Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules additional safety or performance standards that these pump types must meet.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

B. Significant Savings of Energy The January 2016 ECS Final Rule estimated that the established energy conservation standard for pumps would result in 0.10 quadrillion British thermal units quads of site energy savings in site energy use over a 30-year period. 81 FR 4368, 4371. Additionally, in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE estimated that an energy conservation standard established at an energy efficiency level equivalent to that achieved using the maximum available technology max-tech would have resulted in 0.38 additional quads of site energy savings. 81 FR 4368, 4415.
As a preliminary step in evaluating potential energy savings, DOE updated its energy savings estimates from the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. DOEs current estimate indicates that an amended energy conservation standard established at the same max-tech as the January 2016 ECS Final Rule would result in 0.25 quads of site energy savings 0.69 quads of full-fuel cycle energy savings which is a reduction from 0.38 quads. The primary driver for the reduced estimate is a revised estimate of the base case efficiency distribution. In preparation for this RFI, DOE reviewed its Compliance Certification database 12 and found that the efficiency distribution by basic model in the marketplace in 2020
exceeded that assumed in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule for the adopted standard level i.e., there are fewer models at baseline,13 indicating that manufacturers redesigned pump models to surpass, rather than just meet, the current Federal standard.14
While DOEs request for information is not limited to the following issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and data on the following topics to inform whether potential amended energy conservation standards would result in a significant savings of energy.
12 U.S. Department of Energys Compliance Certification Database, https
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS4-Pumps_-_General_Pumps.htmlq=Product_
Group_s%3A%22Pumps%20%20General%20Pumps%22, Accessed February 24, 2020.
13 The baseline efficiency level was set to represent the lowest efficiency hydraulic designs on the market. 81 FR 4368, 4382.
14 While DOE does not have updated information on efficiency distribution by shipment as it did in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE compared the efficiency distributions by model and shipment gathered for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule and determined that model distribution is a reasonable proxy for shipment distribution.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:39 Aug 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

43433

1. Base Case Efficiency Distribution DOE uses base case efficiency distributions to calculate life cycle cost LCC savings resulting from each considered energy efficiency level. In the analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE developed the base case efficiency distributions based on the shipments data provided by manufacturers 15 and used base case efficiency distribution specific to equipment class, shaft input power and flow.16
Issue 2: DOE seeks data and information on the distribution of pump efficiencies. To the extent available, DOE requests the data, in terms of pump energy index PEI; by pump shipments at the equipment class level;
and disaggregated by shaft input power and flow, for bare pumps only. DOE
seeks comment on how the shipments efficiency distribution might differ across ranges of flow and shaft input power for each equipment class.

from a subject matter expert and feedback from the CIP working group. In addition, in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE sized the pumps to operate within 75 percent to 110 percent of their BEP flow. 81 FR 4368, 4390.
Issue 3: DOE requests data and information on whether, and if so, how, the field energy use of pumps has changed since the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is interested in any information and data related to whether there have been changes in duty points i.e., flow, head, and shaft input power required for a given application, annual hours of operation, and load profiles since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on whether the characterization of pump sizing practices in the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule remains appropriate. If not, DOE requests data and information on how pump sizing practices have changed since the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule.

2. Energy Use
3. National Energy Savings In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule shipments analysis, DOE developed shipment projections for pumps and, in turn, calculated equipment stock from 2020 through 2049, starting with the 2012 shipment estimates from the Hydraulics Institute HI Docket EERE2013BTNOC00390068. To project shipments of pumps, DOE relied primarily on Annual Energy Outlook 2014 forecasts. DOE used the shipments projection and the equipment stock to determine the National Energy Savings NES.
Issue 5: DOE requests 2020 or the most recent year available annual sales data i.e., number of shipments for pumps by equipment class, as shown in 10 CFR 431.465b4. If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at the equipment class level, DOE requests more aggregated fractions of annual sales at the category level i.e., ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, ST. If available, DOE requests annual sales data by equipment class for the previous five years 20152019.

Consumer inputs to the energy use analysis are based on operational demands that are independent of the pump efficiency, while equipment inputs to the analysis are based on the efficiency of the pump. Consumer inputs include consumer duty point that is defined by the flow and head, annual load profile, and annual operating hours. With limited data available with respect to the duty point in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis, DOE
developed a distribution of duty points i.e., operating shaft input power and flow based on shipments data provided by manufacturers. DOE developed four representative load profiles, characterized by different weights at 50
percent, 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110 percent of the flow at the duty point. The load profiles were developed to represent a range of pump loading conditions within an annual cycle. For the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE
estimated statistical distributions and average values of annual operating hours by application based on inputs 15 DOEs shipment estimates for the January 2016
ECS Final Rule and carried through to the updated energy savings estimate presented in this section relied on annual shipments data for 2012 provided by industry. 81 FR 4368, 4391. See discussion in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule Technical Support Document TSD, Section 8.3.3 of Chapter 8, available at https www.regulations.gov/document/
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056.
16 In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE used performance data for bare pumps to represent the performance of all pump equipment classes. 81 FR
4368, 4382. In addition, DOE considered improved hydraulic design to be the only technology option suitable for further consideration in a standards rulemaking. 81 FR 4368, 43834384.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

C. Technological Feasibility During the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE considered a number of technology options that manufacturers could use to reduce energy consumption in pumps. 81 FR 4368, 4383. DOE seeks comment on any changes to these technology options that could affect whether DOE could propose a no-newstandards determination, such as an insignificant increase in the range of efficiencies and performance characteristics of these technologies.

E:FRFM09AUP1.SGM

09AUP1