating NES would
begin in 2022 and extend to 2051.
Table IV-4--Analyzed Compliance Dates of Amended Energy Conservation
Standards for Triggered Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed compliance
dates for efficiency
Equipment class levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment with current NSCC <65,000 Btu/h...... 10/23/2021
Equipment with current NSCC >=65,000 and 10/23/2022
<240,000 Btu/h................................
Equipment with current NSCC >=240,000 Btu/h and 10/23/2022
<760,000 Btu/h................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the September 2020 NODA/RFI, AHRI noted that the
September 2020 NODA/RFI mentioned different compliance dates for CRACs
with NSCC less than 65,000 Btu/h and for CRACs with NSCC greater than
65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000 Btu/h, with CRACs with NSCC less
than 65,000 Btu/h having a compliance effective date one year earlier.
(AHRI, No.2 at p. 2) AHRI stated that they understood that this
difference stems from EPCA requirements but urged DOE to harmonize
compliance on the same date, i.e., October 23, 2022, stating that it
would be unnecessarily confusing for manufacturers and other
stakeholders to manage separate compliance dates. Id.
The analysis presented in this NOPR relies on the minimum
compliance dates provided under EPCA for the energy conservation
standards as proposed. As discussed in section V.D, DOE considered the
various applicable lead-times required by EPCA, and proposes that the
compliance date for amended standards for all CRAC equipment classes
would be 360 days after the publication date of the final rule adopting
amended energy conservation standards.
E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
DOE estimated the potential site, primary, and FFC energy savings
in quads (i.e., 10\15\ Btu) for adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
within each equipment class analyzed. The potential energy savings of
adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels are measured relative to the
current Federal standards. Table IV-5 shows the potential energy
savings resulting from the analyses conducted for CRACs. The reported
energy savings are cumulative over the period in which equipment
shipped in the 30-year analysis continues to operate. The national
energy savings estimates are identical to those provided in the
September 2020 NODA/RFI. See 85 FR 60642, 60672 (Sep. 25, 2020).
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 12835]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.026
[[Page 12836]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.027
[[Page 12837]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.028
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
V. Conclusions
A. Consideration of More-Stringent Efficiency Levels
EPCA requires DOE to establish an amended uniform national standard
for equipment classes at the minimum level specified in the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless DOE determines, by rule published in the
Federal Register, and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that
adoption of a uniform national standard more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the equipment class would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)-
(II)) In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE requested data and
information that could help determine whether standards levels more
stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for CRACs would
result in significant additional energy savings for classes for which
DOE was triggered. DOE also requested data and information that could
help determine whether standards levels more stringent than the levels
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for CRACs would result in significant
additional energy savings for classes for which DOE was not triggered
(i.e., classes reviewed under the six-year look back provision). 85 FR
60642, 60674-60675 (September 25, 2020).
AHRI stated that while more stringent levels may result in
additional energy savings, the added costs to the manufacturers and
ultimately their customers would negate much of the savings. AHRI
stated that they support the full adoption of the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 levels for all classes of CRACs. (AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 4-5)
Rheem also commented that they generally support the adoption of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 for all classes of CRACs. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 1)
Joint Advocates and CA IOUs encouraged DOE to evaluate more-
stringent standards than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels, and said
that they disagreed with DOE's preliminary conclusion in the September
2020 NODA/RFI that the test metric change created uncertainty that
would prevent an adequate evaluation of more stringent standards.
(Joint Advocates, No. 6 at pp. 3-4; CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 2) These
commenters asserted that only when economic analyses are complete can
the determination be made as to whether the statutory ``clear and
convincing evidence'' requirement has been met. Id. CA IOUs further
encouraged DOE to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether the standard
of ``clear and convincing evidence'' of energy savings has been met for
increasing stringency of standards when there is a metric change. (CA
IOUs, No. 5 at p. 2) Additionally, CA IOUs presented the concern that
if DOE were to generalize their position taken in the September 2020
NODA/RFI to other product categories, some members of the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 committee will be less likely to support updates to the
test procedure if they believe that DOE will use the update as a reason
to decline to conduct further analysis. Id.
Joint Advocates commented that DOE's crosswalk analysis presented
in the September 2020 NODA/RFI had already been vetted by stakeholders
and would lead to reasonable accounting of potential energy savings.
(Joint Advocates, No. 6 at p. 3) Joint Advocates also asserted that
energy savings from adopting standards for CRACs more stringent than
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels have the potential to be
significant, given the annual energy consumption and range of potential
efficiencies for CRACs. Id. The commenter further stated that it is not
unprecedented for DOE to adopt amended standards at levels higher than
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels based on a revised metric, referencing
a prior standards rulemaking for air-cooled commercial unitary air
conditioners (ACUACs), in which DOE adopted integrated energy
efficiency ratio (IEER) standards at levels that were more stringent
than the corresponding ASHRAE 90.1 levels, in a 2016 direct final rule
(81 FR 2419). Id at p. 4.
In response to AHRI's comment that more stringent levels would add
costs to manufacturers and customers that would negate much of the
savings, DOE notes that a full consideration of more stringent levels,
if undertaken, would assess manufacturer, consumer, and national
impacts.
In response to comments from Joint Advocates and CA IOUs, DOE notes
that it makes determinations pursuant to the ASHRAE trigger (and the
six-year look back review) by evaluating the information and data
available specific to the equipment under review. In this NOPR, DOE is
not making a general determination that the clear and convincing
evidence threshold cannot be met in instances in which there is a
metric change. The preliminary position taken in the September 2020
NODA/RFI and in this NOPR on whether the clear and convincing evidence
requirement for showing that more stringent standards would result in
significant additional energy savings is specific to CRACs. As
suggested by CA IOUs, DOE makes this determination on a case-by-case
basis. As to the concern that the preliminary determination put forward
in this NOPR may cause some members of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
committee to be less likely to support updates to industry test
procedures, DOE notes that EPCA requires DOE to review periodically the
test procedures for covered equipment, and make amendments to the
extent justified. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
As discussed in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, an estimation of
energy savings potentials of energy efficiency levels more stringent
than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels would require developing
efficiency data for the entire CRAC market in terms of the NSenCOP
metric. 85 FR 60642, 60673 (Sept 25, 2020). Because there are minimal
market efficiency data currently available in terms of NSenCOP, this
would require a crosswalk analysis much broader than the analysis used
to evaluate ASHARE 90.1-2019 levels. 85 FR 60642, 60674
[[Page 12838]]
(Sept 25, 2020). The crosswalk analysis presented in this NOPR
(analyzing ASHRAE 90.1-2019 levels) required only that DOE translate
the efficiency levels between the metrics at the baseline levels, and
not that DOE translate all efficiency levels currently represented in
the market (i.e., high efficiency levels). To obtain NSenCOP market
data for purposes of analysis of standard levels more stringent than
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, DOE would be required to translate the
individual SCOP ratings to NSenCOP ratings for all CRAC models
certified in DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS)
Database. As the range of model efficiencies increases, so does the
number of different technologies used to achieve such efficiencies.
With this increase in variation, there is an increase in the potential
for variation in the crosswalk results from the actual performance
under the new metric of the analyzed models. As noted, there is limited
market data regarding the performance of CRACs as represented according
to the updated metric, and there is not a comparable industry analysis
(i.e., translating ratings to the updated metric for all models on the
market) for comparison. 85 FR 60642, 60674 (Sept 25, 2020).
Because of the lack of market data and the test metric change, and
DOE is tentatively unable to determine via clear and convincing
evidence that a more stringent standard level would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. DOE has tentatively decided not to
conduct further analysis for this particular rulemaking because DOE
lacks the data to assess potential energy conservation. In this
specific instance, DOE disagrees with comments from CA IOUs and Joint
Advocates that the statutory clear and convincing evidence criterion
can only be assessed after full economic analyses have been conducted.
EPCA requires that DOE determine, supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that adoption of a uniform national standard more stringent
than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for CRAC would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II);
emphasis added) The inability to make a determination, supported by
clear and convincing evidence, with regard to any one of the statutory
criteria prohibits DOE from adopting more stringent standards
regardless of determinations as to the other criteria. DOE has
tentatively determined that at this time there is sufficient lack of
data specific to CRACs (including but not limited to market efficiency
data in terms of the new efficiency metric) to preclude clear and
convincing evidence of significant additional energy savings from CRAC
efficiency levels more stringent than ASHRAE 90.1-2019 levels.
The past ACUAC rulemaking (that Joint Advocates cited as precedent)
was not analogous to the present situation for CRACs, because at the
time that ACUAC rulemaking began, the IEER metric was already in use by
the ACUAC industry. See 81 FR 2419, 2441 (Jan. 15, 2014).\19\
Specifically, the vast majority of ACUAC models on the market were
already rated for IEER (in addition to EER, which was the federally
regulated metric at the time), and these IEER market data for ACUACs
were available in the AHRI Directory at the time.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOE noted that AHRI Standard 340/360-2007 already included
methods and procedures for testing and rating equipment with the
IEER metric. ASHRAE, through its Standard 90.1, includes
requirements based on the part-load performance metric, IEER. These
IEER requirements were first established in Addenda to the 2008
Supplement to Standard 90.1- 2007, and were required for compliance
with ASHRAE Standard 90.1 on January 1, 2010. Id.
\20\ As part of a NODA/RFI for energy conservation standards for
ACUACs published on February 1, 2013 (78 FR 7296), DOE made
available a document that provides the methodology and results of an
investigation of EER and IEER market data for ACUACs. See Docket No.
EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, during development of this NOPR, there were minimal
available NSenCOP market data. Specifically, DOE identified NSenCOP
market data for less than 3 percent of the CRAC models certified in
DOE's Certification Compliance Database. DOE requested efficiency data
in terms of NSenCOP in the September 2020 NODA/RFI but received no such
data. DOE presumes that this is because CRAC manufacturers are not yet
using the new test metric (NSenCOP) to rate equipment, unlike in the
discussed ACUAC rulemaking.
After considering the stakeholder comments, and the lack of
sufficient NSenCOP market data available following the September 2020
NODA/RFI, DOE maintains its preliminary decision not to conduct
additional analysis of more stringent standards for this rulemaking.
The lack of market and performance data in terms of the new metric
limits the analysis of energy savings that would result from efficiency
levels more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels
for this equipment. Given the limits of any energy use analysis
resulting from the lack of data, DOE has tentatively concluded that it
lacks clear and convincing evidence that more stringent standards would
result in a significant additional amount of energy savings as required
for DOE to establish more-stringent standards.
DOE has tentatively determined that due to the lack of market and
performance data for the CRAC market as a whole in terms of NSenCOP, it
is unable to estimate potential energy savings from more stringent
standards that meets the clear and convincing evidence threshold
required by statute to justify standards more stringent than the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels for CRACs.
B. Review Under Six-Year Lookback Provision
As discussed, DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each
class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every six years. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE may only adopt more stringent standards
pursuant to the six-year look-back review if the Secretary determines,
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the adoption more
stringent standards would result in significant additional conservation
of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) The
analysis under the look-back provision incorporates the same standards
and factors as the analysis for whether DOE should adopt a more
stringent standard than an amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 standard. Id.
Accordingly, DOE is here evaluating the six CRAC equipment classes for
which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 did not increase the stringency of the
standards.
Similar to the triggered classes discussed in section V.A of this
NOPR, there are limited NSenCOP data for CRACs within each of these six
classes and there is not a comparable industry analysis (i.e.,
translating ratings to the updated metric for all models on the market)
for comparison. While the crosswalk analysis required only that DOE
translate the efficiency levels at the baseline levels, the analysis
needed to evaluate whether amended standards more stringent than ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 would result in significant energy savings and be
technologically feasible and economically justified under the clear and
convincing threshold would require more than baseline data--it would
require NSenCOP data across all efficiency levels on the market.
[[Page 12839]]
Therefore, in line with the same initial reasoning presented in
DOE's evaluation of more stringent standards for those classes of CRAC
for which ASHRAE updated the industry standards, DOE initially
determines that the clear and convincing evidence threshold is not met
for these six classes. As such, DOE did not conduct an energy savings
analysis of standard levels more stringent than the current Federal
standard levels for the classes of CRAC not triggered by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 (i.e., the six classes of CRAC for which ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 does not specify more stringent minimum efficiency
levels).
C. Definition for Ducted Condenser
As indicated, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes separate equipment
classes for ceiling-mounted CRACs with ducted condensers. The current
definitions at 10 CFR 431.92 do not include a definition of ``ducted
condenser''. Because DOE is proposing to adopt efficiency standards for
these ceiling-mounted CRAC equipment classes with ``ducted condenser'',
DOE is proposing to define the following definition for ``ducted
condenser'' at 10 CFR 431.92, which is consistent with the definition
specified in section 3.7.1 of AHRI 1360-202X Draft.
Ducted Condenser means a configuration of computer room air
conditioner for which the condenser or condensing unit that
manufacturer's installation instructions indicate is intended to
exhaust condenser air through a duct(s).
D. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for CRACs by
adopting the efficiency levels specified for CRACs in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019. The proposed standards, which are expressed in NSenCOP, are
shown in Table V-1 and Table V-2 of this document. These proposed
standards, if adopted, would apply to all CRACs listed in Table V-1 and
Table V-2 of this document. Table I-2 manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States starting on the compliance date as discussed in
the following paragraphs.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 12840]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.029
[[Page 12841]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.030
[[Page 12842]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.031
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
As noted, in instances in which DOE is amending an energy
conservation standard for CRAC in response to updates to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1,
[[Page 12843]]
EPCA specifies certain compliance lead times based on equipment
capacity. If DOE were to prescribe energy conservation standards at the
efficiency levels contained in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA
states that any such standard shall become effective on or after a date
that is two or three years (depending on the equipment type or size)
after the effective date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency
requirement in the amended ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D))
In the present case, were DOE to adopt amended standards for ``small''
CRACs (i.e., CRACs with a capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h) at the
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA provides that the
compliance date must be on or after a date which is two years after the
effective date of level specified in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1
(i.e., October 23, 2021). Were DOE to adopt amended standards for
``large'' and ``very large'' CRACs (i.e., CRACs with a capacity equal
to or greater than 65,000 Btu/h) at the levels specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, EPCA provides that the compliance date must be on or
after a date which is three years after the effective date of the level
specified in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., October 23, 2022).
If DOE were to prescribe standards more stringent than the
efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, EPCA dictates
that any such standard will become effective for equipment manufactured
on or after a date which is four years after the date of publication of
a final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) For
equipment classes for which DOE is acting under its 6-year lookback
authority, if DOE were to adopt more-stringent standards, EPCA states
that any such standard shall apply to equipment manufactured after a
date that is the latter of the date three years after publication of
the final rule establishing such standard or six years after the
effective date for the current standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv))
Moreover, the proposed energy conservation standards are based on a
new metric (i.e., NSenCOP) and DOE has proposed to amend the test
procedure to rely on NSenCOP in the February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR. 87 FR
6948. Were DOE to adopt the proposed test procedure, beginning 360 days
following the final test procedure rule, manufacturers would be
prohibited from making representations respecting the energy
consumption of CRACs, unless such equipment has been tested in
accordance with such test procedure and such representation fairly
discloses the results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
DOE has considered these various applicable lead times relevant
under EPCA to standards (i.e., October 23, 2021, for ``small'' CRACs
and October 23, 2022 for ``large'' and ``very large'' CRACs) and the
one-year lead time relevant to a test procedure update addressing
NSenCOP. In order to align the compliance dates across equipment
classes and account for an updated test procedure, should one be
finalized, DOE proposes that the compliance date for amended standards
for all CRAC equipment classes would be 360 days after the publication
date of the final rule adopting amended energy conservation standards.
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 proposed standards set forth in
this NOPR 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 appliances and equipment that are not captured by the
users of such products. 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 greenhouse gases that impact human health and global
warming.
The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined that this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, DOE
has not prepared a regulatory impact analysis for this proposed rule,
and OIRA in the OMB has not reviewed this proposed rule.
DOE has also reviewed this proposed 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,
this NOPR is consistent with these principles.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
[[Page 12844]]
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 (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003.
The following sections detail DOE's IRFA for this energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE minimum efficiency
standards for CRACs as is required under EPCA's ASHRAE trigger
requirement and the six-year lookback provision. DOE must update the
Federal minimum efficiency standards to be consistent with levels
published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines, supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a more stringent level
would produce significant additional conservation of energy and would
be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii) DOE must also review and determine whether to amend
standards of each class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
every 6 years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must
adopt amended standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless DOE
determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption
of a more stringent level would produce significant additional
conservation of energy and would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii) Under EPCA, DOE
must also review energy efficiency standards for CRACs every six years
and either: (1) Issue a notice of determination that the standards do
not need to be amended as adoption of a more stringent level is not
supported by clear and convincing evidence; or (2) issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking including new proposed standards based on certain
criteria and procedures in subparagraph (B) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)).
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of CRACs, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as
``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. See 13 CFR
part 121. The equipment covered by this proposed rule are classified
under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
333415,\22\ ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' In
13 CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The business size standards are listed by NAICS code and
industry description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (Last accessed July 26th, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used publicly available information to identify potential small
businesses that manufacture equipment covered this this rulemaking. DOE
identified ten manufacturers of equipment covered by this rulemaking.
Of the ten, nine manufacturers are original equipment manufacturers
(OEM). DOE screened out companies that do not meet the definition of a
``small business'' or are foreign-owned and operated. DOE used
subscription-based business information tools to determine head count
and revenue of the small businesses. Of these nine OEMs, DOE identified
three companies that are small, domestic OEMs.
Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on the number of small manufacturers
producing covered CRACs.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
As noted in the section 2 of the Review under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, DOE must adopt amended standards at the new ASHRAE
efficiency level unless DOE determines, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a more stringent standard would
produce significant additional conservation of energy and would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Because DOE proposes no such determination, this
NOPR proposes to adopt amended standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency
level rather than impose more stringent standards. This is required by
EPCA, but is also less burdensome for small manufacturers than a more
stringent standard.
In reviewing all commercially available models in DOE's Compliance
Certification Database, the three small manufacturers account for 13
percent of industry model offerings. For each of the three small
manufacturers, approximately 90 percent of current models would meet
the proposed levels. The small manufacturers would need to either
discontinue or redesign non-compliant models. DOE recognizes that small
manufacturers may need to spread redesign costs over lower shipment
volumes than the industry-at-large. However, adoption of standards at
least as stringent as the ASHRAE levels is required under EPCA;
furthermore, adopting standards above ASHRAE levels (DOE's only other
option under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) would lead to an even greater
portion of models requiring redesign.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its understanding of the current
market accounted for by small manufacturers. DOE also requests comment
on its understanding of the efficiency of the equipment offered by such
manufacturers.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
As EPCA requires DOE to either adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
levels or to propose higher standards, DOE lacks discretion to mitigate
impacts to small businesses from the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels. In
this rulemaking, DOE is proposing to adopt the ASHRAE 90.1-2019 levels.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. 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 1003 for additional detail.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of CRACs must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying
compliance, manufacturers must test their products
[[Page 12845]]
according to the DOE test procedures for CRACs, 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
CRACs. (See generally 10 CFR part 429) 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 35 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
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment.
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances
exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise
meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See
10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the
final rule.
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 Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
tentatively 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 proposed
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 Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of 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
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met, or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed 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 of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C.
1531). For a proposed 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 proposed
``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 energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or
more in any one year by the private sector. As a result, the analytical
requirements of UMRA do not apply.
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.
[[Page 12846]]
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed 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). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this NOPR 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
E.O. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which
proposes amended energy conservation standards for CRACs, is not a
significant energy action because the proposed 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 proposed rule.
L. Information Quality
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.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer
review.\23\ 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.
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their
systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
document, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an
oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone
number where they can be reached.
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will
not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will
conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A
court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a
transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the
[[Page 12847]]
webinar/public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary
information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end
of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments
on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants,
and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar will accept additional
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or
modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper
conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this NOPR. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript
from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will
be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects
or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form
of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on the number of small manufacturers
producing covered CRACs.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its understanding of the current
market accounted for by small manufacturers. DOE also requests comment
on its understanding of the efficiency of the equipment offered by such
manufacturers.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
[[Page 12848]]
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February
22, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 23, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Section 431.92 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, the
definition for ``Ducted Condenser'' to read as follows:
Sec. 431.92 Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps.
* * * * *
Ducted Condenser means a configuration of computer room air
conditioner for which the condenser or condensing unit that
manufacturer's installation instructions indicate is intended to
exhaust condenser air through a duct(s).
* * * * *
0
3. Section 431.97 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (f), redesignating Table 13 as Table 15; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (e).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.
* * * * *
(e)(1) Each computer room air conditioner with a net sensible
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after
October 29, 2012, and before [date 360 days after the publication date
of the final rule], and each computer room air conditioner with a net
sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
manufactured on or after October 29, 2013, and before [date 360 days
after the publication date of the final rule], must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 12 of
this section.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.032
(2) Each computer room air conditioner manufactured on or after
[date 360 days after the publication date of the final rule], must meet
the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
Table 13 and Table 14 of this section.
[[Page 12849]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.033
[[Page 12850]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.034
[[Page 12851]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.035
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-04151 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C