[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62038-62065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22141]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62038]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002]
RIN 1904-AF40
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Fans and Blowers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of data availability (``NODA'').
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 8, 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
published a request for information regarding energy conservation
standards for fans and blowers. In this NODA, DOE is publishing
preliminary inputs and methodology for its technology, screening,
engineering, shipments, markups, life cycle cost, and energy use
analysis for air circulating fans. Air circulating fans are a
subcategory of fans; however, air circulating fans were not included in
the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory (``ASRAC'')
negotiations undertaken in 2015 (see Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006).
The purpose of this NODA is to provide stakeholders with the
opportunity to review and provide comment on DOE's preliminary
technical and economic evaluation of air circulating fans, prior to
DOE's publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking for all fans and
blowers. The analysis presented in this NODA is consistent with the air
circulating fans scope and definitions that DOE proposed in the July
25, 2022, test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') for
fans and blowers (``July 2022 TP NOPR''). DOE requests comments, data,
and information regarding its analysis.
DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before
November 28, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, by any of the
following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002 in the subject line of the message.
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.
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 IV of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, public meeting transcripts, 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, some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments in the docket. See
section III.A of this document for information on how to submit
comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Deviation From Appendix A
C. Background
II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
A. Scope
B. Technology Options
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Methodology
a. Metric
b. Air Circulating Fan Performance Data
2. Equipment Classes and Representative Sizes
a. Equipment Classes
b. Representative Sizes
3. Efficiency Model
a. BESS Combined Database
b. Baseline Fan Efficiencies
c. Improving Efficiency With More Efficient Motors
d. Improving Efficiency Through Aerodynamic Redesign
e. Results for a 24-Inch, 0.5 hp Representative Unit
4. Cost Model
a. Cost Model Structure and Process
b. Cost Model Assumptions
c. Determination of Air Circulating Fan MPC
5. Manufacturer Selling Price
E. Markups Analysis
F. Energy Use Analysis
1. Fans With Input Power Less Than 125 W
a. Sample of Consumers
b. Operating Hours
2. Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W
a. Sample of Consumers
[[Page 62039]]
b. Operating Hours
G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
1. Equipment Price
2. Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs
3. Energy Prices
4. Lifetime
5. Discount Rates
6. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New Standards Case
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Base Year Shipments
2. Shipments Projections
3. Equipment Efficiency Trends
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
Introduction
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317 as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1 and hereafter referred to as Part
A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA specifies a list of equipment that constitutes covered
equipment (hereafter referred to as ``covered equipment'').\2\ EPCA
also provides that ``covered equipment'' includes any other type of
industrial equipment for which the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'')
determines inclusion is necessary to carry out the purpose of Part A-1.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(L), 6312(b)) EPCA specifies the types of industrial
equipment that can be classified as covered in addition to the
equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 6311(1) This industrial equipment
includes fans and blowers. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(ii) and (iii))
Additionally, industrial equipment must be of a type that consumes, or
is designed to consume, energy in operation; is distributed in commerce
for industrial or commercial use\4\; and is not a covered product as
defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2) other than a component of a covered
product with respect to which there is in effect a determination under
42 U.S.C. 6312(c). (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)) On August 19, 2021, DOE
published a final determination that the inclusion of fans and blowers
as covered equipment was necessary to carry out the purpose of Part A-1
and classified fans and blowers as covered equipment. 86 FR 46579,
46588. Air circulating fans are a class of fans and blowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Covered equipment'' means one of the following types of
industrial equipment: Electric motors and pumps; small commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment; large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment; very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment;
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers;
automatic commercial ice makers; walk-in coolers and walk-in
freezers; commercial clothes washers; packaged terminal air-
conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps; warm air furnaces and
packaged boilers; and storage water heaters, instantaneous water
heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)-
(K))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) 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)
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede state laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of federal preemption for particular state laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D))
In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate a proposal against
the criteria detailed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), discussed further in
section I.C of this document, and follow the rulemaking procedures set
out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
DOE is publishing this NODA to collect data and information to
inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
B. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with Section 3(a) of appendix A to subpart C of 10
CFR part 430, DOE notes that it is deviating from that appendix's
provision requiring a 75-day comment period for all pre-NOPR standards
documents. (Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part
430) DOE is instead providing a 45-day comment period which DOE
believes is appropriate given the substantial stakeholder engagement to
date, as discussed in section I.C of this document. The request for
information on air circulating fans published on February 8, 2022,
provided early notice to interested parties that the Department was
interested in evaluating potential energy savings for this equipment.
87 FR 7048. Further, a 45-day comment period will allow DOE to review
comments received in response to this NODA and use it to inform the
analysis of equipment considered in evaluating potential energy
conservation standards.
C. Background
On June 28, 2011, DOE published a notice of proposed coverage
determination proposing that fans, blowers, and fume hoods would
qualify as covered equipment under EPCA. 76 FR 37678. DOE noted that
there were no statutory definitions for ``fan,'' ``blower,'' or ``fume
hood,'' and presented definitions for consideration. 76 FR 37678,
37679. DOE subsequently published a framework document on February 1,
2013, detailing the analytical approach for developing potential energy
conservation standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers
should the Secretary classify such equipment as covered equipment
(``Framework Document''). 78 FR 7306. In the Framework Document, DOE
determined that it lacked authority to establish energy conservation
standards for fume hoods because fume hoods are not listed as a type of
equipment for which DOE could establish standards. (Docket EERE-2013-
BT-STD-0006, No. 1 at p. 15) DOE acknowledged that the fan, which
provides ventilation for the fume hood, consumes the largest portion of
energy within the fume hood system, and that DOE planned to cover all
commercial and industrial fan types, which included fans used to
ventilate fume hoods. Id.
On December 10, 2014, DOE published a NODA presenting an analysis
estimating the economic impacts and energy savings from potential
energy conservation standards for certain fans and blowers. This
analysis did not include air circulating fans. 79 FR 73246.
On April 1, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish an
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC)
Working Group for fans (hereafter referred to as the ``Working
Group''). 80 FR 17359.
The Working Group \3\ commenced negotiations at an open meeting on
May
[[Page 62040]]
18, 2015 and held 16 meetings and three webinars to discuss scope,
metrics, test procedures, and standard levels for fans and blowers.\4\
The Working Group concluded its negotiations on September 3, 2015, and,
by consensus vote,\5\ approved a term sheet containing 27
recommendations related to scope, test procedure and energy
conservation standards (``term sheet''). (See Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0006, No. 179) ASRAC approved the term sheet on September 24, 2015.
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 58,
at p. 29) The Working Group term sheet recommended the exclusion of air
circulating fans. (See Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006, No. 179,
Recommendation #2 at p. 2) On November 1, 2016, DOE published a third
notification of data availability (``November 2016 NODA'') that
presented a revised analysis for fans and blowers other than air
circulating fans, consistent with the scope and metric recommendations
of the term sheet. 81 FR 75742.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Working Group was comprised of representatives from
AAON, Inc.; AcoustiFLO LLC; AGS Consulting LLC; Air Movement and
Control Association (AMCA); Air Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (ASAP); Berner International Corp; Buffalo Air Handling
Company; Carnes Company; Daikin/Goodman; ebm-papst; Greenheck;
Morrison Products; Natural Resources Defense Council; Newcomb &
Boyd; Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance; CA IOUs; Regal Beloit
Corporation; Rheem Manufacturing Company; Smiley Engineering LLC
representing Ingersoll Rand/Trane; SPX Cooling Technologies/CTI; The
New York Blower Company; Twin City Companies, Ltd; U.S. Department
of Energy; and United Technologies/Carrier.
\4\ Details of the negotiation sessions can be found in the
public meeting transcripts that are posted to the docket for the
energy conservation standard rulemaking at: www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.
\5\ At the beginning of the negotiated rulemaking process, the
Working Group defined that before any vote could occur, the Working
Group must establish a quorum of at least 20 of the 25 members and
defined consensus as an agreement with less than four negative
votes. Twenty voting members of the Working Group were present for
this vote. Two members (Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute and Ingersoll Rand/Trane) voted no.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2020, DOE received a petition from the Air Movement
and Control Association, International (``AMCA''), Air Conditioning
Contractors of America, and Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors
of America requesting that DOE establish a test procedure for certain
categories of fans based on an upcoming industry test method, AMCA
Standard 214, ``Test Procedure for Calculating Fan Energy Index (FEI)
for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers'' DOE published a notice
of petition for rulemaking and request for public comment (``April 2020
Notice of Petition for Rulemaking''). 85 FR 22677 (Apr. 23, 2020).
AMCA, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, and Sheet Metal & Air
Conditioning Contractors have since withdrawn their petition (EERE-
2011-BT-DET-0045-00012, at p. 1)
In conjunction with this notice of petition for rulemaking, on May
10, 2021, DOE published a request for information requesting comments
on a potential fan or blower definition. 86 FR 24752. On August 19,
2021, DOE published in the Federal Register a final coverage
determination classifying fans and blowers as covered equipment. 86 FR
46579.
On October 1, 2021, DOE published a request for information
pertaining to test procedures for fans and blowers (``October 2021 TP
RFI''). 86 FR 54412. As part of the October 2021 TP RFI, DOE discussed
the potential scope and definitions for air circulating fans. 86 FR
54412, 54414-54415. DOE is considering including air circulating fans
in its analysis of potential energy conservation standards for fans and
blowers. As noted previously, air circulating fans were not included in
the scope of the term sheet and were not previously analyzed by the
Department. DOE published a separate request for information on
February 8, 2022, to seek input to aid in the development of the
technical and economic analyses regarding whether standards for air
circulating fans may be warranted (hereinafter referred to as the ``ECS
RFI''). 87 FR 7048. DOE received comments in response to the ECS RFI
from the interested parties listed in Table I-1.
Table I-1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the ECS RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in
Commenter(s) Reference in this NODA the Docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Movement and Control Association.... AMCA...................... 9,10 Trade Association.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Commenters.......... 6 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
Defense Council, and Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance.
California Investor-Owned Utilities..... CA IOUs................... 7 Utility.
ebm-papst Inc........................... ebm-papst................. 8 Manufacturer.
Robert Akscyn........................... Akscyn.................... 2 Individual.
Rub[eacute]n Guerra..................... Guerra.................... 3 Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\6\
Comments received from the two individuals listed in Table I-1 are not
discussed further in because they were either not relevant to the RFI
or provide procedural recommendations.\7\ \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. (Docket No.
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov)
The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment
docket ID number, page of that document).
\7\ A comment from R. Guerra stated that they own a residential
ceiling fan that produces its own energy (Guerra, No. 3 at p. 1).
DOE notes that the fans evaluated in this rulemaking exclude both
ceiling fans and furnace fans.
\8\ R. Akscyn recommended that DOE provide a short RFI summary
so stakeholders do not have to review such lengthy documents and
that DOE consider presenting the variables included in its analyses
in terms of dimensional parameters. (Akscyn, No. 2 at pp. 1-3) DOE
appreciates these suggestions. With respect to the structure and
length of RFIs, DOE notes that it has certain legal obligations
which it must fulfill for every document that is published. In most
documents, DOE includes summaries and headings to aid stakeholder
review. Additionally, DOE notes that the purpose of an RFI is to
collect data and information. The purpose of this document is to
present DOE's analyses to support potential energy conservation
standards for fans and blowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the comments received in response to the ECS RFI were
related to the fans and blower test procedure. DOE published a proposed
test procedure for fans and blowers on July 25, 2022 (``July 2022 TP
NOPR'') in which it addressed the ECS RFI comments related to test
procedure issues, including those related to definitions, scope of the
test procedure, and metrics. 87 FR 44194.
To date, DOE has not proposed energy conservation standards for
fans and
[[Page 62041]]
blowers, including air circulating fans. This NODA presents DOE's
planned inputs and preliminary analysis to inform the development of
potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fans. As
previously discussed, DOE previously published and received public
comment on three NODAs for fans and blowers, excluding air circulating
fans. DOE plans to rely on the existing analysis from the Working Group
for fans and blowers other than air circulating fans. This NODA focuses
exclusively on air circulating fans and is intended to support DOE as
it completes a notice of proposed rulemaking analysis for all fans and
blowers, including air circulating fans. While the discussion in this
NODA is specific to air circulating fans, DOE welcomes additional
comments and data on fans and blowers other than air circulating fans
relevant to its analysis of any potential energy conservation standards
for all fans and blowers. In addition, DOE may consider conducting a
separate rulemaking specific to air circulating fans instead of
including air circulating fans as part of the fans and blowers
rulemaking.
II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
This NODA focuses exclusively on air circulating fans and is
intended to support DOE as it completes the notice of proposed
rulemaking analysis for all fans and blowers, including air circulating
fans. This NODA discusses the following for air circulating fans: (1)
scope; (2) technology options; (3) engineering analysis; (4) markups
analysis; (5) energy use analysis; (6) life cycle cost (``LCC'') and
payback period (``PBP'') analyses; and (7) national impacts analysis.
The items listed in Table II-1 provide an overview of the information
about which DOE is requesting feedback. A supplemental spreadsheet
documenting the assumptions and approach to the engineering analysis is
included in the docket and accessible via the equipment rulemaking
website. (See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=51&action=viewlive)
Table II-1--Overview of Data Presented in This NODA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis Data presented
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope.................................. Scope of equipment considered
in the analysis of any
potential energy conservation
standards and related
definitions.
Technology Options..................... More efficient motors.
Improved aerodynamic design
(inclusive of blade shape and
material selection).
Engineering Analysis................... Representative sizes.
Determination of baseline fan
efficiency.
Determination of efficiency
levels by applying different
technology options.
Estimates for manufacturer
production cost and
manufacturer conversion cost
at each efficiency level.
Manufacturer markup.
Markups Analysis....................... Distribution channels.
Fraction of sales going through
each channel.
Distribution channel markups
and sales tax.
Energy Use Analysis.................... Average operating hours per
day.
Distribution of operating
hours.
Fraction of time spent in each
mode (i.e., speed setting).
Life Cycle Costs and Payback Period Review of repair, installation,
Analysis. and repair practices and
costs.
Energy prices.
Lifetimes of air circulating
fans.
Discount rates.
Review of available data to
determine efficiency
distributions.
National Impact Analysis............... Base year shipments.
Shipments growth rates and
information related to
shipments projections.
Information related to
efficiency trends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Scope
As stated previously, the July 2022 TP NOPR discussed potential
scope and definitions for air circulating fans, which include unhoused
air circulating fan heads and housed air circulating fan heads. 87 FR
44194. In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed that the test procedure
would be applicable to all air circulating fans and proposed to define
an air circulating fan as a fan that has no provision for connection to
ducting or separation of the fan inlet from its outlet using a pressure
boundary, operates against zero external static pressure loss, and is
not a jet fan. 87 FR 44194, 44215.
DOE is considering including all air circulating fans in its
analysis of potential energy conservation standards for fans and
blowers. This includes unhoused air circulating fan head and housed air
circulating fan head, for which DOE proposed definitions as part of the
July 2022 TP NOPR (87 FR 44194, 44216).
In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE also provided definitions for subsets
of housed air circulating fan heads, specifically air circulating axial
panel fans, box fans, cylindrical air circulating fans, and housed
centrifugal air circulating fans. 87 FR 44194, 44216.
DOE notes that the definitions used in this NODA are aligned with
the proposed definitions in the July 2022 TP NOPR, which in turn were
derived from definitions proposed by the AMCA. In response to the ECS
RFI, AMCA provided additional comments to the docket on July 7, 2022,
summarizing definitions to terms under consideration by the committee
revising the ANSI/AMCA 230-15 standard, ``Laboratory Methods of Testing
Air Circulating Fans for Rating and Certification'' (``AMCA 230-15'').
(AMCA, No. 10, p. 1) AMCA's comments focused on definitions for
different categories of air circulating fans and provided context for
how air circulating fans might be grouped. (AMCA, No. 10, pp. 1-10) DOE
will further address the scope and definitions of air circulating fan
categories in the test procedure rulemaking and plans to consider
AMCA's comments as part of the test procedure rulemaking.
DOE also notes that in response to the ECS RFI, the Joint
Commenters expressed their support for establishing energy conservation
standards for air
[[Page 62042]]
circulating fans, including air circulating fan heads, box fans,
personnel coolers, and table fans. (Joint Commenters, No. 6 at p. 1)
Additionally, the Joint Commenters agreed that, based on the definition
fans and blowers, air circulating fan heads, box fans, personnel
coolers, and table fans are within the scope of the fans and blowers
equipment category. Id. Additionally, ebm-papst supported the inclusion
of air circulating fans in the DOE test procedure and energy
conservation standards for fans and blowers. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 2)
During the public meeting held for the July 2022 TP NOPR, AMCA
commented that they believed it would be best to separate air
circulating fans into a separate rulemaking from fans and blowers.
(Public Meeting Transcript, EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021, No. 18 at pp. 12, 27,
43-44) Morrison Products supported AMCA's position that air circulating
fans should be considered in a separate rulemaking. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 18 at pp. 91-92) DOE has reviewed existing regulatory
definitions and market materials and believes that air circulating fans
fall within the definition of fans and blowers. DOE will review
stakeholder comments and may consider a separate rulemaking for air
circulating fans.
B. Technology Options
In the ECS RFI, DOE presented improved aerodynamic design, blade
shape, more efficient motors, material selection, and variable-speed
drives as potential technology options for air circulating fans and
requested comment on: (1) how the specific technologies would impact
air circulating fan efficiency; (2) whether the technologies listed
apply equally to different categories of air circulating fans; (3) the
impact of curved blades and airfoil blades on air circulating fan
efficiency; (4) the impact of blade materials on fan efficiency; and
(5) the percentage of air circulating fans sold with a motor and with
variable-speed drive. 87 FR 7048, 7052.
In response, the Joint Commenters urged DOE to consider more
efficient motors and more efficient blade designs in its analysis
because of their energy savings potential. (Joint Commenters, No. 6 at
p. 2) Specifically, they stated that alternating current (``AC'')
direct-drive motors offer better efficiency than belt drives and that
direct current (``DC'') motors are more efficient than AC motors. Id.
They added that more advanced blade designs, such as airfoil blades,
can improve the efficiency of a fan relative to traditional single-
thickness blades. Id. emb-papst commented that to improve fan
efficiency, inlet cones or bells and outlet vanes are occasionally
included on air circulating fan housings and that winglets and rings
are sometimes used on impellers. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 3)
Additionally, ebm-papst stated that the most efficient air circulating
fans on the market (maximum available technology or ``max-tech'') often
include the following features: an electronically commutated motor
(``ECM''), injection-molded axial impellers, and outlet guide vanes.
(ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 4) Finally, ebm-papst commented that they are
unaware of any air circulating fans that are sold without a motor.
(ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 3)
During manufacturer interviews,\9\ many manufacturers stated that
they would switch to more efficient motors before redesigning the
housing and impeller (i.e., the blade assembly), since fan redesign
results in significant conversion costs. However, improving the overall
fan aerodynamics with the addition of attachments, such as inlet cones
or outlet vanes might be done before moving to higher efficiency and
more costly motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ DOE conducted manufacturer interviews specific to air
circulating fans from May 24 to May 31, 2022, to gather information
for its analyses presented in this NODA. Four manufacturers opted to
participate in these interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is not aware of any circulating fans that were distributed in
commerce without an electric motor. Based on review of the
Bioenvironmental and Structural System Laboratory (``BESS Labs'')
database and air circulating fan teardowns, most motors paired with air
circulating fans are not currently in the scope of DOE energy
conservation standards (because they are split-phase (``SP'') motors
and permanent split capacitor (``PSC'') motors).\10\ As such, DOE
expects that, in many cases, fan manufacturers are using lower
efficiency motors. Therefore, in this NODA, DOE's analysis focuses
primarily on improving air circulating fan efficiency through the use
of more efficient motors, as described in more detail in section
II.D.3.c. DOE also evaluates the efficiency gains and relative costs
associated with fan aerodynamic redesign. Notably, DOE is conducting a
separate energy conservation rulemaking for electric motors in which it
is considering standards for certain single-speed SP electric motors,
single-speed shaded pole electric motors, and single-speed PSC motors.
(See Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007) The Department will consider any
outcome of the electric motors rulemaking when conducting its analysis
of potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ SP and PSC motors are types of single-phase motors that are
not currently included in the scope of electric motors at 10 CFR
431.25 because only polyphase motors are included in this scope. SP
and PSC motors are not currently included in the scope of small
electric motors at 10 CFR 431.441 because they do not meet the
statutory definition of ``small electric motor'' as defined at 10
CFR 431.442. In March 2022, DOE published a preliminary analysis for
the ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking for electric
motors that included SP and PSC motors in its analysis. 87 FR 11650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its assumption that most motors
paired with air circulating fans are lower efficiency induction motors
that are not currently regulated by DOE. Additionally, DOE requests
data on the percentage of air circulating fans that include a SP, PSC,
shaded pole, or electronically commuted motors.
C. 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; (2)
Practicability to manufacturer, install, and service; (3) Impacts on
product utility or product availability; (4) Adverse impacts on health
or safety; and (5) Unique pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR part
430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 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.
DOE did not conduct a screening analysis for this NODA and instead
is presenting analyses for more efficient motors with efficiency and
cost estimates for aerodynamic redesign in order to receive stakeholder
feedback. In future analysis to support this rulemaking, DOE may screen
out some or all of the technologies discussed based on one or more of
the screening criteria.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on if or how the five screening
criteria may impact the application of an aerodynamic redesign
(including changes to housing, impeller and/or blade design), more
efficient motors, or VSDs (``variable-speed drives'') as design options
in the current rulemaking analysis.
D. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the
incremental manufacturing cost associated with producing products at
higher efficiency
[[Page 62043]]
levels. The primary considerations in the engineering analysis are 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'').
DOE conducts the efficiency analysis using either an efficiency-
level approach, a design option approach, or a combination of both.
Under the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels to be
considered in the analysis are determined based on the market
distribution of existing products (in other words, observing the range
of efficiency and efficiency-level ``clusters'' that already exist on
the market). This approach typically starts with compiling a
comprehensive list of products available on the market, such as from
DOE's product certification database. Next, the list of models is
ranked by efficiency level from lowest to highest, and DOE typically
creates a scatter plot to visualize the distribution of efficiency
levels. From these rankings and visual plots, efficiency levels can be
identified by examining clusters of models around common efficiency
levels. The maximum efficiency level currently available on the market
can also be identified.
Under the design option approach, the efficiency levels to be
considered in 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. In an iterative fashion, design options can
also be identified during product teardowns, described below. The
design option approach is typically used when a comprehensive database
of certified models is unavailable (for example, if a product is not
yet regulated) and therefore the efficiency-level approach cannot be
used.
In certain rulemakings, the efficiency-level approach (based on
actual products on the market) will be extended using the design option
approach to define ``gap fill'' levels (levels that bridge large gaps
between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to
the ``max-tech'' level (the level that DOE determines is the maximum
achievable efficiency level), particularly in cases where the ``max-
tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available
on the market.
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of the
cost approach depends on a variety of factors such as the availability
and reliability of information on product features and pricing, the
physical characteristics of the regulated product, and the
practicability of purchasing the product on the market. DOE generally
uses the following cost approaches:
Physical teardown: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a
commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a
detailed bill of materials (``BOM'') for the product.
Catalog teardown: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product,
DOE identifies each component using available parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the BOM for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is
feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products that are
infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are
unavailable), DOE conducts retail price surveys by scanning retailer
websites and other marketing materials. This approach must be coupled
with assumptions regarding distributor markups and retailer markups in
order to estimate the actual manufacturing cost of the product.
Manufacturer interviews: DOE may conduct voluntary interviews with
manufacturers to gather confidential information that can be used in
its analyses. This information can include manufacturing costs,
materials prices, and markups that can be used in DOE's cost analysis.
The engineering analysis conducted for this NODA used a design
option approach supplemented by an efficiency level approach. The cost
analysis relied on physical and catalog tear downs, cost analyses from
other rulemakings, and confidential information provided by
manufacturers.
1. Methodology
The engineering analysis presented in this NODA is consistent with
the scope, definitions, and metric proposed in the July 2022 TP NOPR
for all fans (including air circulating fans), except where described
below.
a. Metric
In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to use the fan energy index
(``FEI'') or weighted average FEI (in the case of multi-speed and
variable-speed air circulating fans) as the efficiency metric for fans
and blowers, including air circulating fans. (87 FR 44194, 44237-44238)
FEI is an index calculated using the fan electrical input power at a
given operating point, divided by the electrical input power of a
reference fan at the same operating point. The FEI allows for the
evaluation of fan or blower efficiency across a range of operating
conditions, captures the performance of the motor, transmission, or
motor controllers (if present), and enables differentiation of fans
with motors, transmissions, and motor controller with different
efficiencies. In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed that the metric be
determined as follows: (1) for single-speed fans, FEI would be
evaluated at the single available speed and corresponding duty point;
(2) for multi-speed fans and variable-speed fans, a weighted average
FEI would be determined using a weighted average of all speeds tested.
(87 FR 44194, 44238)
DOE notes that the BESS Labs combined database does not provide
performance data for multiple speed fans at all the test speeds
proposed in the July 2022 TP NOPR. Therefore, for this NODA, DOE
evaluated potential efficiency improvements based only on high-speed
test data. Because fans are typically less efficient at their maximum
speed, DOE expects that this assumption provides a conservative
estimate of potential efficiency gains relative to the baseline. In
future analysis, DOE expects to conduct its analysis consistent with
the approach adopting in the forthcoming fans and blower test
procedure.
In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE also proposed FEI reference constants
for flow rate, pressure and the efficiency target for air circulating
fans. (87 FR 44194, 44230, 44232) Specifically, DOE proposed a flow
rate constant (Q0) of 3,201, and pressure constant
(P0) of 0 and an efficiency target ([eta]0) of
0.38. Id. DOE utilized these proposed constants in its calculations of
reference FEI used in the engineering analysis. In the supplemental
NODA spreadsheet included in this docket, DOE also provided performance
in terms of cubic feet per minute per watt (or CFM/W), since the FEI
metric is still relatively new. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002,
No. 11)
b. Air Circulating Fan Performance Data
AMCA stated that no air circulating fans are currently certified by
AMCA. (AMCA, No. 9 at p. 4) Additionally, AMCA commented that air
circulating fan product literature may advertise fan performance
calculated using multiple versions of the AMCA 230 standard (e.g., AMCA
230-1999, AMCA 230-2007, AMCA 230-2012, AMCA 230-2015 without errata,
and AMCA 230-15 with 2021 errata). They stated that all of these
versions, except for AMCA 230-15
[[Page 62044]]
with 2021 errata, have at least one error with respect to thrust,
volumetric flow rate, or input power. AMCA added that this is an issue
for the purchaser, either because purchasers are not aware of these
errors or because manufacturers are not required to state how air
circulating fan performance values were obtained. (Id.) AMCA also
provided a table in their response to the ECS RFI showing the
corrections made between each version of AMCA 230. (AMCA, No. 9 at p.
5, Table 1) The contents of this table are reproduced below in Table
II-2.
Table II-2--Summary of Errors and Corrections in ANSI/AMCA Standard 230
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volumetric-flow-rate
Year Thrust equation Input power
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................... No conversion for Incorrect--based on actual No conversion for
density. atmospheric density, but density.
calculation exaggerated by
multiplication factor of
1.414 ([radic]2).
2007............................... Conversion to standard Not calculated............. No conversion for
air density. density.
2012............................... Conversion to standard Incorrect--uses converted No conversion for
air density. thrust but actual air density.
density.
2015............................... Conversion to standard Correct--uses converted No conversion for
air density. thrust and standard air density.
density.
2015: 2021 erratum................. Conversion to standard Correct--uses converted Conversion to standard
air density. thrust and standard air air density.
density.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During interviews, manufacturers stated that data collected by BESS
Labs, associated with the University of Illinois-Champaign, is the best
source for air circulating fan data.\11\ BESS Labs maintains a database
of housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads that are used
primarily in the agricultural industry (i.e., poultry houses,
greenhouses, dairy barns). DOE notes that these air circulating fans
heads are tested by BESS Labs according to AMCA 230-12. DOE used the
BESS Labs test data and applied conversion formulas to calculate the
performance data of the fans according to AMCA 230-15 with 2021 errata.
Details of these performance calculations are available in the
supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ BESS Labs is a research, product-testing and educational
laboratory. BESS Labs provides engineering data to air in the
selection and design of agricultural buildings and assists equipment
manufactures in developing better products. Test reports for
circulating fans are publicly available at bess.illinois.edu/current.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive sufficient air circulating fan performance data
from the ECS RFI stakeholder comment responses or from manufacturers
during the interview process. Therefore, for this analysis, DOE relied
primarily on the BESS Labs circulating fans database (``BESS Labs
Database''). The BESS Labs Database categorizes circulating fans into
the following categories: basket, box, panel, tube, tube with bell
inlet, vented tube, wire basket, and wire tube.
Based on the proposed definitions discussed in section II.A, DOE
mapped the categories in the BESS Labs Database as shown in Table II-3.
Table II-3--DOE Categorization of BESS Labs Database Circulating Fan
Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 2022 TP NOPR terminology BESS labs database category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unhoused air circulating fan head......... Basket.
Housed air circulating fan head
Box fan............................... Box.
Cylindrical air circulating fan....... Tube, Tube with Bell Inlet,
Vented Tube.
Air circulating axial panel fan....... Panel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this initial analysis, DOE evaluated unhoused air circulating
fan heads, box fans, and cylindrical air circulating fans.\12\ DOE
expects that the technology options evaluated in its analysis of these
fans would be applicable to air circulating axial panel fans,
especially improved motor efficiency. DOE expects that it will conduct
additional analysis on air circulating axial panel fans in a subsequent
part of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The BESS Labs Database classifies circulating fans as
basket, box, panel, tube, tube with bell inlet, vented tube, wire
basket, and wire tube fans. DOE evaluated 58 box fans (housed
circulating fan heads) and 40 tube fans (housed air circulating fan
heads) and 102 basket fans (unhoused air circulating fan heads) in
the BESS Labs Database, accessed on June 17, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE further notes that the BESS Lab Database did not include any
housed centrifugal air circulating fans. DOE expects that it will
conduct additional analysis on housed centrifugal air circulating fans
in a subsequent part of this rulemaking. In addition, the BESS Labs
Database includes very few air circulating fans with input power less
than 125 W. DOE expects that it will conduct additional analysis on air
circulating fans with input power less than 125 W in a subsequent part
of this rulemaking.
To further inform its analysis, DOE completed testing and teardowns
on a small sample of housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads.\13\
For this analysis, DOE is assuming that the combination of housed and
unhoused air circulating fan heads listed in the BESS Labs Database and
those additional fans that DOE tested at BESS Labs (``BESS Labs
Combined Database'') are representative of the air circulating fan head
market. However, the air circulating axial panel fans in the BESS Labs
database were excluded from DOE's analysis and housed centrifugal air
circulating fans and air circulating fans with input power less than
125 W
[[Page 62045]]
were not represented in the BESS Labs Combined Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ DOE tested seven basket fans (unhoused air circulating fan
heads) and 11 tube fans (housed air circulating fan heads) and two
box fans (housed air circulating fans heads) at BESS Labs. Where DOE
has relied on the test data from these fans in addition to the BESS
Labs Database, DOE has used the term ``BESS Labs Combined
Database''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its assumption that the BESS Labs
Combined Database is representative of the air circulating fan head
market, with the exception of housed centrifugal air circulating fans
and air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W which are not
represented in the BESS Labs Combined Database.
Issue 4: DOE requests additional information for all categories of
air circulating fans, including: manufacturer name, model number, fan
diameter, blade number, blade shape, blade material, housing type,
housing material, spacing between the blade tip and the housing, and
housing depth with associated performance data obtained using AMCA 230-
15 with 2021 errata (or sufficient information that can be used to
correct to AMCA 230-15 with 2021 errata). DOE additionally requests the
following information on the motors sold within each fan model: motor
type (i.e., SP, PSC, ECM, polyphase, etc.), type of drive (i.e., direct
or belt), motor horsepower (``hp''), motor full-load efficiency (if
available), motor rotations per minute, number of speeds, motor
electric requirements (i.e., volts, amps, frequency, phase, AC/DC), and
whether a variable-speed drive is included with the fan.
The minimum and maximum diameter housed and unhoused air
circulating fan heads in the BESS Labs Combined Database are 12 inches
and 52 inches, respectively. Although DOE did not evaluate fans smaller
or larger than these diameters in this NODA, in the absence of
additional data, DOE may consider extrapolating BESS Labs data to
smaller and larger diameters using fan affinity laws to the extent such
extrapolation is representative of the performance of such fans.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on the potential of using fan
affinity laws to extrapolate BESS Labs performance data to air
circulating fan heads with diameters less than 12 inches and greater
than 52 inches. Additionally, DOE requests model characteristics and
performance data obtained using AMCA 230-15 plus 2021 errata (or
sufficient information than can be used to correct to AMCA 230-15 plus
2021 errata) for air circulating fans with diameters both smaller than
and larger than those listed in the BESS Labs Database.
2. Equipment Classes and Representative Sizes
In the ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it should consider
air circulating fan heads, personnel coolers, box fans, and table fans
as separate categories (i.e., equipment classes) or whether some or all
of these four categories should be grouped together when evaluating
potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fan heads.
87 FR 7048, 7051. DOE additionally requested whether these four fan
categories have unique features or applications that might warrant
separate consideration in the energy standards analysis. Id. Finally,
DOE requested comment on whether it should consider separate equipment
classes for air circulating fan heads based on diameter, operating
speed, efficiency, or utility. Id.
The Joint Commenters stated that portable blowers may require an
equipment class separate from air circulating fans because they provide
a unique application (i.e., drying floors), have centrifugal rather
than axial construction, and are relatively low in efficiency. (Joint
Commenters, No. 6 at p. 2) In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a
definition for ``housed centrifugal air circulating fan'', which it
believes is the same fan type that the Joint Commenters describe as a
portable blower. 87 FR 44194, 44216. As discussed in section II.D.2.a,
however, DOE has not yet finalized equipment classes for air
circulating fans. DOE is requesting additional information and data on
the utility of different fan categories to further inform its analysis.
AMCA commented that air circulating fan heads, box fans, personnel
coolers, and table fans all provide directional airflow. (AMCA, No. 9
at p. 2) ebm-papst indicated that designing an air circulating fan for
high outlet velocity may be an impediment to achieving greater fan
efficiency. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE interprets this comment to
mean that the utility of an air circulating fan (i.e., a fan designed
for high outlet velocity vs. more diffuse flow) may impact its
efficiency.
a. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy efficiency standards, DOE
often divides covered equipment into separate classes by the type of
energy used, equipment capacity, or some other performance-related
features that justify differing standards. In deciding whether a
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE
generally considers such factors as the utility of the feature to the
consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q) and 6316(a))
DOE has not yet identified equipment classes for air circulating
fans, but is considering the following performance-related features
that may justify separate equipment classes:
(1) Presence or absence of a safety guard;
(2) Presence or absence of housing;
(3) Housing design (i.e., box, panel, cylindrical, bladeless,
thermal, etc.);
(4) Blade type (axial, centrifugal);
(5) Drive type (belt, direct);
(6) Number of discrete speed settings (single-speed, two-speed,
three-speed, etc.);
(7) Power requirements (input power, phase, voltage, etc.); and
(8) Air velocity or throw.
For the purposes of this NODA, DOE grouped all air circulating fans
analyzed into a single equipment class.
Issue 6: DOE requests comment on whether, and if so how, each of
the following performance-related features may impact utility of air
circulating fans: presence or absence of a safety guard, presence or
absence of housing, housing design, blade type, drive type, number of
discrete speed settings, power requirements, and air velocity or throw.
DOE requests additional feedback and data or information on other air
circulating fan features that may impact utility for the end user and
might form the basis for classification.
Issue 7: DOE requests comment with supporting data on whether the
following performance-related features provide substantially different
utility, or are expected to have a significant impact on efficiency
because of how they are used: (1) housed vs. unhoused air circulating
fan heads; (2) direct-driven vs. belt-driven air circulating fan heads;
and (3) single-phase vs. polyphase air circulating fan heads. DOE also
requests information on any additional features that may impact air
circulating fan head utility.
b. Representative Sizes
The minimum and maximum diameters reported in the BESS Labs
Database for housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads are 12
inches and 52 inches, respectively. DOE notes that diameter has been
used to define representative units for ceiling fans and for previous
analyses conducted on fans and blowers that are not air circulating
fans.\14\ Therefore, DOE developed a diameter histogram using the BESS
Labs Combined Database to determine
[[Page 62046]]
representative diameters for analysis. Based on this distribution, DOE
chose the following representative diameters for its analysis in this
NODA: 12 inches, 20 inches, 24 inches, 36 inches and 50 inches. More
details on the diameter distribution can be found in the supplementary
spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ On November 1, 2016, DOE published a notification of data
availability (``November 2016 NODA'') that presented an analysis for
fans and blowers other than air circulating fans. 81 FR 75742. The
engineering analysis evaluated manufacturer production cost as a
function of efficiency level for 10-inch, 20-inch and 30-inch
diameter fans and blowers that are not air circulating fans. See
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 8: DOE requests comment on whether the diameters chosen for
representative units in this analysis (i.e., 12 inches, 20 inches, 24
inches, 36 inches, and 50 inches) accurately represent the diameters
with the highest sales volume available in the air circulating fan
market. DOE also requests comment on whether diameter is an appropriate
representative metric for air circulating fans.
For each representative diameter, DOE used the most common motor
shaft output power value in the BESS Labs Combined Database as the
representative motor hp. Table II-4 summarizes the motor hp associated
with each representative diameter in DOE's NODA analysis. More details
on the motor hp distribution can be found in the supplementary
spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
Table II-4--Representative Diameters and Associated Representative Motor
Input Power Use in This Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative
Representative diameter (inches) motor input power
(hp)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12................................................... 0.1
20................................................... 0.33
24................................................... 0.5
36................................................... 0.5
50................................................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether the motor hp it has
associated with each representative diameter (i.e., 0.1 hp for 12
inches, 0.33 hp for 20 inches, 0.5 hp for 24 inches and 36 inches, and
1 hp for 50 inches) appropriately represent the motor hp for fans sold
with those corresponding diameters.
To simplify the discussion in this NODA, the efficiency model and
the cost model are discussed using a 24-inch representative unit. DOE's
analysis for other representative units is included in the supplemental
spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
3. Efficiency Model
The efficiency model is a key analytical tool used to construct
cost-efficiency curves. This model is used to estimate efficiencies at
different efficiency levels using a design option approach supplemented
with a performance approach.
a. BESS Combined Database
DOE calculated FEI for all fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database
by correcting the BESS data for air density, consistent with AMCA 230-
15 (with 2021 errata) and using the FEI equation proposed in the July
2022 TP NOPR. 87 FR 44194, 44230, 44232. A plot of average FEI as a
function of representative diameter and number of representative units
analyzed in the BESS Labs Combined Database is shown in Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 62047]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13OC22.002
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
As shown in Figure 1, FEI ranges from 0.39 to 2.74. A plot showing
FEI for all fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database as a function of
diameter can be found in the supplemental spreadsheet attached to this
docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11) FEI has minimal
variance between 20-inch and 50-inch diameter fans; however, FEI
increases sharply at diameters less than 20 inches. DOE expects this is
because the reference fan used in the FEI calculation assumes a belt-
drive. Table II-5 shows the number of direct-drive and the number of
belt-drive air circulating fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database for
each representative diameter. Relative to DOE's representative
diameters, belt-driven fans are observed only at 36 inches and 50
inches. Only at 50 inches do belt-driven fans become more prevalent in
the BESS Labs Combined Database than direct-drive fans.
Table II-5--Distribution of Direct-Drive and Belt-Drive Fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database by Diameter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter (inches) Number of direct-drive Number of belt-driven Grand total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12................................... 9 0 9
20................................... 28 0 28
24................................... 37 0 37
36................................... 62 9 71
50................................... 5 22 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also reviewed the BESS Labs Combined Database to understand the
types of motors sold with air circulating fans. DOE evaluated motor
type, model, and corresponding product literature for the 20 fans in
the BESS Labs Combined Database that DOE tested, in addition to the 10
most efficient and least efficient fans in the database. DOE found that
[[Page 62048]]
every fan evaluated as part of this exercise used either a single-phase
PSC motor, a polyphase motor,\15\ or an ECM. There was only one ECM fan
in the BESS Labs Combined Database. Details of this analysis can be
found in the supplemental spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See
Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Single-phase motors have a single conductor through which
the alternating current input signal is sent to the motor. Polyphase
motors have multiple conductors through which alternating current
input signals that are phase-shifted from each other are sent to the
motor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also compared the FEI values of fans that use single-phase and
fans that use polyphase motors in the BESS Labs Combined Database and
did not find a significant difference between the two. However, as
discussed in a notice of proposed rulemaking for dedicated purpose pool
pump motors published on June 21, 2021, DOE has previously found that
polyphase motors are generally more efficient than single-phase motors
due to differences in their construction. 87 FR 37122, 37136. For both
the efficiency and cost analyses here, DOE opted to evaluate single-
phase motor technologies only. Given that polyphase motors are
generally more efficient than single-phase motors, DOE believes this is
a more conservative approach. While DOE evaluated only single-phase
motor technologies, it utilized the FEI data of both single-phase and
polyphase motor fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database when
determining FEI values. DOE did this since this approach provided more
FEI data, and, despite the expectation that polyphase motors are
generally more efficient than single-phase motors, there was not a
significant difference in FEI between single-phase and polyphase fans
in the database.
Although the BESS Labs Combined Database lists only PSC motors and
one ECM, DOE's review of the air circulating fan market indicated that
SP motors are also used in air circulating fans. In general, SP motors
are the least efficient, ECMs are the most efficient, and PSC motor
efficiency falls between SP motors and ECMs. The efficiency of each
motor type can be improved by using higher quality steel and magnets,
or by using more magnetic material. For this analysis, DOE assumed that
the least efficient fans on the market (baseline) used SP motors and
therefore evaluated potential air circulating fan efficiency
improvements by replacing an SP motor with a PSC motor (``PSC 1''),
replacing a PSC 1 motor with a more efficient PSC motor (``PSC 2''),
and replacing a PSC 2 motor with an ECM.
Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its use of SP motors as the
baseline for air circulating fans. Additionally, DOE seeks feedback on
its choice of motor technologies (SP motor to PSC 1 motor, PSC 1 motor
to PSC 2 motor, and PSC 2 motor to ECM) to estimate air circulating fan
efficiency increases from one efficiency level to the next.
Additionally, DOE considered the efficiency gains that might be
obtained from improving the aerodynamic design of an air circulating
fan. DOE's analysis of the BESS Labs Combined Database did not indicate
that any particular aerodynamic features, including blade design or
housing/guard design, had a significant impact on air circulating fan
efficiency. However, feedback received during manufacturer interviews
indicated that blade design and housing/guard design can impact fan
efficiency. For blade design, manufacturers generally responded that
decreasing the number of fan blades, optimizing the blade shape for
efficiency, and, for housed fans, decreasing the clearance between the
blade tip and the housing can all improve the efficiency of air
circulating fans. However, manufacturers added that decreasing the
blade tip clearance can also increase the noise generated by the fan.
For unhoused air circulating fans, manufacturers stated that increasing
the spacing between wire guard wires and redesigning the motor hub
supports more efficient airflow. For housed air circulating fans,
manufacturers discussed the potential for improving fan efficiency by
adjusting the inlet and outlet geometries to improve airflow.
Table II-6 summarizes the technology options DOE analyzed for each
efficiency level.
Table II-6: Technology Options Associated with Each Efficiency Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL0 (baseline) EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP motor............................ PSC 1 PSC 2 ECM ECM and Aerodynamic
redesign.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE discusses its analysis of baseline efficiency and the
efficiencies that it used in its analysis for each EL in the following
sections.
b. Baseline Fan Efficiencies
The baseline configuration represents the lowest efficiency level
commonly available in the market. Because energy conservation standards
do not currently exist for air circulating fans, DOE must establish a
baseline configuration using available information, as opposed to an
existing energy conservation standard. The baseline configuration
defines the energy consumption and associated cost for the lowest
efficiency fan analyzed in each equipment class.
DOE assumed that baseline air circulating fans use SP motors
because they are the least expensive type of air circulating fan motor
on the market. As stated in the previous section, SP motors are less
efficient than other electric motors available. Since DOE does not have
test data for air circulating fans sold with a SP motor, DOE defined
EL1 as a fan in the BESS Labs Combined Database with a PSC 1 motor.
Using data from an electric motors database compiled by the Department
(``Motors Database''), DOE established the loss in efficiency by
replacing a PSC 1 motor (EL 1) with an SP motor (EL 0 or baseline).
Data in the Motors Database include information on motor topology
(i.e., whether the motor is SP, PSC, or another type), motor enclosure
(i.e., whether the motor is enclosed \16\ or not or whether it is air-
over \17\ or not), motor hp, and motor efficiency. DOE notes that the
motors in its Motors Database are not currently subject to DOE
standards. Given that motor manufacturers are not required to certify
motor performance values to DOE, it is possible that the nominal
efficiency values presented in the catalog data are not accurate.
During its review of air circulating fan motor literature, DOE found
that every fan for which the motor enclosure type was divulged used
[[Page 62049]]
an air-over motor. Therefore, in this analysis, DOE assumed that all
motors used for air circulating fans are air-over motors, and it
considered only data for air-over SP motors and for air-over PSC motors
in the Motors Database. ECMs were not included in the Motors Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Enclosed'' motors are dust-tight, meaning that they
prevent the free exchange of air to the point that particulates
cannot enter the motor enclosure. ``Open'' motors allow the free
exchange of air through the motor enclosure via openings designed
for ventilation.
\17\ ``Air-over'' motors are used specifically for fans and
blowers, are placed in the pathway of the airflow, and are cooled by
the airflow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the differences in efficiency between SP motors and
PSC motors, DOE used SP motor and PSC motor data from the motor
database. DOE calculated the average efficiencies of SP motors and PSC
motors for each motor output value in the database, then applied best
fit curves to the average efficiency values as a function of
horsepower. DOE used these equations to estimate SP motor and PSC 1
motor efficiencies and to calculate the decrease in efficiency from PSC
1 motors to SP motors for each representative unit horsepower. Using
this approach, the efficiency decrease for the 24-inch diameter fan,
correlating to the 0.5 hp unit, is 8.3 percent. Further details of how
the efficiency difference between SP motors and PSC 1 motors was
determined and applied to the fan FEI values can be found in Section
II.D.3.c of this NODA and the supplementary spreadsheet attached to
this docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on its assumption that motors used
in air circulating fans are exclusively air-over motors. If this is not
the case, DOE requests information on the other types of motors that
are sold with air circulating fans and data on the percentage of air
circulating fans that are sold with motors other than air-over motors.
Additionally, DOE requests information on whether or not the type of
motor supplied with an air circulating fan is a function of air
circulating fan category (e.g., unhoused air circulating fan head, box
fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, etc.).
To determine FEI values at EL 1, DOE established a separate FEI
value at EL1 for fans less than 20 inches in diameter and for fans
greater than or equal to 20 inches in diameter, consistent with the
average FEI values shown in Figure 1, where FEI increases significantly
below a diameter of 20 inches. Using the BESS Labs Combined Database,
DOE defined EL1 as the 5th percentile of FEI values calculated for the
12-inch representative unit (FEI = 1.70) and the 5th percentile of FEI
values calculated for all representative units with diameters at or
above 20 inches (FEI = 0.79). The 5th percentile was chosen to
conservatively capture the efficiencies of the least efficient air
circulating fans in the database, which DOE assumed also used the least
efficient PSC 1 motors, while excluding potential outliers with very
low FEI values. Further details of this analysis can be found in the
supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No.
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11) Since DOE estimated SP motors to be 8.3
percent less efficient than PSC 1 motors for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp
representative unit, DOE defined the baseline (EL 0) for this
representative unit at FEI = 0.73. FEI values calculated for the 24-
inch representative unit are shown in Table II-7 at the end of this
section. Further details of this analysis can be found in the
supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket (see Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11).
Issue 12: DOE requests feedback on whether catalog performance data
on SP motors and PSC motors is generally representative of the
performance of the SP and PSC motors included with air circulating
fans.
Issue 13: DOE requests feedback on the methodology used to
determine the baseline efficiency values for the representative units,
including its method of first establishing the EL1 efficiency and then
determining the baseline efficiency by reducing the EL1 efficiency by
the difference in efficiency between a PSC motor and a SP motor.
Additionally, DOE requests data on the expected average improvement in
air circulating fan efficiency when a SP motor is replaced by a PSC 1
motor.
c. Improving Efficiency With More Efficient Motors
This section describes how DOE estimated improvements in air
circulating fan efficiency by using more efficient motors.
When substituting a more efficient motor for a less efficient
motor, DOE assumed that the duty point of the fan (i.e., the fan's
airflow and pressure) remained the same, and that the only change in
motor performance was a decrease in input power. Factors such as motor
speed and inrush current were assumed to remain constant with the
change in motor. This assumption enabled DOE to assume that a percent
change in FEI is equal to a percent change in motor efficiency using
the equations defined in ANSI/AMCA Standard 214-21, ``Test Procedure
for Calculating Fan Energy Index (FEI) for Commercial and Industrial
Fans and Blowers.'' This aligns with the July 2022 TP NOPR approach for
calculating FEI. 87 FR 44194, 44230, 44232. A description of how DOE
derived this relationship is provided in the supplementary spreadsheet
attached to this docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
Throughout the remainder of this NODA, DOE will therefore discuss
efficiency increases in terms of FEI and not in terms of motor
efficiency increases. In the future, DOE may consider performing this
analysis in terms of motor losses and shaft power, consistent with
other rulemakings. See the ceiling fans preliminary analysis published
February 9, 2022 (``Ceiling Fan Preliminary Analysis''). 87 FR 7758.
See also the electric motors preliminary analysis published March 2,
2022 (``Electric Motors Preliminary Analysis''). 87 FR 11650.
Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on its assumption that airflow,
pressure, and motor performance (for example, speed and inrush current)
remain constant when replacing a less efficient motor with a more
efficient motor in an air circulating fan. If airflow, pressure, or
motor performance are not maintained when using a more efficient motor,
DOE requests feedback and data on how it should conduct this analysis.
To determine the PSC 2 motor efficiencies, DOE again used PSC motor
data from the motor database. Rather than fitting a curve to the
average PSC motor efficiency values at each motor output power value,
as it did for the PSC 1 motor curve, DOE instead fit a curve to the
95th percentile PSC motor efficiency values. The 95th percentile was
chosen so that the efficiency values for PSC 2 motors were close to the
maximum possible PSC motor efficiencies. DOE then used this curve to
estimate PSC 2 motor efficiencies for the representative unit motor
output power values.
For the representative units in this NODA that used 0.5 hp motors,
replacing a 0.5 hp PSC 1 motor with a 0.5 hp PSC 2 motor increases the
air circulating fan FEI by 11.2 percent. The resulting FEI for the 24-
inch, 0.5 hp representative unit with a PSC 2 motor is therefore 0.88.
(See Table II-7 at the end of this section) The supplementary
spreadsheet attached to this docket provides more details on how
efficiency increases from PSC 1 motors to PSC 2 motors were determined.
(See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on whether the efficiency gains
shown in the supplementary spreadsheet are realistic efficiency gains
when replacing a lower efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 1 motor) with a
higher efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 2 motor). If these assumptions
are not realistic, DOE requests data demonstrating air circulating fan
motor efficiency as a function of hp, as well as data for motor hp as a
function of fan diameter.
[[Page 62050]]
To evaluate the efficiency increase when changing to an ECM, DOE
used a 2018 pool pump motor database containing information on ECMs
that was compiled by DOE in support of its dedicated purpose pool pump
rulemaking (``DPPP Motor Database''). Most motors in the DPPP Motor
Database were 1 hp and higher; therefore, DOE fit a curve to the ECM
data at each motor hp and used this curve to extrapolate the data and
estimate motor efficiencies at fractional hp for ECMs. The resulting
ECM efficiency for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit is 83.2
percent, an efficiency increase of 23.9 percent from a PSC 1 motor to
an ECM and a FEI of 0.98 at EL 3 (see Table II-7 at the end of this
section). Further details of this analysis can be found in the
supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No.
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on its use of dedicated purpose
pool pump motors as a source for comparing PSC motor and ECM
efficiency. Additionally, DOE requests information on whether motors
used for this purpose are comparable to air circulating fan motors. DOE
further requests feedback on whether the efficiency increases from PSC
1 motors to ECM that DOE presents are realistic. If dedicated purpose
pool pump motors are not representative of air circulating fans motors,
or DOE's estimated efficiency increases are not realistic, DOE requests
data on the difference between PSC 1 motor efficiency and ECM
efficiency and the difference between PSC 2 motor efficiency and ECM
efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE also requests comment on its
use of extrapolation of these data to obtain efficiency values at
fractional hp.
d. Improving Efficiency Through Aerodynamic Redesign
This section describes how DOE evaluated increasing the energy
efficiency of air circulating fans by improving fan component
aerodynamic design.
While EL3 assumes that air circulating fan efficiency is increased
through the use of an ECM, EL4 evaluates the efficiency impact from
adding an ECM and improving the aerodynamic design of the fan. This
``max-tech'' level represents the highest efficiency available on the
market. The fans in the BESS Labs Combined Database used almost
exclusively PSC motors, so DOE assumed that the maximum efficiencies in
the database corresponded to the use of a PSC 2 motor with a highly
efficient aerodynamic design. Presumably, the maximum efficiencies
achieved by a fan with a PSC motor and no aerodynamic redesign would be
captured by the FEI values determined for EL 2 for each representative
unit. The efficiency gain due to improvements in aerodynamic design can
therefore be quantified by determining the difference between the
maximum FEI values in the database and the efficiency levels determined
for EL 2. DOE used the maximum FEI values in the BESS Labs Combined
Database for each representative unit to develop a curve for the PSC 2
plus aerodynamic redesign FEI values as a function of diameter. The
resulting FEI value for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp representative unit is
1.89. DOE then determined the percent increase from the EL 2 FEI values
to the FEI values determined from the curve fit to establish the
increase in efficiency due to aerodynamic redesign for each
representative unit. This percent increase for the 24-inch, 0.5 hp
representative unit was 114.39 percent. DOE then applied the percent
increases in FEI due to aerodynamic redesign to the EL 3 FEI values to
determine the EL 4 FEI values. The resulting EL 4 FEI value for the 24-
inch, 0.5 hp representative unit was 2.10. Further details of this
analysis can be found in the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this
docket. (See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on the FEI values that it
determined and its approach for estimating FEI values for an air
circulating fan that includes both an ECM and improved aerodynamic
design.
e. Results for a 24-inch, 0.5 hp Representative Unit
FEI values calculated for each efficiency level for the 24-inch,
0.5 hp representative unit are shown in Table II-7 . Information on the
FEI values calculated for other representative units can be found in
the supplementary spreadsheet attached to this docket. (See Docket No.
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
Table II-7--FEI Values for 24-Inch, 0.5 hp Representative Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL0 (baseline) EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.73........................................ 0.79 0.88 0.98 2.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Cost Model
The cost model is a key analytical tool used to construct cost-
efficiency curves. This model is used to estimate manufacturing
production costs at various efficiency levels using a design option
approach.
a. Cost Model Structure and Process
This section describes the process by which the cost model converts
the physical information in each product's BOM into manufacturing cost
estimates. The cost model is based on production activities and divides
factory costs into materials, labor, depreciation, and overhead. The
material costs include both raw materials and purchased part costs. The
labor costs include fabrication, assembly, and indirect and overhead
(burdened) labor rates. The depreciation costs include manufacturing
equipment depreciation, tooling depreciation, and building
depreciation. The overhead costs include indirect process costs,
utilities, equipment and building maintenance, and rework. DOE lists
the cost inputs of these categories in Table II-8.
Table II-8--Cost Model Categories and Descriptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major category Subcategory Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Costs.................. Direct............ Raw materials
(e.g., coils of
sheet metal) and
purchased parts
(e.g., fan
motors,
compressors).
[[Page 62051]]
Indirect.......... Material used
during
manufacturing
(e.g., welding
rods, die oil,
release media).
Manufacturing Labor............. Assembly.......... Part/unit assembly
on manufacturing
line.
Fabrication....... Conversion of raw
material into
parts ready for
assembly.
Indirect.......... Fraction of
overall labor not
associated
directly with
product
manufacturing
(e.g., forklift
drivers, quality
control).
Supervisory....... Fraction of
indirect labor
that is paid a
higher wage.
Depreciation.................... Equipment, Straight line
Conveyor, depreciation over
Building. expected life.
Tooling........... Cost is allocated
on a per-use
basis or
obsolescence,
whichever is
shorter.
Other Overhead.................. Utilities......... A fixed fraction
of all material
costs meant to
cover electricity
and other utility
costs.
Maintenance....... Based on installed
equipment and
tooling
investment.
Property Tax and A fixed fraction
Insurance. based on total
unit costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine material costs, DOE followed one of two different
paths, depending on whether a subassembly was purchased (outsourced) or
produced in-house. For purchased parts, DOE gathered price quotations
from major suppliers at different production volumes. For parts
produced in-house, DOE reconstructed manufacturing processes for each
part using modeling software based on internal expertise. For the raw
materials being converted to ready-to-assemble parts, DOE estimated
manufacturing process parameters (manufacturing equipment use and time
for each item, the required initial material quantity, scrap, etc.) to
determine the value of each component.
Using this process, DOE was able to assign manufacturing labor
time, equipment utilization, and other important factors to each
subassembly for each unit considered in this analysis. The last step
was to convert the information into dollar values. To perform this
task, DOE collected information on such factors as labor rates, tooling
depreciation, and costs of purchased raw materials. DOE assumed values
for these parameters using internal expertise and confidential
information available to its contractors.
In sum, DOE assigned costs of labor, materials, and overhead to
each part, whether purchased or produced in-house. DOE then aggregated
single-part costs into major assemblies (e.g., for air circulating fans
this would include packaging, housing, impeller, controls and wiring,
motor, guard, and mounting gear) and summarized these costs in a
spreadsheet. All parameters related to manufacture and assembly were
then aggregated to determine facility requirements at various
manufacturing scales. The final cost obtained by the cost model is the
manufacturer production cost (``MPC''), representing the total cost to
the manufacturer of producing the component.
b. Cost Model Assumptions
Assumptions about manufacturer practices and cost structure play an
important role in estimating the MPC of the products. DOE based
assumptions about the sourcing of parts and in-house fabrication on
industry experience, information in trade publications, and discussions
with manufacturers. DOE used assumptions regarding the manufacturing
process parameters, (e.g., equipment use, labor rates, tooling
depreciation, and cost of purchased raw materials) to determine the
value of each component. The following sections describe the cost model
assumptions related to material prices, purchased parts and factory
parameters.
Raw Material Prices
For parts fabricated in-house, the prices of the underlying ``raw''
metals (e.g., tube, sheet metal) are estimated on the basis of 5-year
averages to smooth out spikes in demand. Other ``raw'' materials such
as plastic resins, insulation materials, etc. are estimated on a
current-market basis. The costs of raw materials are based on
manufacturer interviews, quotes from suppliers, and secondary research.
Past results are updated periodically and/or inflated to present-day
prices using indices from resources such as MEPS International,\18\
PolymerUpdate,\19\ the U.S. geologic survey (``USGS''),\20\ and the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (``BLS'').\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ More information on MEPS International may be found at:
www.meps.co.uk/.
\19\ More information on PolymerUpdate may be found at:
www.polymerupdate.com.
\20\ More information on the USGS metal price statistics may be
found at: www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/commondity-statistics-and-information.
\21\ More information on the BLS producer price indices may be
found at: www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabricated Parts and Purchased Parts
DOE characterized parts based on whether manufacturers fabricated
them in-house or purchased them from outside suppliers. For fabricated
parts, DOE estimated the price of intermediate materials (e.g., tube,
sheet metal) and the cost of forming them into finished parts. DOE
estimated initial raw material dimensions to account for scrap. For
scrap materials that are recyclable, DOE assigned a scrap credit that
is a fraction of the base material cost. Non-recyclable materials incur
a disposal cost for all scrap. For purchased parts, DOE estimated the
purchase price for original equipment manufacturers based on its
confidential parts database and industry expertise. For the purpose of
this analysis, DOE assumed that all components of the fan were
purchased from outside suppliers. This assumption was made because of
the relatively low volume of manufacturing for air circulating fans
compared to other products, which increases the likelihood that parts
are purchased rather than manufactured in-house.
As previously stated, variability in the costs of purchased parts
can account for large changes in the overall MPC values calculated.
Purchased part costs can vary significantly based on the quantities
desired and the component suppliers chosen. The purchased part prices
used in this study were typical values based on estimated production
volume and other factors. However,
[[Page 62052]]
variability in these prices may exist on a case-by-case basis.
Due to the great diversity of manufacturing scale in the fans
industry, DOE estimates that the purchased parts costs could vary
significantly by manufacturer. Some parts like motors, and impellers
may be produced in-house by some manufacturers and purchased by others,
changing likely overall system costs and investment requirements.
Factory Parameters
Certain factory parameters, such as fabrication rates, labor rates,
and wages, also affect the cost of each unit produced. DOE factory
parameter assumptions were based on internal expertise and may be
updated based on manufacturer feedback. Table II-9 lists the factory
parameter assumptions used in the cost models. These assumptions are
generalized to represent typical production and are not intended to
model a specific factory.
Table II-9--Factory Parameter Assumptions for Air Circulating Fans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Annual Production Volume......................... 25,000
Work Days Per Year (days)............................... 250
Fabrication Shifts Per Day (shifts)..................... 1
Assembly Shifts Per Day (shifts)........................ 1
Fabrication Labor Wages ($/hr).......................... 16
Assembly Labor Wages ($/hr)............................. 16
Burdened Fabrication Labor Wage ($/hr).................. 24
Burdened Assembly Labor Wage ($/hr)..................... 24
Fabrication Worker Hours Per Year....................... 250
Assembly Worker Hours Per Year.......................... 250
Supervisor Span (workers/supervisor).................... 25
Supervisor Wage Premium (over fabrication and assembly 30%
wage)..................................................
Fringe Benefits Ratio................................... 50%
Indirect to Direct Labor Ratio.......................... 33%
Length of Shift (hr).................................... 8
Worker Downtime......................................... 10%
Actual units per day.................................... 100
Average Equipment Installation Cost (% of purchase 10%
price).................................................
Average Scrap Credit (relative to base material cost)... 30%
Non-recyclable Trash Cost ($/lb)........................ $0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 18: DOE requests comment on its factory parameter assumptions
for typical air circulating fan production.
c. Determination of Air Circulating Fan MPC
DOE conducted teardowns on four housed and five unhoused air
circulating fan heads ranging in diameter from 18 inches to 30 inches
and created a BOM for each fan. For this NODA, DOE used the BOM for
what DOE considered to be a representative baseline 24-inch unhoused
fan without a motor and one representative baseline 24-inch housed fan
without a motor. The baseline unhoused air circulating fan material and
production costs were scaled to each of the unhoused representative
diameters (i.e., 12, 20, 36, and 50 inches) by the ratio of the
representative diameters to 24 inches. For housed air circulating fans,
DOE determined material and production costs for the 24-inch housed
fan, then used the ratio between the 24-inch housed and unhoused costs
to estimate housed fan costs at each representative diameter. DOE's
cost data for diameters other than 24 inches is included in the
supplement spreadsheet included in the docket. (See Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11) Table II-10 summarizes the characteristics
assumed for 24-inch housed and unhoused baseline fans. DOE assumed that
these fans were manufactured in China, and that material and parts were
also sourced from China.
Table II-10--Material and Production Characteristics for Baseline 24-
Inch Housed and Unhoused Air Circulating Fan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unhoused Housed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blade Type...................... Propeller......... Propeller.
Blade Shape..................... Rectangular....... Rectangular.
Blade Material.................. Galvanized Cold Galvanized CRS.
Rolled Steel
(``CRS'').
Hub Material.................... Aluminum CRS...... Aluminum CRS.
Type of Housing................. Basket............ Tube.
Housing Material................ CRS-Wire.......... CRS-Wire and
polypropylene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether or not its baseline
material assumptions are representative of baseline fans distributed
into commerce. If DOE's baseline material assumptions are not
representative, DOE requests information and data on materials
typically used in the air circulating fans currently on the market.
Housed and unhoused baseline 24-inch air circulating fan cost
estimates are summarized in Table II-11.
Table II-11--Estimated MPCs for Air Circulating Fans With No Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan cost (no
motor)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-inch Unhoused........................................ $26.06
[[Page 62053]]
24-inch Housed.......................................... 69.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 20: DOE requests comment on its estimated base MPC for air
circulating fans with no motors at each of the representative diameters
evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
As discussed previously, DOE used a design option approach to
structure its engineering analysis. DOE assumed that baseline fans with
fractional motor hp would be equipped with a SP motor. For each
efficiency level analyzed (i.e., EL1, EL2, and EL 3), DOE assumed that
a more efficient motor is substituted into the same fan. At EL 4, DOE
assumed the most efficient motor was paired with improved aerodynamic
design of the fan.
To estimate manufacturer costs for SP motors, PSC motors, and ECMs,
DOE used motor costs from its internal parts database and assumed a
motor to fan manufacturer markup of 1.37.\22\ DOE did not have specific
cost data for SP motors, and therefore used costs for shaded-pole
motors as a proxy for SP motor costs. See 2009 CR Report. To estimate
motor costs for the motor hp used in the representative units evaluated
for this analysis, DOE determined the equation of the best fit line for
hp as a function of motor cost and calculated motor cost at 0.1, 0.33,
0.5, and 1 hp for SP motors, PSC motors and ECMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ A markup of 1.37 for motors at or below 5 hp was used in
the Electric Motors Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document
(TSD) (see section 5.4.8.4, Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0010 at
regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's parts database does not differentiate between motor
efficiency. DOE therefore estimated PSC 1 motor cost using a best fit
line for cost as a function of hp. For PSC 2 motor costs, DOE
determined a best fit line identified the 95th cost percentile for each
representative unit/motor hp, and then determined the best fit line
through these points. Table II-12 summarizes estimated motor costs for
the 24-inch air circulating fan at each EL evaluated.
Table II-12--Estimated Motor Costs at Each EL for 24-Inch Diameter Air Circulating Fans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor hp EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5......................................... $26.05 $64.32 $79.78 $114.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether replacing a given fan
motor with a more efficient fan motor will result in similar efficiency
and cost impacts for housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads.
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on its estimated motor costs SP
motors (EL0), PSC motors (EL1), higher efficiency PSC motors (EL2), and
ESMs (EL3) at each hp associated with the representative diameters
evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
Table II-13 summarizes the total estimated cost of the fan
assembly, including the motor, for 24-inch unhoused and housed fans.
Table II-13--Total Air Circulating Fan Cost for a 24-Inch Housed and Unhoused Fan at EL0, EL1, EL2, and EL3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Motor hp EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unhoused........................ 0.5 $52.12 $90.38 $105.84 $140.51
Housed.......................... 0.5 95.94 134.21 149.67 184.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on its estimated housed and unhoused
air circulating fan costs at each EL and for each representative unit.
(See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
As mentioned previously, DOE is assuming that a max-tech air
circulating fan (i.e., EL4) would undergo aerodynamic redesign and
contain an ECM. Aerodynamic redesign includes modifications to a fan's
housing, blade/impeller, and/or guard that would include fan model
redesign, re-engineering, and upgraded/new tooling equipment. These
modifications result in a one-time cost that is not captured by MPC but
may be represented by capital conversion costs. DOE used the conversion
costs for axial cylindrical housed fans, presented in the November 2016
NODA,\23\ as a proxy for estimating air circulating fan conversion
costs. After adjusting for inflation, DOE estimates an air circulating
fan redesign cost of $720,300 per fan. Additional information on DOE's
assumptions and analysis may be found in the supplemental spreadsheet
associated with this docket (see Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0002, No.
11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0189 at regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 24: DOE requests comment on and additional data to support
its estimated air circulating fan conversion costs to undergo
aerodynamic redesign.
[[Page 62054]]
5. Manufacturer Selling Price
The manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price of the
equipment when it is sold by the manufacturer to the first party in the
distribution chain. It includes all direct and indirect production
costs, other costs such as research and development, and the
manufacturer's profit.
When developing cost-efficiency curves during its engineering
analysis, DOE typically uses MSP as a function of efficiency. For
simplicity, DOE is presenting the results of its cost model for this
NODA in terms of MPC.
The MSP is expressed as the product of the MPC and the manufacturer
markup. Based on information obtained during interviews with
manufacturers, DOE is assuming that the average manufacturer markup for
a baseline fan is 1.5.50 percent, meaning the MSP is During interviews,
manufacturers stated that they expected to be able to maintain their
profit margin if DOE were to set energy efficiency standards for air
circulating fans; therefore, DOE is assuming that the average MSP in a
market with standards would also be 1.5.
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether or not an average MSP of
1.5 is representative for the air circulating fan market. If an average
MSP of 1.5 is not representative, DOE requests information of what a
more representative MSP would be. Additionally, DOE requests comment on
whether or not MSP for air circulating fans will remain constant in the
case of new energy conservation standards. If not, DOE seeks
information on the magnitude by which MSP might change under potential
energy efficiency standards.
E. 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 MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit
margin.
DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in
the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of
products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are
applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher
efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental
markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to
maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the ECS RFI, DOE requested information to help characterize
distribution channels for air circulating fans. DOE also requested data
on the fraction of sales that go through these channels. 87 FR 7048,
7054. DOE did not receive any input on this topic.
DOE identified two distribution channels for air circulating fans,
depending on the input power of the fan at maximum speed. Air
circulating fans with input power less than 125 Watts (W) are primarily
used in residential applications.\25\ Data from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') indicate that an majority of
residential appliances are sold through retail outlets.\26\ Because DOE
is not aware of any other distribution channel that plays a significant
role for air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE
estimates that such air circulating fans are purchased by consumers
from retail outlets (including online retailers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ DOE notes that distribution for residential use does not
preclude coverage as covered equipment, so long as the equipment is
of a type that is also distributed in commerce for industrial and
commercial use.
\26\ Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Fact Book
2009. 2009. AHAM: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to
125 W, DOE estimates that the primary distribution channel is that the
manufacturer sells the equipment to a distributor, who in turn sells it
to the customer. DOE is also aware of another direct sale channel for
air circulating fans greater than or equal to 125 W where the
manufacturer sells the equipment directly to a customer through their
in-house distributor. In addition, DOE considered additional channels
that included a contractor based on input from manufacturer interviews.
Further, DOE estimated the fraction of shipments of air circulating
fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W going through each
channel based on feedback from manufacturer interviews. Information
from the manufacturer interviews also indicated that some fraction of
shipments (10-15 percent) are sold to consumers via an original
equipment manufacturer (``OEM'') and a distributor. However, DOE is not
aware of any OEM equipment that would incorporate an air circulating
fan and therefore did not consider this channel.
[[Page 62055]]
Table II-14 summarizes the air circulating fan distribution
channels identified by DOE.
Table II-14--Distribution Channels for Air Circulating Fans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air circulating fan input power Fraction of
at maximum speed (W) Distribution channel shipments (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 125 W................ Manufacturer [rarr] 100
Retailer [rarr]
Consumer.
Greater than or equal to 125 W. Manufacturer [rarr] 40
Distributor [rarr]
Consumer.
Manufacturer [rarr] 20
Distributor [rarr]
Contractor [rarr]
Consumer.
Manufacturer [rarr] In- 30
house Distributor
[rarr] Consumer.
Manufacturer [rarr] In- 10
house Distributor
[rarr] Contractor
[rarr] Consumer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate average baseline and incremental markups for each actor
in the distribution channels, DOE relied on data from the 2017 Annual
Retail Trade Survey,\27\ the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey,\28\
and RS Means.\29\ In addition to the markups, DOE obtained state and
local taxes from data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\30\
Table II-15 and Table II-16 and show the resulting baseline markups,
incremental markups, and sales tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Available at www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/arts/annual-report.html; NAICS 443--Electronics and Appliance Stores.
\28\ Available at: www.census.gov/programs-surveys/awts.html;
NAICS 4238--Machinery, equipment, and supplies merchant wholesalers.
\29\ RS Means Electrical Cost Data 2021. Available at:
www.rsmeans.com.
\30\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax Rates Along
with Combined Average City and County Rates (2022), available at
https://thestc.com/STrates.stm (last accessed June 6, 2022).
Table II-15--Distribution Channel Markups for Air Circulating Fans With
Input Power Less Than 125 W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer [rarr] retailer
[rarr] consumer (100%
Distribution channel shipments)
-------------------------------
Baseline Incremental
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retailer................................ 1.486 1.238
Sales Tax............................... 1.073 1.073
Overall Markup.......................... 1.594 1.328
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II-16--Distribution Channel Markups for Air Circulating Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer [rarr] Manufacturer [rarr] Manufacturer [rarr] in-house Manufacturer [rarr] in-house
distributor [rarr] consumer distributor [rarr] contractor distributor [rarr] consumer distributor [rarr] contractor
(40% shipments) [rarr] consumer (20% (30% shipments) [rarr] consumer (10%
-------------------------------- shipments) -------------------------------- shipments)
-------------------------------- -------------------------------
Base.* Inc.* Base. Inc. Base. Inc. Base. Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In-house) Distributor.......................................... 1.412 1.194 1.412 1.194 1.412 1.194 1.412 1.194
Contractor...................................................... .............. .............. 1.100 1.100 .............. .............. 1.100 1.100
Sales Tax....................................................... 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073 1.073
Overall Markup.................................................. 1.516 1.281 1.667 1.409 1.516 1.281 1.667 1.409
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Base. = baseline, Inc. = Incremental.
Issue 26: DOE requests feedback and information on the distribution
channels identified for air circulating fans, and on any other
distribution channel that DOE should consider. DOE also requests data
on the fraction of sales that go through these channels.
F. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of air circulating fans at different efficiencies
for a representative sample of consumers, and to assess the energy
savings potential of increased air circulating fan efficiency. The
energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of air
circulating fans in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by
consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other
analyses DOE performs, particularly assessments of the energy savings
and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from
adoption of amended or new standards.
In any future analysis, DOE may consider calculating the energy use
by combining air circulating fan input power consumption in each mode
(e.g., high speed, medium speed, low speed) from the engineering
analysis with operating hours spent in each mode. To characterize
variability and uncertainty, the energy use is calculated for a
representative sample of air circulating fan consumers. This method of
analysis, referred to as a Monte Carlo method, is explained in more
detail in section II.G of this document. Results of the energy use
analysis for each representative air circulating fan will be derived
from a sample of 10,000 consumers. DOE then plans on using the range of
energy use results in the LCC and PBP analyses and the average of the
energy use results in the National Impact Analysis (``NIA'') analysis.
This section presents DOE's approach to develop consumer samples and
the operating hour inputs that DOE is considering using in any future
energy use analysis. For each consumer in the sample, DOE will
associate a value of air circulating fan operating
[[Page 62056]]
hours drawn from a statistical distribution as described in the
remainder of this section.
1. Fans With Input Power Less Than 125 W
a. Sample of Consumers
DOE is considering including only residential applications in the
energy use analysis of air circulating fans with input power below 125
W. Although some of these air circulating fans are used in commercial
or industrial settings, DOE believes that they represent a very small
portion of the total market for such air circulating fans. To develop a
representative sample of consumers, DOE is considering using the Energy
Information Administration (``EIA'') 2020 Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (``RECS'') \31\ to choose a random sample of
households in which new air circulating fans could be installed. RECS
is a national survey of housing units that collects statistical
information on the consumption of, and expenditures for, energy in
housing units, along with data on energy-related characteristics of the
housing units and occupants. RECS collects data on thousands of housing
units, and was constructed by EIA to be a national representation of
the household population in the United States. Although RECS contains
information on operation for many appliances, it contains no
information on the operation of air circulating fans within each
household. RECS reports only the number of floor or window fans in the
household which is the category of appliance closest to air circulating
fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). 2020. (Last
accessed July 6, 2022) www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In creating the sample of RECS households, DOE is planning on using
the subset of RECS records that met the criterion that the household
had at least one ``floor or window fan''. DOE is planning on choosing a
sample of 10,000 households from RECS to estimate annual energy use for
air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W. Because RECS
provides no means of determining the subset of air circulating fans in
a given household, DOE will use the same sample for all equipment
classes.
b. Operating Hours
In the ECS RFI, DOE requested information to characterize the
annual operating hours of air circulating fans and time spent in each
operating mode, if applicable, by sector of application, and
geographical region. 87 FR 7048, 7054. In response, ebm-papst commented
that the use of agricultural fans, residential fans, commercial fans,
and basket fans used for distribution transformers are all very
different (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 4). ebm-papst did not provide
additional information to characterize operating conditions. DOE did
not receive other comments on this topic.
DOE reviewed existing studies on air circulating fans used in
residential applications and found that these are often studied in
combination with ceiling fans, indicating that they likely operate
similarly.\32\ In the absence of existing data indicating the daily
hours of operation specific to air circulating fans with input power
less than 125 W, DOE used the same annual operating hours as developed
for standard, hugger, and very small diameter ceiling fans in the
Ceiling Fans Preliminary Analysis to characterize the operating hours
of air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W.\33\ The
ceiling fan preliminary analysis relied on a distribution of operating
hours, with an average of 6.45 hours of operation per day with 33
percent at high speed, 38 percent at medium speed, and 29 percent at
low speed. DOE assumes this is also representative of air circulating
fan usage with input power less than 125W and plans on applying this
load profile in any future energy use calculation. DOE notes that some
air circulating fans may not have three available speeds, in which case
DOE plans on adjusting the time spent in each mode according to the
fan's speed capability (e.g., assuming 100 percent of operation at the
one available speed for single-speed air circulating fans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Ecodesign Lot 10 Comfort Fans Study, Preparatory Study on
Environmental Performance of Residential Room Conditioning
Appliances (airco and ventilation) Study on comfort fans--final
report October 2008, after SH comments www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/airco-ventilation/finalreport-cf.zip.
\33\ See Section 7.3.2. of Chapter 7 of the ceiling fan
preliminary analysis Technical Support Document,
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W
a. Sample of Consumers
DOE is considering including only commercial, industrial, and
agricultural applications in the energy use analysis of air circulating
fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. Although some air
circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W are
used in residential applications, DOE believes that they represent a
very small portion of the total market for such fans. DOE plans on
creating a sample of 10,000 consumers for each equipment class to
represent the range of air circulating fan energy use in the
commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors.
b. Operating Hours
As noted previously, DOE did not receive any information related to
the operating hours of air circulating fans. In the absence of data
indicating the daily hours of operation specific to air circulating
fans, DOE estimated that air circulating fans with input power greater
than or equal to 125 W operate, on average, 12 hours per day,
consistent with the hours of use estimated for large-diameter ceiling
fans in the Ceiling Fan Preliminary Analysis.\34\ To represent a range
of possible operating hours around this representative value, DOE will
be drawing 10,000 samples from a uniform distribution between 6 hours
per day and 18 hours per day (assuming a uniform distribution of
operating hours due to the limited availability of information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Section 7.4.2 of Chapter 7 of the Ceiling Fan
Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document,
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2022 TP NOPR, the efficiency metric is calculated
assuming that the performance at each of the five tested speeds is
weighted equally, as there are not available data to suggest a
different distribution of time spent at each speed. 87 FR 44194, 44238.
For this NODA, DOE assumed an equal amount of time would be spent at
each speed, in alignment with the approach in the July 2022 TP NOPR.
Table II-17 summarizes the inputs to the energy use calculation
identified by DOE. For each consumer in the samples, DOE will associate
a value of air circulating fan operating hours drawn from a statistical
distribution as described in Table II-17.
[[Page 62057]]
Table II-17--Inputs to the Energy Use Calculation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air circulating Air circulating
fan with input fan with input
Input to the energy use power at maximum power at maximum
calculation speed less than speed greater than
125 W or equal to 125 W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Operating Hours per Day. 6.45 hours per day 12 hours per day.
Statistical Distribution........ Based on Consumer Uniform
Survey. Distribution
between 6 hours
per day and 18
hours per day.
Fraction of time spent in each 33% on high speed, Equal amount of
mode. 38% on medium time at each
speed, 29% on low tested speed.
speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 27: DOE seeks comment on the estimated average number of
operating hours per year, distribution of operating hours, and the
estimated fraction of time spent at each speed setting for air
circulating fans with input power less than 125 W and those with input
power greater than or equal to 125 W. In addition, if DOE should
consider different operating hours for specific applications (e.g., air
circulating fans used in agricultural applications, thermal mixing
fans) DOE requests data on how to best characterize operating hours for
these various applications.
G. Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
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 uses 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 air circulating fans in the
absence of new 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 equipment class, DOE plans
on calculating the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative sample
of consumers.
In addition, the computer model that DOE plans on using 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 air circulating fan consumer samples. The model
calculates the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level for
10,000 consumers 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 consumer, equipment efficiency is chosen based
on its probability. If the chosen equipment efficiency is greater than
or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration,
the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by
the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase
more efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits
from increasing equipment efficiency.
This section presents the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis not previously described in this
document. All inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses are summarized in
Table II-18.
Table II-18--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Cost......................... Will be derived by multiplying
MSPs by distribution channel
markups and sales tax, as
appropriate. DOE uses
historical data to derive a
constant price index to
project equipment costs.
Installation Costs..................... Assumed installation costs do
not vary by efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use...................... Annual energy use: Based on the
time spent in each model
multiplied by the input power
in each mode.
Variability: Based on discrete
and uniform probability
distributions.
Energy Prices.......................... Electricity: Average and
marginal prices based on
Edison Electric Institute
(``EEI'') data for 2021.
Variability: Based on sector
and geographical region.
Energy Price Trends.................... Based on 2022 Annual Energy
Outlook (``AEO2022'') price
projections (or most recent
version available at the time
of the analysis).
Repair and Maintenance Costs........... Assumed maintenance costs do
not vary by efficiency level.
Assumed no repair costs for air
circulating fans with input
power less than 125 W.
Assumed one motor repair for
air circulating fans with
input power greater than or
equal to 125 W, with a
lifetime that exceeds the
average lifetime.
[[Page 62058]]
Equipment Lifetime..................... Average: 10 years for air
circulating fans with input
power less than 125 W.
And 30 years for air
circulating fans with input
power greater than or equal to
125 W.
Variability: Based on Weibull
distribution.
Discount Rates......................... Residential: approach involves
identifying all possible debt
or asset classes that might be
used to purchase the
considered appliances, or
might be affected indirectly.
Primary data source was the
Federal Reserve Board's Survey
of Consumer Finances.
Commercial/Industrial/
Agricultural: Calculated as
the weighted average cost of
capital for entities
purchasing pool pumps. Primary
data source was Damodaran
Online.
Compliance Date........................ 5 years after publication of
any final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 28: DOE requests feedback on the inputs and considered
methods used for the LCC and PBP analyses.
1. Equipment Price
To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplies the MSPs
developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel
markups described previously (along with sales taxes). As previously
discussed, DOE uses different distribution channel markups for baseline
equipment and higher efficiency equipment, because DOE applies an
incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher
efficiency equipment.
To project equipment costs in the projected compliance year, DOE
plans on developing an equipment price trend. Because the motor is the
most costly component of the air circulating fan, DOE believes that
historic prices of electric motors provide a reasonable basis for
considering trends in the price of air circulating fans.
DOE is planning on obtaining historical Producer Price Index
(``PPI'') data for integral hp motors and generators manufacturing
spanning the time period from 1969 to 2021 and for fractional hp motors
and generators manufacturing between 1967 and 2021 from the BLS.\35\
The PPI data reflect nominal prices, adjusted for product quality
changes. An inflation-adjusted (deflated) price index for fractional hp
motors and generators manufacturing was calculated by dividing the PPI
series by the Gross Domestic Product Chained Price Index. Previous DOE
analysis that relied on the same approach and data sources resulted in
a constant price trend assumption to project future electric motor
prices.\36\ Similarly, DOE expects to rely on a constant price trend
for air circulating fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Series ID PCU3353123353123 and PCU3353123353121 for
integral and fractional hp motors and generators manufacturing,
respectively; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
\36\ See Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards
Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document, Chapter 8: Life
Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis (p. 269). Available at:
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007-0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs
DOE reviewed available air circulating fan installation,
maintenance, and repair cost information.
For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, which
DOE is assuming are primarily used in residential applications, a
previous study focused on air circulating fans used in residential
settings estimated no installation, repair, or maintenance costs for
these fans.\37\ DOE believes this is a representative characterization
of these costs as these air circulating fans are plug-in equipment that
do not require any maintenance and are unlikely to be repaired due to
the relatively low equipment price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Ecodesign Lot 10 Comfort Fans Study, Preparatory Study on
Environmental Performance of Residential Room Conditioning
Appliances (airco and ventilation) Study on comfort fans--final
report October 2008, after SH comments (p. 44; p. 71-73)
www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/airco-ventilation/finalreport-cf.zip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For air circulating fans with input power greater than 125 W, which
DOE assumes are primarily used in commercial, industrial, and
agricultural applications, DOE did not find any information supporting
changes in installation and maintenance costs as a function of
efficiency. Therefore, because DOE expresses results in terms of LCC
savings, DOE is not planning to account for installation costs in the
LCC (the difference in installation costs between a baseline and more
efficient air circulating fan would be zero and would have no impact on
the calculated LCC savings). In terms of repairs, DOE has identified
the motor replacement as a potential repair. Depending on the design
options considered, DOE may include different repair costs by EL to
reflect differences in motor replacement costs. DOE did not find any
information related to motor repair frequency in air circulating fans.
For air circulating fans greater than or equal to 125 W, DOE is
considering accounting for one motor replacement for consumers that
have an air circulating fan with a sampled lifetime exceeding the
average lifetime.
Issue 29: DOE requests information on its assumptions related to
installation, maintenance, and repair practices of air circulating
fans. Specifically, DOE requests feedback and data on whether
installation, maintenance, and repair costs of air circulating fans are
expected to be different at higher efficiency levels in comparison to
the baseline installation, maintenance, and repair costs. To the extent
that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for
those differences.
Issue 30: DOE requests information on the repair frequency of air
circulating fans (i.e., how many repairs in a lifetime) by category
(i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel
fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal
air circulating fan) and on its approach to consider a single repair
for certain air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal
to 125 W.
3. Energy Prices
DOE is planning on using average and marginal electricity prices in
2021 for each census division using data from the EEI Typical Bills and
Average Rates reports \38\ and the methodology described in two
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reports.\39\ \40\ DOE's
[[Page 62059]]
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 and PBP analyses. Table II-19
shows the average and marginal prices for each sector of application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Edison Electric Institute, EEI Typical Bills and Average
Rates Report (2021). Washington, DC.
\39\ Katie Coughlin and Berket Beraki, ``Non-Residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation
Methods,'' April 15, 2019, doi.org/10.2172/1515782.
\40\ Katie Coughlin and Bereket Beraki, ``Residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation
Methods,'' 2018.
Table II-19--Electricity Prices in 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average price Marginal price
Sector 2021$/kWh 2021$/kWh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential............................. 0.157 0.151
Commercial (small)...................... 0.123 0.117
Commercial (large)...................... 0.097 0.083
Industrial.............................. 0.081 0.069
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate electricity prices in future years, DOE is planning on
multiplying the 2021 electricity prices by the sector-specific
forecasts of annual national average price changes from EIA's Reference
case in the AEO 2022. The reference case is a business-as-usual
estimate, given known market, demographic, and technological trends.
AEO2022 has an end year of 2050. DOE assumes a flat rate of change in
prices from 2050. The values for the industrial sector are used for the
agricultural sector as well.
4. Lifetime
The equipment lifetime is the age at which given equipment is
retired from service. DOE typically develops survival probabilities
using on a Weibull function to characterize variability in lifetimes.
In preparation for this NODA, DOE reviewed data available for air
circulating fan lifetime.
For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, which
are primarily used in residential applications, a previous study
focused on air circulating fans used in residential settings estimated
air circulating fan lifetimes at 10 years on average.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Ecodesign Lot 10 Comfort Fans Study, Preparatory Study on
Environmental Performance of Residential Room Conditioning
Appliances (airco and ventilation) Study on comfort fans--final
report October 2008, after SH comments (p. 44) www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/airco-ventilation/finalreport-cf.zip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to
125 W, DOE did not find data specific to such fans and instead is
considering an average lifetime of 30 years across all sectors, as used
to characterize fan and blower lifetimes in a previous DOE
analysis.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ On November 1, 2016, DOE published a notification of data
availability (``November 2016 NODA'') that presented an analysis for
fans and blowers other than air circulating fans. 81 FR 75742. The
lifetime assumptions and data source supporting the life cycle cost
calculation of the November 2016 NODA are available online at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0190 (see
``Lifetime'' worksheet). The average lifetime estimate was based on
input from a subject matter expert John Murphy. ``Commercial and
Industrial Fans Life-cycle Cost Informational Interview.'' Telephone
interview. 13 May 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 31: DOE requests comment on the estimated average equipment
lifetimes for air circulating fans. DOE also requests information
related to minimum and maximum equipment lifetimes (in years or total
mechanical hours).
5. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to consumers to estimate the present value of future operating cost
savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for air
circulating fan consumers based on the opportunity cost of consumer
funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates.\43\ The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the
lifetime of the equipment, so the appropriate discount rate will
reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this
time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC
analysis, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with
an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of
purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt
and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the
restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the
relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE
estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical
distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \44\
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019.
Using the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates
for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates
that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take
effect. In the LCC calculation, to account for variation among
households, DOE will assign each RECS household a specific discount
rate drawn the distributions for the appropriate income group (RECS
provides household income data). The average discount rate in 2021
across all types of household debt and equity and income groups,
weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010,
2013, 2016, and 2019. (Last accessed June 15, 2022)
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates. DOE notes that the LCC does not analyze the appliance purchase
decision, so the implicit discount rate is not relevant in this model.
The LCC estimates net present value over the lifetime of the
[[Page 62060]]
product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general
opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale into
account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC, the
application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial
source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase,
consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset
holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions
consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size
of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the
aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution
of debts and assets.
To establish commercial, industrial, and agricultural discount
rates, DOE estimated the weighted average cost of capital using data
from Damodaran Online.\45\ The weighted average cost of capital is
commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived
from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both
debt and equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital
is the weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt
financing. DOE estimated the cost of equity using the capital asset
pricing model, which assumes that the cost of equity for a particular
company is proportional to the systematic risk faced by that company.
The average commercial, industrial, and agricultural discount rates in
2021 are 6.77 percent, 7.25 percent, and 7.15 percent respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Damodaran Online, Data Page: Costs of Capital by Industry
Sector (2020). (Last accessed February 1, 2021) pages.stern.nyu.edu/
~adamodar/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 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 considers the projected
distribution (market shares) of equipment efficiencies in the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without new energy conservation
standards) in the anticipated compliance year of any future energy
conservations standards.
For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE did
not find any data regarding the distributions of equipment efficiencies
in the no-new-standards case. In the absence of any data, DOE is
conservatively considering assuming all shipments are at the baseline
level (EL 0).
For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to
125 W, DOE is planning on using the distributions based on model counts
at each efficiency level analyzed from the BESS Labs Database to
develop 2021 distributions of equipment efficiencies in the no-new-
standards case. DOE notes that the BESS Labs Database only publishes
performance at limited operating points for a given model, allowing DOE
to calculate the FEI at a single operating point (and not as a weighted
average). In the absence of other data, DOE will use this as a proxy
for determining the weighted average FEI of air circulating fans with
variable and multi-speed capability. In addition, DOE will apply
equipment efficiency trends (see section II.H.3 of this document) to
project the efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case in
the compliance year.
Using the projected distribution of efficiencies for air
circulating fans, DOE plans on randomly assigning an equipment
efficiency to each household and commercial, industrial, or
agricultural consumer drawn from the consumer samples. If a consumer is
assigned an equipment efficiency that is greater than or equal to the
efficiency under consideration, the consumer would not be affected by a
standard at that efficiency level.
Issue 32: DOE requests comment on its approach to derive efficiency
distribution in the no-new standards case for each air circulating fan
category and input regarding 2021 (or most recent year available)
equipment efficiency distributions. Additionally, DOE seeks data that
would support changes in efficiency distributions over time in the no-
new standards case. To the extent any of the efficiency distributions
in the no-new standards case differ by size or other consumer or design
characteristic, DOE requests information to characterize these
variations.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy savings (``NES'') and the net
present value (``NPV'') of total consumer costs and savings expected to
result from new standards at specific efficiency levels (referred to as
candidate standard levels).\46\ DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the
potential standard levels considered based on projections of annual
equipment 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, equipment costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the
lifetime of air circulating fans sold over a 30-year period starting in
the compliance year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S.
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards case projections (``no-
new-standards case''). The no-new-standards case characterizes energy
use and consumer costs for each equipment 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 equipment class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at
specific energy efficiency levels for that class. For each efficiency
level, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the
market shares of equipment with efficiencies greater than the standard.
The NIA calculations use typical values (as opposed to probability
distributions) as inputs. Critical inputs to this analysis include
shipments projections, estimated product lifetimes, product installed
costs and operating costs, product annual energy consumption, the base
case efficiency projection, and discount rates. In this section, DOE
discusses specific inputs to the NIA, not previously discussed in this
document, for which it requests comment and feedback.
1. Base Year Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts to calculate the national impacts
of potential energy conservation standards on energy consumption, NPV,
and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are
typically based on available historical data broken out by equipment
class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales estimates allow for a
more accurate model that captures recent trends in the market.
For air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W, DOE
reviewed shipments data from the Appliance Magazine market
research,\47\ which provides 1981-1994 shipments estimates of air
circulating fans used in residential settings and of ceiling fans. On
average during the period 1981-1994, the data showed that shipments of
such air circulating fans represented 91 percent of ceiling fan
shipments. DOE
[[Page 62061]]
assumed that this ratio is still representative of the market in 2020
and calculated shipments of air circulating fans with input power less
than 125 W by multiplying the 2020 ceiling fan shipments data published
in a previous DOE study \48\ by 0.91, which resulted in 19.2 million
units in 2020. DOE did not find data to characterize shipments by
equipment classes in that input power range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Appliance Magazine market research, Appliance Historical
Statistical review, 1954-2012, January 2014.
\48\ See Chapter 9 of the ceiling fan preliminary analysis
Technical Support Document www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to
125 W, DOE obtained 2021 shipments estimates from manufacturer
interviews for unhoused air circulating fan heads and cylindrical air
circulating fans.\49\ DOE then used model counts from the BESS Labs
Database to estimate market shares by air circulating fan category.
Table II-20 shows the estimated market shares by category based on
model counts from the BESS Labs Database. Based on this data, DOE
estimated that unhoused air circulating fan headsand cylindrical air
circulating fans represent a combined 30 percent of the total market of
air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W.
In addition, DOE adjusted the market shares of unhoused air circulating
fan heads (22 percent) and cylindrical air circulating fans (8 percent)
from the BESS Labs database to account for the market shares from the
shipments estimates provided in manufacturer interviews (i.e., 20
percent and 10 percent, respectively). DOE then used unadjusted market
shares by category as presented in Table II-20 to calculate shipments
of air circulating fans for which manufacturer interviews did not
provide estimates. The BESS Labs Database does not include any housed
centrifugal air circulating fans. DOE did not find any data to estimate
the shipments of housed centrifugal air circulating fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Information from manufacturer interviews indicated
shipments estimates of 494,950 units of unhoused air circulating fan
heads and 255,100 units of cylindrical air circulating fans.
Table II-20--Air Circulating Fans With Input Power Greater Than or Equal to 125 W--Market Share by Equipment
Class (Excluding Housed Centrifugal Air Circulating Fans)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market share Calculated Estimated 2021
DOE terminology BESS category based on model market share shipments
counts (%) (%) * (units)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unhoused Air Circulating Fan Head..... Basket fan.............. 22 20 494,950
Box fan............................... Box fan................. 11 11 275,018
Air circulating axial panel fan....... Panel fan............... 59 59 1,475,098
Cylindrical air circulating fan....... Tube fan................ 8 10 255,100
Housed centrifugal air circulating fan N/A..................... N/A N/A N/A
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................. ........................ 100 100 2,500,167
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Adjusted market shares of Unhoused Air Circulating Fan Head and Cylindrical air circulating fan based on
shipments estimates from manufacturer interviews.
Finally for air circulating fans with input power greater than or
equal to 125 W, based on information from manufacturer interviews, DOE
estimated that while some fans are used in commercial and industrial
settings, the majority of these fans are used in agricultural
applications. In the absence of any quantitative data to characterize
the fraction of shipments by sector, DOE assumed 75 percent of
shipments are used in agricultural settings,\50\ 12.5 percent in
commercial settings, and 12.5 percent in industrial applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ DOE assumed the mid-point between 50 and 100 percent of
shipments (75 percent) go to agriculture. Distributed the remaining
shipments equally across the commercial and industrial sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Shipments Projections
In response to the February 2022 ECS RFI, ebm-papst suggested that
the growth of indoor horticulture, a need for farm animal cooling due
to climate change, and a need for auxiliary cooling on distribution
transformers due to electrification of climate change could all be
reasons for possible growth in the air circulating fan market. (ebm-
papst, No. 8 at p. 4)
To project shipments of air circulating fans with input power less
than 125 W, DOE is considering using an annual growth rate of 5 percent
based on the Appliance Magazine market research data,\51\ which
provides 1981-1994 shipments estimates for air circulating fans used in
residential settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Appliance Magazine market research, Appliance Historical
Statistical review, 1954-2012, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to
125 W, DOE estimates that shipments of such fans follow similar trends
as shipments of large-diameter ceiling fans. Therefore, DOE is
considering projecting shipments of air circulating fans with input
power greater than or equal to 125 W based on the growth rates
projected for shipments of large-diameter ceiling fans.\52\ DOE notes
that this corresponds to a compound annual growth rate of 8.3 percent
for the period 2020-2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Chapter 9 of the ceiling fan preliminary analysis
Technical Support Document (TSD) https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0011-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE may consider alternative approaches to project shipments
depending on stakeholder comment and any additional data that may
become available.
Issue 33: DOE requests comment on the estimated 2020 shipments of
air circulating fans for each market segment considered (i.e., below
125 W, and at or above 125 W) and seeks input on the fraction of
shipments by air circulating fan category (i.e., unhoused air
circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan,
cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating
fan). In addition, DOE requests 2021 annual sales data (or the most
recent year available)--i.e., number of shipments--for air circulating
fans and annual historical shipments data for 2016-2020 (or most recent
years available). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not
available for different air circulating fan categories, DOE requests
more aggregated data of annual sales as available.
Issue 34: DOE requests comment on the estimated market share by
sector. DOE requests 2016-2021 data (or the most recent years
available) on the fraction of shipments in the industrial, commercial,
and residential sectors for
[[Page 62062]]
air circulating fans. In each sector, DOE requests 2016-2021 data (or
the most recent years available) on the fraction of shipments that
represent replacement versus new installations.
Issue 35: DOE requests comments on its approach to project
shipments of air circulating fans. DOE requests information on the rate
at which annual sales (i.e., number of shipments) of air circulating
fans is expected to change in the next 5-10 years. If possible, DOE
requests this information for each air circulating fan category (i.e.,
unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan,
box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air
circulating fan). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not
available for each air circulating fan category, DOE requests more
aggregated data of annual sales.
3. 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
over the entire 30-year analysis period. To project the trend in
efficiency absent amended standards for air circulating fans, DOE did
not find any historical equipment efficiency data. Instead, in order to
incorporate any efficiency trends, DOE may consider an approach that
shifts a fraction of the market share in the single-speed levels (e.g.,
1 percent) to the variable-speed efficiency levels to reflect the
growing market share of variable-speed air circulating fans. DOE may
consider alternative approaches to project equipment efficiency
depending on stakeholder comment and any additional data that may
become available.
For standards cases, DOE is considering a ``roll up'' scenario to
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards
are assumed to become effective. In this scenario, the market share 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 project the trend in efficiency in the various standard
case considered, DOE would then apply the same shift towards variable-
speed efficiency levels as in the no-new-standard case for the
standards cases.
Issue 36: DOE requests comments on its approach to project
equipment efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE requests data and
information on any trends in the fans market that could be used to
forecast expected trends in market share by efficiency levels for air
circulating fans. If disaggregated data are not available for each air
circulating fan category, DOE requests more aggregated data.
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
notification of data availability no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of this document. 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 printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free from
any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters
or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted or redacted.
DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
[[Page 62063]]
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).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
As indicated in the analyses previously, DOE is seeking further
comment and/or data on certain issues. For reference, these issues from
the above analyses include the following:
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its assumption that most motors
paired with air circulating fans are lower efficiency induction motors
that are not currently regulated by DOE. Additionally, DOE requests
data on the percentage of air circulating fans that include a SP, PSC,
shaded pole, or electronically commuted motors.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on if or how the five screening
criteria may impact the application of an aerodynamic redesign
(including changes to housing, impeller and/or blade design), more
efficient motors, or VSDs (``variable-speed drives'') as design options
in the current rulemaking analysis.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its assumption that the BESS Labs
Combined Database is representative of the air circulating fan head
market, with the exception of housed centrifugal air circulating fans
and air circulating fans with input power less than 125 W which are not
represented in the BESS Labs Combined Database.
Issue 4: DOE requests additional information for all categories of
air circulating fans, including: manufacturer name, model number, fan
diameter, blade number, blade shape, blade material, housing type,
housing material, spacing between the blade tip and the housing, and
housing depth with associated performance data obtained using AMCA 230-
15 with 2021 errata (or sufficient information that can be used to
correct to AMCA 230-15 with 2021 errata). DOE additionally requests the
following information on the motors sold within each fan model: motor
type (i.e., SP, PSC, ECM, polyphase, etc.), type of drive (i.e., direct
or belt), motor horsepower (``hp''), motor full-load efficiency (if
available), motor rotations per minute, number of speeds, motor
electric requirements (i.e., volts, amps, frequency, phase, AC/DC), and
whether a variable-speed drive is included with the fan.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on the potential of using fan
affinity laws to extrapolate BESS Labs performance data to air
circulating fan heads with diameters less than 12 inches and greater
than 52 inches. Additionally, DOE requests model characteristics and
performance data obtained using AMCA 230-15 plus 2021 errata (or
sufficient information than can be used to correct to AMCA 230-15 plus
2021 errata) for air circulating fans with diameters both smaller than
and larger than those listed in the BESS Labs Database.
Issue 6: DOE requests comment on whether, and if so how, each of
the following performance-related features may impact utility of air
circulating fans: presence or absence of a safety guard, presence or
absence of housing, housing design, blade type, drive type, number of
discrete speed settings, power requirements, and air velocity or throw.
DOE requests additional feedback and data or information on other air
circulating fan features that may impact utility for the end user and
might form the basis for classification.
Issue 7: DOE requests comment with supporting data on whether the
following performance-related features provide substantially different
utility, or are expected to have a significant impact on efficiency
because of how they are used: (1) housed vs. unhoused air circulating
fan heads; (2) direct-driven vs. belt-driven air circulating fan heads;
and (3) single-phase vs. polyphase air circulating fan heads. DOE also
requests information on any additional features that may impact air
circulating fan head utility.
Issue 8: DOE requests comment on whether the diameters chosen for
representative units in this analysis (i.e., 12 inches, 20 inches, 24
inches, 36 inches, and 50 inches) accurately represent the diameters
with the highest sales volume available in the air circulating fan
market. DOE also requests comment on whether diameter is an appropriate
representative metric for air circulating fans.
Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether the motor hp it has
associated with each representative diameter (i.e., 0.1 hp for 12
inches, 0.33 hp for 20 inches, 0.5 hp for 24 inches and 36 inches, and
1 hp for 50 inches) appropriately represent the motor hp for fans sold
with those corresponding diameters.
Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its use of SP motors as the
baseline for air circulating fans. Additionally, DOE seeks feedback on
its choice of motor technologies (SP motor to PSC 1 motor, PSC 1 motor
to PSC 2 motor, and PSC 2 motor to ECM) to estimate air circulating fan
efficiency increases from one efficiency level to the next.
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on its assumption that motors used
in air circulating fans are exclusively air-over motors. If this is not
the case, DOE requests information on the other types of motors that
are sold with air circulating fans and data on the percentage of air
circulating fans that are sold with motors other than air-over motors.
Additionally, DOE requests information on whether or not the type of
motor supplied with an air circulating fan is a function of air
circulating fan category (e.g., unhoused air circulating fan head, box
fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, etc.).
Issue 12: DOE requests feedback on whether catalog performance data
on SP motors and PSC motors is generally representative of the
performance of the SP and PSC motors included with air circulating
fans.
Issue 13: DOE requests feedback on the methodology used to
determine the baseline efficiency values for the representative units,
including its method of first establishing the EL1 efficiency and then
determining the baseline efficiency by reducing the EL1 efficiency by
the difference in efficiency between a PSC motor and a SP motor.
Additionally, DOE requests data on the expected average improvement in
air circulating fan efficiency when a SP motor is replaced by a PSC 1
motor.
Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on its assumption that airflow,
pressure, and motor performance (for example, speed and inrush current)
remain constant when replacing a less efficient motor with a more
efficient motor in an air circulating fan. If airflow, pressure, or
motor performance are not maintained when using a more efficient motor,
DOE requests feedback and data on how it should conduct this analysis.
Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on whether the efficiency gains
shown in the supplementary spreadsheet are realistic efficiency gains
when replacing a lower efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 1 motor) with a
higher efficiency PSC motor (i.e., PSC 2 motor). If these assumptions
are not realistic, DOE requests data demonstrating air circulating fan
motor efficiency as a function of hp, as well as data for motor hp as a
function of fan diameter.
Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on its use of dedicated purpose
pool pump motors as a source for comparing PSC motor and ECM
efficiency. Additionally, DOE requests information on whether motors
used for this purpose are comparable to air circulating fan motors. DOE
further requests feedback on whether the efficiency increases from
[[Page 62064]]
PSC 1 motors to ECM that DOE presents are realistic. If dedicated
purpose pool pump motors are not representative of air circulating fans
motors, or DOE's estimated efficiency increases are not realistic, DOE
requests data on the difference between PSC 1 motor efficiency and ECM
efficiency and the difference between PSC 2 motor efficiency and ECM
efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE also requests comment on its
use of extrapolation of these data to obtain efficiency values at
fractional hp.
Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on the FEI values that it
determined and its approach for estimating FEI values for an air
circulating fan that includes both an ECM and improved aerodynamic
design.
Issue 18: DOE requests comment on its factory parameter assumptions
for typical air circulating fan production.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether or not its baseline
material assumptions are representative of baseline fans distributed
into commerce. If DOE's baseline material assumptions are not
representative, DOE requests information and data on materials typicaly
used in the air circulating fans currently on the market.
Issue 20: DOE requests comment on its estimated base MPC for air
circulating fans with no motors at each of the representative diameters
evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether replacing a given fan
motor with a more efficient fan motor will result in similar efficiency
and cost impacts for housed and unhoused air circulating fan heads.
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on its estimated motor costs SP
motors (EL0), PSC motors (EL1), higher efficiency PSC motors (EL2), and
ESMs (EL3) at each hp associated with the representative diameters
evaluated. (See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0002, No. 11)
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on its estimated housed and unhoused
air circulating fan costs at each EL and for each representative unit.
(See supplemental spreadsheet included in Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0002, No. 11)
Issue 24: DOE requests comment on and additional data to support
its estimated air circulating fan conversion costs to undergo
aerodynamic redesign.
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether or not an average MSP of
1.5 is representative for the air circulating fan market. If an average
MSP of 1.5 is not representative, DOE requests information of what a
more representative MSP would be. Additionally, DOE requests comment on
whether or not MSP for air circulating fans will remain constant in the
case of new energy conservation standards. If not, DOE seeks
information on the magnitude by which MSP might change under potential
energy efficiency standards.
Issue 26: DOE requests feedback and information on the distribution
channels identified for air circulating fans, and on any other
distribution channel that DOE should consider. DOE also requests data
on the fraction of sales that go through these channels.
Issue 27: DOE seeks comment on the estimated average number of
operating hours per year, distribution of operating hours, and the
estimated fraction of time spent at each speed setting for air
circulating fans with input power less than 125 W and those with input
ower greater than or equal to 125 W. In addition, if DOE should
consider different operating hours for specific applications (e.g., air
circulating fans used in agricultural applications, thermal mixing
fans) DOE requests data on how to best characterize operating hours for
these various applications.
Issue 28: DOE requests feedback on the inputs and considered
methods used for the LCC and PBP analyses.
Issue 29: DOE requests information on its assumptions related to
installation, maintenance, and repair practices of air circulating
fans. Specifically, DOE requests feedback and data on whether
installation, maintenance, and repair costs of air circulating fans are
expected to be different at higher efficiency levels in comparison to
the baseline installation, maintenance, and repair costs. To the extent
that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for
those differences.
Issue 30: DOE requests information on the repair frequency of air
circulating fans (i.e., how many repairs in a lifetime) by category
(i.e., unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel
fan, box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal
air circulating fan) and on its approach to consider a single repair
for certain air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal
to 125 W.
Issue 31: DOE requests comment on the estimated average equipment
lifetimes for air circulating fans. DOE also requests information
related to minimum and maximum equipment lifetimes (in years or total
mechanical hours).
Issue 32: DOE requests comment on its approach to derive efficiency
distribution in the no-new standards case for each air circulating fan
category and input regarding 2021 (or most recent year available)
equipment efficiency distributions. Additionally, DOE seeks data that
would support changes in efficiency distributions over time in the no-
new standards case. To the extent any of the efficiency distributions
in the no-new standards case differ by size or other consumer or design
characteristic, DOE requests information to characterize these
variations.
Issue 33: DOE requests comment on the estimated 2020 shipments of
air circulating fans for each market segment considered (i.e., below
125 W, and at or above 125 W) and seeks input on the fraction of
shipments by air circulating fan category (i.e., unhoused air
circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan,
cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air circulating
fan). In addition, DOE requests 2021 annual sales data (or the most
recent year available)--i.e., number of shipments--for air circulating
fans and annual historical shipments data for 2016-2020 (or most recent
years available). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not
available for different air circulating fan categories, DOE requests
more aggregated data of annual sales as available.
Issue 34: DOE requests comment on the estimated market share by
sector. DOE requests 2016-2021 data (or the most recent years
available) on the fraction of shipments in the industrial, commercial,
and residential sectors for air circulating fans. In each sector, DOE
requests 2016-2021 data (or the most recent years available) on the
fraction of shipments that represent replacement versus new
installations.
Issue 35: DOE requests comments on its approach to project
shipments of air circulating fans. DOE requests information on the rate
at which annual sales (i.e., number of shipments) of air circulating
fans is expected to change in the next 5-10 years. If possible, DOE
requests this information for each air circulating fan category (i.e.,
unhoused air circulating fan heads, air circulating axial panel fan,
box fan, cylindrical air circulating fan, and housed centrifugal air
circulating fan). If disaggregated data of annual sales are not
available for each air circulating fan category, DOE requests more
aggregated data of annual sales.
Issue 36: DOE requests comments on its approach to project
equipment efficiency for air circulating fans. DOE requests data and
information on any trends in the fans market that could be used to
forecast expected trends in
[[Page 62065]]
market share by efficiency levels for air circulating fans. If
disaggregated data are not available for each air circulating fan
category, DOE requests more aggregated data.
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of the availability of the preliminary technical support
document and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 5,
2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting 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 October 6, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-22141 Filed 10-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P