Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners; Final Rule

Federal RegisterApr 11, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035]

RIN 1904-AF46

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners; Final Rule

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), authorizes the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products upon determining that: classifying the product as a covered product is necessary for the purposes of EPCA; and the average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per year (“kWh/yr”). In a final determination published on July 15, 2022, DOE determined that classifying air cleaners as a covered product is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, and that the average U.S. household energy use for air cleaners is likely to exceed 100 kWh/yr. In this direct final rule, DOE is establishing energy conservation standards for air cleaners. DOE has determined that energy conservation standards for these products will result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is August 9, 2023, unless adverse comment is received by July 31, 2023. If adverse comments are received that DOE determines may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule, a timely withdrawal of this rule will be published in the

Federal Register

. If no such adverse comments are received, compliance with the standards established for air cleaners in this direct final rule is required on and after December 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, which includes

Federal Register

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

www.regulations.gov.

All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

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

The docket web page can be found at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035.

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

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

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Troy Watson, 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: (240) 449-9387. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:

Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Air Cleaners

3. Joint Proposal Submitted by the Joint Stakeholders

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

B. Scope of Coverage

C. Test Procedure

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

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Product Classes

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

a. Product Class 1

b. Product Class 2

c. Product Class 3

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Product Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

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

9. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Product 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. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

3. Discussion of MIA Comments

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

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. 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 Air Cleaner Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

On July 15, 2022, DOE published a final determination (“July 2022 Final Determination”) in which it determined that air cleaners qualify as a “covered product” under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”).

87 FR 42297. DOE determined in the July 2022 Final Determination that coverage of air cleaners is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, and that the average U.S. household energy use for air cleaners is likely to exceed 100 kWh/yr.

Id.

Currently, no energy conservation standards are prescribed by DOE for air cleaners.

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. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

As previously mentioned, and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule establishing energy conservation standards for air cleaners. These standard levels were submitted jointly to DOE on August 23, 2022, by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups, hereinafter referred to as “the Joint Stakeholders.”

This collective set of comments, titled “Joint Statement of Joint Stakeholder Proposal On Recommended Energy Conservation Standards And Test Procedure For Consumer Room Air Cleaners” (the “Joint Proposal”),

recommends specific energy conservation standards for air cleaners that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). See sections II.B.3 and II.B.2 of this document for a detailed discussion of the Joint Proposal and history of the current rulemaking, respectively.

The Joint Stakeholders include the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (“ASAP”), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (“ACEEE”), Consumer Federation of America (“CFA”), Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”), and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”). AHAM is representing the companies who manufacture consumer room air cleaners and are members of the Portable Appliance Division (DOE has included names of all manufacturers listed in the footnote on page 1 of the Joint Proposal and the signatories listed on pages 13-14): 3M Co.; Access Business Group, LLC; ACCO Brands Corporation; Air King, Air King Ventilation Products; Airgle Corporation; Alticor, Inc.; Beijing Smartmi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.; BISSELL Inc.; Blueair Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; De'Longhi America, Inc.; Dyson Limited; Essick Air Products; Fellowes Inc.; Field Controls; Foxconn Technology Group; GE Appliances, a Haier company; Gree Electric Appliances Inc.; Groupe SEB; Guardian Technologies, LLC; Haier Smart Home Co., Ltd.; Helen of Troy-Health & Home; iRobot; Lasko Products, Inc.; Molekule Inc.; Newell Brands Inc.; Oransi LLC; Phillips Domestic Appliances NA Corporation; SharkNinja Operating, LLC; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Sharp Electronics of Canada Ltd.; Sunbeam Products, Inc.; Trovac Industries Ltd; Vornado Air LLC; Whirlpool Corporation; Winix Inc.; and Zojirushi America Corporation.

DOE Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0016.

After carefully considering the Joint Proposal, DOE determined that the recommendations contained therein are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for the issuance of a direct final rule. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is simultaneously publishing, elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register

, a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) proposing that the identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule be adopted. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), DOE will continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See section II.A of this document for more details on DOE's statutory authority.

This direct final rule documents DOE's analyses to objectively and independently evaluate the energy savings potential, technological feasibility, and economic justification of the standard levels recommended in the Joint Proposal, as per the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

Ultimately, DOE found that the standard levels recommended in the Joint Proposal would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified. Table I.1 documents the standards for air cleaners. The standards correspond to the recommended trial standard level (“TSL”) 3 (as described in section V.A of this document) and are expressed as an integrated energy factor (“IEF”) in terms of PM

2.5

clean air delivery rate per watt (“PM

2.5

CADR/W”), based on the product's PM

2.5

CADR. The standards are the same as those recommended by the Joint Stakeholders, which consist of two-tiered (Tier 1 and Tier 2) standard levels. These standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on December 31, 2023, for Tier 1 standards and on December 31, 2025, for Tier 2 standards.

Section 2.8 of the industry standard AHAM AC-7-2022 defines PM

2.5

as particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or by an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53.

Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners

[Compliance starting December 31, 2023]

Product class

IEF (PM

2.5

CADR/W)

Tier 1

December 31, 2023

Tier 2

December 31, 2025

PC1: 10 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 100

1.7

1.9

PC2: 100 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 150

1.9

2.4

PC3: PM

2.5

CADR ≥ 150

2.0

2.9

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

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

The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of air cleaners, which is estimated to be 9.0 years (see section IV.F of this document).

These values from the Joint Proposal are rounded according to the sampling plan in 10 CFR 429.68. The rounding has no functional impact on the standards as compared to the levels in the Joint Proposal.

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 (see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

Table I.2—Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Air Cleaners

Air cleaners class

Tier

Average LCC savings

(2021$)

Simple

payback period

(years)

Product Class 1: 10-100 PM

2.5

CADR

Tier 1

$18

0.9

Tier 2

1.4

Product Class 2: 100-150 PM

2.5

CADR

Tier 1

0.4

Tier 2

0.5

Product Class 3: 150+ PM

2.5

CADR

Tier 1

105

0.1

Tier 2

0.1

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted 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 (2023-2057). Using a real discount rate of 6.6 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of air cleaners in the case without new standards is $1,565.9 million in 2021$. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −4.3 percent to −2.6 percent, which is approximately −$66.7 million to −$40.7 million. In order to bring products into compliance with standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $57.3 million.

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

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021 dollars. and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2022 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for air cleaners would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without standards, the lifetime energy savings for air cleaners purchased in the analysis period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2024-2057), amount to 1.80 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a cumulative savings of 27 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.1 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for air cleaners ranges from $5.8 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $13.7 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for air cleaners purchased in 2024-2057.

In addition, the adopted standards for air cleaners are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 57.7 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

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

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

”), 411.4 thousand tons of methane (“CH

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

O”), and 0.2 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

The estimated cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 2.5 million Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions

resulting from the annual electricity use of almost 500 thousand homes.

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

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-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 affect air pollutant emissions.

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

(“SC-CO

”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH

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

O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (“SC-GHG”).

DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”).

The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $2.8 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.

To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

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 SC-GHG TSD”

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

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO

and NO

emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $1.8 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $4.7 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 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 new standards for air cleaners. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.3—Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Air Cleaners

Billion

($2021)

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

14.1

Climate Benefits *

2.8

Health Benefits **

4.7

Total Benefits †

21.6

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

0.5

Net Benefits

21.1

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

6.0

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

2.8

Health Benefits **

1.8

Total Benefits †

10.6

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

0.2

Net Benefits

10.3

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product name shipped in 2024-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2024-2057.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO

), methane (SC-CH

), and nitrous oxide (SC-N

O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

** 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.

See

section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.

The benefits and costs of the 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 climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2021, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (

e.g.,

2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2021. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of air cleaners shipped in 2024-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of air cleaners shipped in 2024-2057. DOE notes that DOE used its typical analytical time horizon of 30-years and then added 4 additional years to reflect the early compliance dates that are part of the standard level being adopted in this final rule. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.C.2 of this document.

Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. 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 NO

and SO

emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $19.8 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $499 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $136 million in climate benefits, and $149 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $764 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $23.4 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $690 million in reduced operating costs, $136 million in climate benefits, and $228 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $1,030 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Air Cleaners

Million

(2021$/year)

Primary

estimate

Low-net-benefits

estimate

High-net-benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

689.7

623.7

773.4

Climate Benefits *

135.6

124.2

149.9

Health Benefits **

228.4

210.1

251.0

Total Benefits †

1,053.6

958.1

1,174.2

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

23.4

22.8

24.7

Net Benefits

1,030.2

935.3

1,149.5

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

498.8

459.8

546.9

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

135.6

124.2

149.9

Health Benefits **

149.3

139.7

160.9

Total Benefits †

783.7

723.7

857.7

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

19.8

19.3

20.7

Net Benefits

763.9

704.4

837.0

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with air cleaners shipped in 2024-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2024-2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global 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 and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

** 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. See section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total 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.

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

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has determined that the Joint Proposal containing recommendations with respect to energy conservation standards for air cleaners was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary has determined that the adoption of the recommended standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the burdens. Namely, the Secretary has concluded that the recommended standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings, would yield benefits outweighing the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

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 standards for air cleaners is $19.8 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $499 million in reduced product operating costs, $136 million in climate benefits, and $149 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $764 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.

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. 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 standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 1.80 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 19 million homes. The NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $5.8 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $13.7 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions associated with these energy savings are 57.7 Mt of CO

, 24.2 thousand tons of SO

, 91.2 thousand tons of NO

, 0.2 tons of Hg, 411.4 thousand tons of CH

, 0.6 thousand tons of N

O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefit from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $2.8 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO

and NO

emissions is $1.8 billion using a 7 percent discount rate and $4.7 billion using a 3 percent discount rate. As such, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”).

Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule establishing the energy conservation standards for air cleaners. Consistent with this authority, DOE is also publishing elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register

a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing standards that are identical to those contained in this direct final rule.

See

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i).

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for air cleaners.

A. Authority

EPCA grants DOE authority to prescribe an energy conservation standard for any type (or class) of covered products of a type specified in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) if the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(p) are met and the Secretary determines that—

(A) the average per household energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any 12-month period ending before such determination;

(B) the aggregate household energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12-month period;

(C) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of such type (or class) is technologically feasible; and

(D) the application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such type (or class) is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) which achieve the maximum energy efficiency which is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(

)(1))

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 the EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

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

See

42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted

under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for air cleaners appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix FF (“appendix FF”).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including air cleaners. Any new or amended standard for a covered product 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. 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. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain products, including air cleaners, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

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

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

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

Id.

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

Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for air cleaners address standby mode and off mode energy use, through the IEF metric. As IEF includes annual energy consumption in standby mode and off mode as part of the annual energy consumption metric and DOE is adopting standards for air cleaners based on IEF the standards in this direct final rule account for standby mode and off mode energy use of an air cleaner.

Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a “direct final rule”) establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))

A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on the proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner.

Id.

After withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the notice of proposed rulemaking published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the

Federal Register

the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn.

Id.

DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final rule

authority. In a final rule amending the Department's “Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, DOE explained that, because the direct final rule authority does not refer to any of the other requirements in EPCA, DOE interprets that provision as not subject to any of those other requirements. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). Rather, DOE's authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) is constrained only by the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE's overarching statutory mandate in issuing energy conservation standards is to choose a standard that results in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified—a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

Id.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

Air cleaners are not currently subject to federal energy conservation standards. However, some states have adopted standards. Specifically, the District of Columbia adopted standards in 2020, Maryland adopted standards in 2022, and Nevada and New Jersey adopted standards in 2021, as shown in Table II.1. The District of Columbia and New Jersey State standards went into effect in 2022, while the Nevada State standard is expected to go into effect in 2023 and the Maryland State standard is expected to go into effect in 2024.

Table II.1—Air Cleaner Standards Adopted by the District of Columbia and the States of Maryland, Nevada, and New Jersey

Smoke CADR bins

Minimum smoke CADR/W

30 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 100

1.7

100 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 150

1.9

2.5

CADR ≥ 150

2.0

Note:

These standards are based on smoke clean air delivery rate (“CADR”) divided by the active mode power consumption in watts (“W”), which is different from the IEF metric specified in appendix FF.

Washington State adopted the standards shown in Table II.2 in 2022 with an effective date in 2024.

Table II.2—Air Cleaner Standards Adopted by Washington State

Smoke CADR Bins

Minimum smoke CADR/W

30 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 100

1.9

100 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 150

2.4

2.5

CADR ≥ 150

2.9

Note:

These standards are based on smoke CADR divided by the active mode power consumption in W, which is different from the IEF metric specified in appendix FF.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Air Cleaners

DOE has not previously conducted an energy conservation standards rulemaking for air cleaners. On January 25, 2022, DOE published a request for information (“January 2022 RFI”), seeking comments on potential test procedure and energy conservation standards for air cleaners. 87 FR 3702. In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested information to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses to support energy conservation standards for air cleaners, should they be warranted. 87 FR 3702, 3705.

DOE determined in the July 2022 Final Determination that coverage of air cleaners is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; the average U.S. household energy use for air cleaners is likely to exceed 100 kWh/yr; and thus, air cleaners qualify as a “covered product” under EPCA. 87 FR 42297.

On March 6, 2023, DOE published a final rule (“March 2023 TP Final Rule”) establishing a new test procedure (TP) at appendix FF for air cleaners that references the industry standard, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) AC-7-2022, “Energy Test Method for Consumer Room Air Cleaners” and includes methods to (1) measure the performance of the covered product and (2) use the measured results to calculate an IEF to represent the energy efficiency of air cleaners. 88 FR 14014.

DOE received comments in response to the January 2022 RFI from the interested parties listed in Table II.4.

Table II.4—List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the January 2022 RFI

Commenter(s)

Abbreviation

Docket

No.

Commenter type

ACEEE, ASAP, AHAM, CFA, and NRDC

Joint Commenters

Efficiency Organizations and Trade Association.

Blueair IAQ

Blueair

Manufacturer.

Electrolux Home Products Inc. North America

Electrolux

Manufacturer.

Daikin U.S. Corporation

Daikin

Manufacturer.

Lennox International Inc

Lennox

Manufacturer.

Madison Indoor Air Quality

MIAQ

Manufacturer.

Molekule

Manufacturer.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

Efficiency Organization.

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

CA IOUs

Utilities.

Synexis LLC

Synexis

Manufacturer.

Trane Technologies

Trane

Manufacturer.

Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute

AHRI

Trade Association.

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

In response to the January 2022 RFI, DOE received certain

comments pertaining to the scope of coverage and definition for air cleaners, which DOE addressed and discussed in the July 2022 Final Determination. Additionally, DOE addressed comments pertaining to the test procedure in a NOPR published on October 18, 2022 as part of the test procedure rulemaking establishing appendix FF. 87 FR 63324. All remaining comments provided by stakeholders in response to the January 2022 RFI are addressed in this direct final rule.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to determine coverage for air cleaners. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-DET-0022, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). When referring to comments received on another docket, the docket number is included prior to the commenter's name.

3. Joint Proposal Submitted by the Joint Stakeholders

This section summarizes the recommendations included in the Joint Proposal submitted by the Joint Stakeholders. The Joint Proposal submitted by the Joint Stakeholders urged DOE to publish final rules adopting the consumer room air cleaner test procedure and standards and compliance dates contained in the Joint Proposal, as soon as possible, but not later than December 31, 2022. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at p. 1) The Joint Proposal also recommended that DOE adopt AHAM AC-7-2022 as the DOE test procedure. (

Id.

at p. 6) In regards to energy conservation standards, the Joint Proposal specified two-tiered Tier 1 and Tier 2 standard levels, as shown in Table II.5, for conventional room air cleaners with proposed compliance dates of December 31, 2023, and December 31, 2025, respectively. (

Id.

at p. 9)

Table II.5—Tier 1 and Tier 2 Standards Proposed by the Joint Stakeholders in the Joint Proposal

Product description

IEF

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

Tier 1 *

IEF

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

Tier 2 **

10 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 100

1.69

1.89

100 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 150

1.90

2.39

2.5

CADR ≥ 150

2.01

2.91

* Tier 1 standards would have an effective date of December 31, 2023.

** Tier 2 standards would have an effective date of December 31, 2025.

The Tier 1 standards are equivalent to the state standards established by the States of Maryland, Nevada, and New Jersey, and the District of Columbia. (

Id.

at p. 9) Tier 2 standards are equivalent to the voluntary standards specified in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (“EPA's”) ENERGY STAR Version 2.0 Room Air Cleaners Specification, Rev. May 2022, (“ENERGY STAR V. 2.0”) and those adopted by the State of Washington. (

Id.

) While the standards established by the States and those specified in ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 are based on smoke CADR and include only active mode energy consumption in the calculation of the CADR/W metric, the Joint Stakeholders presented data to show that there is a strong relationship between the PM

2.5

CADR calculation and the measured smoke and dust CADR values. (

Id.

at p. 6) Additionally, DOE compared the IEF metric, calculated using PM

2.5

CADR and annual energy consumption in active mode and standby mode (“AEC”), to the smoke CADR/W metric, calculated using smoke CADR and active mode power consumption, using the ENERGY STAR database,

and found a strong relationship between IEF and the CADR/W metric specified in ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 and the State standards. The Joint Stakeholders stated that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards are estimated to save 1.9 quads of FFC energy nationally over 30 years of sales. (

Id.

at p. 9)

Available at:

https://data.energystar.gov/Active-Specifications/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data.

Last accessed: December 2022.

After carefully considering the consensus recommendations for establishing energy conservation standards for air cleaners submitted by the Joint Stakeholders, DOE has determined that these recommendations are in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule.

More specifically, these recommendations comprise a statement submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter. In appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430 (“appendix A”), DOE explained that to be “fairly representative of relevant points of view,” the group submitting a joint statement must, where appropriate, include larger concerns and small business in the regulated industry/manufacturer community, energy advocates, energy utilities, consumers, and States. However, it will be necessary to evaluate the meaning of “fairly representative” on a case-by-case basis, subject to the circumstances of a particular rulemaking, to determine whether fewer or additional parties must be part of a joint statement in order to be “fairly representative of relevant points of view.” Section 10 of appendix A. In reaching this determination, DOE took into consideration the fact that the Joint Stakeholders consist of representatives of manufacturers of the covered product at issue, a state corporation, and efficiency advocates—all of which are groups specifically identified by Congress as relevant parties to any consensus recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) As delineated above, the Joint Proposal was signed and submitted by a broad cross-section of interests, including the trade association representing small and large manufacturers who produce the subject products, consumer groups, climate and health advocates, and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, each of which signed the Joint Proposal on behalf of their respective manufacturers and efficiency advocacy organizations, which includes consumer groups, utilities, and a state corporation. Moreover, DOE does not read the statute as requiring a statement submitted by all interested parties before the Department may proceed with issuance of a direct final rule, nor does appendix A require the statement be submitted by all interested parties listed in the appendix. By explicit language of the statute, the Secretary has the discretion to determine when a joint recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard has met the requirement for representativeness (

i.e.,

“as determined by the Secretary”).

Id.

DOE also evaluated whether the recommendation satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable. In making this determination, DOE conducted an analysis to evaluate whether the potential energy conservation standards under consideration achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and result in significant energy conservation. The evaluation is the

same comprehensive approach that DOE typically conducts whenever it considers potential energy conservation standards for a given type of product or equipment.

Upon review, the Secretary determined that the Joint Proposal comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). Accordingly, the consensus-recommended efficiency levels were included as the “recommended TSL” for air cleaners (see section V.A of this document for description of all of the considered TSLs). The details regarding how the consensus-recommended TSLs comply with the standard-setting criteria are discussed and demonstrated in the relevant sections throughout this document.

In sum, as the relevant criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) have been satisfied, the Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to adopt the consensus-recommended new energy conservation standards for air cleaners through this direct final rule. Also, in accordance with the provisions described in section II.A of this document, DOE is simultaneously publishing, elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register

, a NOPR proposing that the identical standard levels contained in this direct final rule be adopted.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this direct final rule after considering oral and written comments, data, and information that DOE received in response to the January 2022 RFI from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

While DOE received comments in response to the January 2022 RFI pertaining to the specific subtopics in section IV of this document, DOE also received several general comments in response to the January 2022 RFI from interested parties regarding the rulemaking timing and process. These comments are summarized and addressed in the following paragraphs.

The Joint Commenters stated support for DOE's proposal to include consumer room air cleaners as a covered product and indicated they were working to negotiate possible Federal energy conservation standards for consumer room air cleaners, along with an applicable test procedure for DOE's consideration. (Joint Commenters, No. 8 at p.1) The CA IOUs also stated that they were engaged with stakeholders on test procedures, metrics, and efficiency standards for air cleaners. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)

Trane commented that a new energy conservation standard for consumer air cleaners is necessary because consumers need guidance at a time of unprecedented energy bills and the opportunity to avoid unnecessary energy consumption. (Trane, No. 3 at p. 2) Blueair also commented that it supported energy conservation standards for air cleaners, citing its own HEPASilent

technology as proof that reduced energy consumption and maximum clean air delivery were compatible. Blueair also stated that it has demonstrated that it is technologically possible to design and manufacture air cleaners with reduced energy usage without loss of air cleaning performance. (Blueair, No. 10 at p. 4) Synexis commented that energy conservation standards for consumer air cleaners were economically justified, technologically feasible, and would lead to energy savings. Synexis commented that implementing uniform Federal test methods and standards would likely reduce costs by standardizing the evaluation processes and would provide common criteria so consumers can make informed decisions. (Synexis, No. 14 at pp. 6-7)

NEEA stated its support for DOE's effort to adopt test procedures and standards for air cleaners and shared sales data from 2015-2019 compiled from retail store sales in the U.S. Northwest. (NEEA, No. 13 at pp. 1-2) NEEA commented that the compiled data reflected the dramatic increases in sales and usage of air cleaners caused by the pandemic and wildfires, making a compelling case for DOE regulation. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also stated that the growth of air cleaner usage has been accelerated because of the pandemic and California wildfires, necessitating EPCA energy conservation standards. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 2)

DOE recognizes the comments supporting DOE regulation of air cleaners, and as discussed elsewhere in this document, DOE has determined that energy conservation standards for air cleaners are economically justified, technologically feasible, and would result in the significant conservation of energy.

Daikin commented that DOE's effort to initiate the test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings for consumer air cleaners was premature without first finalizing the coverage determination, segmenting the market based on types of air cleaners, and identifying the categories that would provide the most energy savings. (Daikin, No. 12 at p. 1) Daikin commented that since this is a new product rulemaking, DOE must first finalize its coverage determination and then a test procedure before establishing an energy conservation standard. Daikin further commented that DOE should provide sufficient time to comply with the test procedures before determining minimum efficiency standards. Daikin additionally stated that there may be laboratory test chamber shortages after a DOE test procedure is established. (Daikin, No. 12 at p. 3)

DOE appreciates Daikin's concern over the timing and order of rulemaking publications. DOE notes that the January 2022 RFI sought to solicit general feedback on air cleaner test procedures and standards only under the condition that air cleaners are determined to be a covered product. DOE further notes that the July 2022 Final Determination was published prior to DOE proposing a test procedure and establishing an energy conservation standard. The timeline of this rulemaking is accelerated compared to DOE's typical timeline in order to follow as closely as possible the schedule outlined in the Joint Proposal.

MIAQ also commented that it was disappointed by the shortening of the 75-day comment period to 30 days for the January 2022 RFI and the combination of the test procedure and standards rulemakings into a single RFI. MIAQ commented that this impacted its ability to investigate test laboratory capacity or capabilities. (MIAQ, No. 5 at p. 2)

DOE notes that while it initially established a 30-day comment period to allow DOE to review comments received in response to the January 2022 RFI before finalizing its coverage determination, it reopened the comment period to provide a 45-day extension. 87 FR 11326.

Lennox commented that DOE must maintain consumer utility of air cleaners when promulgating new standards and must ensure that any new standards are economically justified. (Lennox, No. 7 at p. 3)

DOE agrees with Lennox and, as discussed elsewhere in this document, DOE screened out technology options from consideration that would not maintain consumer utility. DOE is also establishing standards that are economically justified and did not select more stringent standards that would have negative economic impacts on consumers.

The Joint Stakeholders commented that the Joint Proposal comports with the standards-setting criteria in EPCA and that the Joint Proposal was designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is

technologically feasible and economically justified as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). The Joint Stakeholders additionally stated that the standards proposed in the Joint Proposal would decrease maximum energy use of a covered product in both Tier 1 and Tier 2, and thus comply with EPCA's prohibition against standards that increase maximum allowable energy use of a covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at pp. 11)

DOE agrees that the Joint Proposal provides standards criteria that are technologically feasible and economically justified, as discussed throughout this document. DOE believes the standards criteria set by the Joint Proposal will provide an improvement in energy efficiency and decrease maximum energy use of covered products.

B. Scope of Coverage

DOE has defined an “air cleaner” as a product for improving indoor air quality, other than a central air conditioner, room air conditioner, portable air conditioner, dehumidifier, or furnace, that is an electrically-powered, self-contained, mechanically encased assembly that contains means to remove, destroy, or deactivate particulates, volatile organic compound (VOC), and/or microorganisms from the air. 10 CFR 430.2. It excludes products that operate solely by means of ultraviolet light without a fan for air circulation.

Id.

In response to the January 2022 RFI, the Joint Commenters commented that minimum energy conservation standards should apply to conventional room air cleaners with a measured PM

2.5

CADR of 10 or greater in order to capture tabletop/desk portable room air cleaners. (Joint Commenters, No. 8 at p. 4)

In the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the scope of the air cleaners test procedure at appendix FF to “conventional room air cleaners,” which are a subset of products that meet the definition of “air cleaner” as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. 88 FR 14014, 14044. DOE established a definition for a conventional room air cleaner as a consumer room air cleaner that (1) is a portable or wall mounted (fixed) unit, excluding ceiling mounted unit, that plugs in to an electrical outlet; (2) operates with a fan for air circulation; and (3) contains means to remove, destroy, and/or deactivate particulates. The term “portable” is defined in section 2.1.3.1 of AHAM AC-7-2022 and “fixed” is defined in section 2.1.3.2 of AHAM AC-7-2022. 88 FR 14014, 14044. The scope of appendix FF is limited to conventional room air cleaners with smoke CADR and dust CADR greater than or equal to 10 cubic feet per minute (“cfm”) and less than or equal to 600 cfm.

This direct final rule covers those consumer products that meet the definition of conventional room air cleaners with smoke CADR and dust CADR greater than or equal to 10 cfm and less than or equal to 600 cfm as defined in section 1 of appendix FF. As discussed in section III.C of this document, PM

2.5

CADR is calculated as the geometric average of smoke CADR and dust CADR, which is very similar in value to both the smoke CADR and dust CADR. Therefore, the scope of products covered in this direct final rule is consumer products that meet the definition of conventional room air cleaners with PM

2.5

CADR greater than or equal to 10 cfm and less than or equal to 600 cfm.

See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product classes analyzed in this direct final rule.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE does not currently prescribe energy conservation standards for air cleaners.

As stated, in the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established a new test procedure for air cleaners at appendix FF. 88 FR 14014. Specifically, appendix FF establishes an IEF metric, expressed in terms of PM

2.5

CADR/W, which measures the reduction rate of PM

2.5

particulates in a given room volume per unit power. The numerator of the IEF metric is PM

2.5

CADR, which is the geometric average of smoke CADR and dust CADR, where each of these CADR metrics refers to the reduction rate of smoke and dust particles, respectively, in a given room volume with the air cleaner operating. The denominator of the IEF metric is the annual energy consumption in active mode and standby mode (AEC) divided by the annual operating hours in active mode.

For more details on the AEC and IEF metrics, refer to section III.H of the March 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 14014.

Additionally, DOE discussed in the March 2023 TP Final Rule that for compliance with the standards in Tier 1 of the Joint Proposal, the Joint Stakeholders recommended that DOE permit section 6.2 of AHAM AC-1-2020

for dust CADR to be applied as an alternative for calculating PM

2.5

CADR. The Joint Stakeholders stated that the dust CADR, determined according to section 6.2 of AHAM AC-1-2020, is nearly identical to the subset dust CADR used to calculate PM

2.5

CADR. The Joint Stakeholders further stated that given many products have already been tested per AHAM AC-1-2020, allowing this alternative would ensure that manufacturers are not required to retest using AHAM AC-7-2022 to demonstrate compliance with a new standard on a short timeline. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 a p. 6); 88 FR 14014, 14030.

American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”)/AHAM standard, ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020 (“AHAM AC-1-2020”), “Method for Measuring Performance of Portable Household Electric Room Air Cleaners”.

According to section 5.1.1 of appendix FF, PM

2.5

CADR is obtained by combining the CADR of smoke (which includes particle sizes ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 micrometers (“μm”)) with the CADR of dust (which includes particle sizes ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 μm) and performing a geometric average calculation as follows:

ER11AP23.001

The tests to determine smoke CADR and dust CADR are specified in sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020. The allowable particle size for smoke particles is 0.1 to 1 µm for the smoke CADR test in AHAM AC-1-2020 and the allowable particle size for dust particles is 0.5 to 3 µm for the dust CADR test in AHAM AC-1-2020. However, the calculation of PM

2.5

CADR in section 5.1.1 of appendix FF specifies a narrower range of allowable particle sizes for the smoke CADR and dust CADR than the smoke CADR and dust

CADR tests in sections 5 and 6, respectively, of AHAM AC-1-2020.

While the allowable smoke and dust particle size for the smoke CADR and dust CADR tests in sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020 is larger (

i.e.,

0.1 to 1 µm for smoke particles and 0.5 to 3 µm for dust particles) than the allowable smoke and dust particle size for the calculation of PM

2.5

CADR in section 5.1.1 of appendix FF (

i.e.,

0.1 to 0.5 µm for smoke particles and 0.5 to 2.5 µm for dust particles), the subset smoke CADR and dust CADR used to calculate PM

2.5

are nearly identical to the smoke CADR and dust CADR calculated according to sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020, as shown in the figures included in the Joint Proposal.

Accordingly, in the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE specified in section 5.1.2 of appendix FF that PM

2.5

CADR may alternatively be calculated using the full range of particles used to calculate smoke CADR and dust CADR according to sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020, respectively. 88 FR 14014. DOE additionally stated that it may revisit allowing the use of both approaches to calculate PM

2.5

CADR in a future standards rulemaking.

Id.

See

Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at p. 6.

In this direct final rule, DOE continues to allow the full range of particles used to calculate smoke CADR and dust CADR according to sections 5 and 6 of AHAM AC-1-2020, respectively, may be used to determine compliance only with the Tier 1 standards specified in this document. Compliance with Tier 2 standards must be determined using the smoke and dust particle size specified in the calculation of PM

2.5

CADR in section 5.1.1 of appendix FF. This aligns with the test parameters of the Joint Proposal and allows manufacturers more time to adjust to the tighter particle size requirements specified in AHAM AC-7-2022. Accordingly, DOE is amending section 5.1.2 of appendix FF to specify that the alternate calculation for PM

2.5

CADR may be used for determining compliance only with Tier 1 standards specified at 10 CFR 430.32(ee).

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(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (“appendix A”).

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. Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for air cleaners, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE prescribes new or amended standards for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for air cleaners, 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 document and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to air cleaners purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the standards (2024-2057 for the recommended TSL, and 2028-2057 for the other TSLs).

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

For the standards recommended in the Joint Proposal, DOE considered an analysis period beginning in the year of compliance with the Tier 1 standards (2024) and ending in the same year as the 30-year analysis periods considered for the other analyzed TSLs (2057) to align the end dates of the analysis periods. DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential standards for air cleaners. 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 national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. 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 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).

2. Significance of Savings

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

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. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.

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 stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 1.80 quads of FFC energy savings, the equivalent of the annual electricity use of 19 million homes. DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 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. 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 potential new standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”), as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

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

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

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

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating cost (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 products 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards adopted 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 standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this direct final rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the rule in determining whether to proceed with the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the

Federal Register

in a separate notice.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or

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

DOE maintains that environmental and public health effects associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 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 of this document; 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. 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

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

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

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

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates NES and NPV 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:

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035/document.

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

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO

”) for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

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 air cleaners. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Product Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (

i.e.,

establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 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. (

Id.

)

DOE currently does not specify any energy conservation standards or associated product classes for air cleaners. In the January 2022 RFI, DOE noted that it may use CADR as a measurement of capacity to establish product classes. 87 FR 3702, 3711. DOE requested comment on whether capacity or any other performance-related features, such as air cleaning technology (

i.e.,

whether the product destroys or deactivates contaminants from the air or removes them), would justify establishing different product classes.

Id.

NEEA commented that, based on a review of NEEA Retail Products Platform (“RPP”) sales data for air cleaners and sales from the ENERGY STAR Retail Products Platform (“ESRPP”) data, product class distinctions based on CADR and smoke CADR/W would be appropriate. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 3)

Trane commented that different classes of air cleaners could be useful to consumers, who have varying performance goals. (Trane, No. 3 at p. 3)

Synexis stated that the definition of a standard should be applicable to all devices operating in the air cleaning technology space as sub-classes would likely confuse the issue and be difficult to apply equally across all technologies. (Synexis, No. 14 at p. 7)

DOE agrees with NEEA and Trane's comments and, for reasons discussed later in this section, is establishing three separate air cleaner product classes based on CADR as a measurement of capacity. DOE's testing and teardown

analysis showed that air cleaning technology, particularly UV and ion generation, did not significantly impact the measured energy use or efficiency of air cleaners. Accordingly, DOE is not establishing additional product class distinction based on air cleaning technology.

Regarding Synexis' comment, DOE notes that energy conservation standards are applicable to all conventional room air cleaners, as defined in the March 2023 TP Final Rule, but that the applicable standard level varies based on the product class. The standards are technology-neutral, and apply to all configurations of conventional room air cleaners with a PM

2.5

CADR rating within the specified ranges for the three product classes.

The Joint Stakeholders proposed product classes as shown in Table IV.1 and noted that it was proposing separate product classes because it is more difficult for smaller air cleaners to reach higher levels of efficiency because smaller products require smaller components such as fan blades. The Joint Stakeholders stated that as the blade design is made more efficient despite its smaller diameter, the optimization point is tight to achieve adequate air movement while not increasing noise levels beyond a tolerable level. They further stated that this makes achieving higher levels of efficiency a more difficult design challenge while retaining the utility of the smaller size. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at pp. 9-10)

The Joint Stakeholders also stated that were smaller products required to meet the same efficiency levels as larger and higher CADR/W models, a greater change in efficiency of the motor would be necessary, which could require more expensive motor technology that could lead to standards that are not economically justified. The Joint Stakeholders stated that the recommended product classes will help ensure that a broad range of capacity changes remain available for consumers. (Joint Stakeholders, No. 16 at p. 10)

Table IV.1—Joint Stakeholder Recommended Air Cleaner Product Classes

Product class

2.5

CADR bins

PC1

10 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 100.

PC2

100 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 150.

PC3

2.5

CADR ≥ 150.

DOE notes that the product classes are defined based on PM

2.5

CADR, rather than smoke CADR as recommended by NEEA and as specified in the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 Specification. In the March 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the IEF metric based on PM

2.5

CADR, which is based on the geometric average of the measured smoke CADR and dust CADR values, consistent with the Joint Stakeholder recommendation.

As discussed in the following paragraphs, based on investigatory testing, product teardowns, and a review of the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 specification, DOE agrees with the Joint Stakeholders that reaching higher efficiencies is more difficult for smaller capacity products due to size and component constraints. Therefore, consistent with the Joint Proposal, DOE is establishing three product classes for air cleaners as shown in Table IV.1.

DOE determined the three product classes specified in Table IV.1 to be appropriate based on an analysis of ENERGY STAR-qualified products. As seen in Figure IV-1, the ENERGY STAR database shows that air cleaner models at lower CADR values generally have lower efficiencies compared to models at higher CADR. DOE expects that this is likely due to the smaller motor and/or filter required for the lower-CADR units, which are typically intended to be used in rooms with smaller areas (

e.g.,

units in Product Class 1 would be recommended for a maximum room size of 155 square feet). To achieve a certain level of cleaning performance, a smaller unit would need to include more filtration by volume in a more limited chassis space (

i.e.,

the air cleaner cabinet). This would increase the pressure drop across the filter, which would require more blower power to maintain the same air delivery performance. These factors impact the overall efficiency of the unit. At higher CADR values (

i.e.,

air cleaners designed for larger rooms), the cabinet volume is much larger, which allows the incorporation of a much larger filter (

i.e.,

the filtration can be spread across a larger filter area), thereby reducing the pressure drop across the filter and necessary blower power, and therefore improving efficiency.

Establishing separate product classes for units that are intended to be used in both smaller and larger rooms is necessary to maintain consumer utility. For example, Product Class 1 units have a small cabinet volume (<0.6 cubic feet (“ft

”)), are designed for use in a single small room, such as a bathroom or bedroom (<155 sq. ft), and are easily portable, which can allow product configurations such as tabletop or wall plug-ins. Units with larger capacities and corresponding larger cabinet volumes provide different utility to consumers. Product Class 2 includes medium cabinet-sized units (0.6-1.2 ft

), which are designed for a larger room (155-235 sq. ft) such as a kitchen or living space. The size and weight of these units generally allow single-person portability without necessitating the use of wheels. Finally, Product Class 3 units have a large cabinet (>1.2 ft

), are typically less portable than lower-capacity units, in some cases being equipped with wheels to facilitate moving, and are designed to be used for an extended duration in a large room (>235 sq. ft) such as a classroom, office, or large living area. Establishing these product classes is necessary because the three ranges of capacity each provide distinct consumer utility in terms of the application based on room size and portability of the unit and are associated with inherently different efficiency due to the different filter size and configurations that can be accommodated. Further, these product class distinctions will help ensure that higher-capacity units installed in smaller-sized rooms, which achieve higher efficiencies at the same active mode power consumption than smaller-capacity units and which warrant more stringent energy conservation standards, do not lead to unnecessarily high AEC.

ER11AP23.002

Finally, DOE is establishing Product Class 1 with a PM

2.5

CADR lower limit of 10 cfm as opposed to 30 cfm, as specified in the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 specification, so that tabletop and desktop portable room air cleaners as well as plug-in air cleaners, which is a growing segment of the market, will be required to demonstrate compliance with the adopted standards. DOE notes that the PM

2.5

CADR lower limit of 10 cfm for Product Class 1 is also recommended by the Joint Stakeholders in the Joint Proposal.

2. Technology Options

In analyzing the feasibility of new energy conservation standards, DOE uses information about technology options and prototype designs to identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given energy conservation standard level. In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested information on technologies that are used to improve the energy efficiency of air cleaners. Specifically, DOE sought information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are available for each technology option. 87 FR 3702, 3711. For each technology option suggested by stakeholders, DOE also sought information regarding its market adoption, costs, and any concerns with incorporating the technology into products (

e.g.,

impacts on consumer utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing or production challenges,

etc.

). 87 FR 3702, 3711-3712.

MIAQ and AHRI commented that they could not provide concrete information on the availability or lack thereof of technologies for improving energy efficiency of air cleaners for non-portable products until DOE altered the scope and definitions to exclude products inappropriate for regulation. MIAQ and AHRI noted that ducted products, with fans primarily used for ventilating, cooling, and heating, employ different technologies than portable products, with distinctly different energy use patterns. (MIAQ, No. 5 at p. 8; AHRI, No. 15 at p. 9)

As discussed in section III.B of this document, the scope of this standards rulemaking includes conventional room air cleaners with PM

2.5

CADR between 10 and 600 cfm (inclusive). Products not meeting the definition of conventional room air cleaners, such as ceiling-mounted and whole-home units are not included in the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE has analyzed technology options only for conventional room air cleaners that are in the scope of this standards rulemaking.

Trane commented that portable HEPA and other high filter efficiency filter-based units should be prioritized highest in a new standard because of their use in classrooms. (Trane, No. 3 at p. 2)

DOE is aware of the prevalence of HEPA filters in air cleaners, and DOE's teardown sample largely comprised conventional room air cleaners that utilize a HEPA filter or other high efficiency filters. The teardown analysis confirmed that, by effectively removing PM

2.5

particulates, such high efficiency filters are a technology option for improving air cleaner efficiency as measured according to the DOE test procedure at appendix FF.

Synexis commented that safety standards should be considered for air cleaners that generate hazardous by-products, such as ozone, which can be harmful to humans at levels above established thresholds. (Synexis, No. 14 at p. 7) Trane also commented that since certain air cleaning devices, like electronic/reactive air cleaners, may produce by-products such as ozone, organic acids, and ultrafine particles, this fact complicates attempts at standards or creates a need for additional standards. (Trane No. 3 at p. 2) DOE is aware that technology options that generate ozone or other harmful by-products can have adverse impacts on health or safety and, as discussed in section IV.B of this document, DOE has screened-out such technology options accordingly.

In the market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 19 technology options for air cleaners, as shown in Table IV.2. These technology options have been determined to improve the efficiency of air cleaners, as measured by the DOE test procedure. In general, the technology options with the most significant impact on efficiency represent improvements to the filter and motor. The motor and filter relationship is crucial to improving efficiency, as optimization of the airflow across the filter is the largest factor contributing to an air cleaner's active mode power consumption.

Table IV.2—Air Cleaner Technology Options

1. High efficiency particulate air (“HEPA”)-type filter (99 percent of 0.2μm particles).

2. True HEPA filter (99.97 percent of 0.3μm particles).

3. Activated carbon filter.

4. High density polyethylene (“HDPE”) pre-filter.

5. Photoelectrochemical oxidation (“PECO”) filter.

6. Photocatalytic oxidation (“PCO”) filter.

7. Electrostatic/Polarizing media.

8. Filter shape.

9. Improved Motor Technologies.

10. Low standby-power electronic controls.

11. Direct double-ended blower assembly.

12. Ionization brush.

13. Ionization plates.

14. Air quality sensor.

15. Ozone generators.

16. Thermodynamic sterilization system (“TSS”).

17. Bioreactor.

After identifying all potential technology options for improving the efficiency of air cleaners, DOE performed a screening analysis (see section IV.B of this document) to determine which technologies merited further consideration in the engineering analysis.

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 commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further.

(2)

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

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

(3)

Impacts on product utility.

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

(4)

Safety of technologies.

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 technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A.

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.

In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether any air cleaner technology options would be screened out based on the five screening criteria described in this section. DOE also requested information on the technologies that would be screened out and the screening criteria that would be applicable to each screened out technology option. 87 FR 3702, 3712.

The subsequent paragraphs 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.

Molekule commented that its PECO technology includes energy requirements different from traditional air cleaners and requested an exemption from Federal energy efficiency standards since its air cleaners have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) as Class II medical devices, which allows medical professionals to use these devices in medical settings to purify the air for viruses and bacteria. (Molekule, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) Molekule commented that while the removal and destruction of airborne microbes is a key benefit in medical settings, it is not measured by CADR tests for particulate matter. Molekule further stated that any modifications to meet DOE energy efficiency standards would be burdensome, requiring the company to re-apply for FDA clearance. (Molekule, No. 11 at p. 3). While FDA classification is not one of the five screening criteria that DOE applies, DOE notes that it has screened out PECO technology because it is a proprietary technology. DOE additionally notes that many air cleaners are capable of removing or destroying contaminants other than particulate matter (

i.e.,

air cleaners that can remove, destroy, or deactivate smoke, dust, or pollen may also remove, destroy or deactivate microorganisms and/or gaseous pollutants) and that such air cleaners would be in the scope of this rulemaking and subject to applicable standards as long as the unit “contains means to remove, destroy, and/or deactivate particulates,” as included in the definition of a conventional room air cleaner.

Synexis commented that DOE should eliminate this criterion

because it is in direct and fundamental conflict with intellectual property rights. Synexis stated that if the United States government grants monopolistic rights to certain technology options through the patent process, then DOE should not eliminate those same technology options. (Synexis, No. 14 at p. 7) DOE clarifies that the intent of the unique-pathway proprietary technologies screening criterion is to screen out proprietary technologies as a design pathway for achieving higher efficiencies for the purposes of DOE's analysis only. That is, if the only way to reach a given efficiency would be to utilize a proprietary technology, DOE would not include it in its analysis because manufacturers that do not have access to the proprietary technology would not be able to meet the efficiency level under consideration. This would not preclude manufacturers from utilizing such technologies in their products. The intent of DOE's analysis is to identify a pathway to achieve higher efficiencies that would generally be available to all manufacturers, but DOE recognizes that manufacturers may have more than one pathway to achieve higher efficiencies, including using proprietary technologies.

DOE understands Synexis to be referring to the unique-pathway proprietary technology screening criterion.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

Photoelectrochemical Oxidation

PECO is a type of photoreactor-based air purification, similar to PCO technology (described in the next section) with some important variations. PECO processes pollutants in a photoreactor that utilizes photons to initiate a reaction that oxidizes and destroys organic pollutants in the air. The reaction converts pollutants into non-toxic substances. Specifically, PECO works by shining UV-A light on the catalytic surface of the PECO filter. Once the catalyst is activated by the UV-A light, it forms hydroxyl radicals that combine and react with airborne

microbiological contaminants, which destroys them.

Since PECO technology is proprietary, DOE has screened out this technology option as a unique pathway proprietary technology.

Photocatalytic Oxidation (PCO)

The PCO process is similar to PECO in that it utilizes UV radiation combined with a catalyst to break down pollutants. The major difference between PCO and PECO is the filter material, UV light, and subsequent byproducts. While the PECO filter is a proprietary technology, PCO uses a catalyst such as titanium dioxide. Additionally, PECO does not emit any harmful byproducts such as ozone and formaldehyde as compared to the catalysts on PCO filters. Finally, the PECO system utilizes a UV-A light, instead of a UV-C light found in PCO systems.

When the titanium dioxide used with PCO is activated by UV-C radiation, it forms oxidizing hydroxyl radicals which react with pollutants. When a pollutant comes into contact with UV-activated titanium dioxide, the reaction destroys the pollutant and releases non-toxic compounds, such as carbon dioxide and water, as byproducts, as well as certain harmful byproducts such as ozone and formaldehyde.

DOE is screening out the PCO technology option due to health and safety concerns stemming from the byproducts generated by the reaction of the PCO filter. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen that can cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels of exposure may cause some types of cancers, according to EPA.

For ozone, DOE describes these concerns in more detail in the following section.

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/formaldehyde.pdf.

Ozone Generation

Ozone is a strong oxidizer and cleaning agent. Ozone generators work by creating an electrical discharge to split oxygen molecules in ambient air into single oxygen atoms, which then bind with existing oxygen molecules in the air to form ozone. Ozone is highly unstable and reactive, so after it is produced by the generator, it is released in the air and is claimed to chemically react with air pollutants such as chemicals, mold, viruses, bacteria, and odors.

DOE has identified concerns with air cleaners that rely on ozone generation in terms of both efficacy and safety. The same chemical properties that allow ozone to be highly reactive with organic material in the air mean that ozone can impact organic material inside the respiratory system. EPA investigated the use of ozone generation for air cleaning and in a 1996 publication,

determined that relatively low amounts of ozone can pose harmful health effects such as decrease in lung function, aggravation of asthma, throat irritation and coughing, chest pain and shortness of breath, inflammation of lung tissue and high susceptibility to respiratory infection. EPA further researched the effectiveness of ozone at removing indoor air contaminants and found that there is evidence to suggest that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone is not effective at removing many odor-causing chemicals, viruses, bacteria, mold, or other biological pollutants. Additionally, ozone does not impact particulate matter such as dust or pollen.

www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners.

Due to these health and safety concerns associated with ozone and lack of efficacy towards particulate removal, DOE has screened out this technology option.

Thermodynamic Sterilization System (TSS)

DOE has identified air cleaners on the market that use TSS in a ceramic core to destroy microorganisms and particle pollutants. These air cleaners do not rely on filter media to trap or remove particles, but rather utilize air convection to force air through the devices' internal ceramic core which heats up to about 200 degrees Celsius (“°C”) (392 degrees Fahrenheit (“°F”)) and incinerates pollutants. Manufacturers of these air cleaners claim that TSS can kill mold, bacteria, germs, and viruses and destroy pollutants such as dust, pollen, pet dander, hair, and other airborne particulates. After the air is heated and cleaned, it is immediately cooled using heat transfer plates and released back out of the device.

TSS is a proprietary technology implemented by a single company. Therefore, DOE has screened out this technology option as a unique pathway proprietary technology.

Bioreactor

DOE has identified two air cleaner models on the market that utilize a bioreactor system to produce clean air. The air cleaners that use this technology option rely on convection and fans to draw large particulate matter of over 0.5 microns such as dust and dander into the bioreactor chamber. Smaller ultra-fine air pollutants and VOCs are drawn into the chamber of the air purifier by a process of molecular attraction through an electrostatic grounded air zone.

Once the various types of air contaminants are drawn into the bioreactor, an activated solution of water, oxygen, enzymes, and the trapped contaminants lead to an accelerated process of natural oxidation that digests the air contaminants and breaks them down into water, carbon dioxide, and base elements. This results in cleaner air that is released from the air purifier.

Given the scarcity of models on the market with this technology, DOE has screened out this technology option as it is not proven to be practicable to manufacture, install, and service this technology on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the compliance date of new standards.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all of 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 direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

1. HEPA-type filter (99 percent of 0.2μm particles)

2. True HEPA filter (99.97 percent of 0.3μm particles)

3. Activated carbon filter

4. HDPE pre-filter

5. Electrostatic/Polarizing media

6. Filter shape

7. Improved Motor Technologies

8. Low standby-power electronic controls

9. Direct double ended blower assembly

10. Ionization brush

11. Ionization plates

12. Air quality sensor

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

i.e.,

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

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of air cleaners. 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 air cleaners, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product 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).

Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides additional details regarding the engineering analysis.

1. 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 interpolate to define “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 rulemaking, DOE primarily used the efficiency-level approach. This approach involved reviewing the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 database to identify the market distribution of existing products. DOE also used the design-option approach, testing and physically disassembling commercially available products to fill gaps where data was not available from the efficiency-level approach (

e.g.,

to identify efficiency levels below the ENERGY STAR level). From this information, DOE estimated the manufacturer production costs (“MPCs”) for a range of products available at that time on the market. DOE then analyzed the steps manufacturers took to improve product efficiencies. In its analysis, DOE determined that manufacturers would likely rely on certain design options to reach higher efficiencies. From this information, DOE estimated the incremental cost and efficiency impacts of incorporating specific design options at each efficiency level. This section provides more detail on the development of efficiency levels for the air cleaner engineering analysis.

In response to the January 2022 RFI, Molekule commented that air cleaners that utilize combined technologies such as a fan and UV that are intended to capture and destroy a wide range of potentially harmful pollutants should be subject to adjusted requirements. Molekule additionally commented that devices that feature technologies with capabilities outside of AHAM AC-1 and its scope of smoke, dust, and pollen test should receive an additional 15-percent energy allowance. (Molekule, No. 11 at pp. 2, 5) Molekule commented that air cleaners that are designed to work against contaminants such as microbes and organic chemicals may require technology stacks and energy usage beyond what is needed for mechanical filtration. Molekule further stated that evaluating such air cleaners solely on particle removal efficiency without considering these other pollutant classes is an inappropriate measure of an air cleaner's energy efficiency relative to its potential benefits. Molekule commented that many proposed and existing standards for microbes and chemicals, including proposed AHAM AC-4 and AHAM AC-5 tests and NRCC_54013

protocol, will only gauge the initial reduction of pollutants, while an important benefit of its devices is the destruction of pollutants. (Molekule, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE notes that the air cleaners test procedure at appendix FF requires that all features pertaining to air cleaning (

e.g.,

UV, ion generator,

etc.

) must be activated and set to their highest setting during testing, while features unrelated to air cleaning are disabled. That is, the air cleaners test procedure already accounts for these technologies and to the extent it is necessary, DOE's analysis accounts for the additional energy consumed by such technologies. Regarding comments related to the AHAM AC-4 and AHAM AC-5 industry test standards, DOE is not introducing a test procedure for microbes and chemicals at this time and is not establishing an additional energy allowance for products that target these pollutants.

National Research Council Canada (“NRCC”)-54013, “Method for Testing Portable Air Cleaners,” April 2011. Available online at:

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/ft/?id=cc1570e0-53cc-476d-b2ee-3e252d8bd739.

Molekule also commented that air cleaners that utilize automatic or standby functionality should receive a credit and that DOE should delay the implementation of energy conservation standards for such air cleaners until the appropriate standards or credit has been determined. (Molekule, No. 11 at p. 2) Molekule stated that energy efficiency requirements should account for the typical operation of the air cleaner rather than only the maximum performance mode, particularly for air cleaners that employ air quality sensors. Molekule stated that the continuous use case is to operate in “Auto” mode or at a level lower than the maximum running speed and that its internal data indicates that the use of Auto Mode, coupled with other common user behavior of selecting speeds lower than the maximum speed, results in more than 50-percent energy savings as compared to the energy use if the device was operated continuously at maximum speed. (Molekule, No. 11 at p. 5) DOE notes that the current test procedure at appendix FF requires all air cleaners to be tested in the maximum performance mode, not in automatic mode. Accordingly, a credit or separate standards are not necessary for such units at this time. DOE is aware that an AHAM task force is currently engaged in discussions to develop an industry test method to test air cleaners in automatic mode, and DOE is participating in these meetings. However, DOE's test procedure specifies testing only in maximum performance mode (consistent with the existing industry standard) and accordingly, DOE is not providing a credit for units with automatic mode.

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

For each product 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 product class represents the characteristics of a product 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. In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested feedback on appropriate baseline efficiency levels for DOE to apply, and the product classes to which these baseline efficiency levels would be applicable, in evaluating whether to establish energy conservation standards for air cleaners. 87 FR 3702, 3712.

NEEA commented that using the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels as the baseline efficiency level would be appropriate because of the high percentage of sales of ENERGY STAR units, comprising 87 percent of the 2015 room air cleaner sales. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 4)

Based on publicly available data from ENERGY STAR and AHAM, DOE estimated that 60 percent of air cleaners on the market do not meet the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels. Based on the large number of products available on the market that do not meet the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 specification, DOE is establishing the baseline efficiency levels below the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels.

As a first step to determine baseline and incremental efficiency levels, DOE selected units for testing and teardowns using the AHAM Verifide

and ENERGY STAR databases and identified the CADR values at which most models were clustered. The ENERGY STAR database includes smoke CADR, dust CADR, and pollen CADR values in addition to providing power consumption data, but the AHAM Verifide database includes only smoke CADR, dust CADR, and pollen CADR values. Using these databases, DOE selected a representative sample of products for testing and teardowns. From its test sample, DOE identified a representative nominal PM

2.5

CADR value for each product class based on the most commonly occurring PM

2.5

CADR value for each product class in its test sample, which are 50 CADR/W, 125 CADR/W, and 200 CADR/W for Product Class 1, Product Class 2, and Product Class 3, respectively.

Available at:

https://ahamverifide.org/directory-of-air-cleaners/.

Last accessed: January 2022.

For each product class, DOE then selected the baseline efficiency level based on a commercially available unit below the levels established by certain States and the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 level. Given there is no database that contains energy use data for air cleaners other than the ENERGY STAR database, which provides a list of products that meet or exceed ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 levels, DOE identified the baseline efficiency levels by testing a representative sample of commercially available units that were not included in the ENERGY STAR database. Through this approach, DOE was able to identify the baseline efficiency level using the IEF of the least efficient unit tested in each product class for Product Classes 1 and 3. For Product Class 2, DOE did not identify any unit in its test sample with an IEF below the State or ENERGY STAR levels from its limited test sample. Accordingly, DOE used the baseline unit from Product Class 1, scaled to the representative PM

2.5

CADR for Product Class 2, to determine a representative baseline unit for Product Class 2. Table IV.3 summarizes the baseline efficiency levels defined for each product class:

Table IV.3—Baseline Efficiency Levels

Product class

2.5

CADR bins

Minimum IEF

PC1

10 ≤ CADR < 100

1.53

PC2

100 ≤ CADR < 150

1.53

PC3

CADR ≥ 150

1.2

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

In the January 2022 RFI, DOE requested feedback on design options that manufacturers would use to increase energy efficiency in air cleaners above the baseline, including information on the order in which manufacturers would incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve efficiency of products. DOE also requested feedback on whether the increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE further requested information regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer demand and on whether certain design options may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) certain types of air cleaners. 87 FR 3702, 3713.

NEEA commented that it analyzed the ENERGY STAR database and identified the max-tech units shown in Table IV.4 for each product class:

Table IV.4—Max-Tech Units Identified by NEEA

Product class

2.5

CADR

(cfm)

IEF *

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

AEC

(kWh/year)

PC1: 10 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 100

91.2

9.9

55.0

PC2: 100 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 150

120.0

12.5

57.2

PC3: PM

2.5

CADR ≥ 150

424.3

14.0

180.2

* Note that NEEA provided each unit's CADR/W in terms of smoke CADR. DOE calculated the PM

2.5

CADR values using the information available from the ENERGY STAR database.

(NEEA, No. 13 at p. 5)

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. Table IV.5 shows the units that DOE determined to be the maximum available and max-tech units for each product class. These units are the highest efficiency units currently available on the market that provide complete consumer utility. DOE is not aware of any additional technologies that could be implemented to the identified units, and therefore has determined that the units represent the max-tech efficiency level in each product class. The following paragraphs in this section explain DOE's selection of max-tech units as well as its reasons for deviating from the units suggested by NEEA.

Table IV.5—Max-Tech Units Analyzed by DOE

Product class

Representative PM

2.5

CADR

(cfm)

IEF

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

AEC

(kWh/yr)

PC1: 10 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 100

5.4

54.1

PC2: 100 ≤ PM

2.5

CADR < 150

125

12.8

57.3

PC3: PM

2.5

CADR ≥ 150

200

7.4

157.6

DOE recognizes that the air cleaners included in NEEA's comment may be the highest efficiency units available on the market for each product class; however, as noted previously, DOE strived to select units at the representative PM

2.5

CADR value for each product class, and especially at the max-tech. For Product Class 1 and Product Class 3, the models suggested by NEEA have roughly twice the capacity, expressed in terms of PM

2.5

CADR, as the representative capacities selected by DOE—91.2 cfm compared to DOE's representative PM

2.5

CADR value of 50 cfm for Product Class 1 and 424.3 cfm compared to DOE's representative PM

2.5

CADR value of 200 cfm for Product Class 3. For Product Class 2, the PM

2.5

CADR of the model suggested by NEEA falls within the range of CADR values that DOE considered for its analysis and DOE's max-tech unit for Product Class 2 is fairly similar to the unit suggested by NEEA.

In addition to selecting units within a representative PM

2.5

CADR range for each product class, to determine its max-tech units DOE also selected units that utilized a true HEPA filter, which is a filter that is rated to remove at least 99.97 percent of particles that have a size of 0.3 μm. DOE selected this criterion because, according to EPA, the diameter specification of 0.3 μm corresponds to the most penetrating particle size; that is, particles of 0.3 μm are the most difficult size particles to capture and particles either larger or smaller than 0.3 μm are generally captured more easily.

Therefore, DOE selected its max-tech unit to include a true HEPA filter to ensure that there would not be any loss in product utility at the selected max-tech efficiency level. The Product Class 1 and Product Class 3 units suggested by NEEA do not include a true HEPA filter and instead utilize ionic plates or a filter that is rated to capture 98 percent of 5 μm particles, neither of which meet the rating requirement of a HEPA filter for capturing at least 99.97 percent of particles that have a size of 0.3 μm, which DOE determined is required to maintain full consumer functionality. DOE notes that the pressure drop across a HEPA filter would be greater due to the design of such a filter, which would require a more powerful motor to move the same quantity of air across the filter as compared to a less effective filter.

www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-hepa-filter.

While the max-tech units selected by DOE for Product Class 2 and Product Class 3 are the most-efficient units at the representative PM

2.5

CADR value, for Product Class 1, DOE observed another unit that had a higher IEF compared to its selected unit. However, DOE ultimately selected the unit shown in Table IV.5 because the other unit did not include a true HEPA filter; instead, it included a filter that is rated to remove only up to 97 percent of particles that have a size of 0.3 μm, which DOE determined did not maintain full consumer functionality.

To establish other incremental higher efficiency levels between the baseline and max-tech, DOE reviewed data in the ENERGY STAR database to evaluate the range of efficiencies for air cleaners currently available on the market. For all three product classes, DOE considered Efficiency Level 1 (“EL 1”) to correspond to the level established by certain States. EL 1 also corresponds to the Tier 1 level provided in the Joint Proposal. DOE selected EL 2 for all product classes to correspond to the ENERGY STAR V. 2.0 level, which is also the Tier 2 level provided in the Joint Proposal. Finally, DOE identified EL 3 as a “gap-fill” level between EL 2 and max-tech (

i.e.,

EL 4) based on number of available models grouped (or “clustered”) between EL 2 and max-tech for each product class. Table IV.6 through Table IV.8 summarize the efficiency levels analyzed for each product class.

Table IV.6—Efficiency Levels for Product Class 1

Efficiency level description

IEF

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

Baseline

Minimum available from tested units

1.5

State Standard Levels; Joint Proposal Tier 1

1.7

ENERGY STAR V. 2.0; Joint Proposal Tier 2

1.9

Gap-fill

3.4

Maximum available

5.4

Table IV.7—Efficiency Levels for Product Class 2

Efficiency level description

IEF

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

Baseline

Minimum available from tested units

1.5

State Standard Levels; Joint Proposal Tier 1

1.9

ENERGY STAR V. 2.0; Joint Proposal Tier 2

2.4

Gap-fill

5.4

Maximum available

12.8

Table IV.8—Efficiency Levels for Product Class 3

Efficiency level description

IEF

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

Baseline

Minimum available from tested units

1.2

State Standard Levels; Joint Proposal Tier 1

2.0

ENERGY STAR V. 2.0; Joint Proposal Tier 2

2.9

Gap-fill

6.6

Maximum available

7.4

2. 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 air cleaners 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 primarily using the physical teardown approach. For each product class, DOE tore down a representative sample of models spanning the entire range of efficiency levels, as well as multiple manufacturers within each product class. DOE aggregated the results so that the cost-efficiency relationship developed for each product class reflects DOE's assessment of a market-representative “path” to achieve each higher efficiency level. The resulting bill of materials from each teardown provides the basis for the MPC estimates. In addition to determining MPCs for each efficiency level, DOE disaggregated the overall MPCs to find the filter costs, which are used later in the LCC and PBP analyses.

The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

In the January 2022 RFI, DOE sought input on the increase in MPC associated with incorporating each particular design option. DOE also requested information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts. 87 FR 3702, 3713.

NEEA commented that it had analyzed the incremental cost of air cleaners and found the incremental cost was $6.00 for large-capacity room air cleaners and about $26 for smaller-capacity units. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 5)

As discussed in the following sections, DOE's teardown results also showed that incremental MPC between baseline and max-tech units for Product Class 3 was much smaller compared to the incremental MPC between baseline and max-tech units for Product Classes 1 and 2. DOE estimated the incremental MPC between max-tech and baseline for Product Classes 1 and 2 to be approximately $12, as compared to $26 as stated by NEEA. This is likely due to the difference in how NEEA and DOE conducted their analyses—DOE's analysis is based on MPC, which accounts for the costs associated only with efficiency-related components, while it is DOE's understanding that NEEA's analysis is based on retail prices, which could include costs attributed to non-efficiency-related features.

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

The results of the engineering analysis are reported as incremental MPCs associated with each efficiency level and product class. At each efficiency level, DOE tore down a representative unit and excluded the non-efficiency related components from the MPC calculation. Due to slight variations in the PM

2.5

CADR of each unit, DOE applied a normalization to the MPCs using a single representative PM

2.5

CADR for each product class. See chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD for complete cost-efficiency results.

a. Product Class 1

Table IV.9 summarizes the MPCs at each efficiency level for Product Class 1.

Table IV.9—Manufacturer Production Costs for Product Class 1

[2022$]

IEF

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

MPC

Incremental MPC

Baseline

1.5

$31.24

1.7

32.25

$1.01

1.9

33.39

2.15

3.4

39.27

8.03

5.4

44.06

12.82

The baseline unit in Product Class 1 is typically smaller than the baseline units in the other two product classes and is equipped with a shaded pole motor (“SPM”) and rectangular HEPA filter. At EL 1, efficiency improvements are achievable by optimizing the motor-filter relationship, typically by reducing the restriction of airflow (and therefore, the pressure drop across the filter) by increasing the surface area of the filter, reducing filter thickness, and/or increasing air inlet/outlet size. Optimizing the air flow across the filter enables reducing the size and power draw of the motor for an EL 1 unit. Other than alterations to the cabinet size to accommodate the filter design, these changes do not significantly increase the MPC at EL 1.

At EL 2, typically the SPM is upgraded to a permanent split capacitor (“PSC”) motor, which improves overall efficiency while increasing MPC slightly.

EL 3 and EL 4 units are typically designed to house a cylindrical filter, and the cabinets of these units are also typically cylindrical in shape. A cylindrical filter design further reduces the restriction in air flow across the filter without compromising on performance because a cylindrical shape allows for a much larger surface area for the same volume of filter material. The larger surface area reduces the resistance across the filter material, which reduces the pressure drop and improves efficiency overall. EL 3 and EL 4 units also utilize a variable-speed brushless direct-current (“BLDC”) motor, which is much more efficient than an SPM or PSC motor. EL 4 units additionally improve energy efficiency by further optimizing the motor-filter relationship. The incremental costs associated with EL 3 and EL 4 are typically much higher due to the significant motor upgrade and cylindrical filter and case design.

b. Product Class 2

When selecting representative units for Product Class 2, DOE was unable to identify commercially available units for the baseline and EL 1 due to lack of published data for units with efficiencies below the ENERGY STARV.2.0 level; the units that DOE selected for its test sample based on product features did not have measured efficiencies at EL 1 or lower. Therefore, DOE extrapolated costs from baseline and EL 1 units in Product Class 1 with similar measured IEFs as the Product Class 2 baseline and EL 1 efficiency levels. Table IV.10 summarizes the MPCs at each efficiency level for Product Class 2.

Table IV.10—Manufacturer Production Costs for Product Class 2

[2022$]

IEF

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

MPC

Incremental MPC

Baseline

1.5

$42.97

1.9

44.26

$1.29

2.4

45.62

2.65

5.4

50.45

7.48

12.8

55.55

12.58

DOE estimated that the typical baseline unit for Product Class 2 is similar to the baseline unit from Product Class 1, although it has a larger cabinet, rectangular filter, and SPM motor in order to achieve a higher PM

2.5

CADR value. At EL 1, DOE estimated that the air cleaner would require a motor upgrade to a PSC motor to be able to provide the increasing power required to maintain the desired IEF for an EL 1 unit at a representative PM

2.5

CADR value of 125. At EL 2, DOE observed a direct, double-ended PSC motor with a blower on each end, compared to a single-ended blower assembly in the lower-efficiency units.

Similar to Product Class 1, the EL 3 and EL 4 units utilize a cylindrical filter and cabinet to improve filter surface area and airflow as well as a BLDC motor to improve efficiency. At EL 4, the max-tech unit uses lower-standby power components along with optimizations to the motor-filter relationship that allowed for the use of a smaller motor due to a lower pressure drop across the filter.

c. Product Class 3

For Product Class 3, DOE was unable to identify and teardown an EL 1 unit, again due to a lack of published power consumption data for commercially available units below ENERGY STARV.2.0. Therefore, DOE estimated the EL 1 MPC for Product Class 3 by developing a best-fit curve from the IEF and MPCs of the other efficiency levels for Product Class 3 and using this best-fit curve to estimate the MPC for EL 1. Table IV.11 summarizes the MPCs at each efficiency level for the 150+ PM

2.5

CADR product class.

Table IV.11—Manufacturer Production Costs for Product Class 3

[2022$]

IEF

(PM

2.5

CADR/W)

MPC

Incremental MPC

Baseline

1.2

$70.50

2.0

71.66

$1.17

2.9

72.50

2.00

6.6

74.33

3.84

7.4

74.61

4.11

DOE estimated that the typical baseline unit for Product Class 3 is equipped with an electronic interface, a PSC motor, and a rectangular HEPA filter. For an EL 1 unit, DOE estimated that a PSC motor is still used, but the motor-filter relationship is optimized along with lower-standby power components to increase unit efficiency. The representative EL 2 unit also uses a PSC motor; however, the unit has a filter with a larger surface area and a larger case with larger air inlets/outlets to improve airflow compared to the baseline and EL 1 units. The EL 3 and EL 4 units utilize a cylindrical HEPA filter and BLDC motor to improve airflow through the filter while reducing power consumption. However, the EL 3 and EL 4 units are typically smaller in cabinet size compared to lower-efficiency units within Product Class 3. Therefore, the incremental MPCs at EL 3 and EL 4 is smaller compared to the incremental MPCs at EL 3 and EL 4 for the other two product classes.

In addition to determining the MPCs for each representative unit at each efficiency level, DOE also disaggregated the overall MPC at each efficiency level to determine filter costs, which are used to determine the maintenance and repair costs for the LCC and PBP. These costs are shown in Table IV.12.

Table IV.12—Filter Costs (2022$) Disaggregated From Overall MPCs for Each Representative Unit

Efficiency level

Product class 1

Product class 2

Product class 3

Baseline

$2.62

$5.83

$9.06

EL 1

1.92

5.00

8.68

EL 2

1.79

4.16

8.29

EL 3

6.71

10.25

12.10

EL 4

7.05

7.78

12.69

DOE observed that the filter MPC typically decreased going from baseline to EL 2 and then increased for EL 3 and EL 4. This is because the baseline unit typically has a larger rectangular filter compared to EL 1 and EL 2 filters, leading to higher filter costs for the baseline unit. EL 3 and EL 4 units have cylindrical filters with plastic casing, compared to the paper/cardboard casing seen at baseline through EL 2, both of which lead to much higher filter costs at these levels.

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce.

The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. The detailed description of DOE's determination of the industry average manufacturer markup is provided in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD

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. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin.

For air cleaners, DOE relied on the TechSci Research report,

and manufacturer inputs from the manufacturer interviews to develop the distribution channels and the corresponding market share. DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each link in the distribution chains (after the product leaves the manufacturer). Baseline markups are applied to the price of products 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.

TechSci Research. 2022. United States air purifier market, forecast and opportunity. June 2022.

www.techsciresearch.com/report/us-air-purifier-market/3711.html.

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, 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 relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups. Specifically, DOE used the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the “Electronics and Appliance Stores” sector to develop retailer markups,

and the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey for both “Machinery, equipment, and supplies merchant wholesalers” and “Household appliances and electrical and electronic goods merchant wholesalers” business types to develop the markups for distributors.

U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade Survey, 2017.

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html.

U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, 2017.

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/awts.html.

To differentiate the retailer markups in the online and offline retail channels,

DOE compared the retail prices of top-selling models provided in the TechSci Research report from major home improvement centers (offline retail sales) and e-commerce websites (online retail sales) and estimated that the online retail prices are on average 1.1% lower than the offline retail prices. Hence, DOE applied the price ratio to the retailer markups estimated from the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey to derive separate markups for the offline retail channel.

Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for air cleaners.

E. Energy Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of air cleaners at different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, mobile homes, and commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased air cleaner efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of air cleaners in the field (

i.e.,

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

DOE determined the annual energy consumption of air cleaners by multiplying the per operating mode annual operating hours by the power of standby and active modes. DOE used the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA”) Residential Energy Consumption Survey (“

RECS”

) 2020

data and EIA's Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (“

CBECS”

) 2018

data to represent residential and commercial consumer samples. In the absence of air cleaner ownership and usage information in both datasets, for the residential sector, DOE included all household samples, but adjusted the residential sample weights based on the geographic distribution of air cleaner stocks reported by TechSci Research, and the number of air cleaners per sample based on household size. For the commercial sector, DOE excluded the vacant and non-used buildings from the

CBECS 2018

samples and adjusted the remaining building sample weights based on the building occupancy, the square footage of the climate-controlled space, and the stock distribution by building principal activity reported by TechSci Research.

U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. 2020.

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/.

U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. 2018.

www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/.

Daikin requested that DOE disclose its methodology and results of the Annual Energy Use assessment. Daikin recognizes that the actual hours of operation will obviously have a significant impact on the annual energy consumption of a product. (Daikin, No. 12 at p. 6) NEEA stated it typically estimates average operation to be 8 hours per day based on seasonal operation or part-day operation, but noted that the Northwest Regional Technical Forum estimates 16 hours per day. (NEEA, No. 11 at p. 5)

The DOE test procedure produces standardized results that can be used to assess or compare the performance of products operating under specified laboratory conditions. The test procedure assumes air cleaners are used 16 hours of the day on active mode (maximum power) and 8 hours on standby mode which aligns with the ENERGY STAR description.

Actual energy usage in the field often differs from that estimated by the test procedure because of variation in operating conditions, the behavior of users, and other factors.

ENERGY STAR Certified Room Air Cleaners Database. Description of “Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)” “This is the estimated annual energy use of the room air cleaner under typical conditions, including the energy used in active modes and partial on modes . . . The active mode [. . .] is on average 16 hours active and 8 hours inactive per day. Actual energy consumption will vary depending on various factors such as the amount of usage in active model and the settings chosen.”

data.energystar.gov/Active-Specifications/ENERGY-STAR-Certified-Room-Air-Cleaners/jmck-i55n/data.

To estimate the actual annual air cleaner energy consumption in the residential sector, DOE relied on the

RECS 2020

consumer sample, in conjunction with the county-based 2020 air quality data published by the EPA,

and a market research report conducted by Evergreen Economics

submitted by stakeholders to determine the annual operating hours. DOE estimated that the air cleaners operated on average 10.6 hours per day, and 248 days per year in the residential sector.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality System. Air Quality Index per County. 2020.

www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-cities-and-counties.

Evergreen Economics. Air Purifier Study Results. February 8, 2021. The document can be found in docket,

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0009.

To determine the commercial sector air cleaner annual energy consumption, DOE used the

CBECS 2018

building sample regarding the reported building principal activities, building schedule and occupancy information. DOE estimated an average of 4,198 annual operating hours, which is equivalent to 12.9 operating hours per day and 325 operating days per year.

Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's energy use analysis for air cleaners.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for air cleaners. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:

• The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.

• 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 at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.

For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of air cleaners in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.

For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of U.S. households and commercial buildings. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples from the

RECS 2020

and commercial building samples from the

CBECS 2018.

For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption for the air cleaners and the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative sample of households

and commercial buildings, the analysis captured the variability in energy co

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.