Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

Federal RegisterJan 18, 2017

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008]

RIN 1904-AD52

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part C of Title III establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.” The covered equipment includes pumps. In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting new energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. It has determined that the energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is May 18, 2017 unless adverse comment is received by May 8, 2017. If adverse comments are received that DOE determines may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule, a timely withdrawal of this rule will be published in the

Federal Register

. If no such adverse comments are received, compliance with the standards established for dedicated-purpose pool pumps in this direct final rule is required on and after July 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, 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, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008

. The docket Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:

AppliacneStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov

Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:

Johanna.Jochum@hq.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

III. General Discussion

A. Consensus Agreement

B. Compliance Date

C. Test Procedure

D. Scope

1. Performance-Based Energy Conservation Standards

2. Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards

3. Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motor

E. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

F. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

G. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

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

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Significance of Savings

3. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Equipment Classes and Distinguishing Features

a. Strainer or Filtration Accessory

b. Self-Priming Ability

c. Pump Capacity (Flow, Head, and Power)

d. Rotational Speed

e. End User Safety

f. List of Proposed Equipment Classes

2. Manufacturers and Industry Structure

3. Existing Efficiency Programs

a. U.S. State-Level Programs

b. Voluntary Standards

4. Shipments Information

5. Market and Industry Trends

a. Equipment Efficiency

b. Pump Sizing

6. Technology Options

a. Improved Motor Efficiency

b. Ability To Operate at Reduced Speeds

c. Improved Hydraulic Design

d. Pool Pump Timer

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Summary of Data Sources

a. Pool Pump Performance Database

b. Manufacturer Production Cost Dataset

2. Representative Equipment

a. Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

b. Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

c. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps

d. Waterfall Pumps

e. Integral Sand and Cartridge Filter Pool Pump

f. Summary of Representative Units

3. Baseline Configuration and Performance

4. Efficiency Levels

a. Design Option Applicability and Ordering

b. Summary of Available Motor Efficiencies

c. Summary of Available Hydraulic Efficiencies

d. Representative Unit Performance at Each Efficiency Level

e. Efficiency Level Structure for All Pump Capacities

5. Manufacturer Production Costs

a. Principal Drivers of DPPP Manufacturing Costs

b. Pool Filter Pump and Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump Motor Costs

c. Pool Filter Pump and Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump Non-Motor Costs

d. Cost Analysis of Integral Filter Pool Pump Equipment Classes

e. Cost-Efficiency Results

f. MPC Cost Components

6. Other Analytical Outputs

7. Manufacturer Selling Price

D. Markups Analysis

1. Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Markups

2. Replacement Motor Markups

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Consumer Samples

2. Energy Use Estimation

a. Power Inputs

b. Operating Hours

c. Annual Days of Operation

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

1. Equipment Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs

6. Equipment Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-Standards Case

9. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Forecasts

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

d. Markup Scenarios

K. Emissions Analysis

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Current Approach

2. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

3. 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

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Direct Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment

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 Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

VI. Other Prescriptive Requirements

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Rule

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected

a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities

b. Manufacturer Participation

c. Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Industry Structure and Nature of Competition

4. Description of Compliance Requirements

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

6. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities

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. Information Quality

M. Congressional Notification

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291,

et seq;

EPCA), sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency of appliances and commercial equipment. Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.” Covered industrial equipment includes pumps. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H))

Pumps include dedicated-purpose pool pumps, the subject of this document.

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).

The energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (also referred to as “pool pumps”) established in this document reflect the consensus of a negotiation among interested parties with a broad cross-section of interests, including the manufacturers who produce the subject equipment, environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, and electric utility companies. A working group representing these parties was established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC)

to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on proposed standards for pool pump energy efficiency. On June 23, 2016, the dedicated-purpose pool pumps (DPPP) Working Group successfully reached consensus on recommended energy conservation standards for pool pumps. See section III.A for further discussion of the Working Group and its recommendations.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. App.; 5 U.S.C. 561-570).

After carefully considering the recommendations submitted by the DPPP Working Group and adopted by ASRAC related to energy conservation standards for pool pumps, DOE has determined that these recommendations comprise a statement submitted by interested persons who represent relevant points of view on this matter, and which, if compliant with certain statutory requirements, could result in issuance of a direct final rule.

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)).

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE is adopting new energy conservation standards for certain dedicated-purpose pool pumps. The adopted standards are shown in Table I-1 and Table I-2. Standards for the equipment classes in Table I-1 are performance based, expressed in terms of weighted energy factor (WEF); standards in Table I-2 are prescriptive. These standards apply to all equipment listed in Table I-1 and Table I-2 and manufactured in or imported into the United States starting on July 19, 2021. DOE is not adopting standby or off-mode standards for this equipment.

Table I-1—Performance-Based Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

Equipment class

Dedicated-purpose pool pump variety

Hydraulic horsepower

applicability *

Motor phase

Minimum allowable WEF ** score

Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

<2.5 hhp and ≥0.711 hhp

Single

WEF =−2.30 * ln (hhp) + 6.59.

Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

hhp <0.711 hp

Single

WEF = 5.55 for hhp ≤0.13 hp,

−1.30 * ln (hhp) + 2.90 for hhp >0.13 hp.

Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

hhp <2.5 hp

Any

WEF = 4.60 for hhp ≤0.13 hp,

−0.85 * ln (hhp) + 2.87 for hhp >0.13 hp.

Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps

Any

WEF = 0.42.

* All instances of hhp refer to rated hydraulic horsepower determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.464 and applicable sampling plans.

** WEF is measured by kgal/kWh.

Table I-2—Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

Equipment class

Dedicated-purpose pool pump variety

Hydraulic horsepower applicability

Motor phase

Prescriptive standard

Integral Sand Filter Pool Pump

Any

Must be distributed in commerce with a pool pump timer that is either integral to the pump or a separate component that is shipped with the pump. *

Integral Cartridge Filter Pool Pump

Any

Must be distributed in commerce with a pool pump timer that is either integral to the pump or a separate component that is shipped with the pump. *

All Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps Distributed in Commerce with Freeze Protection Controls

Any

The pump must be shipped with freeze protection disabled or with the following default, user-adjustable settings:

• The default dry-bulb air temperature setting is no greater than 40 °F;

• The default run time setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and

• The default motor speed shall not be more than

1/2

of the maximum available speed.

* Pool pump timer means a pool pump control that automatically turns off a dedicated-purpose pool pump after a run-time of no longer than 10 hours.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2015 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2016 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Table I-3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of pool pumps, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP).

The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is much less than the average lifetime of dedicated-purpose pool pumps, which is estimated to range from 4 to 7 years, depending on equipment class (see section IV.F.6).

The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards (see section IV.H.2). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline model (see section IV.C.3).

Table I-3—Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on End Users of Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

Equipment class

Average LCC

savings

(2015$)

Simple

payback

period

(years)

Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump

2,140

0.7

Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump

295

0.8

Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump

191

0.2

Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump

0.9

Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump

111

0.6

Integral Cartridge Filter Pool Pump

128

0.4

Integral Sand Filter Pool Pump

0.5

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers is described in section V.B.1 of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the reference year through the end of the analysis period 2016-2050. Using a real discount rate of 11.8 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool pumps in the case without standards is $212.8 million in 2015$. Under the new standards, DOE expects the change in INPV to range from −21.8 percent to 3.3 percent, which is approximately −$46.3 million to $7.0 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance with the new standards, DOE expects the industry to incur total conversion costs of $35.6 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the new standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J and section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for dedicated-purpose pool pumps purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2021-2050), amount to 3.8 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu), or quads.

This represents an estimated savings of 61 percent relative to the energy use of this equipment in the case without standards (referred to as the “no-standards case”).

The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2.

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits of the standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps ranges from $11 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $24 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for dedicated-purpose pool pumps purchased in 2021-2050.

In addition, the standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 202 million metric tons (Mt

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 147 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 257 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 968 thousand tons of methane (CH

), 3.0 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), and 0.50 tons of mercury (Hg).

The cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 48 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of 7.1 million homes.

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

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2016

(

AEO2016

generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of the end of February 2016.

The value of the CO

reduction is calculated using a range of values per metric ton (t) of CO

(otherwise known as the “Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,” or SC-CO

) developed by a Federal interagency working group.

The derivation of the SC-CO

values is discussed in section IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SC-CO

values, DOE estimates that the present value of the CO

emissions reduction is between $1.5 billion and $21 billion. Using the central SCC case represented by $40.6/metric ton (t) in 2015 and a discount rate of 3-percent produces a value of $6.8 billion.

United States Government—Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon.

Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.

May 2013. Revised July 2015. Available at

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

DOE also calculated the value of the reduction in emissions of the non-CO

greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, using values for the social cost of methane (SC-CH

) and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N

O) recently developed by the interagency working group.

See section IV.L.2 for description of the methodology and the values used for DOE's analysis. The estimated present value of the methane emissions reduction is between $0.32 billion and $2.6 billion, with a value of $0.99billion using the central SC-CH

case, and the estimated present value of the N

O emissions reduction is between $0.008 billion and $0.09 billion, with a value of $0.03 billion using the central SC-N

O case.

United States Government—Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/august_2016_sc_ch4_sc_n2o_addendum_final_8_26_16.pdf

DOE also estimates the present value of the NO

emissions reduction to be $0.21 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.48 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is still investigating appropriate valuation of the reduction in other emissions, and therefore did not include any such values in the analysis of this direct final rule.

DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available at

www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis

. See section IV.L for further discussion. The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the rule implementing the Clean Power Plan until the current litigation against it concludes.

Chamber of Commerce, et al.

EPA, et al.,

Order in Pending Case, 577U.S. ___ (2016). However, the benefit-per-ton estimates established in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan are based on scientific studies that remain valid irrespective of the legal status of the Clean Power Plan. DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO

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.

Table I-4 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the adopted standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

Table I-4—Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps ***

Category

Present value

(billion 2015$)

Discount rate

(%)

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 5% discount rate) *

1.9

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 3% discount rate) *

7.8

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 2.5% discount rate) *

2.5

GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile social costs at 3% discount rate) *

Reduction **

0.21

0.48

Total Benefits †

Costs

Consumer Incremental Installed Costs

1.3

2.6

Total Net Benefits

Including GHG and NO

Reduction Monetized Value

*** This table presents the costs and benefits associated with pool pumps shipped in 2021-2050. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2050 from the equipment purchased in 2021-2050. The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as installation costs. The costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the proposed standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The CO

reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur domestically.

* The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO

SC-CH

, and SC-N

O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average social costs from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile of the social cost distributions calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the social cost distributions. The social cost values are emission year specific. See section IV.L.1 for more details.

** DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at

www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis

.) See section IV.L.3 for further discussion. DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO

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.

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using only the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate.

The benefits and costs of the adopted standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps sold between 2021-2050 can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increases in equipment purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of CO

and NO

emission reductions, all annualized.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2016, 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 2016. 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 . Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, which yields the same present value.

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of dedicated-purpose pool pumps shipped in 2021-2050. The benefits associated with reduced CO

emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of dedicated-purpose pool pumps shipped in 2021-2050. Because CO

emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere, the SC-CO

values for emissions in future years reflect CO

-emissions impacts that continue through 2300. The CO

reduction is a benefit that accrues globally. DOE maintains that consideration of global benefits is appropriate because of the global nature of the climate change problem.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the adopted standards are shown in Table I-5. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than GHG reduction (for which DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount rate),

the estimated cost of the standards in this rule is $138 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1.3 billion in reduced equipment operating costs, $449 million in GHG reductions, and $22 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.7 billion per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $149 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1.5 billion in reduced operating costs, $449 million in GHG reductions, and $27 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.8 billion per year.

DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount rate because these values are considered as the “central” estimates by the interagency group.

Table I-5—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps *

Discount rate

(%)

Primary estimate

Low-net-benefits

estimate

High-net-benefits

estimate

Million 2015$/year

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1,340

1,516

1,221

1,367

1,467.

1,678.

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 5% discount rate) **

147

129

164.

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 3% discount rate) **

449

392

504.

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 2.5% discount rate) **

2.5

642

560

721.

GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile social costs at 3% discount rate) **

1,346

1,175

1,510.

Reduction †

55.

70.

Total Benefits ‡

7% plus GHG range

1,509 to 2,708

1,369 to 2,416

1,686 to 3,032.

1,811

1,633

2,026.

3% plus GHG range

1,690 to 2,890

1,520 to 2,566

1,912 to 3,258.

1,993

1,783

2,252.

Costs

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

138

149

124

133

151.

164.

Manufacturer Conversion Costs ††

Net Benefits

Total ‡

7% plus GHG range

1,371 to 2,570

1,245 to 2,292

1,535 to 2,881.

1,673

1,509

1,875.

3 plus GHG range

1,542 to 2,741

1,387 to 2,433

1,748 to 3,094.

1,844

1,651

2,088.

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with pool pumps shipped in 2021-2050. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2050 from the pool pumps purchased from 2021-2050. The incremental equipment costs include incremental equipment cost as well as installation costs. The costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the adopted standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices and real GDP from the

AEO2016

No-CPP case, a Low Economic Growth case, and a High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect the default price trend in the Primary Estimate, a high price trend in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a low price trend in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1. The benefits and costs are based on equipment efficiency distributions as described in sections IV.F.8 and IV.H.1. Purchases of higher efficiency equipment are a result of many different factors unique to each consumer including past purchases, expected usage, and others. For each consumer, all other factors being the same, it would be anticipated that higher efficiency purchases in the no-new-standards case may correlate positively with higher energy prices. To the extent that this occurs, it would be expected to result in some lowering of the consumer operating cost savings from those calculated in this rule. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

** The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO

SC-CH

, and SC-N

† DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at

www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis

.) See section IV.L.3 for further discussion. For the Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used national benefit-per-ton estimates for NO

emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski

et al.

2009). For the High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele

et al.

2011); these are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the ACS study.

‡ Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus GHG range” and “3% plus GHG range,” the operating cost and NO

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

†† Manufacturers are estimated to incur $35.6 million in conversion costs between 2017 and 2020.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

Based on the analyses in this direct final rule, DOE found the benefits to the nation of the standards (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some end users of this equipment). DOE has concluded that the standards in this direct final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy.

II. Introduction

The following sections briefly discuss the statutory authority underlying this

direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

A. Authority

Title III, Part C

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment.

“Pumps” are listed as a type of covered industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, part C was re-designated part A-1.

All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

While pumps are listed as a type of covered equipment, EPCA does not define the term “pump.” To address this, in January 2016, DOE published a test procedure final rule (January 2016 general pumps test procedure final rule) that established a definition for the term “pump.” 81 FR 4086, 4147 (January 25, 2016). In the December 2016 DPPP test procedure final rule (“test procedure final rule”),

DOE noted the applicability of the definition of “pump” and associated terms to dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

See

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=41

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 6316(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and when making representations to the public regarding their energy use or efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.

Id.

The DOE test procedures for dedicated-purpose pool pumps appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart Y, appendix B.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Any new or amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), 6295(o), and 6316(a)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) and 6316(a)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain equipment, including dedicated-purpose pool pumps, 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) and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. 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 equipment subject to the standard;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment 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 equipment 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)) and 6316(a))

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)) and 6316(a))

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)) and 6316(a)) 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) and 6316(a))

Additionally, EPCA 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 products that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that equipment within such group (a) consumes a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (b) has a capacity or other performance-related feature that other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 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) and 6316(a))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) and 6316(a)) 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).

With particular regard to direct final rules, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public

Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007), amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a type of final rule (

i.e.,

a “direct final rule”) establishing an energy conservation standard for a product or equipment (including dedicated-purpose pool pumps) on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered equipment, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) and 6316(a)) That statement must contain recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) A notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule and a public comment period of at least 110 days provided. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE receives one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i)) If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR, and publish in the

Federal Register

the reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(ii))

B. Background

Currently, no Federal energy conservation standards exist for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. DOE excluded this category of pumps from its recent consensus-based energy conservation standard final rule for general pumps. 81 FR 4368 (January 26, 2016). The general pumps final rule, which was also the product of a pumps working group that had been created through the ASRAC, examined a variety of pump categories. While dedicated-purpose pool pumps were one of the pump categories that were considered during the working group's discussions, the working group ultimately recommended that DOE initiate a separate rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 0092 at p. 2)

DOE began the separate rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps on May 8, 2015, when it issued a Request for Information (RFI) (May 2015 DPPP RFI). 80 FR 26475. The May 2015 DPPP RFI presented information and requested public comment about definitions, metrics, test procedures, equipment characteristics, and typical applications relevant to DPPP equipment. DOE received six written comments in response to the May 2015 DPPP RFI. The commenters included the Association of Pool and Spa Professionals (APSP); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCG), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), collectively referred to herein as the California Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs); the Hydraulic Institute (HI); Ms. Tamara Newman; the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA); and River City Pool and Spa (River City).

In response to the May 2015 DPPP RFI, APSP, HI, and CA IOUs encouraged DOE to pursue a negotiated rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. (Docket. No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, APSP, No. 10 at p. 2; HI, No. 8 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 11 at p. 2) Consistent with feedback from these interested parties, DOE began a process through the ASRAC to charter a working group to recommend energy conservation standards and a test procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pumps rather than continuing down the traditional notice and comment route that DOE had already begun. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008) On August 25, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a working group for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (the DPPP Working Group) 80 FR 51483. The initial DPPP Working Group charter allowed for 3 months of DPPP Working Group meetings to establish the scope, metric, definitions, and test procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. The charter reserved the discussion of standards for a later set of meetings, after the working group produced a term sheet recommending a scope, metric, definitions, and test procedure for DPPPs. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 56 at p. 27) On October 15, 2015, DOE published a notice of public open meetings of the DPPP Working Group to establish three additional meetings under the initial charter. 80 FR 61996. DOE selected the members of the DPPP Working Group to ensure a broad and balanced array of interested parties and expertise, including representatives from efficiency advocacy organizations and manufacturers, as well as one representative from a state government organization. Additionally, one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative were part of the group. Table II-1 lists the 13 members of the DPPP Working Group and their affiliations.

Table II-1—DPPP Working Group Members and Affiliations

Member

Affiliation

Abbreviation

John Caskey

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (and ASRAC representative)

NEMA.

John Cymbalsky

U.S. Department of Energy

DOE.

Kristin Driskell

California Energy Commission

CEC.

Scott Durfee

Nidec Motor Corporation

Nidec.

Jeff Farlow

Pentair Aquatic Systems

Pentair.

Gary Fernstrom

California Investor-Owned Utilities

(PG&E, SDG&E, SCG, and SCE)

CA IOUs.

Patrizio Fumagalli

Bestway USA, Inc

Bestway.

Paul Lin

Regal Beloit Corporation

Regal.

Joanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

ASAP.

Ray Mirzaei

Waterway Plastics

Waterway.

Doug Philhower

Hayward Industries, Inc

Hayward.

Shajee Siddiqui

Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc

Zodiac.

Meg Waltner

Natural Resources Defense Council

NRDC.

The DPPP Working Group commenced negotiations at an open meeting between September 30 and October 1, 2015, and then held three additional meetings to discuss scope, metrics, and the test procedure.

The DPPP Working Group completed its initial charter on December 8, 2015, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on scope, metric, and the basis of test procedure (“December 2015 DPPP Working Group recommendations”).

The term sheet containing these recommendations is available in the DPPP Working Group docket. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 51) ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously to approve the December 2015 DPPP Working Group recommendations during its January 20, 2016 meeting. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 0052) The December 2015 DPPP Working Group recommendations pertinent to the test procedure and metric are discussed in section III.C of this document and reflected in DOE's DPPP test procedure final rule, issued in December 2016.

DOE's test procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pumps appears at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart Y, appendix B.

Details of the negotiations sessions can be found in the public meeting transcripts that are posted to the docket for the Working Group (

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008

The ground rules of the DPPP Working Group define consensus as no more than three negative votes. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-0008-0016 at p. 3) Abstention was not construed as a negative vote.

See

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=41

At the January 20, 2016, ASRAC meeting, the DPPP Working Group also requested more time to discuss potential energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. In response, ASRAC recommended that the DPPP Working Group continue its work in a second phase of negotiations to recommend potential energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 71 at pp. 20-52) The second phase of meetings commenced on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 10152, 10153) and concluded on June 23, 2016, with approval of a second term sheet (June 2016 DPPP Working Group recommendations). This term sheet contained DPPP Working Group recommendations on performance-based energy conservation standard levels, scope of such standards, certain prescriptive requirements, certain labeling requirements, certain definitions, and certain amendments to its previous test procedure recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82) ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously to approve the June 2016 DPPP Working Group recommendations during a July 29, 2016 meeting. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 87) The energy conservation standards, definitions, and prescriptive requirements established in this direct final rule directly reflect the June 2016 DPPP Working Group recommendations.

In this direct final rule, DOE refers to both formal recommendations of the DPPP Working Group, as well as informal discussion and suggestions that were not formally recommended. All references to approved recommendations are specified with a citation to the June 2016 DPPP Working Group term sheet and noted with the recommendation number (

e.g.,

Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. #82 Recommendation #X at p. Y); all references to discussions or suggestions of the DPPP Working Group not found in the June 2016 DPPP Working Group recommendations will have a citation to meeting transcripts and the commenter, if applicable (

e.g.,

Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, [Organization], No. X at p. Y).

In this direct final rule, DOE also refers to certain submitted comments pertaining to the 2015 RFI that have to do with energy conservation standards (

e.g.,

Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. X at p. Y). Any RFI comments related to the test procedure or informational in nature are not included here. DOE notes that many of the interested parties that submitted comments pertaining to the 2015 RFI later became members of the DPPP Working Group, or in the case of APSP, several of their members became members of the Working Group. As such, the concerns of these commenters were fully discussed as part of the group's meetings, and their positions may have changed as a result of the compromises inherent in a negotiation. Table II-2 lists the RFI commenters, as well as whether they participated in the DPPP Working Group.

Table II-2—List of RFI Commenters

Commenter

DPPP working group member

APSP

No.

CA IOU

Yes.

Hydraulic Institute

No.

Ms. Newman

No.

NEMA

Yes.

River City Pool and Spa

No.

III. General Discussion

A. Consensus Agreement

As discussed in section II.B, DOE established a working group to negotiate a test procedure and energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. On June 23, 2016, the Working Group reached unanimous consensus on a term sheet related to performance-based energy conservation standards, scope of such standards, certain definitions, certain prescriptive requirements, certain labeling requirements, and certain test procedure aspects for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. This term sheet included the following recommendations related to energy conservation standards:

Note that the recommendations appear as-written in the June 2016, Working Group recommendation (

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0082

);

i.e.,

all text and tables are verbatim.

Recommendation #1.

Each dedicated-purpose pool pump shall be required to meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standards (WEF) set forth in the following table on and after July 19, 2021:

ER18JA17.014

The working group does not recommend standards for: (1) Waterfall pumps of any size or (2) self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps greater than or equal to 2.5 HHP.

All instances of HHP refer to hydraulic horsepower on Curve C at Max Speed.

The test procedure final rule contains a detailed discussion of the system curves used in pump testing, and section IV.A.1.c of this document describes how system curve C defines the relationship between the power, head, and flow of a pump.

Recommendation #2.

On and after July 19, 2021, integral cartridge-filter pool pumps and integral sand-filter pool pumps must be distributed in commerce with a timer. Timer may be integral to the pump or a separate component that is shipped with the pump.

Recommendation #3.

The scope of the recommended standards for self-priming pool filter pumps are only applicable to self-priming pool filter pumps served by single-phase power.

The recommended test procedure and reporting requirements would be applicable to all self-priming pool filter pumps (served by single- and three-phase power).

The recommended hydraulic horsepower limitation (<2.5 hydraulic hp) still applies.

Recommendation #4.

For the purposes of establishing compliance with the standards for integral cartridge-filter and integral sand-filter pool pumps discussed in Recommendation #2, pool pump timer is defined as follows:

Pool pump timer means a pool pump control that automatically turns off a dedicated-purpose pool pump after a run-time of no longer than 10 hours.

The recommended definition captures the intent of the working group and should be adopted as-written or as modified in a manner that captures the same intent.

Recommendation #6A.

All dedicated-purpose pool pumps with freeze protection controls distributed in commerce with the pump shall be shipped with freeze protection disabled or with the following default, user-adjustable settings:

1. The default dry-bulb air temperature setting is no greater than 40 °F

2. The default run time setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and

3. The default motor speed shall not be more than

1/2

of the maximum available speed

As part of certification reporting, manufacturers must include the default dry-bulb air temperature setting (in °F), default run time setting (in minutes), and default motor speed (in rpm).

(Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82) This term sheet was ultimately submitted to, and accepted by the ASRAC, on July 29, 2016 (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 87). All recommendations not shown here are related to test procedure or certification and were addressed in the recently issued test procedure final rule.

After carefully considering the consensus recommendations submitted by the DPPP Working Group and adopted by ASRAC related to energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, DOE has determined that these recommendations, submitted in the previously discussed term sheet, comprise a statement submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter. If compliant with certain statutory requirements, the recommendations could result in issuance of a direct final rule. In reaching this determination, DOE considered that the DPPP Working Group, in conjunction with ASRAC members who approved the recommendations, consisted of representatives of manufacturers of the covered equipment at issue, States, and efficiency advocates—all of which are groups specifically identified by Congress as relevant parties to any consensus recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A) and 6316(a)) As discussed above, the term sheet was signed and submitted by a broad cross-section of interests, including the manufacturers who produce the subject equipment, environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, electric utility companies, and a member representing a State.

In addition, the ASRAC Committee approving the DPPP Working Group's recommendations included at least two members representing States, one representing the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and one representing the State of California.

By explicit language of the statute, the Secretary has the discretion to determine when a joint recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard has met the requirement for representativeness (

i.e.,

“as determined by the Secretary”). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p) (For today's direct final rule, DOE has determined that the DPPP working group represents all relevant points of view of interested parties.

This individual was Kristen Driskell (CEC).

These individuals were Deborah E. Miller (NASEO) and David Hungerford (CEC).

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. In making this determination, DOE has conducted an analysis to evaluate whether the potential energy conservation standards under consideration would meet these requirements. This evaluation is the same comprehensive approach that DOE typically conducts whenever it considers potential energy conservation standards for a given type of product or equipment. DOE applies the same principles to any consensus recommendations it may receive to satisfy its statutory obligation to ensure that any energy conservation standard it adopts achieves the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and will result in

significant conservation of energy. Upon review, the Secretary determined that the term sheet submitted in the dedicated-purpose pool pump rulemaking comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Accordingly, the consensus-recommended efficiency levels were included as Trial Standard Level (TSL) 3 for dedicated-purpose pool pumps in this rule (see section V.A for descriptions of all of the considered TSLs). Details regarding how the consensus-recommended TSL complies with the standard-setting criteria are discussed and demonstrated in the relevant sections throughout this document.

In sum, as the relevant criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) have been satisfied, and the Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to adopt the consensus-recommended energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps through this direct final rule.

As required by the same statutory provision, DOE also is simultaneously publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing that the identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule be adopted. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the direct final rule. While DOE typically provides a comment period of 60 days on proposed standards, DOE is providing a 110-day comment period for this NOPR, which is the same length as the comment period for the direct final rule. Based on the comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective or DOE will withdraw it if one or more adverse comments is received and if DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule and for DOE to continue this rulemaking under the NOPR. Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C). Typical of other rulemakings, it is the substance, rather than the quantity, of comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct final rule will be withdrawn. To this end, the substance of any adverse comment(s) received will be weighed against the anticipated benefits of the jointly submitted recommendations and the likelihood that further consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. To the extent an adverse issue had been previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule. Under the statute, withdrawal would occur by the 120th day after the direct final rule's publication.

B. Compliance Date

EPCA does not prescribe a lead time for pumps, or the number of years between the date of publication of a final standards rule and the date on which manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The DPPP Working Group recommended that the standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps be applicable 54 months following publication of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register

. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 51, Recommendations #1 and #2 at pp. 1-2) DOE has adopted this date for this direct final rule.

C. Test Procedure

This section discusses DOE's requirements with respect to test procedures as well as summarizes the test procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pumps adopted by DOE.

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. As noted, in December 2016, DOE issued the DPPP test procedure final rule to establish test procedures for dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

The test procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pumps will appear at title 10 of the CFR part 431, subpart Y, appendix B.

See

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=41.

DOE notes that 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, Appendix A established procedures, interpretations, and policies to guide DOE in the consideration and promulgation of new or revised appliance efficiency standards under EPCA. (See section 1.) These procedures are a general guide to the steps DOE typically follows in promulgating energy conservation standards. The guidance recognizes that DOE can and will, on occasion, deviate from the typical process. (See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 14(a)) In this particular instance, DOE deviated from its typical process by conducting a negotiated rulemaking process, per the request of multiple key stakeholders and as chartered by ASRAC. The DPPP Working Group initially met four times and successfully reached consensus on the recommended test procedure and metric for different varieties of dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Following ASRAC approval, the DPPP Working Group commenced a second phase of meetings, resulting in consensus on the recommended energy conservation standards as well as certain additional test procedure recommendations. These recommendations are contained in the December 2015 and June 2016 DPPP Working Group term sheets, which ASRAC adopted. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 51 and 82, respectively)

As discussed in section III.A, the June 2016 term sheet meets the criteria of a consensus recommendation, and DOE has determined that these recommendations are in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) (and 6316(a)) for the issuance of a direct final rule. DOE ultimately adopted the test procedure provisions and recommended standard levels that the DPPP Working Group included in the term sheets, which illustrates that DOE's deviations from the typical rulemaking process in this instance did not adversely impact the manufacturers' ability to understand and provide input to DOE's rulemaking process. The process that DOE used, in this case, was a more collaborative negotiated rulemaking effort resulting in an agreement on recommended standard levels, which DOE is fully implementing in this direct final rule.

Consistent with the recommendations of the DPPP Working Group, in September 2016 DOE published a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking proposing (September 2016 DPPP TP NOPR) to propose new definitions, a new test procedure, new sampling and rating requirements, and new enforcement provisions for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. DOE held a public meeting on September 26, 2016, to discuss and request public comment on the September 2016 DPPP test procedure NOPR. Subsequently, DOE published a test procedure final rule reflecting relevant recommendations of the DPPP Working Group, as well as input from interested parties received in response to the September 2016 DPPP test procedure NOPR. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0002)

In the test procedure final rule, DOE prescribed a test procedure for measuring the WEF for certain varieties of dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Specifically, the adopted test procedure applies only to self-priming and non-

self-priming pool filter pumps,

waterfall pumps, and pressure cleaner booster pumps. The test procedure does not apply to integral cartridge filter pool pumps, integral sand filter pool pumps, storable electric spa pumps, or rigid electric spa pumps.

DOE's DPPP test procedure applies to certain varieties of dedicated-purpose pool pumps that are served by both single-phase and three-phase power, whereas this direct final rule only establishes energy conservation standards for self-priming pool filter pumps served by single-phase power.

For those applicable varieties of dedicated-purpose pool pumps, DOE prescribed methods to measure and calculate WEF, which is determined as a weighted average of water flow rate over the input power to the dedicated-purpose pool pump at different load points, depending on the variety of dedicated-purpose pool pump and the number of operating speeds with which it is distributed in commerce. The equation for WEF is shown in Equation 1:

ER18JA17.000

Where:

WEF = weighted energy factor in kgal/kWh;

= weighting factor at each load point i;

= flow at each load point i in gal/min;

= input power to the motor (or controls, if present) at each load point i in W;

i = load point(s), defined uniquely for each DPPP variety; and

n = number of load point(s), defined uniquely for each speed configuration.

DOE prescribed unique load points for the different varieties and speed configurations of dedicated-purpose pool pumps, as recommended by the DPPP Working Group. The load points (

) and weights (

) used in determining WEF for each pump variety are presented in Table III-1.

ER18JA17.001

The test procedure final rule also contains methods to determine the self-priming capability of pool filter pumps to effectively differentiate self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and the rated hydraulic horsepower,

both of which are necessary to determine the applicable energy conservation standard for certain varieties of dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

D. Scope

In the test procedure final rule, DOE adopted the following definition for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, consistent with that recommended by the DPPP Working Group (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 51 Recommendation #4 at p. 3):

“Dedicated-purpose pool pump” means a self-priming pool filter pump, a non-self-priming pool filter pump, a waterfall pump, a pressure cleaner booster pump, an integral sand filter pool pump, an integral cartridge filter pool pump, a storable electric spa pump, or a rigid electric spa pump.

The test procedure final rule also specifically defines several varieties of dedicated-purpose pool pumps, some of which are included in the scope of energy conservation standards. The following sections describe the scope for the adopted performance-based and prescriptive energy conservation standards, respectively, for dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

1. Performance-Based Energy Conservation Standards

The DPPP Working Group recommended energy conservation standards for a subset of dedicated-purpose pool pumps to which the test procedure applies. Specifically, while the test procedure applies to self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, pressure cleaner booster pumps, and waterfall pumps, the DPPP Working Group recommended energy conservation standards only for the first three categories, excepting waterfall pumps due to limited economic benefits. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82 Recommendation #2 at pp. 1-2). DOE agrees with the reasoning of the DPPP Working Group and is establishing energy conservation standards in this direct final rule only for those pump varieties recommended by the DPPP Working Group. Further detail on the economic benefits and burdens for all dedicated-purpose pool pump varieties analyzed, including waterfall pumps, can be found in section V.B. The scope of the performance-based energy conservation standards established in this document is summarized in Table III-2.

Table III—2 Scope of Performance-Based Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

Pump variety

Hydraulic horsepower range

Power that pump is

served by

Self-priming pool filter pump

All pumps less than 2.5 hhp

Single Phase.

Non-self-priming pool filter pumps

All pumps less than 2.5 hhp

No Restriction.

Pressure cleaner booster pumps

No Restriction

No Restriction.

DOE notes that in response to the May 2015 DPPP RFI, HI suggested that “auxiliary pool pumps [now referred to as pressure cleaner booster pumps] below 1 hp should be excluded because it will be difficult to adequately differentiate them from other CIP ESCC pumps below 1 hp. Including auxiliary pool pumps below 1 hp could potentially extend the scope of the CIP rulemaking outside the ASRAC working group negotiation. [sic]” (Docket. No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, HI, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges the concerns raised by HI, and clarifies that in test procedure rulemaking, DOE proposed, received comment on, and ultimately established, a definition for pressure cleaner booster pumps that effectively differentiated these pumps from end suction close-coupled pumps less than 1 horsepower. Specifically, pressure cleaner booster pump was defined to mean an end suction, dry rotor pump designed and marketed for pressure-side pool cleaner applications, and which may be UL listed under ANSI/UL 1081-2014, “Standard for Swimming Pool Pumps, Filters, and Chlorinators.” Because DOE was able to, in the test procedure final rule, develop a definition to adequately differentiate pressure cleaner booster pumps from other end suction close-coupled pump, DOE will not exclude pressure cleaner booster pumps from energy conservation standards, as recommended by HI.

As shown in Table III-2, the DPPP Working Group recommended a scope of standards that restricts self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps to those with a hydraulic output power less than 2.5 horsepower (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82, Recommendation #1 at p. 1). DOE notes that the DPPP Working Group first discussed a cutoff point of 2.5 hydraulic horsepower in the March 21, 2016 DPPP Working Group meeting. Initially, the DPPP Working Group members were confused about whether the discussion of pump capacity was using terms of hydraulic horsepower, nameplate horsepower, or shaft horsepower. DOE clarified that capacity discussions are in terms of hydraulic horsepower. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 94 at p. 38-42) In a subsequent April 19 Working Group meeting, DOE again clarified that the scope metric is in terms of hydraulic horsepower. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 79 at p. 34-39)

Ultimately, the DPPP Working Group recommendation for horsepower limitations is consistent with the scope of self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps established in the test procedure final rule. The DPPP Working Group recommended this restriction based on the combination of three key reasons: (1) Low shipments volume, (2) low potential for energy savings (due to the prevalence of motors already regulated by DOE), and (3) lack of performance data. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 79 at p. 36-47) DOE agrees with the reasoning of the DPPP Working Group and is adopting this scope restriction in this direct final rule.

DOE notes that prior to the formation of the DPPP Working Group, APSP responded to the May 2015 DPPP RFI and recommended that DOE define scope using total horsepower, noting that it was also open to discussing and developing alternative or additional methods in which we can rate covered pump systems by total input power draw. (Docket. No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, APSP, No. 10 at p. 5) APSP provided no further rationale for their option. APSP's recommendation conflicts with the use of hydraulic horsepower recommended by the DPPP Working Group and discussed in the previous paragraphs. DOE notes that five members of APSP (Waterway Plastics, Hayward Industries, Inc., Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc., Pentair Aquatic Systems, and Bestway USA, Inc.) participated in the DPPP Working Group and unanimously supported the

term sheet recommendations enumerated in the previous paragraphs. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 51) Further, DOE notes that a representative of APSP was present at the final DPPP Working Group meeting, and offered no public comment in opposition to the term sheet adopted by the DPPP Working Group. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, June 23 DPPP Working Group Meeting, No. 92, at p. 3) For these reasons, DOE believes that the interests of APSP were sufficiently satisfied by the recommendations unanimously agreed upon by the DPPP Working Group.Also as shown in Table III-2, the DPPP Working Group recommended that the scope of the recommended standards for self-priming pool filter pumps only be applicable to self-priming pool filter pumps served by single-phase power. The DPPP Working Group clarified that the recommended test procedure and reporting requirements would still be applicable to all self-priming pool filter pumps—both those served by single-phase power and those served by three-phase power. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82 Recommendations #3 at p. 2) Regardless of whether the pump is supplied by single- or three-phase power, the recommended hydraulic horsepower limitation of 2.5 rated hydraulic horsepower would still apply to such self-priming pool filter pumps.

The DPPP Working Group recommended this restriction based on low shipments volume and low potential for energy savings (due to the prevalence of motors already regulated by DOE) (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 91 at p. 171). DOE agrees with the reasoning of the DPPP Working Group and is adopting this scope restriction in this direct final rule.

Finally, consistent with the test procedure scope, standards do not apply to submersible pumps. In the test procedure final rule, DOE defined a submersible pump as a pump that is designed to be operated with the motor and bare pump fully submerged in the pumped liquid. As discussed in the test procedure final rule, DOE determined that some end suction submersible pond pumps may meet the definition of self-priming or non-self-priming pool filter pump, but were not reviewed by the DPPP Working Group and were not intended by the DPPP Working Group to be in the scope of this rulemaking. In order to exclude these pumps from this regulation, DOE excluded submersible pumps from the scope of the test procedure final rule, and is in turn excluding them from the scope of this direct final rule.

2. Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards

Consistent with the DPPP Working Group recommendations, DOE is setting prescriptive energy conservation standards for integral cartridge filter pool pumps and integral sand filter pool pumps. This equipment is specifically defined in the test procedure final rule.

DOE notes that before the formation of the DPPP Working Group, APSP responded to the May 2015 DPPP RFI and generally recommended that DOE pursue a performance-based metric versus a prescriptive regulation. (Docket. No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, APSP, No. 10 at p. 11) APSP provided no further rationale for their option. APSP's recommendation conflicts with the mix of performance-based and prescriptive standards recommended by the DPPP Working Group and enumerated in section III.A. DOE notes that five members of APSP (Waterway Plastics, Hayward Industries, Inc., Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc., Pentair Aquatic Systems, and Bestway USA, Inc.) participated in the DPPP Working Group and unanimously supported the term sheet recommendations enumerated in section III.A. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 51) Further, DOE notes that a representative of APSP was present at the final DPPP Working Group meeting, and offered no public comment in opposition to the term sheet adopted by the DPPP Working Group. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, June 23 DPPP Working Group Meeting, No. 92, at p. 3) For these reasons, DOE believes that the interests of APSP were sufficiently satisfied by the recommendations unanimously agreed upon by the DPPP Working Group.

3. Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motor

In response to the May 2015 DPPP RFI, NEMA recommended that DOE consider proposing a replacement motor standard for pool pumps, as has been done in the California Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Program. NEMA asserted that the replacement pool filter pump motor subject is one that requires nationwide uniformity of compliance and enforcement through specific language regarding replacement motors within the pool filter pump system. (Docket. No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, NEMA, No. 9 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that replacement dedicated-purpose pool pump motors may have an impact on national energy consumption. However, establishing energy conservation standards or prescriptive requirements for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors is outside of the scope of authority of this rulemaking, as replacement motors do not meet the definition of “dedicated-purpose pool pump” or “pump,” as defined in part 431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. For this reason, in this direct final rule, DOE will not establish energy conservation standards for replacement dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.

However, DOE notes that in the test procedure final rule, DOE established an

optional

test procedure for rating replacement dedicated-purpose pool pump motors. DOE believes that this optional test procedure will aid the industry in moving towards uniformity in the rating and labeling of replacement dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.

E. 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, industry experts, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).

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

final rule technical support document (TSD).

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt or amend a standard for a type or class of covered equipment, 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)) and 6316(a)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) improvements in energy efficiency for dedicated-purpose pool pumps based on the most efficient equipment available on the market for certain equipment classes, and theoretical maximum attainable efficiency for others. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.4 of this direct final rule and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

F. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (TSL), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to pool pumps purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with any new standards (2021-2050).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-standards case. The no-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for equipment would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation standards.

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

DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (NES) from potential standards for pool pumps. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

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

DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this direct final rule.

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

G. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted, 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) and 6316(a)) 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 economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (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) and 6316(a)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analyses.

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including its installation) and the operating cost (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment 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 more efficient equipment 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 in which compliance is required with standards.

For its LCC and PBP analyses, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses are discussed in further detail in section IV.F.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic

justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 6316(a)) As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet model to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment

In establishing equipment 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 equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(a)) DOE reviewed performance data and characteristics for dedicated-purpose pool pump models that are currently available on the market, including models that meet the standards adopted in this final rule and models that do not meet the standards adopted in this final rule. For these models, DOE examined characteristics such as the capacity, controls, and physical size of the pumps. DOE was unable to identify any DPPP features or associated end-user utility that would become unavailable following the adoption of the standards in this final rule. Consequently, DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this direct final rule would not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment subject to this rulemaking. DOE's assessment of available technology options (

see

section IV.A.6) discusses, in detail, the features and technologies associated with the select standard level.

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, which is likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a 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) and 6316(a)) DOE will transmit a copy of this direct final rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the rule in determining whether to proceed with the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the

Federal Register

in a separate notice.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a)) The energy savings from the adopted 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.

DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L.

g. Other Factors

In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(a)) To the extent DOE identifies 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. Significance of Savings

To adopt standards for a covered product or equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)) Although EPCA does not define the term “significant,” in

Natural Resources Defense Council

Herrington,

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

3. Rebuttable Presumption

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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended 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 EPCA. (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 results are discussed in section V.B.1.cof this direct final rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the rulemaking analyses DOE performed for this direct final rule. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings 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 of total consumer costs and savings expected to result 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:

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=67

. Additionally, DOE used output from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)'s

Annual Energy Outlook 2016

(

AEO2016),

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 dedicated-purpose pool pumps, including purpose of the equipment, industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information (

e.g.,

manufacturer specification sheets and industry publications) and data submitted by manufacturers, trade associations, and other stakeholders. The market and technology assessment for this rulemaking addresses: (1) Equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of dedicated-purpose pool pumps. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized below. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Equipment Classes and Distinguishing Features

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used, by capacity, or by 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) and 6316(a))

In the test procedure final rule, DOE defined different varieties of DPPP equipment.

pool filter pump is an end suction pump that either: (1) Includes an integrated basket strainer, or (2) does not include an integrated basket strainer, but requires a basket strainer for operation, as stated in manufacturer literature provided with the pump; and may be distributed in commerce connected to, or packaged with, a sand filter, removable cartridge filter, or other filtration accessory, as long as the bare pump and filtration accessory are connected with consumer-removable connections that allow the pump to be plumbed to bypass the filtration accessory for testing.

A self-priming pool filter pump is a pool filter pump that is certified under NSF/ANSI 50-2015 to be self-priming or is capable of re-priming to a vertical lift of at least 5 feet with a true priming time less than or equal to 10 minutes, when tested in accordance with NSF/ANSI 50-2015, “Equipment for Swimming Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs and Other Recreational Water Facilities.”

A non-self-priming pool filter pump is a pool filter pump that is not certified under NSF/ANSI 50-2015 to be self-priming and is not capable of re-priming to a vertical lift of at least 5 feet with a true priming time less than or equal to 10 minutes, when tested in accordance with NSF/ANSI 50-2015.

A pressure cleaner booster pump is an end suction, dry rotor pump designed and marketed for pressure-side pool cleaner applications, and which may be UL listed under ANSI/UL 1081-2014, “Standard for Swimming Pool Pumps, Filters, and Chlorinators.”

A waterfall pump is a pool filter pump with maximum head less than or equal to 30 feet, and a maximum speed less than or equal to 1,800 rpm.

An integral cartridge filter pool pump is a pump that requires a removable cartridge filter, installed on the suction side of the pump, for operation; and the pump cannot be plumbed to bypass the cartridge filter for testing.

An integral sand filter pool pump is a pump distributed in commerce with a sand filter that cannot be bypassed for testing.

The DPPP varieties defined above serve as the basis for the DPPP equipment classes established in this direct final rule. Further, the class of self-priming pool filter pumps is being subdivided into two classes based on pump capacity. In this direct final rule, DOE is establishing DPPP equipment classes based on the following performance-related features:

• Strainer or filtration accessory

• self-priming ability

• pump capacity (flow, head, and horsepower)

• rotational speed

Stakeholder comments regarding equipment classes, the specific separation of equipment classes based on the listed factors, and the final list of proposed equipment classes are discussed further in sections IV.A.1.a through IV.A.1.d.

a. Strainer or Filtration Accessory

Dedicated-purpose pool pumps employ several different varieties of strainer and filtration accessories, each providing a different utility to the end user. As defined in the test procedure final rule, a pool filter pump either includes a basket strainer or requires a basket strainer for operation. A basket strainer is a specific component that the test procedure final rule defines as “a perforated or otherwise porous receptacle that prevents solid debris from entering a pump, when mounted within a housing on the suction side of a pump. The basket strainer receptacle is capable of passing spherical solids of 1 mm in diameter, and can be removed by hand or with simple tools. Simple tools include but are not limited to a screwdriver, pliers, and an open-ended wrench.” The basket strainer provides a direct utility to the pool filter pump end user, as it protects the pump from debris that would otherwise enter the impeller and cause damage to the pump. However, this utility comes at the cost of pump efficiency. The basket strainer has head-loss associated with it, which means a measurable amount of hydraulic power is lost as water traverses the basket strainer and the basket strainer housing. Ultimately, this reduces efficiency for pumps that include or require a basket strainer, compared to those that do not. Based on this relationship between end-user utility and achievable efficiency, DOE concludes that the presence of or requirement for a basket strainer is an appropriate feature to differentiate and establish pool filter pump equipment classes (including standard-size and small-size self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and waterfall pumps).

Typically, if a pool utilizes a pool filter pump, the filtration of particulates less than 1mm in diameter takes place in a separate filtration device, which is either installed separately from the pump, or is attached to the pump and may be removed using simple tools. Alternatively, integral cartridge filter and integral sand filter pump varieties include a filtration accessory, designed to remove particulates less than 1mm in diameter, which is integrally and permanently mounted to the pump. These integral filter pump varieties are typically distributed in commerce with a storable pool (

e.g.,

inflatable or collapsible pools) or as a replacement pump for such a pool. These storable pools are intended for temporary or seasonal use, and their application and

usage profile are unique from other dedicated-purpose pool pump varieties. The end user is required to assemble the pump and pool at the beginning of the season and disassemble the pump and pool for storage at the end of the season. Combining the pump and filtration equipment into one integral piece of equipment enables the user to assemble, disassemble, and store the equipment more easily than if the pump and filter were separate components. Thus, the integral nature of the filtration accessory provides utility to the end user.

Similar to the basket strainer, the integral filtration accessory has head-loss associated with it, which means a measurable amount of hydraulic power is lost as water traverses the integral filtration accessory. However, due to the finer filtering capability of the integral filtration accessory (designed to remove particulates less than 1 mm in diameter), the integral filtration accessory will experience a larger head-loss than a comparably sized strainer basket. Ultimately, this translates to a reduced efficiency for integral cartridge filter and integral sand filter pool pumps, as compared to similarly sized pool filter pumps and other pumps not requiring a basket strainer. Based on this relationship between end-user utility and achievable efficiency, DOE concludes that the presence of an integral filtration accessory is an appropriate feature to differentiate and establish integral pump equipment classes (including integral cartridge filter and integral sand filter pumps).

The two specific varieties of integral filter pumps (integral cartridge and integral sand) offer different utility to end users. Sand filter pumps typically weigh more (when filled with sand media), but require less ongoing intervention and attention by the end user than cartridge filters. However, integral sand filter pool pumps typically have a greater head-loss across the filtration accessory than integral cartridge filter pool pumps. Ultimately, this translates to a reduced efficiency for integral sand filter pumps, compared to integral cartridge filter pumps. Based on this relationship between end-user utility and achievable efficiency, DOE concludes that the variety of integral filtration accessory (sand filter versus cartridge filter) is an appropriate feature to differentiate integral pumps into two equipment classes, integral cartridge and integral sand filter pumps.

b. Self-Priming Ability

All pool filter pumps on the market are either self-priming or non-self-priming. The test procedure final rule defines a self-priming pool filter pump as, “a pool filter pump that is certified under NSF/ANSI 50-2015 to be self-priming or is capable of re-priming to a vertical lift of at least 5 feet with a true priming time less than or equal to 10 minutes, when tested in accordance with NSF/ANSI 50-2015.” Self-priming pumps are able to lift liquid that originates below the centerline of the pump inlet and, after initial manual priming, are able to subsequently re-prime without the use of external vacuum sources, manual filling, or a foot valve. In contrast, non-self-priming pumps must be re-primed in order to operate after an idle period. This re-priming may be achieved by manually filling the pump with water, or re-priming may be induced by placing the pump at a lower vertical height than the surface of the water it will pump. The self-priming capability of a pool filter pump affects typical applications for which the pump is appropriate, and thus the utility to the end user. For example, typical inground pool constructions consist of a pump at ground level (above the water level), and main and skimmer drains below the water level. In this configuration, when the pump is cycled off (which will typically happen during the day), prime is lost. A self-priming pump provides the end user with the ability to restart the pump (typically using a timer) without any need for manual intervention. Alternatively, a non-self-priming pump would require the end user to manually refill the pump casing (re-prime) the pump, each time the end user wanted to restart the pump.

To achieve self-priming capability, self-priming pumps are constructed in a different manner than non-self-priming pumps. Specifically, self-priming pool filter pumps typically incorporate diffusers and reservoirs that work together to remove air from the suction side of the pump and regain the prime after an idle period. Prime is achieved by recirculating water that is trapped in the reservoir. The water in the pump mixes with air entering the pump from the suction line, and that mixture is discharged back into the reservoir, where air is released out of the pump discharge. Once all of the air is removed from the suction line, the pump is primed. However, once the self-priming pump is primed and running, the diffuser and reservoir configuration, by design, results in significant water recirculation within the bare pump, compared to a non-self-priming pump, where there is less internal recirculation. Internal water recirculation means that a portion of the hydraulic output of the pump is recirculated back to the reservoir of the pump, and is not immediately discharged out of the pump; as such, recirculation reduces the efficiency of the pump. Based on this relationship between end-user utility and achievable efficiency, DOE concludes that self-priming capability is an appropriate feature to differentiate equipment classes (self-priming versus non-self-priming pool filter pumps).

More information on the construction and capabilities of self-priming and non-self-priming pumps is available at Hayward Industries' Web page of frequently asked questions. In particular, the descriptions of inground and aboveground pump operations discuss priming. These descriptions are available at:

https://www.hayward-pool.com/shop/en/pools/faqs#q188

, and at

https://www.hayward-pool.com/shop/en/pools/faqs#q192.

c. Pump Capacity (Flow, Head, and Power)

The capacity of a dedicated-purpose pool pump can be expressed using measurements of head, flow, and hydraulic power. These three parameters define the useful output to the end user and are interrelated and bound by the Equation 2:

ER18JA17.003

Where:

hydro

= hydraulic power (hp)

= volumetric flow (gpm), and

= total dynamic head (feet of water)

The requirements of a pool (or any water system), can be expressed in terms of a system curve. When a pump is tested on a system curve (such as

curve C),

any one of these three measurements can be used to calculate the other two measurements. Equation 3 and Equation 4 illustrate this relationship.

The test procedure final rule contains a detailed discussion of the system curves used in pump testing.

ER18JA17.004

Where:

CurveC

= volumetric flow on system curve C (gpm) and

CurveC

= head on system curve C (feet of water)

ER18JA17.005

Where:

hydro,CurveC

= hydraulic power on system curve C (hp)

In this direct final rule, in agreement with DPPP Working Group recommendations, DOE is subdividing self-priming pool filter pumps into two equipment classes based on capacity, or more specifically, hydraulic horsepower at maximum speed on curve C (which is also referred to as rated hydraulic horsepower in test procedure final rule).

During meetings, some DPPP Working Group members commented that small pool filter pumps are inherently more efficient than large pool filter pumps, and the group considered introducing a breakpoint to divide the self-priming pool filter pump variety into two equipment classes based on capacity. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0101, May 19 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at pp. 78-87) Initially, several DPPP Working Group members proposed to set this breakpoint at a level such that pumps rated above 0.75 thp would fall in a larger equipment class. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0091, June 22 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at pp. 44-50) DPPP manufacturers commented that pumps rated below 1.0 thp make up a small portion of total pool filter pump shipments, and manufacturers proposed a higher breakpoint for the equipment classes, at a hydraulic horsepower corresponding to 1.25 thp. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0091, June 22 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at pp. 54) To aid discussion, DPPP manufacturers provided pool filter pump shipment data to DOE's contractor and DOE presented aggregated shipment data to the DPPP Working Group. The aggregated shipment data showed that approximately 10 percent of pool filter pump shipments are rated below 1.0 thp and approximately 5 percent of pool filter pump shipments are rated below 0.75 thp. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0092, June 23 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at pp. 233-239) Based on these shipment data, the DPPP Working Group agreed on a recommendation to set the breakpoint between small-size and standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps at 0.711 hhp, so that most of the currently available pool filter pumps rated at 1.0 thp and below would fall below the 0.711-hhp breakpoint. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0092, June 23 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at pp. 276-277; No. 82 Recommendation #1 at p. 1) Equation 4 dictates that 0.711 hhp corresponds to a flow rate of 70 gpm on curve C.

As discussed earlier in this subsection, pump capacity may also be considered in terms of pump head (or total dynamic pressure). In this direct final rule, DOE is distinguishing waterfall pump equipment from other pool filter pump varieties using head limitations. Specifically, as discussed by the DPPP Working Group, pumps used in waterfall applications do not need to produce high heads because waterfall pumps are typically not connected to pool circulation plumbing or to ancillary pool components like heaters and chlorinators (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0056, December 7 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at p. 237). Therefore, the DPPP Working Group recommended distinguishing the waterfall pump equipment class by establishing a maximum pump head of 30 feet (inclusive) for the waterfall pump equipment class. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 51 Recommendation #4 at p. 3)

Finally, in this direct final rule, DOE is distinguishing pressure cleaner booster pumps from other pumps based on their unique flow and head output. DPPP Working Group members asked whether pressure cleaner booster pumps would be covered by the energy conservation standard for general pumps. DOE clarified that the pressure cleaner booster pumps would not be covered by the general pumps standard since the general pumps standard has a lower bound of 25 gpm at the pump's best efficiency point, and the best efficiency point of pressure cleaner booster pumps is typically less than 25 gpm. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0058, October 19 Working Group Meeting, at pp. 76-81) As discussed by the DPPP Working Group, pressure cleaner booster pumps must provide a high amount of head at a low flow rate to propel pressure-side pool cleaners along the bottom of the pool and to remove debris as the cleaner moves. Specifically, pressure-side pool cleaners (and associated piping and hoses) require a pump that provides at least 60 feet of head at approximately 10 gpm of flow; noting that the actual head requirements vary with each specific system, but will not typically be lower than 60 feet of head. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, March 22 Working Group Meeting, at pp. 207-210) Figure IV.1 illustrates the performance of four

pressure cleaner booster pump models from the three largest manufacturers (representing the majority of the pressure cleaner booster pump market) and highlights the range of head and flow rates for which these pumps are currently designed.

ER18JA17.006

Although the pumps in Figure IV.1 all provide between 100 and 127 feet of head at 10 gpm, the DPPP Working Group concluded that certain systems require less head (down to 60 feet of head). DPPP Working Group members expressed a desire that the test procedure allow better ratings for variable-speed pressure cleaner pumps that are able to reduce speed and energy consumption to avoid supplying (and wasting) excess pressure beyond what is required to drive the cleaner. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0101, May 19 Working Group Meeting, at pp. 49) The DPPP Working Group recommended that, for the test procedure, pressure cleaner booster pumps be evaluated at the lowest speed that can achieve 60 feet of head at a flow rate of 10 gpm. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82 Recommendation #8 at pp. 4) Consequently, DOE has concluded that the aforementioned capacity range provides a specific utility to the consumer, or end user, and is therefore appropriate to use as the basis for distinguishing pressure cleaner booster pumps from other pump equipment classes.

d. Rotational Speed

For dedicated-purpose pool pumps, DOE has determined that rotational speed is not a sufficient differentiator to establish an equipment class without adding specific utility. However, the DPPP Working Group recommended DOE define waterfall pumps as “a pool filter pump with maximum head less than or equal to 30 feet, and a maximum speed less than or equal to 1,800 rpm” and establish an equipment class for this variety of pool filter pump (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 44, Recommendation #4 at p. 3). Waterfall pumps are used in applications with low head and high flow requirements;

i.e.,

applications that require “flat” head versus flow performance curves. This is because waterfall pumps are not typically plumbed through a filter or other auxiliary equipment, and thus do not have a large amount of head to overcome.

Pumps running at 1,800 rpm typically exhibit the fairly flat head versus flow operating curve that is usually required by waterfall applications. Figure IV.2 illustrates this property in contrast to the steeper head-versus-flow curves that are typical for self-priming pool filter pumps.

ER18JA17.007

Due to the inherent curve shape of 1,800 rpm pumps, this rotational speed limitation in conjunction with the 30-foot head limitation serves to establish a capacity differentiation. The limitations recommended by the DPPP Working Group effectively categorize a set of pumps with similar performance curves (heads, flows, and hydraulic horsepowers) into one equipment class—waterfall pumps. Figure IV.3 illustrates this phenomenon.

ER18JA17.008

e. End User Safety

Pressure cleaner booster pumps share many similar design features with end suction close-coupled pumps. However, dedicated-purpose pool pumps (including pressure cleaner booster pumps) must specifically consider the safety of the pool operator (typically a homeowner or renter) in their design (

e.g.,

reduced electrocution or injury risk). To do so, the dedicated-purpose pool pump industry relies on the safety requirements established in the voluntary standard ANSI/UL 1081-2014, “Standard for Swimming Pool Pumps, Filters, and Chlorinators.”

Based on DPPP Working Group discussion, DOE concludes that most pool filter pumps and all pressure cleaner booster pumps comply with and are currently listed to ANSI/UL 1081-2014. Conversely, general purpose end suction close-coupled pumps are typically installed in commercial and industrial applications and do not need to account for the same specific safety concerns. Differences in safety consideration result in differences in design choices that ultimately affect the performance of the pump. Consequently, DOE concludes that safety considerations are appropriate features to differentiate pressure cleaner booster pumps from end suction close-coupled pumps.

ANSI/UL 1081-2014 is available for purchase at

http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=1081_6.

f. List of Proposed Equipment Classes

Based on the performance-related features and distinguishing characteristics described from section IV.A.1.a to section IV.A.1.d, DOE is establishing the following equipment classes, listed in Table IV-1 and Table IV-2:

Table IV-1—DOE Equipment Classes for Pool Filter Pumps

Strainer or filtration accessory

Priming capability

Pump capacity

Pump power

Pump head

Rotational speed

Equipment class designation

Basket strainer

Self-priming

<2.5 hhp, >0.711 hhp

≤0.711 hhp

n/s *

n/s*

n/s *

n/s*

Self-priming pool filter pump, standard-size.

Self-priming pool filter pump, small-size.

Non-self-priming

<2.5 hhp

n/s *

Non-self-priming pool filter pump.**

n/s *

≤30 ft.

≤1800 rpm

Waterfall pump.

* n/s indicates not specified.

** DOE analyzed non-self-priming pool filter pumps as two equipment classes: Extra-small (less than 0.13 hhp) and standard-size (less than 2.5 hhp and greater than 0.13 hhp). These two equipment classes were ultimately merged into one after DOE selected the same efficiency level for both extra-small and standard-size non-self-priming pool filter pumps.

Table IV-2—DOE Equipment Classes for Other Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

Distinguishing feature(s)

Equipment class designation

Integrated cartridge filter

Integral cartridge filter pool pump.

Integrated sand filter

Integral sand filter pool pump.

• Capacity (designed and marketed for pressure-side pool cleaner applications)

• End User Safety (UL listed under ANSI/UL 1081-2014)

Pressure cleaner booster pump.

2. Manufacturers and Industry Structure

Manufacturers of dedicated-purpose pool pumps can be categorized into two distinct segments: (1) Those that primarily offer pool filter pumps greater than 0.40 hhp and varieties of auxiliary pumps such as waterfall and pressure cleaner booster pumps, (the pool filter pump industry) and (2) those that offer integral filter pumps and pool filter pumps smaller than 0.40 hhp, but not other auxiliary pumps (the integral filter pump industry). The former typically offers larger self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, waterfall pumps, and pressure cleaner booster pumps. The latter typically offers very small pool filter pumps, as well as integral cartridge and sand filter pumps that are sold as a package with a seasonal pool, or as a replacement for a pump sold with a seasonal pool. DOE is unaware of any manufacturers that participate in both segments. Consequently, the two categories are discussed separately.

In the pool filter pump industry, DOE identified 17 manufacturers. Of the 17, DOE found that three large manufacturers hold approximately 90 percent of the market in terms of equipment shipments: Hayward Industries, Inc.; Pentair Aquatic Systems; and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. These manufacturers primarily produce equipment at manufacturing facilities in the United States. The remaining 10 percent of the market is held by AquaPro Systems; Aquatech Corp.; Asia Connection LLC; Bridging China International, Ltd.; Carvin Pool Equipment, Inc.; ECO H2O Tech, Inc.; Fluidra USA, LLC; Hoffinger Industries; Raypak; Speck Pumps; SpectraLight Technologies; Waterway Plastics, Inc.; Waterco Ltd.; and Wayne Water Systems.

DOE identified four manufacturers in the integral filter pump industry: Bestway (USA), Inc.; Great American Merchandise and Events (GAME); Intex Recreation Corp.; and Polygroup. Based on public records found in Hoovers,

DOE determined that all four manufacturers are U.S.-based entities. During the DPPP Working Group meeting on April 19, 2016, DOE presented the assumption that none of the integral cartridge and integral sand filter pumps are manufactured domestically. (See EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0067, at p. 104) When this information was presented to the DPPP Working Group, there were no objections to this assumption. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0079, April 19 Working Group Meeting, at pp. 132-134) DOE therefore concludes that all manufacturers in the integral filter pump industry produce equipment abroad and import it for sale in the United States.

Hoovers Inc., Company Profiles, Various Companies (Available at

www.hoovers.com/

3. Existing Efficiency Programs

DOE reviewed several existing and proposed regulatory and voluntary energy conservation programs for pool pumps. These programs are described in the following sections.

a. U.S. State-Level Programs

The CEC first issued standards for residential pool pumps under the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 2006.

See 20CCR section 1601-1608 (2013). The CEC standards (or similar variations) were subsequently adopted by a number of other states.

The CEC's regulations cover all residential pool pump and motor combinations, replacement residential pool pump motors, and portable electric spas.

California Energy Commission. “Appliance Efficiency Regulations.” December 2006. CEC-400-2006-002-REV2. Available at

www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-400-2006-002/CEC-400-2006-002-REV2.PDF

See,

e.g.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1375 (2015); Conn.Agencies Regs. § 16a-48.4 (2015); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 533.909 (2015); and Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.260.040 (2015).

The CEC's current standard (amended in 2008) has prescriptive design requirements, rather than performance-based regulations for residential pool pump and motor combinations. See 20CCR section 1605.3(g)(5). The CEC defines “residential pool pump and motor combination” as a residential pool pump motor coupled to a residential pool pump. “Residential pool pump” is defined as an impeller attached to a motor that is used to circulate and filter pool water in order to maintain clarity and sanitation. “Residential pool pump motor” refers to a motor that is used as a replacement residential pool pump motor or as part of a residential pool pump and motor combination. (Motors used in these applications are electrically driven.) The CEC imposes a design standard that prohibits the use of split-phase start

and capacitor-start-induction-run

motor designs in residential pool pump motors manufactured on or after January 1, 2006. (

Id.

section 1605.3(g)(5)(A)) The CEC also requires that residential pool pump motors with a motor capacity

of 1 hp or greater manufactured on or after January 1, 2010, have the capability of operating at two or more speeds. The low speed must have a rotation rate that is no more than one-half of the motor's maximum rotation rate, and must be operated with an applicable multi-speed pump control. (

Id.

section 1605.3(g)(5)(B))

Defined as: A motor that employs a main winding with a starting winding to start the motor. After the motor has attained approximately 75 percent of rated speed, the starting winding is automatically disconnected by means of a centrifugal switch or by a relay. 20 CCR1602(g).

Defined as: A motor that uses a capacitor via the starting winding to start an induction motor, where the capacitor is switched out by a centrifugal switch once the motor is up to speed. 20 CCR1602(g).

Defined as a value equal to the product of motor's nameplate hp and service factor and also referred to a “total hp,” where “service factor (of an AC motor)” means a multiplier which, when applied to the rated hp, indicates a permissible hp loading which can be carried under the conditions specified for the service factor. 20 CCR 1602(g).

The CEC also prescribes design requirements for pump controls. Pump motor controls that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2008, and are sold for use with a pump that has two or more speeds are required to be capable of operating the pool pump at a minimum of two speeds. The default circulation speed setting shall be no more than one half of the motor's maximum rotation rate, and high speed overrides should be temporary and not for a period exceeding 24 hours. (

Id.

section 1605.3 (g)(5)(B))

California Energy Commission, 2014 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, available at

www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-400-2014-009/CEC-400-2014-009-CMF.pdf

In addition to these prescriptive design requirements, the CEC also requires manufacturers of residential pool pump and motor combinations and

manufacturers of replacement residential pool pump motors

to report certain data regarding the characteristics of their certified equipment. This includes information necessary to verify compliance with the requirements of Section 1605.3(g)(5), as well as the tested flow and input power of the equipment at several specific load points. Manufacturers must also submit the pool pump and motor combinations' energy factor (EF) in gallons per watt-hour (gal/Wh) when tested in accordance with the specified test procedure for residential pool pumps. See 20CCR 1604(g)(3).

Defined as a replacement motor intended to be coupled to an existing residential pool pump that is used to circulate and filter pool water in order to maintain clarity and sanitation. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1602, subd. (g).

The CEC is considering revising its pool pump regulations. A recent CEC report

proposes updated regulations for all single-phase dedicated-purpose pool pump motors under 5 total horsepower

(thp). This report recommends that pool pump motors be covered regardless of whether they are sold with a new pump, or sold as replacement for use with an existing pump wet-end. The report recommends a timer requirement for integral filter pool pumps, and a requirement for freeze protection for pool filter pumps. Additionally, the report recommends that the CEC move to performance-based standards, rather than prescriptive design standards. The prescriptive standards that exist under the 2008 rule prohibit the use of certain motor technologies, and the 2016 proposal would allow these previously-prohibited technologies as long as they meet minimum efficiency standards. Using the modified CSA C747-09 test procedure, the CEC recommends that single-speed motors less than 0.5 thp use motors that are at least 70 percent efficient. Single-speed pumps greater than or equal to 0.5 thp and less than 1 thp must use motors that are at least 75 percent efficient. Variable-, multi-, and two-speed pumps greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 5 thp must use motors with nameplate efficiency of at least 80 percent efficient at full speed and at least 65 percent efficient at half speed.

The CEC presented portions of this report that are related to dedicated-purpose pool pumps to the DPPP Working Group. Members of the DPPP Working Group asked clarifying questions to confirm that with the proposed changes (1) California's reporting requirements for pumps will not change, (2) previously disallowed motor types would be allowed, provided they meet the minimum CEC motor efficiency requirements. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0091, June 22 Working Group Meeting, at pp. 6-12) The DPPP Working Group had no further comments or objections. DOE also notes that the DPPP CEC regulations are preempted following the compliance date of this DFR.

Revised Analysis of Efficiency Standards for Pool Pumps and Motors, and Spas—Draft Staff Report, June 2016. Available at

http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/15-AAER-02/TN211842_20160616T124038_Revised_Analysis_of_Efficiency_Standards_for_Pool_Pumps_and_Mot.pdf.

Total hp is the product of motor service factor and motor nameplate (rated) hp.

Revised Analysis of Efficiency Standards for Pool Pumps and Motors, and Spas—Draft Staff Report.

http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/15-AAER-02/TN211842_20160616T124038_Revised_Analysis_of_Efficiency_Standards_for_Pool_Pumps_and_Mot.pdf.

b. Voluntary Standards

In response to the May 2015 DPPP RFI, APSP recommended that “DOE should rely on and reference, or recite the applicable language from the ANSI/APSP/ICC-15 2013 standard for residential swimming pool and spa energy efficiency.” (Docket. No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, APSP, No. 10 at p. 2) In response DOE thoroughly reviewed the 2013 version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), APSP, and the International Code Council (ICC) published standard ANSI/APSP/ICC-15a-2013, “American National Standard for Residential Swimming Pool and Spa Energy Efficiency.” Similar to the CEC's current standard (amended in 2008), ANSI/APSP/ICC-15a-2013 has prescriptive design requirements, rather than performance-based regulations for residential pool pump and motor combinations. This voluntary standard prohibits split-phase, shaded-pole, or capacitor start-induction run motors in dedicated-purpose pool pumps, with the exception of motors that are powered exclusively by onsite electricity generation from renewable energy sources. The standard also requires that pool pump motors with a capacity of 1.0 total horsepower or greater have the capability of operating at two or more speeds, with the low speed having a rotation rate that is no more than one-half of the motor's maximum rotation rate. Ultimately, for the reasons discussed throughout this document, DOE is adopting a mix of performance-based and prescriptive standards that differ from those established in ANSI/APSP/ICC-15a-2013. DOE notes that five members of APSP (Waterway Plastics, Hayward Industries, Inc., Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc., Pentair Aquatic Systems, and Bestway USA, Inc.) participated in the DPPP Working Group and unanimously supported the term sheet that serves as the basis for the standards established in this direct final rule. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 51)

4. Shipments Information

DOE gathered annual DPPP shipment data from two general sources: (1) Veris Consulting and PK Data; and (2) interviews with individual manufacturers that were conducted under non-disclosure agreements with DOE's contractors.

The Veris Consulting and PK Data information included industrywide shipment information for certain dedicated-purpose pool pump varieties. This data was previously aggregated by Veris Consulting and PK Data for use within the industry, DOE gathered and aggregated shipments information for all varieties of dedicated-purpose pool pump, specifically for this rulemaking. DOE used both sources to shape its initial shipment estimates. These shipments estimates were presented to the DPPP Working Group throughout the negotiation process and were revised based on the group's feedback.

In developing standards, DOE may choose to contract with third party organizations who specialize in various functions.

DOE's final estimates of historical shipments by equipment class are shown in Table IV-3. The estimates show that the shipments of all classes of dedicated-purpose pool pumps have increased over the past 5 years. In 2015, the shipments of self-priming pool filter pumps were nearly double the shipments of non-self-priming pool filter pumps. Waterfall pumps made up a small portion of the industry, less than 0.5 percent of total shipments in 2015. Since 2013, the integral cartridge filter and integral sand filter pump classes have totaled over one million shipments per year.

Table IV-3—Estimates of Historical Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Shipments, by Equipment Class

[Thousands]

Equipment class

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump, standard-size

543.8

561.1

578.9

597.3

616.3

Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump, small-size

70.6

72.8

75.1

77.5

80.0

Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump

329.0

339.5

350.2

361.4

372.9

Waterfall Pump

8.8

9.1

9.4

9.7

10.0

Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump

121.6

123.3

125.0

126.8

128.6

Integral Cartridge Filter Pool Pump

843.2

860.4

878.0

895.9

914.2

Integral Sand Filter Pool Pump

130.3

133.0

135.7

138.4

141.3

5. Market and Industry Trends

DOE gathered data on DPPP market and industry trends. Several of DOE's observations and conclusions are noted in the following sections.

a. Equipment Efficiency

DOE assembled a Pool Pump Performance Database that describes the capacity, speed configuration, and estimated efficiency of the majority of dedicated-purpose pool pumps that are available on the market.

Using data from the database, Table IV-4 lists the ranges of efficiency that are available for the different speed configurations of standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps. In terms of total annual energy consumption, standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps are the largest equipment class covered by this rulemaking.

See section IV.C.1.a for more information regarding the Pool Pump Performance Database.

The self-priming pool filter pump equipment class is defined in section IV.A.1 of this document.

Table IV-4—Ranges of Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Efficiency Available for Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

Speed configuration of self-priming pool filter pump, standard-size (0.711 to 2.5 hydro hp)

Efficiency range available in the pool pump performance database WEF

Single-Speed

1.81 to 3.73 kgal/kWh.

Two-speed

3.41 to 5.45 kgal/kWh.

Variable-Speed

5.81 to 10.25 kgal/kWh.

The engineering analysis, found in section IV.C of this document, provides a full discussion of DPPP efficiency data for all of the equipment classes, from the lowest performing pump available on the market to the highest performing pump that is technologically feasible.

b. Pump Sizing

Based on manufacturer interviews, DOE concluded that approximately 76 percent of the installed base of dedicated-purpose pool pumps are single-speed and two-speed pumps that use single-phase induction motors. These pumps come in a wide range of nominal horsepower ratings. Single-phase induction motor pumps are typically available in a wide variety of nominal horsepower ratings, such as 0.5 hp, 0.75 hp, 1 hp, 1.5 hp, 2 hp, 2.5 hp, and 3 hp, as well as other ratings above, below, and in between. This variety gives a pump installation contractor the ability to select a pump that is appropriately sized for the application. The contractor can make this decision based on the volume of water the pump needs to circulate (related to the pool volume) and the head that the pump needs to overcome (related to the piping and ancillary pool equipment such as heaters and chlorinators).

The remainder of the installed base of dedicated-purpose pool pumps are variable-speed pool pumps that use electronically commutating motors (ECMs) or other variable-speed motor technologies. These variable-speed pumps are typically only available in a small number of nominal horsepower ratings, such as 1.65 hp, 2.40 hp, 2.70 hp, and 3.45 hp. Due to the limited number of nominal horsepower ratings available, it is common for variable-speed dedicated-purpose pool pumps to be oversized for their application, when evaluated at maximum speed capability. A variable-speed pump can be programmed by the installer or end user to operate at an appropriate speed that is less than 100 percent.

6. Technology Options

This section describes the technology options that can be used to reduce the energy consumption of DPPP equipment. The technology options are divided into two categories: Options relevant to DPPP equipment classes that are analyzed for performance standards (

e.g.,

varieties of pool filter pumps, pressure cleaner booster pumps, and waterfall pumps) and options relevant to DPPP equipment classes that are analyzed for prescriptive standards (

e.g.,

integral cartridge filter pool pumps and integral sand filter pool pumps).

In the May 2015 RFI, DOE requested comments on technology options that could be considered to improve the energy efficiency of dedicated-purpose pool pumps. 80 FR 26483 (May 8, 2015). APSP commented that APSP-15 and California Title 20 capture many of the technology options that are available to the industry. APSP asked DOE to reference these programs. (APSP, No. 10 at p. 13) The following technologies are described in the APSP and California standards:

• APSP-15 and California Title 20 identify motor performance as a technology option to reduce energy consumption, and both standards prohibit the sale of pool pumps that incorporate particular motor constructions. See ANSI/APSP/ICC-15a-2013, section 4.1.1.1; and 20CCR section 1605.3 (g)(5)(A).

• APSP-15 and California Title 20 identify two-speed, multi-speed, and variable-speed pumps as a technology to reduce energy consumption. See ANSI/

APSP/ICC-15a-2013, section 4.1.1.2; and 20CCR section 1605.3 (g)(5)(B).

• APSP-15 requires a time switch or similar control mechanism to control the pool pump's operation schedule. See ANSI/APSP/ICC-15a-2013, section 5.3.3.

Based on the DPPP Working Group's review of the APSP and California standards and independent research, DOE identified three technology options that can be used to reduce the energy consumption of the DPPP equipment classes for which performance standards were being analyzed (

i.e.,

self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, pressure cleaner booster pumps, and waterfall pumps). Specifically, those performance standard technology options are:

• Improved motor efficiency;

• ability to operate at reduced speeds; and

• improved hydraulic design.

DOE identified one technology option, a pool pump timer, which could be used to reduce the energy consumption of the DPPP equipment classes for which prescriptive standards were being analyzed (

i.e.,

integral cartridge filter pool pumps and integral sand filter pool pumps).

The DPPP Working Group reviewed both sets of technology options (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0053, November 12 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at pp. 51-78; Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0094, March 21 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at pp. 37-38) and offered no objections to DOE's approach. The DPPP Working Group ultimately evaluated standards based on efficiency levels determined by these options.

Each technology option is addressed separately in the sections that follow.

a. Improved Motor Efficiency

Different varieties (or constructions) of motors have different achievable efficiencies. Two general motor constructions are present in dedicated-purpose pool pump market: Single-phase induction motors and electronically commutated motors (ECMs).

Single-phase induction motors may be further differentiated and include split phase, capacitor-start induction-run (CSIR), capacitor-start capacitor-run (CSCR), and permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors.

Three-phase induction motors also are found on certain self-priming pool filter pumps; however this motor construction is specifically excluded from the scope of this rulemaking for self-priming pool filter pumps (as described in section III.C).

The majority of pool filter pumps available on the market come equipped with single-phase induction motors. According to manufacturer interviews, very few pool filter pumps on the market use split phase or CSIR motors. This is partly due to the regulatory prohibition of these motor constructions in California and other states. Most pool filter pumps on the market use CSCR or PSC motors; both have similar attainable efficiencies, although CSCR motors are typically able to provide greater starting torque.

ECMs are typically used in variable-speed pool filter pump applications. However, induction motors, coupled to a proper variable speed drive, can also be used in variable-speed pool filter pump applications. ECMs are inherently more efficient than single-phase induction motors because their construction minimizes slip losses between the rotor and stator components. Unlike single-phase induction motors, ECMs require an electronic drive to function. This electronic drive consumes electricity, and variations in drive losses and mechanical designs lead to a range of ECM efficiencies.

As part of the engineering analysis (section IV.C), DOE assessed the range of attainable motor efficiency for certain representative motor capacities and constructions. As motor capacity increases, the attainable efficiency of the motor at full load also increases. Higher horsepower motors also operate close to their peak efficiency for a wider range of loading conditions.

Table IV-5 presents these ranges, based on nameplate (or nominal) motor efficiencies listed in the Pool Pump Performance Database. Motor efficiency data submitted by pump and motor manufacturers to DOE confirms the ranges reported in this table.

U.S. DOE Building Technologies Office.

Energy Savings Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in Residential and Commercial Equipment.

December 2013. Prepared for the DOE by Navigant Consulting. pp. 4. Available at

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf

Table IV-5—Ranges of Nameplate Motor Efficiencies Reported for Three Capacities of Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

Motor total horsepower

(thp) *

Hydraulic horsepower

on curve C of a typical

dedicated-purpose pool

pump with this motor

Range of full speed motor nameplate

efficiencies reported in the pool pump performance database, by motor construction *

(%) *

CSCR †

PSC †

ECM †

0.75

0.44

64-79

51-75

1.35

0.95

65-81

61-78

78-86

3.45

1.88

75-81

74-82

77-92

* The three pump capacities described in this table align with the representative unit capacities that are defined in section IV.C.2 and used throughout the engineering analysis in section IV.C.

** Neither split phase nor CSIR motors are listed in this table because no self-priming pool filter pumps in the Pool Pump Performance Database utilize these motor types.

† Members of the DPPP Working Group stated that there may be small errors in the motor nameplate efficiency data reported for pumps in the CEC database that DOE incorporated into the Pool Pump Performance Database. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0056, December 7 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at pp. 38-40).

DPPP manufacturers do not typically manufacture motors inhouse. Instead, they purchase complete or partial motors from motor manufacturers and/or distributors. As such, improving the nameplate motor efficiency of the pump is typically achieved by swapping a less efficient purchased motor component for a more efficient one.

b. Ability To Operate at Reduced Speeds

Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

Self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps at or above 49.4 gpm

max flow on curve C can achieve a higher (more favorable) WEF value if they have the ability to operate at reduced speeds. As discussed previously in section III.C, the WEF metric is a weighted average of energy factors, measured at one or more test points. The DPPP test procedure allows WEF values for two-, multi-, and variable-speed pumps to be calculated as the weighted average of performance at both high and reduced speeds, while WEF for single-speed pumps is calculated based only on performance at high speed. Due to pump affinity laws, most pumps will achieve higher energy factors at lower rotational speeds, compared to higher rotational speeds. As such, the WEF efficiency metric confers benefits on pool filter pumps that are able to operate at reduced rotational speeds.

Specifically, pump affinity laws describe the relationship of pump operating speed, flow rate, head, and hydraulic power. According to the affinity laws, speed is proportional to flow such that a relative change in speed will result in a commensurate change in flow, as described in Equation 5. The affinity laws also establish that pump total head is proportional to speed squared, as described in Equation 6, and pump hydraulic power is proportional to speed cubed, as described in Equation 7.

ER18JA17.009

ER18JA17.010

ER18JA17.011

Where:

and

= volumetric flow rate at two operating points

and

= pump total head at two operating points

and

= pump rotational speed at two operating points

and

= pump hydraulic power at two operating points

This means that a pump operating at half speed will provide one half of the pump's full-speed flow and one eighth of the pump's full-speed power.

However, pump affinity laws do not account for changes in hydraulic and motor efficiency that may occur as a pump's rotational speed is reduced. Typically, hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency will be reduced at lower operating speeds. Consequently, at reduced speeds, power consumption is not reduced as drastically as hydraulic output power. Even so, the efficiency losses at low-speed operation are typically outweighed by the exponential reduction in hydraulic output power at low-speed operation; this results in a higher (more beneficial) energy factor at low speed operation.

A discussion of reduced-speed pump dynamics is available at

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0099

Self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps with a two-speed motor configuration that produce less than 49.4 gpm maximum flow on curve C cannot achieve higher WEF score through reduced speed operation. This is because the test procedure final rule specifies two load points for two-speed self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps—one at 100 percent of maximum speed and one 50 percent of maximum speed. Further, the test procedure final rule specifies that the lower of the two load points cannot be below 24.7 gpm, and that the pump will be tested at the “lowest speed capable of meeting the specified flow and head values.” Consequently, a two-speed pump that delivers less than 49.4 gpm of flow at maximum speed on curve C would deliver less than 24.7 gpm of flow at half of the maximum, which mean the half-speed setting would not be considered in the calculation of the pump's WEF.

Such a two-speed pump would effectively be tested as a single-speed pump.

The DOE DPPP test procedure final rule specifies that flow be measured to the nearest tenth of a gpm.

Self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps with a variable- or multi-speed motor configuration that produce less than 49.4 gpm max flow on curve C could conceivably achieve a higher WEF score through reduced speed operation. However, DOE did not apply the “ability to operate at reduced speeds” technology option to pumps that provide less than 49.4 gpm at maximum speed on curve C. A flow of 49.4 gpm at maximum speed on curve C is equivalent to a hydraulic power of 0.25 hhp; such a pump would typically require a motor shaft power of approximately 0.60 horsepower. Comparatively, the smallest currently available variable-speed pool pump motor is 1.65 thp. Due to the mismatch in physical size and performance of such a wet end and motor combination, DOE concludes that it is not technologically feasible to pair a 1.65-thp motor with a pump wet end that provides only 49.4 gpm at maximum speed on curve C. For this reason, DOE's analysis assumes that that the design option described as “ability to operate at reduced speeds” does not apply to self-

priming or non-self-priming pool filter pumps that are below 49.4 gpm at maximum speed on curve C.

Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps

In the field, pressure cleaner booster pumps are only operated at one speed and therefore the test procedure final rule specifies only one load point for testing pressure cleaner booster pumps. However, the test procedure final rule specifies that pressure cleaner booster pumps are tested at the lowest speed that can achieve 60 feet of head at the 10 gpm test condition. Consequently, a pressure cleaner booster pump can see benefits from the ability to operate at reduced speeds as the pump may vary its speed to achieve this load point.

For instance, a pressure cleaner booster pump equipped with a variable-speed motor may produce more than 60 feet of head when operated at maximum speed at the 10 gpm test point. Such a pump could be tested at a reduced speed that produces exactly 60 feet of head at 10 gpm, while consuming less power than it would at maximum speed. In this case, testing at a reduced speed would result in a higher (more beneficial) WEF value.

The DPPP Working Group requested that DOE examine variable-speed pumps as a design option for pressure cleaner booster pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0095, March 22 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at pp. 197-203)

Waterfall Pumps

The test procedure final rule specifies that waterfall pumps are only tested at 100 percent speed. Consequently, waterfall pumps cannot achieve a higher (more beneficial) WEF value if they have the ability to operate at reduced speeds. Consequently, DOE did not consider the “ability to operate at reduced speeds” as a technology option for the waterfall pump equipment class.

c. Improved Hydraulic Design

The performance characteristics of a pump, such as flow, head, and efficiency, are a direct result of the pump's hydraulic design. For purposes of the DOE analysis, “hydraulic design” is a broad term DOE used to describe the system design of the wetted components of a pump. Although hydraulic design focuses on the specific hydraulic characteristics of the impeller and the volute/casing, it also includes design choices related to bearings, seals, and other ancillary components.

Impeller and volute/casing geometries, clearances, and associated components can be redesigned to a higher efficiency (at the same flow and head) using a combination of historical best practices and modern computer-aided design (CAD) and analysis methods. The wide availability of modern CAD packages and techniques now enables pump designers to more quickly reach designs with improved vane shapes, flow paths, and cutwater designs, all of which work to improve the efficiency of the pump as a whole.

Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

For self-priming pool filter pumps, DOE used empirical data from the Pool Pump Performance Database to estimate the potential efficiency gains available from improved hydraulic design. DOE used hydraulic power, line input power, and nameplate motor efficiency to estimate the hydraulic efficiency of these pumps and to observe the range of hydraulic efficiencies available for self-priming pool filter pumps at pump capacities less than 2.5 hhp. For any given capacity less than 2.5 hhp, DOE found that the best hydraulic efficiency of self-priming pool filter pumps at maximum speed on curve C could be 116.2 percent of the baseline hydraulic efficiency. Chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD contains more details regarding the hydraulic improvements estimated for self-priming pool filter pumps.

Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps

For non-self-priming pool filter pumps, DOE attempted to follow a similar methodology to self-priming pumps. While DOE's Pool Pump Performance Database contains few records of non-self-priming pool filter pumps, these records were sufficient to establish a baseline hydraulic efficiency, which DOE identified as 51.5 percent. In the May 2015 DPPP RFI, DOE requested information regarding the magnitude of efficiency improvements available from any potential technology options. 80 FR 26483 (May 8, 2015). DOE did not receive public comment regarding the range of hydraulic efficiency improvements that are available to pool filter pumps. With limited data, DOE was not able to use this database to empirically identify the maximum hydraulic efficiency that is technologically feasible, nor estimate the range of hydraulic efficiency improvements that are available to non-self-priming pool filter pumps.

Instead, DOE referred to empirical data gathered during the 2016 general pumps

rulemaking. During the general pumps rulemaking, DOE estimated the maximum technologically feasible hydraulic efficiency for end suction, close-coupled pumps as a function of flow and specific speed.

For this dedicated-purpose pool pumps direct final rule, DOE evaluated a 0.52-hhp, end suction, close-coupled pump that is optimized for curve-C flow and head using equations from the general pumps rulemaking analysis, and found that such a pump can achieve a hydraulic efficiency of up to 69.7 percent.

This pump has a configuration that is nearly identical to a non-self-priming pool filter pump, with the exception that non-self-priming pool filter pumps are defined by the presence (or requirement of) a basket strainer. As discussed in section IV.A, the addition of a basket strainer and strainer housing reduce a pump's hydraulic efficiency by a measurable amount. Based on discussions with pump industry professionals, the impact may be in the range of 1 to 3 points of hydraulic efficiency. Consequently, DOE conservatively established a maximum hydraulic efficiency of 67 percent for non-self-priming pool filter pumps. This represents an improvement of 30 percent over the baseline hydraulic efficiency. At the April 18, 2016, Working Group meeting, DOE presented the DPPP Working Group with values for motor efficiency and wire-to-water efficiency of representative units at each efficiency level. This data enables the calculation of hydraulic efficiency, since wire-to-water efficiency equals the product of motor efficiency multiplied by hydraulic efficiency. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0078, April 18, 2016 DPPP Working Group Meeting, at p. 20-30) At subsequent meetings, DOE presented max tech wire-to-water efficiency results, based on the aforementioned 67 percent hydraulic efficiency. DPPP Working Group members offered no objections to DOE's hydraulic efficiency assumptions. The DPPP Working Group ultimately evaluated standards based on efficiency levels determine

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.