Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment

Federal RegisterJan 17, 2012

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029]

RIN 1904-AC47

Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to amend its energy conservation standards for several classes of commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, DOE must assess whether the uniform national standards for these covered equipment need to be updated each time the corresponding industry standard—the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1)—is amended, which most recently occurred on October 29, 2010. Based upon its analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy conservation standards and the lack of clear and convincing evidence to support more-stringent standards, DOE is proposing to adopt the amended standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h; VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h; and computer room air conditioners. DOE is also proposing updates to the current Federal test procedures to incorporate by reference the most current versions of the following relevant industry test procedures specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1: Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 210/240 (small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment); AHRI 340/360 (large and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment); Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727 and ANSI Z21.47 (commercial warm-air furnaces); and ANSI Z21.10.3 (commercial water heaters). Furthermore, DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 1230 for newly-created classes of variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps, ASHRAE 127 for computer room air conditioners, and AHRI 390 for single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. In addition, DOE is announcing a public meeting to receive comment on its proposal and related issues.

DATES:

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting on February 14, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section X, “Public Participation,” for webinar information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

Comments:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than April 2, 2012. For details, see section X, “Public Participation,” of this NOPR.

ADDRESSES:

The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting, should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards at the phone number above to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that any person wishing to bring a laptop computer into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons may also attend the public meeting via webinar. For more information, refer to section X, “Public Participation,” of this NOPR.

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR on Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Products, and provide docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029 and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AC47. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email:

ASHRAE90.1-2011-STD-0029@ee.doe.gov.

Include docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029 and/or RIN 1904-AC47 in the subject line of the message.

Mail:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. 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:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section X of this document (Public Participation).

Docket:

The docket is available for review at

www.regulations.gov,

including

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

A link to the docket web page can be found at:

www.regulations.gov.

This web page contains a link to the docket for this notice, along with simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section X, “Public Participation,” for further information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov.

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7892. Email:

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mailstop GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010

2. Notice of Data Availability

III. General Discussion of Comments Regarding the ASHRAE Process and DOE's Interpretation of EPCA's Requirements With Respect to ASHRAE Equipment

A. The ASHRAE Process

B. The Definition of “Amendment” With Respect to the Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

C. DOE's Review of ASHRAE Equipment Independent of the ASHRAE Standards Process

IV. General Discussion of the Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and Determination of Scope for Further Rulemaking Activity

A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces

B. Commercial Package Air-conditioning and Heating Equipment

1. Water-Cooled Equipment

2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment

3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment

4. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

5. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and Through-The-Wall Equipment

6. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps

C. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms

D. Coverage of Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment That Are Exclusively Used as Part of Industrial or Manufacturing Processes

E. Test Procedures

1. Small (<65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heating Equipment

2. Small (≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity), Large (≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) and Very Large (≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heating Equipment

3. Commercial Oil-Fired Warm-Air Furnaces

4. Commercial Gas-Fired Warm-Air Furnaces

5. Commercial Water Heaters

6. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms

7. Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems

8. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps

9. Additional Specifications for Testing of Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment, Including VRF Systems

10. Sampling Plans for Commercial Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Equipment

F. Definitional Changes

V. Methodology for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps

A. Definitions of “VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners” and “VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps”

B. Annual Energy Use

C. Shipments

D. Other Analytical Inputs

1. Site-to-Source Conversion

2. Product Lifetime

3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period

VI. Methodology for Computer Room Air Conditioners

A. Market Assessment

1. Definitions of “Computer Room Air Conditioners”

2. Equipment Classes

3. Review of Current Market for Computer Room Air Conditioners

a. Trade Association Information

b. Manufacturer Information

c. Market Data

B. Engineering Analysis

1. Approach

2. Representative Input Capacities for Analysis

3. Baseline Equipment

4. Identification of Efficiency Information and Efficiency Levels for Analysis

5. Pricing Data

6. Equipment Classes for Analysis and Extrapolation to Unanalyzed Equipment Classes

7. Engineering Analysis Results

C. Markups To Determine Equipment Price

D. Energy Use Characterization

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

1. Approach

2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs

a. Equipment Prices

b. Installation Costs

c. Annual Energy Use

d. Electricity Prices

e. Maintenance Costs

f. Repair Costs

g. Equipment Lifetime

h. Discount Rate

3. Payback Period

F. National Impact Analysis—National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis

1. Approach

2. Shipments Analysis

3. Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasted Distribution of Efficiencies

4. National Energy Savings and Net Present Value

G. Other Issues

1. Compliance Date of the Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards

VII. Methodology for Emissions Analysis and Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

A. Emissions Analysis

B. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

VIII. Analytical Results

A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners

B. Energy Savings and Economic Justification

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners

a. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers

b. National Impact Analysis

C. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

D. Proposed Standards

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners

IX. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

X. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Request To Speak and Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

XI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291

et seq.

), as amended, requires DOE to consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for certain types of listed commercial and industrial equipment (generally, commercial water heaters, commercial packaged boilers, commercial air conditioning and heating equipment, and packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1,

Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,

is amended with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,

DOE must adopt amended

energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more-stringent efficiency level as a national standard would produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the statutory criteria, DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 on October 29, 2010, thereby triggering DOE's above-referenced obligations pursuant to EPCA to determine for those equipment with efficiency level changes beyond the current Federal standard, whether: (1) the amended industry standard should be adopted; or (2) clear and convincing evidence exists to justify more-stringent standard levels.

Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term “amended” in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of what would constitute an “amended standard” in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on March 7, 2007 (hereafter referred to as the “March 2007 final rule”). 72 FR 10038. In that rule, DOE

stated that the statutory trigger requiring DOE to adopt uniform national standards based on ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to change a standard for any of the equipment listed in EPCA section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) by increasing the energy efficiency level for that equipment type.

Id.

at 10042. In other words, if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard level unchanged or lowers the standard, as compared to the level specified by the national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). DOE subsequently reiterated this position in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on July 22, 2009. 74 FR 36312, 36313.

Accordingly, this NOPR sets forth DOE's determination of scope for consideration of amended energy conservation standards with respect to certain heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment addressed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Such inquiry is necessary to ascertain whether the revised ASHRAE efficiency levels have become more stringent, thereby ensuring that any new amended national standard would not result in prohibited “backsliding.” For those equipment classes for which ASHRAE set more-stringent or new efficiency levels (

i.e.,

small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h with and without heat recovery; and computer room air conditioners), where possible,

DOE analyzed the energy savings potential of amended national energy conservation standards (at both the new ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels and more-stringent efficiency levels). For the classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioning and heating equipment, as well as the VRF equipment classes, DOE determined that the potential for energy savings from adopting more stringent levels than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels was not significant, and, thus, DOE is proposing to adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels without further analysis. (See section IV.B for further details.) For computer room air conditioners, DOE also analyzed the economic justification of amended national energy conservation standards at more-stringent efficiency levels, in addition to the energy savings potential. DOE did not identify any equipment on the market for evaporatively-cooled air conditioners with a capacity less than 240,000 Btu/h (small and large product classes) or VRF water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 17,000 Btu/h. As a result, DOE did not analyze the economic or energy savings potential of these amended national energy conservation standards, because there are currently no energy savings associated with these product classes, nor is there any available equipment information.

If DOE found there were no models available on the market for any equipment class, DOE did not perform an analysis of the energy savings potential of that equipment class.

In light of the above, DOE has tentatively concluded that for twelve classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, four classes of VRF water-source heat pumps, and thirty classes of computer room air conditioners: (1) The revised efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010

are more stringent than current national standards or represent new standards; and (2) their adoption as Federal energy conservation standards would result in energy savings where models exist below the revised efficiency levels. DOE has also tentatively concluded that there is not clear and convincing evidence as would justify adoption of more-stringent efficiency levels for this equipment.

To obtain a copy of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, visit

www.ashrae.org/technology/page/548

or contact the ASHRAE publications department by e-mail at

orders@ashrae.org

or by telephone at (800) 527-4723.

Thus, in accordance with the criteria discussed elsewhere in this notice, DOE is proposing to amend its existing energy conservation standards for twelve equipment classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment and VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h (with and without heat recovery), and to establish new energy conservation standards for VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h (with and without heat recovery) and thirty classes of computer room air conditioners by adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.

The proposed standards for small water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, and computer room air conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h would apply to equipment manufactured on or after the date two years after the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (

i.e.,

by June 1, 2013 for small water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, and by October 29, 2012 for VRF water-source heat pump less than 17,000 Btu/h and computer room air conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)(i)) The proposed standards for large and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, VRF water-source heat pumps equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h, and computer room air conditioners equal to or greater than 65,000 Btu/h would apply to such equipment manufactured on or after the date three years after the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (

i.e.,

by June 1, 2014 for large and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, and by October 29, 2013 for VRF water-source heat pumps equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and computer room air conditioners equal to or greater than 65,000 Btu/h). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)(ii))

In addition, when the test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are updated, EPCA requires DOE to amend the test procedures for those ASHRAE equipment (which manufacturers are required to use in order to certify compliance with energy conservation standards mandated under EPCA) to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) Specifically, these amendments would update the citations and incorporations by reference in

DOE's regulations to the most recent version of the following industry standards: (1) AHRI 210/240-2008 (Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment); (2) AHRI 340/360-2007 (Performance Rating of Unitary Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment); (3) UL 727-2006 (Standard for Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces); (4) ANSI Z21.47-2006 (Standard for Gas-Fried Central Furnaces); and (5) ANSI Z21.10.3-2006 (Gas Water Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous). DOE is also proposing to adopt three new test procedures for VRF equipment (AHRI 1230-2010), computer room air conditioners (ASHRAE 127-2007), and single package vertical units (AHRI 390-2003). In addition to harmonizing the test procedures with the latest versions in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE also reviewed each of these test procedures in their totality as part of DOE's seven-year review required by EPCA.

DOE is also proposing to include an optional “break-in” provision in its test procedures for commercial air conditioning and heating equipment, in order to provide the manufacturer with the option of running the test unit for a set amount of time prior to testing the equipment. Such a provision could allow components within the unit to warm-up to conditions that are more characteristic of typical operation and more accurately reflect efficiencies achieved in the field. Lastly, DOE has identified a number of issues associated with its test procedures for which it is seeking comments from interested parties.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today's proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pump systems, and computer room air conditioners.

A. Authority

Title III, Part C

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, § 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which includes the commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment that is the subject of this rulemaking.

In general, this program addresses the energy efficiency of certain types of commercial and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labelling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140.

EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks.

Id.

In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards that generally correspond to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as in effect on October 24, 1992 (

i.e.,

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989), for each type of covered equipment listed in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) amended EPCA by adding definitions and setting minimum energy conservation standards for single-package vertical air conditioners (SPVACs) and single-package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)) The efficiency standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs established by EISA 2007 correspond to the levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004, which originated as addendum “d” to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001.

In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for each type of equipment listed, each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must publish in the

Federal Register

an analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards within 180 days of the amendment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs that DOE must adopt amended standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more stringent level would produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is justified under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), then it must establish such more-stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) (In addition, DOE notes that pursuant to the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), the agency must periodically review its already-established energy conservation standards for ASHRAE products. Under this requirement, the next review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.)

EISA 2007 also amended EPCA to require that DOE review the most recently published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (

i.e.,

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010) with respect to SPVACs and SPVHPs in accordance with the procedures established for ASHRAE equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE believes that this one-time requirement is separate and independent from the requirement described in the paragraph above for all ASHRAE products and that it requires DOE to evaluate potential standards higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 level for single-package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, even if the efficiency levels for SPVACs and SPVHPs have not changed since the last version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1.

DOE is conducting a separate rulemaking to further evaluate the efficiency levels for this equipment class.

Once DOE has completed its rulemaking obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B), SPVACs and SPVHPs will be treated similar to other ASHRAE equipment going forward.

EPCA also requires that if a test procedure referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must update its test procedure to be consistent with the amended test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs of the ASHRAE product during a representative average use cycle. In addition, DOE must determine that the amended test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4))

Additionally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require that at least once every 7 years, DOE must conduct an evaluation of the test procedures for all covered equipment and either amend test procedures (if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3)) or publish notice in the

Federal Register

of any determination not to amend a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) Under this requirement, DOE must review the test procedures for the various types of ASHRAE equipment not later than December 19, 2014 (

i.e.,

7 years after the enactment of EISA 2007). Thus, the final rule resulting from this rulemaking will satisfy the requirement to review the test procedures for the certain types of ASHRAE equipment included in this rule (

i.e.,

those equipment for which DOE has been triggered) within seven years.

On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE officially released and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. This action triggered DOE's obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined above.

When considering the possibility of a more-stringent standard, DOE's more typical rulemaking requirements under EPCA apply (

i.e.,

a determination of technological feasibility, economic justification, and significant energy savings). For example, EPCA provides that in deciding whether such a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of the products likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that such standard would likely result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as ASHRAE equipment, has two or more subcategories, DOE often specifies more than one standard level. DOE generally will adopt a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and which justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE generally considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. In a rule prescribing such a standard, DOE includes an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2); 6316(a)) DOE plans to follow a similar process in the context of today's rulemaking.

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from

technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today's NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.

Consistent with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy efficiency standard proposed herein by DOE achieves maximum net benefits.

B. Background

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010

As noted above, ASHRAE released a new version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 on October 29, 2010. The ASHRAE standard addresses efficiency levels for many types of commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC), and water-heating equipment covered by EPCA. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 revised its efficiency levels for certain commercial equipment and revised its scope to include additional equipment, but for the remaining equipment, ASHRAE left in place the preexisting levels (

i.e.,

the efficiency levels specified in EPCA or the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007).

Table II.1 below presents the equipment classes for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels differed from those in the previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (

i.e.,

ASHRAE Standard 90.1- 2007). Table II.1 also presents the existing Federal energy conservation standards and the corresponding standard levels in both ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for those equipment classes. Section IV of this document assesses each of these equipment types to determine whether the amendments in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 constitute increased energy efficiency levels, as would necessitate further analysis of the potential energy savings from amended Federal energy conservation standards, the conclusions of which are presented in the final column of Table II.1.

Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards and Energy Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for Specific Types of Commercial Equipment *

ASHRAE equipment class**

Energy efficiency levels in ASHRAE standard 90.1-2007

Energy efficiency levels in ASHRAE standard 90.1-2010

Federal energy

conservation standards

DOE review triggered?

Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces

Gas-Fired Commercial Warm-Air furnace

= 80% Interrupted or intermittent ignition device, jacket losses not exceeding 0.75% of input rating, power vent or flue damper***

= 80%

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Water-Cooled

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.5 EER

12.1 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.5 EER

Yes

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating

11.3 EER

11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.3 EER

Yes

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.0 EER

12.5 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.0 EER

Yes

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating

10.8 EER

12.3 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.0 EER

Yes

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.0 EER

12.4 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.0 EER

Yes

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating

10.8 EER

12.2 EER (as of 6/1/11)

10.8 EER

Yes

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Evaporatively-Cooled

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.5 EER

12.1 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.5 EER

Yes

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating

11.3 EER

11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.3 EER

Yes

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.0 EER

12.0 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.0 EER

Yes

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating

10.8 EER

11.8 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.0 EER

Yes

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.0 EER

11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11)

11.0 EER

Yes

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating

10.8 EER

11.7 EER

†

(as of 6/1/11)

10.8 EER

Yes

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—VRF Systems

††

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h

N/A

13.0 SEER

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance or No Heating

N/A

11.2 EER

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance or No Heating

N/A

11.0 EER

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance or No Heating

N/A

10.0 EER

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h

N/A

13.0 SEER

7.7 HSPF

13.0 SEER

7.7 HSPF

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating

N/A

11.0 EER

3.3 COP

11.0 EER

3.3 COP

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating

N/A

10.8 EER

3.3 COP

11.0 EER (electric resistance heating)

10.8 EER (no electric resistance heating)

†††

3.3 COP

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating

N/A

10.6 EER

3.2 COP

10.6 EER

3.2 COP

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating

N/A

10.4 EER

3.2 COP

10.6 EER (electric resistance heating)

10.4 (no electric resistance heating)

†††

3.2 COP

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating

N/A

9.5 EER

3.2 COP

9.5 EER

3.2 COP

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating

N/A

9.3 EER

3.2 COP

9.5 EER (electric resistance heating)

9.3 EER (no electric resistance heating)

†††

3.2 COP

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, <65,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery

N/A

12.0 EER

4.2 COP

11.2 EER (<17,000 Btu/h)

‡

12.0 EER (≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h)

4.2 COP

Yes

✧✧✧

for <17,000 Btu

for ≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, <65,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery

N/A

11.8 EER

4.2 COP

11.2 EER (< 17,000 Btu/h)

‡

Yes

✧✧✧

for <17,000 Btu

12.0 EER (≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h)

4.2 COP

for ≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery

N/A

12.0 EER

4.2 COP

12.0 EER

4.2 COP

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery

N/A

11.8 EER

4.2 COP

12.0 EER

4.2 COP

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery

N/A

10.0 EER

3.9 COP

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery

N/A

9.8 EER

3.9 COP

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—PTACs and PTHPs

‡‡

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, <7,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction)

‡‡‡

EER = 11.0

EER = 11.7

(as of 10/8/12)

EER = 11.7

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, ≥7,000 and <15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction)

‡‡‡

EER = 12.5—(0.213 x Cap

✧

)

EER = 13.8—(0.300 x Cap

✧

)

(as of 10/8/12)

EER = 13.8—(0.300 x Cap

✧

)

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, >15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction)

‡‡‡

EER = 9.3

Package Terminal Heat Pump, <7,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction)

‡‡‡

EER = 10.8

COP = 3.0

EER = 11.9

COP = 3.3

(as of 10/8/12)

EER = 11.9

COP = 3.3

Package Terminal Heat Pump, ≥7,000 and <15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction)

‡‡‡

EER = 12.3—(0.213 x Cap

✧

)

COP = 3.2—(0.026 x Cap

✧

)

EER = 14.0—(0.300 x Cap

✧

)

COP = 3.7—(0.052 x Cap

✧

)

(as of 10/8/12)

EER = 14.0—(0.300 x Cap

✧

)

COP = 3.7—(0.052 x Cap

✧

)

Package Terminal Heat Pump, >15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction)

‡‡‡

EER = 9.1

COP = 2.8

EER = 9.5

COP = 2.9

EER = 9.5

COP = 2.9

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—SDHV and TTW

Through-the-Wall, Air-cooled Heat Pumps, ≤30,000 Btu/h

12.0 SEER

7.4 HSPF

13.0 SEER

7.4 HSPF

13.0 SEER

7.7 HSPF

Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air-cooled Heat Pumps, <65,000 Btu/h

10.0 SEER

6.8 HSPF

N/A

✧✧

13.0 SEER

7.7 HSPF

Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.20 SCOP (downflow)

2.09 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.10 SCOP (downflow)

1.99 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h

N/A

1.90 SCOP (downflow)

1.79 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.60 SCOP (downflow)

2.49 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.50 SCOP (downflow)

2.39 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.40 SCOP (downflow)

2.29 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizer, <65,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.55 SCOP (downflow)

2.44 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.45 SCOP (downflow)

2.34 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.35 SCOP (downflow)

2.24 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.50 SCOP (downflow)

2.39 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.15 SCOP (downflow)

2.04 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.10 SCOP (downflow)

1.99 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, <65,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.45 SCOP (downflow)

2.34 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.10 SCOP (downflow)

1.99 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.05 SCOP (downflow)

1.94 SCOP (upflow)

N/A

Yes

✧✧✧

* “E

” means combustion efficiency; “E

” means thermal efficiency; “EER” means energy efficiency ratio; “SEER” means seasonal energy efficiency ratio; “HSPF” means heating seasonal performance factor; “COP” means coefficient of performance; “Btu/h” means British thermal units per hour; and “SCOP” means sensible coefficient of performance.

** ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 equipment classes may differ from the equipment classes defined in DOE's regulations, but no loss of coverage will occur (

i.e.,

all previously covered DOE equipment classes remained covered equipment).

*** A vent damper is an acceptable alternative to a flue damper for those furnaces that draw combustion air from conditioned space.

†

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 specifies this efficiency level as 12.2 EER. However, as explained in section IV.B.2 of this NOPR, DOE believes this level was a mistake and that the correct level is 11.7 EER.

††

Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) systems are newly defined equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. As discussed in section IV.B.3 of this NOPR, DOE believes these systems are currently covered by Federal energy conservation standards for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.

†††

For these equipment classes, ASHRAE sets lower efficiency requirements for equipment with heat recovery systems. DOE believes systems with heat recovery and electric resistance heating would be required to meet the current Federal standard for equipment with electric resistance heating (

i.e.,

the Federal standard level shown in the table). However, for equipment with heat recovery and no electric resistance heating, DOE believes heat recovery would be an “other” heating type allowing for a 0.2 EER reduction in the Federal minimum requirement.

‡

The Federal energy conservation standards for this equipment class are specified differently for equipment with cooling capacity <17,000 Btu/h. However, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 does not distinguish this equipment class.

‡‡

For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure, all EER values must be rated at 95º F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products and evaporatively-cooled products, and at 85º F entering water temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values must be rated at 47º F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products, and at 70º F entering water temperature for water-source heat pumps.

‡‡‡

“Standard size” refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve dimensions ≥16 inches high, or ≥42 inches wide.

✧

“Cap” means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95º F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.

✧✧

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 includes an efficiency level of 10.0 SEER for these products. However, as explained in section IV.B.5 of this NOPR, DOE believes that ASHRAE did not intend to set an efficiency level for these products.

✧✧✧

An energy-savings analysis for this class of equipment was not conducted for the notice of data availability published on May 5, 2011 due to either a lack of data or because there is no equipment on the market that would fall into this equipment class.

2. Notice of Data Availability

On May 5, 2011, DOE published a notice of data availability (May 2011 NODA) in the

Federal Register

and requested public comment as a preliminary step required pursuant to EPCA when DOE considers amended energy conservation standards for certain types of commercial equipment covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 76 FR 25622. Specifically, the May 2011 NODA presented for public comment DOE's analysis of the potential energy savings estimates for amended national energy conservation standards for types of commercial equipment based on: (1) The modified efficiency levels contained within ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010; and (2) more-stringent efficiency levels.

Id.

at 25637. DOE has described these analyses and preliminary conclusions and sought input from interested parties, including the submission of data and other relevant information.

Id.

In addition, DOE presented a discussion in the May 2011 NODA of the changes found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.

Id.

at 25630-37. The May 2011 NODA includes a description of DOE's evaluation of each ASHRAE equipment type in order for DOE to determine whether the amendments in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 have increased efficiency levels. As an initial matter, DOE sought to determine which requirements for covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if any, have been revised solely to reflect the level of the current Federal energy conservation standard (where ASHRAE is merely “catching up” to the current national standard), have been revised but lowered, have been revised to include design requirements without changes to the efficiency level, or have had any other revisions made that do not increase the standard level, in which case, DOE is not triggered to act under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for that particular product type. For those types of equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for which ASHRAE actually increased efficiency levels above the current Federal standard, DOE subjected that equipment to the potential energy savings analysis discussed above and presented the results in the May 2011 NODA for public comment. 76 FR 25622, 25644-47 (May 5, 2011). Additionally, for single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, although the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 were unchanged, DOE performed an analysis of their potential energy savings as required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B). Lastly, DOE presented an initial assessment of the

test procedure changes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.

As a result of the preliminary determination of scope set forth in the May 2011 NODA, DOE found that there were equipment types for which ASHRAE increased the efficiency levels (thereby triggering further analysis) including: (1) Water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; (2) two classes of VRF water-source heat pumps with and without heat recovery; and (3) computer room air conditioners (which were not previously covered). 76 FR 25622, 25644-47 (May 5, 2011). DOE presented its methodology, data, and results for the preliminary energy savings analysis developed for the water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment classes in the May 2011 NODA for public comment. 76 FR 25622, 25637-46 (May 5, 2011). For the remaining equipment classes, DOE requested data and information that would allow it to accurately assess the energy savings potential of those equipment classes.

III. General Discussion of Comments Regarding the ASHRAE Process and DOE's Interpretation of EPCA's Requirements With Respect to ASHRAE Equipment

In response to its request for comment on the May 2011 NODA, DOE received seven comments from manufacturers, trade associations, utilities, and energy efficiency advocates. As discussed above, these comments are available in the docket for this rulemaking and are available for review by following the instructions in the

ADDRESSES

section. The following section summarizes the issues raised in these comments, along with DOE's responses.

A. The ASHRAE Process

In response to the preliminary determination of scope and analyses set forth in the May 2011 NODA, DOE received several comments regarding the ASHRAE process for considering revised efficiency levels for certain commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and water heater equipment.

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) stated that it supported the efficiency levels for equipment shown in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, because the efficiency levels were created through a consensus-based process, DOE's analysis shows energy savings for all ASHRAE values analyzed, and adopting ASHRAE values would ensure a streamlined approach. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 1-2)

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) stated that AHRI and its members were participants in the development of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, and that revisions to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are developed through a consensus process. AHRI encouraged DOE to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as Federal minimum efficiency standards. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 1, 3)

“EEI, No. 7 at p. 2” refers to: (1) To a statement that was submitted by the Edison Electric Institute and is recorded in the docket under “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment,” Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029, as comment number 7; and (2) a passage that appears on pages 1-2 of that statement.

DOE maintains its position expressed in the March 20, 2009 NOPR, as restated below. While DOE recognizes that efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are the result of a consensus process, EPCA clearly sets forth DOE's obligations in terms of considering amendments when ASHRAE revises Standard 90.1. Specifically, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more-stringent level as a national standard would produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) In order to determine if more-stringent efficiency levels would meet EPCA's criteria, DOE must review the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and more-stringent efficiency levels for their energy savings and economic potentials irrespective of whether the efficiency levels were part of a consensus standard. 74 FR 12000, 12006.

B. The Definition of “Amendment” With Respect to the Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) submitted a joint comment (hereafter referred to as “The Advocates” comment), which argued that although efficiency levels did not change for warm-air furnaces, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 contains design requirements (interrupted or intermittent ignition device, jacket losses not exceeding 0.75 percent of the input rating, and either power venting or a flue damper) that qualify as an amendment that triggers DOE's review. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2-3) The Advocates stated in previous comments attached as Exhibit B, “The plain language of EPCA ties DOE's duty to review and update Federal standards to ASHRAE's amendment of its own standards regardless of the direction or nature of the ASHRAE change.” (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit B, p. 3) The Advocates further note that the prescriptive requirements for warm-air furnaces meet DOE's own definition of “amendment,” because it increases the level of efficiency for this equipment type. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit B p. 4, referring to 73 FR 40771) Even if DOE decides it cannot adopt multi-metric standards, the Advocates believe that ASHRAE's action triggers a DOE review of the warm-air furnaces standard. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit B p. 4)

DOE does not agree with the Advocates' assertion that DOE is required to review changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 that do not increase the efficiency level when compared to the current Federal energy conservation standards for a given type of equipment. As it did in the July 2009 Final Rule, DOE views the trigger as attached to an increased efficiency level. 74 FR 36312, 36320 (July 22, 2009). Further, since EPCA does not explicitly define the term “amended” in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of what would constitute an “amended standard” in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on March 7, 2007. 72 FR 10038. In that rule, DOE stated that the statutory trigger requiring DOE to adopt uniform national standards based on ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to change a standard for any of the equipment listed in EPCA section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) by increasing the energy efficiency level for that equipment type.

Id.

at 10042. The section cited above refers to “the minimum level * * * specified in the amended ASHRAE standard,” which DOE interprets as referring to an energy efficiency level.

The Advocates also argued that EPCA authorizes DOE to adopt a multi-metric standard. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE has previously noted that Congress intended 42 U.S.C. 6313 to result in DOE “maintain[ing] uniform national standards consistent with those set in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.” (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3, referring to 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 2007)) The Advocates, therefore, contend that DOE must read the statute as permitting sufficient authority to harmonize standards with ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) The

Advocates also state that several products (commercial storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and commercial heat pumps) are already subject to multiple efficiency requirements, some of which are based on multi-part requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (The Advocates Comment, No. 8 at p. 3) The Advocates asserted that DOE's position that it lacks legal authority to apply more than one requirement in a standard for a given product was developed by DOE during the Bush administration in the residential furnaces rulemaking, and that it reversed the agency position taken previously in the central air conditioner docket. Therefore, the Advocates urged DOE to reconsider the policy. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit C p. 2)

In response, if ASHRAE adds a prescriptive requirement for equipment where an efficiency level is already specified, DOE does not believe it has the authority to use a dual descriptor for a single equipment type. EPCA authorizes the Secretary to amend the energy conservation standards for specified equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)), but under 42 U.S.C. 6311(18), the statute's definition of the term “energy conservation standard” is limited to: (A) A performance standard that prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use for a product; or (B) a design requirement for a product.

The language of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a performance standard

a single design standard. As such, DOE maintains its position stated in the July 2009 Final Rule that a standard that establishes both a performance standard and a design requirement is beyond the scope of DOE's legal authority, as would be a standard that included more than one design requirement. 74 FR 36312, 36322 (July 22, 2009). In this case, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 recommends three design requirements, which goes beyond EPCA's limit of one design requirement for the specified covered equipment.

In light of the above, DOE maintains its position (stated in the July 2008 notice of data availability) that if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard level unchanged or lowers the standard, as compared to the level specified by the national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). 73 FR 40770, 40771 (July 16, 2008).

C. DOE's Review of ASHRAE Equipment Independent of the ASHRAE Standards Process

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric submitted a joint comment in response to the May 2011 NODA, with Southern California Edison (SCE) submitting an identical comment (hereafter referred to together as the CA IOU comment). Both the CA IOU comment and the Advocates comment argued that DOE should expand the scope of the rulemaking to include additional product classes. (CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1) Both comments specifically recommended considering amended standards for commercial air-cooled unitary air conditioners and heat pumps and commercial water heaters, arguing that higher efficiency levels would be technologically feasible and that potential national energy savings would be significant (commercial air-cooled unitary air conditioners and heat pumps) or would likely be significant (commercial water heaters). (CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 2; The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5, 9) The Advocates also requested that DOE evaluate whether there are potentially significant savings for unitary water-source heat pumps. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 6) In addition, EEI recommended that if DOE reviews products for higher efficiency standards, it should take a fuel-neutral approach and analyze the energy savings potential from increasing energy efficiency standards for gas and oil-fired furnaces and boilers in addition to the electric products triggered by ASHRAE 90.1-2010. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 2)

The Advocates also argued that the six-year look back provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007)

compels DOE to review standards for all product classes, including those specifically mentioned above, that are more than five years old. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1, 5-6, 9) The Advocates stated that the plain language of the provision applies to all final rules setting standards, including those issued prior to EISA 2007. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) These commenters also stated that it would be unreasonable to read the provision to exclude the most out-of-date standards, because the purpose of the provision is to keep standards up-to-date. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) Further, it was noted that the U.S. Department of Energy May 2011 Strategic Plan commits the Department to reviewing minimum appliance efficiency standards at least every 5 years. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1)

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 incorporated a provision commonly known as the “six-year look back,” requiring DOE to review “any final rule establishing or amending a standard” every six years and either publish a notice indicating that new standards are not required or begin a rulemaking proposing new standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))

The Advocates argued that EISA 2007 does not provide a temporal limitation on what is included in the “any final rule” language used. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 7) The Advocates also cited several Supreme Court cases in which “any” is interpreted to have an expansive meaning encompassing all species of the category in question. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 6-7) Therefore, the Advocates contend that the six-year review must be applied to all products that have a final rule regardless of when it was issued (

i.e.,

including those issued prior to December 19, 2007, the enactment date of EISA 2007). (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 7) These commenters use this rationale to support their recommendation above for DOE to expand the scope of the present rulemaking to include additional product classes.

In response, DOE previously addressed similar comments in a March 20, 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to ASHRAE products. 74 FR 12000. In that document, DOE acknowledged that EISA 2007 directs DOE to assess whether there is a need to update Federal energy conservation standards for certain commercial equipment (

i.e.,

ASHRAE equipment) after a certain amount of time has elapsed. However, DOE also noted that it did not believe it was Congress's intention to apply these requirements retroactively, so that DOE would immediately be in violation of its legal obligations upon passage of the statute, thereby failing from its inception. DOE did not agree that it was late or that it should immediately initiate review of certain commercial equipment.

Id.

at 12007.

DOE largely reiterated its position in the July 22, 2009 Final Rule related to ASHRAE products. 74 FR 36312, 36321. In response to DOE's previously stated position, the Advocates acknowledged that the provision is not retroactive, but rather is prospective as it requires reviews going forward. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 8-9) The Advocates also acknowledged that some final rules were already more than six years old when the amendment was enacted, and that Congress did not specifically provide a transition period. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 9) However, the Advocates contend that this does not mean DOE was out of

compliance at the time of enactment, but rather that DOE must begin the process of reviewing standards more than six years old. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 9)

In response, DOE notes that it has determined previously that it plans to implement the six-year look back provision prospectively and believes that the clock for the six-year look back does not commence until a final rule is published for a given product or equipment after the enactment of EISA 2007 (which occurred on December 19, 2007). As the products in question (

i.e.,

commercial air-cooled unitary air conditioners and heat pumps, commercial water heaters, and unitary water-source heat pumps) have not been the subject of a final rule since before the enactment of EISA 2007, review under the look back provision will not be required until after the next update of standards is completed following a trigger by updates to the corresponding ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels. After that point, if ASHRAE does not update standards within six years, DOE will be compelled to review the standards under the six-year look back provision. However, as a matter of policy, DOE's May 2011 Strategic Plan expressed a goal of reviewing appliance standards at least every five years, and, accordingly, DOE will make an effort to review standards for ASHRAE products on a similar schedule, consistent with statutory mandates and available resources.

IV. General Discussion of the Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and Determination of Scope for Further Rulemaking Activity

As discussed above, before beginning an analysis of the potential economic impacts and energy savings that would result from adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or more-stringent efficiency levels, DOE first sought to determine whether or not the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels actually represented an increase in efficiency above the current Federal standard levels. This section discusses each equipment class where the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency level differs from the current Federal standard level, along with DOE's preliminary conclusion as to the action DOE is taking with respect to that equipment.

A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces

Under 42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A), a “warm air furnace” is defined as “a self-contained oil- or gas-fired furnace designed to supply heated air through ducts to spaces that require it and includes combination warm air furnace/electric air-conditioning units but does not include unit heaters and duct furnaces.” In its regulations, DOE defines a “commercial warm air furnace” as a “warm air furnace that is industrial equipment, and that has a capacity (rated maximum input) of 225,000 Btu per hour or more.” 10 CFR 431.72.

Gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces are fueled by either natural gas or propane. The Federal minimum energy conservation standard for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces corresponds to the efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989, which specifies for equipment with a capacity of 225,000 Btu/h or more, the thermal efficiency at the maximum rated capacity (rated maximum input) must be no less than 80 percent. 10 CFR 431.77(a). The Federal minimum energy conservation standard for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces applies to equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1994. 10 CFR 431.77.

The current Federal standard for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces is in terms of “thermal efficiency,” which is defined as “100 percent minus percent flue loss.” 10 CFR 431.72. The previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (

i.e.,

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007) specified a minimum efficiency level of 80 percent combustion efficiency, but it defined “combustion efficiency” as “100 percent minus flue losses” in the footnote to the efficiency table for commercial warm-air gas-fired furnaces, which references ANSI Z21.47-2001, “Standard for Gas-Fired Central Furnaces,” as the test procedure. In its analysis for the 2009 NOPR regarding standards for ASHRAE equipment in which DOE considered the updates in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, DOE noted that upon reviewing the efficiency levels and methodology specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, ASHRAE changed the efficiency metric for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces in name only, and not in the actual test or calculation method. 74 FR 12000, 12008-09 (March 20, 2009). Therefore, DOE stated its understanding that despite using the term “combustion efficiency” rather than “thermal efficiency,” ASHRAE did not intend to change the substance of the metric. Consequently, DOE left the existing Federal energy conservation standards in place for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces, which specify a “thermal efficiency” of 80 percent using the definition of “thermal efficiency” presented at 10 CFR 431.72.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated the tabulated requirements for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces to specify a minimum efficiency level of 80 percent “thermal efficiency” and references ANSI Z21.47-2006, “

Standard for Gas-Fired Central Furnaces,”

as the test procedure. ANSI Z21.47-2006 defines “thermal efficiency” as “100 percent minus flue losses,” which is the same as DOE's definition of “thermal efficiency” for this equipment. Because of this, DOE believes that the purpose of the ASHRAE metric change to “thermal efficiency” was to clarify the alignment to the existing Federal standards and the ANSI Z21.47-2006 test procedure. As a result, DOE tentatively concluded in the May 2011 NODA that this change does not constitute a revision to the actual efficiency level for gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces and that no further action by the Department is required.

In response to the preliminary review set forth in the May 2011 NODA, the Advocates commented that DOE must review requirements for warm-air furnaces because ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 contains new design requirements that are not included in the Federal standards, which they view as constituting an amendment that triggers DOE review. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2-3) Further, the Advocates urged DOE to adopt all the requirements for gas-fired and oil-fired warm-air furnaces included in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (

i.e.,

efficiency level and design requirements) as Federal standards, as these requirements are included as part of the Implementation of National Consensus Appliance Agreements Act (INCAAA, S. 398). (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) In addition, the CA IOUs urged DOE to adopt all requirements, including prescriptive (design) requirements, for warm-air furnaces. (CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12, at p. 2)

For the reasons explained in section III.B, DOE does not view the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 design requirements for warm-air furnaces as triggering DOE review of the efficiency levels for those products. Further, DOE has determined that incorporation of the design requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for commercial warm-air furnaces is beyond the scope of its legal authority, because the language of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a performance standard or a single design standard and does not permit DOE to adopt both a performance standard and design standard. The fact that pending legislation, if passed, may convey such authority does not have any bearing on DOE's current authority. Thus, DOE has not changed its preliminary view set

forth in the May 2011 NODA, and consequently, DOE proposes to leave the existing Federal energy conservation standards in place for commercial warm-air furnaces.

B. Commercial Package Air-conditioning and Heating Equipment

EPCA, as amended, defines “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” as air-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, water-cooled, or water-source (not including ground water-source) electrically operated, unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps for commercial use. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92) EPCA also defines “small,” “large,” and “very large” commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment based on the equipment's rated cooling capacity. (42 6311(8)(B)-(D); 10 CFR 431.92) “Small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” means equipment rated less than 135,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) “Large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” means equipment rated at or above 135,000 Btu per hour and less than 240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) “Very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” means equipment rated at or above 240,000 Btu per hour and less than 760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92)

1. Water-Cooled Equipment

The current Federal energy conservation standards for the six classes of water-cooled commercial package air conditioners for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 amended efficiency levels are shown in Table II.1. The Federal energy conservation standards for water-cooled equipment are differentiated based on the cooling capacity (

i.e.,

small, large, or very large) and heating type (

i.e.,

electric resistance heating/no heating or some other type of heating). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 increased the energy efficiency levels for all six equipment classes to efficiency levels that surpass the current Federal energy conservation standard levels. Therefore, the Department conducted an analysis of the potential energy savings due to amended standards for these products in the May 2011 NODA.

In response to the May 2011 NODA, the Advocates, the CA IOUs, and EEI recommended that DOE adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for water-cooled equipment, given that the potential national energy savings from efficiency levels above those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are very small. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) Upon reviewing the results of the potential energy savings analysis in the May 2011 NODA, DOE agrees with the submitted comments. Because of the minimal energy savings available from this equipment (see section VIII.B.1), DOE has not conducted further analyses on these products and is proposing in today's NOPR to adopt the energy efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for water-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.

2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment

The current Federal energy conservation standards for the six classes of evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 amended efficiency levels are shown in Table II.1 above. Similar to water-cooled equipment, Federal energy conservation standards divide evaporatively-cooled equipment based on the cooling capacity (

i.e.,

small, large, or very large) and heating type (

i.e.,

DOE reviewed the market for evaporatively-cooled equipment and could not identify any models available on the market in the “small” unit product class (

i.e.,

cooling capacity <135,000 Btu/h) and the “large” unit product class (

i.e.,

cooling capacity ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h). Because there is currently no equipment in these classes being manufactured, DOE believes there are no energy savings associated with these classes at this time. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the potential for additional energy savings at the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or more-stringent levels. Thus, DOE did not perform a potential energy-savings analysis for the small and large equipment classes of evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners.

For very large (

i.e.,

cooling capacity ≥240,000 Btu/h) evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, DOE was able to identify a number of models on the market, and, therefore, DOE conducted an analysis of the potential energy savings for these products in the May 2011 NODA. For very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 set the efficiency level for equipment with electric resistance or no heating at 11.9 EER and for equipment with all other heating at 12.2 EER. However, ASHRAE historically has set the levels for equipment with other heating at 0.2 EER points below the efficiency levels for equipment with electric heating or no heating, which would make the expected efficiency level for very large evaporatively-cooled equipment with other heating 11.7 EER. In February 2011, the Department received a letter from AHRI indicating that the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency level for very large evaporatively-cooled equipment with other heating is incorrect, and that the correct minimum energy efficiency standard for this category is 11.7 EER, as would be expected given the historical ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels for these products. (AHRI, No. 0001 at p. 1) Further, AHRI indicated that at the winter 2011 ASHRAE meeting, the ASHRAE 90.1 committee approved an addendum for public review that corrects this error. In March 2011, ASHRAE released Proposed Addendum j to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, which corrects the value from 12.2 to 11.7 EER. Based on release of the public review draft of this addendum, the Department tentatively decided in the May 2011 NODA to analyze the potential energy savings for this category at an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 level of 11.7 EER.

In response to the May 2011 NODA, the Advocates, CA IOUs, and EEI recommended that DOE adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels for evaporatively-cooled equipment, given that the potential national energy savings from efficiency levels above those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are very small. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) In addition, AHRI agreed that overall energy savings for evaporatively-cooled units less than 240,000 Btu/h cannot be estimated because none exist on the market, but that DOE should still adopt ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels for those product classes. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI also agreed with DOE's recognition of Proposed Addendum j in regards to the EER correction for very large evaporatively-cooled equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 1)

DOE agrees with these comments, and because of the minimal energy savings associated with more-stringent levels for very large equipment (see section VIII.B.1) and the lack of models on the market for small and large equipment,

DOE has not conducted further analyses on these products. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to adopt the energy efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.

3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 created a separate product class for variable refrigerant flow (VRF) air-conditioning and heating equipment. These products are currently covered under DOE's standards for commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, but they are not broken out as a separate product class.

In general, a VRF system will have a single condensing unit serving multiple evaporator coils within a building. Specific “subclasses” of variable refrigerant flow heat pumps equipped with heat recovery capability have been specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 with less-stringent efficiency requirements than specified for VRF systems without heat recovery. (Heat recovery capability provides for shuttling of heat from one part of the building to another and allows for simultaneous cooling and heating of different zones within a building.) Specifically, the efficiency requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for air-cooled VRF heat pumps with heat recovery are equivalent to the Federal minimum energy conservation standards defined for air-cooled heat pumps with “all other heating system types that are integrated into the equipment,” and the efficiency requirements for air-cooled VRF heat pumps without heat recovery are equivalent to the Federal minimum standards for air-cooled heat pumps with electric resistance or no heating.

The VRF systems with heat recovery specified by ASHRAE may also be provided with electric resistance heating systems as a back-up. For air-cooled VRF heat pump systems that have both electric resistance heating and heat recovery heating capability, the Department has tentatively concluded that these systems must meet the efficiency requirements contained in EPCA for small, large, and very large air-cooled central air-conditioning heat pumps with electric resistance heating, which are codified at 10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)-(9)) In addition, the Department has tentatively concluded that air-cooled VRF systems without electric resistance heating but with heat recovery can qualify as having an “other” means of heating, and that these systems must meet the efficiency requirements contained in EPCA for small, large, and very large air-cooled central air-conditioning heat pumps with other heating, which are codified at 10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)-(9)) The proposed changes to the Code of Federal Regulations can be found at the end of this NOPR.

Section 136 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005; Pub. L. 109-58) amended EPCA to include separate minimum efficiency requirements for commercial package air-cooled air conditioners and heating equipment with “all other heating system types that are integrated into the equipment” and with electric resistance or no heating.

Table IV.1 shows the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps in comparison to the current Federal minimum energy conservation standards for water-source heat pumps, which DOE has preliminarily determined would apply to VRF systems. For water-source VRF heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 generally maintains the existing energy efficiency requirements that apply to commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment (water-source) for the VRF systems, with several notable exceptions. For VRF water-source heat pumps under 17,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 raises the efficiency levels above current Federal energy conservation standards. For VRF water-source heat pumps over 135,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE sets standards for products where DOE did not previously have standards. As a result, the Department conducted further analysis for these classes in the May 2011 NODA. DOE began by reviewing the current market for VRF water-source heat pumps with cooling capacities either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h. The Department did not identify any models under 17,000 Btu/h on the market. DOE did identify 19 models greater than 135,000 Btu/h on the market and attempted to contact the manufacturer producing most of these models, but DOE was unable to obtain EER information for most of the models and had no shipment information for this product class. Because DOE could not identify any VRF water-source heat pumps being manufactured with cooling capacities less than 17,000 Btu/h, DOE believes that there are no energy savings associated with this equipment class. Therefore, DOE did not perform a potential energy-savings analysis for this equipment. Due to the lack of information and data on VRF water-source heat pumps with cooling capacities greater than 135,000 Btu/h available at the time of the NODA, the Department did not conduct a preliminary energy saving estimate for the additional energy savings beyond the levels anticipated in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for these VRF water-source heat pumps.

Table IV.1—Comparison of Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Water-Source Heat Pumps to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 Requirements for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps

Existing federal equipment class

Federal minimum energy conservation standard

ASHRAE standard 90.1-2010 Efficiency level for newly-established VRF equipment class

Water-source Heat Pump <17,000 Btu/h

11.2 EER

12.0 EER (without heat recovery)

11.8 EER (with heat recovery)

4.2 COP

Water-source Heat Pump ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h

12.0 EER

12.0 EER (without heat recovery)

11.8 EER (with heat recovery)

4.2 COP

Water-source Heat Pump ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h

12.0 EER

12.0 EER (without heat recovery)

11.8 EER (with heat recovery)

4.2 COP

Water-source Heat Pump ≥135,000 and <760,000 Btu/h

N/A

10.0 EER (without heat recovery)

9.8 EER (with heat recovery)

3.9 COP

In addition to the changes for the equipment classes discussed above, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 includes efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps that provide for a 0.2 EER reduction in the efficiency requirement for systems with heat recovery. However, the current Federal minimum standards for water-source heat pumps do not provide for any reduction in the EER requirements for equipment with “other” heating types. Therefore, the 0.2 EER reduction below the current Federal standard levels for the VRF water-source heat pump equipment classes in which ASHRAE did not raise the standard from the existing Federal minimum for water-source heat pumps (

i.e.,

water-source heat pumps with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 17,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000 Btu/h and for water-source heat pumps with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h) would result in a decrease in stringency in comparison to current standards. As noted in section III.B, if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 lowers its efficiency level as compared to the Federal minimum standard level, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). Therefore, DOE did not consider the lower EER requirements for systems with heat recovery and will not perform an analysis of those product classes. The proposed changes to the Code of Federal Regulations to clarify which energy conservation standards VRF water-source heat pumps must meet can be found at the end of this NOPR.

In response to the May 2011 NODA, AHRI agreed that there are no products available on the market in the category of less than 17,000 Btu/h water-source VRF heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3) AHRI also commented that VRF water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity greater than 135,000 Btu/h comprise a new equipment class, and as such, DOE should accept that an analysis to estimate energy savings cannot be done because of the unavailability of data. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3) AHRI encouraged DOE to adopt the efficiency standards for these products in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3)

With regard to the 0.2 EER reduction for systems with heat recovery, AHRI noted that DOE should consider this requirement because non-VRF water-source heat pumps are not a proper comparative product for determining appropriate VRF water-source heat pump efficiency levels (in regard to backsliding) because: (1) Non-VRF water-source heat pumps do not use the type of heating components used by VRF systems, and (2) the components that require the 0.2 EER reduction provide overall energy savings in the system that are not reflected in EER calculations. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5) Mitsubishi also submitted a comment in which it also noted that DOE's comparison of VRF water-source heat pumps to non-VRF water-source heat pumps is not appropriate because the non-VRF water-source heat pumps do not contain gas-fired heat exchangers like the unitary systems, which Mitsubishi believes would be a better comparison to the VRF system. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 3) Mitsubishi further noted that regardless of the comparison, DOE should adopt the 0.2 EER reduction because DOE is not legally prohibited from adopting an amendment that is a reduction of EER levels. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 2, referring to 42 USC 6313(a)(6)(A)) Mitsubishi stated that the 0.2 EER reduction is necessary due to the increased pressure drop in the refrigerant levels due to the BC (branch circuit) controller, which works in unison with the outdoor unit to provide simultaneous cooling and heating needs. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 2)

In response to comments from AHRI and from Mitsubishi regarding the 0.2 EER deduction for water-source heat pumps with heat recovery, DOE has determined that while there may be certain additional efficiency penalties for the incorporation of heat recovery in VRF water-source heat pumps, DOE believes that under the statutory scheme for commercial equipment standards, the corresponding existing product class is a water-source heat pump in which condenser heat is rejected to water, not air. As such, DOE is prohibited from adopting an efficiency level lower than the current Federal standards for water-source heat pumps less than 135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), regardless of the provision in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) providing for adoption of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels. For VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels with or without heat recovery exceed the current Federal standards. For VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h, no current Federal standards exist. In both cases, DOE may adopt the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps with and without heat recovery.

Since the May 2011 NODA, AHRI released a certified product directory for VRF water-source heat pumps, thereby allowing DOE to perform an energy use analysis for VRF water-source heat pumps equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h similar to those presented for other products in the May 2011 NODA. This analysis is discussed in detail in section V. The preliminary analysis showed that only minimal energy savings are available for surpassing ASHRAE efficiency levels for these products (see section VIII.B.2), so DOE did not conduct any further energy or economic analysis for these products. DOE agrees with AHRI's suggestion to adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 level for these products and is proposing to do so for VRF water-source heat pumps either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h with and without heat recovery.

4. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

EPCA defines a “packaged terminal air conditioner” as “a wall sleeve and a separate unencased combination of heating and cooling assemblies specified by the builder and intended for mounting through the wall. It includes a prime source of refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and heating availability by builder's choice of hot water, steam, or electricity.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(A)) EPCA defines a “packaged terminal heat pump” as “a packaged terminal air conditioner that utilizes reverse cycle refrigeration as its prime heat source and should have supplementary heat source available to builders with the choice of hot water, steam, or electric resistant heat.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(B)) DOE codified these definitions at 10 CFR 431.92 in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on October 21, 2004. 69 FR 61962, 61970.

DOE adopted amended energy conservation standards for this class of equipment in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on October 7, 2008. 73 FR 58772, 58828-30. The adopted Federal standards exceeded the standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1- 2007. These Federal standards apply to standard size equipment manufactured on or after October 8, 2012, and to non-standard size equipment manufactured on or after October 7, 2010. The CFR currently states that the compliance dates are September 30, 2012, and September 30, 2010, for standard size and non-standard size equipment, respectively. 10 CFR 431.97(c). The compliance dates currently included in the CFR for package terminal air conditioners and heat pumps were calculated from the date of issuance of the final rule for those products (

i.e.,

September 29, 2008), but should have

been calculated from the publication date in the

Federal Register

(

i.e.,

October 7, 2008). Therefore, DOE is proposing in today's notice to correct the compliance dates to October 8, 2012 and October 7, 2010 for compliance with standards for standard size and non-standard size package terminal air conditioners and heat pumps, respectively.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 increased the efficiency levels for standard size equipment in comparison to the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. However, the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for these equipment classes meet but do not exceed the Federal standards established by DOE in the October 2008 final rule. Because ASHRAE seems to be harmonizing the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 with the Federal levels rather than increasing the minimum efficiency, DOE tentatively concluded in the May 2011 NODA that it is not required to take action on these products at this time. DOE did not receive any comments on this subject and is maintaining its position in this NOPR.

5. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and Through-the-Wall Equipment

EPCA does not separate small-duct high-velocity (SDHV) or through-the-wall (TTW) heat pumps from other types of small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment in its definitions. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) Therefore, EPCA's definition of “small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” would include SDHV and TTW heat pumps. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B))

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 increased some of the efficiency levels for these classes of equipment. Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1- 2010 increased the efficiency requirements for TTW heat pumps to 13.0 SEER and 7.4 HSPF in comparison to the efficiency levels of 12.0 SEER and 7.4 HSPF in ASHRAE Standard 90.1- 2007. However, in March 2011, ASHRAE issued Proposed Addendum h for public review that would correct the minimum SEER for these products to 12.0 SEER.

For SDHV heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 did not increase the cooling efficiency requirement of 10.0 SEER beyond that in ASHRAE 90.1-2007. In addition, although ASHRAE 90.1-2007 specified a heating efficiency requirement of 6.8 HSPF, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 did not specify any heating efficiency level for SDHV heat pumps.

Proposed Addendum h to Standard 90.1-2010,

Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings

(First Public Review, March 2011) (Last accessed March 2011) (Available at

: https://osr.ashrae.org/default.aspx

In the May 2011 NODA, DOE noted that Proposed Addendum h and another Proposed Addendum j,

would both remove the SDHV product class from the standards tables entirely, with Addendum j stating: “In addition the small duct high velocity requirements have been dropped by DOE and they are only allowing such systems under waiver clause so the addendum has also made a change to remove the small duct high velocity systems from table 6.8.1a and table 6.8.1b.” 76 FR 25622, 25633 (May 5, 2011) (

quoting

ASHRAE Addenda h and j). Therefore, DOE concluded that ASHRAE did not intend to specify any efficiency levels for these products in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.

Id.

Proposed Addendum j to Standard 90.1-2010,

Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings

(First Public Review, March 2011) (Last accessed March 2011) (Available at

: https://osr.ashrae.org/default.aspx

In response, DOE notes that the Federal energy conservation standards for commercial types of TTW and SDHV heat pumps, which are 13.0 SEER and 7.7 HSPF, were established for the overall equipment category of small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment by EISA 2007, which amended EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)(D)) Because the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for TTW equipment meet or do not exceed the DOE standards and because DOE believed that through the issuance of Addenda h and j, ASHRAE was removing requirements for this equipment from within ASHRAE 90.1 (and thus also not proposing new, higher efficiency requirements), DOE tentatively concluded in the May 2011 NODA that it was not required to take action on these products at this time. 76 FR 25622, 25633 (May 5, 2011).

In response to the May 2011 NODA, AHRI commented that DOE is incorrect in assuming that Addendum j removes SDHV systems from the scope of coverage of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) It stated that the current minimum SEER requirement for SDHV units in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 applies to all models, both single-phase and three-phase electrical power with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI stated that three-phase SDHV with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h are still covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 despite the omission in Addendum j (which AHRI believed deals only with single-phase SDHV systems covered under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA)). (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI stated that DOE must consider the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 SEER requirement for three-phase SDHVs and adopt it as the Federal standard or propose an alternate requirement. AHRI recommended that DOE consider establishing the minimum requirements for three-phase SDHV models at 11 SEER and 6.8 HSPF. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2)

In addition, Unico requested that SDHV be retained as a product class with a minimum efficiency of 11 SEER/6.8 HSPF and that the product manufacturer must have an exception for this as granted by DOE. (Unico, No. 14 at p. 2) (Currently, three manufacturers of SDHV products have been granted exception relief by DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) allowing for the sale of SDHV products meeting efficiency of 11 SEER and 6.8 HSPF.

) Unico recommended that DOE create a commercial SDHV product class that mirrors the consumer single-phase product class due to similar operating conditions. (Unico, No. 14 at p. 2)

Department of Energy: Office of Hearings and Appeals, Decision and Order, Case #TEE 0010 (2004) (Available at:

http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/ee/tee0010.pdf

) and Case #TEE 0026 (2005) (Available at:

http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/ee/tee0026.pdf

In response to the AHRI and Unico comments, DOE did not intend to imply that SDHV are removed from the scope of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, but notes that the removal of an efficiency requirement for a covered product within ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is indicative that ASHRAE is not proposing a higher standards for the equipment and that DOE, thus, has no requirement or legal ability to react to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels for the equipment. In both the case of the published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for SDHV, or the removal of published values as a result of Addendum j, the minimum Federal efficiency standards for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, at 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF, are higher than the levels originally proposed for SDHV in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE cannot adopt lower efficiency levels due to the prohibition against “backsliding” found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). As such, DOE is prohibited from adopting the original ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 SEER requirement for three-phase SDHVs as the Federal standard, and DOE has no requirement to consider higher levels for three-phase SDHV equipment.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding TTW heat pumps and is maintaining its position in today's NOPR. The efficiency levels shown in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or in Addendum h, meet or do not exceed the current Federal standard for 3-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h small package cooling and heating equipment, and, thus, DOE is not required to take action on these products at this time. DOE has no authority to set standards for any products of this type lower than the current Federal minimum.

6. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps

DOE issued standards for single-package vertical air conditioner and heat pump units (SPVUs) as part of the March 23, 2009 final rule technical amendment in response to mandated efficiency levels for SPVUs established in the EISA 2007 legislation. 74 FR 12058, 12073-74. However, SPVUs are subject to a provision established by EISA 2007, which amended the applicable provisions of EPCA such that not later than three years after the date of this statutory provision's enactment (

i.e.,

December 19, 2007), the Secretary must review the most recently published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with respect to single-package vertical air conditioners and single-package vertical heat pumps using the procedures established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B))

The Department interprets the provision at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B) as constituting a separate trigger to evaluate standards higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 level. SPVUs are considered classes within the broader scope of small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment. EPCA, as amended, directs DOE to conduct a review of the energy savings potential sometime in the three-year interval, and DOE believes this separate trigger is a one-time mechanism, after which SPVUs revert to the normal “ASHRAE trigger.” Accordingly, DOE commenced analytical work on these products along with the other equipment that is subject to the current “ASHRAE trigger” in the May 2011 NODA.

Upon review of the SPVU market, DOE identified several models of SPVUs in the small equipment class. However, DOE did not identify any models of SPVUs in the very large category or any models of single package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs) in the large category. The Department identified only five models of single package vertical air conditioners (SPVACs) in the large category, and these were all close to the upper size limit of the small category, at 70,000 Btu/h or less. As a result of the apparent lack of a market for very large SPVUs and large SPVHPs (as demonstrated by the small size of the market (five models) and accompanying lack of shipment estimates for the large SPVACs), for the May 2011 NODA, DOE conducted complete preliminary energy saving estimates for only the small equipment classes. Additionally, DOE used the energy saving results for small SPVACs to derive an estimate of the potential energy savings for large SPVACs.

In response to the May 2011 NODA, the CA IOUs encouraged DOE to conduct additional analysis for SPVUs above the current ASHRAE levels due to DOE's preliminary analysis of higher levels showing potential reduction of national energy consumption of 0.5 quads over 30 years. (CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 2) The Advocates also agreed that the amendments to EISA 2007 compel review of the existing standards for SPVUs and consideration of levels above those contained in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7)

DOE concurs with these comments. As a result of the potential for high energy savings from increasing the efficiency levels for SPVUs, and the fact that any of these levels would be higher than the ASHRAE levels, DOE is conducting additional analysis for these products along the 30-month timeline for more-stringent standards, as allowed by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) No further results regarding these products' efficiency are presented in today's NOPR, and the results of the additional analysis for SPVUs will be presented in a separate NOPR in the future, consistent with that timeline. However, DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 390 as the DOE test procedure for this equipment.

C. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms

Air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms operate similarly to other types of commercial packaged air conditioners in that they provide space conditioning using a refrigeration cycle consisting of a compressor, condenser, expansion valve, and evaporator. However, air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms are typically designed to maintain the temperature in the conditioned space within a narrow range (

i.e.,

minimizing temperature swings) and to maintain a specific relative humidity. This equipment is commonly capable of humidifying or dehumidifying the air and then, if necessary, reheating it to maintain a specific humidity.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 created a separate product class for “air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms,” and set efficiency levels using the sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) metric, as measured using the test method in ASHRAE Standard 127-2007, “Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners.” The product classes and efficiency levels established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are set forth in Table II.1 above.

Prior to this equipment having separate efficiency levels and test procedures specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE discussed such units using the terminology “computer room air conditioners” in an August 9, 2000 NOPR (65 FR 48828, 48830-31) and an October 21, 2004 direct final rule (69 FR 61962, 61967). In the August 2000 NOPR, DOE determined that computer room air conditioners were not covered as part of the commercial packaged air conditioning and heating equipment classes in EPCA and subsequently upheld this position in the October 2004 direct final rule. DOE made this determination because at the time of passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, which gave DOE the authority to cover commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment), the statute excluded this equipment, and as a result, DOE concluded that it lacked the authority to regulate this equipment. The basis for DOE's decision stemmed from the scope of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which at the time specified that the standard did not cover “equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes.” (See section 2.3(c) of ASHRAE 90.1 standards prior to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010; cited at 65 FR 48828, 48830 (August 9, 2000)). Further, the House Report on EPACT 1992 (H.R. Rep. No. 474, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1 at 175 (1992)) pointed out that the efficiency standards contained in the bill were developed by ASHRAE in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE concluded that this indicated that the efficiency standards for commercial products in EPACT 1992 would have the same scope as the version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 current at the time of the legislation's enactment (

i.e.,

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-89), which did not cover computer room air conditioners. As a result, DOE

concluded at the time that it did not have the authority to cover computer room air conditioners. However, DOE stated in both the NOPR and direct final rule that “if some of the relevant circumstances were to change—if, for example, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were to incorporate efficiency standards and test procedures for this equipment or the equipment was to become widely used for conventional air conditioning applications—the Department might revisit this issue.” 65 FR 48828, 48831 (August 9, 2000) (supporting this point); 69 FR 61962, 61967 (Oct. 21, 2004) (making the quotation).

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 experienced expanded scope as compared to previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, including process loads (

e.g.,

computer rooms) and creation of a separate product class for “air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms.” EPCA generally directs DOE to follow ASHRAE Standard 90.1 when it is amended with respect to certain equipment types, including commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. Thus, DOE has tentatively concluded that because ASHRAE has expanded the scope of Standard 90.1 to include air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms, the scope of DOE's obligations pursuant to EPCA with regard to ASHRAE products has similarly expanded to encompass these products. As such, DOE tentatively concluded in the May 2011 NODA that it had the authority to review the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms and to establish minimum energy conservation standard levels for this equipment. 76 FR 25622, 25634 (May 5, 2011). However, DOE did not perform a potential energy savings analysis for this equipment as a part of the NODA due to the lack of available data, and instead, DOE requested data and information from interested parties that would allow it to conduct a potential energy savings analysis as part of this proceeding.

Lastly, although DOE addressed computer room air conditioners in the August 2000 NOPR and October 2004 direct final rule, DOE never formally defined this term. In reviewing ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE noted that ASHRAE does not define a class of equipment in terms of physical characteristics, but rather an application (

i.e.,

“serving computer rooms”). Because air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms have the same basic components as conventional air conditioners, there is some difficulty in defining “air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms” such that they can be clearly differentiated from conventional commercial packaged air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE reviewed the definitions in both ASHRAE 127-2007,

Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners,

(the test procedure specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1- 2010 for air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms) and Title 20 in the California Code of Regulations (which establishes California's requirements for this equipment), and found in the May 2011 NODA that the definitions in each of the above sources do not contain criteria that would allow DOE to clearly differentiate this type of equipment from conventional equipment, without overlapping. 76 FR 25622, 25634 (May 5, 2011). DOE revisited the issue of defining “computer room air conditioners” for this NOPR, and it is discussed further in section VI.A.1 below.

In response to the May 2011 NODA, the Advocates supported DOE's determination that it has the authority to review the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners and establish energy conservation standards. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7) AHRI suggested that DOE should adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 approach for computer room air conditioners. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3) The Advocates stated that potential energy savings for computer room air conditioners may be significant, and the CA IOUs also noted that computer room air conditioners have high potential energy savings, particularly given their market penetration. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 3-4) The Advocates and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE ensure that any standards established for computer room air conditioners be at least as stringent as the current California standards. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 3-4)

In response to the suggestions from stakeholders, DOE undertook an analysis to estimate the potential energy savings associated with computer room air conditioners, and to perform a cost-benefit analysis of standard levels above the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels. DOE has obtained additional information for this equipment and conducted an energy and economic savings analysis, which is discussed in Section VI. However, as discussed in that section, DOE believes that clear and convincing evidence does not exist as would justify standards beyond those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. As a result, DOE is proposing to adopt energy efficiency standards for computer room air conditioners at the levels set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. See sections VI and VIII for a summary of DOE's analysis, results, and conclusions for computer room air conditioners.

D. Coverage of Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment That Are Exclusively Used as Part of Industrial or Manufacturing Processes

DOE received an inquiry from an interested party regarding the applicability of DOE's regulatory program for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment in terms of equipment that is used exclusively for industrial or manufacturing processes. Specifically, Engineered Air asked the Department to clarify it's position on the following three issues: (1) In units where centrifugal condenser fans are required, the specified EERs cannot be met due to the motor horsepower required on the condenser fan; (2) applicability of the regulatory program in applications where the DX unit functions without ANY regard to the comfort of the occupants, the EERs may not be met; and (3) DOE's position on enforcing its regulations since DOE's regulations are broader than the scope of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (Engineered Air, No. 15 at p. 1)

As mentioned above with regard to air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 expanded the scope of its coverage as compared to previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 did not apply to equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes (see ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, section 2.3(c)). While DOE still believes it is ASHRAE's intent to continue to exclude most of those equipment types that are used solely for manufacturing and industrial processes, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 now applies to new equipment or building systems used in manufacturing or industrial processes that are specifically identified in the standard.

In order to aid regulated entities in determining whether their equipment falls within the scope of DOE's definition of “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” and, thus, is subject to DOE's regulatory requirements, DOE is providing the following guidance. If the equipment

meets the definition of “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” in 10 CFR 431.92, is used exclusively for manufacturing and/or industrial processes, and is not listed as one of the equipment types specifically added to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, then DOE also believes it is not covered under DOE's regulatory program. Just like manufacturers, DOE will make this determination on a case-by-case basis after considering the facts of the particular model in question. In making such a determination, DOE will consider factors such as how the model is advertised, marketed, and/or sold for use in buildings, the extent to which the equipment provides comfort conditioning to occupants, and how the equipment is designed and manufactured. For equipment that is used in commercial or industrial buildings, that has a design similar to that of equipment used in manufacturing processes, but provides comfort conditioning, DOE considers such equipment to meet the definition of “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” and consequently to be covered under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE notes that the fact that equipment may be advertised, marketed, and/or sold as part of industrial or manufacturing processes is not a mutually exclusive determination that the models are exempt them from coverage by DOE's standards for equipment in buildings. DOE seeks comments on ways manufacturers currently differentiate commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment used solely for manufacturing and industrial processes from that equipment of the same type that is used in buildings. This is identified as issue 1 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

With respect to Engineered Air's specific questions, DOE believes the above guidance will help manufacturers like Engineered Air evaluate the applicability of the Department's regulatory equipment to the specific basic models it manufactures. All equipment distributed in commerce in the U.S. that meets DOE's definition of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that is not subject to the Department's exclusion guidance set forth above must meet the Federal energy conservation standards regardless of technology or design. DOE actively enforces all of its energy conservation standards for all covered products and equipment.

E. Test Procedures

EPCA requires DOE to amend any test procedures for ASHRAE products to the latest version generally accepted by the industry or the rating procedures developed or recognized by industry, as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary determines that clear and convincing evidence exists that the latest version of the industry test procedure does not meet the requirements for test procedures described under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3).

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)-(B)) The latest version of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, updated its referenced test procedures to the latest generally accepted industry test procedures for small commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment (AHRI 210/240-2008,

Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment

), large and very large commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment (AHRI 340/360-2007,

Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment

), commercial warm-air furnaces (UL 727-2006,

Standard for Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces,

and ANSI Z21.47-2006,

Standard for Gas-Fired Central Furnaces

), and commercial water heaters (ANSI Z21.10.3-2004,

Gas Water Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous

). In the May 2011 NODA, DOE reviewed each of these test procedures and described the changes in comparison to the previous version of the test procedure. 76 FR 25622, 25634-37 (May 5, 2011). These changes are described further in the sections below.

The relevant statutory provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3) state that test procedure shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial equipment and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. If the test procedure is a procedure for determining estimated annual operating costs, such costs shall be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average-use cycle.

Additionally, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 adopts new test procedures for measuring the efficiency of variable refrigerant flow equipment (AHRI 1230-2010,

Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment

) and air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms (ASHRAE 127-2007,

Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners

). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 also lists AHRI 390-2003,

Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,

as the test procedure for SPVACs and SPVHPs, for which there are currently no DOE test procedures. An initial assessment of these test procedures is presented below.

Lastly, DOE is required to review the test procedures for covered ASHRAE equipment at least once every seven years. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) In addition to the updates to the referenced standards (which are discussed in the subsections below), DOE is seeking comments on any other relevant issues that would affect the test procedures for the ASHRAE equipment addressed in today's NOPR (

i.e.,

those equipment for which DOE has been triggered). Interested parties are welcome to comment on any aspect of these test procedures as part of this comprehensive 7-year-review. This is identified as issue 2 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

1. Small

(<65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heating Equipment

EPCA defines “small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” as commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that are rated below 135,000 Btu/h (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)) ASHRAE 90.1-2010 generally divides covered commercial package air conditioners into the following class sizes: (1) <65,000 Btu/h; (2) ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h; (3) ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h; and (4) ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. Thus, “small” commercial package air conditioners, as defined by EPCA, are split into two size classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010: (1) <65,000 Btu/h and (2) ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h.

For small commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its referenced test procedure from AHRI 210/240-2003 to AHRI 210/240-2008. Between the 2003 and 2008 versions of AHRI 210/240, AHRI made several updates, which are summarized here and discussed in further detail in the May 2011 NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25635 (May 5, 2011). AHRI 210/240-2008 references DOE's test procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps contained at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. AHRI updated the 210/240 test procedure for small commercial air conditioners and air-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h to reflect the recent updates the DOE made to its test procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. In doing so, AHRI updated the definitions for “heating seasonal

performance factor” and “seasonal energy efficiency ratio” to match the definitions for those terms in DOE's residential central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure. AHRI also added definitions for “tested combination, “small duct, high velocity system,” “space-constrained product,” and “through-the-wall air conditioner and heat pump,” that match the DOE's definitions at 10 CFR 430.2. Further, AHRI reorganized and added tables specifying the criteria for the standard rating conditions for the various types of equipment to be identical to those contained in the DOE test procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M.

In the NODA, DOE tentatively concluded that these changes did not significantly impact the energy efficiency metric of small commercial air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. In response, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's tentative conclusion in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any comments or information that would cause it to reconsider the adoption of the updated AHRI 210/240-2008 test method. As a result, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-2008 into the Federal test procedure for small commercial air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.

Additionally, through review of the AHRI certification program for commercial unitary equipment, DOE has discovered that the use of a compressor “break-in” period is common when testing commercial unitary equipment. By way of explanation, the AHRI certification program provides for an optional “break-in” period, which allows a manufacturer to have the testing laboratory run the equipment for a period of time before beginning the test. This break-in period is particularly important for scroll compressors, which may be less efficient when first started and may require time to warm up to achieve optimal performance. Once the compressor is broken in, the performance should be more representative of the actual field performance. EPCA requires that test procedures be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs for a typical type of equipment (or class thereof) during a representative use cycle, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))

DOE believes that allowing for an optional break-in period will provide manufacturers more flexibility to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency of their units in a manner that is representative of their average use. At the same time, DOE recognizes that requiring the break-in period may add significant testing costs and burden, and, thus, DOE believes the break-in period should be optional to allow manufacturers to use this period at their discretion. Therefore, DOE is proposing to create a provision in its test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 that would allow manufacturers the option of a “break-in” period not to exceed 16 hours to warm up the equipment's compressor and components. This 16-hour time limit of the “break-in” period that DOE is proposing matches the period used by AHRI in its Operations Manual for Unitary Large Equipment Certification Program.

DOE believes that this limit is likely common practice in industry. Lastly, if manufacturers choose to use a break-in period when testing their equipment, DOE will be proposing to require that in addition to reporting to DOE the efficiency rating for their products, manufacturers must also report the amount of time (up to 16 hours) used to break in their equipment to achieve the efficiency being represented. Note, DOE will update the certification provisions pending the outcome of this proposal in the upcoming certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks comments on all aspects of this proposal, including the need for an optional break-in period and the length of time that should be allowed for such a period. This is identified as issue 3 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

See:

http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/ULE%20OM%20December%202010.pdf.

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its referenced test procedure for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (AHRI 340/360) from the 2004 version (currently referenced in DOE's test procedures) to the 2007 version. Between these two versions of AHRI 340/360, AHRI expanded the scope of the standard to include air-cooled packaged unitary air-conditioners with a cooling capacity from 250,000 Btu/h to less than 760,000 Btu/h. AHRI also added a tolerance to the minimum external static pressure measurement (from 0.0 inches of H

O to 0.05 inches of H

O).

In the May 2011 NODA, DOE concluded that these changes did not significantly impact the measurement of energy efficiency of small (≥65,000 Btu/h), large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011). In response to this conclusion, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's position in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments on this topic. As a result, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360-2007 into the DOE test procedure for small, large, and very large commercial air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h but less than 760,000 Btu/h.

For small (≥65,000 Btu/h), large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, DOE is also proposing to add the optional “break-in” time of no more than 16 hours, as discussed in the small (<65,000 Btu/h) commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment subsection above (section IV.E.1). DOE believes that adding this option will allow the test procedure to be more representative of the actual performance characteristics of small (≥65,000 Btu/h), large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment, while not increasing the burden on manufacturers. Note, DOE will update the certification provisions pending the outcome of this proposal in the upcoming certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks comment on the need for an optional break-in period for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, and the length of time that should be allowed for such a period. This is identified as issue 4 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

3. Commercial Oil-Fired Warm-Air Furnaces

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its reference test procedure for commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces (UL 727) from the 1994 version of the standard to the 2006 version of the standard. The DOE test procedure for determining the energy efficiency of commercial warm-air furnaces

references part of UL 727 for commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces. 10 CFR 431.76. Within the sections of UL 727 referenced by the DOE test procedure, the only substantive change from the 1994 version to the 2006 version of UL 727 was the removal of a passage from the scope section that allowed manufacturers to propose alternate revisions to the requirements of UL 727 if their product's features, components, materials, or systems are unsafe when used with the UL 727 test procedure.

In the May 2011 NODA, DOE concluded that this change did not significantly impact the energy efficiency metric for commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011). In response, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's tentative conclusion. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments on this topic. Thus, DOE is proposing to amend its test procedures at 10 CFR 431.76 to reference UL 727-2006 for commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces.

4. Commercial Gas-Fired Warm-Air Furnaces

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its referenced test procedure for commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces (ANSI Z21.47) from the 1998 version (currently referenced in DOE's test procedure) to the 2006 version. Between the two versions of ANSI Z21.47, ANSI updated the sections that DOE references in its test procedure for determining the energy efficiency of commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces. In the relevant sections, ANSI expanded the scope to include optional special construction provisions for furnaces designed to operate at altitudes over 2000 feet. ANSI also added a new section, which is not part of the referenced DOE test procedure but caused the Thermal Efficiency section (which is relevant) to move from section 2.38 to section 2.39. In the May 2010 NODA, DOE summarized these updates and stated its tentative conclusion that they do not substantively impact the measurement of energy efficiency for commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011).

In response, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's conclusion in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments from interested parties pertaining to this issue. Thus, DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure at 10 CFR 431.76 to reference ANSI Z21.47-2006 for commercial gas-fired furnaces warm-air furnaces.

5. Commercial Water Heaters

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated its referenced test procedure for commercial gas-fired water heaters (ANSI Z21.10.3) from the 1998 version to the 2004 version. Between these two versions, ANSI moved the relevant sections for thermal efficiency test and standby loss test to Exhibit G and added a provision to limit the duration of the standby loss test to a maximum of 48 hours if there is no cutout (

i.e.,

the thermostat acts to shut off the burner) after the 24-hour mark. This addition closely matches the additional stipulation in DOE's test procedure for commercial gas-fired water heaters at 10 CFR 431.106, which references the ANSI Z21.10.3-1998 test procedure, but adds that the maximum duration of the test should be 48 hours if the water heater is not in heating mode at that time. The difference between the two tests is the ANSI version ends the test immediately at the 48-hour mark, whereas the DOE test procedure would allow time after the 48-hour mark for the water heater to finish its heating cycle. Because DOE's test procedure already includes a provision regarding the duration of the standby test, the provision will supersede this update to ANSI Z21.10.3.

In the May 2010 NODA, DOE tentatively concluded that these updates would not significantly affect the measurement of energy efficiency for commercial gas-fired water heaters. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011). In response, DOE received comment from AHRI agreeing with DOE's conclusion in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) However, the American Gas Association (AGA) expressed concern that water heaters that comply with the version of ANSI Z21.10.3 currently referenced by DOE's test procedure may be found in non-compliance under the revised test method and suggested that DOE do testing in order to provide data on the impact of this change. (AGA, No. 9 at p. 1)

In response, DOE again reviewed the changes to the ANSI Z21.10.3 test procedure for commercial water heating equipment. DOE notes that the only change in the relevant sections of the ANSI Z21.10.3-1998 test procedure is the duration limit for the standby loss test in the event that a cutout does not occur. As noted above, this duration limit is superseded by DOE's duration limit specified in 10 CFR 431.106, which has been in place since the October 21, 2004 direct final rule. 69 FR 61974, 61984. As a result, the standby loss test changes in ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 would similarly be superseded by DOE's requirements for the standby loss test; and for all practical purposes, the test will continue to be required to be conducted in the same manner as before this proposed rule. Thus, DOE does not believe that the new changes to the test procedure will cause any currently-compliant water heaters to be found in noncompliance. Because DOE believes that the incorporated provisions of the water heater test procedure in ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 will be conducted in the same manner as those referenced in the previous test procedure, DOE does not believe that testing is required to support its tentative conclusion that there will be no difference in equipment efficiency as determined by the updated test procedure.

AGA also requested clarification on the current DOE efficiency requirement for electric and oil-fired commercial storage water heaters and was concerned that the standby loss test changes in ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 would also affect the ratings for these equipment classes. AGA stated its interpretation that the current standby loss requirements for these products stem from the 1989 version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and that editions of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 since then contain standby loss requirements that are less stringent for commercial electric water heaters and, accordingly, are not adoptable by DOE. (AGA, No. 9 at p.1) In response, the efficiency requirements for electric and oil-fired commercial storage water heaters are listed at 10 CFR 431.110. Oil-fired storage water heaters must have a minimum thermal efficiency of 78 percent and a maximum standby loss of Q/800+110(V

)

1/2

(Btu/h), where Q is the nameplate input rate in Btu/h and V

is the rated volume. Electric water heaters do not currently have a minimum thermal efficiency but have a maximum standby loss of 0.30+27/V

(%/hr), where V

is the measured storage volume. The standards for oil-fired commercial storage water heaters were promulgated in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on January 12, 2001, which adopted the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 (66 FR 3336), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992) set the standards for electric commercial water heaters (EPACT 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, Oct. 24, 1992). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 did revise the efficiency level for electric water heaters; however, DOE determined that the revised level was a less stringent standard than the current Federal standard (66 FR 3336, 3350 (Jan. 12, 2001)). Subsequent editions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 still contain this

revised efficiency level, but DOE still maintains that the current Federal standard set by EPACT 1992 is more stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency level.

DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure at 10 CFR 431.106 to incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.10.3-2006 for commercial gas-fired water heaters. DOE seeks additional comment on this proposal to adopt ANSI Z21.10.3-2006, which is identified as issue 5 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

6. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 specifies ASHRAE 127-2007,

Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners,

as the test procedure for determining the sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) of air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms. ASHRAE 127-2007 defines and establishes a test method for computer room air conditioners. As noted above, EPCA directs DOE to prescribe the generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that to do so would not produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency or energy use during an representative average use cycle or that the test procedure would be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(4) DOE reviewed ASHRAE 127-2007 to determine whether it meets the requirements of EPCA for incorporation by reference as part of the Federal test method for determining compliance with minimum energy conservation standards.

ASHRAE 127-2007 contains provisions that make it better suited for computer room air conditioners than the current commercial packaged air conditioner test procedures (

i.e.,

AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 340/360). The ASHRAE 127-2007 test procedure places an emphasis on sensible cooling

by establishing the SCOP metric, which is a measure of the sensible cooling output divided by the electrical input of all components, excluding reheaters and humidifiers (

e.g.,

the input of the compressors, fans, controls, air-cooled condenser, or air-cooled fluidcooler fans if used). Sensible cooling is important in computer room air conditioners because the cooling load in most server and computer rooms deals almost exclusively with a sensible heat load, meaning that there is very little moisture removed from the air inside the room. There is a very low latent heat load (

i.e.,

heat load associated with the removal of moisture in the air) because very little outside air actually reaches the room, and there is almost no outside water in the room, which would alter the humidity of the computer room. A typical air conditioner used for space conditioning will encounter both a latent load and a sensible load. However, unlike other types of air conditioners, a computer room air conditioner will have an almost exclusively sensible cooling load, so it is reasonable that the metric for measuring energy efficiency would place an emphasis on sensible cooling. DOE believes that the SCOP metric under ASHRAE 127-2007 is a useful metric for measuring the energy efficiency of computer rooms and data rooms due to its emphasis on sensible cooling.

“Sensible cooling” is the cooling effect that causes a decrease in the dry-bulb temperature, which is the actual temperature of the air. “Latent cooling” is the cooling effect that causes a decrease in the wet-bulb temperature or the moisture content of the air, which is similar to the temperature one feels.

In addition, ASHRAE 127-2007 contains a standard rating test for reheating/dehumidification/humidification systems, which are important functions of computer room air conditioners. The humidity of a computer room is an important aspect to control, as too much humidity can cause condensation on the electronic equipment (which has the potential to render the equipment inoperable) and too little humidity may cause potentially hazardous static discharges.

Because ASHRAE 127-2007 is tailored to computer room air conditioners, DOE believes it will provide a more representative efficiency rating, which is more reflective of the actual efficiency of the unit. DOE believes that ASHRAE 127-2007 is reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle and is not unduly burdensome to conduct, as outlined in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)). In response to the May 2011 NODA, AHRI encouraged DOE to adopt ASHRAE 127 as the test procedure for air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other comments from interested parties pertaining to this issue. For the reasons above, DOE is proposing to adopt ASHRAE 127-2007 as the test method for computer room air conditioners; however, DOE notes several possible issues with the test procedure in the paragraphs below. DOE seeks comment on this proposal, as well as the need for potential modifications for the computer room air conditioner test procedures, and this is identified as issue 6 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

DOE notes that on July 14, 2011, ASHRAE published a public draft review of a revision to ASHRAE 127. A preliminary review of this draft revealed that ASHRAE created four different application classes to meet the industry need to modify equipment to accept higher return temperatures. Each application class has a different standard rating condition. ASHRAE also changed the water temperature conditions for water-cooled direct expansion units to match the conditions in AHRI 340/360 plus a typical cooling tower approach. This update also renames the SCOP and adjusted sensible coefficient of performance (ASCOP) metrics as Net Sensible Coefficient of Performance Rating (NSenCOP) and Integrated Net Sensible Rating (iNSenCOP), respectively. The NSenCOP is to be published at five rating conditions as opposed to four for SCOP (the four rating test conditions A-D in addition to iNSenCOP). The public comment period for the review of this draft has closed. DOE is not proposing to adopt the draft revisions to ASHRAE 127 because they have not been finalized yet, but DOE seeks comments about how to treat the revisions. This is identified as issue 6 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

Lastly, DOE notes that the SCOP metric in ASHRAE 127-2007 does not measure part-load performance, and may not properly account for efficiency features that improve the part-load performance, such as variable speed fan motors and multi-stage compressors. Computer room air conditioners operate virtually all year round with a varying load, depending on how active the computer room is and the outdoor conditions. DOE requests comments on the shortcomings of this test procedure and the SCOP metric, and further improvements that could be made. See Section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

For computer room air conditioners, DOE is also requesting comment on the appropriateness of allowing an optional “break-in” time of no more than 16 hours, similar to those being proposed for other commercial air conditioning and heating equipment in this notice (as discussed in section IV.E.1). DOE believes that adding this option could

allow the test procedure to be more representative of the actual performance characteristics of computer room air conditioners, while not increasing the burden on manufacturers. DOE seeks comment on the need for an optional break-in period for computer room air conditioners, and the length of time that should be allowed for such a period, if it is needed. This is identified as issue 17 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

7. Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 specifies AHRI 1230,

Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,

as the test procedure for variable refrigerant flow systems. As noted previously, EPCA directs DOE to prescribe the “generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1” unless there is clear and convincing evidence that to do so would not produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency or energy use during an representative average use cycle or that the test procedure would be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(4)) DOE reviewed AHRI 1230-2010 to determine whether it meets the requirements of EPCA for incorporation by reference as part of the Federal test method for determining compliance with minimum energy conservation standards.

DOE first addressed the issue of AHRI 1230 in the October 22, 2007 test procedure final rule for residential air conditioners and heat pumps. 72 FR 59906. In that final rule, DOE decided not to adopt ARI 1230 at the time for residential VRF products, because ARI 1230 had not been finalized yet. DOE also noted that the draft test procedure lacked information on: (1) How to conduct intermediate speed tests; (2) whether any indoor units are to be turned off for part-load test; and (3) how to interpolate EER and COP in the intermediate speed range.

Id.

at 59909.

Since 2008, DOE has issued 13 waivers to 5 different manufacturers exempting them from the commercial air conditioning and heat pump test procedures (AHRI 210/240 or AHRI 340/360).

In all 13 cases, the equipment in question was a multi-split variable refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat pump. For these types of equipment, there are multiple indoor units that are paired with a single outdoor unit, and the indoor and outdoor units can be mixed and matched to create different systems with a wide array of possible combinations. For example, one major manufacturer has a product line that can have as many as 38 different interior units connected to a single outdoor unit. Those 38 interior units can be selected in any combination from a pool of 43 unique indoor models. Then, when considering that the indoor units in the system could also be paired with any one of 7 unique outdoor models, the number of possible combinations becomes astronomical. DOE recognized that the vast number of combinations of units that would need to be tested would overwhelm any testing laboratory, so it granted test procedure waivers for these units and required these units to be tested using an alternative test procedure that DOE developed. The only restriction in terms of the number of interior units is that the total capacity of all the indoor units must be comparable to the capacity of the outdoor unit. This alternate test procedure (which is outlined in each test procedure waiver granted by DOE for this equipment) permits the manufacturer to designate a “tested combination” for each outdoor unit. Each “tested combination” must have between two and five indoor units and must be tested using according to the applicable DOE test procedure. Manufacturers must release the test results for those “tested combinations,” and for the non-tested combinations, manufacturers can represent the energy use as equal to the tested combination, provided that the outdoor units are the same.

Daikin AC (Americas) Inc. (73 FR 39680 (July 10, 2008); 74 FR 15955 (April 8, 2009); 74 FR 16373 (April 10, 2009); 75 FR 22581 (April 29, 2010); 75 FR 25224 (May 7, 2010); 76 FR 34685 (June 14, 2011)).

Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. (74 FR 35860 (July 21, 2009); 74 FR 66311 (Dec. 15, 2009); 74 FR 66315 (Dec. 15, 2009); 76 FR 40714 (July 11, 2011)).

LG (74 FR 66330 (Dec. 15, 2009)).

Sanyo North America Corporation (75 FR 41845 (July 19, 2010)).

Carrier Corporation (76 FR 31951 (June 2, 2011)).

In addition, manufacturers brought up several other issues in the petitions for test procedure waivers that related to applying the commercial air conditioning test procedure to VRF systems. Manufacturers asserted that: (1) There is no provision to accommodate having indoor units operating at different static pressures; (2) there is no precise number of part-load tests for fully variable speed; and (3) it does not account for simultaneous heating and cooling. DOE notes that the fact that multi-split systems can simultaneously heat and cool a building does not impact the efficiency rating, because the efficiency metric (

i.e.,

EER) is a single point rating metric and does not measure seasonal energy use.

AHRI 1230-2010 contains the same definition and procedures for rating the efficiency of a “tested combination” as the alternative DOE test procedure that DOE developed in response to the waivers. AHRI 1230-2010 also contains specific language on how to test multiple indoor units, the number of tests for variable speed compressors, and how to test for simultaneous cooling and heating efficiency, which should mitigate manufacturer complaints regarding the existing DOE test procedure for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment as it applies to VRF systems. AHRI 1230-2010 also tests for EER and COP at the same rating conditions as AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 340/360. Thus, these systems should test for EER in the same way as other commercial air conditioners and heat pumps once the systems are set up according to AHRI 1230-2010.

In February 2011, AHRI amended the test procedure in Addendum 1 to AHRI 1230 to modify the definition of “tested combination” to contain between 2 and 12 indoor units as opposed to between 2 and 5 indoor units. DOE believes this change merely extends the range of a tested combination and has no effect on the efficiency metric of the system. DOE believes this test procedure properly addresses all the concerns of testing VRF systems, results in a rating that reasonably reflects the energy efficiency of these systems, and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.

In response, DOE received a comment from AHRI which encouraged DOE to adopt AHRI 1230-2010, stating that a deliberate and open process was used to develop this test procedure and that it incorporates the alternative test procedure initially developed by DOE to cover VRF equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) The Advocates and CA IOUs, however, encouraged DOE to conduct a test procedure rulemaking for VRF equipment in order to eliminate the need for manufacturers to seek test procedure waivers for this equipment. (Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5, CA IOUs, No. 10,12 at p. 3) DOE believes that AHRI 1230-2010 incorporates all of the alternative test procedure that DOE developed through its waiver process, is a comprehensive test procedure for VRF systems, and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Manufacturers of VRF systems should not need to seek a test procedure waiver from AHRI

1230-2010 with Addendum 1. Further, DOE notes that EPCA generally directs DOE to prescribe the industry testing procedures as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that to do so would not produce test results consistent with the requirements of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(4)). DOE believes AHRI 1230 meets the requirements of EPCA, and, therefore, is proposing to adopt AHRI 1230-2010 with Addendum 1 as the test procedure for VRF systems. DOE seeks comment on this proposal, and this issue is identified as issue 7 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

For VRF systems, DOE is also proposing to add the optional “break-in” time of no more than 16 hours, as discussed in the small (<65,000 Btu/h) commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment subsection above (section IV.E.1). DOE believes that adding this option will allow the test procedure to be more representative of the actual performance characteristics of VRF systems, while not increasing the burden on manufacturers. Note, DOE will update the certification provisions pending the outcome of this proposal in the upcoming certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks comment on the need for an optional break-in period for VRF systems, and the length of time that should be allowed for such a period. This is identified as issue 7 in section X.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

8. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps

For single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 lists AHRI 390-2003, “Performance Rating of Single Packaged Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,” as the referenced test procedure. Commercial SPVACs and SPVHPs were not distinguished as separate classes of commercial air conditioning and heating equipment in DOE's regulations until EISA 2007 amended EPCA to set efficiency standards specifically for this equipment (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)), which DOE subsequently codified in its regulations through a final rule published on March 23, 2009. 74 FR 12058. Although EISA 2007 specified minimum energy conservation standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs, it did not specify the applicable test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of SPVACs and SPVHPs. As discussed previously, according to EPCA, the test procedures for ASHRAE products shall be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and shall be reasonably designed to product test results which reflect energy efficiency or energy use of those products. Further, when a test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, EPCA directs DOE to amend its test procedure for the product as necessary to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless doing so would not meet the requirements for test procedures described in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)-(B))

DOE reviewed AHRI 390-2003 and believes the procedure is reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency of SPVACs and SPVHPs. In the May 2011 NODA

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.