Je veux savoir à propos de…

44302

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules
C. Technological Feasibility
D. Energy Savings
1. General
1. Determination of Savings For each efficiency level EL
evaluated using the tools developed for the June 2013 Final Rule,5 DOE
projected energy savings from application of the EL to the microwave ovens purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the potential standards 20242053. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of the microwave ovens purchased in the 30year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each EL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards. DOE
used the methodology from its national impact analysis to estimate national energy savings NES from potential amended standards for microwave ovens. The methodology calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used.

In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation standards, DOE
conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the determination.
As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties.
DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6c3i and 7b1.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: 1 Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; 2
adverse impacts on product utility or availability; 3 adverse impacts on health or safety; and 4 unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6c3iiv and 7b25. Section IV.B.3 of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for microwave ovens, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this proposed determination.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, in this analysis it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such a product. 42 U.S.C. 6295p1
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible max-tech improvements in energy efficiency for microwave ovens, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described in section IV.C of this proposed determination.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:35 Aug 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

2. Significance of Savings In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation of energy. 42 U.S.C. 6295m1A and 42
U.S.C. 6295o3B Although the term significant is not defined in the EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 D.C.
Cir. 1985, opined that Congress intended significant energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that were not genuinely trivial.
Historically, DOE did not provide specific guidance or a numerical threshold for determining what constitutes significant conservation of energy. Instead, DOE determined on a case-by-case basis whether a particular rulemaking would result in significant conservation of energy. In a final rule published February 14, 2020, DOE
adopted a numerical threshold for significant conservation of energy. 85
FR 8626, 8670. Specifically, the threshold requires that an energy 5 U.S. Department of Energy DOE, 20130617
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode and Off Mode for Microwave Ovens; Final Rule. https
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BTSTD-0048-0027.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

conservation standard result in a 0.30
quadrillion British thermal units quads reduction in site energy use over a 30-year analysis period or a 10percent reduction in site energy use over that same period. Id. Although a numeric threshold may serve as an informative guide, the significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. For example, the United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement and will exert leadership in confronting the climate crisis.6 Additionally, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand.
The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Further establishing a set, numerical site energy threshold for all covered products and equipment does not allow DOE to account for differences in primary energy and full-fuel-cycle FFC
effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant.
Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production depending on load shape, in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels, and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
Accordingly, in a two part NOPR
process, the first of which published on April 12, 2021 and part two on July 7, 2021, DOE reconsidered the numerical threshold process for determining significance of energy savings and whether to revert to its prior practice of making such determinations on a caseby-case basis. 86 FR 18901, 35668.
Currently, under section 6b of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C Process Rule, if DOE determines that a more stringent energy conservation standard would not result in an additional 0.3 quads of site energy savings or an additional 10-percent reduction in site energy use over a 30year period, DOE would propose to make a no-new standards determination.
E. Cost Effectiveness Under EPCAs six-year-lookback review provision for existing energy 6 See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 Feb. 1, 2021 Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.

E:FRFM12AUP1.SGM

12AUP1