Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Pool Heaters

Federal RegisterMay 30, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[EERE-2021-BT-STD-0020]

RIN 1904-AD49

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Pool Heaters

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer pool heaters. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE” or “the Department”) to periodically determine whether more-stringent, standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer pool heaters. It has determined that the new and amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is July 31, 2023. Compliance with the new and amended standards established for consumer pool heaters in this final rule is required on and after May 30, 2028.

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-0020.

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

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

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Julia Hegarty, 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) 597-6737. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4498. Email:

Nolan.Brickwood@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Pool Heaters

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

G. Other Topics

1. Test Procedure Updates

2. Enforcement Provisions

3. Certification Requirements

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

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Cost Analysis

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Manufacturer Selling Prices

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Pool Heater Consumer Samples

2. Energy Use Estimation

a. Consumer Pool Heater Operating Hours

b. Heat Pump Pool Heater Energy Use

c. Modulating Equipment

d. Consumer Pool Heater Standby and Off Mode Energy Use

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

a. Rebound Effect

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. Stranded Assets

e. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

a. Manufacturer Product Costs, Manufacturer Selling Prices, and Manufacturer Markups

b. Conversion Costs

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 Consumer Pool Heaters 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

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule

3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

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

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

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act,

as amended, Public Law 94-163, (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) (“EPCA”), authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer pool heaters, the subject of this rulemaking.

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.

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

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)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for gas-fired pool heaters and new energy conservation standards for electric pool heaters. The adopted new and amended standards are expressed in terms of the integrated thermal efficiency (“TE

”) metric, which replaces the thermal efficiency (“TE”) metric for gas-fired pool heaters, and are shown in Table I.1. The TE

standards are expressed as a function of the active mode electrical input power (“PE”) in British thermal units per hour (“Btu/h”) for electric pool heaters and the gas input rating (“Q

”) in Btu/h for gas-fired pool heaters. These standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on May 30, 2028.

ER30MY23.009

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

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

The average LCC savings are positive for electric pool heaters and

gas-fired pool heaters, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of electric pool heaters and gas-fired pool heaters, which is estimated to be 11.1 years (see section IV.F of this document).

The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards (see section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section IV.F.9 of this document).

Table I.2—Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Consumer Pool Heaters

Product class

Average LCC

savings

(2021$)

Simple

payback

period

(years)

Electric Pool Heaters

1,130

0.5

Gas-fired Pool Heaters

2.3

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 7.4 percent,

DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer pool heaters in the case without new and amended standards is $585.7 million in 2021 dollars. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −6.4 percent to 0.3 percent, which is approximately −$37.3 million to $2.0 million. In order to bring products into compliance with the new and amended standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $48.4 million.

The discount rate was derived from industry financials from publicly traded companies and then modified according to feedback received during manufacturer interviews.

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.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for consumer pool heaters will save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new or amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for consumer pool heaters purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new or amended standards (2028-2057), amount to 0.70 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 2.9 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without new or amended 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 consumer pool heaters ranges from $1.18 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $3.00 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product and installation costs for consumer pool heaters purchased in 2028-2057.

In addition, the adopted standards for consumer pool heaters 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 29 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

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

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

”), 284 thousand tons of methane (“CH

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

O”), and 0.04 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

The estimated cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 0.57 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 0.1 million homes.

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

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-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 $1.5 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 GHG 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 will be $0.9 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $2.3 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 adopted standards 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 and amended standards for consumer pool heaters. 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 Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Pool Heaters

Billion 2021$

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

4.3

Climate Benefits *

1.5

Health Benefits **

2.3

Total Monetized Benefits †

8.0

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

1.3

Net Monetized Benefits

6.7

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1.8

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

1.5

Health Benefits **

0.9

Total Monetized Benefits †

4.2

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

0.7

Net Monetized Benefits

3.5

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028-2057.

* 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 a 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 GHG 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 a 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.

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

The benefits and costs of the adopted 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 monetized 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 2022, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (

e.g.,

2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

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 consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028-2057. 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 IV.L.1 of this document.

Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the adopted standards, 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 $74.1 per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $208.0 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $88.3 million in monetized climate benefits, and $97.7 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the net monetized benefit will amount to $319.8 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $75.3 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $252.7 million in reduced operating costs, $88.3 million in monetized climate benefits, and $133.1 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the net monetized benefit will amount to $398.8 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Consumer Pool Heaters

Million 2021$/year

Primary

estimate

Low-net-

benefits

estimate

High-net-

benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

252.7

238.5

270.0

Climate Benefits *

88.3

85.3

91.2

Health Benefits **

133.1

128.8

137.6

Total Monetized Benefits †

474.1

452.6

498.7

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

75.3

76.5

73.4

Net Monetized Benefits

398.8

376.1

425.4

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

208.0

197.5

220.3

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

88.3

85.3

91.2

Health Benefits **

97.7

94.8

100.7

Total Monetized Benefits †

393.9

377.6

412.2

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

74.1

74.6

73.2

Net Monetized Benefits

319.8

303.0

339.1

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with products shipped in 2028-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028-2057. 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 constant price in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a declining rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.F.4 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 GHG 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 a 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 installation 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 concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the standards exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the standards.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO

and SO

reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for consumer pool heaters is $74.1 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $208.0 million in reduced product operating costs, $88.3 million in monetized climate benefits, and $97.7 million in monetized health benefits. The net monetized benefit amounts to $319.8 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 0.70 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 7.5 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO

emissions by 29 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this 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”).

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of

EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer pool heaters, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(11)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(2)), and directs DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(4)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(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 procedure for consumer pool heaters appears at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix P (“appendix P”).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including consumer pool heaters. 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) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain products, including consumer pool heaters, 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 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))

Finally, 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 procedure for consumer pool heaters addresses standby mode and off mode energy use by use of the integrated thermal efficiency metric, as do the new and amended standards adopted in this final rule.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

The current energy conservation standard for gas-fired pool heaters is set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(k) and is repeated in Table II.1 of this document. The current energy conservation standard for gas-fired pool heaters is in terms of thermal efficiency (E

), which measures only active mode efficiency. Electric pool heaters are a covered product under EPCA, but prior to this rulemaking there was no Federal energy conservation standard for this product class.

Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Pool Heaters

Product class

Minimum

thermal

efficiency

(percent)

Gas-Fired Pool Heaters

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Pool Heaters

On April 16, 2010, DOE published a final rule in which it concluded the first round of rulemaking required under EPCA and established an amended energy conservation standard for consumer pool heaters. 75 FR 20112 (“April 2010 Final Rule”).

In relevant part, the April 2010 Final Rule amended the statutorily prescribed standards for gas-fired pool heaters with a compliance date of April 16, 2013, on and after which gas-fired pool heaters were required to achieve an E

of 82 percent.

A correction notice was published on April 27, 2010, correcting a reference to the compliance date for the energy conservation standard. 75 FR 21981.

On December 17, 2012, DOE published a final rule in the

Federal Register

that established a new efficiency metric, integrated thermal efficiency (TE

), for gas-fired pool heaters. 77 FR 74559, 74565 (“December 2012 TP Final Rule”). The TE

metric built on the existing E

metric for measuring active mode energy efficiency, and accounts for the energy consumption during standby mode and off mode operation. DOE stated in the December 2012 TP Final Rule that for purposes of compliance with the energy conservation standard, the test procedure amendments related to standby mode and off mode (

i.e.,

integrated thermal efficiency) are not required until the compliance date of the next standards final rule, which addresses standby and off mode. 77 FR 74559, 74559.

On January 6, 2015, DOE published a final rule pertaining to its test procedures for direct heating equipment (“DHE”) and consumer pool heaters. 80 FR 792 (“January 2015 TP Final Rule”). In that final rule, DOE established test methods for measuring the integrated thermal efficiency of electric resistance and electric heat pump pool heaters.

Id.

To evaluate whether to propose amendments to the energy conservation standard for consumer pool heaters, DOE issued a request for information (“RFI”) in the

Federal Register

on March 26, 2015. 80 FR 15922 (“March 2015 RFI”). Through the March 2015 RFI, DOE requested data and information pertaining to its planned technical and economic analyses for DHE and consumer pool heaters. Among other topics, the March 2015 RFI sought data and information pertaining to electric pool heaters. 80 FR 15922, 15924-15925. Although the March 2015 RFI and the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking (concluding with the April 2010 Final Rule) included both DHE and consumer pool heaters, DOE has elected to review its energy conservation standards for each of these products separately.

The rulemaking docket for DHE can be found at:

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2016-BT-STD-0007.

DOE subsequently published a notice of data availability (“NODA”) in the

Federal Register

on October 26, 2015, which announced the availability of its analyses for electric pool heaters. 80 FR 65169 (“October 2015 NODA”). The purpose of the October 2015 NODA was to make publicly available the initial technical and economic analyses conducted for electric pool heaters, and present initial results of those analyses to seek further input from stakeholders. DOE did not propose new or amended standards for consumer pool heaters at that time. The initial TSD and accompanying analytical spreadsheets for the October 2015 NODA provided the analyses DOE undertook to examine the potential for establishing energy conservation standards for electric pool heaters and provided preliminary discussions in response to several issues raised by comments to the March 2015 RFI. The October 2015 NODA described the analytical methodology that DOE used, and each analysis DOE had performed.

Most recently, on April 15, 2022, DOE published a NOPR (“April 2022 NOPR”) for consumer pool heaters, in which DOE proposed new energy conservation standards for electric pool heaters and amended energy conservation standards for gas-fired pool heaters. 87 FR 22640. The new and amended standards proposed in the April 2022 NOPR were defined in terms of the TE

metric, adopted in the December 2012 TP Final Rule (for gas-fired pool heaters) and January 2015 TP Final Rule (for electric pool heaters). DOE received 11 comments in response to the April 2022 NOPR from interested parties which are listed in Table II.2.

Table II.2—Interested Parties Providing Written Comment in Response to the April 2022 NOPR

Commenter(s)

Abbreviation

Comment No.

in the docket

Commenter type

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute; Pool & Hot Tub Alliance

AHRI and PHTA

Trade Association.

American Gas Association; American Public Gas Association

Gas Associations

Utility Association.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance; National Consumer Law Center

Joint Advocates

Efficiency Organization.

Aqua Cal AutoPilot, Inc

AquaCal

Manufacturer.

Bradford White Corporation

BWC

Manufacturer.

Fluidra

Manufacturer.

Hayward Holdings, Inc

Hayward

Manufacturer.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

NYSERDA

State Agency.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Southern California Edison; San Diego Gas & Electric Company

CA IOUs

Utility Association.

Rheem Manufacturing Company

Rheem

Manufacturer.

Union of Concerned Scientists; Center for Climate and Energy Solutions; Montana Environmental Information Center; Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law; Sierra Club; Natural Resources Defense Council

Environmental Advocates

Efficiency Organization.

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

To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the May 4, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for consumer pool heaters. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-STD-0020, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

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

III. General Discussion

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

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.

The Gas Associations commented that DOE should adopt changes to its rulemaking process as outlined in a report by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (“NASEM”)

for both test procedures and standards. (Gas Associations, No. 15 at p. 3) In response, the Department notes that the rulemaking process for standards of covered products and equipment are outlined at appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430 (“appendix A”), and DOE periodically examines and revises these provisions in separate rulemaking proceedings.

Although not specified, DOE interprets this comment to refer to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine 2021 report entitled “Review of Methods Used by the U.S. Department of Energy in Setting Appliance and Equipment Standards.” Copies of the report are available at

nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25992/review-of-methods-used-by-the-us-department-of-energy-in-setting-appliance-and-equipment-standards

(last accessed on October 15, 2022).

AHRI and PHTA suggested that the Department perform another round of manufacturer interviews to determine if the data sources and methodology used are still accurate to ensure DOE's analyses capture products and conditions that best represent the current state of the market. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 6) BWC urged DOE to utilize the most recently available data when conducting its analysis for this rulemaking, stating that many sources cited throughout the April 2022 NOPR are outdated and may provide an inaccurate picture of current market impacts for manufacturers of consumer pool heaters. BWC specifically noted that the Department cited information that was gathered during manufacturer interviews conducted in 2015. BWC asserted that several major events have transpired since that time, which have had significant consequences for pool heater manufacturers (including significant pricing increases for components and materials that are utilized in manufacturing). Thus, BWC also recommended that DOE re-interview product manufacturers and conduct additional research to obtain updated costing information before issuing a final rule. (BWC, No. 12 at pp. 1-2)

Throughout the rulemaking process, DOE seeks feedback and insight from interested parties to improve the information used in the analyses. During Phase III of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) (see section IV.J of this document and chapter 12 of the final rule TSD), DOE interviews manufacturers to gather information on the effects of new and amended energy conservation standards on revenues and finances, direct employment, capital assets, and industry competitiveness. DOE also verifies findings from its other analyses with manufacturers. The Phase III analysis for the April 2022 NOPR occurred several years prior to this final rule, and given this unique circumstance, the Department conducted additional interviews after the publication of the April 2022 NOPR in order to collect the most recent information, as stakeholders suggested. The analysis conducted for this final rule takes into account the most recent feedback from manufacturers and other interested parties.

B. Scope of Coverage

This final rule covers those consumer products that meet the statutory and regulatory definition of “pool heater,” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. (

See also

77 FR 74559, 74564-74565. The DOE test procedure for electric resistance and electric heat pump pool heaters determines the active mode energy use for electric resistance (sections 2.1.2, 3.1.2, and 4.1.2 of appendix P) and electric heat pump pool heaters (sections 2.1.3, 3.1.3, and 4.1.3 of appendix P). Standby mode and off mode energy use are also recorded using the same procedures used for fossil-fuel fired pool heaters (sections 2.2, 3.2, and 4.2 and 2.3, 3.2, and 4.3 of appendix P, respectively). The active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use are then combined into the TE

metric (section 5 of appendix P).

In this document, DOE is establishing new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer pool heaters in terms of TE

to align with the metric in the current test procedure.

To the extent DOE is also making amendments to the test procedure, such amendments are limited to those necessary to accommodate the proposed definitions and the proposed product classes. As discussed further in sections III.G.1 and IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is amending appendix P to add definitions for “active electrical power,” “input capacity,” and “output capacity;” to add a calculation to

determine the output capacity for electric pool heaters; and to clarify the calculation of input capacity for fossil fuel-fired pool heaters. These amendments to appendix P would not impact test procedure conduct nor the measurements taken, but rather the new provisions use existing measurements to calculate the values necessary for comparing product efficiency to the proposed standards.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, DOE received comments from stakeholders relating to the method of testing in the consumer pool heater test procedure. Specifically, AHRI and PHTA suggested that the Department use mass flow rate as an alternative calculation to using the mass of water in the test procedure, as the use of a mass flow meter would provide a significantly more accurate and repeatable data collection that would also allow for automation of the test procedure. AHRI and PHTA also encouraged DOE to update its references to the latest edition of ANSI Z21.56.

AHRI and PHTA noted that there are measurable increases in efficiency due to part-load operation when operating at colder ambient conditions that are not captured in the current rating test. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at pp. 3-4) Similarly, Rheem suggested that DOE investigate part-load efficiency in the next test procedure rulemaking. (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 4)

The most recent version of ANSI Z21.56 is ANSI Z21.56/CSA 4.7-2017,

Gas-Fired Pool Heaters.

Copies of the standard are available for purchase at:

webstore.ansi.org/Standards/CSA/ansiz21562017csa

(last accessed on October 15, 2022).

DOE will consider these comments further in the next revision of its consumer pool heater test procedure.

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 consumer pool heaters, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards adopted in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE adopts a new or amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for consumer pool heaters, 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 final rule TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to consumer pool heaters purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the new and amended standards (2028-2057).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 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 new and amended energy conservation standards.

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 new and amended standards for consumer pool heaters. 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.

The standard levels adopted in this final rule are projected to result in

national energy savings of 0.70 quads, the equivalent of the electricity use of 7.5 million homes in one year. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this 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 final rule.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

EPCA requires DOE to consider the economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the product that would be subject to the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I). In determining the impacts of potential amended standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

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

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

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 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 full 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 will 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)) To assist the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in making such a determination, DOE transmitted copies of its proposed rule and the NOPR TSD to the Attorney General for review, with a request that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. In its assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed energy conservation standards for consumer pool heaters are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.

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 benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 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 full 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 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.

G. Other Topics

1. Test Procedure Updates

This final rule establishes amended standards for gas-fired pool heaters and new standards for electric pool heaters in terms of TE

. These standards are functions of the input capacity (“Q

”) for gas-fired pool heaters and the active electrical power (“PE”) for electric pool heaters. To provide clarity on how values would be determined for certification, DOE is adopting definitions for “input capacity,” “active electrical power,” and “output capacity” (“Q

OUT

”) and identifying which measured variables in the test procedure represent these characteristics.

Given the dependency of TE

on Q

and PE, in the April 2022 NOPR DOE proposed updates to the test procedure and product-specific enforcement provisions to ensure clarity in determination of these parameters. Specifically, DOE proposed to amend appendix P to:

• Use values measured during the active mode test described in Section 2.10.1 of ANSI.Z21.56-2006 (

i.e.,

heating value times correction factor times the quantity of fossil fuel used divided by the length of the test) to determine the input capacity of a fossil fuel-fired pool heater, as this calculation was not stated clearly within appendix P;

• Clarify that active electrical power is represented by the variable PE; and

• Provide a calculation for output capacity so that the product class for an electric pool heater can be appropriately determined.

87 FR 22640, 22651.

In response, Rheem suggested DOE add provisions to appendix P to describe how to appropriately calculate input capacity for gas-fired pool heaters at standard temperature and pressure conditions. (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 2) AHRI and PHTA provided similar feedback, requesting that DOE specify values for barometric pressure, as this value can vary depending on numerous factors including test location and environmental conditions. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 3)

Section 2.10.1 of ANSI Z21.56-2006, the industry test standard that is incorporated by reference into appendix P for gas-fired pool heaters, includes the use of a correction factor (“CF”) “to correct observed gas volume to the conditions of pressure and temperature at which the heating value of the gas is specified [normally 30 inches mercury column (101.6 kPa) and 60 °F (15.5 °C)]”. As such, the standard temperature and pressure is already specified as 60 degrees Fahrenheit (“°F”) and 30 inches of mercury (“in. Hg”) for the calculation of Q

. If the laboratory barometric conditions do not match the standard pressure, as AHRI and PHTA suggested, section 2.10.1 of ANSI Z21.56-2006 requires the gas measurement to be mathematically corrected.

Rheem also requested that DOE clarify whether coefficient of performance (“COP”) representations in manufacturer literature may continue to be made at ambient conditions other than the “High Air Temperature—Mid Humidity” condition in AHRI Standard 1160. (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 10)

Section 3.1.3 of appendix P states that the test conditions for electric heat pump pool heaters shall be at the “High Air Temperature—Mid Humidity (63% RH)” level specified in section 6 of AHRI 1160-2009, the industry test standard that is incorporated by reference into appendix P for heat pump pool heaters. EPCA mandates that no manufacturer, distributor, retailer, and or private labeler may make any representation with respect to the energy use or efficiency of a covered product to which a test procedure is applicable unless such product has been tested in accordance with such test procedure and such representation fairly discloses the results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(1)(A)-(B)) Therefore, although manufacturers may make representations of COP according to the test conditions in appendix P, manufacturers may not make representations for heat pump pool heaters at test conditions which are not included in appendix P.

Taking into consideration the feedback received on the necessary updates to the test procedure to accommodate the transition to TE

-based standards, DOE is amending appendix P as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR to include new definitions and methods for determining for input capacity, active electrical power, and output capacity.

2. Enforcement Provisions

The Department codifies product-specific enforcement provisions at 10 CFR 429.134 to indicate how DOE would conduct certain aspects of assessment or enforcement testing on covered products and equipment.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that the input capacity or active electrical power (as applicable) for enforcement testing would be measured pursuant to appendix P and compared against the rated value certified by the manufacturer. If the measured input capacity or active electrical power (as applicable) is within ±2 percent of the certified value, then DOE would use the certified value when determining the applicable standard. The ±2 percent threshold was chosen because it is already used for commercial water heating equipment (

see

10 CFR 429.134(n)) and it represents a reasonable range to account for manufacturing variations that may affect the input capacity. DOE proposed that, during enforcement testing for a gas-fired pool heater, if the measured input capacity is not within ±2 percent of the certified value, then DOE would follow these steps to attempt to bring the fuel input rate to within ±2 percent of the certified value. First, DOE would attempt to adjust the gas pressure in order to increase or decrease the input capacity as necessary. If the input capacity is still not within ±2 percent of the certified value, DOE would then attempt to modify the gas inlet orifice (

i.e.,

drill) if the unit is equipped with one. Finally, if these measures do not bring the input capacity to within ±2 percent of the certified value, DOE would use the mean measured input capacity (either for a single unit sample or the average for a multiple-unit sample) when determining the applicable standard for the basic model. 87 FR 22640, 22651.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that, for an electric pool heater, it would not take any steps to modify the unit to bring the active electrical power of the unit within the ±2 percent threshold. Rather, if the active electrical power is not within ±2 percent of the certified value, DOE would use the measured active electrical power (either for a single unit sample or the average for a multiple unit sample) when determining the applicable standard for the basic model.

Id.

at 87 FR 22652.

AHRI and PHTI commented that the Department's suggested ±2 percent threshold is appropriate for the certified value of input capacity or active electrical power for gas-fired pool heaters because adjustment of the valve should be allowed to achieve input rate. However, AHRI and PHTA recommended that DOE should apply the ±5 percent threshold that is specified in section 6.3

of AHRI 1160 on the certified value of input capacity or active electrical power for electric pool heaters, and requested that the Department offer additional clarification for the proposed definition of “certified.” (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at pp. 2-3) Hayward similarly supported a ±2 percent threshold for gas-fired pool heaters, but believed that a ± 5 percent threshold would be appropriate for heat pump pool heaters due to variances in compressor performance. (Hayward, No. 17 at p. 3) Rheem supported the DOE proposal to add a ±2 percent threshold to its enforcement provisions at 10 CFR 429.134 regarding input capacity, which is required for gas-fired pool heaters. For electric products, Rheem stated there are no methods to easily adjust power, so while a threshold should be placed on active electrical power in the enforcement provisions, due to the inherent variability in active electrical power for electric pool heaters this threshold should be ±5 percent. (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 2)

The commenters referenced section 6.2 of AHRI 1160, which specifies application ratings. DOE interprets this comment as intending to reference section 6.3 of AHRI 1160-2006, which specifies tolerances on heating capacity and COP.

DOE agrees with Rheem that electrical power cannot be readily adjusted on a pool heater the way gas input is designed to be adjusted for a field-installed unit, and thus, for electric pool heaters, inherent product variability is not able to be compensated for with in-field adjustments to energy input, as is possible for gas-fired pool heaters. For this reason, DOE concludes that a higher threshold for electrical power in the enforcement testing provisions for electrical pool heaters as compared to the input capacity threshold for gas-fired pool heaters is warranted. Section 6.3 of AHRI 1160-2006 states that measured test results for heating capacity and COP shall not be less than 95 percent of published ratings. Based on these considerations, DOE agrees that the ±5 percent threshold recommended by stakeholders is appropriate for enforcement testing of electric pool heaters. In this final rule, DOE is establishing product-specific enforcement provisions for consumer pool heaters which allow a ±2 percent threshold for gas-fired pool heaters and a ±5 percent threshold for electric pool heaters.

Rheem also recommended changing the title to 10 CFR 429.134(s)(2) to “Verification of active electrical power for electric pool heaters.” (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 2) DOE understands this to be a typographical correction to the title proposed in the April 2022 NOPR, which read, “Verification of active electrical power for pool heaters.” 87 FR 22640, 22716. Due to the additions of several product-specific enforcement provisions since the April 2022 NOPR, the enforcement provisions for pool heaters have been relocated to 10 CFR 429.134(dd). Because the title suggested by Rheem clarifies that the provision applies only to electric pool heaters and not all pool heaters, DOE is adopting the suggested title for 10 CFR 429.134(cc)(2).

3. Certification Requirements

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that if new and amended energy conservation standards were adopted in this rulemaking, the Department would review and revise the certification provisions accordingly to establish certification provisions for electric pool heaters and to allow for appropriate reporting of TE

values. DOE stated that it would consider such amendments in a separate rulemaking. 87 FR 22640, 22651.

In response, Rheem generally recommended DOE update the certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.24 to require certification of integrated thermal efficiency and either input capacity or active electrical power as necessary. (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 2) Rheem also requested that DOE add certification provisions which allow for the propane gas version of a basic model to be rated using the natural gas version if the propane gas input rate is within 10 percent of the natural gas input rate. (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 10)

DOE is considering these comments in a separate rulemaking addressing certification requirements for consumer pool heaters and other products and equipment. Interested parties may find this rulemaking at Docket No. EERE-2023-BT-CE-0001. Compliance with the energy conservation standards promulgated by this final rule must be demonstrated on and after May 30, 2028.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this final rule with regard to consumer pool heaters. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments 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-0020.

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 consumer pool heaters. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the 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.

)

Under EPCA, pool heaters are covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(11)) EPCA defines “pool heater” as an appliance designed for heating nonpotable water contained at atmospheric pressure, including heating water in swimming pools, spas, hot tubs and similar applications. (42 U.S.C. 6291(25)) This includes electric pool heaters, gas-fired pool heaters, and oil-fired pool heaters. However, energy conservation standards have been previously established only for gas-fired pool heaters.

In this final rule, DOE establishes definitions for gas-fired pool heaters, electric pool heaters, electric spa heaters, and oil-fired pool heaters; establishes new energy conservation standards for electric pool heaters; and for gas-fired pool heaters, translates the existing standard from the E

metric to an equivalent level in terms of the TE

metric and amends the energy conservation standards. DOE has not analyzed potential standards for oil-fired pool heaters because they comprise a very small market share and such standards would result in very little energy savings. DOE also did not perform energy conservation standards analysis for electric spa heaters, as DOE was unable to identify technology options available to improve the efficiency of such products. Accordingly, DOE is not establishing standards for these products in this final rule.

EPCA prescribed a minimum thermal efficiency of pool heaters and initially defined thermal efficiency of pool heaters only in the context of test conditions for gas-fired pool heaters. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6291(26))

As discussed in the April 2022 NOPR, some commenters responding to the March 2015 RFI suggested DOE consider atmospherically vented gas-fired pool heaters separately from fan-assisted gas-fired pool heaters or to consider condensing and non-condensing products separately. 87 FR 22640, 22653. As previously noted by DOE, the standard for gas-fired pool heaters proposed in the April 2022 NOPR, and adopted in this final rule, can be achieved by atmospherically vented and/or non-condensing gas-fired pool heaters.

In the March 2015 RFI, DOE sought comment on whether capacity or other performance related features that may affect efficiency would justify the establishment of consumer pool heater product classes that would be subject to different energy conservation standards. Specifically, DOE sought comment on whether heat pump technology was a viable design for applications which typically utilize electric resistance pool heaters. 80 FR 15922, 15925. As discussed in the April 2022 NOPR, some commenters recommended DOE create separate product classes for electric resistance and electric heat pump pool heaters, and others urged DOE to regulate both under one product class covering all electric pool heaters. 87 FR 22640, 22654. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that although heat pump pool heaters perform best when operating within an environment with high air temperature and high air humidity, they are nonetheless capable of operating effectively in cooler climates during the swimming season. Additionally, rare cases in which the ambient temperature is too low for the heat pump pool heater to work effectively could be accommodated through the incorporation of electric resistance backup elements. Therefore, DOE proposed to maintain a single product class for electric pool heaters.

Id.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, the Joint Advocates stated their support of a single product class for all electric pool heaters because electric resistance heaters provide no unique utility. (Joint Advocates, No. 13 at p. 1-2) The CA IOUs also agreed with DOE that separate product classes for electric resistance and electric heat pump pool heaters are not justified. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 6) DOE received no other comments in response to the April 2022 NOPR on this issue and, for the reasons discussed, maintains a single product class for electric pool heaters in this final rule.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed definitions for electric pool heaters (note that “electric spa heater” is defined later in this section), gas-fired pool heaters, and oil-fired pool heaters. 87 FR 22640, 22656. The proposed definitions were as follows:

Electric pool heater

means a pool heater other than an electric spa heater that uses electricity as its primary energy source.

Gas-fired pool heater

means a pool heater that uses gas as its primary energy source.

Oil-fired pool heater

means a pool heater that uses oil as its primary energy source.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, BWC agreed with DOE's proposal to clarify regulations by adding a definition for “gas-fired pool heater” at 10 CFR 430.2. (BWC, No. 12 at p. 2) AHRI and PHTA stated their general agreement with DOE's proposed definitions, but urged the Department to create separate definitions for electric heat pump and electric resistance pool heaters, and provided a recommended definition for electric heat pump pool heaters. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 4)

DOE acknowledges that there are differences in the components and operation of electric resistance pool heaters and electric heat pump pool heaters. However, because DOE is

maintaining one product class for all electric pool heaters, there is no need to distinguish between these two types of electric pool heaters. As such, DOE adopts the definitions above as proposed in the April 2022 NOPR.

The definition of an electric pool heater adopted by this final rule specifically excludes pool heaters meeting the definition of an “electric spa heater”. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE explained that lower capacity

electric heaters used to heat water in spas are a covered product by virtue of being within EPCA's definition of pool heater. 87 FR 22640, 22654-22656; (

see

42 U.S.C. 6291(25).) In addition, DOE noted in the April 2022 NOPR that electric spa heaters are often incorporated into the construction of a self-contained spa or hot tub, resulting in the heater performing its major function (heating spa water) in an environment that would preclude the use of higher efficiency technologies (heat pump) and manufacturers instead rely on electric resistance heating elements. Therefore, DOE determined that heat pump technology is not a viable option for electric spa heaters designed for use within a self-contained portable electric spa because a heat pump cannot be readily incorporated into the construction of a spa or hot tub. However, DOE also determined that heat pump technology is a viable option for heating a spa or hot tub if the heater is separate from the construction of the hot tub or spa (

i.e.,

non-self-contained as defined in section 1 of ANSI/APSP/International Code Council Standard 6-2013, “American National Standard for Residential Portable Spas and Swim Spas”). Therefore, in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to define “electric spa heater” as follows:

In this case, “lower-capacity” means an input rating of less than 11 kW. DOE identified 11 kW as being a typical output capacity below which electric resistance heaters are integrated in spas based on its assessment of the market performed for the October 2015 NODA. 80 FR 65169. This threshold was also suggested by a commenter responding to the March 2015 RFI. 87 FR 22640, 22655.

Electric spa heater

means a pool heater that (1) uses electricity as its primary energy source; (2) has an output capacity (as measured according to appendix P to subpart B of part 430) of 11 kW or less; and (3) is designed to be installed within a portable electric spa.

87 FR 22640, 22656.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE also proposed a definition for “portable electric spa,” because at that time, DOE had not codified such a definition.

Portable electric spa

means a self-contained, factory-built spa or hot tub in which all control, water heating and water circulating equipment is an integral part of the product. Self-contained spas may be permanently wired, or cord connected.

87 FR 22640, 22656.

Commenting in response to the April 2022 NOPR, the CA IOUs stated their agreement with DOE's decision to exclude electric spa heaters from this rulemaking due to differences in consumer utility, but suggested DOE modify the definition for electric spa heater by replacing the phrase “to be installed” with “and marketed for use as an electric pool heater.” The CA IOUs explained that “designed and marketed” means that the equipment is designed to fulfill the indicated application and, when distributed in commerce, is marketed for that application, with the designation on the packaging and any publicly available documents, citing a definition from 10 CFR 431.462 (related to DOE's regulations for commercial pumps). (CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 5-6)

Rheem recommended aligning the definitions for portable electric spas from the coverage determination for portable electric spas (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-DET-0006) and the NOPR prior to the publication of either the final portable electric spa determination or consumer pool heaters standards final rule. (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 3) AHRI and PHTA sought clarification on whether swim spas are captured within the definition of portable electric spas. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 4)

On September 2, 2022, DOE published a final determination (“September 2022 Final Determination”) that established portable electric spas as a covered consumer product and included the following definition to be codified in 10 CFR 430.2:

Portable electric spa

means a factory-built electric spa or hot tub, supplied with equipment for heating and circulating water at the time of sale or sold separately for subsequent attachment.

87 FR 54123, 54129.

This newly established definition is substantively the same as the one DOE proposed in the April 2022 NOPR and thus, DOE is not adopting any amendments to that definition in this final rule.

In response to the comment from AHRI and PHTA, DOE notes that swim spas are captured by the newly established definition for portable electric spa to the extent that they meet the description included in the definition. DOE also notes that portable electric spas are not within the scope of this rulemaking and will not be subject to the energy conservation standards adopted in this final rule. DOE appreciates the suggested definitional change for electric spa heaters from the CA IOUs but notes that the cited definition for commercial pumps is not relevant to consumer products, including electric spa heaters, a type of consumer pool heater. EPCA defines a consumer product, in relevant part, as any article of a type which, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals; without regard to whether such article of such type is in fact distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by an individual. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) As such, the design of an electric spa heater is sufficient to determine whether the product is a covered consumer product; coverage does not hinge on how the product is marketed. For this reason, DOE is not incorporating the language suggested by the CA IOUs in the definition of “electric spa heater” in this final rule.

Hayward suggested that DOE define pool heaters by technology (

e.g.,

gas-fired, air vapor compression heating/cooling, ground-source vapor compression heating/cooling, absorption heating/cooling, electric resistance) because different technology types correspond to different applications. (Hayward, No. 17 at pp. 3-4)

In response the suggestion from Hayward, DOE notes that EPCA provides that product classes shall be defined if the Secretary determines that covered products with the class consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or 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 from that which applies (or will apply) to other products within such type (or class). (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Accordingly, DOE is adopting separate definitions and analyzed different energy conservation standards for gas-fired and electric pool heaters, which consume different kinds of energy. However, among the technologies listed by Hayward that consume electricity, DOE was unable to identify, nor did Hayward suggest, a correlation between technology type and capacity or other performance-related feature that would constitute a “feature” under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). Therefore, DOE is declining to additionally define consumer pool heater products by technology type.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for output capacity along with equations for its calculation for electric pool and spa heaters to be incorporated in the consumer pool heaters test procedure at appendix P. The proposed calculation for output capacity for an electric pool or spa heater utilizes measurements already taken for other calculations in appendix P and therefore DOE would not consider the provision to result in any additional test procedure burden. 87 FR 22640, 22656. DOE proposed to define output capacity for electric pool and spa heaters as follows:

Output capacity

for an electric pool or spa heater means the maximum rate at which energy is transferred to the water.

DOE proposed separate equations for the calculation of output capacity of an electric resistance pool heater and electric heat pump pool heater. 87 FR 22640, 22656. For electric pool heaters that rely on electric resistance heating elements, DOE proposed that the output capacity be calculated as:

OUT,ER

= k * W * (T

−T

) * (60/30)

where k is the specific heat of water, W is the mass of water collected during the test, T

is the average outlet water temperature recorded during the primary test, T

is the average inlet water temperature record during the primary test, all as defined in section 11.1 of ASHRAE 146, and (60/30) is the conversion factor to convert the output capacity measured during the 30-minute test to output capacity per hour.

DOE proposed that the output capacity of an electric pool heater that uses heat pump technology be calculated as:

OUT,HP

= k * W * (T

ohp

−T

ihp

) * (60/t

)

where k is the specific heat of water, W is the mass of water collected during the test, T

ohp

is the average outlet water temperature during the standard rating test, T

ihp

is the average inlet water temperature during the standard rating test, all as defined in section 11.2 of ASHRAE 146, and t

is the elapsed time of data recording during the thermal efficiency test on electric heat pump pool heater, as defined in section 9.1 of ASHRAE 146, in minutes. 87 FR 22640, 22656.

DOE did not receive any comments pertaining to the definition and calculations for output capacity proposed in the April 2022 NOPR and therefore will adopt them, as proposed, in this final rule.

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the creation of a separate product class for heat pump pool heaters with cooling capability was not necessary, and requested comment on its assumption that electric pool heaters with cooling capabilities do not suffer diminished efficiency performance in heating mode. 87 FR 22640, 22655-22656.

Responding to the April 2022 NOPR, Hayward commented that heat pump pool heaters with heating and cooling need to have some efficiency offset to accommodate additional system components that affect efficiency in heating mode; the alternatives to heat pumps with cooling include evaporative coolers, which consume both energy and water, and are not currently regulated by DOE. (Hayward, No. 17 at p. 1) AHRI and PHTA stated that the efficiency and performance for a heat pump with cooling capabilities should be evaluated independently, as the pressure drop from the reversing valve could have negative impacts on overall performance compared to a similar model without cooling capabilities. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 3) Hayward commented that heat pump pool heaters that have both heating and cooling capabilities suffer diminished efficiency performance in heating mode due to pressure drops from the reversing valve and heat exchanger designs. Therefore, Hayward argued that the standards for heat pumps with heating and cooling should be lower than those for heating-only heat pumps. (Hayward, No. 17 at p. 3) Rheem stated that its heat pump pool heaters with cooling capability experience minimal effect on efficiency performance when in heating mode, but any difference is captured in performance ratings. (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 3)

DOE's market assessment performed for this rulemaking included both heating-only and heating- and cooling-capable consumer pool heaters. Of the models DOE identified, differences in COP are negligible between the heating- and cooling-capable pool heaters and the heating-only pool heaters. As such, DOE maintains that the creation of a separate product class for heat pump pool heaters with cooling capability is not warranted and does not establish one in this final rule.

2. Technology Options

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE identified nine technology options for electric pool heaters and eight technology options for gas-fired pool heaters that would be expected to improve the efficiency as measured by DOE test procedure. 87 FR 22640, 22656-22657. Table IV.1 below lists all technology options identified.

Table IV.1—Technology Options Identified for the April 2022 NOPR

Technology option

Electric pool heater

Gas-fired pool heater

Insulation improvements

Control improvements

Heat pump technology

Heat exchanger improvements

Compressor improvements

Expansion valve improvements

Fan improvements

Condensing heat exchanger

Electronic ignition systems

Switch mode power supply

Seasonal off switch

Condensing pulse combination

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed comments it received from interested parties requesting the Department consider fan motor improvements as a technology option to improve efficiency at multiple load conditions. DOE noted that these improvements are unlikely to yield improvements because heat pump pool heaters operate at full capacity to satisfy the call for heat. Heat pump pool heaters on the market use permanent split capacitor (“PSC”) motors and do not currently utilize brushless permanent magnet (“BPM”) fan

motors.

Therefore, DOE has not been able to test products in order to determine the magnitude of efficiency improvement, if any, that could be expected due to the incorporation of BPM motors. The Department requested more information on this topic to determine whether there would be an efficiency improvement from replacing PSC motors with BPM motors. 87 FR 22640, 22660-22661.

The efficiency of PSC motors is highest at a single speed, with significant diminishing operation efficiency at other speeds, whereas BPM motors are capable of maintaining a high operating efficiency at multiple speeds.

Responding to the April 2022 NOPR, Fluidra stated it generally agreed with the technology options analyzed. (Fluidra, No. 18 at p. 2) Hayward suggested consideration of modulating heaters, as they can provide both improved efficiency and a better user experience, and recommended further analysis on average energy or part load energy consumption to provide credit for variable-capacity (modulating) pool heaters. (Hayward, No. 17 at pp. 4-5) Hayward added that variable-capacity heat pump pool heaters and gas-fired pool heaters, which would allow for efficiency calculations at part loads, should be considered for additional efficiency levels. Hayward also suggested that a variable-capacity heat pump pool heater would constitute a new max-tech electric pool heater efficiency level, and a variable-capacity gas-fired pool heater would fall between 84-percent and 95-percent thermal efficiency. (Hayward, No. 17 at p. 2) Conversely, AHRI and PHTA stated that their testing shows variable-speed fans have minimal impact on heat pump efficiency, and that the current efficiency metric does not benefit from variable-capacity equipment. In addition, these commenters noted that variable-capacity equipment will have higher standby mode and off mode losses. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 4)

Rheem stated that fan motor efficiency improvements will affect only the active mode testing in the current DOE test procedure. Rheem noted that the current DOE test procedure does not address part-load efficiency, which could be improved with fan motor efficiency (

e.g.,

switching from a PSC to a BPM fan motor). (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 4) Hayward claimed that while BPM fan motors may offer improved efficiency at reduced speed, the energy consumed by the fan motor is small compared to the energy consumed by the compressor motor. (Hayward, No. 17 at p. 4)

In order for a given technology to be considered a technology option by DOE for the purposes of evaluating potential new or amended energy conservation standards, the technology must be expected to improve the efficiency or energy consumption as measured by DOE test procedure. Appendix P does not capture part-load performance; therefore, DOE is unable to determine the efficiency impacts of modulating heaters or variable-capacity heat pumps for consumer pool heaters. Thus, DOE did not evaluate either of these technologies as a technology option for this final rule.

In response to the comment from Hayward, DOE acknowledges that the energy consumed by the fan motor is generally smaller than that of the compressor in an electric heat pump water heater. However, DOE agrees with Rheem that improvements in fan motor efficiency will improve the efficiency of a consumer pool heater as measured by appendix P and, therefore, continued to consider fan motor improvements as part of the general fan improvements technology option for this final rule. As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE may consider comments related to part-load efficiency provisions in appendix P in its next test procedure rulemaking for consumer pool heaters.

In summary, DOE retains the same list of technology options from the April 2022 NOPR in this final rule. After considering all identified potential technology options for improving the efficiency of consumer pool heaters, DOE performed the screening analysis (see section IV.B of this document and chapter 4 of the final rule TSD) on these technologies to determine which were considered further in the final rule analysis.

B. Screening Analysis

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

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

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

1. Screened-Out Technologies

In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed eliminating condensing pulse combustion from its analysis, having tentatively determined that this technology option is not technologically feasible and not practicable to manufacture, install, and service. DOE stated that, although condensing pulse combustion technology shows promising results in increasing efficiency, it has not yet penetrated the consumer pool heater market, and similar efficiencies are achievable with other technologies that have already been introduced on the market. 87 FR 22640, 22657. BWC agreed with screening out condensing pulse combustion technology. (BWC, No. 12 at p. 2) For the reasons stated, DOE screened out the condensing pulse combustion technology option in the final rule analysis. Although condensing pulse combustion technology shows promising results in increasing efficiency, it has not yet penetrated the consumer pool heater market, and similar efficiencies are achievable with

other technologies that have already been introduced on the market.

2. Remaining Technologies

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

Table IV.2—Technology Options That Passed Screening Criteria

Technology option

Electric pool heater

Gas-fired pool heater

Insulation improvements

✓

Control improvements

✓

Heat pump technology

✓

Heat exchanger improvements

✓

Expansion valve improvements

✓

Fan improvements

✓

Condensing heat exchanger

✓

Electronic ignition systems

✓

Switch mode power supply

✓

Seasonal off switch

✓

BWC agreed that the technology options identified by DOE in Table IV.2 of the April 2022 NOPR (which are the same as those retained for this final rule) are comprehensive and appropriate in assessing gas-fired pool heaters, although many of the retained technologies are unlikely to lead to significant overall energy efficiency improvements for these consumer pool heaters. (BWC, No. 12 at p. 2)

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 found 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 final rule TSD. DOE notes that the technology options which passed screening criteria do not in their entirety constitute the list of technologies which were analyzed as representative of the major design pathways to improving TE

values for consumer pool heaters; those “design options” are described in further detail in the engineering analysis (see section IV.C.1.b of this document).

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer pool heaters. 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 products, 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).

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 final rule, DOE relied on the efficiency-level approach. Efficiency levels for electric pool heaters were initially identified in the October 2015 NODA based on a review of products on the market and then revised in the April 2022 NOPR. DOE applied the same analytical approach for the efficiency analysis of gas-fired pool heaters in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 22640, 22658.

As discussed in the April 2022 NOPR, the efficiency-level approach enabled DOE to identify incremental improvements in efficiency resulting from design options that consumer pool heater manufacturers already incorporate in commercially available models. 87 FR 22640, 22658. However, as of this final rule, manufacturers have not yet begun publishing ratings in terms of TE

because there are no standards or certification requirements for electric pool heaters, and requirements for gas-fired pool heaters are limited only to E

representations. Due to this lack of certified or otherwise publicly available TE

ratings, the Department's efficiency analysis included a process to convert existing E

ratings for gas-fired pool heaters and COP ratings for heat pump pool heaters to representative TE

values based on the calculation procedures found in section 5.1 of the appendix P test procedure. Typical values for active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy consumption were estimated based on test data and feedback from

manufacturers during confidential interviews.

Id.

The TE

metric improves upon the E

metric by taking into account standby mode and off mode energy consumption, as discussed in section III.C of this document. The current standard for gas-fired pool heaters requires an E

of 82 percent for products of all capacities. Figure 3.2.24 of the April 2010 Final Rule TSD (“Distribution of Pool Heater Models by Input Capacity and Thermal Efficiency”) demonstrated that E

is not strongly dependent upon capacity. However, the transition to a regulated TE

metric has required additional consideration for how standby and off mode energy consumption may affect ratings for products of different capacities. From information collected throughout this rulemaking process, DOE has determined that standby and off mode energy consumption is not directly correlated to input capacity, Q

, for a gas-fired pool heater or active mode electrical energy consumption, PE, for an electric pool heater. As a result, consumer pool heaters with lower capacities cannot achieve the same TE

levels as products with higher capacities because the standby and off mode energy consumption is a more significant contribution to the overall energy consumption of lower-capacity products.

To account for this, in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE developed efficiency levels in which the TE

requirement is a function of the capacity of the unit. 87 FR 22640, 22659. In the engineering analysis for the April 2022 NOPR, the Department used several performance parameters measured in the appendix P test procedure as inputs to determining TE

efficiency levels for consumer pool heaters as a function of capacity.

Id.

at 87 FR 22658-22659.

In response to the April 2022 NOPR, Hayward argued that standards for heat pump and gas-fired pool heaters should be strictly focused on thermal efficiency and not include standby power. Hayward suggested that standby mode power could be considered in a future revision when these other requirements are more mature and understood. (Hayward, No. 17 at p. 2) Rheem stated the methodology used to estimate standby energy use was appropriate. Rheem also supported the use of the integrated thermal efficiency metric as it would allow manufacturers to make tradeoffs between active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use regarding the overall efficiency and other features. (Rheem, No. 19 at p. 6) BWC agreed with the Department's estimates for standby mode and off mode power consumption for gas-fired pool heaters, as well as the assertion that this energy consumption accounts for a very small amount of the total overall annual energy use for such products, and will not increase with higher input products. (BWC, No. 12 at p. 3)

DOE notes first that EPCA requires that any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, must address standby mode and off mode energy use, (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)), in that 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)). The TE

metric, which incorporates energy consumption in active mode, standby mode, and off mode and upon which potential new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer pool heaters were evaluated, has been established in the appendix P test procedure since July 6, 2015, as discussed in section III.C of this document, allowing ample time for manufacturers to assess products per this metric.

For this final rule, DOE revisited market energy efficiency distributions (see chapter 3 of the final rule TSD) and performed another round of manufacturer interviews (see section IV.J.3 of this document) to determine that the same efficiency levels from the April 2022 NOPR remain representative of the current consumer pool heater market. The following subsections detail the baseline, intermediate, and max-tech efficiency levels addressed in this final rule. Further discussion can be found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

a. Baseline Efficiency

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.

DOE uses the baseline model for comparison in several analyses, including the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine energy savings that will results from a new or amended energy conservation standard, DOE compared energy use at each of the higher energy efficiency levels to the energy consumption of the baseline unit. Similarly, to determine the change sin price to the consumer that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares the price of a baseline unit to the price of a unit at each higher efficiency level.

For gas-fired pool heaters, DOE analyzed a baseline efficiency level corresponding to a product which is minimally compliant with the current standard (82-percent E

) and uses a standing pilot light. As discussed in the April 2022 NOPR, standing pilot lights operate when the product is not in use and contribute to fossil fuel energy use in standby mode, thereby resulting in lower TE

values than products with electronic ignition. 87 FR 22640, 22659. Table IV.3 depicts the baseline efficiency level for gas-fired pool heaters analyzed for the April 2022 NOPR (and, as discussed later, also analyzed in this final rule).

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

ER30MY23.004

For electric pool heaters, DOE analyzed a baseline efficiency level corresponding to electric resistance heating, which was found to be the least efficient electric pool heater design on the market. Table IV.4 depicts the baseline efficiency level for electric pool heaters analyzed for the April 2022 NOPR and this final rule.

ER30MY23.005

BWC believed that the baseline efficiency levels established in the April 2022 NOPR were appropriate based on the DOE test procedure for these products. (BWC, No. 12 at p. 2)

DOE did not receive any other comments specifically on the baseline efficiency levels proposed in the April 2022 NOPR. Comments relating to energy use in standby mode and off mode power, which factor into the baseline TE

equations, have been discussed previously in section IV.C.1 of this document. For the reasons described, DOE maintained these baseline efficiency levels for the final rule analysis.

Additional details on the selection of baseline models and the development of the baseline efficiency equations may be found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product. For consumer pool heaters, the max-tech efficiency levels are achieved by gas-fired pool heaters that utilize condensing technology and by electric pool heaters that utilize heat pump technology.

As discussed in section IV.C.1 of this document, efficiency levels for electric pool heaters were initially analyzed in the October 2015 NODA. DOE requested comment on these efficiency levels and reviewed stakeholder feedback in the April 2022 NOPR. In response to that feedback, DOE incorporated additional design options in the April 2022 NOPR to decrease the standby mode and off mode energy consumption at the max-tech levels and to further improve TE

values: transformer improvements, switch mode power supply, and a seasonal off switch. 87 FR 22640, 22660.

Between the baseline efficiency level and the max-tech efficiency level, DOE analyzed several intermediate higher efficiency levels for gas-fired pool heaters and electric pool heaters in the April 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 22640, 22659-22660. These efficiency levels, and corresponding major design options to achieve these efficiency levels, are shown in Table IV.5 through Table IV.8. As discussed in this section, the Department is using these efficiency levels and design options for this final rule analysis.

ER30MY23.006

Table IV.6—Design Options for Gas-Fired Pool Heaters

Efficiency level

Technology

EL 0

Standing Pilot + Cu or CuNi Finned Tube + Atmospheric.

EL 1

Electronic Ignition + Cu or CuNi Finned Tube + Atmospheric.

EL 2

Electronic Ignition + Cu or CuNi Finned Tube + Blower Driven Gas/Air Mix.

EL 3

Condensing + CuNi and Cu Finned Tube + seasonal off switch + switch mode power supply.

ER30MY23.007

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

Table IV.8—Design Options for Electric Pool Heaters

Efficiency level

Technology

EL 0

Electric Resistance.

EL 1

Heat Pump, twisted Titanium tube coil in concentric/counter flow PVC Pipe.

EL 2

EL 1 + increased evaporator surface area.

EL 3

EL 2 + increased evaporator surface area.

EL 4

EL 3 + increased evaporator surface area.

EL 5

EL4 + condenser coil length + seasonal off switch + switch mode power supply.

The April 2022 NOPR requested comment on the proposed efficiency levels above the baseline and the typical technological changes associated with each efficiency level. 87 FR 22640, 22663.

In response, the Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to consider additional efficiency levels for both electric and gas-fired pool heaters that include designs employing seasonal off switches and switch mode power supplies. The Joint Advocates suggested that adding seasonal off switches would increase energy savings with minimal cost, and cited State regulations for heat pump pool heaters in California, Connecticut, and Florida which already require an off switch mounted on the pool heater that permits shutoff without adjusting the thermostat. The Joint Advocates commented that the proposed standard levels should be adjusted to include seasonal off switches and/or a switch mode power supply and that the analysis include the reduced standby mode and off mode energy consumption associated with the use of these technology options. (Joint Advocates, No. 13 at pp. 2-3) Similarly, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider incorporating the assumption that all consumer pool heaters are equipped with a seasonal off switch and updating the efficiency levels as appropriate. The CA IOUs indicated that heat pump pool heaters certified in the California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System (“MAEDbS”) all have an on/off switch as California's Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20) adopted this as a prescriptive design requirement for all consumer pool heaters sold in the state. CA IOUs suggested that the seasonal off switch would be a cost effective means for many models to reach the EL 4 level without needing to redesign for a higher COP. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 3-5)

AquaCal suggested that the proposed efficiency level for electric pool heaters was more stringent, in terms of relative level of technological advancement required, than that for gas-fired pool heaters. AquaCal recommended DOE should consider proposing efficiency levels that are more comparable, in terms of the relative level of technological advancement required, for electric and gas-fired pool heaters. (AquaCal, No. 11 at p. 1) However, as results have shown, the benefits and burdens for higher efficiency levels of gas-fired pool heaters are not equivalent to the benefits and burdens for higher efficiency levels of electric pool heaters, and DOE accounts for this when constructing TSLs.

Rheem generally supported the technology changes associated with each efficiency level. However, Rheem stated that the off-mode energy use may not actually be zero when there is a seasonal off switch, and the commenter recommended DOE either amend appendix P to require that any non-zero off mode energy use be measured or provide clarification on whether seasonal off switches with non-zero off mode energy use meet the definition of a seasonal off switch within appendix P. (Rheem, No. 19 at pp. 4-5)

Section 1.7 of appendix P defines “off mode” as the condition during the pool non-heating season in which the consumer pool heater is connected to the power source, and neither the main burner, nor the electric resistance elements, nor the heat pump is activated, and the seasonal off switch, if present, is in the “off” position. Section 1.8 defines “seasonal off switch” as a switch that results in different energy consumption in off mode as compared to standby mode. Thus, there is no requirement for a seasonal off switch to result in a measured energy consumption of zero in off mode in order to meet the definition in section 1.8 of appendix P. However, feedback from manufacturers and DOE's own testing has led the Department to conclude that 0 watts is a representative value for P

W,OFF

at max-tech because some seasonal off switches, including those analyzed for the max-tech level, are capable of reducing the electrical power consumption to 0 watts when in off mode.

DOE reviewed the regulations and building codes in California,

Connecticut,

Texas,

and Florida

to consider the requirements for seasonal off switches in these jurisdictions. From its research, the Department recognizes that these States do not have the same definition or usage for off switches as DOE provides in appendix P; the States and DOE are not defining the same type of switch despite similar terminology. Specifically, these States require the use of a “readily accessible on-off switch” which allows the unit to shut off the heater operation without adjusting the thermostat setting. These requirements do not specify that all power-consuming components of the pool heater are off—only the heater operation. Therefore, it is uncertain whether these State-required on-off switches would put the pool heater in a state where it would consume 0 watts of power. As noted, DOE defines “seasonal off switch” as a switch that results in different energy consumption in off mode as compared to standby mode, and this would typically cause the pool heater to consume 0 watts in the off mode. Additionally, DOE notes that California's regulations require such a switch only for heat pump pool heaters.

See

California Code of Regulations at 20 CCR § 1605.3(g)(2), found online at:

govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Index?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29

(last accessed on October 15, 2022).

In the current, 2022 version of Connecticut building code, an emergency off switch is no longer required for pool heaters. Item 313.7, which used to address the emergency shutoff switch, has been deleted.

See

2022 Connecticut State Building code at

portal.ct.gov/-/media/DAS/Office-of-State-Building-Inspector/2022-State-Codes/2022-CSBC-Final.pdf

(last accessed on October 15, 2022).

See Texas Administrative Code § 265.197 at

texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=N&p_rloc=202557&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=3&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=265&rl=197

(last accessed on October 15, 2022).

See

2020 Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation at C404.9.1,

codes.iccsafe.org/content/FLEC2020P1/chapter-4-ce-commercial-energy-efficiency

(last accessed on October 15, 2022).

AHRI and PHTA stated that a unit disconnect is required in these installations, and this typically functions as the off switch. AHRI and PHTA opposed using seasonal off switches at lower efficiency levels in DOE's analysis. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 3)

As such, it is unclear whether manufacturers are responding to State mandates for “readily accessible on-off switches” by introducing seasonal off switches which meet DOE's definition in appendix P.

DOE agrees that seasonal off switches and switch mode power supplies can improve the TE

values of each efficiency level. However, DOE notes that the engineering analysis identifies the major design pathway manufacturers are expected to use to improve efficiency From discussions with manufacturers, DOE understands that improvements to heat exchangers and fans would likely be implemented first to achieve efficiencies above the baseline, before equipping consumer pool heaters with technologies to reduce standby mode and off mode energy consumption, because active mode energy consumption is significantly larger and would be prioritized when considering which design option to implement to achieve a target standard level. For this reason, DOE maintains its analysis from the April 2022 NOPR, which attributes the incorporation of seasonal off switches, switch mode power supply, and transformer improvements only at the max-tech efficiency level, after manufacturers have exhausted options to improve efficiency via heat exchanger upgrades.

Furthermore, the CA IOUs suggested increasing the max-tech efficiency level for electric pool heaters, given the presence of such products with AHRI-certified COP values that exceed the max-tech COP level analyzed in the April 2022 NOPR. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 4-5) In response to this, DOE notes that it evaluated the efficiencies of electric pool heaters on the basis of the TE

metric, and found that, based on expected values of standby and off mode power consumption, the max-tech efficiency level assessed in the NOPR is still representative of the maximum efficiency that has been demonstrated across a full range of capacities.

The Department also received comments regarding the efficiency levels chosen for analysis of gas-fired pool heaters. The Joint Advocates urged DOE to evaluate an efficiency level for gas pool heaters with an active mode thermal efficiency of 85 percent. The Joint Advocates claimed that there exist non-condensing gas-fired products from multiple manufacturers with 85-percent thermal efficiency at capacities ranging from 150,000 to 750,000 Btu/h, which can be found in DOE's Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”) and MAEDbS. (Joint Advocates, No. 13 at p. 2) AHRI and PHTA, by contrast, claimed that the current Efficiency Level 2 (“EL 2”) (corresponding to an active mode E

of 84 percent) for gas-fired pool heaters has the potential to condense, and that the Department should set the thermal efficiency at 83 percent.

AHRI and PHTA, along with the Gas Associations, encouraged DOE to adopt a standard based on a thermal efficiency of 83 percent to avoid venting re-configurations due to this potential condensing operation that could occur at the proposed standard that corresponds to 84-percent thermal efficiency. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at pp. 2 and 5; Gas Associations, No. 15 at p. 2) Fluidra provided similar comments, indicating that 84-percent thermal efficiency is too close to the functional limit for non-condensing gas-fired pool heaters, and suggesting that the standard should be set at a level which corresponds to a thermal efficiency of 83 percent in order to ensure a margin of efficiency is used to prevent new products from operating in condensing mode when installed as a non-condensing product. They noted this approach would minimize disruption to consumers and industry by increasing the minimum thermal efficiency, while allowing adequate transition time for gas-fired pool heaters to reach EL 3 in the future. (Fluidra, No. 18 at pp. 1-2) At the NOPR public meeting, DOE also received comments that 84 percent is the threshold of condensing operation, and any thermal efficiency higher than 84 percent would inevitably result in condensation. (Pentair, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 9 at pp. 5-6)

In manufacturer interviews since the April 2022 NOPR, stakeholders have elaborated that at an 84-percent E

rating, in certain installation conditions condensate forms in venting as the flue gases exiting the heat exchanger are close to the dew point. Thus, while such a gas-fired pool heater would be considered “non-condensing” because the condensation does not occur in the heat exchanger, installation considerations would still include using the appropriate venting materials to handle possible condensation. Additionally, stakeholders indicated that, when a gas-fired pool heater is operating at an efficiency that is close to the condensing threshold, variations in ambient temperature and water inlet temperature can cause condensation to actually occur in the heat exchanger. While these fluctuations would improve the efficiency of the gas-fired pool heater as compared to its rating, the result may be corrosive damage to the heat exchanger, according to these manufacturers.

Given these considerations, DOE did not consider an efficiency level of 85-percent E

for gas-fired pool heaters, which was suggested by the Joint Advocates, because safety or installation concerns about near-condensing operation (brought up by manufacturers in response to the April 2022 NOPR) would potentially be exacerbated at 85-percent E

. Additionally, upon its review of the CCD, DOE has found that only one model line from one manufacturer is available at 85-percent E

, indicating that manufacturers do not generally produce gas-fired pool heaters at that efficiency. This would indicate that near-condensing operation concerns may hinder the production of 85-percent E

pool heaters.

Although several parties indicated that near-condensing operation is also an issue at 84-percent E

, DOE's market assessment demonstrates that there are a large number of unique basic models of gas-fired pool heaters from six manufacturers available at 84-percent E

. This shows that a significant portion of the market uses products at this efficiency level, and that the potential for condensation to disrupt system performance has apparently been adequately mitigated through appropriate product design and installation instructions for these products to maintain market share in the United States. For example, DOE observed that gas-fired pool heaters at 84-percent E

can be equipped with blowers that ensure positive vent pressure (for indoor installations) and may need to be installed with adequate means to discharge potential condensate. Most importantly, far more products exist at 84-percent E

than do at 83-percent E

—hence, it would appear that the 84-percent E

efficiency level is feasible and generally more desirable to consumers than 83-percent E

since the market has already largely moved to 84-percent. For these reasons, DOE maintains a TE

level based on 84-percent E

in its efficiency analysis for gas-fired pool heaters.

As of October 2022, 51 unique basic models of gas-fired pool heaters were certified to DOE at 84% E

, whereas only 10 unique basic models were rated at 83% E

. See chapter 3 of the TSD for further details on the market assessment.

Rheem and AHRI and PHTA stated that copper and cupronickel heat exchangers are not suitable for condensing operation because they are not resistant to the corrosion from condensate and thus should not be considered for EL 3. (Rheem, No. 19 at pp. 4-5; AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 5) In response, DOE notes that it observed condensing cupronickel-based pool heaters in its teardown analysis.

Therefore, DOE has determined that cupronickel is suitable for condensing operation, and the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) for EL 3, as discussed in section IV.C.2.a of this document, reflects the use of this material.

Fluidra also commented that gas-fired pool heaters at EL 0 and EL 1, which were based on a model with 82-percent E

with and without a standing pilot light, respectively, have become less prevalent in the marketplace and that these efficiency levels would have minimal meaningful impact. (Fluidra, No. 18 at p. 2) However, DOE's market assessment reveals that, contrary to Fluidra's comment, 82-percent E

(the active mode thermal efficiency at EL 0 and EL 1) is the most commonly found thermal efficiency on the market for gas-fired pool heaters. Hence DOE analyzed gas-fired pool heaters with 82-percent E

(with and without standing pilot lights) for this final rule analysis.

Hayward suggested that DOE analyze additional efficiency levels for both gas-fired pool heaters and electric pool heaters with variable-capacity technologies (

i.e.,

modulating burners or inverter drives). Hayward stated that it believed that manufacturers will be deterred from developing modulating consumer pool heaters because the standby power consumption for inverter-driven heat pump pool heaters will be higher than that for single-capacity heat pump pool heaters. Hayward also indicated that standby power requirements could also deter development of demand-response technologies. Hayward claimed that variable-capacity heat pump pool heaters have significant efficiency improvements over single-capacity products. (Hayward, No. 17 at p. 4) However, as discussed in section IV.A.2 of this document, DOE has determined that modulating burners and inverter-driven (

i.e.,

variable-speed fan) heat pump designs would not provide substantial improvements to TE

as measured by the current appendix P test procedure, because the test conditions require consumer pool heaters to operate at full-load capacity. Thus, DOE did not analyze additional efficiency levels for these technologies.

AquaCal claimed that the EL 4 level chosen by DOE for electric pool heaters, while possible to achieve, only represents 10 percent of the existing market because of the price increase for products at that level of efficiency. (AquaCal, No. 11 at p. 1) EL 4 for electric pool heaters corresponds to a COP of 6.0 or an E

of 600 percent. This level was originally selected in the October 2015 NODA because many heat pump pool heaters are rated at COPs of 6.0. An efficiency level which approximately reflects the top 10 percent of the market is a useful point to have in the analysis, because it represents a market-available stringency which would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule analysis, DOE has determined that several manufacturers produce heat pump pool heaters which meet or exceed EL 4; therefore, DOE is maintaining this efficiency level in its analysis of electric pool heaters.

With respect to the description of technologies implemented at higher efficiency levels for electric pool heaters, AHRI and PHTA stated that the description for EL 1 is too specific for the heat exchanger and does not account for a wide variety of heat exchanger technologies on the market at this level. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 5)

In the initial October 2015 NODA engineering analysis, DOE associated straight titanium tube coils in submerged water tanks as the main heat exchanger type for achieving a TE

of 344 percent at EL 1. In response to this analysis, AHRI suggested that the design features assumed for EL 1 were mischaracterized, and DOE re-evaluated this efficiency level in the April 2022 NOPR. In the April 2022 NOPR, DOE had tentatively determined that electric pool heaters at EL 1 would have more similar designs to electric pool heaters at EL 2, and, as a result, DOE revised this efficiency level to reflect a twisted titanium tube concentric/counterflow heat exchanger. The TE

rating of this efficiency level was increased to 387 percent to correlate with the improvement in heat exchanger type from submerged coils. 87 FR 22640, 22664. See chapter 5 of the April 2022 NOPR TSD for additional information. As such, DOE is aware that products that perform at or near EL 1 may use either submerged coil or twisted tube concentric/counterflow heat exchangers. AHRI's previous comments, however, had indicated that a submerged coil design misrepresented this efficiency level.

DOE reiterates its assertion in the April 2022 NOPR that its association of specific technology options with efficiency levels is based on observed designs in commercially available products, and that the Department does not assume

a priori

that certain heat exchanger designs would result in specific efficiency levels. 87 FR 22640, 22664. DOE discussed technology options in manufacturer interviews conducted after the April 2022 NOPR and did not receive further feedback indicating that a twisted tube concentric/counterflow heat exchanger would not be representative of EL 1. Given that the majority of heat pump pool heaters utilize this style of heat exchanger (based on DOE's market review and teardowns of other efficiency levels), DOE is maintaining this technology option for EL 1 in this final rule analysis.

AHRI and PHTA stated that the descriptions for electric pool heaters at EL 2 to EL 4 are too simple, and that other designs must be implemented beyond increased evaporator surface area, such as increased condenser surface area. AHRI and PHTA requested more information from DOE regarding how the measured efficiency increases articulated in the different ELs were derived via the increased evaporator surface area and urged DOE to consider the impacts of reduced standby mode and off mode energy consumption. AHRI and PHTA also encouraged DOE to investigate the impact on efficiency levels due to the required change in refrigerants. (AHRI and PHTA, No. 20 at p. 5)

To clarify, efficiency increases for heat pump pool heaters were not numerically derived: DOE conducted teardown analyses on products which were rated at these efficiency levels and observed that the designs differed by evaporator surface area. This trend was verified through teardowns of multiple samples spanning a range of efficiencies. DOE did not observe condenser coil increases to contribute to intermediate efficiency levels across all manufacturers' designs. Specifically, several condenser coil lengths were observed for products meeting similar efficiencies, and vice-versa: similar condenser coil lengths were observed for products meeting different intermediate efficiencies. This would indicate that manufacturers did not rely on this design option to improve efficiency. The only case where DOE observed significant increases in condenser length and coil diameter was in the model representing the max-tech efficiency level. Thus, DOE determined that condenser coil improvements are necessary to achieve EL 5.

In response to AHRI and PHTA's request for DOE to consider the impact of standby mode and off mode energy consumption, DOE notes that its estimated typical standby mode and off mode energy consumption values for the engineering analysis do not mandate that manufacturers must meet these values in order to comply with potential standards. Because TE

is an integrated metric that combines active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy consumption, manufacturers may

design products to meet potential standards by implementing improvements to any combination of the three energy-consuming modes. The technology options in this efficiency analysis assess the most cost-effective design pathways to improvement efficiency based on market evidence.

With respect to changes in refrigerant, products torn down by DOE utilized R-410A refrigerant. While several low-GWP replacements for R-410A, such as R-441A, R-290, and R-32, are currently being developed and implemented in other refrigeration-based consumer products, that refrigerant changeover is being driven in part by regulations such as those in California. Consumer pool heaters are not subject to those regulations at this time and thus the consumer pool heater market has not yet experienced a similar shift to other refrigerants. Moreover, commenters did not provide any specifics for replacement refrigerants that DOE should consider during manufacturer interviews. As such, DOE assumes that manufacturers will opt to continue to use R-410A refrigerant as long as possible, and thereafter use drop-in replacements using an alternative refrigerant wherever feasible to limit product and capital conversion costs. Because these drop-in replacements have not been taken up by the consumer pool heater market at this time, it is uncertain what the MPC of an alternative refrigerant system would be, nor whether there would be efficiency impacts. Therefore, DOE maintained R-410A as the basis for heat pump pool heater efficiency levels and MPCs in this final rule.

Further details of the efficiency analysis are found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

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 product 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.

At the start of the engineering analysis, DOE identified the energy efficiency levels associated with consumer pool heaters on the market using data gathered in the market assessment. DOE also identified potential technologies and features that are typically incorporated into products at the baseline level and at the various efficiency levels analyzed above the baseline. Next, DOE selected products for a physical teardown analysis having characteristics of typical products on the market at the representative capacity and used these teardowns to verify technology options implemented at each efficiency level. DOE chose a representative size of 250,000 Btu/h input capacity for gas-fired pool heaters and 110,000 Btu/h output capacity for electric pool heaters. As explained in the April 2022 NOPR, DOE selected these representative capacities based on the number of available models on the market and by referencing a number of sources, including information collected for the market and technology assessment, as well as information obtained from product literature. DOE then sought feedback on the representative capacities during confidential manufacturer interviews. 87 FR 22640, 22664. DOE gathered information from performing a physical teardown to create detailed bills of materials (“BOMs”), which included all components and processes used to manufacture the products. The resulting BOMs provide the basis for the MPC estimates. MPCs are estimated spanning the full range of efficiencies from the baseline to the maximum technology available. For this rulemaking, DOE held interviews with manufacturers to gain insight into the consumer pool heater industry and to request feedback on the engineering analysis presented in the April 2022 NOPR. DOE used the information gathered from these interviews, along with the data obtained through teardown analysis and insights from public stakeholder comments, to refine its MPC estimates.

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

To assemble BOMs and to calculate the manufacturing costs for the different components in consumer pool heaters, DOE primarily relied upon physical teardowns. Using the data gathered from the physical teardowns, DOE characterized each component according to its weight, dimensions, material, quantity, and the manufacturing processes used to fabricate and assemble it. DOE also used catalog teardowns to supplement physical teardown data. For the catalog teardowns DOE examined published manufacturer catalogs and supplementary component data to estimate the major physical differences (such as dimensions, weight, design features) between a product that was physically disassembled and a similar product that was not.

The teardown analysis allowed DOE to identify the technologies that manufacturers typically incorporate into their products, along with the efficiency levels associated with each technology or combination of technologies. The BOMs from the teardown analysis were then used as inputs to calculate the MPC for each product that was torn down. These individual model MPCs take into account the cost of materials, fabrication, labor, overhead, depreciation, and all other aspects that make up a production facility.

Fluidra claimed that product pricing has gone up year over year since the initial 2015 analysis, and component shortages over the last few years have had a significant cost impact to both manufacturers and consumers due to decrease of supply and increase of demand. Fluidra stated that due to the smaller economy of scale for the consumer pool heater market, price breaks for volume are not as large as other heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment. (Fluidra, No. 18 at p. 3)

DOE collected information on labor rates, tooling costs, raw material prices, and other factors as inputs to the cost estimates. For fabricated parts, the prices of raw

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.