# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-07873 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** May 20, 2024 - **Citation:** 89 FR 44464 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004] RIN 1904-AD61 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: 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 circulator pumps. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) 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 energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. It has determined that the energy conservation standards for this equipment would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified. DATES: The effective date of this rule is August 5, 2024. Compliance with the standards established for circulator pumps in this final rule is required on and after May 22, 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-2016-BT-STD-0004. 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: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. Mr. Uchechukwu “Emeka” Eze, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 961-8879. Email: uchechukwu.eze@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 III. General Discussion A. November 2016 CPWG Recommendations 1. Energy Conservation Standard Level 2. Labeling Requirements 3. Certification Reports B. General Comments C. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage 1. CPWG Recommendations a. Scope b. Definitions c. Equipment Classes d. Small Vertical In-Line Pumps D. Test Procedure 1. Control Mode E. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels F. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings G. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) c. Energy Savings d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition f. Need for National Energy Conservation g. Other Factors 2. Rebuttable Presumption H. Compliance Date IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes a. Scope b. Equipment Classes 2. Technology Options a. Hydraulic Design b. More Efficient Motors c. Speed Reduction B. Screening Analysis 1. Screened-Out Technologies 2. Remaining Technologies C. Engineering Analysis 1. Representative Equipment a. Circulator Pump Varieties 2. Efficiency Analysis a. Baseline Efficiency b. Higher Efficiency Levels c. EL Analysis 3. Cost Analysis 4. Cost-Efficiency Results 5. Manufacturer Markup and Manufacturer Selling Price D. Markups Analysis E. Energy Use Analysis 1. Circulator Pump Applications 2. Consumer Samples 3. Operating Hours 4. Load Profiles F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Equipment Cost 2. Installation Cost 3. Annual Energy Consumption 4. Energy Prices 5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 6. Equipment Lifetime 7. Discount Rates a. Residential b. Commercial 8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case 9. Payback Period Analysis G. Shipments Analysis 1. No-New-Standards Case Shipments Projections 2. Standards-Case Shipment Projections H. National Impact Analysis 1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 2. National Energy Savings 3. Net Present Value Analysis I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs a. Manufacturer Production Costs b. Shipments Projections c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 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 Equipment 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 7. Other Factors 8. Summary of Economic Impacts C. Conclusion 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Circulator Pump Standards 2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Need for, and Objectives of, Rule 2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected 4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 5. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Information Quality M. Congressional Notification VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Synopsis of the Final Rule The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment includes pumps. Circulator pumps, which are the subject of this rulemaking, are a category of pumps. 1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA. Pursuant to EPCA, any new energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new 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 equipment 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 analyzed the benefits and burdens of four trial standard levels (“TSLs”) for circulator pumps. The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE has determined that TSL 2 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. The adopted standards, which are expressed in in terms of a maximum circulator energy index (“CEI”), are shown in Table I.1. These standards apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on May 22, 2028. ER20MY24.000 As stated in section III.D.1 of this document, the established standards apply to circulator pumps when operated using the least consumptive control variety with which they are equipped. CEI is defined as shown in equation (1), and consistent 2 with section 41.5.3.2 of HI 41.5-2022, “Hydraulic Institute Program Guideline for Circulator Pump Energy Rating Program.” 3 87 FR 57264. 2 HI 41.5-2022 uses the term CER REF for the analogous concept. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE discussed this decision to instead use CER STD in the context of Federal energy conservation standards. 3 HI 41.5-2022 provides additional instructions for testing circulator pumps to determine an Energy Rating value for different circulator pump control varieties. ER20MY24.001 Where: CEI = the circulator energy index (dimensionless); CER = circulator energy rating (hp); and CER STD = for a circulator pump that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards with the same hydraulic horsepower as the tested pump. The value of CER varies according to the circulator pump control variety of the tested pump, but in all cases is a function of measured pump input power when operated under certain conditions, as described in the September 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 57264. Relatedly, CER STD represents CER for a circulator pump that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards with the same hydraulic horsepower as the tested pump, as determined in accordance with the specifications at paragraph (i) of 10 CFR 431.465. 87 FR 57264. A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of circulator pumps, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”). 4 The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of circulator pumps, which is estimated to be 10.5 years ( see section IV.F.6 of this document). 4 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 standards ( see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product ( see section IV.C of this document). ER20MY24.002 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 (2024-2057). Using a real discount rate of 9.6 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of circulator pumps in the case without new standards is $347.1 million in 2022$. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −19.9 percent to 3.2 percent, which is approximately −$69.2 million to $11.1 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance with new standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $81.2 million. DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document. C. National Benefits and Costs 5 5 All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars. and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated otherwise. DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for circulator pumps would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for circulator pumps purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new standards (2028-2057), amount to 0.55 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads. 6 This represents a savings of 32.6 percent relative to the energy use of these equipment in the case without new standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”). 6 The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2 of this document. The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for circulator pumps ranges from 0.95 billion in 2022$ (at a 7-percent discount rate) to 2.34 billion in 2022$ (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and installation costs for circulator pumps purchased in 2028-2057. In addition, the adopted standards for circulator pumps 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 10.04 million metric tons (“Mt”) 7 of carbon dioxide (“CO 2 ”), 2.95 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”), 18.65 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO X ”), 83.84 thousand tons of methane (“CH 4 ”), 0.10 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N 2 O”), and 0.02 tons of mercury (“Hg”). 8 7 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO 2 are presented in short tons. 8 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 ( “AEO2023” ). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of AEO2023 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 2 (“SC-CO 2 ”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH 4 ”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N 2 O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (“SC-GHG”). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”). 9 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 $0.59 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. DOE notes, however, that the adopted standards would be economically justified even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions. 9 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 IWG. (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO 2 and NO X emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency, 10 as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.51 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.16 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 11 DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) concentrations from two precursors (SO 2 and NO X ), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO X ), but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. 10 U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted PM 2.5 , PM 2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 11 DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866. Table I.3 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the new standards for circulator pumps. 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. BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ER20MY24.003 ER20MY24.004 The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in equipment purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized. 12 12 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, 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 2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value. The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of circulator pumps 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 circulator pumps 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 V.B.6 of this document. Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO X and SO 2 emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, 13 the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $113.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $207.5 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $32.7 million in climate benefits, and $50.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $177.0 million per year. 13 As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this document, DOE agrees with the IWG that using consumption-based discount rates ( e.g., 3 percent) is appropriate when discounting the value of climate impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an appropriate consumption-based discount rate with other costs and benefits discounted at a capital-based rate ( i.e., 7 percent) is reasonable because of the different nature of the types of benefits being measured. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $109.4 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $239.7 million in reduced operating costs, $32.7 million in climate benefits, and $64.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $227.7 million per year. ER20MY24.005 ER20MY24.006 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C 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, equipment achieving these standard levels is already commercially available for all equipment in the single product class covered by this final rule. 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 X and SO 2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for circulator pumps is $113.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $207.5 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $32.7 million in climate benefits, and $50.7 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $177.0 million per year. DOE notes that the net benefits are substantial even in the absence of the climate benefits 14 and DOE would adopt the same standards in the absence of such benefits. 14 The information on climate benefits is provided in compliance with Executive Order 12866. The significance of energy savings offered by a new energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. 15 For example, some covered equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than equipment with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis. 15 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 0.55 quad FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 5.9 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO 2 emissions by 10.04 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 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 circulator pumps. A. Authority EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes pumps, the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) 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 equipment 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. 6316(a); 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 EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316). Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) 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. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297)) Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of all covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for circulator pumps appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431, subpart Y, appendix D. DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new standards for covered equipment, including circulator pumps. Any new standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain equipment, including circulator pumps, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. Id. DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors: (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the equipment subject to the standard; (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard; (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard; (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the standard; (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard; (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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 equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any new standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe a new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that equipment within such group (A) consumes a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) has a capacity or other performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or class) does not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) B. Background As stated, EPCA includes “pumps” among the industrial equipment listed as “covered equipment” for the purpose of Part A-1, although EPCA does not define the term “pump.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) In a final rule published January 25, 2016, DOE established a definition for “pump,” definitions associated with pumps, and test procedures for certain pumps. 81 FR 4086, 4090 (“January 2016 TP Final Rule”). “Pump” is defined as “equipment designed to move liquids (which may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes a bare pump and, if included by the manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver, and controls.” 10 CFR 431.462. Circulator pumps fall within this definition. The specific pump categories subject to the test procedures described in the January 2016 TP Final Rule are referred to as “general pumps” in this document. Circulator pumps were not included as general pumps. In general, and relative to pumps at-large, circulator pumps tend to be toward the smaller end of the range of both power and hydraulic head. Circulated fluid would not require a net elevation gain, and thus the required head is that associated with the resistance of the hydraulic circuit. A circulator pump, by definition, is a pump that is either a wet rotor circulator pump; a dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump; or a dry rotor, three-piece circulator pump. A circulator pump may be distributed in commerce with or without a volute. The January 2016 TP Final Rule implemented the recommendations of the Commercial and Industrial Pump Working Group (“CIPWG”), established through the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) to negotiate standards and a test procedure for general pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039) The CIPWG and ASRAC approved a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE that included initiation of a separate rulemaking for circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2) On February 3, 2016, DOE issued a notice of intent to establish a working group to negotiate a NOPR for energy conservation standards for circulator pumps, to negotiate, if possible, Federal standards and a test procedure for circulator pumps, and to announce the first public meeting. 81 FR 5658. The members of the Circulator Pump Working Group (“CPWG”), which was established under the ASRAC, were selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of interested parties and expertise, including representatives from efficiency advocacy organizations and manufacturers. Additionally, one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative were part of the CPWG. Table II.1 lists the 15 members of the CPWG and their affiliations. ER20MY24.007 The CPWG commenced negotiations at an open meeting on March 29, 2016, and held six additional meetings to discuss scope, metric, and the test procedure. The CPWG concluded its negotiations for test procedure topics on September 7, 2016, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on scope, definitions, metric, and the basis of the test procedure (“September 2016 CPWG Recommendations”). The September 2016 CPWG Recommendations are available in the CPWG docket. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58) The CPWG continued to meet to address potential energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. Those meetings were held November 3-4, 2016, and November 29-30, 2016, with approval of a second term sheet (“November 2016 CPWG Recommendations”) containing CPWG recommendations related to energy conservation standards, applicable test procedure, labeling, and certification requirements for circulator pumps (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98). Whereas the September 2016 CPWG Recommendations are discussed in the September 2022 TP Final Rule, the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations are summarized in section III.A of this document. In a meeting held December 22, 2016, ASRAC voted unanimously to approve the September 2016 and November 2016 CPWG Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 91 at p. 2) 16 16 All references in this document to the approved recommendations included in 2016 Term Sheets are noted with the recommendation number and a citation to the appropriate document in the CPWG docket ( e.g., Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. X, Recommendation #Y at p. Z). References to discussions or suggestions of the CPWG not found in the 2016 Term Sheets include a citation to meeting transcripts and the commenter, if applicable ( e.g., Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, [Organization], No. X at p. Y). In a letter dated June 9, 2017, the Hydraulic Institute (“HI”) expressed its support for the process that DOE initiated regarding circulator pumps and encouraged the publishing of a NOPR and a final rule by the end of 2017. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, HI, No. 103 at p. 1) DOE took no actions regarding circulator pumps between 2017 and 2020. In response to an early assessment review request for information (“RFI”) published September 28, 2020, regarding the existing test procedures for general pumps (85 FR 60734, “September 2020 Early Assessment RFI”), HI commented that it continues to support the recommendations from the CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, HI, No. 6 at p. 1) The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (“NEEA”) also referenced the September 2016 CPWG Recommendations and recommended that DOE adopt test procedures for circulator pumps in the pumps rulemaking or a separate rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8) On May 7, 2021, DOE published a request for information related to test procedures and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps and received comments from the interested parties. 86 FR 24516 (“May 2021 RFI”). DOE published a NOPR for the test procedure on December 20, 2021, presenting DOE's proposals to establish a circulator pump test procedure (“December 2021 TP NOPR”). 86 FR 72096. DOE held a public meeting related to this NOPR on February 2, 2022. DOE published a final rule for the test procedure on September 19, 2022 (“September 2022 TP Final Rule”). The test procedure final rule established definitions, testing methods and a performance metric, requirements regarding sampling and representations of energy consumption and certain other metrics, and enforcement provisions for circulator pumps. DOE published an energy conservation standard NOPR on December 6, 2022. 87 FR 74850 (“December 2022 NOPR”). DOE held a public meeting related to the December 2022 NOPR on January 19, 2023 (“NOPR public meeting”). DOE received comments in response to the December 2022 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table II.2. ER20MY24.008 A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 17 To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the NOPR public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during the NOPR public meeting that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule. 17 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, 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. November 2016 CPWG Recommendations As discussed in section II.B of this document, the CPWG approved two term sheets which represented the group's consensus recommendations. The second term sheet, referred to in this final rule as the “November 2016 CPWG Recommendations” contained the CPWG's recommendations related to energy conservation standards, applicable test procedure, labeling, and certification requirements for circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98) The standards established in this final rule closely mirror the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations, which are summarized in this section. In response to the December 2022 NOPR, the CA IOUs provided comments that supported DOE's alignment of the proposed regulations and the CPWG's consensus November term sheet. (CA IOUs, No. 133 at pp. 1-2) HI stated they support the recommendations agreed upon by the CPWG. (HI, No. 135 at p. 1) HI acknowledged DOE has incorporated the appropriate sections for the testing and rating of circulator pumps. Id. 1. Energy Conservation Standard Level The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations recommended that each circulator pump be required to meet an applicable minimum efficiency standard. Specifically, the recommendation was that each pump must have a CEI 18 of less than or equal to 1.00. Among the numbered efficiency levels (“ELs”) considered by the CPWG as potential standard levels, the agreed level was EL 2, i.e., a CEI less than or equal to 1.00 (“Recommendation #1”). 18 The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations predated establishment of the current metric, called “CEI,” and instead used the analogous term “PEI CIRC ”. In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the “CEI” nomenclature instead based, in part, on comments received, to remain consistent with terminology used in HI 41.5 and to avoid potential confusion. After receiving favorable comments on its proposal, DOE adopted the CEI nomenclature in the September 2022 TP Final Rule. In response to the December 2022 NOPR, NEEA/NWPCC supported the proposed rulemaking, specifically the proposed adoption of TSL 2. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 134 at pp. 3-4) In the December 2022 NOPR DOE defined EL 2 and TSL 2 at the same standard level, which is consistent with this final rule, as discussed in section V.B.2 of this document. 87 FR 74850, 74895. NYSERDA supported the proposed adoption of TSL 2 as well, due to the number of multifamily buildings in New York City being higher than the national average. (NYSERDA, No. 130 at p. 4) NYSERDA commented that circulator pumps likely operate more in any given year in places such as New York City and they may see more energy savings than the NOPR proposed. Id. The CA IOUs also supported DOE's development of energy conservation standards based on the consensus recommendations and supported adoption of the proposed TSL 2 recommendation. (CA IOUs, No. 133 at p. 1) DOE did not receive any comments that did not support the CPWG-recommended standard level for circulator pumps in response to the December 2022 NOPR. Accordingly, and as described in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE, in this final rule, is adopting energy conservation standards for circulator pumps at TSL 2. CEI was defined in the September 2022 TP Final Rule consistent with the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations as shown in equation (2), and consistent with section 41.5.3.2 of HI 41.5-2022. 87 FR 57264. ER20MY24.009 Where: CER = circulator energy rating (hp); and CER STD = circulator energy rating for a minimally compliant circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load as the tested pump. The value of CER varies according to the circulator pump control variety of the tested pump, but in all cases is a function of measured pump input power when operated under certain conditions, as described in the September 2022 TP Final Rule. Relatedly, CER STD represents CER for a hypothetical circulator pump, as a function of hydraulic power, that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards, as determined in accordance with the specifications at paragraph (i) of § 431.465. 87 FR 57264. Conceptually, it is a curve that provides a value of pump input power for any hydraulic output power. Energy conservation standards could equivalently have been formulated to direct that a circulator pump must carry a CER less than the value of CER STD at its particular hydraulic output power. Defining CEI as a ratio of CER and CER STD serves to normalize the energy conservation standard, allowing it to assume a fixed numerical value regardless of hydraulic output power, which has the advantage of simplicity and better comparability among different pump models. The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations contained a proposed method for calculating CER STD . 19 The equation represents a summation of weighted input powers at each part load test point. The part load test points are set at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at best efficiency point (“BEP”). Each test point is weighted based on the controls used for testing. This equation is shown in equation (3): 19 The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations predated establishment of the current term “CER STD ” and instead used the analogous term “PER CIRC,STD ”. In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the “CER STD ” nomenclature instead of “PER CIRC,STD ” because DOE believed that CER STD was more reflective of Federal energy conservation standards. After receiving no opposition on its proposal, DOE adopted the CER STD nomenclature in the September 2022 TP Final Rule. ER20MY24.010 Where: ω i = weight at each test point i, specified in Recommendation #2B; P i in,STD = reference power input to the circulator pump driver at test point i, calculated using the equations and method specified in Recommendation #2C; and i = test point(s), defined as 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at BEP. Recommendation #2B of the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations specified a weighting factor of 25% for each respective test point i. (“Recommendation #2B”). The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included (“Recommendation #2C”) a recommended reference input power, P i in,STD , as described in equation (4). ER20MY24.011 Where: P u,i = tested hydraulic power output of the pump being rated at test point i, in hp; η WTW,100 % = reference BEP circulator pump efficiency at the recommended standard level (%), calculated using the equations and values specified in Recommendation #2D; α i = part-load efficiency factor at each test point i, specified in Recommendation #2E; and i = test point(s), defined as 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the flow at BEP. The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations also included a reference efficiency at BEP at the CPWG-recommended standard level, η WTW,100 % (“Recommendation #2D”), which varies by circulator pump hydraulic output power. Specifically, for circulator pumps with BEP hydraulic output power P u,100 % <1 hp, the reference efficiency at BEP (η WTW,100 % ) should be determined using equation (5): ER20MY24.012 Where: η WTW,100 % = reference BEP pump efficiency at the recommended standard level (%); and P u,100 % = tested hydraulic power output of the pump being rated at BEP (hp). For the CPWG-recommended standard level, the constants A, B, and C used in equation 5 would have the values listed in Table III.1. ER20MY24.013 For circulator pumps with BEP hydraulic output power P u,100 % ≥1 hp, the reference efficiency at BEP (η WTW,100 % ) would have a constant value of 67.79. Additionally, the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations included a part-load efficiency factor (α i , as appears in equation (4)), which varies according to test point (“Recommendation #2E). Specifically, α i would have the values listed in Table III.2. 20 The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations did not explicitly include a value for the part-load efficiency factor, α i , in Recommendation #2E. Nonetheless, Recommendation #2C makes clear that a value for α i is required to calculate reference input power, which calls for a value at test point i=100%. DOE infers the omission of α 100 % from Recommendation #2E to reflect that i=100% corresponds to full-load, and thus implies no part-load-driven reduction in efficiency and, by extension, a load coefficient of unity. DOE is making this assumption that α 100 % = 1 explicit by including it in this table, which is otherwise identical to that of Recommendation #2E. ER20MY24.014 This CPWG-recommended equation structure is used to characterize the standard level established in this final rule, with certain inconsequential changes to variable names. 2. Labeling Requirements Under EPCA, DOE has certain authority to establish labeling requirements for covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6315) The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations contained one recommendation regarding labeling requirements, which was to include both model number and CEI 21 on the circulator nameplate. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98, Recommendation #3 at p. 4) 21 The CPWG recommended that “PEI” be included in a potential labeling requirement which, as described previously, is analogous to CEI. In response to the December 2022 NOPR, HI recommended that DOE establish label requirements for circulator pumps in this rulemaking that only include the basic model number and CEI, as agreed to by the CPWG. (HI, No. 135 at p. 6) DOE did not receive any other comments regarding the establishment of labeling requirements for circulator pumps. DOE is considering establishing labeling requirements for circulator pumps in a separate rulemaking and is carefully evaluating the potential benefits of establishing labeling requirements as explained by HI. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is not establishing specific labeling requirements for circulator pumps, but DOE may consider such requirements for circulator pumps, including those recommended by the CPWG, in a separate rulemaking. 3. Certification Reports Under EPCA, DOE has the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers with respect to the energy efficiency or energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296). The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations contained one recommendation regarding certification reporting requirements. Specifically, the CPWG recommended that the following information should be included in both certification reports and the public Compliance Certification Management System (“CCMS”) database: • Manufacturer name • Model number • CEI 22 22 CEI had not been established at the time of the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations, which instead referred to this value as “PEI CIRC ”. • Flow (in gallons per minute) and head (in feet) at BEP • Tested control setting • Input power at measured data points (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98, Recommendation #4 at p. 4) The aforementioned CPWG recommendation also included that certain additional information be permitted but not mandatorily included in both certification reports and the public CCMS database. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation #4 at p. 4) These additional options are: true root mean square (“RMS”) current, true RMS voltage, real power, and resultant power factor at measured data points. Id. In response to the December 2022 NOPR proposal to require a pump operating in the least consumptive control mode when meeting compliance with energy conservation standards for circulator pumps, the CA IOUs noted that the most consumptive performance of circulator products indicates the product's combined motor and hydraulic efficiency without controls, providing helpful information to consumers and the regulatory process. (CA IOUs, No. 133 at p. 2) They encouraged DOE to support voluntary reporting of this performance data to inform future rulemakings. Id. DOE is not establishing certification or reporting, voluntary or mandatory, requirements for circulator pumps in this final rule. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to address amendments to the certification requirements and reporting for circulator pumps under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. Further information on this voluntary reporting of performance in various control modes is discussed in section III.D.1 of this document. B. General Comments DOE received a single general comment from an interested party regarding rulemaking timing and process. Specifically, ASAP et al. commented in response to the December 2022 NOPR that they supported DOE's proposed rulemaking for circulator pumps. (ASAP et al., No. 131 at p. 1) C. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) This final rule covers equipment that meets the definition of “circulator pumps,” as codified at 10 CFR 431.462, which is consistent with the September 2016 CPWG Recommendations. DOE identified no basis to change the scope of energy conservation standards for circulator pumps relative to the scope of test procedures adopted in the September 2022 Final Rule. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is aligning the scope of energy conservation standards for circulator pumps with that of the circulator pumps test procedure. 87 FR 57264. Specifically, this final rule is applying energy conservation standards to all circulator pumps that are also clean water pumps, including on-demand circulator pumps and circulators-less-volute, and excluding submersible pumps and header pumps. Comments related to scope are discussed and considered in the test procedure final rule. Both of these proposals—scope and equipment classes—match the recommendations of the CPWG, which are summarized in this section. They are discussed further in section IV.A.1 of this document. 1. CPWG Recommendations a. Scope The September 2016 CPWG Recommendations addressed the scope of a circulator pumps rulemaking. Specifically, the CPWG recommended that the scope of a circulator pumps test procedure and energy conservation standards cover clean water pumps (as defined at 10 CFR 431.462) distributed in commerce with or without a volute and that are one of the following categories: wet rotor circulator pumps, dry-rotor close-coupled circulator pumps, and dry-rotor mechanically coupled circulator pumps. The CPWG also recommended that the scope exclude submersible pumps and header pumps. 86 FR 24516, 24520. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendations #1A, 2A, and 2B at pp. 1-2) As previously stated, the scope of this rule aligns with the scope recommended by the CPWG, consistent with the September 2022 TP Final Rule. b. Definitions The CPWG also recommended several definitions relevant to scope. DOE notes that, generally, definitions recommended by the CPWG rely on terms previously defined in the January 2016 TP final rule, including “close-coupled pump,” “mechanically-coupled pump,” “dry rotor pump,” “single axis flow pump,” and “rotodynamic pump.” 81 FR 4086, 4146-4147; 10 CFR 431.462. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE did not propose a new definition for submersible circulator pumps, instead signaling applicability of an established term, “submersible pump,” which was defined in the 2017 test procedure final rule for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. 82 FR 36858, 36922 (Aug. 7, 2017): “Submersible pump” means a pump that is designed to be operated with the motor and bare pump fully submerged in the pumped liquid. 10 CFR 431.462. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE established a number of definitions related to circulator pumps. 87 FR 57264. Specifically, DOE defined “circulator pump,” “wet rotor circulator pump,” “dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump,” “dry rotor, three-piece circulator pump,” “horizontal motor,” “header pump,” and “circulator-less-volute.” Id. “Circulator pump” was defined to include both wet- and dry-rotor designs and to include circulators-less-volute, which are distributed in commerce without a volute and for which a paired volute is also distributed in commerce. Header pumps, by contrast, are those without volutes and for which no paired volute is available in commerce. Id. DOE is maintaining these definitions from the September 2022 TP Final Rule in the standards for circulator pumps. c. Equipment Classes The CPWG recommended that all circulator pumps be analyzed in a single equipment class. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98, Recommendation #1 at p. 1) DOE's proposal aligns with the recommendation of the CPWG. Equipment classes are discussed further in section IV.A.1.b of this document. d. Small Vertical In-Line Pumps The CPWG recommended that DOE analyze and establish energy conservation standards for small vertical in-line pumps (“SVILs”) with a compliance date equivalent to the previous energy conservation standards final rule (81 FR 4367, Jan. 26, 2016) for general (not circulator) pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #1B at pp. 1-2) The CPWG recommended the standards for SVILs be similar in required performance to those of general pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #1B at p. 2) In addition to energy conservation standards for SVILs, the CPWG recommended SVILs be evaluated using the same test metric as general pumps. Id. Consistent with the CPWG recommendation, DOE extended the commercial and industrial pump test procedures to SVILs in a separate final rule published March 24, 2023. 88 FR 17934 (“March 2023 Final Rule”). That test procedure allows evaluation of energy conservation standards for SVILs as part of a commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking process. In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined to maintain its approach to address energy conservation standards for circulator pumps only in this rulemaking, separately from SVILs. 87 FR 74850, 74862. DOE did not receive adequate data or information to suggest that DOE should address standards for SVILs along with the circulator pumps within the scope of the December 2022 NOPR. Id. Accordingly, DOE did not propose to include SVILs within the scope of the energy conservation standards considered in the December 2022 NOPR. Id. Relatedly, the September 2022 TP Final Rule did not adopt test procedures for SVILs. 87 FR 57264. In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its approach to exclude SVILs from the scope of the NOPR, and whether DOE should consider standards for any SVILs as part of this rulemaking. 87 FR 74850, 74862. HI and NEEA/NWPCC agreed with DOE's decision to exclude SVIL pumps from the circulators scope. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 134 at pp. 4-5; HI, No. 135 at p. 4) HI also commented that according to ASRAC negotiations, SVILs should instead be addressed under the commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4) Due to stakeholders providing comment supporting SVILs to be evaluated in the commercial and pumps rulemaking in both this rulemaking and the commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking, DOE has determined to maintain its approach to address energy conservation standards for circulator pumps only in this rulemaking, separately from SVILs. Accordingly, DOE is not including SVILs within the scope of the energy conservation standards considered in this final rule. D. Test Procedure EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. DOE's current energy conservation standards for circulator pumps are expressed in terms of CEI. CEI represents the weighted average electric input power to the driver over a specified load profile, normalized with respect to a circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load that has a specified minimum performance level. 23 ( See 10 CFR 431.464(c).) 23 The performance of a comparable pump that has a specified minimum performance level is referred to as the circulator energy rating (“CER std ”). 1. Control Mode Circulator pumps may be equipped with speed controls that govern their response to settings or signals. DOE's test procedure contains definitions and test methods applicable to pressure controls, temperature controls, manual speed controls, external input signal controls, and no controls ( i.e., full speed operation only). 24 Section B.1 of appendix D to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431 specifies that circulator pumps without one of the identified control varieties ( i.e., pressure control, temperature control, manual speed control or external input signal control) are tested at full speed. 24 In this document, circulator pumps with “no controls” are also inclusive of other potential control varieties that are not one of the specifically identified control varieties. Some circulator pumps operate in only a single control mode, whereas others are capable of operating in any of several control modes. As discussed in the September 2022 TP Final Rule, circulator pump energy consumption typically varies by control mode, for circulator pumps equipped with more than one control mode. 87 FR 57264, 57273-57275. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE summarized and responded to a variety of stakeholder comments which discussed advantages and disadvantages of various potential requirements regarding the control variety activated during testing. Id. Ultimately, DOE determined not to restrict active control variety during testing. Id. To not limit application of a particular control mode, the test procedure for circulator pumps states “if a given circulator pump model is distributed in commerce with multiple control varieties available, the manufacturer may select a control variety (or varieties) among those available with which to test the circulator pump, including the test method for circulator pumps at full speed or circulator pumps without external input signal, manual, pressure, or temperature controls).” Section 2.2 of appendix D to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE stated that although the test procedure does not restrict active control variety during testing, whether compliance with any standards would be based on a specific control mode (or no controls) would be addressed in an energy conservation standard rulemaking. 87 FR 57264, 57275. It further explains that a future energy conservation standard rulemaking could determine whether certain information related to the control mode used for testing would be required as part of certification. Id. In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to require compliance with energy conservation standards for circulator pumps while operated in the least consumptive control mode in which it is capable of operating. 87 FR 74850, 74862. Because many circulator pumps equipped with control modes designed to reduce energy consumption relate to full-speed operating also include the ability to operate at constant speed, to require testing using a circulator pump's most consumptive control mode may reduce the ability of rated CEI to characterize the degree of energy savings possible across circulator pump models. 87 FR 74850, 74862-74863. Circulator pump basic models equipped with a variety of control modes would receive the same rating as an otherwise identical basic model which could operate only at full speed, even though in practice the former may consume considerably less energy in many applications. 87 FR 74850, 74863. In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment regarding circulator pump control variety for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with energy conservation standards. 87 FR 74850, 74863. HI, ASAP et al., and the CA IOUs all supported using the least consumptive operating mode as the CEI rating metric. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4; ASAP et al., No. 131 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 133 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also noted that variable-speed control demonstrated potential savings relative to maximum-speed-only circulator pumps. (CA IOUs, No. 133 at p. 2) Therefore, the CA IOUs recommended DOE support voluntary reporting of performance data of variable-speed control as well as account for variable-speed control savings in future circulator pump test methods and conservation standards. Id. Further, ASAP et al. encouraged DOE to require additional reporting of ratings with the most consumptive method. (ASAP et al., No. 131 at p. 2) ASAP et al. commented that specifying CEI ratings based only on the least consumptive model may not accurately reflect the energy usage of fixed-speed-mode circulator pumps. Id. DOE agrees that performance data obtained from a circulator pump operated in one mode may not reflect performance when operated in a different mode, including the fixed-speed mode cited by ASAP. While DOE is not adopting certification requirements, mandatory or voluntary, in this final rule, as stated in section III.A.3 of this document, it may do so as part of a separate rulemaking. NEEA/NWPCC recommended DOE require circulator pumps to be tested and to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards in the most consumptive control mode because: (1) they “are concerned that manufacturers will meet the standard through an optional speed control setting rather than hydraulic redesign or addition of an efficient motor, meaning that the circulator will often function in a control setting that delivers performance below what is required by the standard. In some cases, such as three speed circulator pumps, the speed controls are intended to serve different sizes of systems, and the least-consumptive mode will not be representative of larger systems.” (2) “Least-consumptive testing will increase testing burden, as manufacturers will have to test multiple settings to first determine which setting is the least-consumptive. Conversely, DOE has asserted (and we agree) that the most-consumptive control is the full speed setting, meaning there is no additional testing required to determine the most-consumptive setting.” (3) “Non-guaranteed performance will discourage utility programs, as they will not be able to determine the current practice baseline because many circulators will operate below the actual standard.” (4) “The market will be confused about the performance of circulators in the field, because least-consumptive control does not equate to the most representative control. While we agree with DOE's assertion in this NOPR that testing in the least-consumptive control mode will better communicate the range of controls available to the market and their relative energy consumption, consumers may be confused as to why the expected energy performance fails to materialize.” (5) “Manufacturers already support testing in most-consumptive control setting as they test and submit ratings to the Hydraulic Institute (HI) circulator Energy Rating (ER) database.” (6) ” Least-consumptive testing impedes future rulemakings that could strengthen the standard. Least-consumptive testing will allow for a range of performance, with some circulators operating in modes that perform worse than the DOE standard. Tightening that standard in the future may simply widen the gap of tested versus actual performance. Conversely, most-consumptive testing would establish a clear minimum performance standard that DOE can build upon in future rulemakings.” (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 134 at pp. 2-3) NEEA/NWPCC also explained that the most-consumptive testing ensures that any tightening of the standard will remove equipment with low performance, but least-consumptive testing may not if their lowest consumptive method is in standards and the rest are not. Id. NEEA/NWPCC stated that the revised standard would only achieve the energy conservation goals if using most consumptive testing, and NEEA/NWPCC recommend that DOE revisit this issue in future circulator pump rulemakings. Id. Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's first point that manufacturers may comply with a standard based on the least consumptive operating mode by incorporating controls, DOE recognizes the possibility but not that it would necessarily be detrimental. Speed reduction is a legitimate means of reducing circulator pump energy consumption, far outstripping the savings potential of other technology options for certain applications. Even in nominally fixed-speed applications, which call for no flow variability, speed adjustment can be used to match the circulator pump output to load imposed by the actual hydraulic circuit at hand. The potential for manufacturers of noncompliant circulator pumps adding manual speed controls as a way to reduce CEI to reach compliance is not expected to be significant. Analysis of submitted manufacturer model data indicates that adding manual speed controls reduces a circulator pump's CER metric by an average of 6.5%. DOE's analysis of the market shows that less than 2% of circulator pumps that would not be compliant with the standard levels adopted in this final rule are single-speed models that could attain compliance by introducing manual speed controls. Further, because there would likely be significant conversion cost associated with modifying circulator pump models, manufacturers may be hesitant to develop them unless confident of strong demand that would enable recovery of those costs. Further, the products themselves would cost more to manufacture due to multispeed motors' costing more to purchase or construct than single-speed motors, which would reduce their appeal to first-cost-motivated consumers. Finally, while NEEA/NWPCC identifies a potential case in which manual speed controls reduce the energy savings achievable by an energy conservation standard, so too can manual speed controls be used to save energy in applications that do not require the circulator pumps' full output. In view of the relatively small fraction of the market that could feasibly function as NEEA/NWPCC describes, the additional equipment costs and conversion costs associated with multi-speed products relative to single-speed, and the potential for manual-speed control to help as well as hinder the objective of energy savings, the potential of manual speed control to undermine the anticipated energy savings of this final rule appears minimal. Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's second point that least consumptive testing may increase testing burden, industry standard HI 41.5-2022, section 41.5.3.4 “Determination of CER” directs that circulator pumps already be rated at both the most and least consumptive control methods. Accordingly, DOE finds incremental testing burden to be minimized to the extent that computing both methods is already widespread industry practice. Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's third point that non-guaranteed performance may discourage utility programs, DOE does not have information to evaluate the size of potential energy savings arising from utility programs concerning circulator pumps relative to the magnitude of the energy savings estimated to be associated with the energy conservation standards adopted in this final rule. Further, a least-consumptive-based compliance requirement does not necessarily obscure differences in full-load performance, as more-efficient motors will tend to perform better at both full and reduced speeds. Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's fourth point that the market may be confused about the performance of circulators in the field, DOE observes that the “field” would include an array of applications, some of which would realize greater or lesser savings than a single CEI value in isolation could convey. One factor which may tend to make the former less likely than the latter is cost—because variable-speed circulator pumps tend to cost more, purchasers may be more likely to have developed enough understanding of the product to justify paying a premium. It is possible that a circulator pump purchaser may wind up with less savings than anticipated if purchasing a variable-speed circulator pump for an application that truly requires single-speed operation. However, even in an application with truly constant demand, variable-speed circulator pumps may still offer energy savings relative to a single-speed circulator pump. Such savings could arise from the fact that, while circulator pump applications exist over a continuous spectrum of hydraulic power requirements, circulator pump models are offered only at certain, discrete hydraulic power levels. Thus, even purchasers who accurately estimate their demand would likely end up with some amount of unnecessary hydraulic power. A variable-speed circulator pump may save energy by operating closer to the necessary hydraulic power level, even if that level does not vary over time. DOE cannot be certain of how electric utilities might design future incentive programs for circulator pumps but does not see that they would necessarily dismiss the potential of variable-speed circulator pumps to save energy, even while purchase of a variable-speed circulator pump does not guarantee that every individual installation would realize savings relative to a hypothetical alternative of a single-speed circulator pump with less full-speed power consumption. One potential mitigating factor, in the case of a utility unwilling to consider an incentive program that could not guarantee savings at every circulator pump installation using the CEI metric alone, is that full-speed pump performance data may be published for those pumps and subsequently used as basis for incentive qualification provided that such data was generated consistently with the test procedure for circulator pumps. ( See 10 CFR 431.464(c).) Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's fifth point that manufacturers already support testing in the most-consumptive setting, as evidenced by their testing and submission of corresponding ratings to HI's circulator Energy Rating database, those manufacturers also submit ratings corresponding to the least consumptive setting. As stated, this is a voluntary directive of industry standard HI 41.5-2022, § 41.5.3.4 “Determination of CER”. Regarding NEEA/NWPCC's sixth point that least consumptive testing may impede future rulemakings that could otherwise have strengthened standards, DOE observes that more-stringent standards in a hypothetical future rulemaking would not be prohibited, or even materially impeded, by this final rule's adoption of requirements to base compliance on the least-consumptive operating mode. Improved motors and hydraulic assemblies, which are the sources of improved performance in the fixed-speed evaluation scenario supported by NEEA/NWPCC's arguments, would still carry potential to improve under any choice of required operating mode for compliance. Several commenters argue that testing in the least consumptive control mode may provide a less representative CEI value in certain situations, but do not openly consider that the same must be true of a requirement to test in the most consumptive control mode. Testing and certifying performance using the most consumptive mode would also generate results that are not accurate in all individual situations. Because there are multiple control modes on some circulator pumps, testing at one load profile could not represent every potential circulator pump application. For the purpose of estimating energy savings that would be realized by consumers at various potential standard levels, DOE does not assume a pump would consume energy in direct proportion to its CEI value, but instead relies on energy use assumption as discussed in section IV.E of this document. The energy conservation standards evaluated in this final rule are based on wire-to-water efficiency, which is influenced by both hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency. Because circulator pump efficiency is measured on a wire-to-water basis, it is difficult to entirely disentangle performance differences due to motor efficiency from those due to hydraulic efficiency. In redesigning a pump model to meet the standard established in this final rule, manufacturers would likely consider both hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency. Speed reduction is a legitimate means of reducing energy consumption and likely offers greater potential energy savings than hydraulic optimization would alone due to pump affinity laws, which are described in section IV.A.2.c of this document. If compliance with energy conservation standards were based on the most consumptive control mode, circulator pumps with energy-saving controls would be unlikely to receive benefit to their CEI score, as essentially all circulator pumps would be evaluated at full speed. In view of the foregoing discussion and the support of HI, ASAP et al., and the CA IOUs, DOE is adopting the requirement that circulator pumps comply with energy conservation standards while operated in their least consumptive mode. As stated in section III.A.3 of this document, certification requirements, including those related to active control variety, are not being proposed in this final rule, but may be addressed in a potential future rulemaking. E. Technological Feasibility 1. General In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the equipment that is 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 equipment or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (“Process Rule”). After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; sections 7(b)(2)-(5). Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for circulator pumps, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final rule technical support document (“TSD”). 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt a new standard for a type or class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for circulator pumps, using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.2 of this final rule and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. F. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to circulator pumps purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the new standards (2028-2057). 25 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for equipment would likely evolve in the absence of new energy conservation standards. 25 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for equipment shipped in a 9-year period. DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential new standards for circulator pumps. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where it is used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 26 DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document. 26 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 standards for covered equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The significance of energy savings offered by a new energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. 27 For example, some covered equipment has most of its energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impact of this equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than equipment with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, considering 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. 27 The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670) was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892). As stated, the standard levels adopted in this final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 0.55 quad, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 5.9 million homes. 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). Even without considering the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this rule are “significant” under EPCA. G. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers In determining the impacts of potential new 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 considers 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 payback period (“PBP”) associated with new standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard. b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including its installation) and the operating cost (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect. For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new 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 standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document. c. Energy Savings Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings. d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment In establishing equipment classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) 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 circulator pumps 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 standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the 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 has determined that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.” 2. Rebuttable Presumption EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential new energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F of this final rule. H. Compliance Date EPCA does not prescribe a compliance lead time for energy conservation standards for pumps, i.e., the number of years between the date of publication of a final energy conservation standard (“effective date”) and the date on which manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The November 2016 CPWG Recommendations specified a compliance date of four years following publication of the final rule. In response to the May 2021 RFI, DOE received two comments regarding the compliance date. Grundfos recommended a 2-year compliance date and NEEA recommended a 3-year compliance date. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, Grundfos, No. 113, at p. 1; Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, NEEA, No. 115, at p. 3) Neither Grundfos nor NEEA provided additional comments regarding the compliance date in response to the December 2022 NOPR. In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed a 2-year compliance date for energy conservation standards due to the industry being more mature than when the CPWG made its recommendation. 87 FR 74850, 74865. DOE requested comment on its proposal. Id. DOE also noted that, due to projected market trends, a change in the rulemaking's compliance date may lead to a small but non-negligible change in consumer and manufacturer benefits or impacts. Id. In response to the December 2022 NOPR, HI and Xylem recommended DOE adopt a 4-year compliance lead time for manufacturers to meet the proposed standard. (HI, No. 135 at p. 1; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 1) HI and Xylem stated that the proposed 2-year compliance lead time conflicts with the 4-year time negotiated by the CPWG and that the existing equipment on the market meeting EL 2 does not cover the breadth of utility required by the market. Id. Xylem explained that implementing a 2-year compliance timeline for pumps would delay, rather than accelerate, manufacturer compliance. (Xylem, No. 136 at p. 1) Xylem recommended that DOE make recourse to the European Union's method of implementing regulations to decrease circulator pump energy consumption by providing manufacturers the necessary time to comply with the regulations. (Xylem, No. 136 at p. 2) HI and Xylem commented that, as stated in the December 2022 NOPR, 66 percent of circulator pumps on the market need to be redesigned to meet the proposed standard, and manufacturers will benefit from a 4-year compliance lead time to engineer, develop, and test equipment to meet the standard. (HI, No. 135 at p. 2; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 2) HI and Xylem commented that, due to supply chain issues, it is not uncommon for an 18-month lead time for manufacturers to obtain materials to leave just 6 months for all engineering, development, and third-party agency testing; meaning this timeline is not feasible for manufacturers. (HI, No. 135 at pp. 2-3; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 3). HI and Xylem also stated that much of the development, sourcing, testing, and equipment line implementation is linear, with each step dependent on prior steps being completed. Id. HI and Xylem commented that much equipment will require an EL 3 effort to be compliant and meet market competitiveness requirements, which will extend the timeline of equipment development and testing well beyond 2 years. Id. In addition, HI added that manufacturers are required to obtain safety and drinking water approvals via third party agency testing for all new/redesigned equipment. (HI, No. 135 at p. 3) HI and Xylem further commented that manufacturers, including Xylem itself, anticipate struggling to meet capacity, for instance regarding lead times for electronically commutated motors (“ECMs”), production test equipment, and other assets that will delay the compliance lead time. (HI, No. 135 at p. 3; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 3) HI noted that ECM component suppliers have been unable to meet demand and will continue to fall behind as the circulator market transitions to ECMs. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4) Xylem commented that manufacturers will see similar lead time issues when developing new production lines as seen with materials in the supply chain. (Xylem, No. 136 at pp. 3-4) Xylem stated it will take 12-18 months to source and implement production lines, which will delay the compliance lead time. Id. Xylem commented that manufacturers' inability to meet the aggressive compliance timeline will result in a gap of pumps available in the market and potentially lead to overinflated pricing, substitution of older and less efficient equipment, and costly conversions to alternative systems. Id. In the NOPR public meeting, Taco commented that the proposed implementation period is extremely short and requires a lot of changes. (Taco, Inc., Public Meeting Transcript, No. 129 at pp. 65-66) Taco stated it is nearly impossible to get anything electronic in a two-year period to go through this testing. Id. Taco further commented that everything would need to be redesigned with no way to get the parts in house to make that happen. Id. Taco stated that, at the time of the public meeting, it was receiving two-year quotes to get in new electronic products. Id. HI and Xylem commented that a 2-year lead time will pose an additional financial burden on manufacturers due to conversion-cost impacts with a quick turnaround. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 4) Xylem commented that even large companies may not be able to justify achieving the extremely short investment-to-launch period proposed by DOE. (Xylem, No. 136 at p. 4) Xylem believes manufacturers will redesign to be competitive, which likely means redesigning past the minimal compliance CEI of 1.0, which will include additional costs and time needed. Id. Xylem agreed that basic model counts would decrease with a transition to ECMs due to the greater range of applications served. Id. However, Xylem recommended DOE consider the additional incremental cost to transition these models to EL 3 levels. Id. Xylem commented that capital investment is likely to increase when going from EL 2 to EL 4 and that DOE has underestimated the capital investment and time commitment needed to reach EL 3 and EL 4. Id. HI and Xylem recommended that DOE follow up with manufacturers to qualify the lead times to acquire and commission manufacturing assets. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4; Xylem, No. 136 at pp. 3-4). Further, HI and Xylem disagreed with DOE's assertion that manufacturers affected by this rulemaking are not affected by other rulemakings and recommended that DOE consider the cumulative burden of rulemakings currently in progress, such as those regarding commercial and industrial pumps and electric motors. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4; Xylem, No. 136 at p. 5) HI also recommended DOE consider that the ECM technology used in CP2- and CP3-style circulator pumps is under consideration in the electric motor rulemakings. (HI, No. 135 at p. 6) HI commented that the timing and outcome of the electric motor rulemakings would impact circulator manufacturers' ability to redesign CP2 and CP3 equipment within the 2-year compliance lead time. Id. Wyer commented that the manufacturing industry has seen an increase in the number of ECM circulator pumps in recent years and this increase has proven problematic. (Tom Wyer, No. 128 at pp. 1-2) Wyer commented that the pump manufacturers listed by the CPWG do not currently have the ability to produce ECM pumps in sufficient quantities to satisfy a growing market. Id. Wyer commented that several manufacturers are substituting permanent split capacitor “”PSC”) motor pumps for ECMs to make up for the insufficient availability of ECM pumps, which is due to: (1) international supply chain shortages; (2) plant capacity in the facilities that manufacturer ECM circulators, all of which are located in Europe; and (3) the rapid adoption of hydronic heat pumps in Europe caused by the war in Ukraine, natural gas supply constraints, and rising prices. Id. Wyer commented that U.S. manufacturing infrastructure cannot support the level of production needed to satisfy the hydronics market with ECM circulators. (Tom Wyer, No. 128 at p. 2) Wyer stated that ECM pumps with the performance curves necessary for the geothermal HVAC industry are only manufactured in Europe, while the majority of PSC pumps currently used in the geothermal HVAC industry are made in the United States. Id. Wyer commented that U.S.-based manufacturers are more likely to shut down domestic facilities and continue importing ECM circulators rather than invest to upgrade their plants to produce ECM pumps. Id. Wyer recommended that DOE consider the impact of the proposed rulemaking on domestic manufacturer employment and the potential of plant closures. Id. Wyer commented that 3 years is not enough time for pump manufacturers to upgrade their capacity to supply the entire hydronics market in the U.S. and recommended that DOE delay the implementation of the standard until the domestic supply of ECM pumps is sufficient to meet current and future demand. Id. Wyer recommended that if DOE continues with the proposed rulemaking, the compliance time should be increased to a minimum of 6 years. Id. In response, DOE notes that, as stated by manufacturers, the redesign process for circulator pumps contains multiple, sequential steps dependent on completion of the preceding step. Third-party water testing, which is necessary after the redesign process but before the circulator pumps go to market, adds further time constraints to pump manufacturers. These reasons make a 2-year compliance date hard for manufacturers to reach EL 2 levels, but some manufacturers will use the redesigning process as an opportunity for further energy savings. HI and Xylem also noted that they feel the cumulative regulatory burden from other rulemakings, including commercial industrial pumps and small electric motors, put further strain on manufacturers who expect a 2-year compliance date for circulator pumps to add significant financial burden. Cumulative regulatory burden from other rulemakings is discussed in section V.B.2.e of this document. As discussed previously, in the December 2022 NOPR DOE did not follow the CPWG's recommendation of a 4-year compliance date, instead proposing a 2-year compliance date due to the market maturing since the 2016 CPWG meetings. However, as discussed by stakeholders, the natural growth of ECMs in the market has been slow, with only around 1 percent of the market switching to ECMs annually, leaving the majority of the market in need of redesign to reach EL 2. As such, DOE agrees that a longer compliance period than proposed in the DOE 2022 NOPR is warranted. However, although the natural market share growth of ECMs has been slow, the market is closer to EL 2 on average now than when the CPWG initially recommended a 4-year compliance date, which has led DOE to conclude that no additional time past the 4-year recommendation, such as a 6-year compliance date, is necessary. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE is adopting a 4-year compliance date for energy conservation standards. IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to circulator pumps. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004 . 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 equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of circulator pumps. 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. In response to the December 2022 NOPR, HI requested that DOE provide its market assessment of basic model information as a supplemental publication, including the estimated number of models left for conversion and the percentage they make up of the market. (HI, No. 126 at p. 1) HI requested that DOE allow manufacturers time to review the market assessment data and provide comments. Id. DOE responded to this comment by publishing a supplementary document with the estimated number of models at or above EL 2 and the number of models below EL 2 on January 31, 2023. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0127) This information is reflected in Table IV.14 in section IV.J.2.c of this document. 1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes a. Scope As stated in the December 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to align the scope of these proposed energy conservation standards with that of the circulator pumps test procedure. 87 FR 74850, 74865; 87 FR 57264. In that document, DOE finalized the scope of the circulator pumps test procedure such that it applies to circulator pumps that are clean water pumps, including circulators-less-volute and on-demand circulator pumps, and excluding header pumps and submersible pumps. 87 FR 74850, 74865-74866. That scope is consistent with the recommendations of the CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58) In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to apply energy conservation standards to all circulator pumps included in the CWPG recommendations, which excluded submersible pumps and header pumps. 87 FR 74850, 74866. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58) The September 2022 TP Final Rule also excluded submersible pumps and header pumps. 87 FR 57264, 57272. Any future evaluation of energy conservation standards would require a corresponding test procedure. In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment regarding the proposed scope of energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. 87 FR 74850, 74866. HI agreed with DOE's proposal to apply standards to all circulator pumps included in the CWPG recommendations, which excluded submersible pumps and header pumps. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4) Equipment Diagrams In general, DOE establishes written definitions to designate which equipment falls within the scope of a test procedure or energy conservation standard. In the specific case of circulator pumps, certain scope-related definitions were adopted by the September 2022 TP Final Rule and codified at 10 CFR 431.462. DOE adopted the definitions that distinguish various circulator pumps nearly unchanged from those recommended by the CPWG at meeting 2. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0021, p. 22) 10 CFR 431.462. CPWG membership included five manufacturers of circulator pumps; a trade association representing the U.S. hydraulic industry; a trade association representing plumbing, heating, and cooling contractors; and other manufacturers of equipment that either use or are used by circulator pumps as components. In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that given the strong representation of entities with deep experience in circulator pump design and for whom definitional ambiguity could be burdensome, it is reasonable to expect the CPWG-proposed definitions were viewed as sufficiently clear at the time of their recommendation. 87 FR 74850, 74866. Additionally, in the December 2022 NOPR, DOE explained that the development of diagrams to support the definitions could create confusion if interpretations of such diagrams differ from those of the corresponding written definitions. For this reason, and in the absence of any evidence of ambiguity in the definitions, DOE did not propose to establish equipment diagrams in the December 2022 NOPR, but requested comments on the definitions and whether any clarification was needed. 87 FR 74850, 74866. HI agreed that the proposed definitions are sufficiently clear and consistent with the diagrams provided in ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4) Accordingly, DOE is not establishing equipment diagrams in this final rule. b. Equipment Classes When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may divide covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. For circulator pumps, there are no current energy conservation standards and, thus, no preexisting equipment classes. However, the November 2016 Term Sheets contained a recommendation related to establishing equipment classes for circulator pumps. Specifically, “Recommendation #1” of the November 2016 CPWG Recommendations suggests grouping all circulator pumps into a single equipment class, though with numerical energy conservation standard values that vary as a function of hydraulic output power. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98, Recommendation #1 at p.1) As stated in section III.C.1 of this document, circulator pumps may be offered in wet- or dry-rotor configurations, and if dry-rotor, in either close-coupled or mechanically coupled construction. Minor differences may exist across configurations. For example, during interviews with manufacturers, DOE learned that wet-rotor pumps tended to be quieter, whereas dry-rotor pumps may be easier to service. In general, however, each respective pump variety serves similar applications. Similarly, data provided to DOE as part of the confidential submission process indicates that each variety may reach similar efficiency levels when operated with similar motor technology. Accordingly, no apparent basis exists to warrant establishing separate equipment classes by circulator pump configuration. One additional salient design attribute of circulator pumps is housing material. Generally, circulator pumps are built using a cast iron, bronze, or stainless-steel housing. Bronze and stainless steel (sometimes discussed collectively with the descriptor “nonferrous”) carry greater corrosion resistance and are thus suitable for use in applications in which they will be exposed to corrosive elements. Typically, corrosion resistance is most important in “open loop” applications in which new water is constantly being replaced. By contrast, cast iron (sometimes described as “ferrous” to distinguish from the “nonferrous” descriptor applied to bronze and stainless steel) pump housing is less resistant to corrosion than bronze or stainless steel, and as a result is generally limited to “closed loop” applications in which the same water remains in the hydraulic circuit, in which it will eventually become deionized and less able to corrode metallic elements of circulator pumps. Cast iron is generally less expensive to manufacture than bronze or stainless steel and, as a result, bronze or stainless-steel circulator pumps are less commonly selected by consumers for applications that do not strictly require them. As discussed in the December 2022 NOPR, although a difference in utility exists across circulator pump housing materials, no such difference exists in ability to reach higher efficiencies. 87 FR 74850, 74866. All housing materials can reach all efficiency levels analyzed in this final rule. Id. Accordingly, no apparent basis exists to warrant establishing separate equipment classes by circulator pump housing material. Id. In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment regarding the proposal to analyze all circulator pumps within a single equipment class. 87 FR 74850, 74866. In response, ASAP et al. and HI supported DOE's proposal of a single equipment class and standard for all circulator pumps, as it is consistent with the CPWG recommendations. (ASAP et al., No. 131 at pp. 1-2; HI, No. 135 at p. 4) Based on the foregoing analysis and the support of stakeholders, DOE is establishing circulator pumps in a single equipment class. Strauch commented that while DOE regularly considers the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers, DOE does not address an equivalent burden on consumers, for whom regulatory processes result in diminished equipment choices. (Mark Strauch, No. 123 at p. 2) As discussed by Strauch, DOE evaluated cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers in this rulemaking. See section V.B.2.e of this document. In response to Strauch's comment regarding diminishing equipment choices, DOE notes that some circulator pump models with induction motors also come equipped with automatic continuous variable speed controls and therefore not all induction motors will be removed from the market. Further, DOE analyzes burden on consumers in section IV.I of this document. On-Demand Circulator Pumps On-demand circulator pumps respond to actions of the user rather than other factors such as pressure, temperature, or time. In the September 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE adopted the following definition for on-demand circulator pumps, which is consistent with that recommended by the CPWG (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98, Recommendation 4 at p. 5): On-demand circulator pump means a circulator pump that is distributed in commerce with an integral control that: • Initiates water circulation based on receiving a signal from the action of a user [of a fixture or appliance] or sensing the presence of a user of a fixture and cannot initiate water circulation based on other inputs, such as water temperature or a pre-set schedule. • Automatically terminates water circulation once hot water has reached the pump or desired fixture. • Does not allow the pump to operate when the temperature in the pipe exceeds 104 °F or for more than 5 minutes continuously. 10 CFR 431.462. The TP final rule (87 FR 57264) responded to a number of comments received in response to the December 2021 TP NOPR, which were discussed therein. Several commenters encouraged DOE to develop an adjustment to the CEI metric that accounted for the potential of on-demand circulator pumps to save energy in certain contexts. (EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 10 at p. 5; EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 11 at pp. 4-5). Other commenters did not support an adjusted CEI metric for on-demand circulator pumps in the test procedure final rule, but recommended evaluation of such in a potential future rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 9 at p. 3; EERE-2016-BT-TP-0033, No. 7 at p. 1). DOE ultimately did not adopt any modification to the CEI metric for on-demand circulator pumps in the final rule but stated that it would consider the appropriate scope and equipment categories for standards for on-demand circulator pumps in a separate energy conservation rulemaking. As stated in section III.C of this document, DOE is aligning the scope of energy conservation standards for circulator pumps consistently with that of the test procedure for circulator pumps, which includes on-demand circulator pumps. 87 FR 57264. As discussed in the December 2022 NOPR, in developing the equipment class structure, DOE is directed to consider, among other factors, performance-related features that justify a different standard and the utility of such features to the consumer. 87 FR 74850, 74867. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In the specific case of on-demand circulator pumps, the primary distinguishing feature ( i.e., ability to react to user action or presence) is not obviously performance related in that it does not impede the ability of on-demand circulator pumps to reach the same performance levels as any other circulator pumps. Id. On that basis, DOE proposed not to establish a separate equipment class for on-demand circulator pumps in the December 2022 NOPR. Id. In the December 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal not to establish a separate equipment class for on-demand circulator pumps. 87 FR 74850, 74867. In response to the December 2022 NOPR, HI and NEEA/NWPCC stated their support of DOE's proposal to refrain from creating a separate equipment class for on-demand circulators. (HI, No. 135 at p. 4; NEEA/NWPCC, No. 134 at p. 4) NEEA/NWPCC also recommended that, due to the associated energy savings, DOE adopt a CEI credit for on-demand circulator pumps, recognizing that the necessary data collection may delay implementing such a credit until the next circulator pumps rulemaking. (NEEA/NWPCC, No. 134 at p. 4) On-demand circulator pumps have access to the same technology options as circulator pumps at-large. Thus, it is not clear that on-demand function relates to efficiency, as measured by the test procedure for circulator pumps. ( See 10 CFR 431.464(c)) In certain applications, on-demand circulator pumps may conceivably save energy if used to replace an equivalent non-on-demand circulator pump through reduced aggregate operating duration rather the improved ener [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-07873. Public record. Not legal advice.