Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps

Federal RegisterDec 6, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004]

RIN 1904-AD61

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including circulator pumps. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), DOE proposes energy conservation standards for circulator pumps, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

Comments:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than February 6, 2023.

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Thursday, January 19, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., in Washington, DC.

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

ADDRESSES

section on or before February 6, 2023.

Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at

www.regulations.gov,

under docket number EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, by any of the following methods:

Email: Circpumps2016std0004@ee.doe.gov.

Include the docket number EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004 in the subject line of the message.

Postal Mail:

Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (“CD”), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section VII of this document.

Docket:

The docket for this activity, which includes

Federal Register

notices, 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/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004/document.

The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov.

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

energy.standards@usdoj.gov

on or before the date specified in the

DATES

section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2555. Email:

Nolan.Brickwood@hq.doe.gov.

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

C. Deviation From Appendix A

III. General Discussion

A. November 2016 CPWG Recommendations

1. Energy Conservation Standard Level

2. Labeling Requirements

3. Certification Reports

B. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage

1. CPWG Recommendations

a. Scope

b. Definitions

c. Equipment Classes

d. Small Vertical In-Line Pumps

C. Test Procedure

a. Control Mode

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

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

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

G. Effective Date

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

a. Scope

b. Equipment Classes

2. Technology Options

a. Hydraulic Design

b. More Efficient Motors

c. Speed Reduction

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Representative Equipment

a. Circulator Pump Varieties

2. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Efficiency

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

c. EL analysis

3. Cost Analysis

4. Cost-Efficiency Results

5. Manufacturer Markup and Manufacturer Selling Price

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Circulator Pump Applications

2. Consumer Samples

3. Operating Hours

a. Hydronic Heating

b. Hot Water Recirculation

4. Load Profiles

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Product Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

a. Residential

b. Commercial

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

9. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

1. No-New-Standards Case Shipments Projections

2. Standards-Case Shipment Projections

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

d. Markup Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

a. Cost Increases and Component Shortages

b. Motor Availability

c. Timing of Standard

K. Emissions Analysis

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a. Social Cost of Carbon

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

O. Other Topics

a. Acceptance Test Grades

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. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

b. Direct Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Circulator Pumps Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule

3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities

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

6. 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. Information Quality

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part C

of EPCA,

established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment includes pumps. Circulator pumps, which are the subject of this proposed rulemaking, are a category of pumps.

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

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. The proposed standards, which are expressed in terms of a maximum circulator energy index (“CEI”), are shown in Table I.1. CEI represents the weighted average electric input power to the driver over a specified load profile, normalized with respect to a circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load that has a specified minimum performance level.

These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all circulator pumps listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 2 years after the publication of the final rule for this proposed rulemaking.

The performance of a comparable pump that has a specified minimum performance level is referred to as the circulator energy rating (“CER”).

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps

Equipment class

Maximum

CEI

(All Circulator Pumps)

1.00

As stated in section III.C.a of this document, the proposed standards apply to circulator pumps when operated using the least consumptive control variety with which they are equipped.

CEI is defined as shown in equation (1), and consistent

with section 41.5.3.2 of HI 41.5-2022, “Hydraulic Institute Program Guideline for Circulator Pump Energy Rating Program.”

87 FR 57264.

HI 41.5-2022 uses the term CER

REF

for the analogous concept. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE discussed this decision to instead use CER

STD

in the context of Federal energy conservation standards.

HI 41.5-2022 provides additional instructions for testing circulator pumps to determine an Energy Rating value for different circulator pump control varieties.

EP06DE22.000

Where:

CEI = the circulator energy index (dimensionless);

CER = circulator energy rating (hp); and

CER

STD

= for a circulator pump that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards with the same hydraulic horsepower as the tested pump, as determined in accordance with the specifications at paragraph (i) of § 431.465.

The specific formulation for CER, in turn, varies according to circulator pump control variety, but in all cases is a function of measured pump input power when operated under certain conditions, as described in the September 2022 TP Final Rule.

Relatedly, CER

STD

represents CER for a circulator pump that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards with the same hydraulic horsepower as the tested pump, as determined in accordance with the specifications at paragraph (i) of § 431.465. 87 FR 57264.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

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

The average LCC savings are positive, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of circulator pumps, which is estimated to be approximately 10.5 years (

see

section IV.F.6 of this document).

The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards. The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product.

See

section IV.F of this document).

Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Circulator Pumps

Equipment class

Average LCC savings

(2021$)

Simple payback period

(years)

All Circulator Pumps

103.2

4.2

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2022-2055). Using a real discount rate of 9.6 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of circulator pumps in the case without standards is $325.9 million in 2021$. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −19.7 percent to 6.6 percent, which is approximately equivalent to a decrease of $64.3 million to an increase of 21.4 million. In order to bring products into compliance with standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $77.0 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in [2021] dollars.

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for circulator pumps would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without standards, the lifetime energy savings for circulator pumps purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2026-2055) amount to 0.45 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 34 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

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

i.e.,

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

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for circulator pumps ranges from $0.73 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $1.77 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 circulator pumps purchased in 2026-2055.

In addition, the proposed standards for circulator pumps are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same

period as for energy savings) of 15.8 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

”), 7.7 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO

”), 23.8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO

”), 102 thousand tons of methane (“CH

”), 0.2 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N

O”), and 0.05 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

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

are presented in short tons.

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2022

(“

AEO2022”

AEO2022

represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of

AEO2022

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO

(“SCCO

”), the social cost of methane (“SCCH

”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SCN

O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (SCGHG).

DOE used interim SCGHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG),

as discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SCGHG at a 3-percent discount rate are $0.80 billion. (DOE does not have a single central SCGHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SCGHG estimates.)

On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

See

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021 (“February 2021 SCGHG TSD”

). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.

DOE also estimates health benefits from SO

and NO

emissions reductions.

DOE estimates the present value of the health benefits would be $0.65 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.45 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions.

DOE estimated the monetized value of SO

and NO

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

See

section IV.L.2 of this document for further discussion.

DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for circulator pumps. In the table, total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SCGHG cases. The estimated total net benefits using each of the four cases are presented in section V.C.1 of this document.

Table I.3—Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps [TSL 2]

Billion

($2020)

3% discount rate:

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

3.41

Climate Benefits*

0.80

Health Benefits**

1.45

Total Benefits†

5.65

Consumer Incremental Product Costs‡

1.64

Net Benefits

4.02

7% discount rate:

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1.68

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate)

0.80

Health Benefits**

0.65

Total Benefits†

3.12

Consumer Incremental Product Costs‡

0.95

Net Benefits

2.18

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product name shipped in 2026-2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-GHG (

see

section IV.L of this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table V.18 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of GHG and NO

and SO

emission reductions, all annualized.

The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of circulator pumps shipped in 2026-2055. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of circulator pumps shipped in 2026-2055.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, 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.,

2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2022. 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.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NOX and SO

emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $93.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $165.8 in reduced equipment operating costs, $44.4 million in climate benefits, and $63.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $180.5 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $91.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $189.9 million in reduced operating costs, $44.4 million in climate benefits, and $80.8 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $224.0 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps

[TSL 2]

Million

(2021$/year)

Primary estimate

Low-net-benefits

estimate

High-net-benefits

estimate

3% discount rate:

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

189.9

185.7

194.0

Climate Benefits*

44.4

Health Benefits**

80.8

Total Benefits†

315.2

311.0

319.3

Consumer Incremental Product Costs‡

91.2

Net Benefits

224.0

219.8

228.1

7% discount rate:

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

165.8

162.6

168.7

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate)

44.4

Health Benefits**

63.9

Total Benefits†

274.1

271.0

277.0

Consumer Incremental Product Costs‡

93.5

Net Benefits

180.5

177.4

183.4

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with circulator pumps shipped in 2026-2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SCGHG (see section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SCGHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SCGHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SCGHG estimates.

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.

See

section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SCGHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SCGHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SCGHG estimates. See Table V.18 for net benefits using all four SCGHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, equipment achieving these standard levels are already commercially available. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO

and SO

reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for circulator pumps is $93.5 million per year in increased circulator pumps costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $165.8 million in reduced circulator pumps operating costs, $44.4 million in climate benefits and $63.9 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $180.5 million per year.

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.

Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).

As previously mentioned, the proposed standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 0.45 quad, the equivalent of the electricity use of 4.4 million homes in one year. The NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $0.73 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.77 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions associated with these energy savings are 15.8 Mt of CO

, 23.8 thousand tons of SO

, 7.7 thousand tons of NO

, 0.05 tons of Hg, 102.0 thousand tons of CH

, and 0.18 thousand tons of N

O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from the reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $0.80 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO

and NO

emissions is $0.65 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $1.45 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels (“ELs”) as potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits.

Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for circulator pumps.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes pumps, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)).

Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

The DOE test procedures for circulator pumps appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431, subpart Y, appendix D.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including circulator pumps. Any new or amended standard for a covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain equipment, including circulator pumps, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

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

EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered equipment 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

B. Background

As stated, EPCA includes “pumps” among the industrial equipment listed as “covered equipment” for the purpose of Part A-1, although EPCA does not define the term “pump.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) In a final rule published January 25, 2016, DOE established a definition for “pump,” associated definitions, and test procedures for certain pumps. 81 FR 4086, 4090. (“January 2016 TP final rule”). “Pump” is defined as equipment designed to move liquids (which may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes a bare pump and, if included by the manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver, and controls. 10 CFR 431.462. Circulator pumps fall within the scope of this definition.

While DOE has defined “pump” broadly, the test procedure established in the January 2016 TP final rule is applicable only to certain categories of clean water pumps,

specifically those that are end suction close-coupled; end suction frame mounted/own bearings; in-line (“IL”); radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser casing; and submersible turbine (“ST”) pumps with the following characteristics:

A “clean water pump” is a pump that is designed for use in pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0.016 pounds per cubic foot, and with a maximum dissolved solid content of 3.1 pounds per cubic foot, provided that the total gas content of the water does not exceed the saturation volume, and disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the water from freezing at a minimum of 14 °F. 10 CFR 431.462.

• 25 gallons per minute (“gpm”) and greater (at best efficiency point (“BEP”) at full impeller diameter);

• 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter and the number of stages specified for testing);

• design temperature range from 14 to 248 °F;

• designed to operate with either (1) a 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute (“rpm”) and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and in either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the same speed;

• 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for ST pumps;

• A specific speed less than or equal to 5,000 for ESCC and ESFM pumps;

• Except for: fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps, magnet driven pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10

CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities”; and pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in any relevant military specifications.

E.g.,

MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended); MIL-P-17881D, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)” (as amended); MIL-P-17840C, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Close-Coupled, Navy Standard (For Surface Ship Application)” (as amended); MIL-P-18682D, “Pump, Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating, Naval Shipboard” (as amended); and MIL-P-18472G, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Condensate, Feed Booster, Waste Heat Boiler, And Distilling Plant” (as amended). Military specifications and standards are available at

https://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS.

10 CFR 431.464(a)(1). The pump categories subject to the current test procedures are referred to as “general pumps” in this document. As stated, circulator pumps are not general pumps.

DOE also published a final rule establishing energy conservation standards applicable to certain classes of general pumps. 81 FR 4368 (Jan. 26, 2016) (“January 2016 ECS final rule”);

see also,

10 CFR 431.465.

The January 2016 TP final rule and the January 2016 ECS final rule implemented the recommendations of the Commercial and Industrial Pump Working Group (“CIPWG”) established through the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) to negotiate standards and a test procedure for general pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039) The CIPWG approved a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on appropriate standard levels for general pumps, as well as recommendations addressing issues related to the metric and test procedure for general pumps (“CIPWG recommendations”). (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92) Subsequently, ASRAC approved the CIPWG recommendations. The CIPWG recommendations included initiation of a separate rulemaking for circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2)

On February 3, 2016, DOE issued a notice of intent to establish the circulator pumps working group to negotiate a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) for energy conservation standards for circulator pumps to negotiate, if possible, Federal standards and a test procedure for circulator pumps and to announce the first public meeting. 81 FR 5658. The members of the Circulator Pump Working Group (“CPWG”) were selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of interested parties and expertise, including representatives from efficiency advocacy organizations and manufacturers. Additionally, one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative were part of the CPWG. Table II.1 lists the 15 members of the CPWG and their affiliations.

Table II.1—ASRAC Circulator Pump Working Group Members and Affiliations

Member

Affiliation

Charles White

Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association.

Gabor Lechner

Armstrong Pumps, Inc.

Gary Fernstrom

California Investor-Owned Utilities.

Joanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

Joe Hagerman

U.S. Department of Energy.

Laura Petrillo-Groh

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.

Lauren Urbanek

Natural Resources Defense Council.

Mark Chaffee

TACO, Inc.

Mark Handzel

Xylem Inc.

Peter Gaydon

Hydraulic Institute.

Richard Gussert

Grundfos Americas Corporation.

David Bortolon

Wilo Inc.

Russell Pate

Rheem Manufacturing Company.

Don Lanser

Nidec Motor Corporation.

Tom Eckman

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (ASRAC member).

The CPWG commenced negotiations at an open meeting on March 29, 2016, and held six additional meetings to discuss scope, metrics, and the test procedure. The CPWG concluded its negotiations for test procedure topics on September 7, 2016, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on scope, definitions, metric, and the basis of the test procedure (“September 2016 CPWG Recommendations”). The September 2016 CPWG Recommendations are available in the CPWG docket. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58)

The CPWG continued to meet to address potential energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. Those meetings began on November 3-4, 2016 and concluded on November 30, 2016, with approval of a second term sheet (“November 2016 CPWG Recommendations”) containing CPWG recommendations related to energy conservation standards, applicable test procedure, labeling and certification requirements for circulator pumps (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98). Whereas the September 2016 CPWG Recommendations are discussed in the September 2022 TP Final Rule, the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations are summarized in section III.A of this document. ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously to approve the September and November 2016 CPWG Recommendations during a December meeting. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 91 at p.2)

All references in this document to the approved recommendations included in 2016 Term Sheets are noted with the recommendation number and a citation to the appropriate document in the CPWG docket (

e.g.,

Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. #, Recommendation #X at p. Y). References to discussions or suggestions of the CPWG not found in the 2016 Term Sheets include a citation to meeting transcripts and the commenter, if applicable (

e.g.,

Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, [Organization], No. X at p. Y).

In a letter dated June 9, 2017, Hydraulic Institute (“HI”) expressed its support for the process that DOE initiated regarding circulator pumps and encouraged the publishing of a NOPR and a final rule by the end of 2017. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, HI, No.103 at p. 1) In response to an early assessment review RFI published September 28, 2020 regarding the existing test procedures for general pumps (85 FR 60734, “September 2020 Early Assessment RFI”), HI commented that it continues to support the recommendations from the CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, HI, No. 6 at p. 1) NEEA also referenced

the September 2016 CPWG Recommendations and recommended that DOE adopt test procedures for circulator pumps in the pumps rulemaking or a separate rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8)

On May 7, 2021, DOE published a request for information related to test procedures and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. 86 FR 24516 (“May 2021 RFI”).

DOE received comments in response to the May 2021 RFI from the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

The Anonymous comment did not substantively address the subject of this rulemaking.

Table II.2—List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the May 2021 RFI

Commenter(s)

Reference in

this final rule

Docket No.

Commenter type

People's Republic of China

China

EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0111

Country.

Hydraulic Institute

EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0112

Trade Association.

Grundfos Americas Corporation

Grundfos

EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0113

Manufacturer.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council

Advocates

EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0114

Efficiency Organization.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0115

Efficiency Organization.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison; collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities

CA IOUs

EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0116

Utility.

Anonymous Commenter

N/A

EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0117

Anonymous.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures for circulator pumps. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033 (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).

DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the test procedure on December 20, 2021, presenting DOE's proposals to establish a circulator pump test procedure (86 FR 72096) (hereafter, the “December 2021 TP NOPR”). DOE held a public meeting related to this NOPR on February 2, 2022. DOE published a final rule for the test procedure on September 19, 2022 (“September 2022 TP Final Rule”). The test procedure final rule established definitions, testing methods and a performance metric, requirements regarding sampling and representations of energy consumption and certain other metrics, and enforcement provisions for circulator pumps.

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“Appendix A”), DOE notes that it is deviating from two provisions in appendix A regarding the NOPR stage for an energy conservation standard rulemaking. First, section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking but will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE is providing a 60-day comment period, as required by EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). Second, section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if DOE determines in is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, then the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue an energy conservation standard would include either a framework document and preliminary analysis or, alternatively, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. According to section 6(a)(2) of appendix A, DOE may also optionally issue requests for information and notices of data availability.

As stated in section II.B of this document, DOE established a working group (the CPWG) to negotiate potential energy conservation standards for circulator pumps, which culminated at a consensus agreement (the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations) recommending that energy conservation standards for circulator pumps be adopted at TSL2, the level proposed in this NOPR. The CPWG held a series of formal and informal meetings, minutes and supporting material for which are posted in Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004.

Additionally, as stated in section II.B of this document, on May 7, 2021, DOE published a request for information related to test procedures and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps in which it initially provided a 60-day comment period. 86 FR 24516 (“May 2021 RFI”). Subsequently, in response to requests, DOE provided a 24-day extension to that initial comment period, for a total comment period of 84 days. 86 FR 28298.

DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and approaches as used in developing analysis supporting the standard level of TSL2 which was the consensus recommendation of the CWPG and which was supported by several commenters and which no commenters opposed. (HI, No. 112 at p. 6; Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6; NEEA, No. 115 at p. 3; Advocates, No. 114 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 116 at p. 5)

Considering the opportunity for comment and input afforded the CWPG by the negotiation process, including the opportunity to vote on a consensus level for energy conservation standards, the 84-day comment period of the May 2021 RFI in which the CPWG-recommended standard level was discussed, and the close adherence of the methods and analysis used in this NOPR to support a proposed standard level of TSL 2, interested parties have been provided substantial opportunity to provide input. Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate and will provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

Regarding the provision in section 6(a)(2) of appendix A to issue either a framework document and preliminary analysis or, alternatively, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking as the preliminary rulemaking documents, the function of these documents is to lay out for interested parties and the public DOE's planned approach and provide opportunity for comment had already been performed by the CPWG meeting process. Interested parties were offered opportunity to not only observe and comment on but even participate in that process. As discussed in section II.B of this document, many did. Table II.1 lists the 15 members of the CPWG and their

affiliations. The proceedings of the working group and related ASRAC activities have been documented and available for review respectively in the rulemaking docket (EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004) and non-rulemaking, ASRAC docket (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005).

As discussed in section II.B, the CPWG approved two term sheets which represented the group's consensus recommendations. The second term sheet, referred to in this NOPR as the “November 2016 CPWG Recommendations” contained the CPWG recommendations related to energy conservation standards, applicable test procedure, labeling and certification requirements for circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98) The proposals in this NOPR closely mirror the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations, which are accordingly summarized in this section.

III. General Discussion

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

A. November 2016 CPWG Recommendations

1. Energy Conservation Standard Level

The CPWG recommendation that each circulator pump be required to meet an applicable minimum efficiency standard. Specifically, the recommendation was that each pump must have a CEI

of less than or equal to 1.00. Among the numbered efficiency levels considered by the CPWG as potential standard levels, the agreed level was EL2 (

i.e.,

CEI less than or equal to 1.00).

The CPWG recommendations predated establishment of the current metric, called “CEI”, and instead used the analogous term “PEI

CIRC

”. In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the “CEI” nomenclature instead “PEI

CIRC

” to “CEI” based, in part, on comments received, to remain consistent with terminology used in HI 41.5, and to avoid potential confusion with the nomenclature. After receiving favorable comments on its proposal, DOE adopted the CEI nomenclature in the September 2022 TP Final Rule.

In response to the May 2021 RFI, several stakeholders commented in support of the CPWG's recommendation of energy conservation standards at EL2. HI commented that it supported the work and recommendations of the CPWG. (HI, No. 112 at p. 6) Grundfos recommended DOE adopt EL2, the recommended standard level of the CPWG. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6) NEEA commented it believes EL 2 is still appropriate and will result in significant energy savings nationally. (NEEA, No. 115 at p. 3) The Advocates commented that DOE should quickly adopt energy conservation standards for circulator pumps in accordance with the CPWG recommendations. (Advocates, No. 114 at p. 1) The CA IOUs commented that they support adopting the provisions of the CPWG term sheets, including the recommended energy conservation standard level of EL2. CA IOUs (CA IOUs, No. 116 at p.5)

No comments were received arguing against adoption of the CPWG-recommended standard level.

In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether any changes in the market since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets could make the CPWG's recommendation for EL 2 no longer valid. Grundfos, HI, NEEA responded stating there were little to no changes and the CPWG's recommendation of EL2 is still appropriate. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 10; HI, No. 112 at p. 11; NEEA, No. 115 at p. 2) HI estimated that standards at EL 2 would eliminate all permanent-split capacitor (“PSC”) motor circulator pumps which is the predominant product sold today. (

Id.

) Grundfos recommended that DOE adopt EL 2 as the standard, which would force the market to electronically commutated motor (ECM) products and remove 4% of ECMs currently available (based on CPWG data). (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 7)

Overall, the CPWG-recommended standard level appears well supported by commenters. As described in section V.C.1, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to adopt energy conservation standards for circulator pumps at TSL 2, which

As stated in section I, CEI was defined in the September 2022 TP Final Rule consistent with the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations as shown in equation (2), and consistent with Section 41.5.3.2 of HI 41.5-2022. (87 FR 57264).

EP06DE22.001

Where:

CER = circulator energy rating (hp); and

CER

STD

= circulator energy rating for a minimally compliant circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load.

The specific formulation CER, in turn, varies according to circulator pump control variety, but in all cases is a function of measured pump input power when operated under certain conditions, as described in the September 2022 TP Final Rule.

Relatedly, CER

STD

The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations contained a proposed method for calculating CER

STD

as shown in Equation (3):

The CPWG recommendations predated establishment of the current term “CER

STD

” and instead used the analogous term “PER

CIRC,STD

”. In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the “CER

STD

” nomenclature instead “PER

CIRC,STD

” because DOE believed that the terminology CER

STD

is more reflective of Federal energy conservation standards. After receiving no opposition on its proposal, DOE adopted the CEI nomenclature in the September 2022 TP Final Rule.

EP06DE22.002

Where:

= weight at each test point i, specified in Recommendation #2B

in,STD

= reference power input to the circulator pump driver at test point i, calculated using the equations and method specified in Recommendation #2C

i = test point(s), defined as 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at best efficiency point (BEP).

The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included a recommended weighting factor of 25% for each respective test point, i. (“Recommendation #2B”).

The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included (“Recommendation #2C”) a recommended reference input power, P

in,STD

as described in equation (4).

EP06DE22.003

Where:

u,i

= tested hydraulic power output of the pump being rated at test point i, in HP

WTW,100%

= reference BEP circulator pump efficiency at the recommended standard level (%), calculated using the equations and values specified in Recommendation #2D

= part load efficiency factor at each test point i, specified in Recommendation #2E

i = test point(s), defined as 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at best efficiency point (BEP).

The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included a reference efficiency at BEP at the CPWG-recommended standard level, η

WTW,100

, (“Recommendation #2D”) which varies by circulator pump hydraulic output power.

Specifically, for circulator pumps with BEP hydraulic output power P

u,100

<1 HP, the reference efficiency at BEP (ηWTW,100%) should be determined using equation (5):

EP06DE22.004

Where:

WTW,100

= reference BEP pump efficiency at the recommended standard level (%),

100

= tested hydraulic power output of the pump being rated at BEP, in HP

For the CPWG-recommended standard level, the constants A, B, and C used in equation would have the following values:

Table III.1—CPWG-Recommended Reference Pump WTW,100% Constants

10.00

.001141

67.78

For circulator pumps with BEP hydraulic output power P

u,100

≥1 HP, the reference efficiency at BEP (ηWTW,100%) would have a constant value of 67.79.

Additionally, the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations included a part-load efficiency factor (α

, as appears in equation (4)), which varies according to test point (“Recommendation #2E). Specifically, α

would have values as listed in Table III.2.

Table III.2—CPWG-Recommended Part-Load Efficiency

Corresponding

25%

0.4843

50%

0.7736

75%

0.9417

100%

This

CPWG-recommended equation structure is used to characterize the standard level proposed in this NOPR, with certain inconsequential changes to variable names.

The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations did not explicitly include a value for the part-load efficiency factor, α

, in Recommendation #2E. Nonetheless, Recommendation #2C makes clear that a value for the part-load efficiency factor, α

, is required to calculate reference input power, which calls for a value at test point i = 100%. DOE infers the omission of α

100

from Recommendation #2E to reflect that i = 100% corresponds to full-load, and thus imply no part-load-driven reduction in efficiency and, by extension, a load coefficient of unity. DOE is making this assumption that α

100

= 1 explicit by including it in this table, which is otherwise identical to that of CPWG Recommendation #2E.

2. Labeling Requirements

Under EPCA, DOE has certain authority to establish labeling requirements for covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6315) The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations contained one recommendation regarding labeling requirements, which was that both model number and CEI

be included on the circulator nameplate (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation #3 at p. 4).

The CPWG recommended that “PEI” be included in a potential labeling requirement which, as described previously, is analogous to CEI.

In response to the May 2021 RFI, the Advocates commented in support of establishing labeling requirements for

circulator pumps (Advocates, No. 114 at p. 1). No commenters argued against establishing labeling requirements for circulator pumps.

DOE is reviewing the potential benefits of establishing labeling requirements for circulator pumps and may share the results of such evaluation in a separate notice. Accordingly, in this NOPR, DOE is not proposing specific labeling requirements for circulator pumps, but DOE may consider such requirements for circulator pumps, including those recommended by the CPWG, in a separate rulemaking.

3. Certification Reports

Under EPCA, DOE has the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers with respect to the energy efficiency or energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).

The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations contained one recommendation regarding certification reporting requirements. Specifically, the CPWG recommended that the following information should be included in both certification reports and the public CCMS database:

• Manufacturer name

• Model number

• CEI

CEI had not been established at the time of the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations, which instead referred to this value as “PEI

CIRC

”.

• Flow (in gallons per minute) and Head (in feet) at BEP

• Tested control setting

• Input power at measured data points

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation #4 at p. 4)

The CPWG also recommended that certain additional information be permitted but not mandatorily included in both certification reports and the public CCMS database. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation 4 at p. 1) The recommended optional information consisted of: true RMS current, true RMS voltage, real power, and the resultant power factor at measured data points. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation #4 at p. 4)

DOE is not proposing certification or reporting requirements for circulator pumps in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to address amendments to the certification requirements and reporting for circulator pumps under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification.

B. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to align the scope of energy conservation standards for circulator pumps with that of the circulator pumps test procedure. 87 FR 57264. Specifically, this NOPR proposes to apply energy conservation standards to all circulator pumps that are also clean water pumps, including on-demand circulator pumps and circulators-less-volute, and excluding submersible pumps and header pumps.

This scope is consistent with the recommendations of the CPWG. DOE identified no basis to change the scope of energy conservations standard for circulator pumps relative to the scope of test procedures adopted in the September 2022 Final Rule. Accordingly, the scope of proposed energy conservation standards aligns with that of the test procedure. Comments related to scope are discussed and considered in the test procedure final rule.

Both of these proposals—scope and equipment classes—match the recommendations of the CPWG, which are summarized in this section. They are discussed further in section IV.A.1 of this document.

1. CPWG Recommendations

a. Scope

The September 2016 CPWG Recommendations addressed the scope of a circulator pumps rulemaking. Specifically, the CPWG recommended that the scope of a circulator pumps test procedure and energy conservation standards cover clean water pumps (as defined at 10 CFR 431.462) distributed in commerce with or without a volute and that are one of the following categories: wet rotor circulator pumps, dry rotor close-coupled circulator pumps, and dry rotor mechanically coupled circulator pumps. The CPWG also recommended that the scope exclude submersible pumps and header pumps. 86 FR 24516, 24520; (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendations #1A, 2A and 2B at p. 1-2) In response to the May 2021 RFI, HI and Grundfos stated that they believed all circulator pumps are included in the scope defined by the CPWG in the term sheets. (HI, No. 112 at p. 8; Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 7). DOE's proposal aligns with the scope recommended by the CPWG, consistent with the September 2022 TP Final Rule.

b. Definitions

The CPWG also recommended several definitions relevant to scope. DOE notes that, generally, definitions recommended by the CPWG rely on terms previously defined in the January 2016 TP final rule, including “close-coupled pump,” “mechanically-coupled pump,” “dry rotor pump,” “single axis flow pump,” and “rotodynamic pump.” 81 FR 4086, 4146-4147; 10 CFR 431.462. In addition, the recommended definition for “submersible pump” is the same as that already defined in a 2017 test procedure final rule for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (“August 2017 DPPP TP final rule”). 82 FR 36858, 36922 (August 7, 2017); 10 CFR 431.462.

In the September 19, 2022 TP Final Rule DOE established a number of definitions related to circulator pumps as follows. 87 FR 57264. Specifically, DOE defined: “circulator pump”, “wet rotor circulator pump”, “dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump”, “dry rotor, three-piece circulator pump”, “horizontal motor”, “header pump”, and “circulator-less-volute.” (87 FR 57264)

“Circulator pump” was defined to include both wet- and dry-rotor designs and to include circulators-less-volute, which are distributed in commerce without a volute and for which a paired volute is also distributed in commerce. Header pumps, by contrast, are those without volutes and for which no paired volute is available in commerce. (87 FR 57264)

In the September 2022 TP Final Rule (87 FR 57264) DOE did not propose a new definition for submersible circulator pumps, instead signaling applicability of an established term, “submersible pump”, which was defined in the 2017 test procedure final rule for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (“August 2017 DPPP TP final rule”). 82 FR 36858, 36922 (August 7, 2017):

Submersible pump

means a pump that is designed to be operated with the motor and bare pump fully submerged in the pumped liquid. 10 CFR 431.462.

DOE proposes to maintain these definitions from the September 2022 TP Final Rule in the standards for circulator pumps.

c. Equipment Classes

The CPWG recommended that all circulator pumps be analyzed in a single equipment class. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98, Recommendation #1 at p. 1) DOE's proposal aligns with the recommendation of the CPWG. Equipment classes are discussed further in section IV.A.1 of this document.

d. Small Vertical In-Line Pumps

The CPWG recommended that DOE analyze and establish energy conservation standards for small vertical in-line pumps (“SVILs”) with a compliance date equivalent to the previous energy conservation standards final rule (81 FR 4367, Jan. 26, 2016) for general (and not circulator) pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #1B at p. 1-2) The recommendation was that the standards for SVILs be similar in required performance to those of general pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #1B at p. 2) In addition to energy conservation standards for SVILs, the CPWG recommended SVILs be evaluated using the same test metric as general pumps.

Id.

In their response to the May 2021 RFI, Advocates requested that standards for small vertical in-line pumps (“SVILs”) be established that are comparable to those of commercial and industrial inline pumps, as the CPWG recommended in 2016 (Advocates, No. 114 at p. 1). Consistent with those sentiments, DOE proposed to extend commercial and industrial pump test procedures to SVILs in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking. 87 FR 21268 (Apr. 11, 2022) (April 2022 NOPR). That test procedure, if finalized, may allow evaluation of energy conservation standards for SVILs as part of a commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking process. However, subsequent to the April 2022 NOPR, DOE published a notice of data availability (NODA) in which DOE noted that during interviews conducted after the April 2022 NOPR, manufacturers provided conflicting suggestions for how DOE should conduct its SVIL analysis, including that some manufacturers suggested that potential SVIL standards should be equivalent to any future standards for circulator pumps. DOE received conflicting feedback on whether circulator pumps and SVILs would compete with, or act as substitutes for, each other. Some manufacturers stated that an SVIL would never be substituted for a circulator pump, while others said that it was possible. 87 FR 49537 (Aug. 11, 2022). In that NODA, DOE request comment on specific applications for which SVILs could be used instead of circulator pumps and how an SVIL would need to be modified for use in these applications, and potential benefits and drawbacks of setting standards for SVILs that align with circulator pumps versus setting standards for SVILs that align with in-line pumps.

Id.

At this time, DOE has tentatively determined to maintain its approach to address energy conservation standards for circulator pumps only in this rulemaking, separately from SVILs. DOE has not received adequate data or information at this time to suggest that DOE should address standards for SVILs along with the circulator pumps within the scope of this NOPR. Accordingly, DOE is proposing not to include SVILs within the scope of the energy conservation standards considered in this NOPR. Relatedly, the September 2022 TP Final Rule did not adopt test procedures for SVILs. DOE will continue to evaluate manufacturer and stakeholder feedback related to this issue and take any additional information into consideration as it may relate to including SVILs, or a subset of SVILs, within the scope of this rulemaking.

DOE requests comment on its approach to exclude SVILs from the scope of this NOPR, and whether DOE should consider standards for any SVILs as part of this rulemaking.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's current energy conservation standards for circulator pumps are expressed in terms of circulator energy index (“CEI”). CEI represents the weighted average electric input power to the driver over a specified load profile, normalized with respect to a circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load that has a specified minimum performance level.

(

See

10 CFR 431.464(c)).

The performance of a comparable pump that has a specified minimum performance level is referred to as the circulator energy rating (“CER”).

a. Control Mode

Circulator pumps may be equipped with speed controls that govern their response to settings or signals. DOE's test procedure contains definitions and test methods applicable to pressure controls, temperature controls, manual speed controls, external input signal controls, and no controls (

i.e.,

full speed operation only).

Section B.1 of appendix D to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431 specifies that circulator pumps without one of the identified control varieties (

i.e.,

pressure control, temperature control, manual speed control or external input signal control) are tested at full speed.

In this document, circulator pumps with “no controls” are also inclusive of other potential control varieties that are not one of the specifically identified control varieties.

See

section III.D.7 of this document.

Some circulator pumps operate in only a single control mode (

i.e.,

selected variety), whereas others are capable of operating in any of several control modes. As discussed in the September 2022 TP Final Rule, circulator pump energy performance typically varies by control variety, for circulator pumps equipped with more than one control variety. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE summarized and responded to a variety of stakeholder comments which discussed advantages and disadvantages of various potential requirements regarding the control variety activated during testing. Ultimately, DOE determined not to restrict active control variety during testing. 87 FR 57264. The test procedure for circulator pumps allows the manufacturer of a circulator pump to does not require a particular control variety to limit application to a particular control variety. Section B.2 of appendix D to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431.

In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE stated that although the test procedure does not restrict active control variety during testing, whether compliance with a potential future energy conservation standard would be based on a specific control mode (or no controls), or whether certain information related to the control mode used for testing would be required as part of certification, would be addressed in an energy conservation standard rulemaking.

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to require compliance with energy conservation standards for circulator pumps while operated in the least consumptive control mode in which it is capable of operating. Because many circulator pumps equipped with control

modes designed to reduce energy consumption relate to full-speed operating also include the ability to operate at constant-speed, to require testing using a circulator pumps' most consumptive control mode may reduce the ability of rated CEI to characterize the degree of energy savings possible across circulator pump models. Circulator pump basic models equipped with a variety of control modes would receive the same rating as an otherwise identical basic model which could operate only at full speed, even though in practice the former may consume considerably less energy in many applications.

As stated in section III.A.3 of this document, certification requirements, including those related to active control variety, are not being proposed in this NOPR, but may be addressed in a potential future rulemaking.

DOE requests comment regarding circulator pump control variety for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with energy conservation standards.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (“Process Rule”).

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for circulator pumps, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR technical support document (“TSD”).

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for circulator pumps, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to circulator pumps purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2026-2055).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of circulator pumps purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-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 new energy conservation standards.

Typically, each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each equipment class. In the case of circulator pumps, because there is only one equipment class, each TSL is the same as its corresponding efficiency level. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential new standards for circulator pumps. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of 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.

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

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standards for covered equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and 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 conservation standards.

The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis. As mentioned previously, the proposed standards are projected to result in estimated national FFC energy savings of 0.45 quads, the equivalent of the electricity use of 4.4 million homes

in one year. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of a potential standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an 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 on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

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

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

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 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 a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

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

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

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

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the

ADDRESSES

section for information to send comments to DOJ.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.

DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, 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 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. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)). DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1 of this proposed rule.

G. Effective Date

EPCA does not prescribe a compliance lead time for energy conservation standards for pumps,

i.e.,

the number of years between the date of publication of a final standards rule and the date on which manufacturers must comply with the new standard. And, while 42 U.S.C. 62959(m)(4)(B) states that manufacturers shall not be required to apply new standards to a product with respect to which other new standards have been required during the prior 6-year period, the standards proposed in this document would be the first energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations specified a compliance date of four years following publication of the final rule.

Two parties commented in response to the May 2021 RFI regarding effective date of potential energy conservation standards.

Grundfos recommended a 2-year compliance date due to the effort already made by the circulator pump industry to test circulator pumps. (Grundfos, No.113, at p. 1) NEEA, which recommended a 3-year compliance date, also mentioned the testing efforts and experience made by the circulator pump industry to test circulator pumps and argued that the industry is mature and capable of meeting the standard level recommended by the CPWG (which would have gone into effect by the end of 2021) at an earlier date. (NEEA, No. 115, at p. 3)

DOE agrees with commenters' arguments that the circulator pump industry is now more mature compared to 2016, and in this NOPR is proposing a 2-year compliance date for energy conservation standards. DOE is requesting comment on this proposal and notes that, depending on stakeholder comment, DOE may also consider a 3-year compliance date in the final rule.

DOE notes that, due to projected market trends, a change in the rulemaking's compliance date may lead to a small but non-negligible change in consumer and manufacturer benefits or impacts.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

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

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=66.

Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”)

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO”

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

A. Market and Technology Assessment

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

1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

a. Scope

As stated in section III.B, DOE is proposing to align the scope of these proposed energy conservation standards with that of the circulator pumps test procedure. 87 FR 57264. In that notice, DOE finalized the scope of the circulator pumps test procedure such that it applies to circulator pumps that are

clean water pumps, including circulators-less-volute and on-demand circulator pumps, and excluding header pumps and submersible pumps. That scope is consistent with the recommendations of the CPWG (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58).

In response to the May 2021 RFI, HI and Grundfos stated that they believed all circulator pumps are included in the scope defined by the CPWG in the term sheets. (HI, No. 112 at p. 8; Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 7).

DOE is proposing to apply energy conservation standards to all circulator pumps included in the CWPG recommendations, which excluded submersible pumps and header pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58). The September 2022 TP Final Rule also excluded submersible pumps and header pumps. Any future evaluation of energy conservation standards would require a corresponding test procedure.

DOE requests comment regarding the proposed scope of energy conservation standards for circulator pumps.

Equipment Diagrams

In general, DOE establishes written definitions to designate which products or equipment fall within the scope of a test procedure or energy conservation standard. In the specific case of circulator pumps, certain scope-related definitions were adopted by the September 2022 TP Final Rule and codified at 10 CFR 431.462.

In response to the May 2021 RFI, China requested that DOE add schematic diagrams for each product in addition to the text definition to avoid misunderstandings (China, No. 111 at p. 1).

The definitions which serve to distinguish various varieties of circulator pumps were adopted nearly unchanged from those recommended by the CPWG at meeting 2. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0021, p. 22) 10 CFR 431.462. CPWG membership included five manufacturers of circulator pumps, a trade association representing the US hydraulic industry, a trade association representing plumbing, heating, and cooling contractors, and other manufacturers of equipment which either use or are used by circulator pumps as components.

Given the strong representation of entities with deep experience in circulator pump design and for whom definitional ambiguity could be burdensome, it is reasonable to expect the CPWG-proposed definitions were viewed at least at the time of their recommendation as sufficiently clear.

Additionally, the development of diagrams which effectively serve as parallel equipment definitions creates the possibility of introducing confusion insofar as interpretations of such diagrams differ from those of the corresponding written definitions.

In view of the absence of identification of a specific definitional ambiguity and of the potential resulting confusion from a diagram that could be interpreted differently from corresponding written definitions at 10 CFR 431.462, DOE is not proposing to establish equipment diagrams in this NOPR.

DOE requests comment regarding the present circulator pump-related definitions, and in particular whether any clarifications are warranted.

b. Equipment Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may divide covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (

Id.

)

For circulator pumps, there are no current energy conservation standards and, thus, no preexisting equipment classes. However, the November 2016 Term Sheets contained a recommendation related to establishing equipment classes for circulator pumps. Specifically, “Recommendation #1” of the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations suggests grouping all circulator pumps into a single equipment class, though with numerical energy conservation standard values that vary as a function of hydraulic output power. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation #1 at p. 1)

In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment regarding the CPWG recommendation to include all circulator pumps within a single equipment class.

HI agreed with the CPWG that circulator pumps should be evaluated within a single equipment class and no design options are known that are incompatible or that would necessitate an additional equipment class. (HI, No. 112 at p. 8). Grundfos also agreed with the CPWG recommendation of a single circulator pump class as long as C‐values are defined based on motor size. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6).

As stated in section III.B.1, circulator pumps may be offered in wet- or dry-rotor configurations, and if dry-rotor, in either close-coupled or mechanically coupled construction. Minor differences in attributes may exist across configurations. For example, during interviews with manufacturers DOE learned that wet-rotor pumps tended to be quieter, whereas dry-rotor pumps may be easier to service. In general, however, each respective pump variety serves similar applications. Similarly, data provided to DOE as part of the confidential submission process indicates that each variety may reach similar efficiency levels when operated with similar motor technology. Accordingly, no apparent basis exists to warrant establishing separate equipment classes by circulator pump configuration.

One additional salient design attribute of circulator pumps is housing material. Generally, circulator pumps are built using cast iron, bronze, or stainless-steel housing. Bronze and stainless steel (sometimes discussed collectively with the descriptor “nonferrous”) carry greater corrosion resistance and are thus suitable for use in applications in which they will be exposed to corrosive elements. Typically, corrosion resistance is most important in “open loop” applications in which new water is constantly being replaced.

By contrast, cast iron (sometimes described as “ferrous” to distinguish from the “nonferrous” descriptor applied to bronze and stainless steel) pump housing is less resistant to corrosion than bronze or stainless steel, and as a result is generally limited to “closed loop” applications in which the same water remains in the hydraulic circuit, in which it will eventually become deionized and less able to corrode metallic elements of circulator pumps. Cast iron is generally less expensive to manufacture than bronze or stainless steel, and as a result bronze or stainless-steel circulator pumps are less commonly selected by consumers for applications which do not strictly require them.

Although a difference in utility exists across circulator pump housing materials, no such difference exists in ability to reach higher efficiencies. All housing materials are able to reach all efficiency levels analyzed in this NOPR. Accordingly, no apparent basis exists to warrant establishing separate equipment classes by circulator pump housing material.

DOE requests comment regarding the proposal to analyze all circulator pumps within a single equipment class.

On-Demand Circulator Pumps

On-demand circulator pumps respond to actions of the user, rather than other factors such as pressure, temperature, or time. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE adopted the following definition for on-demand circulator pumps, which is consistent with that recommended by the CPWG (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation 4 at p. 5):

On-demand circulator pump

means a circulator pump that is distributed in commerce with an integral control that:

• Initiates water circulation based on receiving a signal from the action of a user [of a fixture or appliance] or sensing the presence of a user of a fixture and cannot initiate water circulation based on other inputs, such as water temperature or a pre-set schedule.

• Automatically terminates water circulation once hot water has reached the pump or desired fixture.

• Does not allow the pump to operate when the temperature in the pipe exceeds 104 °F or for more than 5 minutes continuously.

10 CFR 431.462.

In response to the May 2021 RFI, HI commented that greater energy savings could be achieved through demand-based variable speed controls than would arise from redesign of a circulator pump's hydraulic components. (HI, No. 112 at p. 7). DOE interprets this comment to refer to other controls than user-reacting, both because of the specific naming of variable-speed (which is not necessary for user-triggered controls) and because of the context in which the comment was made. Nonetheless, it is logically possible that on-demand circulator pumps may indeed save energy relative to non-on-demand circulator pumps in certain applications.

The TP final rule (87 FR 57264) responded to a number of comments received in response to the December 2021 TP NOPR, which were discussed therein. Several commenters encouraged DOE to develop an adjustment to the CEI metric that accounted for the potential of on-demand circulator pumps to save energy in certain contexts. (EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 10 at p. 5; EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 11 at pp. 4-5). Other commenters did not support an adjusted CEI metric for on-demand circulator pumps in the test procedure final rule, but recommended evaluation of such in a potential future rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 9 at p.3; EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 7 at p. 1).

DOE ultimately did not adopt any modification to the CEI metric for on-demand circulator pumps in the final rule but stated that it would consider the appropriate scope and product categories for standards for on-demand circulator pumps in a separate energy conservation rulemaking.

As stated in section III.B, DOE is proposing to align the scope of energy conservation standards for circulator pumps consistently with that of the test procedure for circulator pumps, which includes on-demand circulator pumps. 87 FR 57264.

In developing the equipment class structure, DOE is directed to consider, among other factors, performance-related features that justify a different standard and the utility of such features to the consumer. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In the specific case of on-demand circulator pumps, the primary distinguishing feature (

i.e.,

ability to react to user action or presence) is not obviously performance related. It does not impede the ability of circulator pumps to reach the same performance levels as any other circulator pumps. On that basis, DOE is proposing not to establish a separate equipment class for on-demand circulator pumps in this NOPR.

It remains true, as observed by commenters, that in certain applications on-demand circulator pumps may save energy relative to non-on-demand circulator pumps through reduced aggregate operating durations. Operating duration of on-demand circulator pumps is considered in the energy use analysis, which is described in section IV.E.3 of this document.

DOE requests comment on its proposal not to establish a separate equipment class for on-demand circulator pumps.

2. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 3 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of circulator pumps, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

• Improved hydraulic design

• More efficient motors

• Increase number of motor speeds

Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD details each of these technology options. The following sections summarize the stakeholder comments on these technology option by variety.

a. Hydraulic Design

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

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

In response to the May 2021 RFI, Grundfos stated there are only small efficiency gains to be gained through hydraulic design. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6). HI responded to the May 2021 RFI explaining the savings gained through improved hydraulic design is not sufficient to meet EPCA requirements. Additionally, the energy savings does not offset the cost of modifying the hydraulic design. (HI, No. 112 at p. 7)

b. More Efficient Motors

Different constructions of motors have different achievable efficiencies. Two general motor constructions are present in the circulator pump market: induction motors, and ECMs. Induction motors include both single-phase and three-phase configurations. Single-phase induction motors may be further differentiated and include split phase, capacitor-start induction-run (CSIR), capacitor-start capacitor-run (CSCR), and PSC motors. HI stated that the majority of circulator pumps currently available on the market use PSC motors, which is a variety of induction motor (HI, No. 112 at p. 11). DOE confirmed using confidentially submitted manufacturer data that induction motor circulator pumps account for the majority of the circulator pump market.

The efficiency of an induction motor can be increased by redesigning the motor to reduce slip losses between the rotor and stator components, as well as reducing mechanical losses at seals and bearings. ECMs are generally more efficient than induction motors because their construction minimizes slip losses between the rotor and stator components. Unlike induction motors, however, ECMs require an electronic drive to function. This electronic drive consumes electricity, and variations in

drive losses and mechanical designs lead to a range of ECM efficiencies. In response to the May 2021 RFI HI and NEEA stated ECMs are experiencing a slow growth in the market, with faster growth in areas where there are utility incentives. (HI, No. 112 at p. 10; NEEA, No. 115 at p. 4).

The performance standard for this rule is based upon wire-to-water efficiency, which is defined as the hydraulic output power of a circulator pump divided by its line input power and is expressed as a percentage. The achievable wire-to-water efficiency of circulator pumps is influenced by both hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency. As part of the engineering analysis (Section IV.C), DOE assessed the range of attainable wire-to-water efficiencies for circulator pumps with induction motors, and those with ECMs, over a range of hydraulic power outputs. Because circulator pump efficiency is measured on a wire-to-water basis, it is difficult to fully separate differences due to motor efficiency from those due to hydraulic efficiency. In response to the May 2021 RFI, HI stated that improved motor efficiency and demand-based variable speed controls can achieve greater energy savings than from improved hydraulic efficiency. (HI, No. 112 at p. 7). However, in redesigning a pump model to meet today's proposed standard, manufacturers could consider both hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency.

Higher motor capacities are generally required for higher hydraulic power outputs, and as motor capacity increases, the attainable efficiency of the motor at full load also increases. Higher horsepower motors also operate close to their peak efficiency for a wider range of loading conditions.

U.S. DOE Building Technologies Office.

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

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

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

Circulator pump manufacturers either manufacture motors in-house or purchase complete or partial motors from motor manufacturers and/or distributors. Manufacturers may select an entirely different motor or redesign an existing motor in order to improve a pump's motor efficiency.

c. Speed Reduction

Circulator pumps with the variable speed capability can reduce their energy consumption by reducing pump speed to match load requirements. As discussed in the September 2022 TP Final Rule, the CER metric is a weighted average of input powers at each test point relative to BEP flow. The circulator pump test procedure allows CER values for multi- and variable-speed circulator pumps to be calculated as the weighted average of input powers at full speed BEP flow, and reduced speed at flow points less than BEP; CER for single-speed circulator pumps is calculated based only on input power at full speed. 10 CFR 431.464(c)(2). Due to pump affinity laws, variable-speed circulator pumps will achieve reduced power consumption at flow points less than BEP by reducing their rotational speed to more closely match required system head. As such, the CER metric grants benefits on circulator pumps capable of variable speed operation.

Specifically, pump affinity laws describe the relationship of pump operating speed, flow rate, head, and hydraulic power. According to the affinity laws, flow varies proportionally with the pump's rotational speed, as described in equation (6). The affinity laws also establish that pump total head is proportional to speed squared, as described in equation (7), and pump hydraulic power is proportional to speed cubed, as described in equation (8)

EP06DE22.005

Where:

and

= volumetric flow rate at two operating points

and H

= pump total head at two operating points

and

= pump rotational speed at two operating points

and

= pump hydraulic power at two operating points

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

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

exponential reduction in hydraulic output power at low-speed operation; this results in a lower input power at low-speed operation at flow points lower than BEP.

A discussion of reduced-speed pump dynamics is available at

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

Circulator pump speed controls may be discrete or continuous, as well as manual or automatic. Circulator pumps with discrete speed controls vary the circulator pump's rotational speed in a stepwise manner. Discrete controls are found mostly on circulator pumps with induction motors and have several speed settings that are can be used to allow contractors greater installation flexibility with a single circulator pump model. For these circulator pumps, the speed is set manually with a dial or buttons by the installer or user and operate at a constant speed once the installation is complete.

Circulator pumps equipped with automatic speed controls can adjust the circulator pump's rotational speed based on a signal from differential pressure or temperature sensors, or an external input signal from a boiler. The variable frequency drives required for ECMs makes them fairly amenable to the addition of variable speed control logic; currently the vast majority of circulator pumps with automatic continuously variable speed controls also have ECM motors. However, some circulator pump models with induction motors also come equipped with automatic continuous variable speed controls. While automatic controls can reduce energy consumption by allowing circulator pump speed to dynamically respond to changes in system conditions, these controls can also reduce energy consumption by reducing speed to a single, constant value that is optimized based on system head at the required flow point. Automatic controls can be broadly categorized into two groups: pressure-based controls, and temperature-based controls.

Pressure-based controls vary the circulator pump speed based on changes in the system pressure. These pressure changes are typically induced by a thermostatically controlled zone valve that monitors the space temperature in different zones and calls for heat (

i.e.,

opens the valve) when the space/zone temperature is below the set-point, similar to a thermostat. In this type of control, a pressure sensor internal to the circulator pump determines the amount of pressure in the system and adjusts the circulator pump speed to achieve the desired system pressure.

Temperature-based controls monitor the supply and return temperature to the circulator pump and modulates the circulator pump's speed to maintain a fixed temperature drop across the system. Circulator pumps with temperature-based controls are able to serve the heat loads of a conditioned space at a lower speed, and therefore lower input power, than the differential pressure control because it can account for the differential temperature between the space and supplied hot water, delivering a constant BTU/hr load to the space when less heat is needed even in a given zone or zones.

In response to the 2021 RFI, Grundfos stated the ability to reduce speed is the most important criteria for achieving higher efficiency in circulator products. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6). Reducing performance according to system need can achieve 50-60% savings (

Id.

). Grundfos explains further that the ability to run at reduced speeds is the costliest solution, but the larger savings can offset the higher costs and to help offset conversion to this technology (

Id.

). Understanding the lifetime energy saving compared to the higher initial cost is important for market adoption (

Id.

). The largest concern for the implementation is that optimization of the control mode can be problematic for an end user and requires higher level knowledge to gain maximum efficiencies (

Id.

). NEEA responded with data showing that currently, fewer than one-fifth of circulator pumps are equipped with speed control technology. (NEEA, No. 115 at p. 6). This shows the significant potential the market has for energy savings by using more pumps with the ability to operate at reduced speeds.

In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on increasing circulator pump efficiency using improved hydraulic design, more efficient motors, and/or increased number of motor speeds.

HI responded stating they are not aware of other design option that increase efficiency. (HI, No. 112 at p. 7). HI stated that the market is focused on improved motors and demand-based variable speed control and does not believe any other design changes, so far discovered, would occur (

Id.

). HI believes ECM circulator pumps with variable speed controls represent the maximum technology option. (

Id.

). The initial cost for these techniques is higher to consumers due to the higher cost of the efficient motor and incorporation of controls; however, the total life cycle cost to the consumer should be lower due to energy savings (

Id.

). The addition of ECMs and controls adds complexity to manufacturing due to scarcity of materials, reliance on non-domestic sources, automated assembly, and special tooling. Further complexity associated with ECMs are disposal and recycling programs (

Id.

). HI recommends DOE conduct manufacturer interviews to get additional updated information such as costs for design options to update the previous data request from 2016 (HI, No. 112 at p. 8). DOE received this data in the 2022 manufacturer interviews.

Grundfos responded stating the technology described is a fair description of the current state of the market. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 6). Grundfos explained that the most advanced products in the market are approaching the maximum possible efficiency values and any further energy use reductions would only be realized through more efficient system designs (piping/valves/etc.) and adoption of more efficient system interaction (interconnectivity to appliances, smart homes, etc.) (

Id.

In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether certain design options may not be applicable to specific equipment classes. Grundfos responded stating it does not see any limitations in design options for equipment classes. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 8). HI responded stating that no design options are known that are incompatible or that would necessitate an additional equipment class. (HI, No. 112 at p. 8).

Based on comments, DOE concludes that the technology options identified are sufficient to conduct the engineering analysis, which is discussed in section IV.C.

B. Screening Analysis

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

(1)

Technological feasibility.

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

(2)

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

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

(3)

Impacts on product utility or product availability.

If it is determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics

(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4)

Adverse impacts on health or safety.

If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

(5)

Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies.

If a design option utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).

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

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

1. Screened-Out Technologies

In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment regarding the screening criteria and on what impact they may have on currently identified and potential future possible technology options for circulator pumps. 86 FR 24516, 24530 (May 26, 2021).

In response, HI commented that ECMs and controls could potentially become a problem due to scarcity of necessary component materials, reliance on foreign sources, and the degree of automation and specialized tooling involved in the manufacture of ECMs. (HI, No. 112 at p. 7)

DOE interprets HI's comment to be discussing a hypothetical future scenario, and not to be stating that ECMs are unavailable today. Accordingly, ECMs have been retained as a design option for the analysis of this NOPR. DOE will monitor the market for circulator pumps with ECMs and consider removing ECMs as a design option in a future revision to the analysis if availability declines to the degree that circulator pump manufacturers are unable to obtain them, or unable to obtain them at a price level that would create a positive estimated economic proposition for purchasers of ECM-equipped circulator pumps.

DOE requests comment regarding the current and anticipated forward availability of ECMs and components necessary for their manufacture.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

• Improved hydraulic design

• More efficient motors

• Increase number of motor speeds

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

i.e.,

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

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of circulator pumps. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (

i.e.,

the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (

i.e.,

the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency circulator pumps, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each circulator pump class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the circulator pump at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses (

i.e.,

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

1. Representative Equipment

To assess MPC-efficiency relationships for all circulator pumps available on the market, DOE selected a set of representative units to analyze. These representative units exemplify capacities and hydraulic characteristics typical of circulator pumps currently found on the market. In general, to determine representative capacities and hydraulic characteristics, DOE analyzed the distribution of all available models and/or shipments and discussed its findings with the CPWG. The analysis focused on single speed induction motors as they represent the bulk of the baseline of the market.

To start the selection process, nominal horsepower targets based on CPWG feedback of 1/40, 1/25, 1/12,1/6, and 1 HP were selected for representative units (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0061, p. 9). At each horsepower target, pump curves were constructed from manufacturer data. Near identical pump curves were consolidated into single curves and curves that represent circulator pumps with low shipments were filtered out to remove the impact of low-selling pumps. These high sales consolidated pump curves were then grouped with similar curves to form clusters of similar circulator pumps. A representative curve was then constructed from this cluster of pumps by using the mean flow and head at each test point. Eight of these curves were constructed to form the eight representative units used in further analyses.

a. Circulator Pump Varieties

Circulator pumps varieties are used to classify different pumps in industry. Wet rotor circulator pump are commonly referred to as CP1, dry rotor, two-piece circulator pumps are commonly referred to as CP2, and dry rotor, three-piece circulator pumps are commonly referred to as CP3. The distinction of circulator varieties does not have a large impact on performance with all circulator pump varieties being capable of achieving any particular performance curve. Due to the performance similarities, the groups of pump curves used to generate representative units contain a mix of all three circulator varieties. Although DOE analyzed CP1, CP2, and CP3 circulator varieties as a single equipment class, representative units were selected such that all circulator varieties were captured in the analysis.

The parameters of each of the representative units used in this analysis are provided in Table IV.1.

Table IV.1—Representative Unit Parameters

Representative unit

Nominal

power

(hp)

Flow at BEP

(GPM)

Head at BEP

(ft)

Phydro at

BEP

(hp)

Variety

1/40

3.073

3.043

0.002

CP1.

1/40

5.759

6.628

0.010

CP1.

1/25

10.065

9.282

0.024

CP1.

1/25

10.525

6.064

0.016

CP1.

1/12

17.941

6.510

0.030

CP1, CP2, CP3.

1/6

19.521

20.254

0.100

CP1, CP2, CP3.

1/6

36.531

10.601

0.098

CP1, CP2, CP3.

61.200

36.782

0.569

CP1, CP3.

2. Efficiency Analysis

DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (

i.e.,

the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (

i.e.,

the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).

In this proposed rulemaking, DOE relies on an efficiency-level approach due to the availability of robust data characterizing both performance and selling price at a variety of efficiency levels.

a. Baseline Efficiency

For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of an equipment typical of that class (

e.g.,

capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.

For all representative units, DOE modeled a baseline circulator pump as one with a PSC motor.

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product.

For all representative units, DOE modeled a max-tech circulator pump as one with an ECM and operated on a differential temperature-based control scheme.

c. EL Analysis

DOE examined the influence of different paraments on wire-to-water efficiency including hydraulic power. Hydraulic power has a significant impact on wire to water efficiency as seen in the different representative units. To find the correlation, the relationship of power and wire to water efficiency were evaluated for both single speed induction and single speed ECM motors. Multiple relationships were tested with a logarithmic relationship being the most accurate. This logarithmic relationship can be used to set efficiency levels inclusive of all representative units across the ranges of horsepower.

To calculate wire to water efficiency at part-load conditions, wire-to-water efficiency at full-load conditions is multiplied by a part-load coefficient, represented by alpha (α). As instructed by the CPWG, a mean fit was developed for each part load test point across representative units to find a single value to use for alpha for each test point. This methodology was conducted independently for single speed induction, single speed ECM, and variable speed ECM to find unique alphas at each point for each motor type. The unique alpha values are provided in Table IV.2.

Table IV.2—Mean Alpha Values by Test Point and Motor Configuration

Motor configuration

Test

point

load

Mean

alpha

Single Speed Induction

0.4671

0.7674

0.9425

110

0.9835

Single Speed ECM

0.4845

0.7730

0.9408

110

0.9841

Variable Speed ECM

0.5914

0.8504

0.9613

DOE sets EL 0 as the baseline configuration of circulator pumps representing the minimum efficiency available on the market. DOE used the logarithmic function developed when finding the relationship between hydraulic power and wire-to-water efficiency to find the lower second percentile of single speed induction circulator pumps to set as EL 0. DOE finds single speed circulator pumps with induction motors have the lowest wire-to-water efficiency and are being set as EL 0, as agreed on at CPWG meeting 8. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0061, p. 15)

DOE set EL 1 to correspond approximately to single-speed induction motors with improved wire-to-water efficiency. EL 1 is an intermediate efficiency level between the baseline EL 0 and more efficient ECMs defined in higher efficiency levels. EL 1 was defined as the halfway between the most efficient single speed induction motors and the baseline used as EL 0.

EL 2 is set to correspond approximately to single-speed ECMs. The values for these circulator pumps

are found using the same base logarithmic function that were used when finding the relationship between hydraulic power and wire-to-water efficiency. EL 2 corresponds to a CEI of 1.00, which is the level recommended by the CPWG in the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations.

EL 3 is set to correspond approximately to variable-speed ECMs with automatic proportional pressure control. The effect of a 50 percent proportional pressure control is applied using equation (9) for each part load test point. The wire-to-water efficiency at each test point is found using the alpha values for variable speed ECM values for alpha.

EP06DE22.006

Where:

= total system head at each load point

(ft);

= flow rate at each load point

(gpm);

100

= flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow at maximum speed (gpm); and

100

= total pump head at 100 percent of BEP flow at maximum speed (ft).

EL 4 is the max-tech efficiency level, which represents the circulator pumps with the maximum possible efficiency. EL 4 is set as variable speed ECMs with automatic differential temperature control. The effects of the controls are calculated using equation (10). Similar to EL3, the wire-to-water efficiencies are found using the alpha values for variable speed ECMs.

EP06DE22.007

In response to the May 2021 RFI, Grundfos stated they do not believe there are any new technologies for DOE to consider and the maximum efficiency levels are appropriate for consideration. (Grundfos, No. 113 at p. 7).

For pumps that do not fit exactly into a representative unit, the DOE developed a continuous function for wire-to-water efficiency at BEP. The technique extends the representative units for each EL to compute wire-to-water efficiency at BEP for all circulator pumps by using the logarithmic function based on hydraulic power represented in equation (11). Variable

can be solved by using equation (12) and the variables for a and b are presented in Table IV.3 which contains different values for each efficiency level.

EP06DE22.008

EP06DE22.009

Where:

WTW

= wire-to-water efficiency

hydro

= hydraulic power (HP);

Table IV.3—Parameters Used To Solve for Wire-to-Water Efficiency

7.065278

0.003958

8.727971

0.003223

10.002583

0.001140

10.002583

0.001140

10.002583

0.001140

3. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the circulator pumps on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:

•

Physical teardowns:

Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.

•

Catalog teardowns:

In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product.

•

Price surveys:

If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (

e.g.,

large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels.

In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using a combination of physical teardowns and price surveys. The resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) estimates.

4. Cost-Efficiency Results

The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-efficiency data (or “curves”) in the form of wire-to-water efficiency versus MPC (in dollars). DOE developed 15 curves representing the 15 representative units in the analysis. The methodology for developing the curves started with determining the energy consumption for baseline equipment and MPCs for this equipment. Above the baseline, DOE implemented design options using the ratio of cost to savings, and implemented only one design option at each level. Design options were implemented until all available technologies were employed (

i.e.,

at a max-tech level).

Table IV.4, Table IV.5, Table IV.6 contain cost-efficiency results of the engineering analysis. MPCs are presented for circulator pumps with both ferrous and nonferrous housing material. Housing material does not significantly affect the energy consumption of circulator pumps, but does alter production cost. Housing material is discussed further in section IV.A.1.b. See TSD Chapter 5 for additional detail on the engineering analysis and TSD Appendix 5B for complete cost-efficiency results.

Table IV.4—Engineering Results—CP1, Rep. Units 1-4

Rep unit

Description

Construction

MPC—

Ferrous

MPC—

Nonferrous

1/40

Single Speed, Induction

CP1

$31.34

$35.61

1/40

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP1

31.34

35.61

1/40

Single Speed, ECM

CP1

47.91

51.87

1/40

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP1

59.23

63.18

1/40

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

68.28

72.24

1/40

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

68.28

72.24

1/40

Single Speed, Induction

CP1

34.44

39.13

1/40

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP1

34.44

39.13

1/40

Single Speed, ECM

CP1

53.57

57.92

1/40

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP1

64.88

69.23

1/40

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

73.94

78.28

1/40

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

73.94

78.28

1/25

Single Speed, Induction

CP1

40.82

54.57

1/25

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP1

40.82

54.57

1/25

Single Speed, ECM

CP1

65.65

78.41

1/25

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP1

76.96

89.72

1/25

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

86.02

98.78

1/25

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

86.02

98.78

1/25

Single Speed, Induction

CP1

40.82

54.57

1/25

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP1

40.82

54.57

1/25

Single Speed, ECM

CP1

65.65

78.41

1/25

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP1

76.96

89.72

1/25

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

86.02

98.78

1/25

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

86.02

98.78

Table IV.5—Engineering Results—CP1, Rep. Units 5-8

Rep unit

Description

Construction

MPC—

Ferrous

($)

MPC—

Nonferrous

($)

1/12

Single Speed, Induction

CP1

46.89

62.69

1/12

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP1

46.89

62.69

1/12

Single Speed, ECM

CP1

84.51

99.17

1/12

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP1

95.83

110.48

1/12

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

104.88

119.54

1/12

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

104.88

119.54

1/6

Single Speed, Induction

CP1

58.59

78.32

1/6

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP1

58.59

78.32

1/6

Single Speed, ECM

CP1

135.61

153.92

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP1

146.93

165.24

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

155.98

174.29

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

155.98

174.29

1/6

Single Speed, Induction

CP1

58.59

78.32

1/6

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP1

58.59

78.32

1/6

Single Speed, ECM

CP1

135.61

153.92

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP1

146.93

165.24

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

155.98

174.29

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

155.98

174.29

Single Speed, Induction

CP1

246.65

314.15

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP1

246.65

314.15

Single Speed, ECM

CP1

353.43

416.06

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP1

364.75

427.38

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

373.80

436.43

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP1

373.80

436.43

Table IV.6—Engineering Results—CP2 and CP3

Rep unit

Description

Construction

MPC—

Ferrous

($)

MPC—

Nonferrous

($)

1/12

Single Speed, Induction

CP2

70.68

95.00

1/12

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP2

70.68

95.00

1/12

Single Speed, ECM

CP2

116.64

139.20

1/12

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP2

127.95

150.52

1/12

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP2

137.00

159.57

1/12

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP2

137.00

159.57

1/6

Single Speed, Induction

CP2

110.21

142.23

1/6

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP2

110.21

142.23

1/6

Single Speed, ECM

CP2

166.86

196.57

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP2

178.17

207.88

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP2

187.22

216.94

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP2

187.22

216.94

1/6

Single Speed, Induction

CP2

110.21

142.23

1/6

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP2

110.21

142.23

1/6

Single Speed, ECM

CP2

166.86

196.57

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP2

178.17

207.88

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP2

187.22

216.94

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP2

187.22

216.94

1/12

Single Speed, Induction

CP3

103.19

130.25

1/12

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP3

103.19

130.25

1/12

Single Speed, ECM

CP3

157.00

182.10

1/12

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP3

168.31

193.41

1/12

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP3

177.36

202.47

1/12

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP3

177.36

202.47

1/6

Single Speed, Induction

CP3

160.89

246.28

1/6

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP3

160.89

246.28

1/6

Single Speed, ECM

CP3

224.59

303.82

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP3

235.91

315.13

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP3

244.96

324.19

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP3

244.96

324.19

1/6

Single Speed, Induction

CP3

160.89

246.28

1/6

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP3

160.89

246.28

1/6

Single Speed, ECM

CP3

224.59

303.82

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP3

235.91

315.13

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP3

244.96

324.19

1/6

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP3

244.96

324.19

Single Speed, Induction

CP3

472.16

697.64

Improved Single Speed, Induction

CP3

472.16

697.64

Single Speed, ECM

CP3

604.20

813.41

Variable Speed, ECM, dP

CP3

615.52

824.73

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP3

624.57

833.78

Variable Speed, ECM, dT

CP3

624.57

833.78

5. Manufacturer Markup and Manufacturer Selling Price

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the full MPC. The resulting MSP is the price at which the manufacturer can recover production and non-production costs. To calculate the manufacturer markups, DOE used data from 10-K reports

submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) by the publicly-owned circulator pump manufacturers. DOE then averaged the financial figures spanning the years 2019 to 2021 to calculate the initial estimate of markups for circulator pumps for this rulemaking. During the 2022 manufacturer interviews, DOE discussed the manufacturer markup with manufacturers and used the feedback to modify the manufacturer markup calculated through review of SEC 10-K reports.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Annual 10-K Reports (Various Years) available at

sec.gov

(Last accessed June 15th, 2022).

To calculate the MSP for circulator pump equipment, DOE multiplied the calculated MPC at each efficiency level by the manufacturer markup. See chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for more details about the manufacturer markup calculation and the MSP calculations.

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (

e.g.,

retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up equipment prices to cover business costs and profit margin.

For circulator pumps, the main parties in the distribution chain are (1) sales representatives (reps); (2) distributors; (3) contractors; and (4) original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). For each actor in the distribution chain, DOE developed baseline and incremental markups. Baseline markups are applied to the price of equipment with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.

Because the projected price of standards-compliant products is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible in the short run, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.

DOE identified distribution channels for circulator pumps and estimated their respective shares of shipments by sector (residential and commercial) based on feedback from manufacturers and the CPWG (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 49 at p. 51), as shown in Table IV.7.

Table IV.7—Circulator Pumps Distribution Channels and Respective Market Shares

Channel: from manufacturer

Residential shipments share

(%)

Commercial shipments share

(%)

Sales Rep → Contractor → End User

Sales Rep → Distributor → Contractor → End User

Distributor → End User

Sales Rep → Distributor → End User

OEM → Contractor → End User

OEM → Distributor → Contractor → End User

Total

100

The sales representative in the distribution chain serves the role of a wholesale distributor, as they do not take commission from the sale, but buy the equipment and take title to it. The OEM channels represent sales of circulator pumps, which are included in other equipment, such as hot water boilers.

To estimate average baseline and incremental markups, DOE relied on several sources, including: (1) U.S.

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

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