Je veux savoir à propos de…

48060

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules
DOE first evaluates the projected energy savings from a potential maximum technologically feasible max-tech standard over a 30-year period against a 0.3 quads of site energy savings threshold Section 6b2 of the Process Rule. If the 0.3 quad threshold is not met, DOE then compares the maxtech savings to the total energy usage of the covered product to calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage 10 CFR 431.4; section 6b3 of the Process Rule. 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 10 CFR 431.4; section 6b4
of the Process Rule. If either one of the thresholds 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 at the level determined to be economically justified. 10 CFR 431.4;
section 6b5 of the Process Rule. This two-step approach allows DOE to ascertain whether a potential standard
satisfies EPCAs significant energy savings requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6316a and 42 U.S.C. 6295o3B to ensure that DOE avoids setting a standard that will not result in significant conservation of energy.
EPCA defines energy efficiency as the ratio of the useful output of services from an article of industrial equipment to the energy use by such article, measured according to the Federal test procedures 42 U.S.C. 63113, emphasis added. EPCA defines energy use as the quantity of energy directly consumed by an article of industrial equipment at the point of use, as measured by the Federal test procedures 42 U.S.C. 63114. Further, EPCA uses a household energy consumption metric as a threshold for setting standards for new covered products 42 U.S.C.
6316a; 42 U.S.C. 6295l1. Given this context, DOE relies on site energy as the appropriate metric for evaluating the significance of energy savings.
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
1 The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
2 The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type or class compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
3 The total projected amount of energy or as applicable, water savings likely to result directly from the standard;
4 Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard;
5 The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
6 The need for national energy and water conservation; and 7 Other factors the Secretary of Energy Secretary considers relevant.
42 U.S.C. 6316a; 42 U.S.C.
6295o2BiIVII
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.

TABLE I.1EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings
Technological Feasibility
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Compared to Increased Cost for the Product 3. Total Projected Energy Savings
4. Impact on Utility or Performance
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Relevant

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Aug 26, 2021

Jkt 253001

Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy Analysis.
Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.

Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Consumer Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Markups for Product Price Analysis.
Energy Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Employment Impact Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.

consumer of purchasing an equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings
PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
E:FRFM27AUP1.SGM

27AUP1