Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Room Air Conditioner Energy Conservation Standards

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Numbers EE-RM-93-801 and EE-RM-93-801-RAC]

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Room Air

Conditioner Energy Conservation Standards

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy

Department.

ACTION: Notice of limited reopening of the record and opportunity for

public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy reopens the record of its rulemaking

to revise the room air conditioner energy conservation standards under

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Notice is given of revised

draft reports on the potential impact of alternative efficiency levels,

various written and oral comments from industry representatives and

energy efficiency advocates, new factual information, and the principal

policy options now under consideration.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Kathi Epping, U.S.

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

Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585. A copy of the revised draft Technical Support

Document and other post comment period correspondence is available for

public inspection and copying at the Freedom of Information Reading

Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-7574,

between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. Copies of the revised draft Technical Support

Document may be obtained from: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail

Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585,

(202) 586-9127.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathi Epping, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-43, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202 586-7425, or

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General

Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 325 of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6295, the Department of Energy

(DOE) proposed to revise the energy conservation standards applicable

to room air conditioners, as well as a variety of other consumer

products. 59 FR 10464 (March 4, 1994). Section 325(o)(2) requires that

any amended standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in

energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically

justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2).

DOE held public hearings and received 12 comments on its proposed

revisions to the room air conditioner energy conservation standards.

After reviewing the comments, DOE concluded that a number of

significant issues had been raised that required additional analysis.

DOE also decided to sever the rulemaking on room air conditioners from

the rulemakings for the other consumer products covered by the notice

of proposed rulemaking.

On May 5, 1996, DOE distributed a copy of the Draft Report on the

Potential Impact of Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels for Room Air

Conditioners (Draft Report), containing DOE's revised analysis

examining five alternative efficiency levels, to a mailing list that

included all of the commenters on the proposed rule on room air

conditioners. (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 1 and No. 2.) The letter invited

recipients to comment on the Draft Report by no later than July 1,

1996. A copy of the cover letter and the mailing list has been added to

the record on file for inspection in the DOE Freedom of Information

Reading Room.

On April 23, 1996, the American Council for an Energy Efficient

Economy (ACEEE) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sent a

letter to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) with

the following table of proposed standard levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Class Standard level

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Units without reverse cycle and with

louvered sides.

Capacity less than 20,000 Btu/h....... 10.0 EER.

Capacity 20,000 Btu/h and more........ 9.0 EER.

Units without reverse cycle and without 9.0 EER.

louvered sides.

Slider/casement and casement-only units... 9.0 EER.

Units with reverse cycle, all capacities.. 0.5 EER less than the

standard for a comparable

cool-only model.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

At a May 21, 1996, meeting at which representatives of ACEEE, AHAM,

and DOE were present, AHAM circulated a handout including a variety of

charts that has been added to the record on file for public inspection

in the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room. Attachment 3A of the

handout was a chart entitled ``Life Cycle Cost and Payback--Room Air

Conditioners, Effect of Allocating Cost of Chassis Size Change.'' (EE-

RM-93-801-RAC No. 9 at Attachment 3A.)

Between the beginning of June and the end of November, 1996, DOE

received six comments on the Draft Report or related issues. DOE

officials held meetings on September 26 with representatives of AHAM

and interested manufacturers and on September 27 with ACEEE, the

Alliance to Save

[[Page 4201]]

Energy, NRDC, and State energy officials from California, Florida, and

Oregon. Memoranda summarizing these meetings have been added to the

record on file for public inspection in the DOE Freedom of Information

Reading Room. (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 11 and No. 12.) The participants in

each meeting were informed as to the discussions during the other

meeting: at the September 27 meeting with energy efficiency advocates,

DOE described the September 26 meeting with the manufacturers, and

after the September 27 meeting, DOE informed AHAM of the discussions at

the September 27 meeting. In these meetings: (1) manufacturers argued

for prorating the cost of increasing chassis size at each efficiency

level; (2) efficiency advocates indicated concern about loopholes that

might be created by establishing considerably lower standard levels for

certain reverse cycle or non-louvered product classes as compared to

their louvered or cool-only counterpart product classes; and (3)

efficiency advocates objected to industry-recommended standard levels

for casement room air conditioners.

On the basis of these inputs, DOE prepared a supplemental analysis

to be appended to the Draft Report that focused on a set of efficiency

levels for the same 9 classes analyzed in the proposed rule. The

Department is inclined to use the same standard for class 6 as it uses

for class 7 and the same standard for classes 9 and 10 as it uses for

class 8, as was done in the proposed rule. A copy of the supplemental

analysis has been added to the record on file for inspection in the DOE

Freedom of Information Reading Room, and DOE is sending a copy to all

commenters on the proposed rule for room air conditioners. (EE-RM-93-

801-RAC No. 13.) The analyzed efficiency levels by class are as

follows:

1. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides less than

6,000 Btu/h............................................... 9.7 EER.

2. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides 6,000 to

7,999 Btu/h............................................... 9.7 EER.

3. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides 8,000 to

13,999 Btu/h.............................................. 9.8 EER.

4. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides 14,000 to

19,999 Btu/h.............................................. 9.7 EER.

5. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides 20,000 and

more Btu/h................................................ 8.5 EER.

* * * * *

7. Without reverse cycle and without louvered sides 6,000

to 7,999 Btu/h............................................ 9.0 EER.

8. Without reverse cycle and without louvered sides 8,000

to 13,999 Btu/h........................................... 8.5 EER.

* * * * *

11. With reverse cycle, and with louvered sides............ 9.0 EER.

12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides............. 8.5 EER.

For some classes, there was a coincidence of views between the

energy efficiency advocates and AHAM on the efficiency level. As to

classes 1 through 5, there was disagreement about how to take into

account the cost of increasing chassis size. DOE has chosen to analyze

efficiency levels corresponding to the minimum life cycle costs when

chassis size cost is prorated. (See Attachment 3A.)

With respect to class 8, manufacturers commented that under the

1990 standards they were forced to reduce the highest capacity models

within this product class. They argue that increasing the standard

(currently at 8.5 EER) for this class will again eliminate higher

capacity models within the class from the market. (EE-RM-93-801 No. 544

at 5.) According to the 1996 AHAM Directory, the highest capacity model

available without louvered sides and without a reverse cycle is 12,500

Btu/h with an EER of 8.5. In addition, only one manufacturer currently

makes units at a capacity of 9,000 Btu/h or higher which would meet the

9.0 standard recommended by ACEEE and NRDC. The Department believes

that raising the current standard for this class risks eliminating

higher capacity models within this class, and therefore, the Department

is not inclined to raise the standard for this class.

For the final rule, DOE is inclined to split classes 11 and 12.

ACEEE, NRDC, and AHAM all recommended using a .5 differential between

reverse cycle units and their ``cool-only'' counterparts. (EE-RM-93-

801-RAC No. 3 and EE-RM-93-801 No. 1 at 21.) For units with reverse

cycle and louvered sides, the energy efficiency advocates are willing

to accept an EER of 9.0. (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 5 at 5.) AHAM finds this

level to be acceptable for units with capacities less than 20,000 Btu/

h. However, for units at 20,000 Btu/h or more, AHAM argues that the

standard should not be higher than the standard for its ``cool-only''

counterpart. (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 6 at 3.) The Department is inclined

to agree. By splitting the class 11 at 20,000 Btu/h, the Department can

raise the standard for most of the units with reverse cycle and with

louvers without raising the standard for units of capacities of 20,000

Btu/h or more above the 8.5 EER of its cool-only counterpart.

Similarly, the Department is inclined to split class 12, and set

the standard for units less than 14,000 Btu/h at 8.5 EER while keeping

the standard for units of 14,000 Btu/h or more at 8.0 EER. This split

would follow the recommendation of a .5 differential between reverse

cycle units and their ``cool-only'' counterparts for the standards for

units without louvers proposed by the ACEEE and NRDC. Similarly, it

would follow the recommendation of a .5 differential between reverse

cycle units and their ``cool-only'' counterparts for the standards

proposed by AHAM with the exception of units in the 8,000-13,999 Btu/h

capacity range. However, according to the 1996 AHAM directory, only one

model with reverse cycle and without louvers in this capacity range

does not meet an 8.5 EER.

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE proposed standard levels

for all product classes, other than casement room air conditioners. For

the final rule, DOE is inclined to use the efficiency standard

recommended by AHAM, ACEEE, and NRDC for casement-slider units (9.5

EER) (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 6 at 2 and EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 5 at 5) and

the standard recommended by AHAM for casement-only units (8.7 EER).

(EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 6 at 2.) For the purposes of this rulemaking, a

casement-type unit is defined as a 14 x 11 inch or smaller unit used in

a casement-only or casement-slider window. Although the efficiency

advocates argued for a higher standard level for casement-only units

(EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 5 at 3-4), they did not provide the supporting

analysis that would warrant adoption of that level.

The Department is providing a 15 day comment period because all the

interested parties who have actively participated in this rulemaking

are familiar with most of the information on which this notice is based

and have already been given extensive opportunities to make their views

known to each other and to DOE.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 23, 1997.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 97-2175 Filed 1-28-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P