Title 10
PART 430 APPENDIX A
| First test | Second test | Energy calculation based on: | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setting | Results | Setting | Results | |
| Mid for all compartments | All compartments low | Warm for all compartments | All compartments low | Second Test Only. |
| One or more compartments high | First and Second Test. | |||
| One or more compartments high | Cold for all compartments | All compartments low | First and Second Test. | |
| One or more compartments high | No Energy Use Rating. | |||
3.2.2 Alternatively, a first test may be performed with all temperature controls set at their warmest setting. If all compartment temperatures are below the appropriate standardized temperatures, then the result of this test alone will be used to determine energy consumption. If this condition is not met, then the unit shall be tested in accordance with section 3.2.1 of this appendix.
3.2.3 Temperature Settings for Separate Auxiliary Convertible Compartments. For separate auxiliary convertible compartments tested as freezer compartments, the median setting shall be within 2 °F (1.1 °C) of the standardized freezer compartment temperature, and the warmest setting shall be at least 5 °F (2.8 °C) warmer than the standardized temperature. For separate auxiliary convertible compartments tested as fresh food compartments, the median setting shall be within 2 °F (1.1 °C) of 39 °F (3.9 °C), the coldest setting shall be below 34 °F (1.1 °C), and the warmest setting shall be above 43 °F (6.1 °C). For separate auxiliary convertible compartments tested as cooler compartments, the median setting shall be within 2 °F (1.1 °C) of 55 °F (12.8 °C), and the coldest setting shall be below 50 °F (10.0 °C). For compartments where control settings are not expressed as particular temperatures, the measured temperature of the convertible compartment rather than the settings shall meet the specified criteria.
3.3 Optional Test for Models with Two Compartments and User-Operable Controls. As an alternative to section 3.2 of this appendix, perform three tests such that the set of tests meets the “minimum requirements for interpolation” of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) appendix M, section M3, paragraphs (a) through (c) and as illustrated in Figure M1. The target temperatures txA and txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/NZ 4474.1:2007 shall be the standardized temperatures defined in section 3.2 of this appendix.
4. Test PeriodTests shall be performed by establishing the conditions set forth in section 2, and using the control settings set forth in section 3.
4.1 Non-automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has no automatic defrost system, the test period shall start after steady-state conditions (see section 2.9 of this appendix) have been achieved and be no less than three hours in duration. During the test period, the compressor motor shall complete two or more whole compressor cycles. (A compressor cycle is a complete “on” and a complete “off” period of the motor.) If no “off” cycling occurs, the test period shall be three hours. If fewer than two compressor cycles occur during a 24-hour period, then a single complete compressor cycle may be used.
4.2 Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has an automatic defrost system, the test period shall start after steady-state conditions have been achieved and be from one point during a defrost period to the same point during the next defrost period. If the model being tested has a long-time automatic defrost system, the alternative provisions of section 4.2.1 may be used. If the model being tested has a variable defrost control, the provisions of section 4.2.2 shall apply. If the model is a multiple-compressor product with automatic defrost, the provisions of section 4.2.3 shall apply. If the model being tested has long-time automatic or variable defrost control involving multiple defrost cycle types, such as for a product with a single compressor and two or more evaporators in which the evaporators are defrosted at different frequencies, the provisions of section 4.2.4 shall apply. If the model being tested has multiple defrost cycle types for which compressor run time between defrosts is a fixed time of less than 14 hours for all such cycle types, and for which the compressor run times between defrosts for different defrost cycle types are equal to or multiples of each other, the test period shall be from one point of the defrost cycle type with the longest compressor run time between defrosts to the same point during the next occurrence of this defrost cycle type. For such products not using the procedures of section 4.2.4, energy consumption shall be calculated as described in section 5.2.1.1 of this appendix.
4.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has a long-time automatic defrost system, the two-part test described in this section may be used. The first part is a stable period of compressor operation that includes no portions of the defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, that is otherwise the same as the test for a unit having no defrost provisions (section 4.1). The second part is designed to capture the energy consumed during all of the events occurring with the defrost control sequence that are outside of stable operation.
4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a system with a cycling compressor, the second part of the test starts at the termination of the last regular compressor “on” cycle. The average compartment temperatures measured from the termination of the previous compressor “on” cycle to the termination of the last regular compressor “on” cycle must both be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. If any compressor cycles occur prior to the defrost heater being energized that cause the average temperature in any compartment to deviate from its average temperature for the first part of the test by more than 0.5 °F (0.3 °C), these compressor cycles are not considered regular compressor cycles and must be included in the second part of the test. As an example, a “precooling” cycle, which is an extended compressor cycle that lowers the temperature(s) of one or more compartments prior to energizing the defrost heater, must be included in the second part of the test. The test period for the second part of the test ends at the termination of the first regular compressor “on” cycle after compartment temperatures have fully recovered to their stable conditions. The average temperatures of the compartments measured from this termination of the first regular compressor “on” cycle until the termination of the next regular compressor “on” cycle must both be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. See Figure 1 of this section. Note that Figure 1 illustrates the concepts of precooling and recovery but does not represent all possible defrost cycles.
4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. For a system with a non-cycling compressor, the second part of the test starts at a time before defrost during stable operation when compartment temperatures are within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. The second part stops at a time after defrost during stable operation when the compartment temperatures are within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. See Figure 2 of this section.
4.2.2 Variable Defrost Control. If the model being tested has a variable defrost control system, the test shall consist of the same two parts as the test for long-time automatic defrost (section 4.2.1).
4.2.3 Multiple-compressor Products with Automatic Defrost.
4.2.3.1 Measurement Frequency. Measurements of power input, cumulative electric energy consumption (watt-hours or kilowatt-hours), and compartment temperature shall be taken at regular intervals not exceeding one minute.
4.2.3.2 Steady-state Condition. Steady state shall be considered to have been attained after 24 hours of operation after the last adjustment of the temperature controls.
4.2.3.3 Primary Compressor. If at least one compressor cycles, test periods shall be based on compressor cycles associated with the primary compressor system (these are referred to as “primary compressor cycles”). If the freezer compressor cycles, it shall be the primary compressor system.
4.2.3.4 Test Periods. The two-part test described in this section shall be used. The first part is a stable continuous period of compressor operation that includes no defrost cycles or events associated with a defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, for any compressor system. The second part is a continuous test period designed to capture the energy consumed during all of the events occurring with the defrost control sequence that are outside of stable operation. The second part of the test shall be conducted separately for each automatic defrost system present.
4.2.3.4.1 First Part of Test. If at least one compressor cycles, the test period for the first part of the test shall include a whole number of complete primary compressor cycles comprising at least 24 hours of stable operation, unless a defrost occurs prior to completion of 24 hours of stable operation, in which case the first part of the test shall include a whole number of complete primary compressor cycles comprising at least 18 hours of stable operation. If no compressor cycles, the first part of the test shall comprise at least 24 hours of stable operation, unless a defrost occurs prior to completion of 24 hours of stable operation, in which case the first part of the test shall comprise at least 18 hours of stable operation.
4.2.3.4.2 Second Part of Test. (a) If at least one compressor cycles, the test period for the second part of the test starts during stable operation before all portions of the defrost cycle, at the beginning of a complete primary compressor cycle. The test period for the second part of the test ends during stable operation after all portions of the defrost cycle, including recovery, at the termination of a complete primary compressor cycle. The start and stop for the test period shall both occur either when the primary compressor starts or when the primary compressor stops. For each compressor system, the compartment temperature averages for the first and last complete compressor cycles that lie completely within the second part of the test must be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of the average compartment temperature measured for the first part of the test. If any one of the compressor systems is non-cycling, its compartment temperature averages during the first and last complete primary compressor cycles of the second part of the test must be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of the average compartment temperature measured for the first part of the test.
(b) If no compressor cycles, the test period for the second part of the test starts during stable operation before all portions of the defrost cycle, when the compartment temperatures of all compressor systems are within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. The test period for the second part ends during stable operation after all portions of the defrost cycle, including recovery, when the compartment temperatures of all compressor systems are within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of the test.
4.2.4 Systems with Multiple Defrost Frequencies. This section applies to models with long-time automatic or variable defrost control with multiple defrost cycle types, such as models with single compressors and multiple evaporators in which the evaporators have different defrost frequencies. The two-part method in 4.2.1 shall be used. The second part of the method will be conducted separately for each distinct defrost cycle type.
5. Test Measurements5.1 Temperature Measurements. (a) Temperature measurements shall be made at the locations prescribed in HRF-1-2008 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) Figure 5.1 for cooler and fresh food compartments and Figure 5.2 for freezer compartments and shall be accurate to within ±0.5 °F (0.3 °C). No freezer temperature measurements need be taken in an all-refrigerator or cooler-all-refrigerator.
(b) If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not conform with those shown in Figures 5.1 or 5.2 of HRF-1-2008, as appropriate, the unit must be tested by relocating the temperature sensors from the locations specified in the figures to avoid interference with hardware or components within the unit, in which case the specific locations used for the temperature sensors shall be noted in the test data records maintained by the manufacturer in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71, and the certification report shall indicate that non-standard sensor locations were used. If any temperature sensor is relocated by any amount from the location prescribed in Figure 5.1 or 5.2 of HRF-1- 2008 in order to maintain a minimum 1-inch air space from adjustable shelves or other components that could be relocated by the consumer, except in cases in which the Figures prescribe a temperature sensor location within 1 inch of a shelf or similar feature (e.g., sensor T3 in Figure 5.1), this constitutes a relocation of temperature sensors that must be recorded in the test data and reported in the certification report as described in this paragraph (b).
5.1.1 Measured Temperature. The measured temperature of a compartment is the average of all sensor temperature readings taken in that compartment at a particular point in time. Measurements shall be taken at regular intervals not to exceed 4 minutes. Measurements for multiple refrigeration system products shall be taken at regular intervals not to exceed one minute.
5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The compartment temperature for each test period shall be an average of the measured temperatures taken in a compartment during the test period as defined in section 4 of this appendix. For long-time automatic defrost models, compartment temperatures shall be those measured in the first part of the test period specified in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. For models with variable defrost controls, compartment temperatures shall be those measured in the first part of the test period specified in section 4.2.2 of this appendix. For models with automatic defrost that is neither long-time nor variable defrost, the compartment temperature shall be an average of the measured temperatures taken in a compartment during a stable period of compressor operation that:
(a) Includes no defrost cycles or events associated with a defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery;
(b) Is no less than three hours in duration; and
(c) Includes two or more whole compressor cycles. If the compressor does not cycle, the stable period used for the temperature average shall be three hours in duration.
5.1.3 Fresh Food Compartment Temperature. The fresh food compartment temperature shall be calculated as:
Where: R
is the total number of applicable fresh food compartments,
including the primary fresh food compartment and any separate
auxiliary fresh food compartments (including separate auxiliary
convertible compartments tested as fresh food compartments in
accordance with section 2.7 of this appendix); TRi is the
compartment temperature of fresh food compartment “i” determined in
accordance with section 5.1.2 of this appendix; and VRi is the
volume of fresh food compartment “i.”
5.1.4 Freezer Compartment Temperature. The freezer compartment temperature shall be calculated as:
Where: F
is the total number of applicable freezer compartments, which
include the primary freezer compartment and any number of separate
auxiliary freezer compartments (including separate auxiliary
convertible compartments tested as freezer compartments in
accordance with section 2.7 of this appendix); TFi is the
compartment temperature of freezer compartment “i” determined in
accordance with section 5.1.2 of this appendix; and VFi is the
volume of freezer compartment “i”.
5.1.5 Cooler Compartment Temperature. The cooler compartment temperature shall be calculated as:
Where: C
is the total number of applicable cooler compartments (including
separate auxiliary convertible compartments tested as cooler
compartments in accordance with section 2.7 of this appendix); TCi
is the compartment temperature of cooler compartment “i” determined
in accordance with section 5.1.2 of this appendix; and VCi is the
volume of cooler compartment “i.”
5.2 Energy Measurements.
5.2.1 Per-Day Energy Consumption. The energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day, ET, for each test period shall be the energy expended during the test period as specified in section 4 of this appendix adjusted to a 24-hour period. The adjustment shall be determined as follows.
5.2.1.1 Non-Automatic Defrost and Automatic Defrost. The energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:
ET = (EP × 1440 × K)/T Where: ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatt-hours per day; EP = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the test period; T = length of time of the test period in minutes; and 1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24-hour period in minutes per day. K = dimensionless correction factor of 1.0 for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers; and 0.55 for coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products to adjust for average household usage.5.2.1.2 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the two-part test method is used, the energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:
ET = (1440 × K × EP1/T1) + (EP2 − (EP1 × T2/T1)) × K × (12/CT) Where: ET, 1440, and K are defined in section 5.2.1.1 of this appendix; EP1 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the first part of the test; EP2 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the second part of the test; T1 and T2 = length of time in minutes of the first and second test parts respectively; CT = defrost timer run time or compressor run time between defrosts in hours required to cause it to go through a complete cycle, rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour; and 12 = factor to adjust for a 50-percent run time of the compressor in hours per day.5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:
ET = (1440 × K × EP1/T1) + (EP2 − (EP1 × T2/T1)) × K × (12/CT), Where: 1440 and K are defined in section 5.2.1.1 of this appendix and EP1, EP2, T1, T2, and 12 are defined in section 5.2.1.2 of this appendix; CT = (CTL × CTM)/(F × (CTM − CTL) + CTL); CTL = the shortest compressor run time between defrosts used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours), or the shortest compressor run time between defrosts observed for the test (if it is shorter than the shortest run time used in the control algorithm and is greater than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest observed run time is less than 6 hours), in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour; CTM = maximum compressor run time between defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than CTL but not more than 96 hours); F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and is equal to 0.20.For variable defrost models with no values for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively.
5.2.1.4 Multiple Compressor Products with Automatic Defrost. For multiple compressor products, the two-part test method in section 4.2.3.4 of this appendix must be used. The energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:
Where:
1440 and K are defined in section 5.2.1.1 of this appendix and EP1,
T1, and 12 are defined in section 5.2.1.2 of this appendix; i = a
variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that identifies each
individual compressor system that has automatic defrost; D = the
total number of compressor systems with automatic defrost. EP2i =
energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the second part of the
test for compressor system i; T2i = length of time in minutes of
the second part of the test for compressor system i; CTi = the
compressor run time between defrosts for compressor system i in
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour, for long-time
automatic defrost control equal to a fixed time in hours, and for
variable defrost control equal to: (CTLi × CTMi)/(F × (CTMi− CTLi)
+ CTLi); Where: CTLi = for compressor system i, the shortest
compressor run time between defrosts used in the variable defrost
control algorithm (greater than or equal to 6 but less than or
equal to 12 hours), or the shortest compressor run time between
defrosts observed for the test (if it is shorter than the shortest
run time used in the control algorithm and is greater than 6
hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest observed run time is less than
6 hours), in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour; CTMi =
for compressor system i, the maximum compressor run time between
defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater
than CTLi but not more than 96 hours); F = default defrost energy
consumption factor, equal to 0.20.
For variable defrost models with no values for CTLi and CTMi in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively.
5.2.1.5 Long-time or Variable Defrost Control for Systems with Multiple Defrost Cycle Types. The energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:
Where:
1440 and K are defined in section 5.2.1.1 of this appendix and EP1,
T1, and 12 are defined in section 5.2.1.2 of this appendix; i is a
variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that identifies the distinct
defrost cycle types applicable for the product; EP2i = energy
expended in kilowatt-hours during the second part of the test for
defrost cycle type i; T2i = length of time in minutes of the second
part of the test for defrost cycle type i; CTi is the compressor
run time between instances of defrost cycle type i, for long-time
automatic defrost control equal to a fixed time in hours rounded to
the nearest tenth of an hour, and for variable defrost control
equal to: (CTLi × CTMi)/(F × (CTMi − CTLi) + CTLi); CTLi = least or
shortest compressor run time between instances of defrost cycle
type i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (CTL for
the defrost cycle type with the longest compressor run time between
defrosts must be greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal
to 12 hours); CTMi = maximum compressor run time between instances
of defrost cycle type i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an
hour (greater than CTLi but not more than 96 hours);
For cases in which there are more than one fixed CT value (for long-time defrost models) or more than one CTM and/or CTL value (for variable defrost models) for a given defrost cycle type, an average fixed CT value or average CTM and CTL values shall be selected for this cycle type so that 12 divided by this value or values is the frequency of occurrence of the defrost cycle type in a 24 hour period, assuming 50% compressor run time.
F = default defrost energy consumption factor, equal to 0.20.For variable defrost models with no values for CTLi and CTMi in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively.
D is the total number of distinct defrost cycle types.
5.3 Volume Measurements. (a) The unit's total refrigerated volume, VT, shall be measured in accordance with HRF-1-2008, (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), section 3.30 and sections 4.2 through 4.3. The measured volume shall include all spaces within the insulated volume of each compartment except for the volumes that must be deducted in accordance with section 4.2.2 of HRF-1-2008, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, and be calculated equivalent to:
VT = VF + VFF + VC Where: VT = total refrigerated volume in cubic feet, VF = freezer compartment volume in cubic feet, VFF = fresh food compartment volume in cubic feet, and VC = cooler compartment volume in cubic feet.(b) The following component volumes shall not be included in the compartment volume measurements: Icemaker compartment insulation (e.g., insulation isolating the icemaker compartment from the fresh food compartment of a product with a bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service), fountain recess, dispenser insulation, and ice chute (if there is a plug, cover, or cap over the chute per Figure 4-2 of HRF-1-2008). The following component volumes shall be included in the compartment volume measurements: Icemaker auger motor (if housed inside the insulated space of the cabinet), icemaker kit, ice storage bin, and ice chute (up to the dispenser flap, if there is no plug, cover, or cap over the ice chute per Figure 4-3 of HRF-1-2008).
(c) Total refrigerated volume is determined by physical measurement of the test unit. Measurements and calculations used to determine the total refrigerated volume shall be retained as part of the test records underlying the certification of the basic model in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.
(d) Compartment classification shall be based on subdivision of the refrigerated volume into zones separated from each other by subdividing barriers: No evaluated compartment shall be a zone of a larger compartment unless the zone is separated from the remainder of the larger compartment by subdividing barriers; if there are no such subdividing barriers within the larger compartment, the larger compartment must be evaluated as a single compartment rather than as multiple compartments. If the cabinet contains a movable subdividing barrier, it must be placed as described in section 2.7 of this appendix.
(e) Freezer, fresh food, and cooler compartment volumes shall be calculated and recorded to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot. Total refrigerated volume shall be calculated and recorded to the nearest 0.1 cubic foot.
6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements6.1 Adjusted Total Volume. The adjusted total volume of each tested unit must be determined based upon the volume measured in section 5.3 of this appendix using the following calculations. Where volume measurements for the freezer, fresh food, and cooler compartment are recorded in liters, the measured volume must be converted to cubic feet and rounded to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot prior to calculating the adjusted volume. Adjusted total volume shall be calculated and recorded to the nearest 0.1 cubic foot.
6.1.1 Refrigerators, Coolers, and Cooler-Refrigerators. The adjusted total volume, AV, for refrigerators or cooler-refrigerators under test, shall be defined as:
AV = (VF × CR) + VFF + VC Where: AV = adjusted total volume in cubic feet; VF, VFF, and VC are defined in section 5.3 of this appendix; CR = dimensionless adjustment factor for freezer compartments of 1.00 for all-refrigerators and cooler-all-refrigerators, or 1.47 for other types of refrigerators and cooler-refrigerators; and6.1.2 Refrigerator-Freezers, Cooler-Refrigerator-Freezers, and Cooler-Freezers. The adjusted total volume, AV, for refrigerator-freezers, cooler-refrigerator-freezers, and cooler-freezers under test shall be calculated as follows:
AV = (VF × CRF) + VFF + VC Where: VF, VFF, and VC are defined in section 5.3 and AV is defined in section 6.1.1 of this appendix; CRF = dimensionless adjustment factor for freezer compartments of 1.76; and6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy Consumption. The average per-cycle energy consumption for a cycle type, E, is expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle to the nearest one hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour and shall be calculated according to the sections below.
6.2.1 All-Refrigerator Models. The average per-cycle energy consumption shall depend upon the temperature attainable in the fresh food compartment as shown in section 6.2.1.1 of this appendix.
6.2.1.1 If the fresh food compartment temperature is always below 39.0 °F (3.9 °C), the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be equivalent to:
E = ET1 Where: ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix; and The number 1 indicates the test during which the highest fresh food compartment temperature is measured.6.2.1.2 If the conditions of section 6.2.1.1 of this appendix do not apply, the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be equivalent to:
E = ET1 + ((ET2 − ET1) × (39.0 − TR1)/(TR2 − TR1)) Where: ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix; TR = fresh food compartment temperature determined according to section 5.1.3 of this appendix in degrees F; The numbers 1 and 2 indicate measurements taken during the two tests to be used to calculate energy consumption, as specified in section 3 of this appendix; and 39.0 = standardized fresh food compartment temperature in degrees F.6.2.2 Coolers. The average per-cycle energy consumption shall depend upon the temperature attainable in the cooler compartment as shown in section 6.2.2.1 of this appendix.
6.2.2.1 If the cooler compartment temperature is always below 55.0 °F (12.8 °C), the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be equivalent to:
E = ET1 Where: ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix; and The number 1 indicates the test during which the highest cooler compartment temperature is measured.6.2.2.2 If the conditions of section 6.2.2.1 of this appendix do not apply, the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be equivalent to:
E = ET1 + ((ET2 − ET1) × (55.0 − TC1)/(TC2 − TC1)) Where: ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix; TC = cooler compartment temperature determined according to section 5.1.5 of this appendix in degrees F; The numbers 1 and 2 are defined in section 6.2.1.2 of this appendix; and 55.0 = standardized cooler compartment temperature in degrees F.6.2.3 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers. The average per-cycle energy consumption shall be defined in one of the following ways as applicable.
6.2.3.1 If the fresh food compartment temperature is always below 39 °F (3.9 °C) and the freezer compartment temperature is always below 15 °F (−9.4 °C) in both tests of a refrigerator or always below 0 °F (−17.8 °C) in both tests of a refrigerator-freezer, the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be:
E = ET1 + IET Where: ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix; IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with an automatic icemaker and otherwise equals 0 (zero); and The number 1 indicates the test during which the highest freezer compartment temperature was measured.6.2.3.2 If the conditions of section 6.2.3.1 of this appendix do not apply, the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be defined by the higher of the two values calculated by the following two formulas:
E = ET1 + ((ET2 − ET1) × (39.0 − TR1)/(TR2 − TR1)) + IET and E = ET1 + ((ET2 − ET1) × (k − TF1)/(TF2 − TF1)) + IET Where: ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix; IET is defined in section 6.2.3.1 of this appendix; TR and the numbers 1 and 2 are defined in section 6.2.1.2 of this appendix; TF = freezer compartment temperature determined according to section 5.1.4 of this appendix in degrees F; 39.0 is a specified fresh food compartment temperature in degrees F; and k is a constant 15.0 for refrigerators or 0.0 for refrigerator-freezers, each being a standardized freezer compartment temperature in degrees F.6.2.4 Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products. The average per-cycle energy consumption shall be defined in one of the following ways as applicable.
6.2.4.1 If the compartment temperatures are always below their compartments' standardized temperatures as defined in section 3.2 of this appendix (the fresh food compartment temperature is at or below 39 °F (3.9 °C); the cooler compartment temperature is at or below 55 °F (12.8 °C); and the freezer compartment temperature is at or below 15 °F (−9.4 °C) for a cooler-refrigerator, or the freezer compartment temperature is at or below 0 °F (−17.8 °C) for a cooler-refrigerator-freezer or cooler-freezer), the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be:
E = ET1 + IET Where: ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix; IET is defined in section 6.2.3.1 of this appendix; The number 1 indicates the test during which the highest freezer compartment temperature is measured. If the product has no freezer compartment, the number 1 indicates the test during which the highest fresh food compartment temperature is measured.6.2.4.2 If the conditions of section 6.2.4.1 of this appendix do not apply, the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be defined by the highest of the two or three values calculated by the following three formulas:
E = (ET1 + ((ET2 − ET1) × (39.0 − TR1)/(TR2 − TR1)) + IET if the product has a fresh food compartment; E = (ET1 + ((ET2 − ET1) × (k − TF1)/(TF2 − TF1)) + IET if the product has a freezer compartment; and E = (ET1 + ((ET2 − ET1) × (55.0 − TC1)/(TC2 − TC1)) + IET Where: ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix; IET is defined in section 6.2.3.1 of this appendix; TR and the numbers 1 and 2 are defined in section 6.2.1.2 of this appendix; TF is defined in section 6.2.3.2 of this appendix; TC is defined in section 6.2.2.2 of this appendix; 39.0 is a specified fresh food compartment temperature in degrees F; k is a constant 15.0 for cooler-refrigerators or 0.0 for cooler-refrigerator-freezers and cooler-freezers, each being a standardized freezer compartment temperature in degrees F; and 55.0 is a specified cooler compartment temperature in degrees F.6.2.5 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Models. The standard cycle energy consumption of a model with a variable anti-sweat heater control (Estd), expressed in kilowatt-hours per day, shall be calculated equivalent to:
Estd = E + (Correction Factor) where E is determined by sections 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, or 6.2.4 of this appendix, whichever is appropriate, with the anti-sweat heater switch in the “off” position or, for a product without an anti-sweat heater switch, the anti-sweat heater in its lowest energy use state.
Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater Power × System-loss Factor) × (24 hrs/1 day) × (1 kW/1000 W) Where: Anti-sweat Heater Power = 0.034 * (Heater Watts at 5%RH) + 0.211 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH) + 0.204 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH) + 0.166 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH) + 0.126 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH) + 0.119 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH) + 0.069 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH) + 0.047 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH) + 0.008 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH) + 0.015 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH) Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity = the nominal watts used by all heaters at that specific relative humidity, 72 °F (22.2 °C) ambient, and DOE reference temperatures of fresh food (FF) average temperature of 39 °F (3.9 °C) and freezer (FZ) average temperature of 0 °F (−17.8 °C). System-loss Factor = 1.3. 7. Test Procedure WaiversTo the extent that the procedures contained in this appendix do not provide a means for determining the energy consumption of a basic model, a manufacturer must obtain a waiver under § 430.27 to establish an acceptable test procedure for each such basic model. Such instances could, for example, include situations where the test set-up for a particular basic model is not clearly defined by the provisions of section 2 of this appendix. For details regarding the criteria and procedures for obtaining a waiver, please refer to § 430.27.
[75 FR 78851, Dec. 16, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 12502, Mar. 7, 2011; 76 FR 24781, May 2, 2011; 77 FR 3574, Jan. 25, 2012; 79 FR 22349, Apr. 21, 2014; 79 FR 41418, July 16, 2014; 81 FR 46795, July 18, 2016]Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430 - Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment
10:3.0.1.4.18.3.13.6.43 : Appendix A
Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430 - Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment 1. Objectives 2. Scope 3. Mandatory Application of the Process Rule 4. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity 5. Coverage Determination Rulemakings 6. Process for Developing Energy Conservation Standards 7. Policies on Selection of Standards 8. Test Procedures 9. ASHRAE Equipment 10. Direct Final Rules 11. Negotiated Rulemaking Process 12. Principles for Distinguishing Between Effective and Compliance Dates 13. Principles for the Conduct of the Engineering Analysis 14. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Manufacturers 15. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Consumers 16. Consideration of Non-Regulatory Approaches 17. Cross-cutting Analytical Assumptions 1. ObjectivesThis appendix establishes procedures, interpretations, and policies that DOE will follow in the consideration and promulgation of new or revised appliance energy conservation standards and test procedures under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). This appendix applies to both covered consumer products and covered commercial/industrial equipment. The Department's objectives in establishing these procedures include:
(a) Provide for early input from stakeholders. The Department seeks to provide opportunities for public input early in the rulemaking process so that the initiation and direction of rulemakings is informed by comment from interested parties. Under the procedures established by this appendix, DOE will seek early input from interested parties in determining whether establishing new or amending existing energy conservation standards will result in significant savings of energy and is economically justified and technologically feasible. In the context of test procedure rulemakings, DOE will seek early input from interested parties in determining whether -
(1) Establishing a new or amending an existing test procedure will better measure the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA), or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product/equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use (for consumer products); and
(2) Will not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(b) Increase predictability of the rulemaking timetable. The Department seeks to make informed, strategic decisions about how to deploy its resources on the range of possible standards and test procedure development activities, and to announce these prioritization decisions so that all interested parties have a common expectation about the timing of different rulemaking activities. Further, DOE will offer the opportunity to provide input on the prioritization of rulemakings through a request for comment as DOE begins preparation of its Regulatory Agenda each spring.
(c) Eliminate problematic design options early in the process. The Department seeks to eliminate from consideration, early in the process, any design options that present unacceptable problems with respect to manufacturability, consumer utility, or safety, so that the detailed analysis can focus only on viable design options. Under the procedures in this appendix, DOE will eliminate from consideration design options if it concludes that manufacture, installation or service of the design will be impractical, or that the design option will have a material adverse impact on the utility of the product, or if the design option will have a material adverse impact on safety or health. DOE will also eliminate from consideration proprietary design options that represent a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level. This screening will be done at the outset of a rulemaking.
(d) Fully consider non-regulatory approaches. The Department seeks to understand the effects of market forces and voluntary programs on encouraging the purchase of energy efficient products so that the incremental impacts of a new or revised standard can be accurately assessed and the Department can make informed decisions about where standards and voluntary programs can be used most effectively. DOE will continue to support voluntary efforts by manufacturers, retailers, utilities, and others to increase product/equipment efficiency.
(e) Conduct thorough analysis of impacts. In addition to understanding the aggregate social and private costs and benefits of standards, the Department seeks to understand the distribution of those costs and benefits among consumers, manufacturers, and others, as well as the uncertainty associated with these analyses of costs and benefits, so that any adverse impacts on subgroups and uncertainty concerning any adverse impacts can be fully considered in selecting a standard. Pursuant to this appendix, the analyses will consider the variability of impacts on significant groups of manufacturers and consumers in addition to aggregate social and private costs and benefits, report the range of uncertainty associated with these impacts, and take into account cumulative impacts of regulation on manufacturers. The Department will also conduct appropriate analyses to assess the impact that new or amended test procedures will have on manufacturers and consumers.
(f) Use transparent and robust analytical methods. The Department seeks to use qualitative and quantitative analytical methods that are fully documented for the public and that produce results that can be explained and reproduced, so that the analytical underpinnings for policy decisions on standards are as sound and well-accepted as possible.
(g) Support efforts to build consensus on standards. The Department seeks to encourage development of consensus proposals for new or revised standards because standards with such broad-based support are likely to balance effectively the various interests affected by such standards.
2. ScopeThe procedures, interpretations, and policies described in this appendix apply to rulemakings concerning new or revised Federal energy conservation standards and test procedures, and related rule documents (i.e., coverage determinations) for consumer products in Part A and commercial and industrial equipment under Part A-1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, except covered ASHRAE equipment in Part A-1 are governed separately under section 9 in this appendix.
3. Mandatory Application of the Process RuleThe rulemaking procedures established in this appendix are binding on DOE.
4. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity(a) In establishing its priorities for undertaking energy conservation standards and test procedure rulemakings, DOE will consider the following factors, consistent with applicable legal obligations:
(1) Potential energy savings;
(2) Potential social and private, including environmental or energy security, benefits;
(3) Applicable deadlines for rulemakings;
(4) Incremental DOE resources required to complete the rulemaking process;
(5) Other relevant regulatory actions affecting the products/equipment;
(6) Stakeholder recommendations;
(7) Evidence of energy efficiency gains in the market absent new or revised standards;
(8) Status of required changes to test procedures; and
(9) Other relevant factors.
(b) DOE will offer the opportunity to provide input on prioritization of rulemakings through a request for comment as DOE begins preparation of its Regulatory Agenda each spring.
5. Coverage Determination Rulemakings(a) DOE has discretion to conduct proceedings to determine whether additional consumer products and commercial/industrial equipment should be covered under EPCA if certain statutory criteria are met. (42 U.S.C. 6292 and 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) for consumer products; 42 U.S.C. 6312 for commercial/industrial equipment)
(b) If DOE determines to initiate the coverage determination process, it will first publish a notice of proposed determination, providing an opportunity for public comment of not less than 60 days, in which DOE will explain how such products/equipment that it seeks to designate as “covered” meet the statutory criteria for coverage and why such coverage is “necessary or appropriate” to carry out the purposes of EPCA. In the case of commercial equipment, DOE will follow the same process, except that the Department must demonstrate that coverage of the equipment type is “necessary” to carry out the purposes of EPCA.
(c) DOE will publish its final decision on coverage as a separate notice, an action that will be completed prior to the initiation of any test procedure or energy conservation standards rulemaking (i.e., DOE will not issue any Requests for Information (RFIs), Notices of Data Availability (NODAs), or any other mechanism to gather information for the purpose of initiating a rulemaking to establish a test procedure or energy conservation standard for the proposed covered product/equipment prior to finalization of the coverage determination). If DOE determines that coverage is warranted, DOE will proceed with its typical rulemaking process for both test procedures and standards. Specifically, DOE will finalize coverage for a product/equipment at least 180 days prior to publication of a proposed rule to establish a test procedure. And, DOE will complete the test procedure rulemaking at least 180 days prior to publication of a proposed energy conservation standard.
(d) If, during the substantive rulemaking proceedings to establish test procedures or energy conservation standards after completing a coverage determination, DOE finds it necessary and appropriate to expand or reduce the scope of coverage, a new coverage determination process will be initiated and finalized prior to moving forward with the test procedure or standards rulemaking.
6. Process for Developing Energy Conservation StandardsThis section describes the process to be used in developing energy conservation standards for covered products and equipment other than those covered equipment subject to ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1.
(a) Early Assessment. (1) As the first step in any proceeding to consider establishing or amending any energy conservation standard, DOE will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing that DOE is considering initiating a rulemaking proceeding. As part of that document, DOE will solicit submission of related comments, including data and information on whether DOE should proceed with the rulemaking, including whether any new or amended rule would be cost effective, economically justified, technologically feasible, or would result in a significant savings of energy. Based on the information received in response to the notice and its own analysis, DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for a new or amended energy conservation standard or an amended test procedure. If DOE determines that a new or amended standard would not satisfy applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment rulemaking to issue a determination that a new or amended standard is not warranted. If DOE receives sufficient information suggesting it could justify a new or amended standard or the information received is inconclusive with regard to the statutory criteria, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard, as discussed further in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) If the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a Framework Document and Preliminary Analysis, or an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR). Requests for Information (RFI) and Notices of Data Availability (NODA) could be issued, as appropriate, in addition to these preliminary-stage documents.
(3) In those instances where the early assessment either suggested that a new or amended energy conservation standard might be justified or in which the information was inconclusive on this point, and DOE undertakes the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to establish or amend an energy conservation standard, DOE may still ultimately determine that such a standard is not economically justified, technologically feasible or would not result in a significant savings of energy. Therefore, DOE will examine the potential costs and benefits and energy savings potential of a new or amended energy conservation standard at the preliminary stage of the rulemaking. DOE notes that it will, consistent with its statutory obligations, consider both cost effectiveness and economic justification when issuing a determination not to amend a standard.
(b) Significant Savings of Energy. (1) In evaluating the prospects of proposing a new or amended standard - or in determining that no new or amended standard is needed - DOE will first look to the projected energy savings that are likely to result. DOE will determine as a preliminary matter whether the rulemaking has the potential to result in “significant energy savings.” If the rulemaking passes the significant energy savings threshold, DOE will then compare these projected savings against the technological feasibility of and likely costs necessary to meet the new or amended standards needed to achieve these energy savings.
(2) Under its significant energy savings analysis, DOE will examine both the total amount of projected energy savings and the relative percentage decrease in energy usage that could be obtained from establishing or amending energy conservation standards for a given covered product or equipment. This examination will be based on the applicable product or equipment type as appropriate and will not be used to selectively examine classes or sub-classes of products and equipment solely for the purposes of projecting whether potential energy savings would satisfy (or not satisfy) the applicable thresholds detailed in this rule. Under the first step of this approach, the projected energy savings from a potential maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) standard will be evaluated against a threshold of 0.3 quads of site energy saved over a 30-year period.
(3) If the projected max-tech energy savings does not meet or exceed this threshold, those max-tech savings would then be compared to the total energy usage of the covered product or equipment to calculate a potential percentage reduction in energy usage.
(4) If this comparison does not yield a reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year period, the analysis will end, and DOE will propose to determine that no significant energy savings would likely result from setting new or amended standards.
(5) If either one of the thresholds described in paragraphs (b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section is reached, DOE will conduct analyses to ascertain whether a standard can be prescribed that produces the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and still constitutes significant energy savings (using the same criteria of either 0.3 quad of aggregate site energy savings or a 10-percent decrease in energy use, as measured in quads - both over a 30-year period) at the level determined to be economically justified.
(6) In the case of ASHRAE equipment, DOE will examine the potential energy savings involved across the equipment category at issue.
(c) Design options - (1) General. Once the Department has initiated a rulemaking for a specific product/equipment but before publishing a proposed rule to establish or amend standards, DOE will identify the product/equipment categories and design options to be analyzed in detail, as well as those design options to be eliminated from further consideration. During the pre-proposal stages of the rulemaking, interested parties may be consulted to provide information on key issues through a variety of rulemaking documents. The preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR). Requests for Information (RFI) and Notice of Data Availability (NODA) could also be issued, as appropriate.
(2) Identification and screening of design options. During the pre-NOPR phase of the rulemaking process, the Department will develop a list of design options for consideration. Initially, the candidate design options will encompass all those technologies considered to be technologically feasible. Following the development of this initial list of design options, DOE will review each design option based on the factors described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section and the policies stated in section 7 of this Appendix (i.e. Policies on Selection of Standards). The reasons for eliminating or retaining any design option at this stage of the process will be fully documented and published as part of the NOPR and as appropriate for a given rule, in the pre-NOPR documents. The technologically feasible design options that are not eliminated in this screening will be considered further in the Engineering Analysis described in paragraph (d) of this section.
(3) Factors for screening of design options. The factors for screening design options include:
(i) Technological feasibility. Technologies incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.
(ii) Practicability to manufacture, install and service. If mass production of a technology under consideration for use in commercially-available products (or equipment) and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology will be considered practicable to manufacture, install and service.
(iii) Adverse Impacts on Product Utility or Product Availability.
(iv) Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety.
(v) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further.
(d) Engineering analysis of design options and selection of candidate standard levels. After design options are identified and screened, DOE will perform the engineering analysis and the benefit/cost analysis and select the candidate standard levels based on these analyses. The results of the analyses will be published in a Technical Support Document (TSD) to accompany the appropriate rulemaking documents.
(1) Identification of engineering analytical methods and tools. DOE will select the specific engineering analysis tools (or multiple tools, if necessary to address uncertainty) to be used in the analysis of the design options identified as a result of the screening analysis.
(2) Engineering and life-cycle cost analysis of design options. DOE and its contractor will perform engineering and life-cycle cost analyses of the design options.
(3) Review by stakeholders. Interested parties will have the opportunity to review the results of the engineering and life-cycle cost analyses. If appropriate, a public workshop will be conducted to review these results. The analyses will be revised as appropriate on the basis of this input.
(4) New information relating to the factors used for screening design options. If further information or analysis leads to a determination that a design option, or a combination of design options, has unacceptable impacts, that design option or combination of design options will not be included in a candidate standard level.
(5) Selection of candidate standard levels. Based on the results of the engineering and life-cycle cost analysis of design options and the policies stated in paragraph (c) of this section, DOE will select the candidate standard levels for further analysis.
(e) Pre-NOPR Stage - (1) Documentation of decisions on candidate standard selection.
(i) If the early assessment and screening analysis indicates that continued development of a standard is appropriate, the Department will publish either:
(A) A notice accompanying a framework document and, subsequently, a preliminary analysis or;
(B) An ANOPR. The notice document will be published in the Federal Register, with accompanying documents referenced and posted in the appropriate docket.
(ii) If DOE determines at any point in the pre-NOPR stage that no candidate standard level is likely to produce the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible and economically justified or constitute significant energy savings, that conclusion will be announced in the Federal Register with an opportunity for public comment provided to stakeholders. In such cases, the Department will proceed with a rulemaking that proposes not to adopt new or amended standards.
(2) Public comment and hearing. The length of the public comment period for pre-NOPR rulemaking documents will vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 calendar days. For such documents, DOE will determine whether a public hearing is appropriate.
(3) Revisions based on comments. Based on consideration of the comments received, any necessary changes to the engineering analysis or the candidate standard levels will be made.
(f) Analysis of impacts and selection of proposed standard level. After the pre-NOPR stage, if DOE has determined preliminarily that a candidate standard level is likely to produce the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible and economically justified or constitute significant energy savings, economic analyses of the impacts of the candidate standard levels will be conducted. The Department will propose new or amended standards based on the results of the impact analysis.
(1) Identification of issues for analysis. The Department, in consideration of comments received, will identify issues that will be examined in the impacts analysis.
(2) Identification of analytical methods and tools. DOE will select the specific economic analysis tools (or multiple tools if necessary to address uncertainty) to be used in the analysis of the candidate standard levels.
(3) Analysis of impacts. DOE will conduct the analysis of the impacts of candidate standard levels.
(4) Factors to be considered in selecting a proposed standard. The factors to be considered in selection of a proposed standard include:
(i) Impacts on manufacturers. The analysis of private manufacturer impacts will include: Estimated impacts on cash flow; assessment of impacts on manufacturers of specific categories of products/equipment and small manufacturers; assessment of impacts on manufacturers of multiple product-specific Federal regulatory requirements, including efficiency standards for other products and regulations of other agencies; and impacts on manufacturing capacity, plant closures, and loss of capital investment.
(ii) Private Impacts on consumers. The analysis of consumer impacts will include: Estimated private energy savings impacts on consumers based on national average energy prices and energy usage; assessments of impacts on subgroups of consumers based on major regional differences in usage or energy prices and significant variations in installation costs or performance; sensitivity analyses using high and low discount rates reflecting both private transactions and social discount rates and high and low energy price forecasts; consideration of changes to product utility, changes to purchase rate of products, and other impacts of likely concern to all or some consumers, based to the extent practicable on direct input from consumers; estimated life-cycle cost with sensitivity analysis; consideration of the increased first cost to consumers and the time required for energy cost savings to pay back these first costs; and loss of utility.
(iii) Impacts on competition, including industry concentration analysis.
(iv) Impacts on utilities. The analysis of utility impacts will include estimated marginal impacts on electric and gas utility costs and revenues.
(v) National energy, economic, and employment impacts. The analysis of national energy, economic, and employment impacts will include: Estimated energy savings by fuel type; estimated net present value of benefits to all consumers; and estimates of the direct and indirect impacts on employment by appliance manufacturers, relevant service industries, energy suppliers, suppliers of complementary and substitution products, and the economy in general.
(vi) Impacts on the environment. The analysis of environmental impacts will include estimated impacts on emissions of carbon and relevant criteria pollutants, and impacts on pollution control costs.
(vii) Impacts of non-regulatory approaches. The analysis of energy savings and consumer impacts will incorporate an assessment of the impacts of market forces and existing voluntary programs in promoting product/equipment efficiency, usage, and related characteristics in the absence of updated efficiency standards.
(viii) New information relating to the factors used for screening design options.
(g) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - (1) Documentation of decisions on proposed standard selection. The Department will publish a NOPR in the Federal Register that proposes standard levels and explains the basis for the selection of those proposed levels, and will post on its website a draft TSD documenting the analysis of impacts. The draft TSD will also be posted in the appropriate docket on http://www.regulations.gov. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) of EPCA, the NOPR also will describe the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible and, if the proposed standards would not achieve these levels, the reasons for proposing different standards.
(2) Public comment and hearing. There will be not less than 75 days for public comment on the NOPR, with at least one public hearing or workshop. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6306).
(3) Revisions to impact analyses and selection of final standard. Based on the public comments received, DOE will review the proposed standard and impact analyses, and make modifications as necessary. If major changes to the analyses are required at this stage, DOE will publish a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR), when required. DOE may also publish a NODA or RFI, where appropriate.
(h) Final Rule. The Department will publish a Final Rule in the Federal Register that promulgates standard levels, responds to public comments received on the NOPR, and explains how the selection of those standards meets the statutory requirement that any new or amended energy conservation standard produces the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and constitutes significant energy savings, accompanied by a final TSD.
7. Policies on Selection of Standards(a) Purpose. (1) Section 5 describes the process that will be used to consider new or revised energy efficiency standards and lists a number of factors and analyses that will be considered at specified points in the process. Department policies concerning the selection of new or revised standards, and decisions preliminary thereto, are described in this section. These policies are intended to elaborate on the statutory criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295 of EPCA.
(2) The procedures described in this section are intended to assist the Department in making the determinations required by EPCA and do not preclude DOE's consideration of any other information consistent with the relevant statutory criteria. The Department will consider pertinent information in determining whether a new or revised standard is consistent with the statutory criteria.
(b) Screening design options. These factors will be considered as follows in determining whether a design option will receive any further consideration:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in commercially-viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install and service. If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product/equipment to subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the U.S. at the time, it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
(c) Identification of candidate standard levels. Based on the results of the engineering and cost/benefit analyses of design options, DOE will identify the candidate standard levels for further analysis. Candidate standard levels will be selected as follows:
(1) Costs and savings of design options. Design options that have payback periods that exceed the median life of the product or which result in life-cycle cost increases relative to the base case, using typical fuel costs, usage, and private discount rates, will not be used as the basis for candidate standard levels.
(2) Further information on factors used for screening design options. If further information or analysis leads to a determination that a design option, or a combination of design options, has unacceptable impacts under the policies stated in this Appendix, that design option or combination of design options will not be included in a candidate standard level.
(3) Selection of candidate standard levels. Candidate standard levels, which will be identified in the pre-NOPR documents and on which impact analyses will be conducted, will be based on the remaining design options.
(i) The range of candidate standard levels will typically include:
(A) The most energy-efficient combination of design options;
(B) The combination of design options with the lowest life-cycle cost; and
(C) A combination of design options with a payback period of not more than three years.
(ii) Candidate standard levels that incorporate noteworthy technologies or fill in large gaps between efficiency levels of other candidate standard levels also may be selected.
(d) Pre-NOPR Stage. New information provided in public comments on any pre-NOPR documents will be considered to determine whether any changes to the candidate standard levels are needed before proceeding to the analysis of impacts.
(e)(1) Selection of proposed standard. Based on the results of the analysis of impacts, DOE will select a standard level to be proposed for public comment in the NOPR. As required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A), any new or revised standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is determined to be both technologically feasible and economically justified.
(2) Statutory policies. The fundamental policies concerning the selection of standards include:
(i) A trial standard level will not be proposed or promulgated if the Department determines that it is not both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. (o)(3)(B)) For a trial standard level to be economically justified, the Secretary must determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the factors listed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). In making such a determination, the Secretary shall compare the benefits and burdens of the standard against the benefits and burdens of the baseline case (“no new standards” case) and all other trial standard levels under consideration. This comparative analysis includes assessing the incremental changes in costs and benefits for each TSL's benefits and burdens relative to other TSLs and as part of a holistic analysis across all TSLs. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). The Secretary will also consider, consistent with the statute, other economic measures such as life-cycle cost analysis, manufacturer impact analysis, and other relevant measures. A standard level is subject to a rebuttable presumption that it is economically justified if the payback period is three years or less. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
(ii) If the Department determines that interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that a standard level is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product/equipment type (or class) with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the U.S. at the time of the determination, then that standard level will not be proposed. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
(iii) If the Department determines that a standard level would not result in significant conservation of energy, that standard level will not be proposed. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
(f) Selection of a final standard. New information provided in the public comments on the NOPR and any analysis by the Department of Justice concerning impacts on competition of the proposed standard will be considered to determine whether issuance of a new or amended energy conservation standard produces the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and still constitutes significant energy savings or whether any change to the proposed standard level is needed before proceeding to the final rule. The same policies used to select the proposed standard level, as described in this section, will be used to guide the selection of the final standard level or a determination that no new or amended standard is justified.
8. Test Procedures(a) General. As with the early assessment process for energy conservation standards, DOE believes that early stakeholder input is also very important during test procedure rulemakings. DOE will follow an early assessment process similar to that described in the preceding sections discussing DOE's consideration of amended energy conservation standards. Consequently, DOE will publish a notice in the Federal Register whenever DOE is considering initiation of a rulemaking to amend a test procedure. In that notice, DOE will request submission of comments, including data and information on whether an amended test procedure rule would:
(1) More accurately measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA), or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use without being unduly burdensome to conduct; or
(2) Reduce testing burden. DOE will review comments submitted and, subject to statutory obligations, determine whether it agrees with the submitted information. If DOE determines that an amended test procedure is not justified at that time, it will not pursue the rulemaking and will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that effect. If DOE receives sufficient information suggesting an amended test procedure could more accurately measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA), or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct, reduce testing burden, or the information received is inconclusive with regard to these points, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to amend the test procedure, as discussed further in the paragraphs that follow in this section.
(b) Identifying the need to modify test procedures. DOE will identify any necessary modifications to established test procedures prior to initiating the standards development process. It will consider all stakeholder comments with respect to needed test procedure modifications. If DOE determines that it is appropriate to continue the test procedure rulemaking after the early assessment process, it would provide further opportunities for early public input through Federal Register documents, including NODAs and/or RFIs.
(c) Adoption of Industry Test Methods. DOE will adopt industry test standards as DOE test procedures for covered products and equipment, unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that equipment during a representative average use cycle.
(d) Issuing final test procedure modification. Test procedure rulemakings establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy conservation standards will be finalized at least 180 days prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards.
(e) Effective Date of Test Procedures. If required only for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, use of the modified test procedures typically will not be required until the implementation date of updated standards.
9. ASHRAE Equipment(a) EPCA provides that ASHRAE equipment are subject to unique statutory requirements and their own set of timelines. More specifically, pursuant to EPCA's statutory scheme for covered ASHRAE equipment, DOE is required to consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain enumerated types of commercial and industrial equipment (generally, commercial water heaters, commercial packaged boilers, commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment, and packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps) when ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to standards and test procedures applicable to such equipment. Not later than 180 days after the amendment of the standard, the Secretary will publish in the Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards. For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, not later than 18 months after the date of publication of the amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as the uniform national standard for such equipment, or amend the test procedure referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the equipment at issue to be consistent with the applicable industry test procedure, respectively, unless -
(1) DOE determines by rule, and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that a more-stringent standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified; or
(2) The test procedure would not meet the requirements for such test procedures specified in EPCA. In such case, DOE must adopt the more stringent standard not later than 30 months after the date of publication of the amendment to ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 for the affected equipment.
(b) For ASHRAE equipment, DOE will adopt the revised ASHRAE levels or the industry test procedure, as contemplated by EPCA, except in very limited circumstances.
With respect to DOE's consideration of standards more-stringent than the ASHRAE levels or changes to the industry test procedure, DOE will do so only if it can meet a very high bar to demonstrate the “clear and convincing evidence” threshold. Clear and convincing evidence would exist only where the specific facts and data made available to DOE regarding a particular ASHRAE amendment demonstrates that there is no substantial doubt that a standard more stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted because it would result in a significant additional amount of energy savings, is technologically feasible and economically justified, or, in the case of test procedures, that the industry test procedure does not meet the EPCA requirements. DOE will make this determination only after seeking data and information from interested parties and the public to help inform the Agency's views. DOE will seek from interested stakeholders and the public data and information to assist in making this determination, prior to publishing a proposed rule to adopt more-stringent standards or a different test procedure.
(c) DOE's review in adopting amendments based on an action by ASHRAE to amend Standard 90.1 is strictly limited to the specific standards or test procedure amendment for the specific equipment for which ASHRAE has made a change (i.e., determined down to the equipment class level). DOE believes that ASHRAE not acting to amend Standard 90.1 is tantamount to a decision that the existing standard remain in place. Thus, when undertaking a review as required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE would need to find clear and convincing evidence, as defined in this section, to issue a standard more stringent than the existing standard for the equipment at issue.
10. Direct Final Rules(a) A direct final rule (DFR), as contemplated in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), is a procedural mechanism separate from the negotiated rulemaking process outlined under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 563). DOE may issue a DFR adopting energy conservation standards for a covered product provided that:
(1) DOE receives a joint proposal from a group of “interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view,” which does not include DOE as a member of the group. At a minimum, to be “fairly representative of relevant points of view” the group submitting a joint statement must include larger concerns and small businesses in the regulated industry/manufacturer community, energy advocates, energy utilities, as appropriate, consumers, and States. However, it will be necessary to evaluate the meaning of “fairly representative” on a case-by-case basis, subject to the circumstances of a particular rulemaking, to determine whether additional parties must be part of a joint statement in order to be “fairly representative of relevant points of view.”
(2) This paragraph (a)(2) describes the steps DOE will follow with respect to a DFR.
(i) DOE must determine whether the energy conservation standard recommended in the joint proposal is in accordance with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or section 342(a)(6)(B) as applicable. Because the DFR provision is procedural, and not a separate grant of rulemaking authority, any standard issued under the DFR process must comply fully with the provisions of the EPCA subsection under which the rule is authorized. DOE will not accept or issue as a DFR a submitted joint proposal that does not comply with all applicable EPCA requirements.
(ii) Upon receipt of a joint statement recommending energy conservation standards, DOE will publish in the Federal Register that statement, as submitted to DOE, in order to obtain feedback as to whether the joint statement was submitted by a group that is fairly representative of relevant points of view. If DOE determines that the DFR was not submitted by a group that is fairly representative of relevant points of view, DOE will not move forward with a DFR and will consider whether any further rulemaking activity is appropriate. If the Secretary determines that a DFR cannot be issued based on the statement, the Secretary shall publish a notice of the determination, together with an explanation of the reasons for the determination.
(iii) Simultaneous with the issuance of a DFR, DOE must also publish a NOPR containing the same energy conservation standards as in the DFR. Following publication of the DFR, DOE must solicit public comment for a period of at least 110 days; then, not later than 120 days after issuance of the DFR, the Secretary must determine whether any adverse comments “may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule,” based on the rulemaking record. If DOE determines that one or more substantive comments objecting to the DFR provides a sufficient reason to withdraw the DFR, DOE will do so, and will instead proceed with the published NOPR (unless the information provided suggests that withdrawal of that NOPR would likewise be appropriate). In making this determination, DOE may consider comments as adverse, even if the issue was brought up previously during DOE-initiated discussions (e.g. publication of a framework or RFI document), if the Department concludes that the comments merit further consideration.
11. Negotiated Rulemaking Process(a)(1) In those instances where negotiated rulemaking is determined to be appropriate, DOE will comply with the requirements of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) (5 U.S.C. 561-570) and the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2). To facilitate potential negotiated rulemakings, and to comply with the requirements of the NRA and the FACA, DOE established the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC). Working groups can be established as subcommittees of ASRAC, from time to time, and for specific products/equipment, with one member representative from the ASRAC committee attending and participating in the meetings of a specific working group. (Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 565(b), committee membership is limited to 25 members, unless the agency determines that more members are necessary for the functioning of the committee or to achieve balanced membership.) Ultimately, the working group reports to ASRAC, and ASRAC itself votes on whether to make a recommendation to DOE to adopt a consensus agreement developed through the negotiated rulemaking.
(2) DOE will use the negotiated rulemaking process on a case-by-case basis and, in appropriate circumstances, in an attempt to develop a consensus proposal before issuing a proposed rule. When approached by one or more stakeholders or on its own initiative, DOE will use a convener to ascertain, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, whether the development of the subject matter of a potential rulemaking proceeding would be conducive to negotiated rulemaking, with the agency evaluating the convener's recommendation before reaching a decision on such matter. A neutral, independent convenor will identify issues that any negotiation would need to address, assess the full breadth of interested parties who should be included in any negotiated rulemaking to address those issues, and make a judgment as to whether there is the potential for a group of individuals negotiating in good faith to reach a consensus agreement given the issues presented. DOE will have a neutral and independent facilitator, who is not a DOE employee or consultant, present at all ASRAC working group meetings.
(3) DOE will base its decision to proceed with a potential negotiated rulemaking on the report of the convenor. The following additional factors militate in favor of a negotiated rulemaking:
(i) Stakeholders commented in favor of negotiated rulemaking in response to the initial rulemaking notice;
(ii) The rulemaking analysis or underlying technologies in question are complex, and DOE can benefit from external expertise and/or real-time changes to the analysis based on stakeholder feedback, information, and data;
(iii) The current standards have already been amended one or more times;
(iv) Stakeholders from differing points of view are willing to participate; and
(v) DOE determines that the parties may be able to reach an agreement.
(4) DOE will provide notice in the Federal Register of its intent to form an ASRAC working group (including a request for nominations to serve on the committee), announcement of the selection of working group members (including their affiliation), and announcement of public meetings and the subject matter to be addressed.
(b) DOE's role in the negotiated rulemaking process is to participate as a member of a group attempting to develop a consensus proposal for energy conservation standards for a particular product/equipment and to provide technical/analytical advice to the negotiating parties and legal input where needed to support the development of a potential consensus recommendation in the form of a term sheet.
(c) A negotiated rulemaking may be used to develop energy conservation standards, test procedures, product coverage, and other categories of rulemaking activities.
(d) A dedicated portion of each ASRAC working group meeting will be set aside to receive input and data from non-members of the ASRAC working group. This additional opportunity for input does nothing to diminish stakeholders' ability to provide comments and ask relevant questions during the course of the working group's ongoing deliberations at the public meeting.
(e) If DOE determines to proceed with a rulemaking at the conclusion of negotiations, DOE will publish a proposed rule. DOE will consider the approved term sheet in developing such proposed rule. A negotiated rulemaking in which DOE participates under the ASRAC process will not result in the issuance of a DFR. Further, any potential term sheet upon which an ASRAC working group reaches consensus must comply with all of the provisions of EPCA under which the rule is authorized. DOE cannot accept recommendations or issue a NOPR based upon a negotiated rulemaking that does not comply with all applicable EPCA requirements, including those product- or equipment-specific requirements included in the provision that authorizes issuance of the standard.
12. Principles for Distinguishing Between Effective and Compliance Dates(a) Dates, generally. The effective and compliance dates for either DOE test procedures or DOE energy conservation standards are typically not identical and these terms should not be used interchangeably.
(b) Effective date. The effective date is the date a rule is legally operative after being published in the Federal Register.
(c) Compliance date. (1) For test procedures, the compliance date is the specific date when manufacturers are required to use the new or amended test procedure requirements to make representations concerning the energy efficiency or use of a product, including certification that the covered product/equipment meets an applicable energy conservation standard.
(2) For energy conservation standards, the compliance date is the specific date upon which manufacturers are required to meet the new or amended standards for applicable covered products/equipment that are distributed in interstate commerce.
13. Principles for the Conduct of the Engineering Analysis(a) The purpose of the engineering analysis is to develop the relationship between efficiency and cost of the subject product/equipment. The Department will use the most appropriate means available to determine the efficiency/cost relationship, including an overall system approach or engineering modeling to predict the reduction in energy use or improvement in energy efficiency that can be expected from individual design options as discussed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. From this efficiency/cost relationship, measures such as payback, life-cycle cost, and energy savings can be developed. The Department will identify issues that will be examined in the engineering analysis and the types of specialized expertise that may be required. DOE will select appropriate contractors, subcontractors, and expert consultants, as necessary, to perform the engineering analysis and the impact analysis. Also, the Department will consider data, information, and analyses received from interested parties for use in the analysis wherever feasible.
(b) The engineering analysis begins with the list of design options developed in consultation with the interested parties as a result of the screening process. The Department will establish the likely cost and performance improvement of each design option. Ranges and uncertainties of cost and performance will be established, although efforts will be made to minimize uncertainties by using measures such as test data or component or material supplier information where available. Estimated uncertainties will be carried forward in subsequent analyses. The use of quantitative models will be supplemented by qualitative assessments as appropriate.
(c) The next step includes identifying, modifying, or developing any engineering models necessary to predict the efficiency impact of any one or combination of design options on the product/equipment. A base case configuration or starting point will be established, as well as the order and combination/blending of the design options to be evaluated. DOE will then perform the engineering analysis and develop the cost-efficiency curve for the product/equipment. The cost efficiency curve and any necessary models will be available to stakeholders during the pre-NOPR stage of the rulemaking.
14. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Manufacturers(a) Purpose. The purpose of the manufacturer analysis is to identify the likely private impacts of efficiency standards on manufacturers. The Department will analyze the impact of standards on manufacturers with substantial input from manufacturers and other interested parties. This section describes the principles that will be used in conducting future manufacturing impact analyses.
(b) Issue identification. In the impact analysis stage (section 5(d)), the Department will identify issues that will require greater consideration in the detailed manufacturer impact analysis. Possible issues may include identification of specific types or groups of manufacturers and concerns over access to technology. Specialized contractor expertise, empirical data requirements, and analytical tools required to perform the manufacturer impact analysis also would be identified at this stage.
(c) Industry characterization. Prior to initiating detailed impact studies, the Department will seek input on the present and past industry structure and market characteristics. Input on the following issues will be sought:
(1) Manufacturers and their current and historical relative market shares;
(2) Manufacturer characteristics, such as whether manufacturers make a full line of models or serve a niche market;
(3) Trends in the number of manufacturers;
(4) Financial situation of manufacturers;
(5) Trends in product/equipment characteristics and retail markets including manufacturer market shares and market concentration; and
(6) Identification of other relevant regulatory actions and a description of the nature and timing of any likely impacts.
(d) Cost impacts on manufacturers. The costs of labor, material, engineering, tooling, and capital are difficult to estimate, manufacturer-specific, and usually proprietary. The Department will seek input from interested parties on the treatment of cost issues. Manufacturers will be encouraged to offer suggestions as to possible sources of data and appropriate data collection methodologies. Costing issues to be addressed include:
(1) Estimates of total private cost impacts, including product/equipment-specific costs (based on cost impacts estimated for the engineering analysis) and front-end investment/conversion costs for the full range of product/equipment models.
(2) Range of uncertainties in estimates of average cost, considering alternative designs and technologies which may vary cost impacts and changes in costs of material, labor, and other inputs which may vary costs.
(3) Variable cost impacts on particular types of manufacturers, considering factors such as atypical sunk costs or characteristics of specific models which may increase or decrease costs.
(e) Impacts on product/equipment sales, features, prices, and cost recovery. In order to make manufacturer cash-flow calculations, it is necessary to predict the number of products/equipment sold and their sale price. This requires an assessment of the likely impacts of price changes on the number of products/equipment sold and on typical features of models sold. Past analyses have relied on price and shipment data generated by economic models. The Department will develop additional estimates of prices and shipments by drawing on multiple sources of data and experience including: actual shipment and pricing experience; data from manufacturers, retailers, and other market experts; financial models, and sensitivity analyses. The possible impacts of candidate/trial standard levels on consumer choices among competing fuels will be explicitly considered where relevant.
(f) Measures of impact. The manufacturer impact analysis will estimate the impacts of candidate/trial standard levels on the net cash flow of manufacturers. Computations will be performed for the industry as a whole and for typical and atypical manufacturers. The exact nature and the process by which the analysis will be conducted will be determined by DOE, with input from interested parties, as appropriate. Impacts to be analyzed include:
(1) Industry net present value, with sensitivity analyses based on uncertainty of costs, sales prices, and sales volumes;
(2) Cash flows, by year; and
(3) Other measures of impact, such as revenue, net income, and return on equity, as appropriate. DOE also notes that the characteristics of a typical manufacturers worthy of special consideration will be determined in consultation with manufacturers and other interested parties and may include: manufacturers incurring higher or lower than average costs; and manufacturers experiencing greater or fewer adverse impacts on sales. Alternative scenarios based on other methods of estimating cost or sales impacts also will be performed, as needed.
(g) Cumulative Impacts of Other Federal Regulatory Actions. (1) The Department will recognize and seek to mitigate the overlapping effects on manufacturers of new or revised DOE standards and other regulatory actions affecting the same products or equipment. DOE will analyze and consider the impact on manufacturers of multiple product/equipment-specific regulatory actions. These factors will be considered in setting rulemaking priorities, conducting the early assessment as to whether DOE should proceed with a standards rulemaking, assessing manufacturer impacts of a particular standard, and establishing compliance dates for a new or revised standard that, consistent with any statutory requirements, are appropriately coordinated with other regulatory actions to mitigate any cumulative burden.
(2) If the Department determines that a proposed standard would impose a significant impact on product or equipment manufacturers within approximately three years of the compliance date of another DOE standard that imposes significant impacts on the same manufacturers (or divisions thereof, as appropriate), the Department will, in addition to evaluating the impact on manufacturers of the proposed standard, assess the joint impacts of both standards on manufacturers.
(3) If the Department is directed to establish or revise standards for products/equipment that are components of other products/equipment subject to standards, the Department will consider the interaction between such standards in setting rulemaking priorities and assessing manufacturer impacts of a particular standard. The Department will assess, as part of the engineering and impact analyses, the cost of components subject to efficiency standards.
(h) Summary of quantitative and qualitative assessments. The summary of quantitative and qualitative assessments will contain a description and discussion of uncertainties. Alternative estimates of impacts, resulting from the different potential scenarios developed throughout the analysis, will be explicitly presented in the final analysis results.
(1) Key modeling and analytical tools. In its assessment of the likely impacts of standards on manufacturers, the Department will use models that are clear and understandable, feature accessible calculations, and have clearly explained assumptions. As a starting point, the Department will use the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). The Department will also support the development of economic models for price and volume forecasting. Research required to update key economic data will be considered.
(2) [Reserved]
15. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Consumers(a) Early consideration of impacts on consumer utility. The Department will consider at the earliest stages of the development of a standard whether particular design options will lessen the utility of the covered products/equipment to the consumer. See paragraph (c) of section 6.
(b) Impacts on product/equipment availability. The Department will determine, based on consideration of information submitted during the standard development process, whether a proposed standard is likely to result in the unavailability of any covered product/equipment type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products/equipment generally available in the U.S. at the time. DOE will not promulgate a standard if it concludes that it would result in such unavailability.
(c) Department of Justice review. As required by law, the Department will solicit the views of the Department of Justice on any lessening of competition likely to result from the imposition of a proposed standard and will give the views provided full consideration in assessing economic justification of a proposed standard. In addition, DOE may consult with the Department of Justice at earlier stages in the standards development process to seek its preliminary views on competitive impacts.
(d) Variation in consumer impacts. The Department will use regional analysis and sensitivity analysis tools, as appropriate, to evaluate the potential distribution of impacts of candidate/trial standard levels among different subgroups of consumers. The Department will consider impacts on significant segments of consumers in determining standards levels. Where there are significant negative impacts on identifiable subgroups, DOE will consider the efficacy of voluntary approaches as a means to achieve potential energy savings.
(e) Payback period and first cost. (1) In the assessment of consumer impacts of standards, the Department will consider Life-Cycle Cost, Payback Period, and Cost of Conserved Energy to evaluate the savings in operating expenses relative to increases in purchase price. The Department also performs sensitivity and scenario analyses when appropriate. The results of these analyses will be carried throughout the analysis and the ensuing uncertainty described.
(2) If, in the analysis of consumer impacts, the Department determines that a candidate/trial standard level would result in a substantial increase in product/equipment first costs to consumers or would not pay back such additional first costs through energy cost savings in less than three years, Department will assess the likely impacts of such a standard on low-income households, product/equipment sales and fuel switching, as appropriate.
16. Consideration of Non-Regulatory ApproachesThe Department recognizes that non-regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities, and other interested parties can result in substantial efficiency improvements. The Department intends to consider the likely effects of non-regulatory initiatives on product/equipment energy use, consumer utility and life-cycle costs, manufacturers, competition, utilities, and the environment, as well as the distribution of these impacts among different regions, consumers, manufacturers, and utilities. DOE will attempt to base its assessment on the actual impacts of such initiatives to date, but also will consider information presented regarding the impacts that any existing initiative might have in the future. Such information is likely to include a demonstration of the strong commitment of manufacturers, distribution channels, utilities, or others to such non-regulatory efficiency improvements. This information will be used in assessing the likely incremental impacts of establishing or revising standards, in assessing - where possible - appropriate compliance dates for new or revised standards, and in considering DOE support of non-regulatory initiatives.
17. Cross-Cutting Analytical AssumptionsIn selecting values for certain cross-cutting analytical assumptions, DOE expects to continue relying upon the following sources and general principles:
(a) Underlying economic assumptions. The appliance standards analyses will generally use the same economic growth and development assumptions that underlie the most current Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
(b) Analytic time length. The appliance standards analyses will use two time lengths - 30 years and another time length that is specific to the standard being considered such as the useful lifetime of the product under consideration. As a sensitivity case, the analyses will also use a 9-year regulatory time line in analyzing the effects of the standard.
(c) Energy price and demand trends. Analyses of the likely impact of appliance standards on typical users will generally adopt the mid-range energy price and demand scenario of the EIA's most current AEO. The sensitivity of such estimated impacts to possible variations in future energy prices are likely to be examined using the EIA's high and low energy price scenarios.
(d) Product/equipment-specific energy-efficiency trends, without updated standards. Product/equipment-specific energy-efficiency trends will be based on a combination of the efficiency trends forecast by the EIA's residential and commercial demand model of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) and product-specific assessments by DOE and its contractors with input from interested parties.
(e) Price forecasting. DOE will endeavor to use robust price forecasting techniques in projecting future prices of products.
(f) Private Discount rates. For residential and commercial consumers, ranges of three different real discount rates will be used. For residential consumers, the mid-range discount rate will represent DOE's approximation of the average financing cost (or opportunity costs of reduced savings) experienced by typical consumers. Sensitivity analyses will be performed using discount rates reflecting the costs more likely to be experienced by residential consumers with little or no savings and credit card financing and consumers with substantial savings. For commercial users, a mid-range discount rate reflecting DOE's approximation of the average real rate of return on commercial investment will be used, with sensitivity analyses being performed using values indicative of the range of real rates of return likely to be experienced by typical commercial businesses. For national net present value calculations, DOE would use the Administration's approximation of the average real rate of return on private investment in the U.S. economy. For manufacturer impacts, DOE typically uses a range of real discount rates which are representative of the real rates of return experienced by typical U.S. manufacturers affected by the program.
(g) Social Discount Rates. Social discount rates as specified in OMB Circular A-4 will be used in assessing social effects such as costs and benefits.
(h) Environmental impacts. (1) DOE calculates emission reductions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, methane, nitrous oxides, and mercury likely to be avoided by candidate/trial standard levels based on an emissions analysis that includes the two components described in paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this section.
(2) The first component estimates the effect of potential candidate/trial standard levels on power sector and site combustion emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, methane, and nitrous oxide. DOE develops the power sector emissions analysis using a methodology based on DOE's latest Annual Energy Outlook. For site combustion of natural gas or petroleum fuels, the combustion emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides are estimated using emission intensity factors from the Environmental Protection Agency.
(3) The second component of DOE's emissions analysis estimates the effect of potential candidate/trial standard levels on emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, methane, and nitrous oxide due to “upstream activities” in the fuel production chain. These upstream activities include the emissions related to extracting, processing, and transporting fuels to the site of combustion as detailed in DOE's Fuel-Fuel-Cycle Statement of Policy (76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011)). DOE will consider the effects of the candidate/trial standard levels on these emissions after assessing the seven factors required to demonstrate economic justification under EPCA. Consistent with Executive Order 13783, dated March 28, 2017, when monetizing the value of changes in reductions in CO2 and nitrous oxides emissions resulting from its energy conservation standards regulations, including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount rates, DOE ensures, to the extent permitted by law, that any such estimates are consistent with the guidance contained in OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003 (Regulatory Analysis).
[85 FR 8703, Feb. 14, 2020, as amended at 85 FR 50944, Aug. 19, 2020]