# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2019-26356 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** January 10, 2020 - **Citation:** 85 FR 1592 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0030] RIN 1904-AD01 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer equipment and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial packaged boilers (CPBs). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to periodically review standards. In this final rule, DOE is adopting more-stringent energy conservation standards for certain commercial packaged boilers. DATES: The effective date of this rule is March 10, 2020. Compliance with the amended standards established for commercial packaged boilers in this final rule is required on and after January 10, 2023. ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public, 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. The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0030. The docket web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Synopsis of the 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 1. Current Standards 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Packaged Boilers III. General Discussion A. Compliance Dates B. Test Procedure 1. Summary of Recent Updates 2. Timing of the Test Procedure and Energy Conservation Standards Rulemakings 3. Impact on Efficiency Ratings C. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings E. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price c. Energy Savings d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition f. Need for National Energy Conservation g. Other Factors 2. Rebuttable Presumption F. General Comments 1. Proposed Standard Levels a. Comments on Proposed TSL 2 b. Comments on TSL 3 c. Other Comments 2. Statutory Requirements IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. General 2. Scope of Coverage 3. Equipment Classes 4. Market Assessment 5. Technology Options B. Screening Analysis C. Engineering Analysis 1. Methodology a. Analysis of Large CPB Equipment Classes 2. Data Collection and Categorization 3. Baseline Efficiency 4. Intermediate and Max-Tech Efficiency Levels 5. Incremental Price and Price-Efficiency Curves D. Markups Analysis E. Energy Use Analysis 1. Energy Use Characterization 2. Building Sample Selection and Sizing Methodology 3. Miscellaneous Energy Use F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Equipment Costs 2. Installation Costs a. Base Boiler Installation b. Venting c. Other 3. Annual Per-Unit Energy Consumption 4. Energy Prices and Energy Price Trends 5. Maintenance Costs 6. Repair Costs 7. Lifetime 8. Discount Rates 9. Market Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case 10. Payback Period Inputs 11. General Comments G. Shipments Analysis H. National Impact Analysis 1. Equipment Efficiency in the No-New-Standards Case and Standards Cases 2. National Energy Savings 3. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit a. Total Annual Cost b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings c. Discount Rate I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios 3. Discussion of Comments a. Elimination of Natural Draft Equipment b. Impacts on Direct Employment c. Conversion Costs d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden K. Emissions Analysis L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts 1. Social Cost of Carbon a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values c. Current Approaches and Key Assumptions 2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants M. Utility Impact Analysis N. Employment Impact Analysis V. Analytical Results and Conclusions A. Trial Standard Levels B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers 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 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 Trial Standard Levels Considered for Commercial Packaged Boiler Standards 2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Adopted Standards VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Need for, Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Rule 2. Significant Issues Raised In Response to the IRFA 3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements, Including Differences in Cost, If Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities 5. Significant Alternatives to the Rule C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review M. Congressional Notification VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Synopsis of the Final Rule Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq; “EPCA”), Public Law 94-163, sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment,” which includes commercial packaged boilers (CPBs), the subject of this rulemaking. 1 (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J)) EPCA requires DOE to conduct an evaluation of its standards for CPB equipment every 6 years and to publish either a notice of determination that such standards do not need to be amended or a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) including new proposed standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) This final rule satisfies DOE's statutory obligation under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C). In accordance with these and other statutory requirements discussed in this document, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for commercial packaged boilers. DOE has examined the existing CPB standards and concludes that modifying and expanding the existing 10 CPB equipment classes to 12 equipment classes is warranted. As discussed in detail in section IV.A.3 of this document, DOE opted to: (1) Discontinue the use of draft type as a criterion for equipment classes; and (2) establish separate equipment classes for “very large” commercial packaged boilers. Eliminating the use of draft type as a distinguishing feature for equipment classes consolidated the 4 existing draft-specific equipment classes into 2 non-draft-specific equipment classes, while adding very large commercial packaged boilers as separate equipment classes resulted in an additional 4 equipment classes. As a result, the total number of equipment classes has increased from 10 to 12. DOE is adopting more stringent standards for 8 of the 12 equipment classes in this final rule, which includes all classes except for the newly adopted very large CPB classes. The amended standards, which prescribe minimum thermal efficiencies (E T ) or combustion efficiencies (E C ), as applicable, are shown in Table I.1. These amended standards apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on and after the compliance dates in Table I.1. Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers Equipment Size category (input) Energy conservation standard * Compliance date † Small Gas-Fired Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 84.0% E T January 10, 2023. Large Gas-Fired Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers >2,500,000 Btu/h and ≤10,000,000 Btu/h 85.0% E C January 10, 2023. Very Large Gas-Fired Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers >10,000,000 Btu/h 82.0% E C March 2, 2012. Small Oil-Fired Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 87.0% E T January 10, 2023. Large Oil-Fired Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers >2,500,000 Btu/h and ≤10,000,000 Btu/h 88.0% E C January 10, 2023. Very Large Oil-Fired Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers >10,000,000 Btu/h 84.0% E C March 2, 2012. Small Gas-Fired Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 81.0% E T January 10, 2023. Large Gas-Fired Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers >2,500,000 Btu/h and ≤10,000,000 Btu/h 82.0% E T January 10, 2023. Very Large Gas-Fired Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers ** >10,000,000 Btu/h 79.0% E T March 2, 2012. Small Oil-Fired Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 84.0% E T January 10, 2023. Large Oil-Fired Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers >2,500,000 Btu/h and ≤10,000,000 Btu/h 85.0% E T January 10, 2023. Very Large Oil-Fired Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers >10,000,000 Btu/h 81.0% E T March 2, 2012. * E T means “thermal efficiency.” E C means “combustion efficiency.” ** Prior to March 2, 2022, for natural draft very large gas-fired steam commercial packaged boilers, a minimum thermal efficiency level of 77% is permitted and meets Federal commercial packaged boiler energy conservation standards. † For very large CPB equipment classes DOE is not amending the existing standards, which had a compliance date of March 2, 2012, as shown. A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted energy conservation standards on consumers of commercial packaged boilers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP). 2 The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of the equipment, which is estimated to be 24.8 years for all equipment classes evaluated in this final rule. 1 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 (April 30, 2015). 2 The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution, which depicts the CPB market in the compliance year in the absence of amended standard levels (see section IV.F.9 of this document and chapter 8 of the final rule technical support document (TSD)). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels for commercial packaged boilers, is measured relative to the baseline CPB equipment (see section IV.F.10 of this document and chapter 8 of the TSD). Table I.2—Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Commercial Packaged Boilers Equipment class Average LCC savings (2015$) Simple payback period (years) Small Gas-Fired Hot Water $212 10.1 Large Gas-Fired Hot Water 2,037 7.0 Small Oil-Fired Hot Water 14,421 4.1 Large Oil-Fired Hot Water 31,379 4.8 Small Gas-Fired Steam 1,002 10.1 Large Gas-fired Steam 11,188 4.2 Small Oil-fired Steam 5,839 4.0 Large Oil-Fired Steam 36,832 2.7 DOE's analysis of the impacts of the amended standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document and in chapter 8 of the final rule technical support document (TSD). 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 to 2049). Using a real discount rate of 9.5 percent, 3 DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of commercial packaged boilers in the case without amended standards is $277.6 million in 2015$. Under amended standards, DOE expects the change in INPV to range from approximately −6.7 to −3.7 percent, which corresponds to approximately −$18.5 to −$10.3 million (in 2015$). In order to bring equipment into compliance with amended standards, DOE expects the industry to incur $21.2 million in conversion costs. 3 DOE estimated draft financial metrics, including the industry discount rate, based on data from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. DOE presented the draft financial metrics to manufacturers in MIA interviews and adjusted those values based on feedback from industry. The complete set of financial metrics and more detail about the methodology can be found in section 12.4.3 of chapter 12 of the TSD. DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J and section V.B.2 of this document. C. National Benefits and Costs 4 4 All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2015 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2016. DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted standards would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime energy savings for commercial packaged boilers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with amended standards (2020-2049), relative to the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”), amount to 0.27 quadrillion Btu (quad). 5 This represents a savings of 0.6 percent relative to the energy use of this equipment in the no-new-standards case. 6 5 A quad is equal to 10 15 British thermal units (Btu). The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. FFC energy savings include the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2 of this document. 6 The no-new-standards case assumptions are described in section IV.F.9 of this document. The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits of the amended standards for commercial packaged boilers ranges from $0.558 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $1.977 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and installation costs for commercial packaged boilers purchased in 2020-2049. In addition, the adopted CPB standards are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. The energy savings described in this section are estimated to result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 16 million metric tons (Mt) 7 of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), 139 thousand tons of methane (CH 4 ), 3.1 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), 41 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X ), 0.1 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and 0.0003 tons of mercury (Hg). 8 The estimated cumulative reduction in CO 2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 1.58 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of 0.233 million homes. 7 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO 2 are presented in short tons (ton). 8 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2016 ( AEO2016 ). AEO2016 represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the end of February 2016. The value of the CO 2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton (t) of CO 2 (otherwise known as the “social cost of CO 2 ,” or SCC) developed by a Federal interagency working group. 9 The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.L.1 of this document. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values (see Table I.3), DOE estimates the present value of the CO 2 emissions reduction is between $0.1 billion and $1.5 billion, with a value of $0.48 billion using the central SCC case represented by $40.6 per metric ton in 2015. 10 DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NO X emissions reduction is $0.35 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.99 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. 11 DOE is investigating appropriate valuation of the reduction in other emissions and did not include any such values in this rulemaking. More detailed results can be found in chapter 14 of the final rule TSD. 9 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. (Revised July 2015). https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf. 10 The values only include CO 2 emissions; CO 2 equivalent emissions from other greenhouse gases are not included. 11 DOE estimated the monetized value of NO X 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.2 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. v. EPA, et al., Order in Pending Case, 577 U.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. To be conservative, DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO X 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.3 summarizes the national economic benefits and costs expected to result from the adopted standards for commercial packaged boilers. Table I.3—Selected Categories of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers [TSL 2 *] Category Present value (million 2015$) Discount rate (%) Benefits Operating Cost Savings 907 7 2,585 3 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (using mean SCC at 5% discount rate) ** 100 5 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (using mean SCC at 3% discount rate) ** 482 3 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (using mean SCC at 2.5% discount rate) ** 777 2.5 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (using 95th percentile SCC at 3% discount rate) ** 1,468 3 NO X Reduction † 35 7 99 3 Total Benefits ‡ 1,425 7 3,166 3 Costs Incremental Installed Costs 350 7 609 3 Total Net Benefits Including CO 2 and NO X Reduction Monetized Value ‡ 1,075 7 2,558 3 * This table presents the costs and benefits associated with commercial packaged boilers shipped in 2020-2049. These results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2049 from the equipment purchased in 2020-2049. The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as installation costs. The CO 2 reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. ** The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent. For example, for 2015 emissions, these values are $12.4/t, $40.6/t, and $63.2/t, in 2015$, respectively. The fourth set ($118/t in 2015$ for 2015 emissions), which represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The SCC values are emission year specific. See section IV.L.1 for more details. † DOE estimated the monetized value of NO X 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.2 for further discussion. To be conservative, DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO X 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 SCC with 3-percent discount rate. The benefits and costs of the adopted energy conservation standards, for covered commercial packaged boilers sold in 2020-2049, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of the equipment that meets the amended standards (consisting primarily of reduced operating costs minus increases in equipment purchase price and installation costs) and (2) the annualized value of the benefits of CO 2 and NO X emission reductions. 12 12 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 2 reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I.4. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period starting in the compliance year that yields the same present value. The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered equipment. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of commercial packaged boilers shipped in 2020-2049. The CO 2 reduction is a benefit that accrues globally due to decreased domestic energy consumption that is expected to result from this rule. Because CO 2 emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere, 13 the SCC values in future years reflect future CO 2 -emissions impacts that continue beyond 2100 through 2300. 13 The atmospheric lifetime of CO 2 is estimated to be on the order of 30-95 years. Jacobson, MZ, “Correction to `Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming,' ” J. Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105 (2005). Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the amended standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO 2 reductions (for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series corresponding to a value of $40.6/t in 2015 (2015$)), 14 the estimated cost of the adopted standards for CPB equipment is $35 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated benefits are $90 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $27 million per year in CO 2 reductions, and $3.5 million per year in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $85 million per year. 14 DOE used a 3-percent discount rate because the SCC values for the series used in the calculation were derived using a 3-percent discount rate (see section IV.L). Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series corresponding to a value of $40.6/t in 2015 (in 2015$), the estimated cost of the adopted standards for commercial packaged boilers is $34 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $144 million in reduced operating costs, $27 million in CO 2 reductions, and $5.5 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $143 million per year. Table I.4—Selected Categories of Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits estimate * High net benefits estimate * (million 2015$/year) Benefits Consumer Operating Cost Savings * 7% 90 80 98. 3% 144 128 160. CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (using mean SCC at 5% discount rate) * ** 5% 8 7 8. CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (using mean SCC at 3% discount rate) * ** 3% 27 24 29. CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (using mean SCC at 2.5% discount rate) * ** 2.5% 40 36 43. CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (using 95th percentile SCC at 3% discount rate) * ** 3% 82 74 89. NO X Reduction † 7% 3 3 9. 3% 5 5 12. Total Benefits ‡ 7% plus CO 2 range 101 to 175 90 to 158 115 to 196. 7% 120 108 136. 3% plus CO 2 range 157 to 231 140 to 208 180 to 261. 3% 177 158 201. Costs Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs 7% 35 31 37. 3% 34 31 37. Net Benefits Total ‡ 7% plus CO 2 range 66 to 140 59 to 127 78 to 158. 7% 85 77 99. 3% plus CO 2 range 123 to 198 109 to 177 144 to 224. 3% 143 127 165. * This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with commercial packaged boilers shipped in 2020-2049. These results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2049 from the equipment purchased in 2020-2049. The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as installation costs. The CO 2 reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of building stock and energy prices from the AEO2016 No-CPP case, a Low Economic Growth case, and a High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, DOE used a constant equipment price assumption as the default price projection; the cost to manufacture a given unit of higher efficiency neither increases nor decreases over time. Compared to a case where a reduction in equipment price over time is applied ( e.g., due to an observed price learning), a constant price assumption results in a more conservative estimate of economic benefits. The equipment price projection is described in section IV.F.1 of this document and chapter 8 of the final rule technical support document (TSD). In addition, DOE used estimates for equipment efficiency distribution in its analysis based on national data supplied by industry. Purchases of higher efficiency equipment are a result of many different factors unique to each consumer including boiler heating loads, installation costs, site environmental consideration, and others. For each consumer, all other factors being the same, it would be anticipated that higher efficiency purchases in the baseline would 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. ** The CO 2 reduction benefits are calculated using 4 different sets of SCC values. The first three use the average SCC calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The fourth represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The SCC values are emission year specific. See section IV.L.1 for more details. † DOE estimated the monetized value of NO X 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.2 for further discussion. For the Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used national benefit-per-ton estimates for NO X 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 SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus CO 2 range” and “3% plus CO 2 range,” the operating cost and NO X benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO 2 values. 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 analysis culminating in this final rule, DOE finds the benefits of the amended standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers). DOE also concludes that the amended standards represent significant additional energy conservation and are technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE further notes that equipment achieving these standard levels is already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by this final rule. 15 15 See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for information about the efficiency ratings of equipment currently available on the market. II. Introduction The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for commercial packaged boilers. A. Authority The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1), “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,” sets industry energy efficiency levels for small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged terminal heat pumps, warm air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks (collectively “ASHRAE equipment”). For each type of listed equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1, DOE must adopt amended standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless DOE determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a more stringent level would produce significant additional conservation of energy and would be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii) Under EPCA, DOE must also review energy efficiency standards for commercial packaged boilers every six years and either: (1) Issue a notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended as adoption of a more stringent level is not supported by clear and convincing evidence; or (2) issue a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed standards based on certain criteria and procedures in subparagraph (B). 16 (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) 16 In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that: (1) In making a determination of economic justification, DOE must consider, to the maximum extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an amended standard based on the seven criteria described in EPCA; (2) DOE may not prescribe any standard that increases the energy use or decreases the energy efficiency of a covered product; and (3) DOE may not prescribe any standard that interested persons have established by a preponderance of evidence is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any 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. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)-(iii)) In deciding whether a more-stringent standard is economically justified, under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) or (C), 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 maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors: (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of products subject to the standard; (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard; (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the standard; (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered product likely to result from the standard; (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard; (6) The need for national energy conservation; and (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant. 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII)) Because ASHRAE did not update its efficiency levels for commercial packaged boilers in any of its most recent updates to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ( i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016), DOE is analyzing amended standards consistent with the procedures defined under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C). EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents DOE 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. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)) Furthermore, DOE 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 of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)) Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product that complies with the standard will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) However, while this rebuttable presumption analysis applies to most commercial and industrial equipment (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), it is not a required analysis for ASHRAE equipment, including commercial packaged boilers (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1)). Nonetheless, DOE considered the criteria for rebuttable presumption as part of its economic justification analysis. After carefully reviewing all CPB equipment classes, DOE has concluded that amended energy conservation standards for 8 of the 12 CPB equipment classes adopted in this final rule ( i.e., all commercial packaged boilers with rated inputs ≤10,000 kBtu/h) will result in significant additional conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified, as mandated by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). For the remaining 4 equipment classes, ( i.e., all commercial packaged boilers with rated inputs >10,000 kBtu/h), DOE tentatively decided in the March 2016 NOPR not to amend energy conservation standards because of a lack of sufficient data to justify amended standards. 81 FR 15836, 15851-15853 (March 24, 2016). DOE did not receive any additional information or data that would support the rulemaking analysis for such commercial packaged boilers. Therefore, DOE maintains the existing standards because there is not sufficient data to support, by clear and convincing evidence, more stringent standards for commercial packaged boilers with rated inputs >10,000 kBtu/h. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I) For more discussion on commercial packaged boilers with rated input greater than 10,000 kBtu/h, see section IV.A.3 of this final rule. B. Background 1. Current Standards Prior to this final rule, DOE last amended its energy conservation standards for commercial packaged boilers through a final rule published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2009 (July 2009 final rule). 74 FR 36312. More specifically, the July 2009 final rule updated the energy conservation standards for commercial packaged boilers to correspond to the levels in the 2007 revision of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ( i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007). The July 2009 final rule established thermal efficiency as the energy efficiency metric for all equipment classes other than commercial packaged boilers with fuel rated input greater than 2,500,000 Btu/h and that are designed to deliver hot water. For such equipment classes ( i.e., gas-fired and oil-fired hot water commercial packaged boilers with rated input greater than 2,500,000 Btu/h), DOE established combustion efficiency as the energy efficiency metric. Compliance with the standards adopted in the July 2009 final rule was required beginning on March 2, 2012. These levels are shown in Table II.1. Also in the July 2009 final rule, DOE again followed ASHRAE's approach in Standard 90.1-2007 and adopted a second tier of energy conservation standards for two classes of commercial packaged boilers, which are shown in Table II.2. Compliance with the latter standards is required beginning on March 2, 2022. Table II.1—Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers Manufactured on or After March 2, 2012 Equipment type Subcategory Size category (input) Efficiency level— effective date: March 2, 2012 * Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers Gas-fired ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 80.0% E T . Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers Gas-fired >2,500,000 Btu/h 82.0% E C . Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers Oil-fired ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 82.0% E T . Hot Water Commercial Packaged Boilers Oil-fired >2,500,000 Btu/h 84.0% E C . Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers Gas-fired—All, Except Natural Draft ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 79.0% E T . Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers Gas-fired—All, Except Natural Draft >2,500,000 Btu/h 79.0% E T . Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers Gas-fired—Natural Draft ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 77.0% E T . Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers Gas-fired—Natural Draft >2,500,000 Btu/h 77.0% E T . Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers Oil-fired ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 81.0% E T . Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers Oil-fired >2,500,000 Btu/h 81.0% E T . * E T means “thermal efficiency.” E C means “combustion efficiency.” Table II.2—Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers Manufactured on or After March 2, 2022 Equipment type Subcategory Size category (input) Efficiency level— effective date: March 2, 2022 Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers Gas-fired—Natural Draft ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h 79.0% E T . Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers Gas-fired—Natural Draft >2,500,000 Btu/h 79.0% E T . 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Packaged Boilers DOE is conducting this rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), which requires that every 6 years, DOE must publish either: (1) A notice of the determination that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or (2) a NOPR including proposed energy conservation standards. As noted above, DOE's last final rule for commercial packaged boilers was published on July 22, 2009. DOE is issuing this final rule pursuant to its statutory obligation under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C). In initiating this rulemaking, DOE prepared a Framework document, “Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Commercial Packaged Boilers,” which describes the procedural and analytical approaches DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for commercial packaged boilers. DOE published a notice that announced both the availability of the Framework document and a public meeting to discuss the proposed analytical framework for the rulemaking. That notice also invited written comments from the public. 78 FR 54197 (Sept. 3, 2013). The Framework document is available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/79. DOE held a public meeting on October 1, 2013, at which it described the various analyses DOE would conduct as part of the rulemaking, such as the engineering analysis, the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analyses, and the national impact analysis (NIA). Representatives of manufacturers, trade associations, environmental and energy efficiency advocates, and other interested parties attended the meeting. The participants discussed the following major topics, among others: (1) The rulemaking scope (2) test procedures for commercial packaged boilers; and (3) various issues related to the planned analyses of amended energy conservation standards. Interested parties also provided comments on the Framework document, which DOE considered and responded to in chapter 2 of the preliminary analysis TSD. On November 20, 2014, DOE published a second notice, “Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers: Public Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support Document” in the Federal Register to announce the availability of the preliminary analysis technical support document (TSD). 79 FR 69066. The preliminary analysis TSD provided preliminary results of the analyses that DOE conducted in support of the energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary analysis, and requested public comments on specific issues related to the TSD. These issues are listed in the Executive Summary chapter of the preliminary analysis TSD. The preliminary analysis TSD is available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/79. On December 9, 2014, DOE held a public meeting, at which it described the methodology and preliminary results of the various analyses it conducted as part of the rulemaking, such as the engineering analysis, the LCC and PBP analyses, and the NIA. Representatives of manufacturers, trade associations, environmental and energy efficiency advocates, and other interested parties attended the meeting. The public meeting provided an opportunity for the attendees to provide feedback and comments that would help improve DOE's analysis and results for the NOPR stage. In addition, DOE also received several written comments from interested parties and stakeholders, in response to the preliminary analysis TSD. On March 24, 2016, DOE subsequently published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and notice of public meeting in the Federal Register (March 2016 NOPR) that addressed all of the comments received in response to the preliminary analysis TSD and proposed amended energy conservation standards for commercial packaged boilers. 81 FR 15836. In addition to amended energy conservation standards, DOE also proposed to reorganize the equipment class structure for commercial packaged boilers. The March 2016 NOPR also updated the rulemaking analysis based on comments received in response to the preliminary analysis and the most recent data sources available, and sought comments from interested parties on specific issues listed in the March 2016 NOPR. The March 2016 NOPR and the NOPR TSD are available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/79. On April 21, 2016, DOE held a public meeting where it presented and discussed the analyses conducted as part of this rulemaking ( e.g., engineering analysis, LCC and PBP analysis, national impact analysis). In the public meeting, DOE presented the results of these analyses and requested comments from stakeholders on various issues related to the rulemaking. In response to the March 2016 NOPR, DOE received both verbal comments (during the public meeting) and written comments from interested parties that were considered while updating its analysis for this final rule. The interested parties that commented on the March 2016 NOPR are shown in Table II.3 of this final rule. Table II.3—Parties That Provided Comments on the March 2016 NOPR Name of party Abbreviation Source of comments Type * Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute AHRI Public Meeting, Written TA American Boiler Manufacturers Association ABMA Public Meeting, Written TA American Council for Energy Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resource Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Joint Advocates Written EA American Gas Association, American Public Gas Association Gas Associations Public Meeting, Written UA Appliance Standards Awareness Project ASAP Public Meeting EA Bradford White Corporation Bradford White Written M Burnham Holdings BHI Written M Cato Institute Cato Written O The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council, the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Brick Industry Association, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Mining Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association, and the Portland Cement Association The Associations Written TA Crown Boiler Crown Public Meeting, Written M Industrial Energy Consumers of America IECA Written TA Lochinvar, LLC Lochinvar Public Meeting, Written M Sidel Systems Sidel Written M Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric Joint Utilities Written, Public Meeting U Phoenix Energy Management PEM Public Meeting C Raypak, Inc Raypak Public Meeting, Written M Southern California Gas SoCalGas Public Meeting, Written U Spire (formerly The LaClede Group, Inc.) Spire/LaClede Spire Public Meeting Written U Tom Nussbaum Tom Nussbaum Written I Weil-McLain Weil-McLain Written M * TA: Trade Association; EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; M: Manufacturer; C: Contractor; U: Utility; UA: Utility Association; I: Individual; O: Other. In parallel to the energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE published a notice of proposed determination on August 13, 2013 (August 2013 NOPD), which initiated a coverage determination to explicitly clarify DOE's statutory authority under EPCA to cover natural draft commercial packaged boilers. DOE initiated this coverage determination because the existing definition of “packaged boiler” could have allowed for differing interpretations as to whether natural draft commercial packaged boilers are covered equipment. 78 FR 49202. In the August 2013 NOPD, DOE proposed a definition for natural draft commercial packaged boilers that would clarify its statutory authority to cover such equipment. DOE sought public comments in response to its proposed determination and definition for natural draft commercial packaged boilers, and received several written comments from interested parties. In addition, DOE also received several comments in response to the preliminary analysis TSD that are relevant to the issue of coverage determination of natural draft commercial packaged boilers. After carefully reviewing all of the comments received on the issue of coverage determination of natural draft commercial packaged boilers and determining that the comments indicated a common and long-standing understanding from interested parties that natural draft commercial packaged boilers are and have been covered equipment under part A-1 of Title III of EPCA, DOE decided to withdraw the August 2013 NOPD on August 25, 2015 (August 2015 withdrawal notice). 80 FR 51487. DOE also recently completed a separate test procedure rulemaking to consider an amended test procedure for commercial packaged boilers. On February 20, 2014, DOE initiated the test procedure rulemaking by publishing a request for information (RFI) in the Federal Register that sought comments and information from stakeholders on several issues pertaining to the CPB test procedure. 79 FR 9643. On March 17, 2016, DOE published a NOPR in the Federal Register , which proposed to update the test procedure for determining the efficiency of commercial packaged boilers (2016 CPB TP NOPR). 81 FR 14642. Subsequently, on December 9, 2016, DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register , which updated the test procedure for commercial packaged boilers. 81 FR 89276. Section III.B of this document briefly discusses the amendments made to the test procedure. 17 The analyses conducted for this final rule reflect the changes adopted in the December 2016 test procedure final rule. (2016 CPB TP final rule) 17 For detailed discussion on the test procedure including the comments and DOE's response please see the docket #EERE-2014-BT-TP-0006. III. General Discussion A. Compliance Dates In 42 U.S.C. 6313(a), EPCA prescribes a number of compliance dates for amended standards for commercial packaged boilers. These compliance dates vary depending on the specific statutory authority under which DOE is conducting its review ( i.e., whether DOE is triggered by a revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 or whether DOE is undertaking a 6-year review), and the action taken ( i.e., whether DOE is adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels or more stringent levels). The discussion that follows explains the compliance dates as they pertain to this rulemaking. As discussed in section II.A of this document, EPCA requires that at least once every 6 years, DOE must review standards for commercial packaged boilers and publish either a notice of determination that standards for this type of equipment do not need to be amended or a NOPR containing amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) EPCA requires that an amended standard prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) must apply to products manufactured after the date that is the later of: (1) The date 3 years after publication of the final rule establishing a new standard or (2) the date 6 years after the effective date of the current standard for a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv)) The current standards for commercial packaged boilers went into effect in 2012. Thus, the date 3 years after publication of this final rule is later than the date 6 years after 2012, the effective date of the current standard. As a result, compliance with any amended energy conservation standards promulgated in this final rule is required starting from the dates specified in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 431.87. B. Test Procedure 1. Summary of Recent Updates DOE's current test procedure for commercial packaged boilers is found at 10 CFR 431.86. As stated previously, on December 9, 2016, DOE published a final rule amending the CPB test procedure. 81 FR 89276. The 2016 CPB TP final rule adopted specific sections of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AHRI Standard 1500, “Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial Space Heating Boilers,” (ANSI/AHRI Standard 1500-2015) as the basis of the test procedure for commercial packaged boilers, replacing the previous industry test standard BTS-2000. In addition, the 2016 CPB TP final rule incorporates the following amendments to the DOE test procedure: (1) Clarifies the coverage for field-constructed commercial packaged boilers and the applicability of DOE's test procedure and standards for this category of commercial packaged boilers, (2) provides an optional field test for commercial packaged boilers with rated input greater than 5,000,000 Btu/h, (3) provides a conversion method to calculate thermal efficiency based on combustion efficiency testing for steam commercial packaged boilers with rated input greater than 5,000,000 Btu/h, (4) modifies the inlet water temperature requirements during tests of hot water commercial packaged boilers, (5) establishes limits on the ambient temperature and relative humidity conditions during testing, (6) modifies setup and instrumentation requirements to remove ambiguity, and (7) standardizes terminology and provisions for “fuel input rate” and “rated input.” In response to the March 2016 NOPR, DOE received several comments that are specifically related to the CPB test procedure. Comments related to the technical aspects of the test procedure development were considered and addressed in the test procedure final rule. 2. Timing of the Test Procedure and Energy Conservation Standards Rulemakings Several stakeholders expressed legal, procedural, and practical concerns regarding the timing of the test procedure and energy conservation standards revisions for commercial packaged boilers, and requested that DOE delay any further work on the rulemakings to amend efficiency standards until after the finalization of the test procedure. (Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 1; Gas Associations, No. 69 at p. 2; BHI, No. 71 at p. 5; Lochinvar, No. 70 at p. 7; AHRI, No. 76 at pp. 2-3; ABMA, No. 64 at p. 1, Crown, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 61 at p. 13; AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 61, at p. 14); 18 AHRI highlighted that DOE has two years from the publication of the NOPR for energy conservation standards before it must publish a final rule for CPB standards under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iii), and asserted that DOE has sufficient time to finalize the test procedure and subsequently reopen comments on the proposed standard. (AHRI, No. 76 at p. 5) 18 DOE will identify comments received in response to the March 2016 CPB ECS NOPR and placed in Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0030 by the commenter, the number of the comment document as listed in the docket maintained at www.regulations.gov, and the page number of that document where the comment appears (for example: Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 1). If a comment was made during the CPB ECS NOPR public meeting, DOE will also specifically identify those as being located in the NOPR public meeting transcript (for example: Crown, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 61 at p. 13). AHRI argued that the non-final status of the test procedure inhibits stakeholders' fair evaluation of the proposed standards and stressed the importance of having a known efficiency test procedure. AHRI pointed out that DOE is required to provide stakeholders the opportunity to submit meaningful comments (42 U.S.C. 6306(a), 42 U.S.C. 6314(b)), and opined that the joint proposal of test procedures and standards eliminates that opportunity. (AHRI, No. 76 at pp. 2-3) AHRI further commented that having simultaneous rulemakings creates an unfair burden on stakeholders. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 61 at p. 80) Similarly, Raypak, Bradford White, and Crown commented that the ongoing changes to the test procedure do not allow manufacturers the opportunity to properly evaluate the effects of the proposed standards. Bradford White noted that their resources are focused on proposed test procedure changes. (Raypak, No. 72 at p. 1; Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 1; Crown, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 61 at p. 13; Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 12) Several stakeholders also contended that the timing of the test procedure and standards rulemaking violated DOE's own procedural policies or “the process rule.” (Gas Associations, No. 69 at p. 2; Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 12; Weil-McLain, No. 67 at p. 4; Spire, No. 73 at pp. 5-7; AHRI, No. 76 at p. 3; Lochinvar, No. 71 at p. 7) AHRI highlighted that the process rule is not merely a guideline, noting it was codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. AHRI contended that DOE must abide by its own regulations. (AHRI, No. 76 at p. 3) DOE provided a detailed response on this issue in the 2016 CPB TP final rule. DOE re-iterates in this final rule that the amendments to the Federal test procedure includes updates to the referenced industry test standard (ANSI/AHRI Standard 1500-2015) which was developed by a consensus-based AHRI process. In May 2015, AHRI petitioned DOE to replace its references to BTS-2000 with ANSI/AHRI Standard 1500-2015. In addition, DOE received insightful and detailed comments on the proposed amendments to the test procedure in response to the 2016 CPB TP NOPR. Considering these developments leading up to the 2016 CPB TP final rule, the industry was involved at all stages of the test procedure rulemaking, and DOE's amendments are largely in keeping with the test methodology found in consensus-based industry standard ANSI/AHRI Standard 1500-2015. Any deviations in the 2016 CPB TP final rule from ANSI/AHRI 1500-2015 are a result of DOE's efforts to make the test procedure better reflect the energy efficiency during a representative average use cycle, as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)). In the 2016 CPB TP final rule, as discussed in section III.B.3, DOE concluded that the amendments to the test procedure that were ultimately adopted would mitigate concerns regarding the impact on ratings. 81 FR 89276, 89281-89282 (December 9, 2016). Furthermore, in the energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE granted a 30-day extension of the comment period following the publication of the March 2016 NOPR to ensure that stakeholders had sufficient time to comment on the analyses and results. Therefore, DOE believes that stakeholders have had adequate time to gauge the effect of the standards rulemaking to enable them to provide meaningful comments on its analysis and results. Regarding the commenters' assertions that DOE has violated the process rule, DOE notes that the codified procedures at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (7)(c), Appendix A establish procedures, interpretations, and policies to guide DOE in the consideration and promulgation of new or revised appliance efficiency standards under EPCA. (See section 1 of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C, appendix A) 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. In the case of commercial packaged boilers, DOE was petitioned by the industry to adopt the industry test standard AHRI Standard 1500-2015, while the energy conservation standards rulemaking was in process. The energy conservation standards rulemaking was initiated in August 2013 with the publication of the Framework document, as discussed in section II.B.2 of this final rule, and AHRI petitioned DOE to amend the test procedure in May 2015, as noted above. Therefore, per AHRI's request, DOE initiated a test procedure rulemaking concurrent with the standards rulemaking. As noted above and discussed in section III.B.3, the changes to the test procedure that were ultimately adopted in the 2016 CPB TP final rule mitigated stakeholders' concerns about impacts to efficiency ratings. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that there is no basis to delay the final rule adopting standards for commercial packaged boilers. 3. Impact on Efficiency Ratings Several commenters indicated that they expected that the proposed changes to the test procedure would result in changes to the rated efficiency. Lochinvar, BHI, and AHRI questioned DOE's tentative determination that the test procedure changes would not impact efficiency ratings. (Lochinvar, No. 70 at p. 7; BHI, No. 71 at p. 3; AHRI No. 76 at p. 4) Lochinvar noted that DOE's own test summary shows that the TP changes would reduce the rated efficiency of some boilers. Lochinvar also stated that anti-backsliding provisions would prevent DOE from making any changes to the standard after the fact if TP changes negatively impact ratings. (Lochinvar, No. 70 at p. 7) AHRI noted that DOE's conclusion that the efficiency ratings would not be impacted by the proposed test procedure changes is based on limited testing data, and stakeholders did not have sufficient time to provide meaningful comments. (AHRI No. 76 at p. 4) BHI added that that the rating of some equipment could be significantly impacted, given that the test procedure is significantly different. (BHI, No. 71 at pp. 3, 4-5) They suggested that the efficiency of 85-percent E T “Category I” boilers in the directory will change due to the proposed water temperature changes in the 2016 CPB TP NOPR. (BHI, No. 71 at p. 10) Raypak provided similar comments. (Raypak, No. 72 at p. 3) Weil-McLain and SoCalGas commented that the efficiency ratings of non-condensing boilers will drop due to the new test procedure and that the proposed increases in the minimum standard would combine to significantly reduce the types of feasible non-condensing equipment. (Weil-McLain, No. 67 at p. 2; SoCalGas, No. 77 at p. 2) AHRI commented that the analysis must be based on finalized test procedures in order to realistically represent the impacts of amended standards (including energy savings, cost to consumers and manufacturers). (AHRI, No. 76 at pp. 2-3) SoCal suggested that the benefits of TSL 1 may actually be closer to those calculated for TSL 2, given the proposed water temperature changes in the test procedure. (SoCalGas, No. 77 at p. 2) In the 2016 CPB TP NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the proposed test procedure amendments would not result in an overall measureable impact on equipment's measured efficiency. 81 FR 14642, 12878 (March 17, 2016). However, as discussed above, DOE received comments from stakeholders in response to both the March 2016 NOPR and the 2016 CPB TP NOPR suggesting that several proposals included in the 2016 CPB TP NOPR would impact efficiency ratings. In the 2016 CPB TP final rule, DOE addressed stakeholders' concerns and ultimately revised the proposals that could have resulted in changes to the efficiency ratings in order to mitigate impacts on the efficiency ratings. 19 81 FR 89276, 89289-89290 (December 9, 2016). 19 For additional discussion and DOE's detailed response to the comments please refer to the 2016 CPB TP final rule docketed at ID #EERE-2014-BT-TP-0006. https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0006. C. Technological Feasibility 1. General In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the equipment that is the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE conducts a market and technology assessment that develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment 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 equipment 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, DOE notes that these screening criteria do not directly address the proprietary status of design options. DOE only considers efficiency levels achieved through the use of proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if they are not part of a unique path to achieve that efficiency level ( i.e., if there are other non-proprietary technologies capable of achieving the same efficiency). DOE concludes that the amended standards for the equipment covered in this final rule do not mandate the use of any proprietary technologies, and that all manufacturers are able to achieve the amended standard levels through the use of non-proprietary designs. Section IV.B and IV.C of this final rule discuss the results of the screening analysis and engineering analysis for commercial packaged boilers. For further details on the screening analysis and engineering analysis for this final rule, see chapter 4 and chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered equipment, it determines the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such equipment. Accordingly, in the engineering analysis of this final rule, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for commercial packaged boilers, using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment currently available on the market. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.4 of this document and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each trial standard level (TSL), DOE projected energy savings from the application of the TSL to commercial packaged boilers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2020-2049). 20 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of commercial packaged boilers 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-new-standards-case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for equipment would likely evolve in the absence of amended efficiency standards. 20 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for equipment shipped in a 9-year period. DOE uses its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate energy savings from potential amended standards. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings (NES) in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. 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 document. 2. Significance of Savings To amend standards for commercial packaged boilers, DOE must determine that the standards would result in “significant” additional energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (C)(i)) Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” DOE concludes the energy savings for the amended standards (presented in section V.B.3 of this document) are “significant” as required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (C)(i). E. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers EPCA requires DOE to consider the economic impact of a standard on manufacturers and the consumers of the products subject to the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)) In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as discussed in section IV.J of this document. 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 based on expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers. For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national NPV of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard. b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment 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 equipment that are likely to result from an amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of the equipment (including installation cost and sales tax) and the operating expense (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. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with amended standards. 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 that standards are assumed to take effect. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a no-new-standards-case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document. c. Energy Savings 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. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(III)) As discussed in section III.D.1 and section IV.E of this document and chapter 10 of the final rule TSD, DOE uses spreadsheet models to project national energy savings. d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment In determining whether amending a standard is economically justified, DOE evaluates any lessening of the utilities or performance of the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document do not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking. See section IV.A.3 and section IV.B for DOE's detailed determinations that adopted standards in this final rule do not reduce utility or performance of CBP equipment covered under this rulemaking. e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General of the United States that is likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V)) DOE transmitted a copy of its proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. On October 19, 2015, DOJ provided its determination to DOE that the amended standards for commercial packaged boilers are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE has included this determination from DOJ at the end of this rule. f. Need for National Energy Conservation In considering new or amended energy conservation standards, EPCA also directs DOE to consider the need for the national energy conservation. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VI)) The adopted standards are likely to improve 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 of this document. The adopted standards also 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 standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document. DOE reports the emissions impacts from each TSL it considered 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 of this document. 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. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VII)) To the extent interested parties submit any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described above, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.” 2. Rebuttable Presumption EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of the equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that amended energy conservation standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii) and (C)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this document. F. General Comments 1. Proposed Standard Levels In response to the efficiency levels proposed in the March 2016 NOPR (NOPR TSL 2), DOE received numerous comments on the appropriate levels for selection as the Federal standards. a. Comments on Proposed TSL 2 The Joint Utilities expressed their support for the proposed standard levels ( i.e., NOPR TSL 2). (Joint Utilities, No. 66 at p. 1) BHI, Weil-McLain, and Lochinvar opposed the proposed standard levels at NOPR TSL 2, and Lochinvar encouraged DOE to make no change to the minimum efficiency standard. (BHI, No. 71 at p. 1; Weil-McLain, No. 67 at pp. 4-5; Lochinvar, No. 70 at p. 8) BHI expressed concern that commercial packaged boilers meeting the efficiency levels proposed in the March 2016 NOPR for small gas-fired hot water (SGHW) and large gas-fired hot water (LGHW) equipment classes (85-percent E T and 85-percent E C , respectively) cannot be safely vented using a conventional “category I” chimney. (BHI, No. 71 at p. 2) Raypak added that the category I venting commercial packaged boilers must be retained to allow replacement of boilers from old installations. (Raypak, No. 72 at p. 3) Raypak also expressed concern that the proposed TSL 2 is too close to condensing and could lead to failure of B-vent pipes and leaking combustion equipment. Raypak suggested that DOE selected the proposed efficiency levels because higher efficiency standards exist in Europe. Raypak noted that the regulations governing boiler maintenance in Europe are substantially different, and that some countries require annual boiler inspections and service, which are not required in the United States. Raypak argued that DOE should not set standards at the levels proposed in the March 2016 NOPR until maintenance practices in the United States are comparable to those in other countries. Raypak further stated that the complexity of newer technology requires installers who are skilled and experienced to install higher efficiency commercial packaged boilers. (Raypak, No. 72 at p. 3) Weil-McLain expressed concern that the proposed levels included in the NOPR TSL 2 would significantly reduce the non-condensing options available to consumers. Weil-McLain also added that DOE would erase a future increase in efficiency that was to take effect in 2022 pursuant to 10 CFR 431.87(c), noting that manufacturers' ability to make long-term development plans are impacted when efficiency requirements are obsoleted before they have even gone into effect. (Weil-McLain, No. 67 at pp. 2-3) Both Weil-McLain and BHI suggested that the proposed levels could reduce their ability to sell non-condensing commercial packaged boilers, and therefore would create a significant burden on manufacturers. (Weil-McLain, No. 67 at pp. 4-5; BHI, No. 71 at p. 1) BHI further commented that adopting NOPR TSL 2 would potentially reduce employment at their facilities. (BHI, No. 71 at p. 1) The Gas Associations urged DOE to revise the technical analysis and economic justification for the 85-percent level proposed in the March 2016 NOPR. The Gas Associations expressed concern about issues with possible condensation in the venting system and interior heat exchanger leading to premature failure and believe that the current standards are sufficient and justified. (Gas Associations, No. 69 at p. 2) SoCalGas and AHRI recommended that DOE adopt NOPR TSL 1. (SoCalGas, No. 77 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 76 at pp. 27, 44) SoCalGas argued that the changes to test procedure may impact efficiency ratings, and noted that if a 1 percent decrease in ratings were to occur as a result of the test procedure changes, the result would be effectively requiring an 86-percent E T for SGHW commercial packaged boilers. SoCalGas cited DOE's own analysis demonstrating that there are very few commercial packaged boilers on the market meeting the 86-percent E T level. (SoCalGas, No. 77 at p. 3) AHRI also stated that, based on DOE's analysis, it should not adopt a standard more stringent than the proposed TSL 2 in all equipment classes, because the increase in incorrect venting and other installation decisions should prohibit consideration of near-condensing efficiency levels. (AHRI, No. 76 at p. 27) AHRI and Raypak stated that forcing consumers to buy near-condensing and condensing boilers in circumstances where they are not warranted for installation is a perversion of the regulatory process. (AHRI, No. 76 at p. 27; Raypak, No. 72 at p. 2) ABMA commented that the proposed levels included in NOPR TSL 2 for the LGHW and LOHW equipment classes ( i.e., 85-percent E C and 88-percent E C ) would be unattainable for certain sizes of commercial packaged boilers in its members' equipment lines and recommended that DOE adopt standards at 83 percent and 86 percent, respectively. (ABMA, No. 64 at p. 2) Bradford White and Raypak recommended that DOE adopt a minimum standard of 82-percent E T for the SGHW equipment class. For the LGHW equipment class, Bradford White recommended DOE select 84-percent E C , while, Raypak recommended 82-percent E C . (Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 4; Raypak, No. 72 at p. 4) Bradford White stated that the proposed level of 85-percent E C for LGHW commercial packaged boilers forces the use of such equipment in applications where it may not make sense. Bradford White added that equipment with a combustion efficiency of approximately 85 to 88 percent in use today is a result of contractors consciously determining such equipment is appropriate for each respective installation. Bradford White stated that the proposed level of 85-percent E C for LGHW commercial packaged boilers forces the use of such equipment in inappropriate applications and noted that changing out the vent system may not be possible in these installations. (Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 3) In view of the preceding stakeholder comments about TSLs, DOE notes that DOE is required to set a standard that achieves significant additional energy savings that is determined to be technologically feasible and economically justified. In making such a determination, DOE must consider, to the maximum extent practicable, the benefits and burdens based on the seven criteria described in EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII)). DOE's weighing of the benefits and burdens based on the final rule analysis and rationale for the TSL selection is discussed in section V and in detail in appendix 10C of the final rule TSD. DOE notes that much of the commentary regarding the selection of TSL levels for the standards is based on more detailed comments regarding specific portions of the final rule analysis. These comments related to specific analyses are addressed within the specific analysis section to which they pertain. DOE also disagrees with Raypak's comments that the proposed standards were based on the standards applicable in Europe. Although DOE researches international energy efficiency regulations in the context of its market assessment, the standard levels that were proposed in the March 2016 NOPR, and those that are adopted in this final rule are not determined based on international regulations. Rather, DOE selects standard levels by weighing the benefits and burdens of each TSL to ensure that the standards save a significant additional amount of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified, as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (C)(i)) In addition, Bradford White questioned the selection of TSL 2 due the fact that it does not meet the rebuttable presumption payback of three years, and therefore would place a significant burden on consumers. (Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 4) DOE notes that the 3-year payback period is contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, including those to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation and environment, and the results of this economic analysis are what serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a standard level. As detailed in section IV and section V of DOE's full economic analysis for this final rule document, DOE concludes based on clear and convincing evidence that the benefits of amended standards at TSL 2 outweigh the burdens, and the standards at TSL 2 are economically justified. b. Comments on TSL 3 The Joint Advocates urged DOE to adopt NOPR TSL 3, noting that TSL 3 was found to be cost effective for purchasers and would more than double the national energy savings achieved by NOPR TSL 2. (Joint Advocates, No. 74 at p. 1) ASAP also suggested DOE should consider adopting NOPR TSL 3. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 61 at pp. 14-15) Weil-McLain, ABMA, and AHRI opposed the adoption of NOPR TSL 3. (Weil-McLain, No. 67 at p. 9; ABMA, No. 64 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 76 at pp. 1, 27, 44) Bradford White expressed the belief that the estimated gains of the SGHW equipment class at NOPR TSL 3 ( i.e., at 95-percent E T ) were overstated in DOE's analysis, and noted that the market is voluntarily moving towards products with efficiencies in excess of 90-percent E T . (Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 3) DOE considered the comments received in response to the consideration for TSL 3 as proposed in the March 2016 NOPR. However, based on DOE's updated analyses and the results presented in this final rule (see section V), TSL 3 is no longer economically feasible. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in section V.C.1, DOE has rejected TSL 3. c. Other Comments SoCalGas expressed concerns that the results of a SoCalGas modified LCC analysis shows a potentially significant burden to California and SoCalGas consumers, in particular regarding the LGHW equipment class, but acknowledged limitations to their analysis and filtering of the CBECS dataset. (SoCalGas, No. 77 at p. 4) Nussbaum requests clarity on whether DOE's regulations are intended to remove enforcement from existing authorities, stating that California Energy Commission's interpretation is that DOE has taken over all enforcement related to efficiency. He further states that without state and local enforcement of efficiency, it will be sacrificed in order to achieve low NO X requirements since in California emissions requirements are enforced. (Nussbaum, No. 60 at p. 1) In response, DOE notes that while the SoCalGas analysis shows a small decline in the cost effectiveness ( i.e., LCC savings) of small gas-fired hot water equipment at certain efficiency levels, it showed an increase in the LCC savings at other levels relative to DOE's analysis. While the analysis did show negative LCC savings for the large gas-fired hot water equipment class at all efficiency levels, the approach taken in modifying the model to only look at a relatively small sample of buildings in the combined San Francisco and Los Angeles climate regions, may allow for a substantial uncertainty in the LCC results obtained for those regions. DOE's analysis focuses on the national costs and benefits obtained, as befitting development of National standards. Regarding the comment submitted by Nussbaum, under EPCA DOE has authority to establish and regulate minimum efficiency for commercial packaged boilers as measured under a standardized test procedure, but DOE recognizes that performance in the field can vary based on installation conditions, set-up, and maintenance. 2. Statutory Requirements AHRI pointed out that EPCA's requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2) for DOE to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency in its energy conservation standards rulemakings do not apply to commercial packaged boilers. Therefore, AHRI suggested that DOE's entire analysis is predicated on a fundamental flaw because it reflects an analysis that blatantly disregards the crucial flexibility that DOE has to more fully consider negative impacts on industry, particularly on small business and job loss. (AHRI, No. 76 at p. 6) DOE agrees that EPCA does not require DOE to select the standard level that provides the maximum improvement in energy savings for commercial packaged boilers. However, as discussed in section II.A, an amended CPB standard must be designed to achieve significant additional energy conservation and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (C)(i)) It is in DOE's discretion to adopt amended standards at any level that meet these legal criteria. DOE does not base its rulemaking solely on achieving maximum energy efficiency improvements as claimed by the stakeholders. In making the determination of economic justification of an amended standard, DOE considers, to the maximum extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an amended standard based on the seven criteria described in EPCA, which include the economic impact of the standard on manufacturers. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII).) In considering both the standards proposed in the March 2016 NOPR and those being adopted in this final rule, DOE fully addressed EPCA's requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII), including economic impact of the amended standards on manufacturers and small businesses. A discussion of DOE's weighting of the benefits and burdens based on these factors is contained in section V of this final rule. With regard to the specific comments on impact on manufacturers and employment impacts, DOE has considered these impacts, and they are discussed in V.B of this final rule. The differential impacts for small business manufacturers are discussed in section VI.B. AHRI and Spire commented that DOE's CPB ECS rulemaking does not meet EPCA's requirement for clear and convincing evidence prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6313 (a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), because DOE failed to provide reasonable basis for its analyses, such as its unsupported assumptions for venting costs and the fundamental energy use of commercial packaged boilers. AHRI further stated that this burden of proof is met only if evidence “instantly tilted the evidentiary scales” when viewed in light of alternative information. Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984). By asking the stakeholders to substantiate its assumptions and by initiating a rulemaking amending ASHRAE standards without meeting the burden of proof requirements, AHRI argues that DOE impermissibly shifted the agency's burden of production onto the stakeholders. (AHRI, No. 76 at p. 7; Spire, No. 73 at pp. 6-8, 10) DOE notes that it is adopting these standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II), which requires DOE to issue new standards based on “the criteria and procedures established under subparagraph (B).” In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that: (1) In making a determination of economic justification, DOE must consider, to the maximum extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an amended standard based on the seven criteria described in EPCA; (2) DOE may not prescribe any standard that increases the energy use or decreases the energy efficiency of a covered product; and (3) DOE may not prescribe any standard that interested persons have established by a preponderance of evidence is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any 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. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)-(iii)) Importantly, subparagraph (B) does not mention clear and convincing evidence. What is more, multiple features of the statutory text indicate that a rule establishing standards under subparagraph (C)(i)(II) need not be based on clear and convincing evidence. 21 But assuming that clear and convincing evidence is required here, DOE believes its findings fully satisfy that threshold. To explain that conclusion, DOE articulates how it understands the “clear and convincing evidence” concept to operate in the context of DOE's setting energy conservation standards. Commenters referred to the context of litigation, where “clear and convincing” means that the evidence must “place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth” of its conclusions is “highly probable.” 22 At the same time, to satisfy the “clear and convincing” standard of proof, a litigant need not eliminate all possible doubt, or even all reasonable doubt; “clear and convincing” is an intermediate standard that is less stringent than the “beyond all reasonable doubt” threshold required for a criminal conviction. 21 To explain, the reference to “criteria and procedures established under subparagraph (B)” is not best read as encompassing a “clear and convincing evidence” threshold. For that phrase appears in subparagraph (A), not subparagraph (B), and therefore it is not a criterion or procedure “established under subparagraph (B).” Subparagraph (B) does mention subparagraph (A), but not in a manner that incorporates subparagraph (A) by reference; rather, subparagraph (B) says the criteria and procedures it establishes are to be used in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II). Subparagraph (C)(i)(II) says the subparagraph (B) criteria and procedures are also to be used in a subparagraph (C)(i)(II) decision. It does not follow—logistically or linguistically—that such a decision must also incorporate an evidentiary threshold that is used in a different type of decision to which subparagraph (B) also applies. In addition, subsection (a) includes multiple cross-references to various paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, and subclauses. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)(A); 6313(a)(5)(G); 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I). Consistent with the ordinary scheme of cross-references, see House Legislative Counsel's Manual on Drafting Style, HLC No. 104-1, p. 24 (1995); Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel, Legislative Drafting Manual 10 (1997), in each of these cross-references a “subparagraph” reference is to an item labeled with a capital letter (such as “subparagraph (B)”). Given the careful construction of the network of cross-references in subsection (a), it would be unusual for “established under subparagraph (B)” to sweep in an evidentiary standard stated in text other than subparagraph (B). DOE also notes that clause (C)(i) contains two cross-references. Subclause (I), addressing one decision DOE might make, mandates that it be based on “the criteria established under subparagraph (A).” Subclause (II), addressing the decision DOE is making in this rulemaking, refers to “the criteria and procedures established under subparagraph (B).” By interpreting the latter phrase not to encompass “clear and convincing evidence,” DOE appropriately gives significance to this difference in language. Evidently “the criteria established under subparagraph (A)” are different from the “the criteria established under subparagraph (B)”; were they the same criteria, there would have been no need to use different cross-references. “Clear and convincing evidence” is in (A), not (B).To the extent there is ambiguity in paragraph (a)(6) about whether DOE must have clear and convincing evidence to establish an amended standard under subparagraph (C), DOE believes its approach is consistent with the purposes of subparagraph (C). That is to say, the intent of paragraph (6) is to include ASHRAE in the standards-developing process. ASHRAE maintains standards that achieve energy conservation with respect to the products to which paragraph (6) applies, and ASHRAE is expected to update those standards as technology and markets evolve over time. When ASHRAE has acted in a timely fashion, DOE is to reflect ASHRAE's standards in its own standards, unless it has clear and convincing evidence justifying more stringent standards (on the terms of subclause (A)(i)(II)). However, the statute directs DOE to review its standards every six years—in case ASHRAE has not acted. This six-year review encourages ASHRAE to keep its standards up to date, because if it has recently amended its standards (and triggered DOE to follow), DOE will not need to engage in its independent standards revision. But, if ASHRAE has not revisited its standards for some while, DOE's six-year review provides an occasion on which DOE might adopt more stringent standards, without being tied to the ASHRAE standards. By not imposing the “clear and convincing” threshold for such a rulemaking, the statute encourages ASHRAE to continually update its standards. In short, a common-sense approach to the purposes of subparagraph (C) aligns with the above careful textual reading. 22 Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984). DOE fully recognizes that whenever it must have “clear and convincing evidence” pursuant to subclause (A)(i)(II), it needs a higher degree of confidence in its conclusions than would be required under the “preponderance” standard that ordinarily applies in an agency rulemaking. In such matters, the administrative record, taken as a whole, must justify DOE in a strong conviction that its conclusions are highly likely to be correct. However, some commenters appear to think that the “clear and convincing” threshold would preclude DOE from using its expert judgment to make predictions. That would not be the case in litigation; a “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof does not restrict the type, quality, or nature of evidence, including expert opinions that can be used. Moreover, a standards-setting rulemaking is not a litigation, and the differences warrant some differences in how the “clear and convincing evidence” threshold operates. DOE both develops the record and reviews it to make findings. Also, as an agency tasked with setting policy, DOE is ordinarily expected to use its predictive judgment. The text of paragraph (6) is consistent with that notion. Subparagraph (B), which describes various factors that DOE is to consider in making a subclause (A)(i)(II) decision for which it would need clear and convincing evidence, repeatedly calls for predictive judgments. DOE is to forecast the likely energy savings of a standard, the economic costs and benefits of the standard, and other future effects. By their nature, these assessments cannot be instantly determined to be correct. Rather, DOE believes “clear and convincing evidence” would mean that DOE must be strongly convinced that its forecasts are highly likely to be reasonable forecasts given current conditions and information. In sum, for purposes of setting standards under paragraph (a)(6), “clear and convincing evidence” can include the same sorts of evidence and analysis that DOE would use in any other standards rulemaking. But DOE will conclude it has “clear and convincing evidence” only when it is strongly convinced that it is highly likely to have reached appropriate findings. With respect to the findings discussed in this rulemaking, DOE does have that strong conviction, well placed given the record as a whole. Spire further commented that the NOPR was issued without remotely sufficient information and analysis to justify adoption of the standards proposed and that key information and analysis underlying it has yet to be disclosed so that it can be exposed to potential refutation through comment, and as such the NOPR is inadequate to satisfy notice and comment requirements, and should therefore be withdrawn. Under the notice-and-comment or informal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, DOE must publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking that includes: (1) A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public rulemaking proceedings; (2) a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) DOE must then allow interested parties an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. (5 U.S.C. 553(c)) On March 24, 2016, DOE published a NOPR and notice of public meeting in the Federal Register that met the requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). DOE also provided the public an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the March 2016 CPB ECS NOPR. IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to commercial packaged boilers. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used three analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended energy conservation standards. See section IV.F and chapter 8 of final rule TSD for details of the LCC and PBP spreadsheet tool. The second tool is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that calculates national energy savings and net present value resulting from potential amended energy conservation standards. More details of this spreadsheet tool can be found in section IV.H and chapter 10 of the final rule TSD. The third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), helps DOE to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. See section IV.J and chapter 12 of the final rule TSD. In addition, these tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0030. Additionally, DOE used output from the 2016 version of the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO ) for the emissions and utility impact analyses. A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. General For the market and technology assessment, DOE develops information that provides an overall snapshot of the market for the equipment considered, including the nature of the equipment, market characteristics, industry structure, and technologies that improve energy efficiency. DOE divides the market and technology assessment broadly into two categories: (1) Market assessment and (2) technology assessment. The purpose of the market assessment is to develop a qualitative and quantitative characterization of the CPB industry and market structure, based on information that is publicly available as well as data submitted by manufacturers and other interested parties. Issues addressed include CPB characteristics (gathered from market databases and literature), market share and equipment classes; existing regulatory and non-regulatory efficiency improvement initiatives; models currently available and their distribution with respect to efficiency and rated input in each equipment class. The purpose of the technology assessment is to investigate technologies currently used in commercial packaged boilers, and identify those that will improve the energy efficiency of commercial packaged boilers. The technology assessment results in a preliminary list of technology options that can improve the thermal and/or combustion efficiency of commercial packaged boilers. Chapter 3 of the final rule TSD contains all the information related to the market and technology assessment. The chapter also provides additional details on the methodology used, information gathered, and results. DOE typically uses the information gathered in this chapter in the various downstream analyses such as engineering analysis, shipment analysis, and manufacturer impact analyses. For this final rule, DOE explored the market to identify manufacturers of commercial packaged boilers. As per the definition set forth in 10 CFR 431.82, a manufacturer of a commercial packaged boiler is any entity that: (1) Manufactures, produces, assembles, or imports a commercial packaged boiler in its entirety; (2) manufactures, produces, assembles, or imports a commercial packaged boiler in part, and specifies or approves the boiler's components, including burners or other components produced by others, as for example by specifying such components in a catalogue by make and model number or parts number; or (3) is any vendor or installer who sells a commercial packaged boiler that consists of a combination of components that is not specified or approved by a person described in the two previous parts of this definition. Through extensive search of publicly available information, including DOE's Compliance Certification Database 23 and ABMA's and AHRI's websites, DOE identified 46 unique parent companies that manufacture CPB equipment. The complete list of manufacturers can be found in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD. 23 DOE's Compliance Certification Database houses certification reports and compliance statements submitted by manufacturers for covered products and equipment subject to Federal conservation standards. http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/implementation-certification-and-enforcement. In the NOPR analysis, DOE relied on equipment listing data from AHRI and other public sources and requested comment on any manufacturers of CPB equipment that were not represented in this analysis. Bradford White recommended that DOE review the paid research reports, included in research from BRG Building Solutions to identify manufacturers that are neither members of AHRI nor ABMA. 24 (Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 4) 24 BRG Building Solutions is a global consultancy that provides market data for various construction, building products, and utility industries, including heating and ventilation products. www.brgbuildingsolutions.com/. For the final rule, DOE's market analysis is primarily based on the Compliance Certification Database. The Compliance Certification Database houses certification reports and compliance statements submitted by manufacturers for covered equipment and equipment subject to Federal conservation standards. Manufacturers of all covered equipment are required to submit a certification report before a basic model is distributed in commerce. The Compliance Certification Database includes only certification records of current basic models that have been submitted to DOE in the past year. Thus, this database should provide the most comprehensive list of manufacturers actively selling commercial packaged boilers in the United States. However, DOE also surveyed the market to identify manufacturers that are not included in the Compliance Certification Database, but that appear to be actively selling CPB models. DOE reviewed AHRI and ABMA member manufacturers, and also searched publicly available information to identify several manufacturers who are neither members of AHRI nor ABMA. Through these information sources, DOE concludes it has generated a complete picture of the CPB market and manufacturers, and, thus, did not require the report suggested by Bradford White. The models offered by all manufacturers that DOE identified in this rulemaking characterize the market for commercial packaged boilers in the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of the final rule TSD). 2. Scope of Coverage EPCA lists “packaged boilers” as a type of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)) EPCA defines the term “packaged boiler” as “a boiler that is shipped complete with heating equipment, mechanical draft equipment, and automatic controls; usually shipped in one or more sections.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(B)) In the 2016 CPB TP final rule, DOE consolidated various definitions related to commercial packaged boilers by revising its definitions for “packaged boiler” and “commercial packaged boiler” at 10 CFR 431.82, and removing the definitions for “packaged low pressure boiler” and “packaged high pressure boiler.” The definition for “packaged boiler” adopted by DOE in the 2016 CPB TP final rule is essentially the same as EPCA's definition, but clarifies that if the boiler is shipped in more than one section, the sections may be produced by more than one manufacturer, and may be originated or shipped at different times and from more than one location. DOE updated the definition of a “commercial packaged boiler” to define the term as a packaged boiler that meets all of the following criteria: (1) Has a rated input of 300,000 Btu/h or greater; (2) is distributed in commerce for space conditioning and/or service water heating in buildings but does not meet the definition of “hot water supply boiler”; (3) does not meet the definition of “field-constructed”; and (4) is designed to, or is operated at a steam pressure of at or below 15 psig or a water pressure at or below 160 psig and water temperature of 250 °F. 81 FR 89276, 89279-89280 (December 9, 2016). DOE also adopted a related definition for “field-constructed.” As noted above, the definition of “packaged boiler” refers to a boiler that is shipped complete with heating equipment, mechanical draft equipment, and automatic controls. Although, the definition does not explicitly include natural draft equipment, DOE concluded in the August 2015 withdrawal notice that natural draft commercial packaged boilers are and have been covered equipment subject to DOE's energy conservation standards for commercial packaged boilers. 80 FR 51487. Accordingly, DOE proposed amended energy conservation standards in the March 2016 NOPR that are applicable to natural draft commercial packaged boilers, and has likewise included natural draft commercial packaged boilers in the analysis for this final rule and adopts standards that are applicable to this equipment. 3. Equipment Classes When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE typically divides covered equipment into equipment classes based on the type of energy used, capacity, or performance-related features that justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. The current regulations for commercial packaged boilers list 10 equipment classes with corresponding energy efficiency standards for each. 25 10 CFR 431.87. These equipment classes are based on (1) size (rated input), (2) heating media (hot water or steam), and (3) type of fuel used (oil or gas). 26 The gas-fired steam commercial packaged boilers are further classified according to draft type. In the March 2016 NOPR, DOE proposed to consolidate CPB equipment classes that are currently divided by draft type. 27 Specifically, DOE proposed to combine the small (≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h), gas fired—all except natural draft, steam and small (≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h), gas fired—natural draft, steam classes; and the large (>2,500,000 Btu/h and ≤10,000,000 Btu/h), gas fired—all except natural draft, steam and large (≥2,500,000 Btu/h and ≤10,000,000 Btu/h), gas fired—natural draft, steam classes from four equipment classes to two equipment classes: (1) Small (≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h), gas-fired steam; and (2) large (>2,500,000 Btu/h and ≤10,000,000 Btu/h), gas-fired steam. 81 FR 15852. 25 These standard levels were adopted in the July 2009 final rule. 74 FR 36312 (July 22, 2009). 26 Under subpart E of 10 CFR part 431, commercial packaged boilers are divided into equipment classes based on rated input ( i.e., size category). Throughout this document, DOE refers to units with a rated input of ≥300,000 Btu/h and ≤2,500,000 Btu/h as “small” and units with a rated input of >2,500,000 Btu/h as “large.” See 10 CFR 431.87. 27 Because DOE is not adopting amended standards for commercial packaged boilers with rated inputs above 10,000,000 Btu/h, the standards for equipment in this class will remain unchanged. Thus, although DOE is consolidating this equipment into a single class, an allowance will still be made for natural draft units to have a lower minimum efficiency until March 2, 2022, as is allowed under the current standards. The Joint Advocates and Bradford White supported DOE's reconfiguration of the equipment classes to eliminate draft type as a distinguishing feature. (Joint Advocates, No. 74 at p. 2; Bradford White, No. 68 at p. 4) The Joint Advocates added that natural draft boilers provide no distinct performance-related utility. (Joint Advocates, No. 74 at p. 2) Weil-McLain, Spire, the Gas Associations, and BHI requested that DOE establish separate equipment classes for natural draft and mechanical draft commercial packaged boilers, noting that the ability to utilize natural draft in installations provides consumers with utility. (Weil-McLain, No. 67 at p. 6; BHI, No. 71 at pp. 14-15; Spire, No. 73 at p. 11; Gas Associations, No. 69 at p. 4; Crown, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 61 at p. 159) BHI stated that loss of the ability to use Category I venting (suitable for non-condensing boilers) is a loss in utility because the circumstances of many real world installations offer no practical alternatives to Category I venting. BHI argued that providing heat and hot water are not the only utility functions, features, and performance characteristics of boilers, and that designs that allow proper installation in a variety of cases are a critical aspect of utility so that such equipment can be installed and used safely. In addition, BHI stated that there is a point at which increasing installation costs become large enough to effectively create a “loss of utility,” and this situation in the real world is as likely to “result in the unavailability” of appropriate Category I boilers as a pure design issue. Further, BHI adds that DOE overstated the availability and utility of 85-percent gas-fired hot water boilers, particularly 85-percent atmospheric boilers in its screening analysis. BHI suggests that the adoption of 85-percent gas-fired hot water standard will leave many consumers with no cost effective option for replacement boiler and could lead to safety issues due to problems in venting system. BHI stated that this is a direct violation of the “safe harbor rule.” (BHI, No. 71 at pp. 4, 13-15) Spire also suggested that easy installation to existing natural draft venting systems should qualify as a unique utility of natural draft units and therefore should be preserved under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)(IV). Spire noted that DOE has recognized this fact in its decision to maintain separate equipment classes for “space-constrained” heat pumps and air conditions. (Spire, No. 72, at pp. 10-12) Raypak commented that DOE should not assume that all boiler installations will be capable of handling new installations at the amended efficiencies proposed in the March 2016 NOPR. They add that half of the commercial buildings were built before 1980 and when these boilers need to be replaced, it may not be possible to install an 85-percent efficient boiler in its place. Raypak further states that the category I boilers must be retained for such replacement scenarios. (Raypak, No. 72 at p. 3) DOE maintains its position explained in the March 2016 NOPR and reiterates that the utility derived by consumers from commercial packaged boilers is in the form of the space heating function that a boiler performs, rather than the type of venting the boiler uses. Boilers requiring Category I or Category IV venting are capable of providing the same heating function to the consumer, and, thus, provide the same utility with respect to their primary function. DOE does not consider reduced costs associated with Category I venting in certain installations as a utility to the consumer, and [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2019-26356. Public record. Not legal advice.