Je veux savoir à propos de…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules drive innovation. Joint Commenters, No. 42 at p. 9
The Joint Commenters argued that AHRIs claim of manufacturer cost savings is overstated and appears to result from the assumption that furnace fan and standby mode and off mode efficiency improvements would not be required, which the commenters argued is not realistic since future standards must maximize technologically feasible and economically justified efficiency improvements. These commenters also argued that the assumption by AHRI
that all future standards will have the same conversion costs as the first standard is similarly unrealistic, because future increases to the furnace fan standards will not be as far-reaching as the initial standards. Joint Commenters, No. 42 at p. 7
Several commenters, including manufacturers, utilities, and efficiency organizations, did come together in support of aligning future rulemakings or compliance timelines including AFUE, FER, and PWSB and PWOFF test procedures and standards to reduce manufacturer burden. Lennox, No. 34
at pp. 2, 56; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p.
1; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2, 7;
CEC, No. 38 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 27
at pp. 89; Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8; NEEA, No.
35 at p. 2 Lennox opined that EPCA
specifically, 42 U.S.C. 6295m4B
precludes DOE from imposing AFUE
and FER standards in an uncoordinated manner within a six-year period.
Lennox, No. 34 at p. 6
Several commenters stated that the AFUE2 metric was developed without significant or open stakeholder input and/or argued that further review would be required before it could be adopted.
NEEP, No. 36 at pp. 12; CT DEEP, No.
46 at pp. 12; NYSERDA, No. 30 at p.
2; National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p. 4 Along these lines, ASE suggested that a single metric is logical and intuitive for consumers and could be investigated in a future rulemaking to determine whether a single metric for furnaces is feasible, capable of facilitating increased efficiency, and in the best interests of homeowners and consumers. However, ASE also suggested that DOE should conduct a thorough analysis of the possibility of a new test procedure for the next energy conservation standard for furnaces to avoid the need for a crosswalk and prevent the possibility of backsliding. ASE, No. 40 at p. 2
Similarly, NPCC supported the concept of a single metric because it could be a simpler metric for consumers, could reduce the number of test procedures and energy conservation standards
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:38 Sep 20, 2021

Jkt 253001

rulemakings for DOE and industry, and could permit more flexible innovation by manufacturers. However, NPCC
opposed the petition as written, asserting that the specific AFUE2
approach in the petition would likely reduce or eliminate the impact of the furnace fan standards. NPCC, No. 29 at p. 2
NRDC and the CA IOUs specifically opposed the AFUE2 test procedures move to eliminate cyclic testing, asserting that this would remove the incentives for manufacturers to reduce cycling losses. NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 6
7; CA IOUs, No. 27 at p. 9 NRDC also asserted that elimination of cyclic testing in the requested test procedure and its modification of the assumed operating hours that go into calculating AFUE are attempts to reopen issues that have already been publicly discussed and decided by DOE. NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 67
NEMA recommended that in any future standard based on AFUE2, DOE
should require that the portion of the AFUE2 metric that accounts for furnace electrical consumption be as stringent or more stringent than the currently established FER standards. NEMA
stated that this approach would require the differences in AHRIs proposed AFUE2 formula and DOEs FER formula e.g., use of different operating hours to be reconciled. NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 6
8 A.O. Smith commented that the AFUE2 metric should not be applied to boilers based on the commenters understanding of the scope of the petitioners request and the product distinctions between a forced-air furnace and consumer boiler. A.O.
Smith expressed concerns with several aspects of the AFUE2 metric including:
1 Inclusion of source-based power generation differences between gas and electricity in the metric; 2 the technical feasibility of integrating standby mode and off mode consumption with fossil-fuel consumption for consumer boilers; and 3 the absence of an affirmative indicator of intent to include consumer boilers in the AFUE2 metric. A.O.
Smith, No. 44 at pp. 12
As explained in the following section, DOE carefully considered the relevant comments received in evaluating whether to initiate a rulemaking to propose adoption of the AFUE2 metric as requested by AHRI in its petition for rulemaking. DOEs response to these comments and its decision on the AHRI
Petition are discussed in the balance of this document.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

52427

IV. DOE Analysis and Discussion DOE first considered whether EPCA
provides authority to adopt a single metric for furnaces and furnace fans, as requested by AHRI in their Petition for Rulemaking. As discussed, EPCA
requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency or energy use of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 42 U.S.C.
6293b3 While the AHRI petition suggests that standards relying on AFUE2 could be established through a crosswalk as part of the test procedure rulemaking under 42 U.S.C.
6293e, that provision does not affect the Secretarys obligation to issue final rules as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295. 42
U.S.C. 6293e4 Among the obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6295, EPCA
requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary for any type or class of covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency, which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6295o2A DOE must also generally incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. 42 U.S.C. 6295gg3AB
Also as discussed, EPCA contains what is known as an anti-backsliding provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. 42 U.S.C.
6295o1
In the past, DOE has determined furnaces and furnace fans to be separate covered products, each subject to the relevant test procedure and energy conservation standard provisions under EPCA. 79 FR 38130, 38175 July 3, 2014. EPCA explicitly includes furnaces in the list of covered products.
42 U.S.C. 6292a5 Subject to certain criteria and conditions, EPCA requires DOE to consider and establish energy conservation standards for electricity used for purposes of circulating air through duct work which DOE has defined as residential furnace fans at 10 CFR 430.2. 42 U.S.C. 6295f4D
Accordingly, DOE has established energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
430.32y for furnace fans as covered products through a final rule published
E:FRFM21SEP1.SGM

21SEP1