Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans

Federal RegisterJan 13, 2016

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045]

RIN 1904-AD28

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 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 ceiling fans. 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 notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for ceiling fans, and 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 March 14, 2016. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for details.

Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the

ADDRESSES

section before February 12, 2016.

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, Feburary 3, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 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 public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

Instructions:

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR on Energy Conservation Standards for ceiling fans and provide docket number EE-2012-BT-STD-0045 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-AD28. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: CeilingFan2012STD0045@ee.doe.gov

. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

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.

EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at

energy.standards@atr.usdoj.gov

before February 12, 2016. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this rulemaking notice.

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (“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 may not be publicly available, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure.

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

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/65

. This Web page contains 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.

EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V). The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at

Atr.ops-energystandards@usdoj.gov

before February 12, 2016. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this rulemaking notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lucy DeButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email:

ceiling_fans@ee.doe.gov

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:

Elizabeth.Kohl@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

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Ceiling Fans

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

1. Scope of Coverage

2. Product Classes

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

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Product Classes

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Baseline and Max-Tech Models

2. Manufacturing Cost Analysis

3. Installed Costs

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Inputs for Standard, Hugger, and VSD Ceiling Fans

2. Inputs for Large-Diameter and High-Speed Small-Diameter Ceiling Fans

3. Impact on Air Conditioning or Heating Equipment Use

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Purchase Price

2. Electricity Prices

3. Electricity Price Trends

4. Repair Costs

5. Product Lifetime

6. Discount Rates

7. Efficiency and Blade Span Distribution in the No-Standards Case

8. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

1. Shipments Demand Model

2. Stock-Accounting Model

3. Market-Share Projections

4. Price Trend

5. Impact of a Standard on Shipments

H. National Impact Analysis

1. National Energy Savings

2. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs

3. Discussion of Comments

4. Manufacturer Interviews

K. Emissions Analysis

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

3. National Impact Analysis

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of National Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Ceiling Fan Standards

2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

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,

et seq.

), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.

These products include ceiling fans, which are the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff))

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 Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).

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))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for ceiling fans. The proposed standards, which are expressed for each product class as the maximum allowable airflow efficiency in terms of cubic feet per minute per watt (CFM/W), as a function of ceiling fan diameter in inches, are shown in Table I-1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all ceiling fans listed in Table I-1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on and after the date 3 years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking.

Table I-1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans

Product class

Maximum

airflow

efficiency

equation

CFM/W

Very Small-Diameter (VSD)

3.17D−16.75

Hugger

0.05D + 56.41

Standard

0.30D + 60.61

High-Speed Small-Diameter (HSSD)

4.22D + 0.02

Large Diameter

1.16D−24.38

* D is the ceiling fan diameter, in inches.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I-2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of ceiling fans, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP).

The average LCC savings are positive for each product class, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of ceiling fans, which is estimated to be 13.8 years for all product classes (see section IV.F).

The average LCC savings are measured relative to the no-standards case efficiency distribution, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of standards (see section IV.F.7). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline model (see section IV.F), which corresponds to the least efficient model available to purchase.

Table I-2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Ceiling Fans

Product class

Average LCC

savings

(

2014$

)

Simple payback period

(

years

)

Standard

8.47

1.5

Hugger

5.59

1.6

Very Small-Diameter

3.01

7.7

High-Speed Small-Diameter

27.63

5.2

Large-Diameter

27.26

4.4

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

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 7.4 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of CFs in the no-standards case is $1,308.7 million in 2014$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 12.7 percent of this INPV, which is approximately $166.3 million. Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the ceiling fan manufacturers, DOE does not expect significant impacts on manufacturing capacity or loss of employment for the industry as a whole to result from enacting the proposed standards for ceiling fans.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the amended standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this notice.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2014 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2015 unless explicitly stated otherwise. Energy savings in this section refer to the full-fuel-cycle savings (see section IV.H for discussion).

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for ceiling fans would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case where no energy efficiency performance standard is set (the “no-standards case”), the lifetime energy savings for ceiling fans purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with any amended standards (2019-2048) amount to 0.758 quadrillion Btu (quads).

This represents an energy savings of 10.9 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-standards case”).

A quad is equal to 10

British thermal units (Btu).

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of the proposed standards for ceiling fans ranges from $0.813 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.760 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 ceiling fans purchased in 2019-2048.

In addition, the proposed standards for ceiling fans would have significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions of 45.7 million metric tons (Mt)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 24.5 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 84.2 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 199.6 thousand tons of methane (CH

), 0.51 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), and 0.09 tons of mercury (Hg).

The cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 8.53 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of almost 778,000 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 no-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2015

(

AEO 2015

) Reference case.

AEO 2015

generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2014.

The conversion from cumulative CO

emissions reductions to electricity use emissions from homes is based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results

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. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values (see Table I-3), DOE estimates the present monetary value of the CO

emissions reduction (not including CO

equivalent emissions of other gases with global warming potential) is between $0.3 billion and $4.4 billion, with a value of $1.4 billion using the central SCC case represented by $40.0/t in 2015. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NO

emissions reduction to be $0.11 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.27 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 (May 2013; revised July 2015) (Available at:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf

DOE estimated the monetized value of NOx emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the Regulatory Impact Analysis titled, “Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants,” published in June 2014 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at:

http://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf

.) See section IV.L.2 for further discussion. Note that the agency is presenting a national benefit-per-ton estimate for particulate matter emitted from the Electricity Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al., 2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger. Because of the sensitivity of the benefit-per-ton estimate to the geographical considerations of sources and receptors of emissions, DOE intends to investigate refinements to the agency's current approach of one national estimate by assessing the regional approach taken by EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule. Note that DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided SO

and Hg emissions.

Table I-3 summarizes the national economic benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for ceiling fans.

Table I-3—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans (TSL 4) *

Category

Present value

Billion 2014$

Discount rate

(%)

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

2.2

5.2

Reduction Monetized Value ($12.2/t case) **

0.31

Reduction Monetized Value ($40.0/t case) **

1.4

Reduction Monetized Value ($62.3/t case) **

2.3

2.5

Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) **

4.4

Reduction Monetized Value †

0.11

0.27

Total Benefits††

3.8

6.9

Costs

Consumer Incremental Installed Costs

1.4

2.4

Total Net Benefits

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value†

2.3

4.5

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ceiling fans 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 CO

values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$, 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 incorporate an escalation factor.

† The $/ton values used for NO

are described in section IV.L. DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the Regulatory Impact Analysis titled, “Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants,” published in June 2014 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at:

http://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf.

) See section IV.L.2 for further discussion. Note that the agency is presenting a national benefit-per-ton estimate for particulate matter emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al., 2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger. Because of the sensitivity of the benefit-per-ton estimate to the geographical considerations of sources and receptors of emissions, DOE intends to investigate refinements to the agency's current approach of one national estimate by assessing the regional approach taken by EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule.

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.0/t case).

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards, for ceiling fans sold in 2019-2048, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) The annualized national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of products that meet the new or amended standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase prices and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including NO

and CO

emission reductions.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2015, 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 2015. 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-4. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO

emission reductions is relevant to DOE's determination, 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 ceiling fans shipped in 2019-2048. Because CO

emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere,

the SCC values after 2050 reflect future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of CO

that continue beyond 2100.

The atmospheric lifetime of CO

is estimated of the order of 30-95 years. Jacobson, MZ (2005), “Correction to `Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming,'”

J. Geophys. Res.

110. pp. D14105.

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 $40.0/t in 2015), the estimated annualized cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $140 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annualized benefits are $220 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $80 million in CO

reductions, and $10 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the annualized net benefit amounts to $170 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series that has a value of $40.0/t in 2015, the estimated annualized cost of the proposed ceiling fans standards is $136 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annualized benefits are $290 million in reduced operating costs, $80 million in CO

reductions, and $15 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the annualized net benefit amounts to $248 million per year.

Table I-4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans (TSL 4)

Discount rate

(%)

(Million 2014$/year)

Primary

estimate *

Low net benefits estimate *

High net benefits estimate *

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

220

290

195

255

253.

341.

Reduction Monetized Value ($12.2/t case)**

26.

Reduction Monetized Value ($40.0/t case)**

90.

Reduction Monetized Value ($62.3/t case)**

2.5

117

105

132.

Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case)**

243

217

274.

Reduction Monetized Value†

26.

37.

Total Benefits ††

7 plus CO

range

254 to 473

225 to 421

305 to 553.

310

275

369.

3 plus CO

range

328 to 547

289 to 485

404 to 652.

384

340

467.

Costs

Consumer Incremental Installed Product Costs

140

136

177

182

155.

152.

Net Benefits

Total †

7 plus CO

range

114 to 333

47 to 243

150 to 398.

170

214.

3 plus CO

range

192 to 411

107 to 303

251 to 499.

248

157

315.

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with ceiling fans 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 Estimate assumes the Reference case electricity prices and housing starts from AEO 2015 and decreasing product prices for ceiling fans with DC motors, due to price trend on the electronics components. The Low Benefits Estimate uses the Low Economic Growth electricity prices and housing starts from AEO 2015 and no price trend for ceiling fans with DC motors. The High Benefits Estimate uses the High Economic Growth electricity prices and housing starts from AEO 2015 and the same product price decrease for ceiling fans with DC motors as in the Primary Estimate.

** The CO

† The $/ton values used for NO

are described in section IV.L. DOE estimated the monetized value of NOx emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the Regulatory Impact Analysis titled, “Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants,” published in June 2014 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at:

http://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf.

) See section IV.L.2 I.A.2 for further discussion. For DOE's Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, the agency is presenting a national benefit-per-ton estimate for particulate matter emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). For DOE's High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al., 2011), which are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the ACS study. Because of the sensitivity of the benefit-per-ton estimate to the geographical considerations of sources and receptors of emission, DOE intends to investigate refinements to the agency's current approach of one national estimate by assessing the regional approach taken by EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule.

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with a 3-percent discount rate ($40.0/t case). 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.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this notice. 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 this 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- and less-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 and that the proposed standard achieves the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. 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 this proposed rule, as well

as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for ceiling fans.

A. Authority

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,

et seq.

) 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 ceiling fans that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)) EPCA, as amended, prescribed energy conservation standards for these products and authorized DOE to consider energy efficiency or energy use standards for the electricity used by ceiling fans to circulate air in a room.

Id.

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), DOE must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, the next review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than 6 years from the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.

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, 6295(o)(3)(A)) 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 ceiling fans appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix U.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including ceiling fans. 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) and (3)(B)) 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 ceiling fans, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the 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, 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 after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory 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 standard;

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

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

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

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

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of 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. 6295(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)).

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)) In this rulemaking, DOE proposes to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards it adopts in the final rule.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) defined and established design standards for ceiling fans. EPCA defined a “ceiling fan” as “a nonportable device that is suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(49)) In a final rule technical amendment published in the

Federal Register

(FR) on October 18, 2005, DOE codified the statutorily-prescribed design standards for ceiling fans. 70 FR 60407, 60413. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(s), and require all ceiling fans manufactured on or after January 1, 2007, to have the following features:

(i) Fan speed controls separate from any lighting controls;

(ii) adjustable speed controls (either more than one speed or variable speed); and

(iii) the capability for reverse action (other than fans sold for industrial or outdoor application or where safety would be an issue)).

(42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(1)(A) and (6))

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Ceiling Fans

EPCA established energy conservation standards for ceiling fans as described in Section II.B.1 and authorized DOE to consider, subject to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), establishing energy efficiency or energy use standards for the electricity used by ceiling fans to circulate air in a room. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff))

As noted in section II.B.1, DOE codified the statutorily-prescribed design standards for ceiling fans in the CFR at 10 CFR 430.32(s). 70 FR 60407, 60413 (Oct. 18, 2005). DOE also adopted test procedures for ceiling fans at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix U. 71 FR 71340, 71366-67 (Dec. 8, 2006).

On March 15, 2013, DOE published a notice announcing the availability of the framework document, “Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits,” and a public meeting to discuss the proposed analytical framework for the energy conservation standards rulemaking. 76 FR 56678. DOE also posted the framework document on its Web site, in which it described the procedural and analytical approaches it anticipated using to evaluate amended energy conservation standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits.

DOE held the public meeting for the framework document on March 22, 2013,

to present the framework document, describe the analyses DOE planned to conduct during the rulemaking, seek comments from interested parties on these subjects, and inform them about and facilitate their involvement in the rulemaking. At the public meeting, and during the comment period, DOE received many comments that both addressed issues raised in the framework document and identified additional issues relevant to this rulemaking.

The framework document and public meeting information are available at regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045-0001.

DOE published the preliminary analysis for the ceiling fan energy conservation standards rulemaking on September 29, 2014. 79 FR 58290. DOE posted the preliminary analysis, as well as the complete preliminary technical support document (TSD), on its Web site.

The preliminary TSD includes the results of the following DOE preliminary analyses: (1) Market and technology assessment; (2) screening analysis; (3) engineering analysis; (4) markups analysis; (5) energy use analysis; (6) LCC and PBP analyses; (7) shipments analysis; (8) national impact analysis (NIA); and (9) preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA).

The preliminary analysis, preliminary TSD, and preliminary analysis public meeting information are available at regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045-0066

DOE held a public meeting on November 19, 2014, to present the preliminary analysis, which included presenting preliminary results for the engineering and downstream economic analyses, seek comments from interested parties on these subjects, and facilitate interested parties' involvement in the rulemaking. At the public meeting, and during the comment period, DOE received comments that addressed issues raised in the preliminary analysis and identified additional issues relevant to this rulemaking.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering 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

1. Scope of Coverage

EPCA defines a “ceiling fan” as “a nonportable device that is suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(49))

In the ceiling fan light kit test procedure final rule published on December 24, 2015. 80 FR 80209, DOE reinterpreted the statutory definition of a ceiling fan to include hugger fans, which are fans that are mounted close to the ceiling, and are safe to use in environments with low ceilings, and also clarify that ceiling fans that produce large volume of airflow also meet the definition. DOE research indicates that all ceiling fans currently on the market, including hugger ceiling fans and ceiling fans that produce a large volume of airflow, appear to meet the EPCA design standards.

The changes in interpretation of the ceiling fan definition discussed above result in the applicability of the design standards set forth in EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(1) to these fan types 30 days after the publication of the ceiling fan light kit final rule test procedure. DOE is also proposing efficiency standards for these fan types in this ceiling fan NOPR.

During the preliminary analysis public meeting, Southern Company expressed concern over including larger ceiling fans, generally used in commercial and industrial settings under 10 CFR 430. Southern Company suggested that it would be more appropriate for larger ceiling fans to be considered as an ASHRAE product, and not subject to standards established in this rulemaking. (Southern Company, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 188)

DOE interprets Southern Company's comments to recommend that DOE exclude larger ceiling fans from this rulemaking and allow ASHRAE to include efficiency requirements for these products in ASHRAE 90.1 standard.

A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for ceiling fans (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045), which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov.

This notation indicates that the statement preceding the reference is document number 83 in the docket for the ceiling fan energy conservation standards rulemaking, and appears at page 188 of that document.

Pursuant to EPCA, ceiling fans are defined as a nonportable device that is

suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades. (42 U.S.C. 6291(49)) EPCA also defines a “consumer product”, which includes ceiling fans, as any article of a type that consumes energy and, “to any significant extent, is “distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals.” Because ceiling fans are considered a consumer product under this definition, and because the definition of ceiling fan does not have a threshold for size, DOE's authority to consider energy conservation standards for ceiling fans includes the larger ceiling fans generally used in commercial and industrial settings referred to by Southern Company. In a separate rulemaking proceeding, DOE is currently negotiating energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers.

DOE encourages Southern Company and other interested parties to comment on any proposed standards for this equipment as well, to ensure that DOE's standards for ceiling fans and for commercial and industrial fans and blowers do not overlap.

All information for this rulemaking is available at regulations.gov, under docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006 (

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006

2. Product Classes

When 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 of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

Currently there are no product classes for ceiling fans, because the previous final rule for ceiling fans published on October 18, 2005 set design standards, but did not establish product classes. 70 FR 60407. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing six product classes, which include highly-decorative, very small-diameter, hugger, standard, high-speed small-diameter and large-diameter product classes. For further details on product classes, see section IV.A.1 of this notice.

B. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine compliance with its energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) As noted, the test procedures for ceiling fans are provided in appendix U. DOE published a NOPR to amend these test procedures on October 17, 2014. 79 FR 62521, and published a supplemental NOPR (SNOPR) to provide further amendments to the published NOPR on June 3, 2015. 80 FR 31487.

Currently no energy efficiency performance standards exist for ceiling fans. DOE proposes to set energy efficiency performance standards in terms of an airflow efficiency equation as proposed in the test procedure NOPR and subsequent SNOPR. 79 FR 62521 (Oct. 17, 2014); 80 FR 31487 (June 3, 2015). The metric used to evaluate performance in this NOPR calculates ceiling fan efficiency as the average of airflows and power consumption at different speeds weighted by hours of operation in each speed, including standby power.

In the test procedure SNOPR, DOE proposed to test all ceiling fans with blade spans less than or equal to 7 feet according to a modified version of the ENERGY STAR® “Testing Facility Guidance Manual: Building a Testing Facility and Performing the Solid State Test Method for ENERGY STAR Qualified Ceiling Fans,” version 1.1 test procedure, for any representations with respect to energy use or efficiency of these ceiling fans. DOE also proposed to test all ceiling fans with blade spans less than or equal to 7 feet mounted to the real ceiling. Additionally, DOE proposed to test all ceiling fans with blade spans less than or equal to 7 feet at high and low speeds, with the exception that high-volume small-diameter ceiling fans, which would only be tested at high speed. 80 FR 31489-31490.

In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to test all high-volume ceiling fans according to a modified version of the test procedure in American National Standards Institute/Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc. (ANSI/AMCA) Standard 230-12, “Laboratory Methods of Testing Air Circulating Fans for Rating and Certification” (AMCA 230

). DOE also proposed that these ceiling fans be tested only at high speed. 79 FR 62532. However, in the test procedure SNOPR, DOE modified the proposed test methods for high-volume ceiling fans. Specifically, instead of testing at only high speed, DOE proposed to test all ceiling fans with blade spans greater than 7 feet at five speeds spaced equally over the range of available speeds: 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%. 80 FR 31490.

Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc.

ANSI/AMCA Standard 230-12: Laboratory Methods of Testing Air Circulating Fans for Rating and Certification.

2010. Arlington Heights, IL. (Last accessed February 24, 2014)

https://www.amca.org/store/item.aspx?ItemId=37

Additionally, in the test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed to reinterpret the statutory definition of a ceiling fan to include hugger ceiling fans. DOE also proposed to clarify that multi-mount ceiling fans meet the statutory definition of a ceiling fan. During the public meeting, several manufacturers commented on how the requirements proposed in the ceiling fan test procedure NOPR would affect how they represent the performance of their ceiling fans in the market. DOE also received comments regarding the test procedure and metric in response to the Preliminary Analysis technical support document. DOE will respond to all comments on the proposed test procedure, ceiling fan representations and the proposed metric in the concurrent test procedure rulemaking.

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 technology options 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)) Additionally, it is DOE

policy not to include in its analysis any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain efficiency level. Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for ceiling fans, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it eliminated (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 section IV.B of this notice and 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 ceiling fans, 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 of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the ceiling fans that are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with any amended standards (2019-2048).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of ceiling fans purchased in this 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-standards case. The no-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, and it considers market forces and policies that may affect future demand for more-efficient products.

DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from potential amended standards for ceiling fans. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE calculates national energy savings on an annual basis in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate primary energy savings from site electricity savings, DOE derives annual conversion factors from data provided in the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) most recent

Annual Energy Outlook

(

AEO

In addition to primary energy savings, DOE also calculates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. As discussed in DOE's statement of policy, the FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). 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 ceiling fans, the primary fuel is electricity. For more information on FFC multipliers, see section IV.H.1.

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standards 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 (presented in section IV.H.1), are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

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)(I)-(VII)) 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. 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) 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 net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

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

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 consumer discount rates. 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.

The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.

For its LCC and PBP analyses, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a no-standards case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses are discussed in further detail in section IV.F.

Southern Company encouraged DOE to pursue an efficiency standard that keeps incremental fan price increases minimal while also having a small payback period. (Southern Company, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 271) In assessing a proposed energy conservation standard, DOE considers not only PBP, but also the other factors discussed in section III.E. Section V.B.1 contains the calculated PBPs for the proposed standard levels.

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 III.D.1, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this notice 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 and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; the emissions impacts are reported in section V.C.2 of this notice. DOE also estimates 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 payback period 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 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to ceiling fans. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments forecasts and calculates national energy savings and net present value resulting from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential

standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE Web site for this rulemaking:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/66.

Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of EIA's

AEO,

a widely known energy forecast for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. (See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.) DOE received comments regarding product classes, and the technology options DOE identified that can improve the efficiency of ceiling fans.

1. Product Classes

DOE divides covered products into classes by: (a) The type of energy used; (b) the capacity of the product; or (c) other performance-related features that justify different standard levels, considering the consumer utility of the feature and other relevant factors. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

In the ceiling fan test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed test methods for two major categories of ceiling fans; low-volume ceiling fans and high-volume ceiling fans. 79 FR 62521. DOE defined a low-volume ceiling as a ceiling fan that: (1) Is less than or equal to 7 feet in diameter, and has a blade thickness greater than or equal to 3.2 mm at the edge and a maximum tip speed less than or equal to the limit in the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) Standard 507-1999, “UL Standard for Safety for Electric Fans;”; or (2) has a maximum airflow volume less than or equal to 5,000 CFM. DOE defined a high-volume ceiling as a ceiling fan that: (1) is greater than 7 feet in diameter, or has a blade thickness of less than 3.2 mm at the edge or a maximum tip speed that exceeds the threshold in the UL 507 table; and (2) has a maximum airflow volume greater than 5,000 CFM. 79 FR 62526. In the test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed definitions for hugger and standard fans. DOE proposed that a hugger ceiling fan is a ceiling fan where the lowest point on the fan blades is no more than 10 inches from the ceiling based on the distance between the lowest point of the fan blade and the ceiling. DOE proposed that a standard ceiling fan is a ceiling fan where the lowest point on the fan blades is more than ten inches from the ceiling. 79 FR 62526.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE further differentiated low-volume and high-volume ceiling fans into five ceiling fan product classes based on capacity and performance-related features that affect consumer utility. The product classes considered in the preliminary analysis were: Hugger, standard, highly-decorative, high-volume small-diameter, and high-volume large-diameter.

Table IV-1 provides the product class definitions considered in the preliminary analysis.

The preliminary analysis TSD is available at regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045.

Table IV-1—Preliminary Analysis Product Classes

Product class

Definition

Low-volume

Hugger

Lowest point on fan blades is ≤10 inches from the ceiling.

Standard

Lowest point on fan blades >10 inches from the ceiling.

Highly- decorative

Rotational speed ≤90 RPM and airflow ≤2,000 CFM at high speed.

High-volume

Small-diameter (HVSD)

High-volume ceiling fan with diameter ≤7 feet.

Large-diameter (HVLD)

High-volume ceiling fan with diameter >7 feet.

DOE received several comments regarding the ceiling fan categories proposed, and the product classes being considered.

Stakeholders provided a variety of recommendations on how to define “low-volume” and “high-volume” ceiling fans. MacroAir suggested that CFM be the only distinguishing factor between low-volume (max airflow is less than or equal to 5000 CFM) and high-volume (max airflow is greater than 5000 CFM) ceiling fans, and to exclude blade thickness as it may impede innovation. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 12) Minka Group suggested that the cutoff airflow for low-volume ceiling fans be increased to 10,000 CFM. (Minka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 58)

Alternatively, manufacturers recommended differentiating fans based on blade diameter instead of air volume. BAS recommended that all fans less than or equal to 7 feet be considered small-diameter fans, and all fans greater than 7 feet be considered large-diameter fans. (BAS, No. 88 at p. 2) The American Lighting Association (ALA) echoed BAS's recommendation. ALA added that the “low-volume” and “high-volume” terms can be confusing and misleading and imply that the “low-volume” product classes are somehow less effective from a consumer utility perspective than the “high-volume” product classes. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 8)

In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed separate test methods for low-volume and high-volume ceiling fans because some large-diameter ceiling fans (

i.e.,

those ceiling fans with blade spans greater than 7 feet) are too large to be tested in current low-volume ceiling fan test facilities. Additionally, testing with a single load cell is more practical for large-diameter ceiling fans than testing with numerous air velocity sensors as is typically done for small-diameter ceiling fans. In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to test high-volume small-diameter ceiling fans according to the same procedure as large-diameter ceiling fans (

i.e.,

using a load cell), even though they are less than 7 feet in diameter.

In response to the test procedure NOPR, several stakeholders disagreed with DOE's proposal to test high-volume small-diameter ceiling fans differently than low-volume ceiling fans. BAS stated that there may be instances in which a small-diameter ceiling fan has a large enough measured airflow under the test procedure NOPR low-volume test procedure to qualify it as a high-volume ceiling fan, but when tested according to the high-volume test procedure proposed in the NOPR, the measured airflow would be too low for the fan to qualify as a high-volume fan. (BAS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at pp. 63-64) According to ALA, manufacturers are already accustomed to testing all ceiling fans with blade spans less than or equal to 7 feet, including high-volume small-diameter fans, according to the current ENERGY STAR test procedure, regardless of airflow volume. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050, ALA, No. 8 at pp. 7-8)

On June 3, 2015, DOE published a test procedure SNOPR that modified some of the proposals from the test procedure NOPR. 80 FR 31487. In the test procedure SNOPR, DOE proposes that all ceiling fans 7 feet or less in diameter be tested using version 1.1 of the ENERGY STAR test procedure, while all ceiling fans greater than 7 feet be tested using a version of the AMCA 230 test procedure. DOE proposed this change to

harmonize the DOE test procedure with accepted industry testing practices. Consequently, definitions for “low-volume” and “high-volume” ceiling fans are no longer needed, because the test methods proposed are based only on ceiling fan diameter. For this NOPR, DOE accordingly did not adopt the airflow cutoff threshold recommendations from Macro Air and Minka Group because DOE is no longer proposing an airflow volume approach to determine ceiling fan categories.

DOE proposes to define a “small-diameter ceiling fan” as “a ceiling fan that is less than or equal to 7 feet in diameter”, and a “large-diameter ceiling fan” as “a ceiling fan that is greater than 7 feet in diameter.” DOE is no longer proposing definitions to differentiate product classes as “low-volume” and “high-volume” ceiling fans.

DOE also received multiple stakeholder comments regarding the product classes considered in the preliminary analysis. In the preliminary analysis, DOE presented product classes that follow the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) ceiling fan safety standards (UL Standard 507-1999, “UL Standard for Safety for Electric Fans” (UL 507)) to differentiate between classes. The UL 507 standard uses both blade thickness and tip speed to differentiate fans (See Table IV-3).

BAS commented that the classification of ceiling fans based on blade thickness limits innovation, and therefore recommended a tip speed of 680 feet per minute (fpm) paired with a diameter and distance from blades to ceiling to determine fan classification. (BAS, No. 88 at p. 4) BAS recommended 680 fpm assuming a 52-inch standard fan and a 50 rpm maximum speed. (BAS, No. 88, p. 12) BAS's recommended fan classification, however, defined only the standard, hugger, highly-decorative and large-diameter product classes, and eliminated the HVSD product class. (BAS, No. 88 at p. 4) MacroAir commented that blade thickness is not applicable to define low-volume and high-volume ceiling fans, because it confuses the definition and may impede innovation. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050, MacroAir, No. 6 at p. 6) ALA, on the other hand, provided comments on product classes that included both blade thickness and tip speed. (ALA, No. 96, p. 8)

Neither BAS nor MacroAir provided specific examples on how incorporating blade thickness in the product class definitions would limit innovation. Additionally, BAS's recommendation on using 680 fpm tip speed to differentiate product classes eliminated the HVSD product class. Instead, HVSD ceiling fans were included as part of the standard or hugger ceiling fan class. However, DOE finds that HVSD ceiling fans provide different utility to the consumer than standard or hugger ceiling fans, and therefore warrant a separate product class. HVSD ceiling fans generally operate at much higher speeds (in terms of RPM) than standard or hugger ceiling fans. In addition, DOE observes that HVSD fans are generally applied in commercial buildings whereas standard fans are installed in residential buildings. Further discussion on the HVSD ceiling fan product class is in section IV.A.1.d.

Based on BAS and MacroAir's comments, DOE considered whether the product class structure presented in the preliminary analysis could be simplified by removing blade thickness criteria. DOE investigated differentiating standard and hugger ceiling fans from HVSD ceiling fans using tip speed, but was unable to determine an appropriate tip speed threshold. In general, DOE had limited tip speed specifications for ceiling fans on the market. However, DOE looked at a database of 1400 ceiling fans, applied three different tip speed thresholds (680, 1200 and 2400 fpm), and calculated the percent of misclassifications of standard and hugger ceiling fans as HVSD ceiling fans. DOE found that between 40 and 100 percent of models were misclassified at these tip speed thresholds. (The lower the tip speed thresholds, the higher the rate of misclassification.) Therefore, DOE proposes to continue to use blade thickness to determine ceiling fan product classes.

DOE prefers to harmonize with existing industry standards and practices to the extent possible. Using the blade thickness limits from the UL 507 standard in the product class definition allows for DOE to harmonize with existing safety standards. All manufacturers will have to comply with the existing UL 507 standard for applications in which the distance between the fan blades and the floor is 10 feet or less, regardless of whether DOE's use of blade thickness in its product class definition. Consequently, including blade thickness in the product class definitions does not introduce new constraints for these applications.

However, for ceiling fans in applications in which the distance between the fan blades and the floor is greater than 10 feet, DOE's product class structure allows for manufacturers to consider blade thickness and maximum tip speeds outside the range of the UL 507 standard. Additionally, for high-volume large-diameter (HVLD) ceiling fans, DOE does not include any blade thickness or maximum tip speed requirements.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. UL Standard for Safety for Electric Fans, UL 507. 1999. Northbrook, IL. (Last accessed February 24, 2014)

http://www.comm-2000.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=8782.

In the preliminary analysis, the product class structure also incorporated a 5,000 CFM maximum airflow volume cutoff to differentiate between HVSD ceiling fans and low-volume ceiling fans, as described previously in this section. DOE found in the preliminary analysis that, without the CFM cutoff, low-volume ceiling fans were inadvertently being placed in the HVSD product class because some low-volume ceiling fans operate at high RPMs and high airflows. For this NOPR, however, DOE is proposing to analyze a separate product class for very small-diameter (VSD) ceiling fans. (See section IV.A.1.c for further discussion on the VSD product class.) VSD ceiling fans are fans with one or more heads, each of which has a blade span of 18 inches or less and operate at high RPMs (generating high volumes of airflow). VSD ceiling fans provide consumers targeted airflow that can be directed, unlike the airflow of a traditional ceiling fan. Also VSD fans can be mounted in small, awkward spaces where traditional fans will not fit. The low-volume ceiling fans that DOE had identified as being inadvertently placed in the HVSD product class in the preliminary analysis were VSD fans. As part of analyzing VSD fans as a separate product class, DOE is proposing a definition for VSD fans that will avoid misclassifying them as HVSD fans based on diameter (18 inches or less). Consequently, the 5,000 CFM cutoff is no longer necessary. DOE proposes to eliminate the 5,000 CFM cutoff from the product class definitions.

Table IV-2 provides the new product classes that DOE is proposing for all ceiling fans. DOE also proposes new product class names based on updates to the ceiling fan categories and product class definitions. Specifically, DOE is updating product class names based on the elimination of the concept of “low-volume” or “high-volume” ceiling fans. Therefore, the naming convention for HVSD ceiling fans is changed to high-speed small-diameter (HSSD) ceiling fans, and HVLD ceiling fans to large-diameter ceiling fans. In addition, all airflow criteria are as measured by the test procedure as proposed in the test procedure NOPR and modified by the test procedure SNOPR. 80 FR 31487 (June 3, 2015). DOE requests comment

on the product class structure proposed. See issue 1 in section VII.E.

Table IV-2—Proposed Ceiling Fan Product Classes

Product classes

Product class definitions

Small-Diameter (7 feet or less)

Highly-decorative

A ceiling fan with a maximum rotational speed of 90 RPM and less than 1,840 CFM airflow at high speed.

Belt-driven

A ceiling fan with a series of one or more fan heads, each driven by a belt connected to one or more motors.

Very Small-Diameter (VSD)

A ceiling fan that is not a highly-decorative ceiling fan or belt-driven ceiling fan; and has one or more fan heads, each of which has a blade span of 18 inches or less.

Hugger

A ceiling fan that is not a very small-diameter ceiling fan, highly-decorative ceiling fan or belt-driven ceiling fan; and where the lowest point on fan blades is ≤10 inches from the ceiling; and has a blade thickness of ≥3.2 mm at the edge and a maximum tip speed ≤ the applicable limit in Table IV-3.

Standard

A ceiling fan that is not a very small-diameter ceiling fan, highly-decorative ceiling fan or belt-driven ceiling fan; and where the lowest point on fan blades is >10 inches from the ceiling; and has a blade thickness of ≥3.2 mm at the edge and a maximum tip speed ≤ the applicable limit in Table IV-3.

High-speed small-diameter (HSSD)

A ceiling fan that is not a very small-diameter ceiling fan, highly-decorative ceiling fan or belt-driven ceiling fan; and has a blade thickness of <3.2 mm at the edge or a maximum tip speed > the applicable limit in Table IV-3.

Large-Diameter

Large-diameter

A ceiling fan that is greater than 7 feet in diameter.

Table IV-3—UL 507 Blade Thickness and Maximum Tip Speed Limits

Airflow direction *

Thickness (t) of edges of blades

(inch)

Maximum speed at tip of blades

m/s

(feet per minute)

Downward-Only

4.8 > t ≥ 3.2

(3/16 > t ≥ 1/8)

16.3

(3200)

Downward-Only

t ≥ 4.8

(t ≥ 3/16)

20.3

(4000)

Reversible

4.8 > t ≥ 3.2

(3/16 > t ≥ 1/8)

12.2

(2400)

Reversible

t ≥ 4.8

(t ≥ 3/16)

16.3

(3200)

* The “downward-only” and “reversible” airflow directions are mutually exclusive; therefore, a ceiling fan that can only produce airflow in the downward direction need only meet the “downward-only” blade edge thickness and tip speed requirements and a ceiling fan that can produce airflow in the downward and upward directions need only meet the “reversible” requirements.

The following sections provide further details on each product class proposed, and the methodology DOE is using to determine these product classes.

a. Highly-Decorative Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE defined highly-decorative ceiling fans as ceiling fans with a rotational speed of 90 RPM or less, and an airflow of 2,000 CFM or less at high speed, as tested using the current DOE test procedure, because the primary utility of highly-decorative ceiling fans is not airflow.

Consequently, highly-decorative ceiling fans typically produce less airflow.

The preliminary analysis TSD is available at

regulations.gov

under docket number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045.

BAS stated that using a combination of CFM and RPM to define highly-decorative ceiling fans is better than simply using RPM. BAS also commented that it would be hard to measure CFM for some of these highly-decorative ceiling fans using the ENERGY STAR test procedure. BAS recommended using tip speed as the defining characteristic for highly-decorative ceiling fans, and stated that assuming a 52-inch fan and a 50 rpm speed, a maximum tip speed of less than or equal to 680 fpm would be appropriate. (BAS, No. 79 at p. 33)

On the other hand, Matthews Fan Company suggested that CFM, possibly as a function of fan diameter, be used to define highly-decorative ceiling fans because some of their smaller fans run at higher than 90 RPM speeds and would not fall under the proposed definition. (Matthews, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 176) Matthews Fan Company stated that if the RPM was used to define these fans, that a 1,100 RPM minimum cutoff would be appropriate because their small-diameter fans include high-speed blower motors. Matthews added that these fans are designed to provide directional airflow into a space directly underneath or across the room. (Matthews, Public Meeting Transcript No. 83 at p. 177)

ALA recommended that within the small diameter fans, the highly-decorative product class is (i) maximum rotational speed of 90 RPM and less than 2,000 CFM airflow at high speed; or (ii) belt-driven fans. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 8)

DOE first considered using only a maximum tip speed to define highly-decorative ceiling fans. DOE investigated which ceiling fans on the market would be categorized as highly-decorative using a tip speed of 680 fpm, as suggested by BAS. BAS did not provide any supporting information as to why the suggested maximum speed is appropriate for the assumed diameter. In general, relatively few decorative ceiling fans advertise rpm or tip speed in their specifications. In addition, DOE found that relatively few ceiling fans advertise that they operate entirely below the 680 fpm threshold recommended by BAS. Therefore, DOE could not endorse BAS's tip speed recommendation. DOE also looked into tip speeds slightly higher than 680 fpm that could potentially be used to define the highly-decorative product class. DOE looked at a database of 1,400 ceiling fans, and the next tip speed closest to 680 fpm was 803 fpm.

However, this ceiling fan was advertised as a “traditional” standard ceiling fan, not a highly-decorative ceiling fan. Hence, DOE concluded that any tip speed that is 803 fpm and above could not be used to define highly-decorative ceiling fans, as this would inadvertently place traditional ceiling fans into the highly-decorative ceiling fan product class. Thus, DOE could not definitively identify a tip speed that could be used to define highly-decorative ceiling fans. Therefore, DOE does not propose to define highly-decorative ceiling fans using only tip speed, to avoid misclassifying fans based on limited tip speed data.

DOE also considered using only a maximum CFM cutoff for the highly-decorative ceiling fans, per Matthews Fan Company's comments. DOE analyzed published CFM results of ceiling fans sold in the market, and observed which ceiling fans would be classified as highly-decorative using only a maximum CFM cutoff. DOE observed that some fans advertised and designed primarily to provide directed airflow in a small space—characteristics of VSD fans for which DOE proposes to set standards—were misclassified as highly-decorative ceiling fans. Further discussion on VSD ceiling fans is provided in IV.A.1.c.

DOE also considered using only the 1,100 RPM cutoff for the highly-decorative ceiling fans suggested by Matthews Fan Company. DOE performed market research on ceiling fans specifications and identified only three ceiling fans that had RPMs greater than the 1,100 RPM suggested by Matthews Fan Company. DOE confirmed, however, that these ceiling fans would be classified as VSD ceiling fans, because they are advertised for use when air circulation needs to be directed, or if space is tight. In addition, Matthews Fan Company stated in its comments that these high RPM ceiling fan are designed to provide directional airflow into a space directly underneath. (Matthews, Public Meeting Transcript No. 83 at p. 177) Therefore, DOE does not propose to define highly-decorative ceiling fans using only RPM, to avoid misclassifying fans based on limited data.

After finding that using only tip speed, RPM, or airflow to define highly-decorative ceiling fans may result in misclassifications, DOE proposes to use a definition based on both a CFM and RPM cutoff, similar to what was analyzed and considered in the preliminary analysis. DOE expects that this approach will minimize misclassifications. DOE is proposing this definition based on both CFM and RPM because relatively low maximum RPM may indicate that a ceiling fan was not designed primarily to provide airflow, as would relatively low maximum airflow. However, criteria for a low maximum RPM by itself might misclassify some larger ceiling fans that operate at relatively low RPM, but provide high volumes of airflow, as highly decorative ceiling fans. Conversely, criteria for low maximum CFM by itself might incorrectly misclassify some VSD ceiling fans as highly decorative category. ALA supports an RPM and CFM cutoff for highly decorative ceiling fans. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 8) DOE requests comment on the approach to use both fan speed and an airflow threshold to delineate highly-decorative ceiling fans. See issue 2 in section VII.E.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE used a 2,000 CFM (as tested per the current DOE test procedure) cutoff for highly-decorative fans. For this document, DOE is updating the CFM cutoff value from 2,000 CFM to 1,840 CFM because the test procedure SNOPR updates the method of test to mounting ceiling fans directly to the real ceiling, which yields a different airflow measurement. DOE determined the percentage reduction in CFM from the current DOE test procedure to mounting directly to the ceiling by performing tests on ceiling fans in both configurations and calculating a scaling factor. Applying this scaling factor, DOE proposes that a highly-decorative ceiling fan is a ceiling fan with a maximum rotational speed of 90 RPM and less than 1,840 CFM airflow at high speed.

b. Belt-Driven Ceiling Fans

DOE did not include a separate product class for belt-driven ceiling fans in the preliminary analysis. According to ALA, a belt-driven ceiling fan is a series of one or more fan heads suspended from the ceiling, each driven by a belt connected to one or more motors that are independently suspended from the ceiling. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 11)

ALA suggested including belt-driven fans within the highly-decorative product class. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 11) ALA also commented that belt-driven ceiling fans are purchased by consumers principally for their aesthetic qualities. Typically, a belt-driven fan will use one or two motors to power multiple fan heads—up to seven or eight—that rotate at low speed. The fan heads may rotate at very slow speeds, with maximum speeds under 90 rpm, if there are many fan heads attached to the same motor. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 11)

DOE's research on belt-driven ceiling fans indicates that the market share is less than 1 percent. DOE has observed that these fans are used in bars and restaurants that have decorative ceilings with limited electrical boxes on the ceiling to mount multiple conventional ceiling fans. Belt-driven ceiling fans use one or two motors to power multiple fan heads, eliminating the need for many electrical boxes. Additionally, belt-driven ceiling fans are highly customizable, in that consumers can decide number of fan heads and the kind of fan belts to use in their belt-driven ceiling fans, for example.

ALA suggested including belt-driven ceiling fans within the highly-decorative ceiling fan product class. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 11) EPCA requires that if DOE sets energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans, it must consider “establishing separate exempted product classes for highly decorative fans for which air movement performance is a secondary design feature.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(6)(B)(ii)) Because belt-driven ceiling fans can have up to seven to eight fan heads, DOE has determined that the total airflow that these ceiling fan heads will provide indicates that air movement performance is not a secondary design feature for these fans.

Instead, DOE proposes to separate belt-driven ceiling fans into their own product class because they provide a distinct utility for consumers. DOE proposes to define belt-driven ceiling fans as a ceiling fan with a series of one or more fan heads, each driven by a belt connected to one or more motors.

In the NOPR, DOE agrees with manufacturers' that the market share for belt-driven ceiling fans is small. Due to the limited number of basic models for belt-driven ceiling fans, DOE did not have data to directly analyze and establish standards for this additional product classes. As a result, DOE does not propose standards for belt-driven ceiling fans in this rulemaking.

c. Very Small-Diameter Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not have a separate product class for ceiling fans less than or equal to 18 inches in diameter. DOE received comments on the preliminary analysis that these “very small-diameter fans” require special consideration.

ALA expressed concerns with DOE's proposed treatment of ceiling fans with very small diameters. ALA defines a “very small-diameter ceiling fan” as a ceiling fan with one or more fan heads, each of which has a blade span of 18 inches or less. ALA estimated that very small-diameter fan sales represent between 0.3 and 0.5 percent of the U.S.

ceiling fan market. ALA added that these fans would be disproportionately penalized under DOE's candidate standard levels for low-volume standard and hugger ceiling fans, which do not appear to have been based on testing of any ceiling fan smaller than 44 inches in diameter. According to ALA, very small-diameter fans would be disadvantaged because very small diameter ceiling fans use high-velocity AC motors to operate at high speeds, and there is no DC motor on the market, or currently in development, that would provide an acceptable substitute for this functionality. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 9) ALA requests that DOE consider very small-diameter ceiling fans to be outside the scope of this rulemaking or otherwise exempt them from energy efficiency standards. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 9) ALA commented that if DOE does not determine that very small-diameter ceiling fans are outside the scope of the rulemaking or otherwise exempt them from standards, DOE should establish a separate product class for very small-diameter ceiling fans because of the unique utility that they provide to consumers. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 9) ALA commented that very small-diameter fans could also be multi-head or orbital fans that also provide consumers a distinct utility from traditional ceiling fans. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 10) These ceiling fans provide consumers targeted airflow that can be directed, unlike the airflow of a traditional ceiling fan. Also VSD fans can be mounted in small, awkward spaces where traditional fans will not fit. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 10) Therefore, ALA proposed to define very small-diameter fans as “a ceiling fan with one or more fan heads, each of which has a blade span of 18 inches or less.” (ALA, No. 8 at p. 6)

In response to the comments received on very small-diameter ceiling fans, DOE conducted testing of ceiling fans with blade spans of 18 inches or less to obtain data on their performance. DOE determined from testing that very small-diameter ceiling fans have much lower airflow capacity and airflow efficiency than standard and hugger fans. Further discussion on airflow capacity and efficiency results for VSD ceiling fans are in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. Additionally, very small-diameter fans provide a different utility to consumers, in that these fans can be mounted in small places where traditional ceiling fans will not fit. DOE concluded that for these reasons, a separate product class for very small-diameter ceiling fans is warranted.

Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt the very small-diameter fan definition suggested by ALA. DOE proposes that very small-diameter ceiling fans be defined as a ceiling fan that is not a highly-decorative ceiling fan or belt-driven ceiling fan; and has one or more fan heads, each of which has a blade span of 18 inches or less.

d. Standard and Hugger Ceiling Fans

In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed standard and hugger ceiling fan definitions based on the distance between the lowest point of the fan blades and the ceiling. For standard ceiling fans, DOE proposed that the lowest point of the fan blades is more than 10 inches from the ceiling. For hugger ceiling fans, DOE proposed that the lowest point of the fan blades is no more than 10 inches from the ceiling. 79 FR 62526 (October 17, 2014). With the current proposal to classify fans as “small-diameter” and “large-diameter”, instead of “low-volume” and “high-volume”, DOE proposes to update the standard and hugger ceiling fan definitions to differentiate them from other small-diameter product classes, such as VSDs.

Several manufacturers commented on the proposed definition of hugger ceiling fans in the test procedure NOPR, and on how they characterize their own hugger ceiling fans. Emerson stated that its hugger ceiling fans are designed to be mounted 11 to 12-inches from the ceiling, instead of 9 to 10 inches to avoid turbulent air, which causes the fan to vibrate, wobble, and make noise. (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 73) The Minka Group stated that it classifies hugger ceiling fans as fans that are mounted directly to the ceiling without a downrod. Minka Group added that they measure the distance between the top of the blade instead of the bottom. Minka Group also stated that there was no advantage to including tri-mount fans to this category. (Minka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 74) DOE understands tri-mount to mean a fan that can be mounted flush to the ceiling, with a standard downrod, or on a slope. Hunter Fan stated that it calls a fan a hugger ceiling fan when it's directly bolted to the ceiling. (Hunter, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 93) BAS mentioned that defining hugger ceiling fans as just mounted to the ceiling without a downrod would be problematic because, with the exception of their multi-mount ceiling fans, all of its fans are mounted to the ceiling without a downrod but still have 16 inches between the blades and ceiling. (BAS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 94)

DOE recognizes that the ceiling fan industry does not have a standardized definition for hugger ceiling fans. While some ceiling fan manufacturers define hugger ceiling fans based on how they are mounted to the ceiling, others find this definition problematic. For the purposes of promulgating standards, DOE definitions, to the extent possible, are based on product specifications to provide verifiable methods of determining product class. Consequently, DOE proposes to base the hugger ceiling fan product class definition on the distance between the lowest point of ceiling fan blade and the ceiling, as specified by the manufacturer in the product literature shipped with the product. DOE proposes that the lowest point of the fan blades is no more than 10 inches from the ceiling for hugger fans.

While BAS stated that the 10-inch height is appropriate for the hugger definition, they also stated that CFM numbers would not drop dramatically when using the 10-inch specification, so the hugger classification has the potential to be eliminated entirely. (BAS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 82)

DOE tested a multi-mount fan in both standard and hugger configurations based on the test methods presented in the test procedure NOPR, which assumes testing ceiling fans to a false ceiling, to evaluate relative performance. DOE observed a 16 percent decrease in CFM for a hugger configuration compared to a standard configuration. DOE did not observe any change in power consumption. DOE assumes, based on ceiling fan testing in multiple configurations that the relative performance between standard and hugger configurations would be the same even under the test procedure SNOPR, which assumes testing ceiling fans mounted directly to ceiling. Additionally, as described in the preliminary analysis, DOE determined that hugger fans offer a different functionality to the consumer because hugger fans can be safely used in rooms with lower ceilings. DOE concludes that these reasons warrant a separate product class for hugger ceiling fans.

DOE also received comments regarding the hugger definition in response to the test procedure NOPR. (DOE used the same definition for hugger fans in the preliminary analysis and in the test procedure NOPR.) ALA requested that DOE use the term “close to ceiling” instead of “hugger.” ALA mentioned that “hugger” ceiling fan can cause confusion with its commonly understood meaning in the industry. ALA proposed to define close to ceiling fans as: Not VSD or highly-decorative; and the lowest point on the fan blades

is less than or equal to 10 inches from the ceiling; and has a blade thickness of greater than or equal to 3.2 millimeters at the edge, and having a maximum tip speed less than or equal to the applicable limit in the UL 507 table. (ALA, No. 96 at p. 8) BAS recommended that within the small-diameter fans (7 feet or less), hugger fans are those that have a tip speed greater than 680 fpm and have a blade to ceiling distance less than or equal to 10 inches. (BAS, No. 88 at p. 2)

DOE received no adverse comments from interested parties on its proposal to include in the definition of a hugger ceiling fan a distance of less than or equal to 10 inches from the lowest point of the fan blade to the ceiling. Thus, DOE proposes to include this criterion for the hugger fan product class in this NOPR.

DOE expects that keeping the name “hugger” is less costly and disruptive for manufacturers than changing to “close to ceiling” per ALA's suggestion. The majority of ceiling fans for which the lowest point of the fan blade is less than or equal to 10 inches from the ceiling are already referred to as “hugger” ceiling fans by manufacturers and no change in marketing material would likely be required. For fans where the blade is less than or equal to 10 inches from the ceiling and mounted on a downrod, some manufacturers would need to make changes to marketing material that to meet the proposed definition where the products are not already referred to as hugger ceiling fans by the industry. Based on online research on ceiling fans sold in the market, DOE estimates that these fans are in the minority. DOE proposes to continue to use the term “hugger” to remain consistent with the majority of the market.

After considering the elements of the hugger definition discussed above, DOE proposes that a hugger ceiling fan is a ceiling fan that is not a very small-diameter ceiling fan, highly-decorative ceiling fan or belt-driven ceiling fan; and where the lowest point on fan blades is ≤10 inches from the ceiling; and has a blade thickness of ≥3.2 mm at the edge and a maximum tip speed ≤ the applicable limit in Table IV-3.

DOE also received comments on the standard ceiling fan definition proposed in the test procedure NOPR. ALA suggested defining small-diameter standard ceiling fans as: Not VSD or highly decorative; and lowest point on fan blades is greater than 10 inches from the ceiling; and has a blade thickness of greater than or equal to 3.2 millimeters at the edge and a maximum tip speed less than or equal to the applicable limit in the UL 507 table. (ALA, No. 96 at p. 8) BAS recommended that within the small-diameter fans (7 feet or less), the standard fans are those that have a tip speed greater than 680 fpm, and have a blade to ceiling distance greater than 10 inches. (BAS, No. 88 at p. 2)

DOE received no adverse comments from interested parties on its proposal to include the distance from the lowest point of the fan blade to the ceiling to be greater than 10 inches in the definition of standard ceiling fans. DOE continues to include this distance in the standard ceiling fan proposal in this document. Additionally, as discussed previously, DOE proposes to adopt the UL 507 standard blade thickness and maximum tip speed limits when defining product classes, so as to not misclassify ceiling fans. Therefore, DOE proposes to use the same definition for standard ceiling fans as was used in the preliminary analysis and presented in the previous paragraph.

e. High-Speed Small-Diameter Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed the HVSD product class, which included ceiling fans with a blade span less than or equal to 7 feet and an airflow greater than or equal to 5,000 CFM. As discussed in section IV.A.1, DOE proposes to classify fans as “small-diameter” and “large-diameter”, instead of “low-volume” and “high-volume” for this NOPR. Consequently, DOE proposes to rename the HVSD ceiling fans product class analyzed in the preliminary analysis to high-speed small-diameter (HSSD), ceiling fans for this document. DOE also proposes to exclude the 5000 CFM cutoff from the HVSD definition in the HSSD ceiling fan definition. DOE proposes to define HSSD ceiling fans as fans that are not VSD or highly-decorative; and have a blade thickness of less than 3.2 millimeters at the edge or a maximum tip speed greater than the applicable limit in Table IV-3.

DOE received several comments on the HVSD definition presented in the preliminary analysis. BAS's suggested product class structure no longer included HVSD ceiling fans, and instead incorporates HVSD ceiling fans into standard or hugger ceiling fans. (BAS, No. 88, p. 4) ALA proposed defining industrial fans (formerly HVSD) as fans that are not VSD or highly decorative; and have a blade thickness of less than 3.2 millimeters at the edge or a maximum tip speed greater than the applicable limit in the UL 507 table. (ALA, No. 96 at p. 8)

DOE finds that HSSD ceiling fans provide different utility to the consumer than standard or hugger ceiling fans. HSSD ceiling fans generally operate at much higher speeds (in terms of RPM) than standard or hugger ceiling fans, and are installed in commercial applications. HSSD ceiling fans are available in a blade span range similar to standard and hugger ceiling fans, but an HSSD fan typically provides more airflow at a given blade span because it runs at much higher RPMs. DOE observes that HSSD fans are generally applied in commercial buildings whereas standard fans are installed in residential buildings. These factors indicate that HSSD ceiling fans provide a different utility to consumers compared to standard fans that warrants a separate product class for these ceiling fans. DOE proposes to define HSSD ceiling fans as suggested by ALA as a ceiling fan that is not a very small-diameter ceiling fan, highly-decorative ceiling fan or belt-driven ceiling fan; and has a blade thickness of less than 3.2 mm at the edge or a maximum tip speed greater than the applicable limit in Table IV-3.

f. Large-Diameter Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE defined HVLD ceiling fans as fans that have a blade span greater than 7 feet. DOE proposes to rename HVLD ceiling fans as large-diameter ceiling fans for this document to be consistent with the proposal to establish product classes for ceiling fans primarily by diameter and not airflow. All fans categorized as HVLD in the preliminary analysis will be categorized as large-diameter in this document.

DOE received no comments on the HVLD definition described in the preliminary analysis. DOE proposes to use the HVLD definition from the preliminary analysis to define large-diameter ceiling fans for this NOPR. Therefore, DOE proposes to define large-diameter ceiling fans as a ceiling fan that is greater than 7 feet in diameter.

2. Technology Options

In the preliminary analysis market and technology assessment, DOE identified and assessed several technology options that were expected to improve the efficiency of ceiling fans, as measured by the DOE test procedure. These technologies fall into three main categories: (1) More efficient motors, which included direct-drive single phase induction motors, geared motors, brushless direct current (DC) motors, and three-phase induction motors; (2) more efficient blades, which included fewer fan blades, twisted blades, airfoil blades, beveled blades, curved blades, blade attachments and blade material;

and (3) ceiling fan controls, which include occupancy sensors. DOE then evaluated these technology options in the screening analysis to determine which would be screened out, and which would be retained and incorporated as design options in the engineering analysis.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE also requested comments on technology options that it had not identified that could be incorporated into the analysis. This section provides a discussion of newly considered technology options, and a list of the technology options DOE then analyzed in the screening analysis. DOE considered capacitor start induction run (CSIR) motors, capacitor start capacitor run (CSCR) motors, startup energy, wind and temperature sensors, fan optimization and gearless direct current (DC) motors as new technology options in this section. The new technology options were provided in response to DOE's request for comments to the preliminary analysis, and DOE also conducted additional research of new technologies.

a. CSIR and CSCR Motors

In the preliminary analysis, DOE specifically requested comment on whether there are other single-phase alternating current motor options, like CSIR and CSCR motors, which can be incorporated into ceiling fans and increase ceiling fan efficiency. ALA commented that CSIR and CSCR motors have been researched for ceiling fan applications and were found to be problematic. These motors create audible noise, high blade tip speeds and excessive motor temperatures when enclosed within ceiling fan housings. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 16) DOE also did not find any CSIR or CSCR motors that are incorporated in commercial products or working prototypes. DOE did not include CSCR and CSIR motors as technology options for these reasons.

b. Startup Energy

In its written comments, MacroAir suggested that DOE consider designs that reduce startup energy. MacroAir suggested DOE study various fans comparing their moment of inertia with startup power. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 7)

DOE recognizes that certain fan designs that reduce ceiling fan startup energy may have energy savings potential. However, MacroAir did not provide data on the magnitude of the savings potential. In addition, DOE is not aware of any industry test methods for measuring fan startup energy. Furthermore, the industry test procedure for small-diameter and larger-diameter ceiling fans requires that the airflow or thrust (for small-diameter or large-diameter ceiling fans, respectively) be measured only after the ceiling fan reaches steady state. Therefore, startup power, or reduction of startup power, is not reflected in the proposed metric. DOE did not include designs that reduce ceiling fan startup energy in the engineering analysis for this reason.

c. Wind and Temperature Sensors

Wind and temperature sensors detect temperature changes in the surrounding space, or potential wind speed reductions below certain thresholds. Ceiling fans could potentially adjust fan speed based on the wind and temperature in the space the ceiling fan is located when coupled with these sensors. This type of modulation could enable the ceiling fan to better match demand and reduce energy consumption. DOE received several comments on this potential technology option.

BAS commented that it is the only manufacturer of a ceiling fan with a temperature sensor. (BAS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 194) MacroAir stated that implementing wind and temperature sensors in ceiling fans could lead to energy savings and suggested that DOE investigate this technology further. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 12) However, ALA stated that it is not aware of any ceiling fans or working prototypes that include integrated wind or temperature sensors, or data that would indicate that these products could lead to energy savings in real world applications. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 15)

DOE investigated the applications of wind and temperature sensors in ceiling fans. To DOE's knowledge, only one manufacturer incorporates temperature sensors in its ceiling fans. Qualitative data on how wind and temperature sensors reduce energy consumption of a ceiling fan is not available because this technology is new. Therefore, DOE is unable to fully evaluate whether these sensors reduce energy consumption in ceiling fan applications at this time. Consequently, DOE did not consider wind and temperature sensors as technology options for this rulemaking. DOE requests data on how wind and temperature sensors could reduce energy consumption in a ceiling fan. See issue 3 in section VII.E.

d. Fans With Fewer Blades and Fan Optimization

In the preliminary analysis, DOE observed that large-diameter fans with fewer blades are generally more efficient because they are subject to less air resistance, so DOE evaluated fewer blades as a design option. DOE requested comment in the preliminary analysis on how manufacturers choose the number of blades to use for large-diameter fans and how it affects efficiency.

BAS commented that isolating the number of blades as a design option ignores many factors and that fewer fan blades by itself does not affect efficiency. BAS suggested that a combination of factors such as cord width, angle of attack, and blade attachments, paired with number of blades, are considered by manufacturers in a more holistic approach when optimizing fan designs for efficiency. (BAS, No. 79 at p. 38; BAS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 211) Additionally MacroAir stated that reducing the number of fan blades from eight to six is limiting to the market and may impede future innovations. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 7)

After further investigation, DOE agrees with BAS and MacroAir and proposes to replace reducing the number of fan blades for large-diameter ceiling fans as a design option with a fan optimization design option. Fan optimization represents the increase in the efficiency of a fan by adjusting or optimizing the design features that already exist in the fan. These adjustments could include changing blade pitch, fine-tuning motor RPM, and changing internal motor characteristics like the diameter of the wire, number of windings, skew angle, stack height and capacitors. DOE observed that ceiling fans with the same blade span, blade material, number of blades, type of motor and size of motor have a range of performances, indicating that some ceiling fans are optimized, whereas others are not. Fan optimization provides manufacturers more flexibility in making design changes to improve ceiling fan efficiency. DOE included fan optimization as a design option for standard and hugger fans in the preliminary analysis. DOE is now considering the fan optimization technology option for all ceiling fan product classes.

e. Gearless DC Motors

MacroAir commented that direct drive by itself should be uncoupled from any motor type and included as a design feature, because any transfer of energy is a loss in efficiency. MacroAir stated that gearbox losses are between 5 percent and 35 percent. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 5) MacroAir specifically suggested incorporating a gearless DC motor technology option in the analysis,

which it considers max-tech. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 5)

DOE researched gearless ceiling fan designs in response to MacroAir's comment. DOE found several large-diameter ceiling fans on the market that use gearless DC motor designs. This indicates that the gearless DC motor technology option is technologically feasible in ceiling fans. Gearboxes have losses that may reduce overall ceiling fan efficiency, as MacroAir commented. Eliminating the gearbox and associated losses could, in turn, improve overall ceiling fan efficiency. DOE included gearless motors as a technology option for consideration in the screening analysis for these reasons. Further details on this technology option can be found in section IV.B.

DOE is no longer considering the following technology options from the preliminary analysis for this NOPR: Three-phase induction motors, twisted blades, beveled blades, and alternate blade material. DOE screened out these technology options in the preliminary analysis based on the four screening criteria, outlined in section IV.B. Additionally, DOE received no comments from interested parties about including these technology options for the NOPR. Therefore, DOE continues to screen out the above technology options.

For this NOPR, DOE proposes to analyze the technology options listed in Table IV-4. The technology options for this NOPR include a subset of the technology options from the preliminary analysis, in addition to new technology options based on interested party feedback and additional DOE research. The screening analysis provides further discussion on which of these technology options DOE retained as design options for the engineering analysis.

Table IV-4 Technology Options and Descriptions

Technology

option

Description

Fan optimization

This represents increasing the efficiency of a fan by adjusting existing design features. These adjustments could include changing blade pitch, fine-tuning motor RPM, and changing internal motor characteristics such as the diameter of the wire, number of windings, skew angle, stack height, and capacitors.

More efficient motors:

Larger direct drive motors

This represents increasing the efficiency of a fan by increasing the size of (or the quality of steel used in) the stator and rotor stack, improving the lamination design, increasing the cross section of copper wiring, or operating the fan at reduced speed through capacitor speed control.

Brushless DC motor

DC motors are permanent magnet synchronous AC motors driven by a converter plus inverter combination control system. In this configuration, the motor displays characteristics of direct current motors; thus, they are called brushless direct current motors. Because there is no electrical current flowing in the rotor of a DC motor, there are no rotor energy losses, thereby resulting in greater efficiency than standard AC motors.

Geared DC motor

DC motor fans with geared motors have fan blades attached to the motor via a geared mechanism, which allows the fan blades to rotate at a different speed from the motor.

Gearless DC motor

Fans with a DC motor that drive the fan blades directly without the use of a geared mechanism.

More efficient blades

Curved blades

Curved blades are blades for which the centerline of the blade cross section is cambered. Curved blades generally have uniform thickness and no significant internal volume.

Airfoil blades

Airfoil blades use curved surfaces to improve aerodynamics, but the thickness is not uniform and the top and bottom surfaces do not follow the same path from leading edge to trailing edge.

Blade attachments

Blade attachments refer to upswept blade tips or other components that can be fastened to a fan blade to potentially increase airflow or reduce drag.

Ceiling fan controls

Occupancy sensors

Occupancy sensors use technologies that detect the presence of people through movement, body heat, or other means. Ceiling fans used with an occupancy sensor could power down if they sense that a room is unoccupied.

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 and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

Impacts on product utility or product availability.

If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products

generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

Adverse impacts on health or safety.

If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 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 excluding technology options for this NOPR 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 screened out based on the screening criteria. DOE requests comment on the screened out and remaining technology options for each product class. See issue 4 in section VII.E.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

a. Standard and Hugger Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened out the following technologies for standard and hugger fans: Occupancy sensors, geared motors, three-phase induction motors; and blade design elements including twisted blades, airfoil blades and beveled blades, fans with fewer blades, blade attachments, and alternative blade materials. In line with the technologies DOE screened out, Hunter Fan stated in comments on the preliminary analysis that the aesthetic appeal of ceiling fans must be considered because it can affect consumer utility. (Hunter, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 197)

In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened out the occupancy sensors technology option because DOE did not have enough information to determine whether occupancy sensors are technologically feasible for use in all ceiling fans. DOE requested comments on sensors as a technology option. See issue 5 in section VII.E.

In response to DOE's request for comment on sensors, ALA, Hunter, Westinghouse, and Lutron on behalf of Westinghouse commented to support DOE's decision to screen out occupancy sensors from the analysis. (Hunter, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 193) ALA and Westinghouse stated that occupancy sensors would be problematic for ceiling fans installed in bedrooms. Many consumers operate the ceiling fan continuously while sleeping, but the occupancy sensor would not detect the movement necessary to continuously operate through the night. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 16; Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 206) BAS, however, stated that a schedule can be included in the occupancy sensor to get around the issue of the ceiling fan turning off in the bedroom. (BAS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 206)

Westinghouse also commented that occupancy sensors can be difficult to manage in a residential space. It stated that to include an occupancy sensor to the ceiling fan, the room might have to have one as well to meet local building codes. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 195)

Occupancy sensors have the potential to save energy by reducing the number of ceiling fan operating hours. DOE did not find or receive enough data to evaluate any potential tradeoff between consumer utility and the energy savings of reduced operating hours. DOE also researched the option of introducing occupancy sensor schedulers in ceiling fans. DOE did not find data to show that occupancy sensor schedulers can be installed reliably in all ceiling fans. At this time, DOE proposes to continue to screen out occupancy sensors because DOE cannot satisfactorily evaluate the energy savings potential, technological feasibility and impact on consumer utility of implementing sensors or schedule controls. DOE requests comment and data to evaluate these factors. See issue 5 in section VII.E.

DOE did not receive comments on the decision to screen out three-phase induction motors or blade design elements including twisted blades, airfoil blades and beveled blades, fans with fewer blades, blade attachments, and alternative blade materials for standard and hugger ceiling fans. DOE continues to screen out these technology options for this NOPR.

b. Very Small-Diameter Ceiling Fans

As discussed in section IV.A.1, DOE proposes to analyze a new product class for ceiling fans with blade spans of 18 inches or less. DOE proposes to screen out the same technologies for very small-diameter fans as for standard and hugger fans as described in section IV.B.1.a. DOE did not receive any feedback on the decision to screen out these technologies.

VSD ceiling fans are used in residential applications, similar to standard and hugger ceiling fans. Thus, as discussed for standard and hugger ceiling fans, DOE proposes to screen out blade technology options that could affect appearance of VSD ceiling fans.

During manufacturer interviews, DOE asked whether the same design options considered in the preliminary analysis for the standard and hugger fans could be considered for VSD ceiling fans. These design options included fan optimization, larger direct drive motor, and DC motors. DOE has not received any objections from manufacturers regarding its consideration of these design options for VSD ceiling fans. One manufacturer pointed out that there are no VSD ceiling fans with DC motors currently available in the market, but speculated that DC motors in VSD ceiling fans could be technologically feasible because they are used in more traditional ceiling fans (standard and hugger ceiling fans). The manufacturer also acknowledged that there is limited data on efficiency improvements of these design options specifically for VSD ceiling fans. Further discussion on how these design options were incorporated is provided in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

DOE requests comment on the technologies that it screened out for VSD ceiling fans. See issue 4 in section VII.E.

c. High-Speed Small-Diameter Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened out the following eight technologies for HVSD ceiling fans: More efficient direct-drive single-phase induction motors, geared motors, three-phase induction motors, fans with fewer blades, twisted blades, blade attachments, alternative blade materials, and occupancy sensors. In line with the technologies that DOE screened out, BAS commented that that they do not use geared motors with variable frequency drives in acoustically sensitive places. (BAS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 214)

DOE received no comments objecting to screening out these technology options in the preliminary analysis. DOE does not expect that these technology options or the applicability of the screening criteria to them will be affected by the proposed change in name and definition of the HVSD product class to the HSSD product class analyzed in this document. Therefore DOE proposes to continue to screen out these technology options for HSSD fans in this NOPR.

d. Large-Diameter Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened out the following technologies for large-diameter fans: More efficient direct-drive single-phase induction

motors, twisted blades, blade attachments, alternative blade materials and occupancy sensors.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE described blade attachments as an attachable clip that can be added to a fan blade to increase airflow or reduce drag. DOE asked for comment in the preliminary analysis about blade configurations and blade designs as technology options to improve ceiling fan efficiency.

BAS commented that more than half of the large-diameter manufacturers use some form of blade attachment and that winglets are the most common type of blade attachment. BAS stated that a properly designed winglet can increase the efficiency of a ceiling fan and provided articles to show that blade attachment are used to increase fuel efficiency in aircrafts. (BAS, No. 79 at p. 17) MacroAir stated that it does not use blade attachments and does not consider blade attachments to provide performance or efficiency gains. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 13)

There is disagreement in the industry whether blade attachments improve fan efficiency. Because DOE has not received sufficient information to conclude that blade attachments increase the efficiency of large-diameter fans, DOE continues to screen out blade attachments.

DOE did not receive comment on the decision to screen out more efficient direct-drive single-phase induction motors, twisted blades, alternative blade materials, and occupancy sensors for large-diameter fans. DOE continues to screen out these technology options for large-diameter fans for this NOPR.

2. Remaining Technologies

DOE tentatively concludes that the technology options not screened out meet all four screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. DOE determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being 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). In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

a. Fan Optimization

In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened in fan optimization for standard and hugger ceiling fans. DOE observed that ceiling fans with the same blade span, blade material, number of blades, type of motor and size of motor have a range of performances indicating that some ceiling fans are optimized, whereas others are not. DOE research since the preliminary analysis indicated that ceiling fans in all product classes can be optimized.

Matthews Fan stated that increasing the angle of the blade causes heat rise on the motor and the fan might not continue to meet the UL safety requirements and therefore adjusting the blade pitch is not possible. (Matthews, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 227)

Increasing the blade pitch can increase the heat rise on the motor and that blade pitch optimizing needs to be done within the UL safety requirements. The fan optimization design option, as proposed, includes other adjustments that manufacturers can make to improve efficiency. Consequently, manufacturers do not have to adjust blade pitch, but have the flexibility to determine which adjustments to existing designs are cost-effective and comply with UL safety requirements. DOE continues to consider fan optimization as a viable technology option for improving fan efficiency that meets DOE's screening criteria. Consequently, DOE considered fan optimization in its analysis for all product classes.

b. Larger Direct-Drive Motor

DOE screened in larger-direct drive motors as a technology option in the preliminary analysis. In response, ALA commented that DOE has not accounted for the difficulties associated with motor redesign that is required for larger AC motors. ALA stated that a significant constraint on ceiling fans is the maximum internal temperature permitted by UL 507. According to ALA, using a larger AC motor could create higher internal temperature and lead to failure in UL testing. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 5)

DOE recognizes ALA's concerns but proposes to continue to screen in larger direct-drive motors for analysis in this NOPR. DOE identified several commercially-available ceiling fan model series that use larger direct-drive single-phase induction motors and still adhere to existing safety standards. For example, the 52-inch Monte Carlo Homeowner Max uses a 153 × 15 mm motor

and the 52-inch Monte Carlo Designer Max uses a 188 × 15 mm motor.

DOE conducted testing to evaluate the impact on performance of using larger direct-drive motors. DOE's internal test data shows that the efficiency of low-volume ceiling fans can be improved through the use of a larger AC direct-drive motor. Discussions with manufacturers confirmed that ceiling fan efficiency can be improved by increasing the size of the motor, but that the improvement may be small and increases production cost. Based on these findings, DOE continues to consider larger direct-drive motors as a viable technology option for improving fan efficiency that meets DOE's screening criteria. Consequently, DOE considered larger direct-drive motors in its analysis for standard and hugger fans. DOE accounts for costs associated with implementing a larger-direct drive motor in the engineering and MIA analyses. DOE also screened in larger direct-drive motors for very small-diameter ceiling fans based on information received during manufacturer interviews and requests comments on the inclusion of this design option for VSD ceiling fans. See issue 4 in section VII.E.

Monte Carlo.

52″ Homeowner Max, http://www.montecarlofans.com/38090/52-Homeowner-Max-5HM52BPN.html

Monte Carlo.

52″ Designer Max, http://www.montecarlofans.com/37831/52-Designer-Max_5DM52RZW.html

c. DC Motor

Brushless DC Motors in Standard, Hugger, and HSSD Product Classes

In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened in brushless DC motors for standard, hugger and HVSD ceiling fans. These ceiling fans typically use AC induction motors. In AC induction motors, current flowing through copper wire windings in the stator induce a current in the motor rotor to create a magnetic field. There are energy losses associated with this process. In DC motors, the rotor is a permanent magnet that generates a magnetic field without the need for induced current. Therefore, the energy losses associated with inducing current in the rotor in an AC motor are not present in DC motors. Consequently, DC motors are typically more efficient than AC induction motors. Another advantage of DC motors is that they tend to be smaller and make less noise than AC induction motors. However, DC motors require additional controls to enable them to function on power sources typical in a home. Implementing DC motor technology in ceiling fans may increase manufacturing and product retail cost. These cost impacts are analyzed in the engineering and downstream analyses. DOE requested comment on the motor

technology options in the preliminary analysis.

ALA commented that brushless DC motors should be screened out of DOE's analysis, because they have only been available in the market for a short time, and therefore not enough data exists to fully evaluate the long-term reliability of ceiling fans with DC motors. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 16) However, the California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) supported the inclusion of DC motors as a technology option and urged DOE to incorporate only the assumptions regarding manufacturing, warranty, maintenance, and repair costs based on recent and accurate data or research from manufacturers rather than more informal assumptions. CA IOUs recommended that DOE conduct research regarding DC motors through direct outreach with manufacturers. (CA IOUs, No. 91 at p. 2) BAS commented that the latest generation of DC motor controllers don't require a power converter and can drive the motor directly from line voltage inverter. This eliminates one power conversion stage, reducing cost, and improving efficiency and reliability. According to BAS, DC motors are manufactured using similar techniques as AC motors and share many critical components. Therefore the reliability and the control system is not different for a DC motor compared to an AC motor. (BAS, No. 79 at p. 29) Similarly, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) noted that it is not aware that DC motors are less reliable than AC motors. (ASAP, et al., No. 92 at p. 2) In their submitted comments, ASAP stated several instances of manufacturers indicating that there should not be any concerns related to reliability of DC motors, including manufacturer responses to the preliminary TSD, and comments during the preliminary analysis public meeting. (ASAP, et al., No. 92 at pp. 2-3)

ALA commented that quiet fan speed controls and variable speed controls are not compatible with brushless DC motors. ALA stated that requiring DC motors in small-diameter ceiling fans would lead to the elimination of existing wall-mounted controls for AC motor fans and associated light kits. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 7)

In consideration of the above comments, DOE investigated DC motor impacts on consumer utility and product availability. Through market research, DOE found that most manufacturers offer ceiling fans with DC motors. DOE is also aware of ceiling fans that use DC motors and have wall mounted controls such as the BAS Haiku models that come with optional wall controls.

However, DC motors are a relatively new technology and that reliability issues may become apparent as ceiling fans using these motors in the field mature. However, their availability in the market indicates to DOE that manufacturers have deemed DC motors technologically feasible, practicable to manufacture, install, and service and have acceptable impacts on utility (including reliability and product availability). Consequently, DOE screened in DC motors for this NOPR. DOE accounted for differences in reliability between DC and AC motors in downstream analyses in section IV.F.4.

Big Ass Solutions.

Haiku, http://www.bigassfans.com/for-home/haiku/.

Brushless DC Motors in Very Small-Diameter Ceiling Fans

For this NOPR, DOE analyzed a new product for very small-diameter ceiling fans that have blade spans of 18 inches or less. Currently there is no very small-diameter ceiling fan on the market that uses a DC motor; however conversations with one VSD manufacturer indicated that DC motors are technologically feasible in very small-diameter ceiling fans. Therefore DOE screens in the DC motor technology option for very small-diameter ceiling fans. DOE requests comment on including DC motors as a technology option. See issue 4 in section VII.E.

Geared and Gearless DC Motors for Large-Diameter Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened in brushless DC motors for large-diameter fans. DOE requested comment on whether brushless DC motors meet the screening criteria for large-diameter ceiling fans.

In response to the preliminary analysis, MacroAir requested that DOE include gearless DC motors as a new technology option (see section IV.A.2). It stated that gearbox losses are between 5 and 35 percent. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 5)

DOE found two manufacturers with large-diameter ceiling fans using a gearless DC motor, including MacroAir's newly released AirVolution-D model. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 10) Market availability of fans using gearless DC motors indicates to DOE that this technology option is technologically feasible and meets the other three screening criteria. Thus, DOE screened in gearless DC motors for large-diameter ceiling fans for consideration in the engineering analysis.

DOE did not receive any comments objecting to the consideration of brushless DC motors as a design option analyzed in the preliminary analysis for large-diameter ceiling fans. Thus, DOE screened in this technology option for consideration in the engineering analysis for this NOPR. Note, DOE refers to this design option as a geared DC motor to make a clear distinction between fans with a gearbox and fans without a gearbox.

d. Curved Blades and Airfoil Blades

In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened in curved and airfoil blade technology options for high-speed small-diameter and large-diameter ceiling fans. DOE requested comment about the blade technology options, but did not receive any comments opposing the inclusion of curved and airfoil blades in the analyses for these fan product classes. Therefore, DOE continues to screen in curved and airfoil blades for HSSD and large-diameter ceiling fans in this NOPR.

C. Engineering Analysis

In the engineering analysis, DOE established the relationship between the manufacturer production cost (MPC) and improved ceiling fan 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 product 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. The efficiency ranges from that of the least-efficient ceiling fans sold today (

i.e.

, the baseline) to the maximum technologically feasible efficiency level. At each efficiency level examined, DOE determines the MPC; this relationship is referred to as a cost-efficiency curve.

For this analysis, DOE structured its engineering analysis for ceiling fans using a combination of the design-option approach and the reverse-engineering approach. The analysis is performed in terms of incremental increases in efficiency due to the implementation of selected design

options, while the estimated MPCs for each successive design option are based on product teardowns and a bottom-up manufacturing cost assessment. Using this hybrid approach, DOE developed the relationship between MPC and ceiling fan efficiency. DOE welcomed comments on an alternative approach in the preliminary analysis.

DOE used the design option approach in the engineering analysis and selected representative sizes for each product class to account for differences in ceiling fan utility and efficiency based on blade diameter. DOE selected representative sizes based on the available range of sizes in each product class and based on the number of sales per size. For each representative size in each proposed product class, DOE identified a baseline efficiency as a reference point from which to measure changes resulting from each design option. Efficiency is represented in terms of the metric proposed in the test procedure NOPR (

i.e.,

aggregate airflow efficiency). The baseline represents the most common, least efficient ceiling fan in the market for each product class and representative size. DOE then developed separate cost-efficiency relationships for each product class analyzed. The following is a summary of the method DOE used to determine the cost-efficiency relationship for ceiling fans:

• Perform airflow efficiency tests on a representative sample of ceiling fans in each product class.

• Develop a detailed BOM for the tested ceiling fans through product teardowns, and construct a ceiling fan cost model.

• Use a combination of test data, data from spec sheets, the cost model, and feedback from manufacturers to calculate the incremental increase in efficiency and cost increase of adding specific design options to a baseline model.

In the 2014 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to test standard ceiling fans mounted to an artificial ceiling. ALA commented that the candidate standard levels in the preliminary analysis were based on airflow measurements made without an artificial ceiling. ALA recommended that DOE adjust the analysis to adhere to the final test procedure. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 2)

Since the preliminary analysis, DOE published a test procedure SNOPR on June 3, 2015, in which DOE proposes to test all ceiling fans mounted directly to the ceiling. DOE used test data for standard ceiling fans mounted directly to the ceiling to update the engineering analysis for this NOPR.

In response to the approach taken by DOE, MacroAir stated it doesn't understand why a design approach was used for the efficiency levels and a performance approach was taken in the candidate standard levels (CSL). MacroAir suggested a consistent approach should be maintained throughout the analysis process. (MacroAir, No. 89 at p. 13)

Typically, DOE structures an energy conservation standard in terms of a performance requirement,

i.e.,

a maximum level of energy consumption or a minimum level of energy efficiency, often as a function of some form of capacity or size. For this rulemaking, DOE is structuring the standard using a minimum level of airflow efficiency (CFM/W) as a function of diameter. The various levels of efficiency being considered for the standard, or candidate standard levels, were developed using efficiency levels described in the engineering analysis. See chapter five of the NOPR TSD. In the engineering analysis, DOE developed efficiency levels using design-options, which are technologies that exist in the market that have passed the screening criteria. See chapter four of the NOPR TSD. The efficiency levels examined represent a certain path, or combination of design options, that demonstrate how various levels of efficiency can be achieved. While this analysis is meant to show one way of achieving certain levels of efficiency, the actual structure of the standards (in the form of equations defining a minimum level of air flow efficiency (CFM/W) as a function of diameter) allows any design path to be used. Also, establishing standards in this manner, as opposed to requiring specific design requirements be used (

e.g.,

a standard specifying one type of motor), allows manufacturers freedom in meeting a standard and avoids limiting innovation. Manufacturers may choose to use any technologies and designs they desire to achieve the specified CFM/W standard.

In written comments, ASAP noted that DOE evaluated efficiency levels that are structured as a function of ceiling fan diameter. ASAP expressed concern that standards as a function of diameter may not be directly related to the performance of the fan. (ASAP, et al., No. 92 at p. 3)

In response to ASAP's comment, DOE examined how fan efficiency behaves as a function of both fan diameter and airflow to evaluate whether standards as a function of one or the other are more appropriate. DOE collected data for airflow, blade diameter and airflow efficiency for all the ceilings fans found on Web sites of ten retailers, including, among others, Home Depot, Lowe's, Walmart and Menards. DOE then plotted ceiling fan efficiency as a function of both diameter and airflow and compared the correlation coefficient, or R

value, for each relationship. DOE found that both airflow and fan diameter have similar correlation coefficients as a function of airflow efficiency and neither is statistically better than the other. Because of this, DOE next examined which characteristic could be considered a better indicator, or proxy, for utility.

DOE sets standards that are technologically feasible and economically justified without diminishing utility to consumers. Neither airflow nor diameter is a perfect proxy for utility, because consumers make purchasing decisions based on both. However, DOE believes that blade diameter is a

better

proxy for utility than airflow. The size of a fan determines the cooling area, impacts room aesthetics, and determines if a fan physically fits into a room. Literature published by manufacturers clearly indicates that blade span is an important criteria for consumer fan selection. Manufacturers include sizing guides in published product literature to instruct consumers on how to properly size a fan for a given room size. These fan sizing guides specify the affected square footage of a room based on fan blade diameter. DOE did not find such guides for other ceiling fan characteristics such as airflow. Furthermore, DOE believes that standards as a function of airflow instead of fan diameter could result in substitution issues. For example, two ceiling fans of different sizes but similar airflow might not fit into the same space, will not have airflow produced over the same area, and have different room aesthetics. However, DOE believes that standards as a function of diameter would not result in substitution issues, because the substitute fan would fit into the same space, produce airflow over the same area and the room aesthetics would not be affected. This indicates to DOE that ceiling fan blade diameter is a primary characteristic considered by consumers when selecting a fan and a better proxy for consumer utility than airflow. Consequently, DOE proposes standards as a function of fan diameter to ensure that fans at a given diameter (and, by proxy, fans that provide a similar utility to the consumer) are subject to the same standard.

ASAP also stated that two fans of the same diameter could provide different airflows. ASAP stated that

manufacturers could simply meet the standard by reducing the speed of the fan, which would reduce airflow and fan utility. (ASAP, et al., No. 92 at p. 3)

Ceiling fans of the same size can produce different airflows, and slowing down a fan can significantly reduce energy consumption. While manufacturers may opt to do so to meet the levels proposed, DOE did not include slowing down the fan as a design option; manufacturers can meet the levels proposed without reducing speed. Also, DOE expects that manufacturers will not reduce airflow to levels that are unacceptable when other cost-justified pathways to compliance are available. DOE requests comment on what an acceptable reduction of fan speed is such that it does not affect consumer utility. See issue 6 in section VII.E.

1. Baseline and Max-Tech Models

To analyze technology options for energy efficiency improvements, DOE defined a baseline and a max-tech model for each ceiling fan product class. Typically, the baseline model is a model that just meets current energy conservation standards, whereas a max-tech model is the highest efficiency model in the market. DOE set the baseline and max-tech efficiencies for each product class based on test data and certified airflow efficiency data from manufacturer Web sites and brochures. Further details can be found in chapter 5 of the TSD.

a. Standard and Hugger Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE combined the cost efficiency curves of flat-blade fans and unconventional-blade fans in the standard and hugger product classes to create an aggregate curve for all standard ceiling fans and all hugger ceiling fans. DOE used the maximum efficiency of the unconventional-blade fans as the max-tech for the aggregate curve to ensure that even at max-tech, all types of ceiling fans, including designs with unconventional-blades, can achieve this level of efficiency.

In response to this approach, the CA IOUs expressed concern that the max-tech efficiency for the combined conventional and unconventional class is significantly lower than the conventional blade fan class. Therefore, the CA IOUs commented, DOE should consider conventional blade fan model efficiency for the max-tech level instead of the unconventional blade fan model. (CA IOUs, No. 91 at p. 1)

DOE appreciates the comment from the CA IOUs to use the max-tech level of the flat-blade fan for the aggregate curve instead of the max-tech level of the unconventional-blade fan. However, doing so could result in a standard that cannot be met by unconventional blade fans, eliminating them from the market. DOE considers the elimination of unconventional blade fans from the market a loss of consumer utility and a reduction in product availability because, while these fans are functionally indistinguishable from flat-blade ceiling fans, a majority of consumers purchase unconventional-blade fans because of their aesthetic appeal. Overly stringent ceiling fan standards could force manufacturers to reduce the aesthetic quality of some ceiling fans to comply with energy conservation standards, therefore reducing consumer utility. Thus, DOE continued to use the max-tech efficiency level of the unconventional-blade fans as the max-tech efficiency level for the aggregate curve in this NOPR.

b. Very Small-Diameter Ceiling Fans

After the preliminary analysis DOE decided to introduce a separate product class for very small-diameter ceiling fans based on feedback from interested parties (see section IV.A.1.c for more details on the very small-diameter product class). DOE used publicly available market data and test data to identify the baseline very small-diameter ceiling fans for all representative sizes.

c. High-Speed Small-Diameter Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis, DOE chose a baseline airflow efficiency of 211 cfm/W for the 56-inch HSSD ceiling fans. DOE selected this efficiency based on information listed in manufacturer specification sheets because DOE did not have any test results for this product class.

During the preliminary analysis public meeting, Westinghouse and ALA commented that 211 cfm/W is too high for the baseline efficiency for 56 inch high-speed small-diameter fans. Westinghouse stated that the baseline 56-inch high-speed small-diameter airflow efficiency should be 95 cfm/W. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 83 at p. 250) ALA provided published data to support its statement showing baseline fans with airflow efficiencies ranging between 90 and 115 cfm/W, and airflow ranging from 6,118 to 9,154 cfm. Additionally, ALA stated that it is aware that HSSD fan manufacturers list extremely high cfm levels on their manufacturer specification sheets. These models will have cfm levels similar to the baseline models recommended by ALA when tested according to the DOE test procedure. (ALA, No. 91 at p. 4)

Since the preliminary analysis, DOE tested baseline 56-inch HSSD ceiling fans. Those tests confirmed comments received from interested parties that the value used in the preliminary analysis is too high. DOE reduced the baseline airflow efficiency for a 56 inch HSSD ceiling fan from 211 cfm/W to 91 cfm/W, which corresponded to the lowest efficiency of the HSSD ceiling fans tested.

d. Large-Diameter Ceiling Fans

In the preliminary analysis DOE described the baseline for the large-diameter ceiling fan product class as having curved blades, a three-phase induction motor with a gearbox, and

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.