Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

UFHWSTs could necessitate alterations to doorways and mechanical rooms in certain replacement installations in order to get an UFHWST to its installation destination. Further, due to significant uncertainties regarding the costs of these alterations and the lack of data indicating the likelihood of such alterations being required, at this time, DOE is unable to estimate typical installation costs of UFHWSTs.
Therefore, any analysis conducted by DOE regarding the LCC or PBP would be of limited value because of the lack of data and high degree of uncertainty of the inputs to those analyses, and as a result, DOE did not estimate the NPV of consumer costs and benefits.
B. Proposed Determination After carefully considering the comments on the August 2019 RFI and the available data and information, DOE
has tentatively determined that the energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs do not need to be amended, for the reasons explained in the paragraphs immediately following. DOE
will consider all comments received on this proposed determination prior to issuing the next document in this rulemaking proceeding.
EPCA specifies that for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C.
6313a6Ai, including UFHWSTs, DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if clear and convincing evidence shows that a more-stringent standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6313a6Ci; 42 U.S.C.
6313a6AiiII The clear and convincing evidentiary threshold applies both when DOE is triggered by ASHRAE action and when DOE
conducts a six-yearlookback rulemaking, with the latter being the basis for the current proceeding.
Because an analysis of potential costeffectiveness and energy savings first require an evaluation of the relevant technology, DOE first discusses the technological feasibility of amended standards. DOE then evaluates the energy savings potential and costeffectiveness of potential amended standards.
1. Significant Conservation of Energy EPCA also mandates that DOE
consider whether amended energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs would result in result in significant additional conservation of energy. 42

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:41 Jun 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

U.S.C. 6313a6Ci; 42 U.S.C.
6313a6AiiII
In the present case, DOE estimates that amended standards for UFHWST
would result in energy savings of 0.011
quads at EL 1 and 0.017 quads at EL 2
the max-tech level over a 30-year analysis period 20252054, as realized by the connected hot-water supply boiler. However, as discussed in section IV.C.3 of this document, DOE has been unable to validate the results of the thermal loss model used for its analysis of energy savings, and consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the accuracy and validity of the projected energy savings generated by that calculated model. Thus, DOE
has tentatively determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs would result in significant additional conservation of energy. See results in Table V.1.
2. Technological Feasibility EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs would be technologically feasible. 42 U.S.C.
6313a6Ci; 42 U.S.C.
6313a6AiiII DOE has tentatively determined that increasing the thickness of insulation by up to 1 inch would improve the efficiency of UFHWSTs. As discussed in section IV.B.1 of this document, this increase in insulation thickness can be achieved for jacketed UFHWSTs without resulting in a decrease in the insulative properties of the foam. However, the potential for a decrease in insulative value of foam as the thickness increases above 3 inches thick, which results from changes in foam density, adds uncertainty to the Rvalues achievable by higher levels of increased insulation thicknesses.
Increasing the thickness of insulation by up to 1 inch is achievable with the same insulation processes currently used in commercially-available jacketed UFHWSTs, and, therefore, would be technologically feasible. See section IV.A.3 of this document for further information. Hence, DOE has tentatively determined that amended energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs would be technologically feasible.
3. Economic Justification In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven statutory factors discussed previously see section II.A of this document. 42 U.S.C.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

30815

6313a6Ci; 42 U.S.C.
6313a6BiiIVII
One of those seven factors is the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product in the type or class compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of the products that are likely to result from the standard. 42 U.S.C. 6313a6Ci; 42
U.S.C. 6313a6BiiII This factor is typically assessed using the LCC and PBP analysis, as well as the NPV.
However, as discussed in sections IV.D
and V.A.2 of this document, DOE was unable to calculate the LCC, PBP, and NPV of amended standards, because significant uncertainties in the inputs to these analyses would result in significant uncertainties in the results.
Consequently, DOE could not develop economic analyses that would provide clear and convincing evidence that amended standards are economically justified.
4. Summary Based on the reasons stated in the foregoing discussion, DOE is proposing to determine that the energy conservation standards for unfired hot water storage tanks do not need to be amended, having initially determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended standards would be economically justified or result in significant additional conservation of energy. DOE will consider and respond to all comments received on this proposed determination in issuing any final determination.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget OMB has determined that this proposed determination does not constitute a significant regulatory action under section 3f of Executive Order E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735
Oct. 4, 1993. Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs OIRA at OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis IRFA for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
E:FRFM10JNP1.SGM

10JNP1