Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers

Federal RegisterJun 3, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0027]

RIN 1904-AC81

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Announcement of Public Meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential dehumidifiers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to periodically determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for different categories of residential dehumidifiers. This document also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

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 August 3, 2015. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for details.

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII, “Public Participation” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII, “Public Participation” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. 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.

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers, and provide docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0027 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC81. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: ResDehumidifier2012STD0027@ee.doe.gov

. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

Postal Mail:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 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 Office, 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.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to

Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII, “Public Participation.”

Docket:

The docket, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

www.regulations.gov

. All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

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

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

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/55

. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the

www.regulations.gov

site. The

www.regulations.gov

Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for further information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:

bryan.berringer@ee.doe.gov

Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email:

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Dehumidifiers

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

B. Test Procedure

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Definition and Scope of Coverage

2. Product Classes

a. Preliminary Analysis Proposals

b. Comments and Responses

c. NOPR Proposals

3. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Levels

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels

2. Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Product Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

8. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

9. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

10. Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period

G. Shipments

H. National Impact Analysis

1. National Energy Savings

a. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

2. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM)

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios

3. Discussion of Comments

4. Manufacturer Interviews

K. Emissions Analysis

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts

8. Other Factors

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for Residential Dehumidifiers

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities

b. Manufacturer Participation

c. Industry Structure

d. Comparison of Large and Small Entities

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part B

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.

These products include residential dehumidifiers, the subject of this notice.

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

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Once complete, this rulemaking will satisfy this statutory provision.

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers. The proposed standards, which correspond to trial standard level 3 (described in section V.A), divide residential dehumidifiers into two categories: Portable and whole-home. The proposed minimum allowable integrated energy factor (IEF) standards, which are expressed in liters (L) of moisture removed per kilowatt-hour (kWh), are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date three years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking.

The current energy conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers went into effect on October 1, 2012. EPCA, as amended, provides that a “manufacturer shall not be required to apply new standards to a product with respect to which other new standards have been required during the prior 6-year period.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B)) Thus, the proposed standards could not go into effect until October 1, 2018 at the earliest. DOE anticipates issuing a final rule on amended energy conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers in 2016. To ensure that the amended standards will not go into effect until after October 1, 2018, DOE is not requiring compliance with the new standards until three years after the publication of the final rule.

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers

Portable dehumidifier product

capacity

(pints/day)

Minimum IEF

(L/kWh)

30.00 or less

1.30

30.01-45.00

1.60

45.01 or more

2.80

Whole-home dehumidifier product case volume (cubic feet)

8.0 or less

2.09

More than 8.0

3.52

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of residential dehumidifiers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the payback period (PBP). The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes and the PBP is significantly less than the average lifetimes for portable

and whole-home residential dehumidifiers, which are approximately 11 and 19 years, respectively.

Lifetimes are based on:

28th Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry

, Appliance Magazine, Sept. 2005, at 65; Toru Kubo, Harvey Sachs, and Steve Nadel,

Opportunities for New Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards: Energy and Economic Savings Beyond Current Standards Programs

, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (Sept. 2001); Northeast Energy Star Lighting and Appliance,

Dehumidifiers

, (Available at

http://www.myenergystar.com/Dehumidifiers.aspx

) (last visited Nov. 14, 2014).

Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Residential Dehumidifiers

Product class

Average LCC savings

(2013$)

Payback period

(years)

Portable Dehumidifier: ≤30.00 pints/day

0.2

Portable Dehumidifier: 30.01-45.00 pints/day

0.2

Portable Dehumidifier: >45.00 pints/day

147

2.8

Whole-home Dehumidifier: ≤8ft

207

1.3

Whole-home Dehumidifier: >8ft

416

1.4

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this NOPR.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2015 to 2048). Using a real discount rate of 8.43 percent,

DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of residential dehumidifiers is $186.5 million.

Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 18.7 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $34.9 million. Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of residential dehumidifiers, DOE does not expect significant impacts on manufacturing capacity or loss of employment for the industry as a whole.

The real discount rate is the weighted-average cost of capital derived from industry financials and modified based on feedback received during confidential interviews with manufacturers.

All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013 dollars; discounted values are discounted to 2014 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings for residential dehumidifiers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the amended standards (2019-2048) amount to 0.32 quads.

A quad is equal to 10

British thermal units (Btu). FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.

, coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings for the proposed residential dehumidifier standards ranges from $1.04 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.27 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for residential dehumidifiers purchased in 2019-2048.

In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings described above (for dehumidifiers purchased in the 2019-2048 period) are estimated to result in cumulative emission reductions of 19.3 million metric tons (Mt)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 85.9 thousand tons of methane (CH

), 16.0 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 28.8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 0.3 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), and 0.05 ton of mercury (Hg).

The cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 5.9 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of 0.8 million homes.

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the

Annual Energy Outlook 2014

(

AEO 2014

) Reference case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2013.

The value of the CO

reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO

(otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent Federal interagency process.

The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.L of this notice. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, DOE estimates the present monetary value of the CO

emissions reduction is between $0.14 billion and $1.93 billion, DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NO

emissions reduction, is $0.04 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.10 billion at a 3-percent discount rate.

Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866

, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (November 2013) (Available at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf

DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and SO

emissions.

Table I.3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from the proposed standards for residential dehumidifiers.

Table I.3—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers *

Category

Present value

(billion 2013$)

Discount rate

(%)

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1.15

2.49

Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) **

0.14

Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) **

0.63

Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) **

0.99

2.5

Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) **

1.93

Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) †

0.04

0.10

Total Benefits ††

1.82

3.21

Costs

Consumer Incremental Installed Costs

0.12

0.22

Total Net Benefits

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value ††

1.70

3.00

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with residential dehumidifiers shipped in 2019-2048. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019-2048. The incremental costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule.

** The CO

values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor.

† The $/ton values used for NO

are described in section IV.L.2.

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t in 2015).

The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for products sold in 2019-2048, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are the sum of: (1) The national economic value of the benefits in reduced operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of CO

and NO

emission reductions, all annualized.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (

e.g.

, 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO

reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

Although DOE believes that the benefits of operating cost savings and CO

emission reductions are both important, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, whereas the value of CO

reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO

savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of residential dehumidifiers shipped in 2019-2048. Because CO

emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere,

the SCC values in future years reflect future CO

-emissions impacts that continue well beyond 2100.

The atmospheric lifetime of CO

is estimated of the order of 30-95 years. Mark Z. Jacobson,

Correction to “Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming,”

110 J. Geophys. Res. D14105 (2005).

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO

reduction (for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 2015),

the estimated cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $12.6 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated benefits are $122.0 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $35.9 million per year in CO

reductions, and $4.6 million per year in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $150 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 2015, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $12.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated benefits are $142.7 million per year in reduced operating costs, $35.9 million per year in CO

reductions, and $6.0 million per year in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $172 million per year.

DOE used a 3-percent discount rate because the SCC values for the series used in the calculation were derived using a 3-percent discount rate (see section IV.L).

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers

Discount rate

Million 2013$/year

Primary

estimate *

Low net

benefits

estimate *

High net

benefits

estimate *

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

122.0

142.7

116.8

136.3

126.3

149.2

Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) **

10.9

10.7

11.1

Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case)**

35.9

35.3

36.7

Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) **

2.5%

52.2

51.4

53.4

Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) **

110.9

109.2

113.4

Reduction Monetized Value †

4.65

5.96

4.59

5.86

4.73

6.09

Total Benefits ††

7% plus CO

range

138 to 238

132 to 231

142 to 244

163

157

168

3% plus CO

range

160 to 260

153 to 251

166 to 269

185

177

192

Costs

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

12.6

12.5

12.3

12.0

13.7

13.9

Net Benefits

Total ††

7% plus CO

range

125 to 225

120 to 218

128 to 231

150

144

154

3% plus CO

range

147 to 247

141 to 239

152 to 255

172

165

178

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with residential dehumidifiers shipped in 2019-2048. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019-2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the

AEO 2015

Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 of this notice.

** The CO

† The $/ton values used for NO

are described in section IV.L.2.

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t in 2015). In the rows labeled “7% plus CO

range” and “3% plus CO

range,” the operating cost and NO

benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO

values.

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by today's proposal. Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).

DOE also considered more stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this notice that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

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 residential dehumidifiers.

A. Authority

Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered products”), which includes the types of residential dehumidifiers that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 2(a)(6295(cc))) EPCA, as amended, prescribes energy conservation

standards for residential dehumidifiers

manufactured on or after October 1, 2007, and more stringent energy conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers manufactured on or after October 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must periodically review established energy conservation standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, such review must be conducted no later than 6 years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.

Dehumidifiers are defined as self-contained, electrically operated, and mechanically encased assemblies consisting of: (1) A refrigerated surface (evaporator) that condenses moisture from the atmosphere; (2) a refrigerating system, including an electric motor; (3) an air-circulating fan; and (4) a means for collecting or disposing of the condensate. (42 U.S.C. 6291(34))

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for residential dehumidifiers currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix X.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, including residential dehumidifiers, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, and after receiving comments on the proposed standard, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering 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 covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

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

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

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

EPCA, as codified, 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 under this section if the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of covered product that has 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 such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6294(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).

Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and

off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for residential dehumidifiers address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to adopt a single energy conservation standard that addresses active, off, and standby modes.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers manufactured on or after October 1, 2012. In a final rule published on March 23, 2009, DOE codified these standards at 10 CFR 430.32(v)(2). 74 FR 12058. The current standards are set forth in Table II.1 below.

Table II.1—Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers *

Product class *

(pints/day)

Energy factor (EF) **

(L/kWh)

Up to 35.00

1.35

35.01-45.00

1.50

45.01-54.00

1.60

54.01-75.00

1.70

75.00 or more

2.5

* Capacity in pints/day is measured according to the current DOE test procedure.

** EF is a measure of the water removed from the air per unit of energy consumed by a dehumidifier and is calculated according to the current DOE test procedure.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Dehumidifiers

As amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), EPCA established the first energy conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers manufactured as of October 1, 2007, based on the EF metric. EISA 2007 subsequently amended EPCA to prescribe new energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers manufactured on or after October 1, 2012. In a final rule published on March 23, 2009, DOE codified the standards at 10 CFR 430.32(v)(2). 74 FR 12058.

DOE initiated today's rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), which requires DOE, no later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, to publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR that includes new proposed energy conservation standards. As noted above, DOE issued the last final rule for residential dehumidifiers on March 23, 2009.

DOE initiated this rulemaking by issuing an analytical Framework Document, “Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Residential Dehumidifiers.” 77 FR 49739 (Aug. 17, 2012). The Framework Document explained the issues, analyses, and process that DOE anticipated using to develop energy conservation standards for residential dehumidifiers.

DOE held a public meeting on September 24, 2012, to solicit comments from interested parties regarding the Framework Document and DOE's proposed analytical approach. DOE sought feedback from interested parties on these subjects and provided information regarding the rulemaking process that DOE would follow. Interested parties discussed the following major issues at the public meeting: Rulemaking schedule; test procedure revisions; product classes; technology options; efficiency levels (ELs); and approaches for each of the analyses performed by DOE as part of the rulemaking process.

Comments received following the publication of the framework document helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the subsequent preliminary analysis. In the preliminary analysis, DOE conducted in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: (1) Engineering; (2) markups to determine product price; (3) energy use; (4) life-cycle cost and payback period; and (5) national impacts. The preliminary technical support document (TSD) that presented the methodology and results of each of these analyses is available at

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0027-0015

DOE also conducted, and included in the preliminary TSD, several other analyses that supported the major analyses or were expanded upon for today's NOPR. These analyses included: (1) The market and technology assessment; (2) the screening analysis, which contributes to the engineering analysis; and (3) the shipments analysis,

which contributes to the LCC and PBP analysis and national impact analysis (NIA). In addition to these analyses, DOE began preliminary work on the manufacturer impact analysis and identified the methods to be used for the consumer subgroup analysis, the emissions analysis, the employment impact analysis, the regulatory impact analysis, and the utility impact analysis.

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

DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the preliminary TSD on May 22, 2014. 79 FR 29380. DOE subsequently held a public meeting on June 13, 2014, to discuss and receive comments on the preliminary TSD. DOE received comments on topics including: Whole-home dehumidifier coverage and test procedures, product classes, design options, ELs, use of experience curves, shipments projections, social cost of carbon estimates and the associated monetization of carbon dioxide, and small business impacts. After reviewing these comments, DOE gathered additional information, held further discussions with manufacturers, performed product testing, and completed and revised the various analyses described in the preliminary analysis. The results of these analyses are presented in this NOPR.

III. General Discussion

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

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

Existing energy conservation standards divide residential dehumidifiers into five product classes based on the number of pints per day of moisture that the product removes from ambient air at test conditions, as measured by the current DOE test procedure. In this rulemaking, DOE is proposing new product classes that differentiate between portable and whole-home residential dehumidifiers. For portable residential dehumidifiers, DOE is proposing the following three product classes based on the product capacity in number of pints per day of moisture removed from ambient air at

test conditions

: (1) 30.00 pints/day or less; (2) 30.01 to 45.00 pints/day; and (3) 45.01 pints/day or more. For whole-home residential dehumidifiers, DOE is proposing the following two product classes based on product case volume:

(1) less than or equal to 8.0 ft

; and (2) greater than 8.0 ft

Note that the test conditions for the proposed product classes are different from those for the existing product classes.

Product case volume is the rectangular volume that the product case occupies, exclusive of any duct attachment collars or other external components.

The product classes for portable residential dehumidifiers analyzed for today's NOPR are different from those examined in DOE's initial analysis, while the product classes for whole-home residential dehumidifiers are the same. DOE initially analyzed five product classes for portable residential dehumidifiers based on product capacity. Due, in part, to comments received on the preliminary TSD, DOE is proposing only the three product classes discussed above. Comments received relating to the scope of coverage and product classes are discussed in section IV.A of this proposed rule.

B. Test Procedure

EPCA specifies that the dehumidifier test criteria used under the ENERGY STAR

program in effect as of January 1, 2001,

must serve as the basis for the DOE test procedure for dehumidifiers, unless revised by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13)) The ENERGY STAR test criteria required that American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard DH-1, “Dehumidifiers,” be used to measure capacity while the Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA) standard CAN/CSA-C749-1994 (R2005), “Performance of Dehumidifiers,” be used to calculate the Energy Factor (EF). The version of AHAM Standard DH-1 in use at the time the ENERGY STAR test criteria were adopted was AHAM Standard DH-1-1992. In 2006, DOE adopted these test criteria, along with related definitions and tolerances, as its test procedure for dehumidifiers at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X. 71 FR 71340, 71347, 71366-68 (Dec. 8, 2006).

For more information on the ENERGY STAR program, please visit

www.energystar.gov

“Energy Star Program Requirements for Dehumidifiers”, Version 1.0, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), available online at:

www.energystar.gov/products/specs/system/files/DehumProgReqV1.0.pdf

On October 31, 2012, DOE published a final rule to establish a new test procedure for dehumidifiers that references ANSI/AHAM Standard DH-1-2008, “Dehumidifiers,” (ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008) for both energy use and capacity measurements. 77 FR 65995 (Oct. 31, 2012). The final rule also adopted standby and off mode provisions that satisfy the requirement in EPCA for DOE to include measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption in its test procedures for residential products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) This new DOE test procedure, codified at that time at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X1, established a new metric, IEF, which incorporates measures of active, standby, and off mode energy use.

DOE subsequently removed the existing test procedures at appendix X and redesignated the test procedures at appendix X1 as appendix X. 79 FR 7366 (Feb. 7, 2014). Any representations of energy use, including standby mode or off mode energy consumption, or efficiency of portable dehumidifiers must be made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to the redesignated appendix X.

On May 21, 2014, DOE published a NOPR proposing further amendments to residential dehumidifier test procedures. 79 FR 29272. In addition to making clarifications and corrections, the proposed amendments would create a new appendix, appendix X1, which would: (1) Require certain active mode testing at a lower ambient temperature; (2) add a measure of fan-only mode energy consumption in the IEF metric; and (3) include testing methodology and measures of performance for whole-home dehumidifiers.

On February 4, 2015, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR). 80 FR 5994. In the SNOPR, DOE maintained its proposals from the NOPR, except that DOE proposed: (1) Various adjustments and clarifications to the whole-home dehumidifier test setup and conduct; (2) a method to determine whole-home dehumidifier case volume; (3) a revision to the method for measuring energy use in fan-only operation; (4) a clarification to the relative humidity and capacity equations; and (5) additional technical corrections and clarifications.

In response to the May 2014 Notice, June 2014 public meeting, and February 2015 SNOPR, DOE received comments from interested parties related to the test procedure. DOE addressed these issues in the test procedure final rule to establish appendix X1, and based its analysis in this notice on capacities and efficiencies determined according to the appendix X1 test procedure.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i))

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv)) Section IV.B of this proposed rule discusses the results of the screening analysis for residential dehumidifiers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) improvements in energy efficiency for residential dehumidifiers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1.b of this proposed rule and in chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the NOPR TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (TSL), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to residential dehumidifiers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the proposed standards (2019-2048).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of residential dehumidifiers purchased in the 30-year analysis period.

DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the base case. The base case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency standards.

Each TSL is comprised of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A. DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

In the past DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for its national economic analysis.

DOE uses its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate energy savings from potential amended standards. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. Based on the site energy, DOE calculates national energy savings (NES) in terms of primary energy savings at the site or at power plants, and also in terms of full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards.

DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 of this proposed rule.

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

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standard for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in “significant” energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in

Natural Resources Defense Council

Herrington,

768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), opined that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking, including the proposed standards, are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted above, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as discussed in section IV.J of this proposed rule. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include: (1) Industry net present value (INPV), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national NPV of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with amended standards.

The LCC savings for the considered ELs are calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses are discussed in further detail in section IV.F.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H.1, DOE

uses the NIA spreadsheet to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this proposed rule would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M.

The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from the proposed standards, and from each TSL it considered, in section IV.K of this proposed rule. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L.

g. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent interested parties submit any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described above, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.10 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

DOE used three spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's proposed standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential standards. The second provides shipments forecasts, and then calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential standards. Finally, DOE assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).

Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts on utilities and the environment that would be likely to result from potential amended standards for residential dehumidifiers. DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its

AEO,

a widely-known energy forecast for the United States. NEMS offers a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards, because it accounts for the interactions between the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. DOE's market and technology analysis activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this residential dehumidifier rulemaking include: (1) A determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes; (2) manufacturers and industry structure; (3) existing efficiency programs; (4) product shipments; (5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies that could improve the energy efficiency of residential dehumidifiers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized below. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Definition and Scope of Coverage

EPCA defines a dehumidifier as product that is self-contained, electrically operated, mechanically encased, and a product that incorporates a refrigerated surface to condense moisture from the atmosphere. It further defines it as a refrigerating system with an electric motor; a fan for air circulation; and a means for collecting or disposing of the condensate. (42 U.S.C. 6291(34)) In the concurrent test procedure rulemaking, DOE is clarifying that this definition of a dehumidifier, codified at 10 CFR 430.2, does not apply to portable air conditioners, room air conditioners, or packaged terminal air conditioners.

Aprilaire Inc. (Aprilaire) commented to suggest that the EPCA definition for

a dehumidifier is too broad, and believes that it would include all products that provide means of dehumidification, including portable, window, and central air conditioners. Aprilaire further suggested that products such as a refrigerator could meet the EPCA definition even though refrigerators are not intended to dehumidify the living space. Therefore, Aprilaire requested that DOE provide a more specific definition for dehumidifiers. (Aprilaire, No. 20 at p. 3) DOE notes that the definition for dehumidifier established in the concurrent test procedure rulemaking specifically excludes portable air conditioners, room air conditioners, and packaged terminal air conditioners because these products also deliver conditioned air to a space such as a room similar to a dehumidifier, in contrast to a refrigerator which provides cooling to a cabinet. DOE has already established energy conservation standards for room air conditioners and refrigerators separately under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(b) and (cc)), and is currently considering new standards for portable air conditioners in a separate rulemaking. The energy conservation standards for these products address energy use in active, standby, and off modes.

In the concurrent test procedure rulemaking, DOE is also adding definitions to 10 CFR 430.2 for portable dehumidifiers and whole-home dehumidifiers. Portable dehumidifiers are designed to operate within the dehumidified space without ducting attached, although ducting may be attached optionally. Whole-home dehumidifiers are designed to be installed with inlet ducting for return process air and outlet ducting that supplies dehumidified process air to one or more locations in the dehumidified space.

Therma-Stor LLC (Therma-Stor) expressed concern that DOE is proposing to subdivide dehumidifiers into “portable” and “whole-home” dehumidifiers, as defined by their intended application or installation. According to Therma-Stor, this approach may not provide clear differentiation among products, and therefore DOE should revise the proposed definitions of each product type to accurately define specific attributes to avoid confusion in the marketplace. (Therma-Stor, No. 21 at p. 1) Due to the many similarities between certain portable and whole-home dehumidifiers and the inability to determine their intended use through examination of the product, DOE determined that design features associated with installation, namely the attachment of ducts, are the most reliable method for differentiation. The definitions established in the concurrent test procedure rulemaking separate the product types based on this differentiation. For those dehumidifiers that may be optionally configured in either manner, DOE would require that each configuration of these products be certified under corresponding portable and whole-home dehumidifier energy conservation standards.

2. Product Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2), residential dehumidifiers, manufactured on or after October 1, 2012, are divided into five product classes based on the capacity of the unit in pints of water extracted per day:

Table IV.1—Current Dehumidifier Product Classes

Capacity

(pints/day)

Up to 35.00.

35.01-45.00.

45.01-54.00.

54.01-75.00.

75.00 or more.

a. Preliminary Analysis Proposals

In the preliminary analysis conducted for this rulemaking, DOE considered the following portable dehumidifier product classes that were based on the existing product classes, but with capacities adjusted for the lower ambient temperature proposed in the May 2014 test procedure NOPR:

Table IV.2—Preliminary Analysis Portable Dehumidifier Product Classes

Capacity

(pints/day)

20.00 or less.

20.01 to 30.00.

30.01 to 35.00.

35.01 to 45.00.

45.01 or more.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE also considered two product classes for whole-home dehumidifiers, differentiated by product case volume.

Table IV.3—Preliminary Analysis Whole-Home Dehumidifier Product Classes

Product Class

(case volume, cubic feet)

less than or equal to 8.0.

greater than 8.0.

b. Comments and Responses

Aprilaire commented that portable and whole-home dehumidifiers are two different classes of product, in their construction as well as their intended application and function. Aprilaire commented that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) technical report, NREL/TP-5500-61076, highlights the difference between portables and whole-home dehumidifiers, not only in application, size, and capacity, but also in performance. Aprilaire expressed concern that due to these many differences in the two types of dehumidifier products, the inclusion of both into one rule and test procedure may not be appropriate. Therefore, Aprilaire suggested that DOE not consider whole-home dehumidifiers in the rulemaking and test procedures at this time. (Aprilaire No. 20 at pp. 1-3)

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison (California Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs)) supported extending coverage to whole-home dehumidifiers and regulating them as a separate product class from portable dehumidifiers, as they are designed and installed differently in order to properly take advantage of ducted configurations. According to the California IOUs, whole-home dehumidifiers require more energy than portable units, and the difference in energy use between high and low efficiency products is significant. The California IOUs further stated that whole-home dehumidifiers have a longer lifetime than portable dehumidifiers, and that due to the longer lifetime and large difference in energy use between whole-home dehumidifiers of varying efficiency, it is important to ensure that these products are efficient to realize savings for the duration of the expected lifetime. (California IOUs, No. 24 at pp. 1-2)

DOE notes that although portable and whole-home dehumidifiers have different applications and overall performance, they both: (1) Fall under

the statutory definition of a dehumidifier; (2) provide the same dehumidification function: and (3) can be characterized with the same energy efficiency performance metric. Therefore, DOE believes it is appropriate to address both portable and whole-home dehumidifiers in the same rulemaking. DOE, however, is considering separate proposed efficiency standards levels for each product type. The considered product classes are split between portable and whole-home dehumidifiers, as defined according to the definitions provided in section IV.A.1 of this notice, with further divisions based on product capacity or volume. In addition, DOE established, in a separate test procedure rulemaking, unique testing setups and methodology for the two product types.

The California IOUs commented that there are a group of products in the 65 to 75 pint/day capacity range with significantly higher efficiencies than other dehumidifiers with capacities under 75 pints/day. The California IOUs suggested that DOE analyze these products to understand their technology options and whether or not lower-capacity units can achieve similar efficiencies, or whether a separate product class is necessary to develop more appropriate energy conservation standards for those products. (California IOUs No. 24 at pp. 3-4) DOE investigated the models with higher efficiencies near 75 pints/day rated capacity (as measured according to the current test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X). DOE notes that these products typically have construction similar to whole-home dehumidifiers, but in a portable configuration. They include larger heat exchangers (and for some units, an inlet air-to-air heat exchanger), higher-volumetric flow rate blowers, and higher-capacity compressors. These units are currently rated at capacities between 65 and 75 pints/day, and although these capacities would decrease under the appendix X1 test procedure, DOE expects, based on its investigative testing, that the units would likely be classified in the proposed 45.01 pints/day or more product class. Accordingly, DOE considered higher efficiencies for this product class in this NOPR analysis than for the lower-capacity portable product classes (see section IV.C.1 of this proposed rule).

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) asked why DOE proposed multiple product classes for portable dehumidifiers with capacities less than 45 pints/day. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 16)

ASAP also asked if there is consumer utility associated with either smaller capacities or smaller chassis. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 18) In a joint comment, ASAP, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (hereinafter the “Joint Commenters”), as well as the California IOUs, supported a single product class for all portable dehumidifiers with capacities less than 45 pints/day because they claimed that DOE had not demonstrated that dehumidification capacity is a feature that justifies a lower standard level. They also noted the availability of dehumidifiers over a range of capacities that meet or exceed the current ENERGY STAR specification (EF of 1.85 for all dehumidifiers up to 75 pints/day), which, according to the Joint Commenters, suggests that lower-capacity dehumidifiers may achieve the same efficiencies as higher-capacity models. (California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 1-2) The California IOUs noted that many commercially available lower-capacity products are able to meet the ENERGY STAR performance levels, but that non-qualified products are typically clustered right at the Federal standard level, resulting in a significant gap in performance. According to the California IOUs, this large gap is not apparent for higher capacity units, and highlights the increased energy savings potential of requiring lower-capacity units to meet the same energy conservation standards as higher-capacity units. (California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 3)

A notation in the form “ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 16” identifies an oral comment that DOE received during the June 13, 2014, residential dehumidifier energy conservation standards preliminary analysis public meeting. Oral comments were recorded in the public meeting transcript and are available the residential dehumidifier energy conservation standards rulemaking docket (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-STD-0027). This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Made by Appliance Standards Awareness Project during the public meeting; (2) recorded in document number 25, which is the public meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of this energy conservation standards rulemaking; and (3) which appears on page 16 of document number 25.

The Joint Commenters also stated that DOE determined there is no inherent relationship between capacity and efficiency, and that efficiency is instead primarily a function of chassis size. The Joint Commenters further stated that the possibility that some manufacturers' current chassis components may make it difficult for them to meet higher ELs at certain capacities does not justify the use of separate product classes to shield those manufacturers from more stringent standards. The Joint Commenters further stated that, at most, the cost (not the ability) to meet a standard level is different from manufacturer to manufacturer. (Joint Commenters, No 23 at p. 2) The California IOUs commented that by “right-sizing” the chassis, manufacturers can produce high-efficiency dehumidifiers of any capacity. Thus, all product classes below 75 pints/day (based on the current test procedure in appendix X) should be consolidated into a single class. (California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 3)

AHAM supported maintaining several product classes for portable dehumidifiers, and agreed that DOE should not collapse portable dehumidifier product classes into two product classes (less than 75 pints/day and greater than 75 pints/day according to the current test conditions). AHAM also agreed that maintaining several product classes would allow DOE to individually consider appropriate ELs in each class that would take into account unique performance factors and costs. (AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 1-2) AHAM commented that it was concerned that the 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) ambient temperature test condition in the proposed test procedure for residential dehumidifiers, as opposed to the current 80 °F ambient temperature, would increase test-to-test variation and make it more difficult to establish product classes based on capacity thresholds. Therefore, AHAM stated that it may be necessary to combine two of the lower-capacity product classes, for a total of four portable dehumidifier product classes. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 2) Therma-Stor commented that the number of product classes may need to be reduced or increased to reflect the (relative) range of ratings. (Therma-Stor, No. 21 at p. 1)

While all current product classes are able to reach similar maximum efficiencies under current test procedures, DOE observed that the two lowest capacity portable product classes considered for the preliminary analysis (20.00 pints/day or less and 20.01 to 30.00 pints/day) could not reach the same maximum IEF as the other product classes when tested under the appendix X1 test procedure. This suggested that there may be an inherent trend between capacity and efficiency at lower ambient test temperatures.

DOE also notes that product sizes and weights vary between products currently available on the market.

Lower-capacity units typically use a smaller chassis that limits the sizes of internal components such as heat exchangers. In the sample of units DOE selected for the engineering analysis, DOE observed that portable dehumidifiers with rated capacities below 45 pints/day typically had smaller chassis and had an average weight of 33 pounds. Portable dehumidifiers currently rated with capacities between 45 pints/day and 75 pints/day typically had larger chassis and had an average weight of 45 pounds. DOE believes the 12-pound average increase in product weight in moving to a larger case would reduce portability (

i.e.,

increase difficulty moving the unit within the home), which would negatively impact consumer utility.

DOE also observed that there was no key difference in product characteristics for the two product classes analyzed for the preliminary analysis that DOE proposes to combine into a single product class in this NOPR. The 20.00 pints/day or less and 20.01 to 30.00 pints/day product classes had similar product characteristics and were able to achieve similar ELs under both the current and appendix X1 test procedures. Similarly, the 30.01 to 35.00 pints/day and 35.01 to 45.00 pints/day product classes had similar construction and measured efficiencies. For this NOPR analysis, DOE proposes combing the four lowest-capacity portable product classes analyzed in the preliminary analysis into two: 30.00 pints/day or less and 30.01 to 45.00 pints/day. DOE proposes maintaining the 45.01 pints/day or more product class as considered in the preliminary analysis because the larger chassis size and weight typically associated with these products would allow for consideration of certain design options, such as inlet pre-cooling heat exchangers, that would be infeasible in lower-capacity portable dehumidifiers.

AHAM stated that because dehumidifiers are typically rated at even number capacities, DOE should use odd number boundaries for the product classes, especially as standards become more stringent. AHAM commented that DOE's proposal to define product class boundaries at even numbers may cause findings of noncompliance simply due to test procedure variation. (AHAM, Test Procedure NOPR, No. 7 at p, 6) Based on a review of the products certified in DOE's Compliance Certification Database, DOE observed that approximately 75 percent of certified units are rated at a capacity that is a multiple of 10.

However, these capacity ratings are based on the current test procedures, and the certified capacities would change under the appendix X1 test procedures. Therefore, DOE concludes that an

a priori

selection of either an even or odd product class capacity threshold would not be warranted, and instead proposes to define product class boundaries based on the capacities associated with chassis sizes and weights that provide different consumer utility.

The Compliance Certification Database is available at:

http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/

Therma-Stor commented that the current product classes, which are based on water removal capacity at 80 °F and 60-percent relative humidity, should be revised to reflect new capacity values if different ambient rating test conditions are chosen. (Therma-Stor, No. 21 at p. 1) As discussed previously, DOE adjusted its portable product classes to account for the updated test conditions at 65 °F ambient temperature.

Aprilaire agreed with using the volume of whole-home dehumidifiers as a product class differentiator, because installed location is one of the restrictions on these units rather than their capacity. However, Aprilaire requested clarification on the selection of 8.0 cubic feet as the threshold between product classes, and whether there was any relationship between this threshold and product capacity. Aprilaire commented that the differentiation of whole-home product classes based on case volume less than or greater than 8.0 cubic feet appears to be arbitrary and only based on products on the market today, and that product sizes exist today due to application and size constraints incurred during or after installation. Aprilaire noted its concern that the market for whole-home dehumidifiers and potential applications were not totally understood, and placing an arbitrary threshold may limit innovation and new product applications. Aprilaire stated that doing so would negatively impact the ability to obtain whole-home energy-efficient humidity control. (Aprilaire, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 14-15; Aprilaire, No. 20 at p. 3) Therma-Stor also commented that basing whole-home dehumidifier product classes on case volume is arbitrary, and would be confusing in the marketplace. Therma-Stor suggested that whole-home product classes be based upon the same capacity metric as portable dehumidifiers. (Therma-Stor, No. 21 at p.1)

DOE considered whole-home product class differentiation based on those products that are installed in space-constrained locations. Many of the design options associated with improving efficiencies for these products, such as larger heat exchangers or an inlet pre-cooling heat exchanger, require making the unit physically larger. Whole-home units that are not space constrained may incorporate all of these design options and reach higher efficiencies. DOE observed that products available on the market with case volumes greater than 8.0 cubic feet are able to incorporate additional design options and reach higher efficiencies than products with volumes at or less than 8.0 cubic feet. DOE also expects that products with volumes of 8.0 cubic feet or less would be able to meet consumers' needs for space-constrained installations. DOE notes that switching to a capacity-based product class differentiation, as proposed for portable dehumidifier product classes, would not ensure products would maintain the smaller case sizes. Whole-home units at lower capacities could increase case size to incorporate all available design options and maximize heat exchanger sizes to reach high efficiencies, but the increased case size would also limit consumer applications. For these reasons, DOE proposes to maintain the two whole-home dehumidifier product classes based on case volume: Less than or equal to 8.0 cubic feet and greater than 8.0 cubic feet.

c. NOPR Proposals

In summary, DOE proposes classifying portable products into three product classes, by merging two of the current five portable product classes into the other three, and classifying whole-home dehumidifiers in two product classes based on case volume, resulting in the following product classes:

Table IV.4—Dehumidifier Product Classes

Portable (pints/day)

30.00 or less.

30.01 to 45.00.

45.01 or more.

Whole-home (case volume, cubic feet)

less than or equal to 8.0.

greater than 8.0.

In the remaining sections of this NOPR, presented product capacities and efficiencies are consistent with the appendix X1 test procedures.

3. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 14 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of residential dehumidifiers:

IV.5—Technology Options for Dehumidifiers

1. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat.

2. Improved compressor efficiency.

3. Improved condenser and evaporator performance.

4. Improved controls.

5. Improved defrost methods.

6. Improved demand-defrost controls.

7. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency.

8. Improved flow-control devices.

9. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.

10. Washable air filters.

11. Pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchanger.

12. Heat pipes.

13. Improved refrigeration system insulation.

14. Refrigerant-desiccant systems.

In response to the preliminary analysis, two commenters suggested additional technology options that DOE should consider, but the agency has determined that neither option merits further consideration. First, the Joint Commenters and California IOUs stated that DOE should include chassis size as a technology option for improving efficiency in the engineering analysis if it maintains separate portable dehumidifier product classes. (California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 23 at p. 2) DOE notes that increasing chassis size does not itself increase product efficiency, but it allows the product to house larger heat exchangers, which does improve efficiency. DOE included larger heat exchangers as a design option, and considered any necessary chassis changes associated with the larger components in the engineering analysis.

Second, the California IOUs commented that DOE should consider the potential benefits from networked smart controls, which would allow dehumidifiers to benefit from time-of-use metering and other demand management schemes to maximize the time-value of energy production in participating utilities. They noted that as an added benefit, advanced sensors with more sophisticated reporting capabilities would alert the user when the unit begins to degrade significantly, requiring maintenance or replacement. (California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 5) The current and recently established DOE test procedures for dehumidifiers measure the site energy consumption in typical operation and do not reflect potential overall benefits related to demand management enabled by smart controls. Products incorporating smart controls would have the same (or lower) measured efficiencies according to the DOE test procedure because such controls consume additional energy to provide those features that are not directly related to energy efficiency. Additionally, DOE is not aware of any dehumidifiers currently available on the market or any working prototypes that incorporate a demand response function via smart controls. Accordingly, DOE did not consider smart controls as a design option to reach higher ELs in this analysis. DOE requests comment on any information or data about the availability of dehumidifiers with smart controls, including those currently available on the market or any working prototypes.

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

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

Technological feasibility.

Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further.

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

Impacts on product utility to consumers.

If a technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the U.S. at the time, it will not be considered further.

Safety of technologies.

If it is determined that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 5(b))

In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed below.

The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

Pre-Cooling Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers (for Portable Dehumidifiers Up to 45 Pints/Day)

Based on teardowns and research, DOE determined that portable dehumidifiers with capacities up to 45 pints/day have little room to incorporate additional components within the product case (see chapter 4, section 4.2.1 of the NOPR TSD). DOE estimated that the addition of an effective pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchanger would require case sizes to, at a minimum, double. Because of the increased size and weight, DOE determined that incorporating a pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchanger in portable dehumidifiers with capacities up to 45 pints/day would have an adverse impact on product utility to consumers. Because this design option would result in the unavailability of products with the same size and volume as products currently available on the market, DOE screened out pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers as a design option for portable dehumidifiers with capacities up to 45 pints/day.

AHAM supported screening out pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers for smaller-capacity dehumidifiers. They noted that the pre-cooling heat exchangers would make larger-capacity products even bigger, because the enclosure would need to be bigger, which could impact portability and consumer utility. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 6) DOE maintains its proposal to eliminate pre-cooling inlet air-to-air heat exchangers from further consideration for portable products with capacity less than 45 pints/day. For portable products with capacities greater than 45 pints/day, DOE notes that certain products available on the market already incorporate this technology option. Thus, DOE has maintained it as a potential design

option for this larger-capacity product class.

Heat Pipes (for Portable Dehumidifiers Up to 45 Pints/Day)

In the preliminary analysis, DOE also identified heat pipes as a potential technology to increase dehumidifier efficiency. Heat pipes perform a similar function as pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers, lowering the inlet air temperature to increase the efficiency of the refrigeration system, except that heat pipes use a phase-change fluid to transfer heat between the two air streams. DOE estimated that the additional heat exchangers and fluid tubing for heat pipes would likely require significant increases in case size and overall weight for portable dehumidifiers with capacities of up to 45 pints/day, resulting in an adverse impact on product utility to consumers. Because this design option would result in the unavailability of products with the same weight and volume as products currently available on the market, DOE screened out heat pipes as a design option for portable dehumidifiers with capacities up to 45 pints/day. AHAM agreed that heat pipes should be screened out for smaller-capacity portable dehumidifiers due to their consumer utility impacts. (AHAM, No 22 at p. 6)

However, in the preliminary analysis, DOE retained heat pipes as a design option for whole-home dehumidifiers and portable dehumidifiers with capacities greater than 45 pints/day. DOE noted that many of these products already use larger case sizes to accommodate pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers. Products incorporating heat pipes would likely require similar case volumes as the products available on the market that include pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers, and would not likely impact consumer utility for whole-home dehumidifiers and portable dehumidifiers with capacities greater than 45 pints/day.

Regarding improved condenser and evaporator performance, AHAM commented that adjusting the cross-sectional area of the heat exchanger to increase heat transfer is feasible, but it will likely involve a change in enclosure size. AHAM suggested that DOE consider screening out this option for smaller capacities. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 4) DOE agrees that increased heat exchanger areas may require an increase in enclosure size. However, larger coils requiring a larger case and chassis do not necessarily require moving to a product case as large as is needed for higher-capacity portable units (due to smaller heat exchangers as well as compressors, blowers, and condensate buckets). Accordingly, while there may be some increase in product sizes with increased heat exchanger area, DOE did not eliminate this technology option from further consideration because consumer utility could be maintained.

2. Remaining Technologies

After a review of each technology, DOE found that all of the identified technologies, with the restrictions for pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers and heat pipes discussed above, met all four screening criteria and are suitable for further examination in DOE's analysis.

Table IV.6—Remaining Design Options for Dehumidifiers

1. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat.

2. Improved compressor efficiency.

3. Improved condenser and evaporator performance.

4. Improved controls.

5. Improved defrost methods.

6. Improved demand-defrost controls.

7. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency.

8. Improved flow-control devices.

9. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.

10. Washable air filters.

11. Pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchanger (high-capacity portable and whole-home dehumidifiers).

12. Heat pipes (high-capacity portable and whole-home dehumidifiers).

13. Improved refrigeration system insulation.

14. Refrigerant-desiccant systems.

DOE determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (

i.e.,

practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

In the engineering analysis DOE establishes the relationship between the manufacturer production cost (MPC) and improved residential dehumidifier efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. DOE typically structures the engineering analysis using one of three approaches: (1) Design option; (2) efficiency level; or (3) reverse engineering (or cost assessment). The design-option approach involves adding the estimated cost and associated efficiency of various efficiency-improving design changes to the baseline to model different levels of efficiency. The efficiency-level approach uses estimates of costs and efficiencies of products available on the market at distinct efficiency levels to develop the cost-efficiency relationship. The reverse-engineering approach involves testing products for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed bill of materials (BOM) derived from reverse engineering representative products.

In the preliminary engineering analysis, DOE used a hybrid approach combining aspects of all three analytic methods described above. The efficiency-level approach for residential dehumidifiers, combined with the cost-assessment approach, allowed DOE to develop a cost for each product analyzed. DOE estimated that the costs for these products reflected the costs for typical units at their respective efficiency levels. This approach involved physically disassembling commercially available products, consulting with outside experts, reviewing publicly available cost and performance information, and modeling equipment cost. To ensure that DOE's analysis covered the entire range of capacities and efficiencies available on the market, DOE relied on the design-option approach to determine what changes would be needed for a particular unit to meet each incrementally higher EL.

For this NOPR, DOE followed the same general approach as for the preliminary engineering analysis, but modified the analysis based on comments from interested parties and to reflect the most current available information. This section provides more detail on how DOE selected the ELs used for its analysis and developed the MPC at each EL. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD contains further description of the engineering analysis.

1. Efficiency Levels

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

A baseline unit is a product that just meets current Federal energy conservation standards and provides basic consumer utility. DOE uses the baseline unit for comparison in several phases of the NOPR analyses, including the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine energy savings that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares energy use at each of the higher energy ELs to the energy consumption of the baseline unit. Similarly, to determine the changes in price to the consumer that will result

from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares the price of a unit at each higher EL to the price of a unit at the baseline.

As discussed in section IV.A.2 of this notice, DOE adjusted the existing dehumidifier product classes for the preliminary analysis to reflect capacities measured according to the test procedures proposed in the May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR. Similarly, DOE established baseline ELs in the preliminary engineering analysis by adjusting the existing baseline EFs to IEFs as would be measured under the proposed testing requirements. For the portable product classes, the most significant adjustments accounted for the lower ambient test temperature, and energy consumption in standby mode, off mode, and fan-only mode. DOE also established separate baseline efficiencies for the two proposed whole-home dehumidifier product classes. Table IV.7 and Table IV.8 present the baseline ELs developed for the preliminary analysis. Additional information on the development of these baseline ELs is included in chapter 5, section 5.3.1 of the preliminary TSD.

Table IV.7—Preliminary Analysis Portable Dehumidifier Baseline Efficiency Levels

Capacity

(pints/day)

IEF

(L/kWh)

20.00 or less

0.77

20.01—30.00

0.80

30.01—35.00

0.94

35.01—45.00

1.00

45.01 or more

2.07

Table IV.8—Preliminary Analysis Whole-Home Dehumidifier Baseline Efficiency Levels

Product class

(case volume, cubic feet)

IEF

(L/kWh)

less than or equal to 8.0

1.10

greater than 8.0

1.68

In response to the preliminary analysis, AHAM commented that if the test procedure includes a measure of fan-only mode energy use, AHAM would support the proposed baseline IEF based on units with fan-only mode. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE notes that the appendix X1 test procedure incorporates energy consumption in fan-only mode into the calculation of IEF, and DOE considered units with fan-only mode to determine the proposed baseline IEF in this analysis.

Aprilaire commented that it was not aware of any whole-home units that have a fan-only mode. According to Aprilaire, whole-home dehumidifiers use the HVAC air handler instead of the dehumidifier fan to circulate air inside the home. (Aprilaire, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 23-24) Aprilaire's comment is consistent with what DOE observed during investigative testing. No whole-home units in DOE's test sample operated in fan-only mode. Accordingly, DOE has not adjusted the whole-home dehumidifier baseline levels to account for operation in this mode.

For this NOPR, DOE maintained the baseline efficiencies determined for the preliminary analysis, with updates to reflect the combined product classes as discussed in section IV.A.1 of this notice. DOE set the baseline efficiency level for the combined product classes at the lower of the two baseline IEF levels considered in the preliminary analysis for the two previously separate product classes, because that IEF would be based on the minimum energy conservation standard currently applicable for any product within the combined product classes. Table IV.9 and Table IV.10 present the baseline efficiency levels used in this NOPR analysis.

Table IV.9—Portable Dehumidifier Baseline Efficiency Levels

Capacity

(pints/day)

IEF

(L/kWh)

30.00 or less

0.77

30.01—45.00

0.94

45.01 or more

2.07

Table IV.10—Whole-Home Dehumidifier Baseline Efficiency Levels

Product Class

(case volume, cubic feet)

IEF

(L/kWh)

8.0 or less

1.77

more than 8.0

2.41

Additional details on the selection of baseline units may be found in chapter 5, section 5.3.1 of the NOPR TSD.

b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels

For the preliminary analysis, DOE considered incremental efficiency levels beyond the baseline that were based on existing efficiency levels (

e.g.,

the ENERGY STAR level) available in the market and observed during investigative testing. Similar to the baseline efficiency levels discussed above, DOE adjusted these efficiency levels to reflect values that would be obtained when using the test procedure proposed in the May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR. In addition, DOE proposed that the first incremental efficiency level beyond the baseline for each product class be achieved by the elimination of fan-only mode. Table IV.11 and Table IV.12 present the efficiency levels DOE considered in the preliminary analysis. Additional information on the development of incremental efficiency levels is included in chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the preliminary TSD.

Table IV.11—Preliminary Analysis Portable Dehumidifier Efficiency Levels

Efficiency level

Efficiency level source

Integrated energy factor efficiency levels

(L/kWh)

20.00

pints/day

or less

20.01-30.00

pints/day

30.01-35.00

pints/day

35.01-45.00

pints/day

45.01

pints/day

or more

Baseline

Baseline with Fan-only Mode

0.77

0.80

0.94

1.00

2.07

Baseline with no Fan-only Mode

1.10

1.20

1.30

2.40

Gap Fill 1

1.20

* 1.40

2.80

Gap Fill 2/Maximum Available

* 1.30

1.60

3.52

Maximum Available

1.42

1.52

1.75

* These IEF levels represent a translation of the ENERGY STAR efficiency level of 1.85 L/kWh based on the current test conditions to the proposed test condition of 65 °F for the given product class.

Table IV.12—Preliminary Analysis Whole-Home Dehumidifier Efficiency Levels

Efficiency level

Efficiency level source

Integrated energy factor

efficiency levels

(L/kWh)

8.0 ft

or less

(case volume)

8.0 ft

or more

(case volume)

Baseline

Minimum Available

1.10

1.68

Gap Fill 1

1.40

1.90

Gap Fill 2/Maximum Available

1.59

2.80

Maximum Available

3.41

In response to the preliminary analysis, AHAM commented that its members were conducting testing to compare performance at 80 °F and 65 °F ambient conditions, and if possible, AHAM would provide this aggregated data to DOE. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 4) DOE has not received additional test data from AHAM at the time of this NOPR, and has therefore relied on its internal test data to establish appropriate IEF values for the incremental efficiency levels beyond the baseline.

Aprilaire noted that there was only about an 11-percent difference between the current DOE energy conservation standards and ENERGY STAR qualification criteria. Aprilaire stated that if the purpose of ENERGY STAR is to promote the best technology at the best value, the current DOE and ENERGY STAR requirements may not provide sufficient consumer choices and differentiation to promote using the latest technology. (Aprilaire, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 48, 50) Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rather than DOE, establishes the ENERGY STAR qualification criteria, DOE selected the current ENERGY STAR level as the basis for an efficiency level in each portable product dehumidifier product class because many products available on the market are rated at that level. While the ENERGY STAR level does not represent a large jump in efficiency from the current DOE standards, on a percentage basis, the range of dehumidifier efficiencies on the market is not large, and the increase in efficiency from baseline to ENERGY STAR represents a significant increase in efficiency over this range. DOE also evaluated higher ELs than the ENERGY STAR level.

Aprilaire asked why there was such a large difference between the highest efficiency levels for the two whole-home product classes. (Aprilaire, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 33) DOE notes that the smaller case volume for the less than 8.0 ft

product class limits the available technology options that may be incorporated into these units. For example, the smaller case limits the size of the condenser and evaporator heat exchangers and the ability to incorporate a pre-cooling heat exchanger. Units with larger case volumes are able to more easily incorporate these design options and thus can achieve a higher max-tech efficiency.

For the preliminary analysis, DOE used the maximum available efficiencies as the highest efficiency levels for its analysis, and requested feedback on whether these levels were appropriate. ASAP asked whether the max-tech levels should be higher than the current maximum available efficiency levels. ASAP also asked whether the max-tech level is independent of what level might be appropriate for a standard. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 34-35) The Joint Commenters stated that DOE should evaluate potential efficiency improvements beyond the maximum available level, and should not use the maximum available level as a proxy for the max-tech levels. They stated that, for example, modest increases in chassis size, permanent-magnet fan motors, and additional heat exchanger improvements may provide further efficiency gains, and that the max-tech levels would likely be higher than the efficiency levels of the most-efficient currently available products. (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) The California IOUs commented that the max-tech efficiency level should be based on modeled efficiencies, as opposed to products currently available in the market. They stated that it is important for DOE to either physically test or model a true max-tech level of dehumidifier efficiency, and this level need not be constrained by cost or other factors that are present in normal commercial product development. The California IOUs stated that this max-tech option should incorporate every known measure to maximize efficiency (

e.g.,

inlet air pre-cooling, improved compressor efficiency, and improved condenser and evaporator heat transfer rate). They stated that in addition to capturing the full energy savings potential, existing dehumidifiers could be compared to this benchmark to determine effective timeframes for when the commercial market could meet the max-tech level. (California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 4)

DOE establishes the max-tech level as the maximum efficiency that is technologically feasible for the covered product. In analyzing potential standards, DOE is not constrained to selecting max-tech levels as the proposed standards levels. DOE agrees that dehumidifiers commercially

available at this time may not incorporate all design options that are technologically feasible, and therefore revised the max-tech efficiency levels to incorporate additional design options beyond those observed in its test sample. DOE then modeled the increased efficiency associated with these new max-tech levels.

For the NOPR analysis, another key change to the efficiency levels considered for the preliminary analysis was to combine the previous four lowest capacity portable product classes into two, as discussed in section IV.A.1 of this proposed rule. The two portable product classes from the preliminary analysis with capacities less than 30.00 pints/day each have three identical intermediate efficiency levels. For the combined 30.01 to 45.00 pints/day product class, DOE used an IEF of 1.20 L/kWh for Efficiency Level 1. The previous Efficiency Level 1 for the 35.01 to 45.00 product class in the preliminary analysis was at an IEF of 1.30 L/kWh. DOE chose an IEF of 1.20 L/kWh as the appropriate level for the combined product class because this represents the baseline IEF with no fan-only mode; therefore, DOE concluded it would be appropriate to maintain the lower of the two IEFs at this level for the combined product class.

DOE also updated the efficiency levels for the whole-home dehumidifier classes based on the appendix X1 test procedures, which require a different ambient dry-bulb temperature (73 °F instead of 65 °F) from that proposed in the May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR and a different external static pressure (0.20 inches of water column instead of 0.5 and 0.25 inches of water column) from those proposed in the May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR and the February 2015 Test Procedure SNOPR).

Table IV.13 and Table IV.14 present the revised efficiency levels DOE considered in this NOPR analysis.

Table IV.13—NOPR Analysis Portable Dehumidifier Efficiency Levels

Efficiency level

Efficiency level source

Integrated energy factor efficiency levels

(L/kWh)

30.00

pints/day

or less

30.01-45.00

pints/day

45.01

pints/day

or more

Baseline

Current Baseline with Fan-only Mode

0.77

0.94

2.07

Current Baseline with no Fan-only Mode

1.10

1.20

2.40

Gap Fill 1

1.20

1.40

2.80

Gap Fill 2/Max Tech

1.30

1.60

3.66

Max Tech

1.57

1.80

Table IV.14—NOPR Analysis Whole-Home Dehumidifier Efficiency Levels

Efficiency level

Efficiency level source

Integrated energy factor

efficiency levels

(L/kWh)

8.0 ft

or less

(case volume)

More than

8.0 ft

(case volume)

Baseline

Minimum Available

1.77

2.41

Gap Fill 1

2.09

2.70

Gap Fill 2/Max Tech

2.53

3.52

Max Tech

4.50

Additional details on the selection of incremental efficiency levels may be found in chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the NOPR TSD.

2. Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates

Based on product teardowns and cost modeling conducted in the preliminary analysis, DOE developed overall cost-efficiency relationships for each product class considered in that analysis. DOE selected products covering the range of efficiencies available on the market for the teardown analysis. During the teardown process, DOE created detailed bills of materials (BOMs) that included all components and processes used to manufacture the products. DOE used the BOMs from the teardowns as an input to a cost model, which was used to calculate the MPC for products covering the range of efficiencies available on the market. The MPC accounts for labor, material, overhead, and depreciation costs that a manufacturer would incur in producing a specific dehumidifier. DOE also developed BOMS and MPCs for theoretical units that could implement the current max-tech for dehumidifier components.

For the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated that the costs for these products reflected the costs for typical units at their respective efficiency levels, consistent with the efficiency-level approach. DOE then used the design-option approach to determine what changes would be needed for a particular unit to meet each incrementally higher efficiency level. DOE constructed cost-efficiency curves for multiple manufacturers to reflect the incremental MPC corresponding to each manufacturer's product line and available platforms. DOE combined the individual cost-efficiency curves based on estimates of each manufacturer's market share to develop an overall cost-efficiency curve representative of the entire industry. Table IV. 15 shows the incremental MPCs developed in the preliminary analysis for each product class at each of the analyzed efficiency levels compared to the baseline MPC. The incremental MPCs are presented in 2012 dollars (2012$), which reflects the year in which the preliminary analysis teardowns and modeling were performed.

Table IV.15—Preliminary Analysis Dehumidifier Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs

[2012$]

Efficiency level

Portable product class capacities

(pints/day)

≤20.00

20.01-30.00

30.01-35.00

35.01-45.00

>45.00

Whole-home product class case volume

(

cubic feet

)

≤8.0

>8.0

EL1

$—

$38.40

$15.22

$6.14

EL2

1.56

1.85

2.94

1.98

49.16

76.18

37.05

EL3

4.64

3.78

8.72

7.56

100.13

N/A

112.01

EL4

7.77

10.82

13.40

11.24

N/A

Section 5.5 of Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD contains additional details on the analysis conducted in support of developing these MPC estimates.

DOE received multiple comments from interested parties on the engineering analysis and MPC estimates developed for the preliminary analysis. GE Appliances (GE) commented that it is very low cost to get to Efficiency Level 1 by eliminating fan-only mode because it only requires software changes. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 43) AHAM and GE commented that removing fan-only mode reduces consumer utility with longer defrost times at lower temperatures, less stability of the humidity in the environment, and stagnation of the air. AHAM also stated that for manufacturers that would not want to make these tradeoffs, Efficiency Level 1 would be nearly impossible to meet by combining other technology options. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 3; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 43) DOE continues to expect manufacturers would remove fan-only mode in products as a first step to improving efficiency because of the low cost and ease of implementation. Many units available on the market already do not incorporate fan-only mode. In manufacturer interviews, manufacturers typically stated that there would be no impact on consumer utility to remove fan-only mode. DOE also notes that although it asserts that manufacturers would remove fan-only mode to reach Efficiency Level 1, manufacturers may elect to incorporate other design options to improve efficiency to that level.

Aprilaire asked whether DOE considered in its analysis the limited availability of compressor technologies for the larger dehumidifiers. Aprilaire noted that compressors in larger dehumidifiers do not have a lot of new technologies and sizes available to them. Manufacturers would have to increase efficiency by increasing coil sizes or incorporating features such as air-to-air heat exchangers or wrap-around coils, which would be very expensive for the manufacturer. (Aprilaire, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 23-24) AHAM commented that compressor efficiency has not been increasing significantly. Manufacturers may be seeking to incorporate higher efficiency compressors, but it is possible that compressors are reaching close to max-tech levels such that selecting a higher efficiency compressor may be cost prohibitive. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 4)

For the preliminary engineering analysis, DOE identified the range of compressor capacities observed in dehumidifiers available on the market. DOE then identified the range of efficiencies for all available compressors within that capacity range. When evaluating higher compressor efficiencies, DOE considered the most efficient rotary R-410A compressor available in the required range of capacities, without requiring a switch to a different compressor technology. Additionally, DOE factored in the compressor efficiencies observed in products in its teardown sample when determining the overall efficiency gains that may be achieved through compressor improvements. If a dehumidifier already incorporated an efficient compressor, DOE relied on other design options such as increasing heat exchanger sizes to improve efficiencies.

In AHAM's comments on the preliminary engineering analysis cost estimates, it asked for more information on how a 3,000 Btu/h compressor would be estimated to cost less than $7. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 38) GE commented that because there are very few room air conditioner compressors rated as low as 5,000 Btu/h, the curve used to determine compressor prices is probably valid only down to 5,000 Btu/h. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 39) DOE notes that in the preliminary analysis, it relied on the room air conditioner compressor cost curve only over the range of capacities for which it was developed, 5,000 to 24,000 Btu/h. DOE used the $7 cost for a 3,000 Btu/h compressor as an example of an inappropriately low cost from extrapolating the cost curve below its lower limit (5,000 Btu/h). DOE did not use this cost estimate in the preliminary analysis or in this NOPR. In both the preliminary analysis and this NOPR, DOE estimated that compressor costs would continue to decrease for compressor capacities less than 5,000 Btu/h, but estimated a more conservative linear decrease in costs compared to extrapolating the room air conditioner curve. (For additional information, see chapter 5, section 5.5.5 of the preliminary TSD.)

ASAP asked if DOE had evaluated heat exchanger improvements other than increasing the cross-sectional area, and if so, which improvement had the largest impact. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 46) AHAM commented that manufacturers might choose to rely on heat exchanger sizes to improve condenser and evaporator performance, but larger coils mean more static pressure, thus adding more costly motors. (AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 3-4)

As part of the preliminary analysis, DOE considered additional heat exchanger design changes, including increasing the number of tube passes and heat exchanger depth in the direction of the air flow. DOE modeled the efficiency improvements of these changes, as well as an increase in cross-sectional area, and found that increasing the heat exchanger cross-sectional area resulted in the greatest efficiency improvement. As noted in section 5.5.1 and throughout chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD, DOE asserted that manufacturers would rely on this heat exchanger design change to reach higher efficiency levels. Manufacturers confirmed during interviews that they would typically rely on increased cross-sectional area rather than other heat exchanger design changes to reach higher efficiencies. In considering larger cross-sectional areas, DOE also did not assume a corresponding increase in motor power. DOE expects that the

static pressure over the heat exchanger would not increase with larger cross-sectional area because of the lower relative air velocity through the coil.

ASAP asked whether a fixed standby power level is incorporated into each IEF level. ASAP noted that the preliminary analysis does not include reduced standby power as a design option, which is reasonable as long as the standby power levels at each efficiency level are low. ASAP further commented that the energy study that DOE cited in the preliminary TSD found standby power levels for some products to be as high as 12 watts (W), and requested confirmation that high standby power levels are not incorporated in the IEFs. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 44-45) AHAM agreed with DOE's determination in the preliminary analysis that manufacturers would rely on changes other than low-standby-loss electronic controls to achieve the relatively large increments in efficiency levels. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 5)

In section 5.5.3.2 of the preliminary TSD, DOE noted that while the average low-power mode power draw for units in its test sample was lower for a switch-mode power supply compared to a linear power supply (0.4 W compared to 1.2 W), these values, incorporated into the same unit, would have a negligible effect on the final rounded IEF. Accordingly, DOE did not consider improving low-power mode energy consumption at any efficiency level. If a unit did indeed have a 12 W low-power mode power draw, DOE expects that the manufacturer would switch to low-standby-power controls to improve IEF. However, DOE notes that the 12 W level was observed in the field, and does not necessarily reflect the control settings and operation of the unit as tested according to the low-power mode testing provisions in the appendix X1 test procedures. DOE did not observe any standby mode or off mode power levels higher than 4.5 W in its testing of a large sample of dehumidifiers from manufacturers representing over 80 percent of the market.

GE and AHAM commented that Underwriters Laboratories (UL) has a new standard, UL 474, which requires Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI) protection to be added to all cord-connected dehumidifiers manufactured on or after February 6, 2017. Adding AFCI protection to dehumidifiers will increase standby power. According to GE, the increase in standby power would be about 0.5 W. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 7; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 47-48) This estimated increase in low-power mode power draw is similar to the range in low-power mode power consumption that DOE observed among the units in its test sample, and which DOE determined had little or no effect on the final rounded IEF value. Accordingly, DOE determined that the new UL 474 standard would not require adjusting the IEF values considered for each efficiency level.

In chapter 5, section 5.5.3.2 of the preliminary TSD, DOE provided discussion on a number of design options that were not directly considered in the engineering analysis. These design options were described in chapter 3, section 3.14.2 of the preliminary TSD. AHAM agreed that:

1. A built-in hygrometer/humidistat would not result in efficiency gains.

2. Because the test procedure requires continuous unit operation at constant ambient conditions, it would not reflect improved control schemes and thus these should not be further considered in the analysis.

3. If DOE adopts the 65 °F ambient condition, manufacturers would likely adjust their units to avoid defrosts when operating at that condition, and thus improved defrost methods should not be considered further in the analysis.

4. Demand-defrost controls should not be considered because units on the market already feature sensor-based defrost control and because the test procedure would not capture efficiency improvements from it.

5. Any benefit associated with the unit's ability to adjust to varying ambient conditions would not be captured by the test procedure, and thus improved flow-control devices should not be further considered in the analysis.

6. Washable air filters are not a design option because all units DOE analyzed include this feature.

7. Improved refrigeration system insulation should not be considered as a design option because DOE did not observe a relationship between efficiency and insulation. (AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 4-6)

The California IOUs commented that measures that were rejected because their impact would not be directly observable under the current DOE test procedure—variable-speed compressors, permanent-magnet fan motors, improved controls (standby power consumption, relative humidity set-point accuracy, refrigerant flow controls, improved defrost controls), and improved insulation in the refrigeration system—all have the potential for significant energy use reduction and therefore should be considered as design options. The California IOUs stated that a number of areas for improving the accuracy and range of controls could greatly enhance overall dehumidifier efficiency, and although the majority of these measures would not significantly affect the rated active mode efficiency of dehumidifiers under the current test procedure, they should be considered as design options because future updates to the test procedure may properly account for these efficiency gains. (California IOUs, No. 24 at pp. 4 and 5) The California IOUs also commented that DOE should consider requiring dehumidifiers to contain hygrometers, which would reduce overall energy use by automatically controlling active mode operation based on ambient temperature and humidity conditions. They stated that more advanced controls are capable of using data from hygrometers to optimize compressor and fan usage by utilizing a pre-programmed compressor and fan schedule over a range of dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperature combinations. They also stated that because some hygrometers can be inaccurate, which could cause units to run much longer duty cycles than the user intends, DOE should consider requiring a certain hygrometer accuracy and should modify the test procedure to accommodate this measurement. (California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 5)

DOE identified these design options in the market and technology assessment because of their potential to increase dehumidifier efficiencies in real-world applications. However, because the benefits of these design options would likely not be measured under the appendix X1 test procedure, DOE determined that manufacturers would not likely incorporate the design options to existing products to reach higher efficiency levels. The appendix X1 test procedure determines dehumidifier performance under constant ambient conditions, and therefore would not reflect potential energy impacts of design options that improve controls to adjust unit operation to respond to ambient conditions. Accordingly, DOE requests comment on whether to promote installation of any of the design options identified by the California IOUs, even though the resulting efficiency gains would not be measurable with the existing test protocol.

ASAP and the Joint Commenters stated that DOE should include the efficiency improvements associated with permanent-magnet fan motors unless the savings are trivial. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 45-46; Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) The Joint Commenters also stated

that while costs to both consumers and manufacturers are important considerations in determining appropriate standard levels, costs can't be considered in establishing the max-tech levels. They also noted that DOE analyzed permanent-magnet fan motors in several recent rulemakings (furnace fans, walk-in coolers and freezers, commercial refrigeration equipment). (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) AHAM commented in agreement with DOE's determination in the preliminary analysis that improved fan and fan-motor efficiency should not be considered because DOE found no significant changes to blowers and fan motors at different efficiencies. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 5)

In improving the max-tech efficiencies beyond the maximum available, as discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this proposed rule, DOE included a change to permanent-magnet fan motors. While manufacturers do not currently incorporate permanent-magnet fan motors in products available on the market, DOE determined that this is a technologically feasible change that would improve product efficiencies. The revised MPCs for the NOPR analysis reflect this design change, as well as others, at the max-tech efficiency level.

For the NOPR analysis, DOE also updated the incremental MPC estimates from the preliminary analysis to combine the four lower capacity portable product classes into two, as discussed in section IV.A.1 of this proposed rule. To combine the cost estimates from the previous separate portable product classes, DOE used the market shares discussed in the preliminary analysis (see chapter 9, section 9.3.3 of the preliminary TSD) to determine a weighted average of the previous cost estimates. Additionally, DOE updated the MPCs to 2013$, the most recent year for which full-year data was available at the time of this analysis. DOE notes that the whole-home test procedure revisions did not impact the MPC cost estimates for those product classes. DOE assumed products would maintain the same construction as considered for the preliminary analysis, with updated IEFs to reflect the proposed, revised test conditions. Table IV.16 presents the updated MPC estimates DOE developed for this NOPR.

Table IV.16—NOPR Analysis Dehumidifier Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs

[2013$]

Efficiency level

Portable product class capacities

(pints/day)

≤30.00

30.01-45.00

>45.00

Whole-home product class case volume

(ft

)

≤8.0

>8.0

EL1

$—

$42.81

$15.30

$6.20

EL2

1.69

2.39

53.66

129.22

37.20

EL3

4.27

8.07

120.33

N/A

161.39

EL4

19.38

22.42

N/A

Additional details on the development of the incremental cost estimates may be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to convert the MPC estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin. For residential dehumidifiers, the main parties in the distribution chain are manufacturers and retailers.

The manufacturer markup converts MPC to manufacturer selling price (MSP). DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range includes residential dehumidifiers.

For retailers, DOE developed separate markups for baseline products (baseline markups) and for the incremental cost of more efficient products (incremental markups). Incremental markups are coefficients that relate the change in the MSP of higher-efficiency models to the change in the retailer sales price. DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups.

U.S. Census,

2007 Annual Retail Trade Survey

(

ARTS

), Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors.

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for residential dehumidifiers.

E. Energy Use Analysis

DOE's energy use analysis estimated the range of energy use of residential dehumidifiers in the field,

i.e.,

as they are actually used by consumers. The energy use analysis provided the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended standards.

A dehumidifier uses energy when the compressor is operating to remove moisture from the air. When the compressor is not operating, the dehumidifier may use energy for a fan-only mode that circulates air through the unit to sample the ambient relative humidity and to defrost the condenser coils. When neither the fan nor the compressor is operating, energy is used in standby mode or off mode to supply power for functions such as keeping a user panel lit.

DOE determined the annual energy consumption of residential dehumidifiers by multiplying the capacity (liters per day) by the hours of operation in dehumidification mode, dividing that quantity by the product efficiency, and adding the energy use for the fan mode and the standby and off mode.

The efficiency and capacity values were measured using a temperature of 80 °F and humidity set point of 60 percent, as stipulated in the current test procedure for dehumidifiers.

To estimate hours of operation in each mode, DOE used two recent field studies that measured daily hours of use in each operating mode for both portable and whole-home dehumidifiers.

DOE paired these data with estimates of the number of months that dehumidifiers are used in a representative sample of U.S.

households. DOE used data from the EIA's

2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey

(RECS 2009), which was the most recent such survey available at the time of DOE's analysis.

RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that collects statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures for energy in housing units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and occupants. RECS 2009 questioned each household on two aspects of dehumidifier use: (1) Ownership and (2) number of months of dehumidifier use. DOE estimated that consumers leave the dehumidifier to cycle on and off for the entire month or months of the dehumidification season.

Willem, H.,

et al., Using Field-Metered Data to Quantify Annual Energy Use of Residential Portable Unit Dehumidifiers,

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Nov. 2013); Willem, H.,

et al., Field-Monitoring of Whole-Home Dehumidifiers: Initial Results of a Pilot Study,

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Nov. 2013).

U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration,

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2009 RECS Survey Data

(2013) (Available at:

http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/

DOE estimated the energy use for the fan mode and the standby and off mode using the hours of operation described above, along with data on average power in fan and standby modes from the field studies.

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use analysis for residential dehumidifiers.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE considers the economic impact of potential standards on consumers. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:

• LCC (life-cycle cost) is the total consumer cost of an appliance or product, generally over the life of the appliance or product. The LCC calculation includes total installed cost (equipment manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs), operating costs (energy, repair, and maintenance costs), equipment lifetime, and discount rate. Future operating costs are discounted to the time of purchase and summed over the lifetime of the appliance or product.

• PBP (payback period) measures the amount of time it takes consumers to recover the estimated higher purchase price of a more energy-efficient product through reduced operating costs. Inputs to the payback period calculation include the installed cost to the consumer and first-year operating costs.

For any given EL, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the base case, which reflects the market in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards, and includes baseline products as well as products with higher efficiency. In contrast, the PBP for a given EL is measured relative to the baseline product only.

For each product class efficiency level, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples with RECS 2009 data. For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption for the residential dehumidifier and the appropriate electricity price. By developing a representative sample of households, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of residential dehumidifiers.

AHAM continues to oppose DOE's reliance on RECS 2009 for the LCC and PBP analysis. AHAM considers it difficult, if not impossible, to compare the results to the energy use measured in a controlled test procedure situation. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 6)

The LCC and PBP analyses are designed to support DOE's consideration of the economic impact of potential standards on consumers of the products subject to the standard, as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The use of RECS 2009 to develop a consumer sample and to provide data for estimation of product energy use allows DOE to characterize the range of conditions in which covered appliances are operated. As a result, DOE is able to estimate how the energy savings would vary among households for each considered EL. Measurement of energy use in a controlled test procedure situation has a different purpose, which is to provide accurate and comparable measures of energy efficiency for particular covered products.

Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and distributor markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.

The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP, which incorporates Crystal Ball

(a commercially available software program), relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and residential dehumidifier user samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run.

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all customers as if each were to purchase a new product in the expected year of compliance with amended standards. The amended standards would apply to residential dehumidifiers manufactured 3 years after the date on which the amended standards for residential dehumidifiers are published. At this time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in 2016. Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2019 as the first year of compliance with any amended standards.

Table IV.17 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.

Table IV.17—Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis *

Inputs

Source/method

Product Cost

Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling index to forecast product costs.

Installation Costs

Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means. Assumed no change with efficiency level.

Annual Energy Use

The total annual energy use multiplied by the hours per year. Average number of hours based on field data.

Variability: Based on the 2009

RECS.

Energy Prices

Electricity: Based on EIA's Form 861 data for 2012.

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 27 regions.

Variability: By census region.

Energy Price Trends

Energy: Forecasted using

AEO 2015

price forecasts.

Repair and Maintenance Costs

Assumed no change with efficiency level.

Product Lifetime

Portable dehumidifiers: used lifetime from the previous DOE rulemaking for dehumidifiers.

Whole-home dehumidifiers: applied the lifetime parameters derived for room air conditioners.

Discount Rates

Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board's SCF ** for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010.

Projected Compliance Date

2019

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

** Survey of Consumer Finances.

1. Product Cost

To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described above (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE projected future dehumidifier prices using a trend based on the appropriate Producer Price Index (PPI) series. AHAM submitted a comment on the preliminary analysis opposing the use of experience curves to project future product prices. (AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 6-7)

There is extensive literature supporting the use of experience curves (also known as learning curves) for a broad range of products. The approach that DOE has used in some rulemakings to derive an experience rate (defined as the fractional reduction in price expected from each doubling of cumulative production) is consistent with the methods used in numerous studies.

However, the historical shipment data for dehumidifiers are too limited to construct a robust cumulative production estimation for these products. Instead, DOE retained the approach using an exponential fit of historic PPI data. PPI data specific to residential dehumidifiers were not available, so DOE used the Small Electric Household Appliances PPI (1983 to 2012) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for portable dehumidifiers, and the Room Air Conditioners and Dehumidifiers PPI (1990 to 2009) for whole-home dehumidifiers.

The average annual rate of price decline, adjusted for inflation, in the default case is 2.02 percent for portable dehumidifiers and 2.23 percent for whole-home dehumidifiers.

Margaret Taylor and K. Sydny Fujita,

Accounting for Technological Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique,

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Apr. 30, 2013); P.B. Kantor and W. I. Zangwill,

Theoretical Foundation for a Learning Rate Budget,

Management Science, Mar. 1, 1991, at 315; L. Argote and D. Epple,

Learning Curves in Manufacturing,

Science, Feb. 1990, at 920; J.M. Dutton and A. Thomas,

Treating Progress Functions as a Managerial Opportunity,

The Academy of Management Review, Apr. 1984, at 235.

PPI Series ID for Small Electric Household Appliance: PCU33521033521014; PPI Series ID for Room Air Conditioner and Dehumidifiers: PCU3334153334156. (Available at:

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

2. Installation Cost

Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from the 2013 RSMeans Residential Cost Data book to estimate the baseline installation cost for whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE found no evidence that installation costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels.

3. Annual Energy Consumption

For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption for a residential dehumidifier at different efficiency levels using the approach described above in section IV.E of this notice.

4. Energy Prices

DOE derived average annual residential electricity prices for 27 geographic regions using data from EIA's Form EIA-861 database.

DOE calculated an average annual regional residential price by: (1) Estimating an average residential price for each utility in the region (by dividing the residential revenues by residential sales); and (2) weighting each utility by the number of residential consumers it served in that region. The NOPR analysis used data from 2012.

Available at:

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html

To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by the forecast of annual change in national-average residential energy price in the reference case from

AEO 2015,

which has an end year of 2040.

To estimate price trends after 2040, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2020 to 2040.

DOE-EIA,

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040

(Available at:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or only minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs.

During the 2013 preliminary analysis phase of the rulemaking, DOE requested information as to whether maintenance and repair costs are a function of efficiency level and product class. Manufacturers responded that these costs would not increase with efficiency. As a result, DOE assumed that repair and maintenance costs do not scale with the efficiency of residential dehumidifiers.

6. Product Lifetime

For portable dehumidifiers, DOE used lifetime estimates from the previous

DOE rulemaking for dehumidifiers.

DOE assumed whole-home dehumidifiers have the same life span as residential room air conditioners and applied the lifetime parameters derived for room air conditioners in the 2011 rulemaking to whole-home dehumidifiers.

The analysis yielded an estimate of mean lifetime of approximately 11 years for portable dehumidifiers and approximately 19 years for whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE also used the data to develop a survival function that was incorporated as a probability distribution in the LCC analysis. See chapter 8, section 8.2.2.8 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the method and sources DOE used to develop product lifetimes.

DOE-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products,

Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products, and Commercial Clothes Washers

(2009) (Available at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0127-0097

DOE-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products,

Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners

(2011) (Available at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053

7. Discount Rates

In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to households to estimate the present value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution of residential discount rates for dehumidifiers based on consumer financing costs and opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings and maintenance costs.

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

Using the SCF and other sources, DOE then developed a distribution of rates for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one of the distributions. The average rate across all types of household debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.0 percent. See chapter 8, section 8.2.3 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the development of consumer discount rates.

Two older versions of the SCF are also available, 1989 and 1992, but these surveys are not used in this analysis because they do not provide all of the necessary types of data (

e.g.,

credit card interest rates). DOE concludes that the 15-year span covered by the six surveys included is sufficiently representative of recent debt and equity shares and interest rates.

8. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution of product efficiencies in the base case (

i.e.,

the case without new energy efficiency standards). DOE refers to this distribution of product efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution.

To estimate the efficiency distribution of standard residential dehumidifiers for 2014, DOE analyzed its Compliance Certification Database for residential dehumidifiers. To project the efficiency trend between 2014 and 2019, DOE used a 0.25 percent annual increase in shipment-weighted efficiency, as discussed in section IV.H. The estimated shares for the base-case efficiency distribution for residential dehumidifiers are shown in Table IV.18. See chapter 8, section 8.2.5 of the NOPR TSD for further information on the derivation of the base-case efficiency distributions.

Table IV.18—Residential Dehumidifier Base-Case Efficiency Distribution by Product Class in 2019

PC1

≤30.00 pints/day

(%)

PC2

30.01-45.00 pints/day

(%)

PC3

>45.00 pints/day

(%)

PC4

≤8.0 ft

(%)

PC5

>8.0 ft

(%)

9. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. PBPs are expressed in years. PBPs that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.

The inputs to the PBP calculation for each EL are the change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that discount rates are not needed.

10. Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period

As noted above, EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered EL, DOE determined the value of the first year's energy savings by multiplying the energy savings by the average energy price forecast for the year in which compliance with the amended standard would be required. The results of the rebuttable presumption PBP analysis are summarized in section V.B.1.c of this proposed rule.

G. Shipments

DOE uses forecasts of annual product shipments to calculate the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.

The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age distribution of the stock.

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

To determine shipments to the replacement market, DOE estimated a stock of dehumidifiers by vintage by integrating historical shipments starting from 1972. Over time, some units are retired and removed from the stock, triggering the shipment of a replacement unit. Depending on the vintage, a certain percentage of each type of unit will fail and need to be replaced. DOE based the retirement function on a probability distribution for the product lifetime that was developed in the LCC analysis. The shipments model assumes that no units are retired below a minimum product lifetime and that all units are retired before exceeding a maximum product lifetime.

To calibrate the estimated shipments with the historical data, DOE introduced into the model a market segment identified as existing households without dehumidifiers, also referred to as first-time owners. Based on the calibration, DOE estimated that 0.35 percent of existing households without a dehumidifier would annually purchase this product over the analysis period, 2019-2048.

Because the incremental cost of products meeting the considered standard levels is very low relative to the operating cost savings (see section V.B.1.a), DOE assumed that shipments would not be affected by the proposed standards. For details on the shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.

AHAM stated that the historical shipments and the projected ship

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.