[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 121 (Friday, June 24, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37934-37968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13224]
[[Page 37933]]
Vol. 87
Friday,
No. 121
June 24, 2022
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Packaged
Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37934]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035]
RIN 1904-AE66
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of proposed determination 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 Packaged
Terminal Air Conditioners (``PTACs'') and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
(``PTHPs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
to periodically review standards. In this notification of proposed
determination (``NOPD''), DOE has preliminarily determined that it
lacks clear and convincing evidence that more-stringent standards for
PTACs and PTHPs would be economically justified. As such, DOE has
preliminarily determined that energy conservation standards for PTACs
and PHTPs do not need to be amended. DOE requests comment on this
proposed determination and the associated analyses and results.
DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on
Wednesday, July 20, 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: Written comments and information are requested and will
be accepted on or before August 23, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified
by docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035, by any of the following
methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices,
webinar attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for further information on how
to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Lucas Adin, 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) 287-5904. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC,
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for PTACs and PTHPs
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price
3. Energy Savings
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need for National Energy Conservation
7. Other Factors
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Equipment Classes
a. Make-Up Air PTACs and PTHPs
3. Technology Options
4. Screening Analysis
a. Screened-Out Technologies
b. Other Technologies Not Considered in the Engineering Analysis
c. Remaining Technologies
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Equipment Classes Analyzed
3. Baseline Efficiency Levels
4. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
5. Incremental Efficiency levels
6. Cost Analysis
7. Cost-Efficiency Results
C. Markups Analysis
D. Energy Use Analysis
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. PTAC and PTHP Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
F. Shipments Analysis
G. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
[[Page 37935]]
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Economic Impacts on PTAC and PTHP Consumers
B. National Impact Analysis
a. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
C. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
3. Economic Justification
4. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
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 PTACs and PTHPs, the subject of this
rulemaking. Pursuant to EPCA, 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
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 6 years to
determine whether those standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)-(C)) DOE is conducting this review of the energy
conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs under EPCA's six-year-
lookback authority. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Energy Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-260 (Dec. 27,
2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts
A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed PTACs and PTHPs
subject to standards specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431.97. DOE first analyzed the technological
feasibility of more energy efficient PTACs and PTHPs. For those PTACs
and PTHPs for which DOE determined higher standards to be
technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings that would
result from potential energy conservation standards by conducting a
national impacts analysis (``NIA''). DOE also considered whether
potential energy conservation standards would be economically
justified. As discussed in the following sections, DOE has tentatively
determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended
energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs would be economically
justified. DOE evaluated whether higher standards would be cost
effective by conducting life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period
(``PBP'') analyses, and estimated the net present value (``NPV'') of
the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers.
Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section V of
this document, DOE has tentatively determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that more-stringent standards would result in
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for
PTACs and PTHPs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-
619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment
includes PTACs and PTHPs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(I)) EPCA prescribed initial standards for this equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(3))
The energy conservation program under EPCA 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 include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
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(a)(2)) 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 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 PTACs and PTHPs appear at title
10 of the CFR part 431 section 96(g).
EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for
commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small,
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal
heat pumps, warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters,
instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. Id.
In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards
that generally corresponded to the levels in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
in effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989), for
each type of covered equipment listed in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)
If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to the standard
levels or design requirements applicable under that standard for
certain commercial equipment, including PTACs and PTHPs, not later than
180 days after the amendment of the standard, DOE must publish in the
Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy savings
potential of amended energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C.
[[Page 37936]]
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) 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 as a national standard would produce
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the product in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of
the products 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
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
If DOE adopts as a national standard the efficiency levels
specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such
a 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 the 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))
EPCA also requires that every six years DOE shall evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each class of certain covered
commercial equipment, including PTACs and PTHPs, and publish either a
notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended,
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that includes new
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) EPCA further provides that,
not later than three years after the issuance of a final determination
not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended,
or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE must make the analysis on which the
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(ii))
DOE is publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the 6-year review
requirement in EPCA, having initially determined that DOE lacks clear
and convincing evidence that amended standards for PTACs and PTHPs
would be economically justified.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on July 21, 2015 (``July 2015 final
rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for
PTACs and PTHPs. 80 FR 43162. These levels are expressed in energy
efficiency ratio (``EER'') for the cooling mode and in coefficient of
performance (``COP'') for the heating mode for PTHPs. EER is defined as
the ratio of the produced cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat
pump to its net work input, expressed in British thermal units
(``Btu'')/watt-hour. 10 CFR 431.92. COP is defined as the ratio of the
produced cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat pump (or its
produced heating effect, depending on the mode of operation) to its net
work input, when both the cooling (or heating) effect and the net work
input are expressed in identical units of measurement. 10 CFR 431.92.
The current energy conservation standards are located at 10 CFR
431.97, Table 7 and Table 8 and repeated in Table II-1.
Table II-1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for PTACs and PTHPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compliance date:
Cooling capacity Efficiency level products
(British thermal \*\ manufactured on or
Equipment type Category units per hour after
(``Btu/h''))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC............................ Standard Size \**\ <7,000 Btu/h...... EER - 11.9........ January 1, 2017.
.................. >=7,000 Btu/h and EER-14.0--(0.300 x January 1, 2017.
<=15,000 Btu/h. Cap[Dagger]).
.................. >15,000 Btu/h..... EER-9.5........... January 1, 2017.
\ Non-Standard Size <7,000 Btu/h...... EER-9.4........... October 7, 2010.
[dagger].
.................. >=7,000 Btu/h and EER-10.9--(0.213 x October 7, 2010.
<=15,000 Btu/h. Cap [dagger]).
.................. >15,000 Btu/h..... EER-7.7........... October 7, 2010.
PTHP............................ Standard Size **.. <7,000 Btu/h...... EER-11.9.......... October 8, 2012.
COP = 3.3.........
.................. >=7,000 Btu/h and EER-14.0--(0.300 x October 8, 2012.
<=15,000 Btu/h. Cap[Dagger]).
COP = 3.7--(0.052
x Cap [Dagger]).
.................. >15,000 Btu/h..... EER-9.5........... October 8, 2012.
COP-2.9...........
Non-Standard Size <7,000 Btu/h...... EER-9.3........... October 7, 2010.
[dagger]. COP-2.7...........
.................. >=7,000 Btu/h and EER-10.8--(0.213 x October 7, 2010.
<=15,000 Btu/h. Cap [Dagger]).
COP = 2.9--(0.026
x Cap [Dagger]).
[[Page 37937]]
.................. >15,000 Btu/h..... EER-7.6........... October 7, 2010.
COP-2.5...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure prescribed at 10 CFR 431.96(g).
** Standard size means a PTAC or PTHP with wall sleeve dimensions having an external wall opening of greater
than or equal to 16 inches high or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide, and a cross-sectional area greater
than or equal to 670 square inches. 10 CFR 431.92.
[dagger] Non-standard size means a PTAC or PTHP with existing wall sleeve dimensions having an external wall
opening of less than 16 inches high or less than 42 inches wide, and a cross-sectional area less than 670
square inches. Id.
[dagger][dagger] Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95[ordm]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for PTACs and PTHPs
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE published amendments to the PTAC
and PTHP standards in response to the 2013 update to ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013''). 80 FR 43162. DOE determined that
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 amended the standards for three of the 12
PTAC and PTHP equipment classes: PTAC standard size less than 7,000
Btu/h, PTAC standard size greater than or equal 7,000 Btu/h and less
than or equal to 15,000 Btu/h, and PTAC standard size greater than
15,000 Btu/h. 80 FR 43162, 43163. DOE adopted the standard levels for
these three equipment classes as updated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013,
with compliance with the amended standards required for equipment
manufactured on or after January 1, 2017. Id. DOE did not amend the
energy conservation standards for the remaining nine equipment classes
which were already aligned with the standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2013. 80 FR 43162, 43166. DOE was unable to show with clear and
convincing evidence that energy conservation standards at levels more
stringent than the minimum levels specified in the ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2013 for any of the 12 equipment classes would be economically
justified. 80 FR 43162, 43163.
Since ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 was published, ASHRAE Standard 90.1
has undergone two further revisions. A revision was published on
October 26, 2016 (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016'') and a revision was
published on October 24, 2019 (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019''). Neither
of these publications amended the minimum EER and COP levels for PTACs
and PTHPs.
In support of the present review of the PTACs and PTHPs energy
conservation standards, DOE published an early assessment review
request for information (``RFI'') on December 21, 2020 (``December 2020
ECS RFI''), which identified various issues on which DOE sought comment
to inform its determination of whether the standards need to be
amended. 85 FR 82952.
DOE received comments in response to the December 2020 ECS RFI from
the interested parties listed in Table II-2 of this document. These
comments are discussed in detail in section IV of this document.
Table II-2--December 2020 ECS RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) NOPD Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI.............. Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP.............. Efficiency
Project. Organizations.
GE Appliances................... GEA............... Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.............. Efficiency
Alliance. Organizations.
Pacific Gas and Electric CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern
California Edison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0035, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), applicable to covered equipment under 10
CFR 431.4, DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the comment period for a NOPR. Section 6(f)(2) of
appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for a
NOPR will not be less than 75 days. For this proposed determination,
DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. As stated
previously, DOE requested comment in the December 2020 ECS RFI on the
technical and economic analyses that would be used to determine whether
a more stringent standard would result in significant conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE
has determined that a 60-day comment period, in conjunction with the
prior December 2020 ECS RFI, provides sufficient time for interested
parties to review the proposed rule and develop comments.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposed determination after considering
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. This proposed determination addresses issues
raised by these commenters.
A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into
[[Page 37938]]
equipment classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other
performance-related features that justify differing standards. This
proposed determination covers PTACs and PTHPs.
PTAC is defined as a wall sleeve and a separate un-encased
combination of heating and cooling assemblies specified by the builder
and intended for mounting through the wall, and that is industrial
equipment. 10 CFR 431.92. It includes a prime source of refrigeration,
separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and heating availability
by builder's choice of hot water, steam, or electricity. Id.
PTHP is defined as a PTAC that utilizes reverse cycle refrigeration
as its prime heat source, that has a supplementary heat source
available, with the choice of hot water, steam, or electric resistant
heat, and that is industrial equipment. Id.
The scope of coverage is discussed in further detail in section
IV.A.1 of this document. The PTAC and PTHP classes for this proposed
determination are discussed in further detail in section IV.A.2 of this
document.
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)) As discussed, DOE's current energy conservation standards for
PTACs and PTHPs are expressed in terms of EER and COP. 10 CFR 431.97.
DOE's current test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs were last updated
in a test procedure final rule on June 30, 2015 (``June 2015 TP final
rule''). 80 FR 37136. The current test procedure for cooling mode
incorporates by reference AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, ``Standard for
Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps'' (``AHRI Standard
310/380-2014'') with the following sections applicable to the DOE test
procedure: sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4; American National
Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/ASHRAE 16-1983 (RA 2014), ``Method of
Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983'') and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-
2009''). 10 CFR 431.96(g)(1) The current test procedure for heating
mode testing incorporates by reference AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, with
the following sections applicable to the DOE test procedure: sections
3, 4.1, 4.2 (except section 4.2.1.2(b)), 4.3, and 4.4; and ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 58-1986 (RA 2014), ``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air-
Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioner Heating Capacity''
(``ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986''). 10 CFR 431.96(g)(2). The currently
applicable DOE test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs appear at 10 CFR
431.96 (g).
The current test procedures also include additional provisions in
paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96. 10 CFR 431.96(b)(1). Paragraph
(c) of 10 CFR 431.96 specifies provisions for an optional compressor
break-in period, and paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 details what
information sources can be used for unit set-up and provides specific
set-up instructions for refrigerant parameters (e.g., superheat) and
air flow rate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The amendatory instructions in the June 2015 TP final rule
for PTACs and PTHPs includes the reference to AHRI Standard 310/380-
2014 in paragraphs (c) and (e), indicating that the requirements do
apply to this equipment, even though the current CFR does not
include this reference. 80 FR 37136, 37149 (June 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's current test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs do not include a
seasonal metric that includes part-load performance. As part of an
ongoing test procedure rulemaking, DOE published a RFI on May 25, 2021
(``May 2021 TP RFI''), in which DOE requested information and data to
consider amendments to DOE's test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs. 86 FR
28005. Specifically, DOE requested comment on whether it should
consider adopting for PTACs and PTHPs a cooling-mode metric and a
heating-mode metric that integrates part-load performance to better
represent full-season efficiency. 86 FR 28005, 28010-28011. Were DOE to
amend the PTAC and PTHP test procedure to incorporate a part-load
metric, it would conduct any analysis for future standards rulemakings,
if any, based on the amended test procedure.
DOE received general comments related to the test procedure in
response to the December 2020 ECS RFI. DOE will consider such comments
in the ongoing test procedure rulemaking. Discussion of part-load
technologies as they relate to standards is contained in section IV.A.3
of this document.
For the purpose of this NOPD, DOE relied on the test procedures for
PTACs and PTHPs as currently established at 10 CFR 431.96(g).
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the
subject of the determination. As the first step in such an analysis,
DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested
parties. These technology options are discussed in detail in section
IV.A.3 of this document. DOE then determines which of those means for
improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers
technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in
working prototypes to be technologically feasible. See generally 10 CFR
431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430
subpart C (``Process Rule'').
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. See
generally 10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the
Process Rule. Section IV.A.4 of this document discusses the results of
the screening analysis for PTACs and PTHPs, particularly the designs
DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for
the standards considered in this proposed determination. For further
details on the screening analysis for this proposed determination, see
section IV.A.4 of this document.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or
class of covered equipment, in this analysis it would result in
significant conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency for PTACs and PTHPs, using the design parameters for the
most efficient products available on the market or in
[[Page 37939]]
working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this
analysis are described in section IV.B.4 of this proposed
determination.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each efficiency level (``EL'') evaluated, DOE projected energy
savings from application of the EL to the PTACs and PTHPs purchased in
the 30-year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with
the potential standards (2026-2055). The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of the PTACs and PTHPs purchased in the previous 30-
year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each EL
as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and
the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy
conservation standards. DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate
national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or new
standards for PTACs and PTHPs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in
section V.B of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in
terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy
that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also
calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy savings.
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing,
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.\5\ DOE's approach is based on the
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy
savings, see section IV.G of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and
notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended
at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation
of energy.\6\ (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I)); (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) The significance of energy savings offered by a
new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined
without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given
rulemaking.\7\ For example, the United States has now rejoined the
Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the
United States has committed to reducing GHG emissions in order to limit
the rise in mean global temperature.\8\ As such, energy savings that
reduce GHG emission have taken on greater importance. Additionally,
some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the
significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary
energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment
when determining whether energy savings are significant. Accordingly,
DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In setting a more stringent standard for ASHRAE equipment,
DOE must have ``clear and convincing evidence'' that doing so
``would result in significant additional conservation of energy'' in
addition to being technologically feasible and economically
justified. 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). This language indicates
that Congress had intended for DOE to ensure that, in addition to
the savings from the ASHRAE standards, DOE's standards would yield
additional energy savings that are significant. In DOE's view, this
statutory provision shares the requirement with the statutory
provision applicable to covered products and non-ASHRAE equipment
that ``significant conservation of energy'' must be present (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) --and supported with ``clear and convincing
evidence''--to permit DOE to set a more stringent requirement than
ASHRAE.
\7\ See 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
\8\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021)
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Economic Justification
As noted, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII)) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this proposed determination.
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturing impact analysis (``MIA'').
DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the
quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment--
based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between
when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the
regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The
industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) industry net present value,
which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows,
(2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4)
other measures of impact, as appropriate. However, DOE is not proposing
amended standards for PTACs and PTHPs, and, therefore, this proposed
determination would have no cash-flow impacts on manufacturers.
Accordingly, as discussed further in section IV.G of this document, DOE
did not conduct an MIA for this NOPD.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value
(``NPV'') of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from
particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential
standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard. However, DOE is not proposing amended
standards for PTACs and PTHPs, and, therefore, this proposed
determination would have no disproportionate impact on identifiable
subgroups of consumers. Accordingly, DOE did not conduct a subgroup
analysis for this NOPD.
2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and
[[Page 37940]]
discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities
attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.E of this
document.
3. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(III)) As
discussed in section IV.G of this document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(IV)) DOE is not
proposing amended standards for PTACs and PTHPs, and, therefore, this
proposed determination would not impact the utility of such equipment.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V)) Because DOE is not proposing standards for PTACs
and PTHPs, DOE did not transmit a copy of its proposed determination to
the Attorney General for anti-competitive review.
6. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VI)) The energy
savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity.
However, DOE is not proposing amended standards for PTACs and PTHPs,
and therefore, did not conduct this analysis.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. For example, energy conservation standards result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions. DOE also estimates the
economic value of emissions reductions resulting from each trial
standard level (``TSL'') (i.e., standards case above the base case).\9\
However, DOE is not proposing amended standards for PTACs and PTHPs,
and, therefore, did not conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. The preliminary
injunction enjoined the federal government from relying on the
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further
intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to
the injunction and present monetized benefits in accordance with
applicable Executive orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
proposed determination with regard to PTACs and PTHPs. Separate
subsections address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used several
analytical tools to estimate the impact of potential energy
conservation standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates
the LCC savings and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The
NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections
and calculates NES and net present value of total consumer costs and
savings expected to result from potential energy conservation
standards. These spreadsheet tools are available on the website:
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this proposed determination include: (1) a determination
of the scope and classes, (2) market and industry trends and (3)
technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency
of PTAC and PTHPs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are
summarized in the following sections. See the supplemental file DOE
made available for comment (Document ID No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035-0001)
for a review of the current PTAC and PTHP market and efficiency
distributions.
1. Scope of Coverage
In this analysis, DOE relied on the definition of PTACs and PTHPs
in 10 CFR 431.92. Any equipment meeting the definition of PTAC or PTHP
is included in DOE's scope of coverage.
PTAC is defined as a wall sleeve and a separate un-encased
combination of heating and cooling assemblies
[[Page 37941]]
specified by the builder and intended for mounting through the wall,
and that is industrial equipment. 10 CFR 431.92. It includes a prime
source of refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation,
and heating availability by builder's choice of hot water, steam, or
electricity. Id.
PTHP is defined as a PTAC that utilizes reverse cycle refrigeration
as its prime heat source, that has a supplementary heat source
available, with the choice of hot water, steam, or electric resistant
heat, and that is industrial equipment. Id.
On October 7, 2008, DOE published a final rule (``October 2008
final rule'') amending the energy conservation standards for PTACs and
PTHPs in which DOE divided equipment classes based on whether a PTAC or
PTHP is a standard size or non-standard size. 73 FR 58772.
DOE defines ``standard size'' as a PTAC or PTHP with wall sleeve
dimensions having an external wall opening of greater than or equal to
16 inches high or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide, and a cross-
sectional area greater than or equal to 670 square inches. 10 CFR
431.92.
DOE defines ``non-standard size'' as a PTAC or PTHP with existing
wall sleeve dimensions having an external wall opening of less than 16
inches high or less than 42 inches wide, and a cross-sectional area
less than 670 square inches. Id.
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the
definitions for PTACs, PTHPs, standard size and non-standard size
require any revisions--and if so, what revisions are needed and how
those definitions should be revised. 82 FR 82952, 82956. DOE also
requested comment on whether additional equipment definitions are
necessary to close any potential gaps in coverage between equipment
types and whether there were opportunities to combine equipment classes
that could reduce regulatory burden. Id.
In response, AHRI stated that the current definitions for PTACs and
PTHPs do not require revisions at this time and the subcategory
definitions currently in place for ``standard size'' and ``non-standard
size'' are also appropriate and require no modifications. AHRI also
explained that the current equipment classes are appropriate and that
any modifications should be first made through ASHRAE Standard 90.1
process. AHRI further commented that DOE is required to consider
amending its standards for PTACs and PTHPs when ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
amended, which includes equipment definitions and classes, and as no
amendment has occurred the existing scheme is appropriate (AHRI, No. 8
at p. 4) DOE did not receive any further comments pertaining to these
issues of coverage.
For this NOPD DOE maintains the current definitions for PTACs,
PTHPs, standard size and non-standard size.
2. Equipment Classes
For PTACs and PTHPs, the current energy conservation standards
specified in 10 CFR 431.97(c) are based on 12 equipment classes
determined according to the following: whether the equipment is an air
conditioner or a heat pump, whether the equipment is standard size or
non-standard size, and the cooling capacity in Btu/h. Table IV-1 lists
the current 12 equipment classes for PTACs and PTHPs specified in Table
7 and Table 8 to 10 CFR 431.97.
Table IV-1--Current PTAC and PTHP Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... PTAC................... Standard Size.......... <7,000 Btu/h.
2.................................... PTAC................... Standard Size.......... >=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
3.................................... PTAC................... Standard Size.......... >15,000 Btu/h.
4.................................... PTAC................... Non-Standard Size...... <7,000 Btu/h.
5.................................... PTAC................... Non-Standard Size...... >=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
6.................................... PTAC................... Non-Standard Size...... >15,000 Btu/h.
7.................................... PTHP................... Standard Size.......... <7,000 Btu/h.
8.................................... PTHP................... Standard Size.......... >=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
9 *.................................. PTHP................... Standard Size.......... >15,000 Btu/h.
10................................... PTHP................... Non-Standard Size...... <7,000 Btu/h.
11................................... PTHP................... Non-Standard Size...... >=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
12................................... PTHP................... Non-Standard Size...... >15,000 Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the market, DOE did not identify any Standard Size
PTHP models with a cooling capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested feedback on the current
PTAC and PTHP equipment classes and whether any changes to these
individual equipment classes and their descriptions should be made or
whether certain classes should be merged or separated. 85 FR 82952,
82957. Specifically, DOE requested comment on opportunities to combine
equipment classes that could reduce regulatory burden. Id. DOE further
requested feedback on whether combining certain classes could impact
equipment utility by eliminating any performance-related features or
impact the stringency of the current energy conservation standard for
this equipment. Id. DOE also requested comment on separating any of the
existing equipment classes and whether it would impact equipment
utility by eliminating any performance-related features or reduce any
compliance burdens. Id.
In response, AHRI commented that they do not recommend changes at
this time (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any further
comments on this issue.
DOE also sought information regarding any other new product classes
it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. 85 FR 82952, 82957.
Specifically, DOE requested information on the performance-related
features that provide unique consumer utility and data detailing the
corresponding impacts on energy use that would justify separate product
classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of these performance-
related features would increase energy consumption). Id.
In response, AHRI stated that they support the current equipment
classes and that they should not be expanded. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5) DOE
did not receive any further comments on this issue.
For this NOPD, DOE maintains the current equipment classes.
[[Page 37942]]
a. Make-Up Air PTACs and PTHPs
In the May 2021 TP RFI, DOE described ``make-up air'' PTACs and
their additional function of dehumidification. 86 FR 28005, 28007-
28009. As discussed in section II.B.1 of this document, for PTACs and
PTHPs, DOE currently specifies EER as the test metric for cooling
efficiency and COP as the metric for heating efficiency. Neither the
current test procedure, at 10 CFR 431.96(g), nor the industry test
procedure incorporated by reference, AHRI Standard 310/380-2014,
account for the energy associated with the conditioning of make-up air
introduced by the unit.
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on appropriate
definitions for ``make-up air PTAC'' and ``make-up air PTHP'' and what
characteristics could be used to distinguish make-up air PTACs and
PTHPs from other PTACs and PTHPs. 85 FR 82952, 82957. DOE requested
information on the consumer utility and the energy use associated with
the function of providing ``make-up air.'' Id. DOE also requested
comment on whether the same capacity ranges used for non- ``make-up
air'' PTACs and PTHPs would be appropriate to use for equipment classes
for possible ``make-up air'' PTAC and PTHP equipment classes (i.e.,
less than 7,000 Btu/h, greater than or equal to 7,000 Btu/h and less
than or equal to 15,000 Btu/h, and greater than 15,000 Btu/h). Id.
Finally, DOE requested comment on if there are both Standard Size and
Non-Standard Size ``make-up air'' PTACs and PTHPs. Id.
AHRI commented that make-up air PTACs and make-up air PTHPs are not
included as equipment categories in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and therefore
should not be considered as separate equipment categories in this DOE
rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5) AHRI further commented that their
research did not indicate that a sufficient number of products would
benefit from a separate class to include the energy for either a
specialized feature for outdoor air conditioning or dehumidification.
Id. AHRI stated that no manufacturer has submitted a waiver to modify
the current test procedure indicating that the results of the test
procedure remain representative of actual energy use or efficiency and
all products defined as PTACs and PTHPs and are able to be tested in
accordance with AHRI Standard 310/380. Id. AHRI also asserted that
there is a significant testing barrier to accurately measuring
dehumidification, stating that psychrometric chambers are not enabled
to test dehumidification of outside air and any changes to incorporate
dehumidification would therefore require research to determine an
appropriate procedure. Id.
GEA also commented that PTACs \10\ with make-up air capabilities do
not require separate product classes, stating that: these units do not
make a sufficient segment of the market to justify a separate class;
they are not included as equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1; all
equipment defined as PTACs and PTHPs are able to be tested in
accordance with AHRI Standard 310/380 and that there are significant
issues with testing of make-up air units related to the design of
existing test rooms, particularly with respect to dehumidification,
which would require substantial investment to modify test facilities.
(GEA, No. 10 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In their comments, GEA referred generally to ``PTACs.''
However, based on the context of their comments, DOE understands
GEA's comments to apply to both PTACs and PTHPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs stated that more research is needed before a
determination can be made with respect to whether units that provide
make-up air warrant separate equipment classes, including testing the
equipment and market analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 4) The commenters
recommended that DOE investigate the size and potential market growth
for this feature. Id. Additionally, they also stated that appendix M1
(to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430), which the CA IOUs recommended that
DOE adopt for PTACs and PTHPs, does not have provisions for testing
units while they provide make-up air. Id. The commenters urged DOE to
use caution in creating a separate product class for units that provide
make-up air, asserting it will likely make compliance, enforcement, and
product comparison difficult. Id.
DOE notes that while the market for make-up air PTACs and PTHPs may
be small currently, new building code requirements may lead to
increased demand for these units. As discussed in the May 2021 TP RFI,
building designs that supply make-up air via corridors are generally no
longer permissible under the building codes adopted in most U.S.
states. 86 FR 28005, 28008. Chapter 10, Section 1018.5 of the 2009
International Building Code (``IBC'') states that, with some
exceptions, ``corridors shall not serve as supply, return, exhaust,
relief or ventilation air ducts.'' \11\ The International Code Council
(``ICC'') tracks the adoption of the IBC by state. The ICC reports
that, as of February 2022, only seven states had not fully adopted the
2009 version or a more recent version of the IBC.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ International Code Council. 2009 International Building
Code. Available at: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/chapter/4641/.
\12\ International Code Council (2022). ``International Codes--
Adoption by State.'' Available at: https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/Master-I-Code-Adoption-Chart-FEB-22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is cognizant of the potential testing challenges associated
with the testing of make-up air PTACs and PTHPs and is considering this
in the ongoing test procedure rulemaking. 86 FR 28005, 28008-28009.
Were DOE to amend the PTAC and PTHP test procedure to incorporate
measurement of dehumidification energy for make-up air PTACs and PTHPs,
a separate equipment class for this type of units may be warranted. At
such time, DOE would conduct the analysis for future standards
rulemakings, if any, based on the amended test procedure. However, DOE
is not proposing to establish separate equipment classes for make-up
air PTACs and PTHPs at this time.
3. Technology Options
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE identified several technology
options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of PTACs and
PTHPs, as measured by the DOE test procedure. 85 FR 82952, 82957-82958.
Based on the technologies identified in the analysis for the July 2015
final rule and a preliminary survey of the current market using the DOE
Compliance Certification Database (``CCD''),\13\ DOE separately
provided potential technology options in two categories: technologies
that may increase efficiency at both full-load and part-load conditions
(designated as Table II.2 in the December 2020 ECS RFI and re-listed as
Table IV-2 in this document); and technologies that may only increase
efficiency at part-load conditions (designated as Table II.3 in the
December 2020 ECS RFI and re-listed as Table IV-3 in this document).
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database can be found at:
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*
(accessed March 9th, 2022).
[[Page 37943]]
Table IV-2--Technology Options for PTACs and PTHPs Presented in the
December 2020 ECS RFI That May Increase Efficiency at Both Full-Load and
Part-Load Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Exchanger Improvements:
Increased Heat Exchanger Area.......... July 2015 Final Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements:
Higher Efficiency Fan Motors........... July 2015 Final Rule.
Improved Air Flow and Fan Design....... July 2015 Final Rule.
More Efficient Fan Geometries.......... New Technology Option.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressor Improvements:
Higher Efficiency Compressors.......... July 2015 Final Rule.
Scroll Compressors..................... Screened out of July 2015
Final Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Improvements:
Heat Pipes............................. Screened out of July 2015
Final Rule.
Alternative Refrigerants............... Screened out of July 2015
Final Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-3--Technology Options for PTACs and PTHPs Presented in the
December 2020 ECS RFI That May Increase Efficiency at Only Part-Load
Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements:
Variable speed condenser fan/motor..... * New Technology Option.
Variable speed indoor blower/motor..... New Technology Option.
Compressor Improvements:
Variable Speed Compressors............. July 2015 Final Rule. *
Other Improvements:
Electronic Expansion Valves (``EEV'').. New Technology Option.
Thermal Expansion Valves (``TEV'')..... July 2015 Final Rule.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Identified technology was not analyzed in the July 2015 because of no
full-load benefit.
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested information on the
technologies listed in Table IV-2 regarding their applicability to the
current market, how these technologies may impact the efficiency of
PTACs and PTHPs, how these technologies have changed since the July
2015 final rule and the range of efficiencies or performance
characteristics that are currently available for each technology
option. 85 FR 82952, 82958. DOE also sought comment on whether the new
technologies mentioned would affect a determination as to whether DOE
could propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more
stringent standard: would not result in a significant savings of
energy; is not technologically feasible; is not economically justified;
or any combination of the foregoing. Id. Specifically, DOE sought
information on the new technologies regarding their market adoption,
costs, and any concerns with incorporating them into equipment (e.g.,
impacts on consumer utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing/
production/implementation issues, etc.), particularly as to changes
that may have occurred since the July 2015 final rule. Id. DOE also
sought comment on other technology options that it should consider for
inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may impact
equipment features or consumer utility. Id.
AHRI suggested that DOE contact manufacturers independently to
provide feedback on the technologies listed in in the December 2020 ECS
RFI regarding their applicability to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs as measured
according to the DOE test procedure. (AHRI, No. 4 at p. 6)
Additionally, AHRI stated that it was not aware of any advanced
development of technologies screened out in the July 2015 final rule,
with the exception of variable speed compressors. Id. AHRI stated that
two manufacturers offer PTACs and PTHPs with variable speed
compressors; however, the current test procedure referencing AHRI
Standard 310/380-2014 provides only a full load performance rating.
AHRI further stated that in its review of the certification database,
AHRI found only a handful of products that may benefit from the
additional test burden that would be imposed by moving to a part-load
metric. Id. AHRI commented that determining performance at multiple
load points, rather than one, and the additional calculations to
determine a seasonal efficiency adds considerable time to testing and a
change in metric requires all existing products to be retested, which
will benefit few products on the market. Id. AHRI commented that no
manufacturer had submitted a waiver to modify the current test
procedure indicating that the results of a test procedure remain
representative of actual energy use or efficiency and all products
defined as PTACs and PTHPs are able to be tested in accordance with
AHRI Standard 310/380. AHRI also commented that to their knowledge, no
manufacturer is currently using the new technology options captured in
Table IV-3. Id. AHRI stated that they had no suggestions on additional
technology options that DOE should consider for inclusion in its
analysis. Id.
NEEA agreed with the list of technology options included in the
2015 ECS final rule and recommended that DOE continue to include those
technologies in this rulemaking. In addition to the listed technology
options, NEEA suggested the following technology options for
consideration: use of intake and exhaust ducts to reduce infiltration,
alternative refrigerants, microchannel heat
[[Page 37944]]
exchangers and separate indoor and outdoor blower motors. (NEEA, No. 9
at pp. 4-5) NEEA noted that separate indoor and outdoor blower motors
are used as a strategy to improve efficiency while also reducing unit
noise by at least one manufacturer. Id.
ASAP encouraged DOE to evaluate the range of technology options
identified in the RFI, stating that many of these technology options
were not analyzed in the July 2015 final rule, which, per ASAP,
suggests that significantly greater energy savings may be possible than
the max-tech levels in the previous rule. (ASAP, No. 6 at p. 1) ASAP
commented that the technology options that can increase part-load
efficiency such as variable-speed compressors, variable-speed fans, and
electronic expansion valves have the potential to provide large
savings. Id. ASAP also encouraged DOE to consider improvements to
heating performance at low temperatures as technology options--stating
that design changes such as added defrost capability can allow a PTHP
to continue to use the heat pump cycle at lower ambient temperatures to
provide significant energy savings. (ASAP, No. 6 at p. 2) ASAP
suggested that improved defrost control strategies be added as a
technology option. Id.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE include low global warming
potential (``GWP'') refrigerants, such as R-32, in its engineering
analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) The CA IOUs asserted that PTAC and
PTHPs manufactured after an updated standard takes effect will likely
use low-GWP refrigerants. Id.
As discussed earlier in section III.B of this document, DOE may
consider adopting for PTACs and PTHPs a cooling-mode metric and a
heating-mode metric that integrates part-load performance. In the
December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested data on the market penetration and
efficiency improvement associated with the technology options that may
increase efficiency at part-load conditions, as listed in Table IV-3 of
this document. 85 FR 82952, 82958. In addition, DOE requested data on
any other technology options not listed above that would improve the
efficiency of equipment under part-load conditions. Id.
AHRI and GEA did not support moving to a part-load metric. (AHRI,
No. 8 at p.7; GEA, No. 10 at p.2) AHRI commented that very few products
use advanced compressors, but all products would be required to be
retested if a part-load metric was adopted. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 7) AHRI
asserted that industry burdens would make a switch to a new metric
untimely. Id. GEA stated that moving the entire industry to a part load
metric would have little benefit to consumers and would have little to
no effect on energy efficiency, while creating substantial cost and
testing burden. (GEA, No. 10 at p. 2) GEA suggested that instead DOE
should allow the industry to follow the test procedure waiver process
which allows for adding appropriate provisions for variable speed
compressor products while maintaining stability in the vast majority of
the market that does not include variable speed compressors. Id. GEA
stated that once the technology is sufficiently mature, moving the test
procedure and standards to a part load metric may make sense--however,
this product category has not yet reached that stage. Id.
ASAP, NEEA and CA IOUs expressed support for moving to a part-load
metric. (ASPA, No. 6 at p. 1; NEEA, No.9 at p. 1-2; CA IOUs, No.7 at p.
1) ASAP recommended that DOE evaluate potential amended standard levels
based on metrics that reflect annual energy consumption and capture
low-temperature heating performance. (ASAP, No. 6 at p. 1) NEEA
recommended that DOE update energy conservation standard efficiency
levels for PTACs and PTHPs, even if it does not proceed with a test
procedure update, asserting that a range of efficiencies exist today
with many models exceeding the current federal standards by
approximately 10-30 percent, depending on the product category. (NEEA,
No. 9 at p. 3) Additionally, NEEA stated that their market research
suggested an increasing number of inverter-driven variable speed units
have been introduced, and asserted that the Federal test procedure
captures some of the efficiency impact of this technology, as evidenced
by the higher EER and COP values shown for inverter-driven units. Id.
at p. 4. NEEA suggested inclusion of technology options that can
improve part-load and low temperature performance including electronic
expansion valves, variable speed fans, multistage or variable speed
compressors, demand-based defrost controls, electric resistance boost
control strategies and compressor cut out controls. (NEEA, No. 9 at p.
2) NEEA stated that demand-based defrost controls (as compared to time-
based defrost) can reduce energy use by defrosting only when needed,
rather than at set time intervals. Id. They also stated that electric
resistance boost features can result in significant increased energy
use and that DOE should consider control strategies that limit the use
of electric resistance boost usage in technology options. Id. NEEA also
suggested that DOE should consider compressor cut out controls, which
control the temperature below which the compressor will not operate and
the temperature at which it resumes operation, and include compressor
cut out control strategies as a technology option. Id.
CA IOUs stated that under the 2015 ECS final rule, several
technologies, such as variable-speed compressors and thermal expansion
valves, were not included in the engineering analysis despite their
potential improvements to part-load performance, commenting that DOE
did not consider these technologies because it was believed that PTAC
and PTHPs operate at full-load conditions more often than at part-load
conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) CA IOUs referenced product
marketing literature from compressor manufacturers that claimed
efficiency improvements of 25 to 35 percent when replacing single-speed
compressors with variable-speed compressor. Id. CA IOUs also commented
that at least five manufacturers now sell variable-speed compressor
products, and that it is expected this technology will increase in
prevalence. Id.
For this analysis, DOE considered the technology options shown in
Table IV-4 of this document, including options listed in the December
2020 ECS RFI and options suggested in stakeholder comments, for
improving energy efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs.
Table IV-4--Potential Technology Options for Improving Energy Efficiency
of PTACs and PTHPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Exchanger Improvements:
Increased Heat Exchanger Area.......... July 2015 Final Rule.
Microchannel Heat Exchangers........... Screened out of July 2015
final rule; Suggested for
Inclusion by Commenter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37945]]
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements:
Higher Efficiency Fan Motors........... July 2015 Final Rule.
Improved Air Flow and Fan Design July 2015 Final Rule.
(including more Efficient Fan
Geometries).
Variable speed condenser fan/motor..... New Technology Option.
Variable speed indoor blower/motor..... New Technology Option.
Separate indoor and outdoor motors (to New Technology Option
improve efficiency while reducing Suggested by Commenter.
noise).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressor Improvements:
Higher Efficiency Compressors.......... July 2015 Final Rule.
Scroll Compressors..................... Screened out of July 2015
Final Rule.
Variable Speed Compressors............. July 2015 Final Rule.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Improvements:
Heat Pipes............................. Screened out of July 2015
Final Rule.
Alternative Refrigerants............... Screened out of July 2015
Final Rule.
EEV.................................... New Technology Option.
TEV.................................... July 2015 Final Rule.*
Intake and Exhaust Ducts (to reduce New Technology Option
infiltration through and around the Suggested by Commenter.
unit).
Defrost Control Strategies & Demand- New Technology Option
based Defrost Controls (for improved Suggested by Commenter.
low ambient heating).
Electric resistance boost control New Technology Option
strategies (to limit the use of Suggested by Commenters.
electric resistance boost).
Compressor cut out control strategies New Technology Option
(to allow compressor operation at Suggested by Commenter.
lower temperatures).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Identified technology was not analyzed in the July 2015 final rule
because of no full-load benefit.
EEVs regulate the flow of liquid refrigerant entering the
evaporator and can adapt to changes in operating conditions, such as
variations in temperature, humidity, and compressor staging. As a
result, EEVs can control for optimum system operating parameters over a
wide range of operating conditions and are a consideration in
evaluating improved seasonal efficiency. Variable-speed compressors
enable modulation of the refrigeration system capacity, allowing the
unit to adjust capacity to match the cooling or heating load. This
modulation can improve efficiency by reducing off-cycle losses and can
improve heat exchanger effectiveness at part-load conditions by
operating at a lower mass flow rate. Variable speed condenser fan
motors and variable speed indoor blower allow for varying fan speed to
reduce airflow rate at part-load operation.
Detailed descriptions of the technology options from the July 2015
final rule can be found in chapters 3 and 4 of the July 2015 final rule
technical support document (``TSD'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0029-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and
7(b). In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis.
a. Screened-Out Technologies
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE screened out three technology
options based on the applicable criteria discussed previously. The
screened-out technology options are presented below in Table IV-5.
[[Page 37946]]
Table IV-5--Previously Screened Out Technology Options From the July 2015 Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening criteria (X = basis for screening out)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological Practicability
Screened technology option feasibility to manufacture, Adverse impact Adverse impacts Unique-pathway
install, and on equipment on health and proprietary
service utility safety technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scroll Compressors....................................... X ................. ................. ................. .................
Heat Pipes............................................... X ................. ................. ................. .................
Alternative Refrigerants................................. X ................. ................. ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on these
technology options previously screened out in the July 2015 final rule.
85 FR 82952, 82959. Specifically, DOE requested information as to
whether these options would, based on current and projected assessments
regarding each of them, remain screened out under the four screening
criteria \15\ described in this section and what steps, if any, could
be (or have already been) taken to facilitate the introduction of each
option as a means to improve the energy performance of PTACs and PTHPs
and the potential to impact consumer utility of the PTACs and PTHPs.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ While the December 2020 ECS RFI referenced four screening
criteria, DOE notes that there are five screening criteria under
Appendix A. 86 FR 70924. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Pipes, Scroll Compressors
AHRI commented that there had been no technical advances in heat
pipes and thus no reason to include the technology option in the
analysis. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 7) AHRI commented that scroll compressors
should remain screened out stating that compressor manufacturers are
currently working to develop full product lines to accommodate A2L \16\
refrigerants. Since this effort requires significant research and
design resources, PTAC and PTHP manufacturers must prioritize obtaining
compliant components for a single complete product line using new
refrigerants for jurisdictions limiting GWP. Id. AHRI asserted that
because of this additional product options, such as scroll compressors,
will likely take time to bring to market and conduct all of the product
research, design, and testing. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A2L is an ASHRAE safety group classification for
refrigerants denoting lower toxicity and lower flammability. More
information regarding ASHRAE refrigerant safety classification can
be found here: www.ashrae.org/file%20library/technical%20resources/refrigeration/factsheet_ashrae_english_20200424.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive any further comments for heat pipes or scroll
compressors. DOE is not aware of any PTACs or PTHPs that are currently
using heat pipes or PTHPs using scroll compressors. Regarding scroll
compressors, DOE is not aware of any scroll compressors of suitable
capacity and size with better efficiency than available rotary
compressors. DOE has therefore tentatively concluded to keep heat pipes
and scroll compressors screened out of the engineering analysis.
Alternate Refrigerants
Nearly all PTAC and PTHP equipment is designed with R-410A as the
refrigerant. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'')
Significant New Alternatives Policy (``SNAP'') Program evaluates and
regulates substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals (such as air
conditioning refrigerants) that are being phased out under the
stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act
(``CAA''). (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) \17\ The EPA SNAP Program currently
includes 31 \18\ acceptable alternatives for refrigerant used in the
new Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning class of
equipment (which includes PTAC and PTHP equipment).\19\ On May 6, 2021,
the EPA published a final rule allowing the use of R-32, R-452B, R-
454A, R-454B, R-454C and R-457A, subject to use conditions. 86 FR
24444.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Additional information regarding EPA's SNAP Program is
available online at: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.
\18\ Refrigerant THR-03 is not included in this count because it
is acceptable for use only in residential window air conditioners;
Refrigerants R-1270 and R-443A were deemed unacceptable as of Jan 3,
2017; Refrigerants R-417C, R-427A and R-458A are only approved for
retrofit applications.
\19\ Information available at: www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-residential-and-light-commercial-air-conditioning-and-heat-pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 27, 2020, the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act
of 2020 was enacted in section 103 in Division S, Innovation for the
Environment, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-
260; codified at 42 U.S.C. 7675). The American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020 provides EPA specific authority to address
hydrofluorocarbons (``HFC''), including to: (1) phase down HFC
production and consumption of listed HFCs through an allowance
allocation and trading program, (2) establish requirements for the
management of HFCs and HFC substitutes in equipment (e.g., air
conditioners); and (3) facilitate sector-based transitions away from
HFCs. 42 U.S.C. 7675(e), (h), (i) Under the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act of 2020, EPA is authorized to issue rules in response
to petitions to establish sector-based HFC restrictions. 42 U.S.C.
7675(i)(3) On October 14, 2021, EPA granted ten petitions in full,
including one petition by AHRI et al., titled, ``Restrict the Use of
HFCs in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioners'' (``AHRI
petition''), in which the petitioners requested EPA to require
residential and light commercial air conditioners (which includes PTAC
and PTHP equipment) to use refrigerants with GWP of 750 or less, with
such requirement applying to these equipment manufactured after January
1, 2025, excluding variable refrigerant flow (``VRF'') equipment.\20\
86 FR 57141. DOE is also aware that the California Air Resources Board
(``CARB'') finalized a rulemaking effective January 1, 2022, which
prohibits the use of refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or greater starting
January 1, 2023, in several new air-conditioning equipment, including
PTACs and PTHPs.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0289-0011.
\21\ Available at: ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE received several
comments regarding the consideration of alternate refrigerants as a
technology option. AHRI suggested that alternative refrigerants should
remain a screened-out technology. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 7) AHRI stated
that California is seeking to establish a January 1, 2023, effective
date to limit the GWP of refrigerants in PTACs and PTHPs to 750,\22\
[[Page 37947]]
commenting that only R-32 is available currently, but six other options
are pending EPA approval as part of SNAP Rule 23.\23\ Id. AHRI
commented that sourcing components for new refrigerants in a complete
product line will be challenging, particularly to meet a deadline less
than two years away, without a full range of refrigerant options
approved. Additionally, for any new refrigerant, AHRI asserted that
manufacturers will need to retest products for both efficiency and to
meet relevant safety standards. Id. GEA requested that DOE consider the
substantial regulatory burden created by the complex refrigeration
transition from both state-led low-GWP refrigerant requirements and by
shifting federal requirements for refrigerant use and restrictions in
municipal building codes. (GEA, No. 10 at pp. 2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ As discussed previously, the CARB finalized this regulation
order effective January 1, 2022.
\23\ EPA finalized a rule on May 6, 2021, allowing R-452B, R-
454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-457A and R-32 for new residential and light
commercial air conditioning and heat pumps. 86 FR 24444.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA, ASAP and CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider alternate
refrigerants in the analysis. NEEA stated that additional refrigerants
have been proposed by the EPA for SNAP since standards were last
considered for PTACs and PTHPs and that given the likelihood that the
new SNAP rules will be finalized in advance of an updated standard, DOE
should consider efficiency improvements from alternative refrigerants,
such as hydrocarbons. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 5) The CA IOUs asserted that
PTAC and PTHPs manufactured after an updated standard takes effect will
likely use low-GWP refrigerants. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) The CA IOUs
stated that the passage of the American Innovation and Manufacturing
Act of 2020 effectively mandates a phase-out of HFCs and therefore,
urged DOE to consider the potential benefits of these low-GWP
refrigerants. Id. The CA IOUs additionally commented that California
and other states are also pursuing regulations to require low-GWP
refrigerants in residential air conditioners and heat pumps starting
January 1, 2025. Id.
DOE is aware of the changing landscape of refrigerants as they
relate to PTACs and PTHPs, particularly the AHRI petition that
requested the EPA to require residential and light commercial air
conditioners to use refrigerants with GWP of 750 or less, with such
requirement applying to this equipment manufactured after January 1,
2025, excluding VRF,\24\ and that was granted on October 14, 2021. 86
FR 57141.\25\ On December 29, 2021, EPA published a notification
informing the public that they would not be using the negotiated
rulemaking procedure to develop a proposed rule or rules associated
with the eleven American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020
petitions (including the AHRI petition), but will instead use the
traditional regular notice-and-comment rulemaking process. 86 FR 74080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0289-0011.
\25\ After granting a petition, EPA must initiate a rulemaking
and publish a final rule within 2 years of the petition grant date
i.e. Oct 15, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the petition to require use of with GWP of 750 or less
in PTAC and PTHP equipment, DOE reviewed certain SNAP approved
substitutes that met this criterion. These are listed in Table IV-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ ASHRAE assigns safety classification to the refrigerants
based on toxicity and flammability data. The capital letter
designates a toxicity class based on allowable exposure and the
numeral denotes flammability. For toxicity, Class A denotes
refrigerants of lower toxicity, and Class B denotes refrigerants of
higher toxicity. For flammability, class 1 denotes refrigerants that
do not propagate a flame when tested as per the standard; class 2
and 2L denotes refrigerants of lower flammability; and class 3, for
highly flammable refrigerants such as the hydrocarbons.
Table IV-6--Potential Substitutes for HFCs in New Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning Equipment,
With GWP of 750 or Less
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE safety
Approved substitute GWP value Approval date classification \26\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-290 (Propane)......................... 3 April 10, 2015............ A3.
R-441A.................................. <5 April 10, 2015............ A3.
R-457A.................................. 140 May 6, 2021............... A2L.
R-454C.................................. 150 May 6, 2021............... A2L.
R-454A.................................. 240 May 6, 2021............... A2L.
R-454B.................................. 470 May 6, 2021............... A2L.
HFC-32 (R-32)........................... 675 May 6, 2021............... A2L.
R-452B.................................. 700 May 6, 2021............... A2L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE had previously considered the feasibility of including R-290
and R-441A as alternative refrigerants in the July 2015 final rule, in
which DOE noted that the EPA's final rule published on April 10, 2015
(``EPA April 2015 final rule'') limited the maximum design charge
amount of these refrigerants in PTAC and PTHP applications. 80 FR
43162, 43171. For instance, for a PTAC or PTHP with cooling capacity of
9,000 Btu/h, the EPA April 2015 final rule imposes a maximum design
charge of 140 grams of R-290 or 160 grams of R-441A. 80 FR 19454,
19500. In comparison, DOE reverse engineered eleven units with cooling
capacities around 9,000 Btu/h and found that these units had
refrigerant charges ranging from 600 grams to 950 grams and all units
used refrigerant R-410A. 80 FR 43162, 43171. The refrigerant charges
currently used in current PTAC and PTHP designs far exceed the maximum
charges that are allowed for these alternative refrigerants under the
EPA April 2015 final rule. Additionally, in response to the December
2020 ECS RFI, CA IOUs commented that R-290 will likely not be used in
PTAC and PTHPs because the model safety code that most states will
likely adopt, Board of Standards Review (``BSR'')/ASHRAE Standard
15.2P, ``Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems in Residential
Applications'' (``BSR/ASHRAE Standard 15.2P''), does not allow the use
of A3 refrigerants in residential air conditioners and heat pumps. (CA
IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) PTACs and PTHPs are commercial equipment under
DOE's regulations, but DOE is aware of their use in certain
applications that are treated as ``residential'' under BSR/ASHRAE
Standard 15.2P (e.g., multi-family housing). Therefore, DOE did not
further consider R-290 and R-441A as alternate refrigerants in this
analysis.
For the remaining substitute refrigerants, DOE considered comments
received and conducted a literature review to evaluate whether these
alternate refrigerants could enable better
[[Page 37948]]
energy efficiency than R-410A for PTAC and PTHP equipment. ASAP stated
that it was their understanding that typical PTACs and PTHPs use R-410A
as the refrigerant and that alternatives to R-410A such as R-32, R-
452B, and R-454B can improve efficiency by at least 5%. (ASAP, No. 6 at
p. 1) The CA IOUs also stated that R-32 is the likely replacement for
R-410A in air conditioners and heat pumps, and recommended that DOE
consider R-32 as a design option in this standards analysis, citing
initial studies showing that R-32 improved the COP for VRF systems by
five percent. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3)
DOE reviewed several studies to gauge the efficiency improvements
of the substitute refrigerants as compared to R-410A. Most of these
studies suggested comparable performance to R410A, with some studies
showing slightly below-par performance and others showing improvement
as high as 6% (for R-32). DOE notes that most of these studies were
performed with drop-in applications (where an alternate refrigerant
replaces the existing refrigerant in a system that is optimized for the
existing refrigerant) and were not performed on PTAC or PTHP equipment
specifically. It is possible that these substitute refrigerants might
show efficiencies higher than R-410A in specific applications that have
been optimized for such refrigerants. However, given the uncertainty
associated with the studies reviewed, DOE was unable to conclude
whether these refrigerants will improve energy efficiency and by how
much. Therefore, DOE has tentatively decided to keep alternate
refrigerants as a screened-out technology.
Intake and Exhaust Ducts To Reduce Infiltration
DOE has tentatively determined to screen out intake and exhaust
ducts as a technology option. NEEA suggested that infiltration through
and around a PTAC or PTHP can result in significant wasted energy and
that DOE should consider technology options that reduce infiltration
such as the use of air intake and exhaust ducts. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 5)
NEEA provided information pertaining to a unit that uses intake and
exhaust air ducts. Id.
DOE notes that the use of intake and exhaust air ducts would be
inconsistent with the definition of a PTAC and PTHP. PTAC and PTHP are
equipment that are intended for mounting through the wall as opposed to
using ductwork to bring in or exhaust air. See 10 CFR 431.92.
Therefore, DOE has screened out this technology option.
In summary, DOE screened out four technology options based on the
applicable criteria discussed previously. The screened-out technology
options are presented below in Table IV-7.
Table IV-7--Screened Out Technology Options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening criteria (X = basis for screening out)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological Practicability
Screened technology option feasibility to manufacture, Adverse impact Adverse impacts Unique-pathway
install, and on equipment on health and proprietary
service utility safety technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scroll Compressors....................................... X
Heat Pipes............................................... X
Alternative Refrigerants................................. X
Intake and Exhaust Ducts................................. X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Other Technologies Not Considered in the Engineering Analysis
Typically, energy-saving technologies that pass the screening
analysis are evaluated in the engineering analysis. However, in some
cases technologies are not included in the analysis for reasons other
than the screening criteria. These are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Technologies Previously Eliminated From the July 2015 Final Rule
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE identified several technology
options that were not included in the engineering analysis because of
three additional considerations: (1) efficiency benefits of the
technologies were negligible; (2) data was not available to evaluate
the energy efficiency characteristics of the technology; and/or (3)
test procedure and EER and COP metrics did not measure the energy
impact of the technology. 80 FR 43161, 43172; see 79 FR 55538, 55555-
55556 (September 16, 2014). These technologies are listed below under
each consideration:
(1) Efficiency benefits of the technologies were negligible:
Re-circuiting heat exchanger coils;
Rifled interior tube walls;
(2) Data was not available to evaluate the energy efficiency
characteristics of the technology:
Microchannel heat exchangers;
(3) Test procedure and EER and COP metrics did not measure the
energy impact of the technology:
Variable speed compressors;
Complex control boards (fan motor controllers, digital
``energy management'' control interfaces, heat pump controllers);
Corrosion protection;
Hydrophobic material treatment of heat exchangers;
Clutched motor fans; and
TEVs.
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on its prior
exclusion of these technologies and whether there have been changes
that would warrant further consideration. 85 FR 82952, 82959.
In response, AHRI said they supported the DOE's conclusions
regarding the additional technologies identified in development of the
July 2015 final rule, but not included in the engineering analysis.
(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 8).
DOE maintains its position expressed in the July 2015 final rule
that re-circuiting heat exchanger coils and rifled interior tube walls
are used in baseline products, so no additional energy savings would be
expected from their use. 80 FR 43162, 43172 and 79 FR 55538, 55555.
Regarding microchannel heat exchangers, NEEA stated that the technology
can improve heat transfer efficiency by up to 40 percent compared to
traditional fin and tube heat exchangers. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 4)
However, NEEA did not provide any information indicating efficiency
improvement potential in terms of EER or COP for PTACs and PTHPs and
DOE
[[Page 37949]]
is not aware of any substantiated performance data for PTAC or PTHP
operation with microchannels.
Any potential energy savings of complex controls boards, corrosion
protection, hydrophobic material treatment of heat exchangers and
clutched motor fans cannot be measured with the established energy
efficiency metrics (EER and COP) because those technologies are
associated with performance, which is not captured in the EER or COP
metrics used for rating PTACs and PTHPs. Therefore, DOE is proposing to
keep these previously eliminated technologies excluded from the
engineering analysis.
Consideration of variable speed compressors and TEVs is presented
under the next header.
Technology Options Benefiting Part-Load and Low Temperature Performance
As the current EER and COP metrics do not measure part-load
performance and low temperature heating performance, DOE is proposing
to exclude the following technologies from the engineering analysis:
Variable speed condenser fan/motor;
Variable speed indoor blower/motor;
Variable speed compressors;
TEVs
EEVs
Defrost control strategies
Electric resistance boost control strategies
Compressor cut-out controls
As discussed, DOE may consider adopting for PTACs and PTHPs a
cooling-mode metric that integrates part-load performance and a heating
metric that includes performance at low ambient temperatures in the
ongoing test procedure rulemaking. 86 FR 28005, 28009-28011. If DOE
amends the PTAC and PTHP test procedure to incorporate these changes,
it will conduct any analysis for future standards rulemakings, if any,
based on the amended test procedure. DOE is still evaluating potential
amendments to the test procedure. At present, DOE is unable to consider
energy savings from a part-load metric or low temperature heating
performance.
DOE also considered any benefit that these technologies may provide
for the existing full-load metrics (EER and COP), particularly
variable-speed technology. DOE conducted a review of the CCD and has
tentatively concluded that while an increased number of PTACs and PTHPs
are employing variable-speed compressors and fans as compared to the
market at the time of the 2015 rulemaking, the efficiency distributions
of PTACs and PTHPs have not changed significantly. This suggests that
the full-load efficiency benefit of these variable-speed technologies
is minimal.
DOE is also excluding separate indoor and outdoor blower motors as
a technology option from the engineering analysis because this
technology option is already incorporated in most baseline models, and
therefore, no additional energy savings would be expected from their
use. NEEA stated that one manufacturer is using separate indoor and
outdoor blower motors as a strategy to improve efficiency, while also
reducing unit noise. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 5) DOE's past and recent
physical teardowns of PTACs and PTHPs suggest that this technology
option is already incorporated in most baseline models and therefore
little to no additional energy savings would result in consideration of
this technology option.
c. Remaining Technologies
After reviewing each technology, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options and considers them as design options in
the engineering analysis. These technology options are the same as
those retained in the July 2015 final rule:
(1) Higher Efficiency Compressors
(2) Higher Efficiency Fan Motors
(3) Increased Heat Exchanger Area
(4) Improved Air Flow and Fan Design
DOE has tentatively determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially available products or working prototypes and
improve efficiency as determined by the DOE test procedure. For
additional details on the technologies included in the engineering
analysis, see chapter 4 of the July 2015 final rule TSD.
B. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of PTACs and PTHPs. There
are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection
of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class
evaluated, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental
cost for the product/equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline.
The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency
``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP
analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on
the market).
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE adopted an efficiency-level
approach combined with a cost-assessment approach to determine the
cost-efficiency relationship. 80 FR 43162, 43173. Based on the
technology options considered in section IV.A.3 of this document and a
review of available efficiencies in the market, DOE has tentatively
concluded that the available efficiencies on the market have not
significantly changed since the 2015 rulemaking. DOE's review of
current PTAC and PTHP designs also leads to the tentative conclusion
that design options used to achieve higher EER and/or COP have not
changed since 2015. Therefore, in this proposed determination, DOE
utilized the same analysis as in the July 2015 final rule, but with
updated costs to account for inflation and other effects.
[[Page 37950]]
The methodology used to perform the analysis and derive the cost-
efficiency relationship is described in chapter 5 of the July 2015
final rule TSD.
2. Equipment Classes Analyzed
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE developed its engineering analysis
for the six equipment classes associated with standard-size PTACs and
PTHPs. 80 FR 43162, 43174-43177. DOE did not conduct an engineering
analysis for non-standard size equipment classes because of their low
and declining market share and because of a lack of adequate
information to analyze these units. 80 FR 43162, 43174. To assess
whether to develop an analysis for non-standard size equipment classes,
DOE requested comment in the December 2020 ECS RFI as to whether the
technology improvements discussed in IV.A.3 are applicable to both
standard size and non-standard size units and if they have similar
impacts on efficiency. 85 FR 82952, 82960. DOE also requested comment
on whether it is necessary to individually analyze all or some of the
available equipment classes. Id.
In response, AHRI commented that the non-standard size market was
never large and has contracted over the years, and in a shrinking
market new product development is unlikely as it is not economically
justified for the manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 8) AHRI stated that
there have been no significant technology improvements for these
equipment classes to their knowledge. Id. AHRI said that DOE should
employ best efforts to develop a robust and complete analysis and
analyze all six standard-size equipment classes individually, but
recognized this may not be possible. Id. AHRI stated that if DOE does
not analyze all products, then the 9,000 and 12,000 Btu/h, nominal
cooling capacities should be prioritized, followed by the 7,000 Btu/h
and 15,000 Btu/h categories. Id.
In light of AHRI's comment regarding the non-standard size market
contracting, and given the lack of market data pertaining to the non-
standard size equipment classes, DOE has tentatively decided to not
analyze amended standards for the non-standard size equipment classes.
For the six standard size equipment classes, DOE has tentatively
decided to use the analysis from the July 2015 final rule, in which DOE
selected two cooling capacities for analysis: 9,000 Btu/h and 15,000
Btu/h. See 80 FR 43162, 43174. Inclusion of the 9,000 Btu/h category as
in the July 2015 final rule is consistent with AHRI's suggestion to
prioritize that category. DOE also retained the 15,000 Btu/h category
to stay consistent with the analysis in the July 2015 final rule, in
which DOE selected 15,000 Btu/h as a representative capacity in
response to manufacturer comments stating that it is technically
challenging to achieve high efficiency in 15,000 Btu/h models and the
analysis should explicitly analyze the 15,000 Btu/h capacity. See 80 FR
43162, 43174.
Table IV-8 sets out the equipment classes analyzed in this
rulemaking.
Table IV-8--Equipment Classes Analyzed in this Rulemaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Category Cooling capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC............................ Standard Size..... <7,000 Btu/h.
>=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
>15,000 Btu/h.
PTHP............................ Standard Size..... <7,000 Btu/h.
>=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
>15,000 Btu/h.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Baseline Efficiency Levels
DOE considered the current minimum energy conservation standards to
establish the baseline efficiency levels for each standard size
equipment class, using the 9,000 btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h cooling
capacities as representative capacities for the standard size equipment
classes. The baseline efficiency levels for the analyzed representative
units are presented below in Table IV-9.
Table IV-9--Baseline Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline efficiency Baseline
Equipment type Equipment class equation Cooling capacity efficiency level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC........................... Standard Size.... EER = 14.0-(0.300 x 9,000 Btu/h...... 11.3 EER.
Cap [dagger]/1000).
15,000 Btu/h..... 9.5 EER.
PTHP........................... Standard Size.... EER = 14.0-(0.300 x 9,000 Btu/h...... 11.3 EER.
Cap [dagger]/1000). 3.2 COP.
COP = 3.7-(0.052 x Cap 15,000 Btu/h..... 9.5 EER.
[dagger]). 2.9 COP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95[deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
4. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
also considers the max-tech efficiency level, which it defines as the
level that represents the theoretical maximum possible efficiency if
all available design options are incorporated in a model. In many
cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially available
because it is not economically feasible.
As mentioned earlier, the technology options that were screened in
for this analysis are the same as those considered for the July 2015
final rule. In the July 2015 final rule, DOE determined the max-tech
improvements in energy efficiency for PTACs and PTHPs in the
engineering analysis using the design parameters that passed the
screening analysis, a combination of the efficiency-level approach, and
the
[[Page 37951]]
reverse engineering analysis. 80 FR 43162, 43168.
Table IV-10 shows the max-tech efficiency levels presented in the
December 2020 ECS RFI, which were those from the July 2015 Final rule
and set to be 16.2 percent above the baseline, and the maximum-
available efficiency levels based on the current market for each
equipment class. 85 FR 82952, 82960-82961. DOE has test data to verify
that one standard size PTHP unit belonging to the equipment class of
cooling capacity greater than 7,000 Btu/h and less than 15,000 Btu/h,
demonstrated a cooling efficiency at this ``max tech'' level. 79 FR
55538, 55558.
Table IV-10--Max-Tech and Maximum-Available Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max-tech July Maximum-available
Equipment class 2015 final rule current market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size PTAC <7,000 Btu/h. 13.8 EER \a\...... 13.0 EER.
Standard Size PTAC >=7,000 Btu/h EER = 16.3-(0.354 EER = 15.8-(0.308
and <=15,000 Btu/h. x Cap \b\). x Cap \b\) \c\.
Standard Size PTAC >15,000 Btu/h 11.0 EER.......... 9.7 EER.
Standard Size PTHP <7,000 Btu/h. 13.8 EER \a\...... 13.1 EER.
3.8 COP \a\....... 4.0 COP.
Standard Size PTHP >=7,000 Btu/h EER = 16.3-(0.354 EER = 15.8-(0.308
and <=15,000 Btu/h. x Cap \b\). x Cap \b\) \c\.
COP = 4.3-(0.073 x COP = 4.6-(0.075 x
Cap \b\). Cap \b\) \c\.
Standard Size PTHP >15,000 Btu/h 11.0 EER.......... N/A \d\.
\3\. 3.2 COP...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Based on Max Tech equation shown for Standard Size PTACs and PTHPs,
>=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h at a value of 7,000 Btu/h.
\b\ Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h.
\c\ Based on method of creating a linear fit between the two models in
the CCD Database that were the highest absolute value above the
baseline.
\d\ Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the
market, DOE did not identify any PTHP models with a cooling capacity
greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE sought input on whether these
maximum available efficiency levels are appropriate as the max-tech for
potential consideration as possible energy conservation standards for
the equipment at issue--and if not, what efficiency levels should be
considered max-tech. 85 FR 82952, 82961. DOE also requested feedback on
what design options to incorporate at the max-tech efficiency level and
whether there are any limitations on the use of certain combinations.
Id. DOE also requested comment on whether certain design options may
not be applicable to specific equipment classes. Id.
AHRI stated that based on their analysis per the AHRI Directory,
the ranges of efficiencies available for PTACs and PTHPs are very
limited and that there are no significant advances or changes in
technology. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 9) AHRI provided tables showing
efficiency ranges of PTACs and PTHPs that it stated identifies several
instances where the max tech identified in the July 2015 final rule is
above the current market. Id. AHRI also stated that there are issues
with implementing bent heat exchangers and improved air flow and fan
design as concurrent design options, stating that bent heat exchangers
may impose an additional pressure drop that the indoor fan must
overcome, thus not improving EER of the equipment. (AHRI, No. 8 at p.
9) AHRI stated that if both bent heat exchangers and improved air flow
and fan design are implemented as design options, DOE should account
for the significant additional design, evaluation and testing that
would be required to optimize the system to achieve the desired
efficiency. Id. at 11. AHRI stated that in the 2015 rulemaking DOE did
not account for this interaction, nor the cost associated to resolve it
in the analysis. Id. AHRI also commented that higher efficiency
compressors, particularly at smaller capacities, are still in
development, and cautioned DOE to consider state and federal
regulations impacting the equipment (such as requiring to use low-GWP
refrigerants) accordingly so that new efficiency standards do not
precede market developments. (AHRI No. 8 at pp. 11-12)
AHRI also commented that the efficiency ranges available for PTACs
and PTHPs are limited, which is consistent with with DOE's findings
based on its own market research. (AHRI No. 8 at p. 9) DOE was unable
to identify significant advances since the July 2015 final rule, based
on a review of the CCD. DOE is aware that in some instances, the max-
tech levels identified in the July 2015 final rule are higher than the
current maximum available efficiencies in the market per CCD and the
AHRI directory--however, DOE has tentatively determined that the max-
tech levels from 2015 are still suitable for this analysis because
these levels were achieved by models that were commercially available.
Since the screened in design options for this engineering analysis are
the same as those considered in the July 2015 final rule and the
available efficiencies have not significantly changed since the 2015
rulemaking, DOE sees no reason to revise the max-tech levels. Regarding
the design interaction described by AHRI, DOE notes that the analysis
presented in the July 2015 final rule did consider pressure drop
impacts associated with bent heat exchangers. See 80 FR 43162, 43173.
In its analysis, DOE considered at least three units that contained a
bent heat exchanger. DOE based its analysis on the measured performance
of these units (one of which performed at the max-tech efficiency
level). The measured performance of these units includes the impact of
additional pressure drop associated with the bent heat exchangers. Id.
Regarding AHRI's comment on higher efficiency compressors, DOE is
cognizant of the changing landscape of state and federal regulations,
especially as they relate to alternate refrigerants and how they affect
the development of higher efficiency compressors. As discussed in
Section IV.A.4.a of this document, DOE has tentatively decided to keep
alternate refrigerants as a screened-out technology.
The CA IOUs stated that they identified 30 PTHP models that meet or
exceed the heating max-tech COP level from DOE's 2015 final rule TSD
and encouraged DOE to investigate the technologies used in these
products to improve their efficiencies and update the engineering
analysis accordingly. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2)
DOE is aware that there are PTHP models on the market that exceed
the
[[Page 37952]]
max-tech COP levels in the July 2015 final rule. DOE notes that a
PTHP's EER and COP are related and cannot be independently analyzed,
therefore the COP max-tech levels in the July 2015 final rule were
developed by correlating the COP associated with each efficiency level
with the efficiency level's EER based on COP and EER ratings from the
AHRI database. 80 FR 43162, 43175. DOE then established a
representative curve based on this data to obtain a relationship for
COP in terms of EER and used this relationship to select COP values
corresponding to each efficiency level. Id. Therefore, the COP max-tech
values correspond to the max-tech EER values. DOE is aware that these
COP max-tech values may not align with the highest COP values currently
available in the market, but DOE considers them to be more
representative of a max-tech unit at the highest EER.
In summary, because the design options retained for this rulemaking
are the same as those considered for the July 2015 final rule, and a
review of the CCD suggests that that the available efficiencies have
not significantly changed since the 2015 rulemaking, DOE is proposing
to maintain the same max-tech levels for this rulemaking.
5. Incremental Efficiency Levels
DOE analyzed several incremental efficiency levels between the
baseline and max-tech levels and obtained incremental cost data at each
of these levels. DOE considered five efficiency levels beyond the
baseline efficiency level up to the max-tech level for each equipment
class. These levels are 2.2%, 6.2%, 10.2%, 14.2% and 16.2% more
efficient than the amended PTAC and PTHP standards that became
effective on July 21, 2015 and are the same incremental efficiency
levels evaluated in the July 2015 final rule. These levels are
presented in Table IV-11.
Table IV-11--Incremental Efficiency Levels for Standard Size PTACs and PTHPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency levels (percentages relative to 2015 ECS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Cooling capacity EL5, 16.2% (max-
Baseline * EL1, 2.2% EL2, 6.2% EL3, 10.2% EL4, 14.2% tech)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC.......................... All, EER......... 14.0-(0.300 x Cap 14.4-(0.312 x Cap 14.9-(0.324 x Cap 15.5-(0.336 x Cap 16.0-(0.348 x Cap 16.3-(0.354 x Cap
[dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger])
9,000 Btu/h...... 11.3 EER.............. 11.5 EER.............. 12.0 EER.............. 12.4 EER.............. 12.9 EER.............. 13.1 EER
15,000 Btu/h..... 9.5 EER............... 9.7 EER............... 10.0 EER.............. 10.4 EER.............. 10.8 EER.............. 11.0 EER
PTHP.......................... All, EER......... 14.0-(0.300 x Cap 14.4-(0.312 x Cap 14.9-(0.324 x Cap 15.5-(0.336 x Cap 16.0-(0.348 x Cap 16.3-(0.354 x Cap
[dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger])
All, COP......... 3.7-(0.052 x Cap 3.8-(0.058 x Cap 4.0-(0.064 x Cap 4.1-(0.068 x Cap 4.2-(0.070 x Cap 4.3-(0.073 x Cap
[dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger]). [dagger])
9,000 Btu/h...... 11.3 EER.............. 11.5 EER.............. 12.0 EER.............. 12.4 EER.............. 12.9 EER.............. 13.1 EER
3.2 COP............... 3.3 COP............... 3.4 COP............... 3.5 COP............... 3.6 COP............... 3.6 COP
15,000 Btu/h..... 9.5 EER............... 9.7 EER............... 10.0 EER.............. 10.4 EER.............. 10.8 EER.............. 11.0 EER
2.9 COP............... 2.9 COP............... 3.0 COP............... 3.1 COP............... 3.2 COP............... 3.2 COP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This level represents the current Federal minimum standards for PTAC and PTHP equipment.
[dagger] Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95[deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
In response to the December 2020 ECS RFI, AHRI commented that in
the July 2015 rulemaking DOE assumed that PTACs and PTHPs are
fundamentally the same and should be able to meet the same efficiency
levels with the same technology options. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 10) AHRI
asserted that this is not the case and there are certain intrinsic
characteristics which allow PTHPs to operate more efficiently than
PTACs. Id. AHRI stated that if the construction between a given PTAC
and PTHP is essentially the same (i.e., same coils, refrigerant
circuiting, components, etc.), and differs only by the presence of a
reversing valve, then for a given design target superheat at the
compressor inlet, there is an opportunity for the PTHP to operate the
evaporator at a lower outlet superheat, thereby allowing for more
evaporative capacity for a tradeoff of little to no more total power
input. Id. AHRI stated this allows PTHPs to operate at higher EER than
a similar PTAC. Id. at 11.
DOE's review of CCD listings of standard size PTACs and PTHPs with
cooling capacities greater than 7,000 btu/h and less than 15,000 btu/h
indicates that the cooling efficiency distributions of the two classes
are comparable. This suggests that using the same incremental
efficiency levels are appropriate for PTACs and PTHPs. DOE notes that
AHRI did not recommend a distinction between the PTAC and PTHP
incremental efficiency levels and considers it a clarification. As
such, DOE proposes to maintain the same incremental efficiency levels
for PTACs and PTHPs in this rulemaking.
6. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the equipment on
the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g. large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys
using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE performed a cost analysis that
involved testing and then conducting physical teardowns on several test
units to develop a manufacturing cost model and to evaluate key design
features (e.g., improved heat exchangers, compressors, fans/fan
motors). 80 FR 43162, 43176. The design options being considered in
this rulemaking are the same as in the
[[Page 37953]]
2015 rulemaking. Furthermore, DOE's review of CCD and comments received
from AHRI, suggest that the efficiency distributions for available
PTACs and PTHPs have not changed compared to the 2015 rulemaking.
Therefore, DOE considers that the cost analysis conducted for the July
2015 final rule is still relevant for this rulemaking. Details of the
cost-efficiency analysis conducted for the July 2015 final rule can be
found in chapter 5 of the July 2015 final rule TSD. Because of the time
that has passed since the July 2015 final rule, DOE adjusted the cost
analysis for inflation and other market effects. To adjust the cost
analysis, DOE used industry specific producer price index (``PPI'')
data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (``BLS''). The PPI
measures the average change over time in the selling prices from the
perspective of the seller. DOE evaluated the change in PPI from the
year 2013 (used in the previous rulemaking) to year 2021 (current
rulemaking), and used the percent increase to scale the manufacturer
production costs (``MPCs'') from the previous rulemaking.
7. Cost-Efficiency Results
The results of the engineering analysis are reported as a set of
cost-efficiency data (or ``curves'') in the form of MPC (in dollars)
versus EER, which form the basis for other analyses in the NOPD. DOE
created cost-efficiency curves for the two representative cooling
capacities within the two standard-size equipment classes of PTACs and
PTHPs, as discussed in section IV.B.2 previously. DOE developed the
incremental cost-efficiency results shown in Table IV-12 for each
representative cooling capacity. These cost results are incremented
from a baseline efficiency level equivalent to the current federal
minimum standards.
Table IV-12--Incremental Manufacturing Production Costs (MPC) for Standard Size PTACs and PTHPs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency levels
Equipment type Cooling capacity -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline * EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC.............................. 9,000 Btu/h......... $0.00 $5.22 $15.36 $26.32 $38.11 $44.31
15,000 Btu/h........ 0.00 5.00 18.71 36.37 58.00 70.30
PTHP.............................. 9,000 Btu/h......... 0.00 5.22 15.36 26.32 38.11 44.31
15,000 Btu/h........ 0.00 5.00 18.71 36.37 58.00 70.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This level represents the current federal minimum standards for PTAC and PTHP equipment.
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested information on how it
could conduct the cost-efficiency analyses for PTHPs greater than
15,000 Btu/h, for which there are no models on the market and for which
DOE does not have data. 85 FR 82952, 82961.
In response, AHRI noted that they had identified six model listings
for PTACs with cooling capacities greater than 15,000 Btu/h and that it
would be reasonable to expect a PTHP of similar size to be slightly
more efficient, based on reasoning discussed earlier. (AHRI, No. 8 at
p. 12) For heating, AHRI stated that it is reasonable to consider the
efficiency of PTHP with cooling capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h to
be equivalent to PTHP with cooling capacity equal to 15,000 Btu/h. Id.
For this analysis, DOE considered the cooling efficiency of PTHP
greater than 15,000 Btu/h to be equivalent to PTACs greater than 15,000
Btu/h. As discussed earlier in Section IV.B.5, the overall cooling
efficiency distributions of standard size PTACs and PTHPs with cooling
capacities greater than 7,000 Btu/h and less than 15,000 Btu/h are very
similar, suggesting that using an equivalent cooling efficiency for
PTHP greater than 15,000 btu/h to that of PTACs greater than 15,000
Btu/h is appropriate.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applied a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on
whether a manufacturer markup of 1.27, as used in July 2015 final rule,
is appropriate for PTACs and PTHPs. 85 FR 82952, 82961. DOE did not
receive any comments pertaining to this, and therefore DOE retained the
manufacturer markup of 1.27 for this analysis.
C. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step
in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product
to cover business costs and profit margin.
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE identified four distribution
channels for PTACs and PTHPs to describe how the equipment passes from
the manufacturer to the consumer. 80 FR 43162, 43177. The four
distribution channels are listed:
The first distribution channel is only used in the new construction
market, and it represents sales directly from a manufacturer to the end
use customer through a national account.
Manufacturer [rarr] National Account [rarr] End user
The second distribution channel represents replacement markets,
where a manufacturer sells to a wholesaler, who sells to a mechanical
contractor, who in turn sells to the end user.
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Mechanical Contractor [rarr] End
user
The third distribution channel, which is used in both new
construction and replacement markets, the manufacturer sells the
equipment to a wholesaler, who in turn sells it to a mechanical
contractor, who in turn sells its to a general contractor, who sells it
to the end user.
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Mechanical Contractor [rarr]
General Contractor[rarr] End user
Finally, in the fourth distribution channel, which is also used in
both the new construction and replacement markets, a manufacturer sells
to a wholesaler, who in turn sells directly to the end user.
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] End User
80 FR 43162, 43177.
[[Page 37954]]
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested information on the
existence of any distribution channels other than these four
distribution channels identified in the July 2015 Final Rule and also
requested data on the fraction of PTAC and PTHP sales that go through
each of the four identified distribution channels as well as the
fraction of sales through any other identified channels. 85 FR 82952,
82962.
AHRI commented that DOE's assumption that no replacements are made
through direct sales from the manufacturer to the customer was
incorrect in the July 2015 final rule. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 12) AHRI
stated that certain national accounts purchase replacements through
direct sales. Id. DOE did not receive any comments about the fraction
of PTAC and PTHP sales through each distribution channel.
DOE did not find any data to indicate the magnitude of PTAC/PTHP
replacement sales through national accounts and AHRI did not provide
any estimates of the national account replacement channel. However, DOE
understands that while certain PTAC and PTHP owners may purchase
replacement units through a national accounts channel, DOE does not
expect the replacement volume to be very large. Thus, DOE believes that
this channel is likely to be a minimal part of the market and has not
added it to the analysis.
In summary, DOE considered the four distribution channels shown in
Table IV-13 and estimated percentages of the total sales in the new
construction and replacement markets for each of the four distribution
channels as listed in Table IV-14.
Table IV-3--Distribution Channels for PTAC and PTHP Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer (through national Manufacturer........... Manufacturer........... Manufacturer.
accounts).
Wholesaler............. Wholesaler............. Wholesaler.
Mechanical Contractor.. Mechanical Contractor.
General Contractor.
Consumer............................. Consumer............... Consumer............... Consumer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-14--Share of Market by Distribution Channel for PTAC and PTHP
Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New construction Replacement
Distribution channel (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wholesaler-Consumer................. 30 15
Wholesaler-Mech Contractor-Consumer. 0 25
Wholesaler-Mech Contractor-General 38 60
Contractor-Consumer................
National Account.................... 32 0
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 100 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE updated the sources used in the July 2015 final rule to derive
markups for each step of the distribution channels with the following
data sources: (1) the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey,\27\ to
develop wholesaler markups; (2) the Air Conditioning Contractors of
America's (``ACCA'') ``2005 Financial Analysis for the HVACR
Contracting Industry'' \28\ and 2017 U.S. Census Bureau economic data
\29\ to develop mechanical contractor markups; and (3) 2017 U.S. Census
Bureau economic data for the commercial and institutional building
construction industry to develop general contractor markups.\30\ The
overall markup is the product of all the markups (baseline or
incremental markups) for the different steps within a distribution
channel. Replacement channels include sales taxes, which were
calculated based on State sales tax data reported by the Sales Tax
Clearinghouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Report,
NAICS 4236: Household Appliances and Electrical and Electronic Goods
Merchant Wholesalers. 2017. Washington, DC www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html.
\28\ ``2005 Financial Analysis for the HVACR Contracting
Industry,'' Air Conditioning Contractors of America. 2005.
\29\ ``Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors.
Sector 23: 238220. Construction: Industry Series, Preliminary
Detailed Statistics for Establishments, 2017,'' U.S. Census Bureau.
2017. Available at: www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-23.html.
\30\ ``2017 Economic Census, Construction Industry Series and
Wholesale Trade Subject Series,'' U.S. Census Bureau. Available
online at www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-23.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6 of the NOPD TSD provides details on DOE's development of
the markups.
D. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
unit energy consumption (``UEC'') of PTACs and PTHPs at different
efficiencies in representative U.S. commercial buildings, and to assess
the energy savings potential of increased PTAC and PTHP efficiency. The
energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of PTACs and
PTHPs in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The
energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE
performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the
savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of
amended or new standards.
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE adjusted the UECs that were used
in the October 2008 final rule to account for the different efficiency
levels and equipment classes. 80 FR 43162, 43178; see 73 FR 58772. DOE
began with the cooling UECs for PTACs and the cooling and heating UECs
for PTHPs from the October 2008 final rule. Where identical efficiency
levels and cooling capacities were available, DOE used the cooling and
heating UEC directly from the October 2008 final rule. For additional
efficiency levels, DOE scaled the cooling UECs based on interpolations
between EERs and scaled the heating UECs based on interpolations of
COPs, both at a constant cooling capacity. For additional cooling
capacities, DOE scaled the UECs based on interpolations between cooling
capacities and a constant EER. Once DOE determined the UECs by EL and
product class, DOE adjusted the base-year UEC to account
[[Page 37955]]
for changes in climate between 2008 and 2013 based on a typical
meteorological year (``TMY'') hourly weather data set (referred to as
TMY2) and an updated data set (referred to as TMY 3). 80 FR 43162,
43178.
In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on the approach
used in the July 2015 final rule to develop UECs along with a request
for comment on the approach to measure energy use of make-up air PTACs
and PTHPs. 85 FR 82952, 82962.
AHRI commented that it has concerns regarding the approach used to
develop UECs in the energy use analysis for the July 2015 final rule.
AHRI stated that DOE should account for the following changes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 at a minimum: (1) section 6.3.2g mandates that the system
be controlled by a manual changeover or dual set point thermostat, (2)
section 6.3.2h applicable to PTHPs with auxiliary internal electric
resistance heaters, mandates that controls must be provided to prevent
supplemental heater operation when the heating load can be met by the
heat pump alone, and (3) section 6.4.3.1 requires thermostatic controls
to include off-hour controls, automatic shutdown and setback controls.
(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 13).
AHRI also commented that the 2008 analysis assumed that PTACs and
PTHPs would be used to cool the lobby and lounge space of a small hotel
and that this space is typically not conditioned by PTACs/PTHPs. Id.
AHRI also commented that the UECs were higher in the July 2015 final
rule than in the September 2014 Notice of Data Availability and does
not understand how the UECs at identical efficiency levels could
increase in that time period. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 14).
Regarding make-up air units, AHRI stated that DOE should focus on
making the changes to the energy use analysis mentioned above before it
expends resources on a small market segment. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 14)
NEEA suggested that DOE include the ability to provide ventilation and
make-up air to a space and measure the energy use associated with
cooling, heating, and dehumidifying ventilation air. (NEEA, No. 9 at p.
5)
NEEA also suggested that DOE's energy use analysis should capture a
range of operating conditions for PTACs and PTHPs. (NEEA, No. 9 at p.
6) NEEA suggested that DOE model the energy use in lodging applications
as well as residential care and multifamily buildings. Id.
In response to the comments from AHRI and NEEA, DOE updated its
energy use analysis for this NOPD. To develop UECs, DOE began with the
cooling and heating loads from the new construction 2004 vintage, small
hotel commercial reference building prototype.\31\ While more recent
prototypes are available that reflect more current building codes, DOE
notes that its energy use analysis is meant to represent the energy use
in the current stock of buildings that use PTACs and PTHPs and the 2004
prototype is more reflective of the stock than a newer prototype.\32\
This prototype is a four floor, rectangular building with 35 guest
rooms, each of which uses a PTAC for cooling and heating. The cooling
and heating loads were developed in EnergyPlus \33\ using TMY3 weather
data along with the default assumptions for building envelope,
ventilation, occupancy schedule, cooling and heating thermostat set
points, and square footage. A detailed description of the small hotel
commercial reference building can be found on the DOE commercial
reference building website.\34\ The UECs were developed only using the
guestroom load profiles and the PTHP UECs use the heat-pump to meet the
heating loads. DOE notes that it provided an explanation for the higher
UECs in the July 2015 final rule, as DOE added a multiplier to account
for the change in weather data (the 2008 analysis was run using TMY2
and in 2015 TMY3 data was available), which led to higher UECs. 80 FR
43162, 43178-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/new-construction-commercial-reference-buildings.
\32\ In Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(``CBECS'') 2018, 80% of lodging buildings that use an individual
room air conditioner were constructed prior to the year 2000.
\33\ www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyplus-0.
\34\ www.energy.gov/eere/downloads/reference-buildings-building-type-small-hotel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE understands NEEA's suggestion to model variability by building
type, however, DOE notes that small hotels make up the large majority
of PTAC and PTHP shipments (approximately 80 percent) and the internal
loads of residential care guestrooms and apartments in multifamily
buildings that would use a PTAC or PTHP should not be significantly
different than those of small hotel guestrooms, therefore DOE only
modeled the energy use in small hotels. DOE also notes that the
building cooling and heating loads include ventilation, therefore the
UEC includes the energy required to cool, heat, and dehumidify outside
air.
Of the 35 hotel rooms in the small hotel commercial reference
building prototype, 20 have a design day size below 10,000 Btu/h and
the others have design day sizes above 20,000 Btu/h. The largest
standard size PTACs and PTHPs in CCD \35\ are less than 17,000 Btu/h,
therefore, DOE did not consider the small hotel guestroom loads with
design days over 20,000 Btu/h. To create full load cooling and heating
hours, for each climate zone DOE took the sum of the cooling and
heating loads from the 20 guestrooms with a design day size below
10,000 Btu/h and divided them by the sum of the design day capacities
for the same hotel guestrooms. DOE then took the full-load cooling and
heating hours and multiplied them by the full-load cooling and heating
power for each efficiency level. The full-load cooling power was
derived by dividing the representative cooling capacity of either 9,000
Btu/h or 15,000 Btu/h by the EERs of the representative efficiency
levels. The heating power for PTHPs was derived by converting the 9,000
Btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h capacities into Watts, and dividing them by the
representative COPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Air_Conditioners_and_Heat_Pumps_-_Package_Terminal.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Air%20Conditioners%20and%20Heat%20Pumps%20-%20Package%20Terminal%22 (last accessed, 3/25/
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE created UECs for each of the 16 International Energy
Conservation Code (``IECC'') Climate Zones in the U.S. by simulating
the small hotel prototype in one representative city for each climate
zone. DOE used county level population data from the U.S. Census Bureau
\36\ along with a Pacific Northwest Laboratory report,\37\ which
assigned a climate zone to each county in the U.S. to develop
population weighting factors for each climate zone. Next, DOE used the
county level population data and climate zones to determine the
weighted average UEC for each Census Division, with Census Division 9
split into two, California and the remaining states of Census Division
9 (Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and Alaska). The resulting UECs
represent the average small hotel guestroom cooling and heating energy
use for each Census Division (with Census Division 9 split into two
regions as explained previously).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Available at: www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html#par_textimage_70769902.
\37\ Available at: www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/ba_climate_region_guide_7.3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE made further adjustments to each UEC for each climate zone to
better account for the field energy use of PTACs and PTHPs. The Energy
Information Administration's (``EIA'') National Energy Modeling System
(``NEMS''), which is used to develop the Annual Energy Outlook
(``AEO''),
[[Page 37956]]
develops a time series of scaling factors that capture the improvements
of building envelopes in new and existing buildings over time.\38\
These building shell scalars are multiplied by the UEC to demonstrate
the reduction in cooling and heating energy use by improved building
envelopes by census division and building type between the year of
construction of the small hotel commercial reference building (2004)
and the compliance year (2026). DOE applied the scalars for the lodging
building type to the UECs developed using the cooling and heating loads
from the small hotel commercial reference building. DOE calculated the
improvement between 2004, the year of the small hotel reference
building, and 2026, the compliance year, using the new construction
time series to create a new construction UEC and the existing building
time series to create an existing building UEC in 2026. DOE weighted
the results using shipments projections to new construction (12%) and
existing buildings (88%) to create a weighted average UEC in 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Available at: www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/buildings/buildingshell/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 7 of the NOPD TSD provides details on DOE's energy use
analysis for PTACs and PTHPs.
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
PTACs and PTHPs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation
standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in
operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following
two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them
over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of PTACs and PTHPs in the absence of
new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for
a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for PTACs and PTHPs used in small hotel
guestrooms. As stated previously, DOE developed a sample of small hotel
guestroom PTAC and PTHP UECs by census division based on the DOE small
hotel reference building. For each census division, DOE determined the
average energy consumption for a PTAC or PTHP in a small hotel
guestroom and the appropriate electricity price. By developing a sample
of UECs by census division, the analysis captured the variability in
energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of PTACs
and PTHPs.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for equipment lifetime, discount rates, and
sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for
their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE used to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on
a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability
into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input
values from the probability distributions and PTAC and PTHP user
samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each
efficiency level for 10,000 scenarios per simulation run. The
analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing
the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the
no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given PTAC or PTHP owner,
product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen
product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the
standard level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals
that the PTAC or PTHP owner is not impacted by the standard level. By
accounting for PTAC or PTHP owners who already purchase more-efficient
products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing
product efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of PTACs and PTHPs
as if each were to purchase a new product in the expected year of
required compliance with new or amended standards. Any amended
standards would apply to PTACs and PTHPs manufactured 3 years after the
date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(iv)(I)) For purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2026 as
the first year of compliance with any amended standards for PTACs and
PTHPs.
Table IV-15 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8
of the NOPD TSD and its appendices.
Table IV-15--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost................. Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer, contractor, and
distributor markups and sales tax, as
appropriate. A constant price trend was
used to project product costs.
Installation Costs........... Baseline installation cost determined
with data from RS Means for the 2015
final rule, updated to 2021 dollars.
Assumed no change with efficiency level.
[[Page 37957]]
Annual Energy Use............ The total full-load cooling and heating
hours multiplied by the full load
cooling and heating power at each
efficiency level.
Variability: Based on the 16 IECC climate
zones and representative cities from the
DOE commercial reference building then
mapped to census divisions (with census
division 9 split into California and the
rest of the census division).
Energy Prices................ Electricity: Based on Edison Electric
Institute data of average and marginal
prices.
Variability: Regional energy prices by
census division, with census division 9
separated into California and the rest
of the census division.
Energy Price Trends.......... Based on AEO 2022 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs. Maintenance costs do not change by
efficiency level.
The materials portion of repair costs
changes by efficiency level; the labor
costs are constant and based on RS
Means. Values from 2015 final rule were
converted to 2021 dollars.
Product Lifetime............. Average: 8 years.
Discount Rates............... Commercial Discount rates for lodging,
healthcare, and small office. The
approach involves estimating the cost of
capital of companies that purchase PTAC
and PTHP equipment.
Compliance Date.............. 2026.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD.
1. PTAC and PTHP Equipment Cost
To calculate consumer PTAC and PTHP costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline products and higher-efficiency products because DOE applies an
incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency products.
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE used a constant price trend to
project the equipment prices in the compliance year. 80 FR 43162,
43179. DOE maintained this approach in this NOPD and used a constant
trend for equipment prices between 2021 (the year for which MPCs were
developed) and 2026. The constant trend is based on a historical time
series of the deflated PPI for all other miscellaneous refrigeration
and air conditioning equipment between 1990 and 2021.\39\ The deflated
PPI does not indicate a long term upward or downward trend, therefore
DOE maintained a constant price trend for PTACs and PTHPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Available at: www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used the
installation costs developed from the 2015 final rule \40\ and
converted them to 2021 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator
\41\ to estimate the labor costs associated with baseline installation
cost for PTACs and PTHPs. As representative efficiency levels for PTACs
and PTHPs in this analysis are single-stage, packaged units that fit
into a wall sleeve, DOE found no evidence that installation costs would
be impacted with increased efficiency levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Chapter 8 of the 2015 Final Rule Technical Support
Documents (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0029-0040).
\41\ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each census division, DOE determined the energy consumption for
a PTAC or PTHP in a small hotel guestroom at different efficiency
levels using the approach described previously in section IV.D of this
document.
4. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other
efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2021 using data from Edison
Electric Institute (``EEI'') Typical Bills and Average Rates
reports.\42\ Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this
semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric bills and average
kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by investor-owned
utilities. For the commercial sector, DOE calculated electricity prices
using the methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2019).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Available at: https://netforum.eei.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?WebCode=COEPubSearch&pager=12.
\43\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector,
region, and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices
is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and
energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis. For PTACs
and PTHPs, DOE developed UECs by census division for each equipment
class and efficiency level for the summer (May to September) and winter
(October to April) seasons. The average summer and winter electricity
price for large commercial buildings was used to measure the baseline
energy cost. The summer and winter marginal prices for large commercial
buildings, using a marginal load factor of 0.5 were used to measure the
operating cost savings from higher efficiency PTACs and PTHPs. See
chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for details.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2021
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for
each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in AEO 2022,
which has an end year of 2050.\44\ To estimate price trends after 2050,
DOE kept the energy price constant at the 2050 value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050.
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last
accessed May 5, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing PTAC and
PTHP components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the PTAC or PTHP.
Typically, small incremental increases
[[Page 37958]]
in product efficiency produce no changes in maintenance costs compared
to baseline efficiency products. Repair costs consist of the cost of
labor to perform the repair as well as the cost of materials to replace
the component that has failed. DOE assumes that the labor costs stay
constant and the material costs will increase proportionally with the
incremental increase of the MPC. In the July 2015 final rule, DOE used
the material and labor costs associated with repair of equipment
components covered and not covered by a standard manufacturer warranty.
80 FR 43162, 43180. Based on a report of component failure probability
and warranty terms, and on component material and labor costs from RS
Means data,\45\ DOE determined the expected value of the total cost of
a repair and annualized it to determine the annual repair cost. DOE
scaled by cooling capacity and MSP to determine repair costs for the
equipment classes and considered efficiency levels. Id. For this NOPD,
DOE updated the labor portion of the annualized repair cost using the
GDP implicit price deflator \46\ and updated the material portion of
baseline products by the PPI for Air-conditioning, refrigeration, and
forced air heating equipment manufacturing.\47\ The material portion of
the repair cost for higher efficiency components was scaled with the
MSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ RS Means Company, Inc. ``RSMeans Facilities Maintenance &
Repair Cost Data,'' 2013.
\46\ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF.
\47\ www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requested comment on its approach to modeling repair costs in
the December 2020 RFI. 85 FR 82952, 82963. AHRI commented that DOE
should ensure that out-of-warranty costs are used to measure repairs
that occur after the warranty has expired and that costs are much
higher after the warranty period. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 15).
In response, DOE notes that the methodology used in the July 2015
final rule considered the cost of repairs after the warranty period. 80
FR 43162, 43180. The current annualized repair costs reflect the cost
of a repair after the warranty, therefore DOE did not make any further
updates to the repair costs.
6. Product Lifetime
For PTACs and PTHPs, DOE used the same lifetime estimates from July
2015 final rule. See 80 FR 43162, 43180. DOE requested comment on this
approach to equipment lifetime in the December 2020 ECS RFI. 85 FR
82952, 82963
AHRI commented that DOE has no justification to increase equipment
lifetimes for any PTAC or PTHP application. AHRI suggested that DOE
should focus on time to replacement, rather than time to failure and
that a distribution with a mean lifetime of 5 years should be used in
the analysis. (AHRI, No. 8 at pp. 16-17) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
revisit its lifetime assumptions from the July 2015 final rule and
requested that DOE determine if PTACs or PTHPs that are removed from
lodging applications before they fail are sold in secondary markets.
(CA IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 3-4) ASAP expressed concern that the assumption
that PTAC or PTHP's lifetime in lodging applications is aligned with
hotel renovation cycles may underestimate the average lifetime of a
PTAC or PTHP. (ASAP, No. 6 at p. 2)
In response, DOE maintained the same lifetime assumptions as in the
July 2015 final rule. DOE has not been provided, nor has it identified,
any data to suggest that the average PTAC time to replacement is
shorter than that of the typical hotel renovation cycle. In response to
comments from AHRI, CA IOUs and ASAP, DOE notes that while the average
lifetime is assumed to be eight years, the distribution allows for a
range of lifetimes up to 16 years. Given that DOE used a lifetime
distribution, the analysis captures segments of the market which
replace prior to the 7-year renovation cycle and after the 7-year
renovation cycle. Finally, DOE's lifetime assumption with a mean of 8
years falls between the various stakeholder comments and considering no
additional data were identified to support a shorter or longer life,
DOE is maintaining the same lifetime assumptions as in the July 2015
final rule.
Regarding the comment from the CA IOUs on the secondary market for
PTACs and PTHPs, DOE was unable to find any data sources that provide
the total size of the secondary market. Furthermore, DOE understands
that secondary market sales are often composed of units that fail early
on in their lifetimes and go through a refurbishment and certification
process, as opposed to older units that are directly resold to users
after a renovation. Therefore, DOE did not include secondary market
sales in this NOPD.
7. Discount Rates
DOE's method views the purchase of a higher efficiency appliance as
an investment that yields a stream of energy cost savings. DOE derived
the discount rates for the LCC analysis by estimating the cost of
capital for companies or public entities that purchase PTACs and PTHPs.
For private firms, the weighted average cost of capital (``WACC'') is
commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived
from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both
debt and equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital
is the weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt
financing, as estimated from financial data for publicly traded firms
in the sectors that purchase PTACs and PTHPs.\48\ As discount rates can
differ across industries, DOE estimates separate discount rate
distributions for a number of aggregate sectors with which elements of
the LCC building sample can be associated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Modigliani, F. and M.H. Miller. The Cost of Capital,
Corporations Finance and the Theory of Investment. American Economic
Review. 1958. 48(3): pp. 261-297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this analysis, DOE estimated the cost of capital of companies
that purchase PTAC and PTHP equipment. DOE used the same types of
companies that were used in the July 2015 final rule, large hotel/motel
chains, independent hotel/motel, assisted living/health care, and small
office. 80 FR 43162, 43181. More details regarding the DOE's estimates
of discount rates can be found in Chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of equipment efficiencies under the no-
new-standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards).
To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of PTACs and PTHPs
for 2026, DOE used model counts from CCD \49\ and applied a growth rate
of 1 EER every 35 years, which was used in the July 2015 final rule and
is based on a growth trend in the absence of standards developed in the
2004 commercial unitary air conditioner advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (``2004 ANOPR'').\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last accessed: March 9, 2022).
\50\ See Chapter 10 of DOE's technical support document
underlying DOE's July 29, 2004 ANOPR. (Available at:
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD-0103-0078).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37959]]
80 FR 43162, 43183. The estimated market shares for the no-new-
standards case for PTACs and PTHPs are shown in Table IV-16 of this
document. DOE notes that there are currently units in CCD that are at
the baseline efficiency level, but given the small difference between
the baseline and EL 1, the growth rate of 1 EER every 35 years leads to
no products at the baseline in 2026. See chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD for
further information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions.
Table IV-16--Market Shares for the No-New-Standards Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market share by EL
Equipment type Cooling capacity -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline * EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC.............................. 9,000 Btu/h......... 0% 44% 29% 11% 6% 10%
15,000 Btu/h........ 0 0 52 34 14 0
PTHP.............................. 9,000 Btu/h......... 0 44 21 16 10 9
15,000 Btu/h........ 0 0 41 40 20 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient PTACs and
PTHPs, compared to baseline PTACs and PTHPs, through energy cost
savings. Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that
exceed the life of the PTACs and PTHPs mean that the increased total
installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the
change in total installed cost of the PTACs and PTHPs and the change in
the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline.
The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except
that discount rates are not needed.
F. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual shipments to calculate the national
impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation standards on
energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\51\ The shipments
model takes an accounting approach in tracking market shares of each
equipment class and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting
uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of
in-service equipment stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-
service equipment stocks is a key input to calculations of both the NES
and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age
distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2015 final rule, DOE developed shipment projections
based on historical data and an analysis of key market drivers for this
equipment. 80 FR 43162, 43182. Historical shipments were used to build
up an equipment stock and also to calibrate the shipments model. DOE
separately calculated shipments intended for new construction and
replacement applications. The sum of new construction and replacement
shipments was the total shipments. Id.
New construction shipments were calculated using projected floor
space of healthcare, lodging, and small office buildings from AEO 2014
and historical PTAC and PTHP saturation in new buildings, which was
estimated by dividing historical new shipments by new construction
floor space. 80 FR 43162, 43182. Replacement shipments were equal to
the number of units that fail in a given year. The failures were based
on a retirement function in the form of a Weibull distribution with
inputs based on lifetime values from the LCC analysis to estimate the
number of units of a given age that fail in each year. Id.
In the December 2020 RFI, DOE requested the most recent annual
sales data but did not receive any comments or data on recent sales in
response to the RFI. 85 FR 82952, 82963.
In this NOPD, DOE updated the previous shipments model using the
new construction floor space projections from AEO 2022 for healthcare,
lodging, and small offices. DOE maintained the same saturation for new
buildings to estimate the new shipments and the same distribution of
shipments by equipment class that were used in the previous analysis.
For further information on the shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of
the NOPD TSD.
G. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\52\
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the PTACs and
PTHPs being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the
potential standard levels considered based on projections of annual
product shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total
installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the
present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost
savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime
of PTACs and PTHPs sold from 2026 through 2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the effects of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each
PTAC and PTHP class in the absence of new or amended energy
conservation standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical
trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the
mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case
with projections characterizing the market for each PTAC and PTHP class
if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency
levels (i.e., the ELs or standards cases) for that class. For the
standards cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect
the market shares of PTACs and PTHPs with efficiencies greater than the
standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and
the national consumer costs and savings from each EL. Interested
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV-17 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
[[Page 37960]]
analysis for the NOPD. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows
the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPD TSD for details.
Table IV-17--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.................... Annual shipments from shipments model.
Modeled Compliance Date of 2026.
Standard.
Efficiency Trends............ No-new-standards case--1 EER every 35
years.
Standards cases--1 EER every 35 years.
Annual Energy Consumption per Annual weighted-average values are a
Unit. function of energy use at each EL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a
function of cost at each EL.
Future product prices are constant.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit.. Annual weighted-average values as a
function of the annual energy
consumption per unit and energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost The materials portion of annual repair
per Unit. costs scale with MPCs, maintenance costs
do not change by EL.
Energy Prices................ AEO 2022 projections (to 2050) and
constant 2050 value through 2075.
Energy Site-to-Primary and A time-series conversion factor based on
FFC Conversion. AEO 2022.
Discount Rate................ 3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year................. 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards
cases. Section IV.E.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with
an amended or new standard.
For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards
are assumed to become effective (2026). In this scenario, the market
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard
level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain
unchanged.
To develop no-new-standards case and standards case efficiency
trends after 2026, DOE used the same approach as in the July 2015 final
rule, which grows the efficiency trend at a rate of 1 EER every 35
years for all product classes. 80 FR 43162, 43183.
2. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards
case (EL) and the case with no new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by
multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or
age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated
annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for
the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case.
DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and
converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO 2022.
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the
timeframe of the analysis.
Use of higher-efficiency products is occasionally associated with a
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of
the product due to the increase in efficiency. For PTAC/PTHP, DOE did
not consider any rebound as the entities using the equipment are
typically not the ones paying the energy costs.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences,
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the NIA and emissions analyses
included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR
51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the
August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in
which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National Energy
Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most appropriate tool for its FFC
analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \53\ that EIA uses to
prepare its AEO. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production, and
delivery in the case of natural gas, (including fugitive emissions) and
additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by
power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use
and emissions is described in appendix 10B of the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581(2009)index.php (last
accessed 4/15/2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are: (1) total annual installed cost, (2)
total annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance
costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of
costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the
difference between the no-new-standards case and each standards case in
terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in
installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the
lifetime of each product shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.E.1 of this document, DOE assumed a
constant price trend for PTACs and PTHPs. DOE applied the same constant
price trend to project prices for each PTAC and PTHP class at each
considered efficiency level.
The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the
projected price of the appropriate form of energy, and repair costs,
which remain constant through
[[Page 37961]]
the analysis period. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average regional energy prices by the projection of
annual national-average commercial electricity price changes in the
Reference case from AEO 2022, which has an end year of 2050. To
estimate price trends after 2050, DOE kept the 2050 value constant
through 2075.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
NOPD, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory
analysis.\54\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are
designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/10/09/03-25606/circular-a-4-regulatory-analysis (last accessed April 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for PTACs
and PTHPs. It addresses the ELs examined by DOE and the projected
impacts of each of these levels. Additional details regarding DOE's
analyses are contained in the NOPD TSD supporting this document.
A. Economic Impacts on PTAC and PTHP Consumers
DOE analyzed the cost effectiveness (i.e., the savings in operating
costs throughout the estimated average life of PTACs and PTHPs)
compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges
for, or maintenance expenses of, the PTACs and PTHPs, which are likely
to result from the imposition of a standard at an EL by considering the
LCC and PBP at each EL. These analyses are discussed in the following
sections.
In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
Table V-1 through Table V-4 show the LCC and PBP results for the
ELs considered in this analysis. The simple payback is measured
relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in
the compliance year (see section IV.E.8 of this document). Because some
consumers purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-
standards case, the average savings are less than the difference
between the average LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at
each EL. The savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a
standard at a given EL. Those who already purchase a product with
efficiency at or above a given EL are not affected. Consumers for whom
the LCC increases at a given EL experience a net cost.
Table V-1--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Standard
Size PTACs With a Cooling Capacity of 9,000 Btu/h
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback
Efficiency level LCC savings period
(2021$) (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.................................... $0.00 N/A
EL 2.................................... 1.92 5.6
EL 3.................................... -0.47 6.0
EL 4.................................... -5.60 6.5
EL 5.................................... -8.70 6.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-2--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Standard
Size PTACs With a Cooling Capacity of 15,000 Btu/h
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback
Efficiency level LCC savings period
(2021$) (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.................................... $0.00 N/A
EL 2.................................... 0.00 N/A
EL 3.................................... 6.39 4.1
EL 4.................................... -1.77 4.9
EL 5.................................... -8.68 5.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37962]]
Table V-3--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Standard
Size PTHPs With a Cooling Capacity of 9,000 Btu/h
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback
Efficiency level LCC savings period
(2021$) (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.................................... $0.00 N/A
EL 2.................................... 2.42 5.3
EL 3.................................... 0.72 5.7
EL 4.................................... -3.75 6.2
EL 5.................................... -6.48 6.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-4--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Standard
Size PTHPs With a Cooling Capacity of 15,000 Btu/h
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple payback
Efficiency level LCC savings period
(2021$) (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.................................... $0.00 N/A
EL 2.................................... 0.00 N/A
EL 3.................................... 7.27 4.0
EL 4.................................... -0.66 4.7
EL 5.................................... -7.07 5.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of
consumer benefits that would result from each of the ELs considered as
potential amended standards.
1. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for PTACs and PTHPs, DOE compared their energy consumption
under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption
under each EL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of
products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of
anticipated compliance with amended standards (2026-2055). Table V-5
presents DOE's projections of the NES for each EL considered for PTACs
and PTHPs. The savings were calculated using the approach described in
section IV.G of this document.
Table V-5--Cumulative National Energy Savings for PTACs and PTHPs; 30 Years of Shipments
[2026-2055]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level (quads)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.................. 0.000 0.002 0.014 0.045 0.068
FFC energy...................... 0.000 0.002 0.015 0.047 0.071
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-4 \55\ requires agencies to present analytical
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this proposed
determination, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years,
rather than 30 years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year
period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain
energy conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance
with such revised standards.\56\ The review timeframe established in
EPCA is generally not synchronized with the product lifetime, product
manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to PTACs and PTHPs.
Thus, such results are presented for informational purposes only and
are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The
NES sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period
are presented in Table V-6. The impacts are counted over the lifetime
of PTACs and PTHPs purchased in 2026 to 2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed
April 15, 2022).
\56\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous
standards. If DOE makes a determination that amended standards are
not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review within three years
following such a determination. As DOE is evaluating the need to
amend the standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the review
timeframe associated with amended standards. While adding a 6-year
review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes
that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year period
and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year
backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given the
variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the
fact that for some products, the compliance period is 5 years rather
than 3 years.
[[Page 37963]]
Table V-6--Cumulative National Energy Savings for PTACs and PTHPs; 9 Years of Shipments
[2026-2034]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level (quads)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.................. 0.000 0.002 0.011 0.023 0.029
FFC energy...................... 0.000 0.002 0.011 0.023 0.030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from an amended standard at each of the
representative ELs considered for PTACs and PTHPs. In accordance with
OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\57\ DOE calculated NPV using
both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. Table V-7 shows
the consumer NPV results with impacts counted over the lifetime of
products purchased in 2026-2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed
April 15, 2022).
Table V-7--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for PTACs and PTHPs; 30 Years of Shipments
[2026-2055]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level (billion 2021$)
Discount rate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent....................... 0.000 -0.004 -0.043 -0.167 -0.268
7 percent....................... 0.000 -0.004 -0.035 -0.116 -0.174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V-8. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of PTACs and PTHPs purchased in 2026-2034. As mentioned
previously, such results are presented for informational purposes only
and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or
decision criteria.
Table V-8--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for PTACs and PTHPs; 9 Years of Shipments
[2026-2034]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level (billion 2021$)
Discount rate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent....................... 0.000 -0.004 -0.033 -0.088 -0.124
7 percent....................... 0.000 -0.004 -0.029 -0.073 -0.102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposed Determination
EPCA specifies that for any commercial and industrial equipment
addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including PTACs and PTHPS,
DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than
the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ``clear
and convincing evidence'' shows that a more-stringent standard 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 ``clear and
convincing'' evidentiary threshold applies both when DOE is triggered
by ASHRAE action and when DOE conducts a six-year-lookback rulemaking,
with the latter being the basis for the current proceeding.
Because an analysis of potential cost-effectiveness and energy
savings first require an evaluation of the relevant technology, DOE
first discusses the technological feasibility of amended standards. DOE
then evaluates the energy savings potential and whether potential
amended standards are economically justified.
1. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for PTACs and PTHPs would be technologically feasible. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available
products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Per
the technology options discussed in section IV.A.3 of this document,
DOE has tentatively determined, based on clear and convincing evidence,
that amended energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs would be
technologically feasible.
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPS would result in result in
significant additional conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
In the present case, DOE estimates that amended standards for PTACs
and PTHPs would result in energy savings of
[[Page 37964]]
0.002 quads at EL 2, 0.013 quads at EL 3, 0.014 quads at EL 4, and
0.062 quads at EL 5 (the max-tech level) over a 30-year analysis period
(2026-2055). However, as discussed in the following section DOE lacks
the clear and convincing evidence necessary to determine that amended
standards for PTACs and PTHPs would be economically justified.
3. Economic Justification
In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the
Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens, considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven
statutory factors discussed previously (see section II.A of this
document). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
One of those seven factors is the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the product in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or
maintenance expenses of the products that are likely to result from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) This factor is typically
assessed using the LCC and PBP analysis, as well as the NPV.
DOE conducted an LCC analysis to estimate the net costs/benefits to
users from increased efficiency in the considered PTACs and PTHPs (See
results in Table V-1 to Table V-4). DOE then aggregated the results
from the LCC analysis to estimate the NPV of the total costs and
benefits experienced by the Nation (See results in Table V-7 and Table
V-8). As noted, the inputs for determining the NPV are: (1) total
annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating costs (energy costs
and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a discount factor to
calculate the present value of costs and savings. A summary of the
analytical results can be found in Table V-9.
Table V-9--Summary of Analytical Results of PTAC and PTHP Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative National FFC Energy Savings (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000 0.002 0.015 0.047 0.071
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits * * * (2021$ billion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate................ 0.000 -0.004 -0.043 -0.167 -0.268
7% discount rate................ 0.000 -0.004 -0.035 -0.116 -0.174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Mean LCC Savings 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size PTACs--9,000 Btu/h 0.00 1.92 -0.47 -5.60 -8.70
Standard Size PTACs--15,000 Btu/ 0.00 0.00 6.39 -1.77 -8.68
h..............................
Standard Size PTHPs--9,000 Btu/h 0.00 2.42 0.72 -3.75 -6.48
Standard Size PTHPs--15,000 Btu/ 0.00 0.00 7.27 -0.66 -7.07
h..............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Mean Payback Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size PTACs--9,000 Btu/h N/A 5.6 6.0 6.5 6.8
Standard Size PTACs--15,000 Btu/ N/A N/A 4.1 4.9 5.3
h..............................
Standard Size PTHPs--9,000 Btu/h N/A 5.3 5.7 6.2 6.4
Standard Size PTHPs--15,000 Btu/ N/A N/A 4.0 4.7 5.1
h..............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates that amended standards for PTACs and PTHPs would
result in NPV of $0.000 at EL 1, of -$0.004 billion at a 3 percent
discount rate and -$0.004 billion at a 7 percent discount rate at EL 2,
of -$0.043 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and -$0.035 billion at
a 7 percent discount rate at EL 3, of -$0.167 billion at a 3 percent
discount rate and -$0.116 billion at a 7 percent discount rate at EL 4,
and of -$0.268 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and -$0.174 billion
at a 7 percent discount rate at EL 5. Based on the NPV being zero at EL
1 and negative at each higher EL, DOE's analysis indicates that
consumers are unlikely to experience a net economic benefit from any
efficiency level above the current baseline. Consequently, DOE has
tentatively determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that
amended energy conservation standards would be economically justified.
4. Summary
Having considered the factors that would serve as the justification
for an amended standard, including national energy savings, DOE has
tentatively found based on its analysis that the benefits of amended
standards would not outweigh the estimated net economic burden to
consumers. Therefore, DOE is proposing to determine that the energy
conservation standards for PTACs and PTHP do not need to be amended,
having initially determined that it lacks ``clear and convincing''
evidence that amended standards would be economically justified. DOE
will consider and respond to all comments received on this proposed
determination in issuing any final determination.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, 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
[[Page 37965]]
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, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') 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 proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
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 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 determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. DOE has tentatively determined that
current standards for PTACs and PTHPs do not need to be amended.
Because DOE is proposing not to amend standards for PTACs and PTHPs, if
adopted, this determination would not amend any energy conservation
standards. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the
proposed determination, if adopted, would have no significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has
not prepared an IRFA for this proposed determination. DOE will transmit
this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed determination, which proposes to determine that
amended energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs are unneeded
under the applicable statutory criteria, would impose no new
informational or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance
is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed action 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 actions which are interpretations or
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in
regard to an existing regulation and 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 action.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional
and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an
accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and
local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement
of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will
follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has
examined this proposed determination 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 equipment 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. 6316 (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action
is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
E.O. 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations in light
of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them.
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 12988.
[[Page 37966]]
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, sec. 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
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE examined this proposed determination according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the proposed determination does
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 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 proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed determination 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 NOPD 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 the 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 E.O.
12866, or any successor E.O.; 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.
This proposed determination, which does not propose to amend energy
conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs, is not a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Moreover, it would not 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.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
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 Peer Review report pertaining
to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses.\58\
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. Because available
data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007,
DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed
to improve the Department's analyses.
[[Page 37967]]
DOE is in the process of evaluating the resulting report.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed April 15, 2022).
\59\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar 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:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=46&action=viewcurrent. 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
NOPD, 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 requests to speak
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 proposed determination and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be reached.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting 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 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/public meeting and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the proposed determination.
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 proposed determination. 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
determination. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting 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/public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the
beginning of this NOPD. 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 determination 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, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail 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. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case
it is not necessary to submit
[[Page 37968]]
printed copies. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, 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 to [email protected] 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).
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 15,
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 June 15, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-13224 Filed 6-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P