Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

30800

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
opportunities for UFHWSTs, if storage water heater tanks are representative of UFHWSTs. Commenting more specifically, the CA IOUs encouraged DOE to consider the thermal losses through uninsulated ports. CA IOUs, No. 3 at pp. 13
In contrast to these comments, BWC
recommended that DOE maintain the requirements for UFHWSTs in terms of insulation level, stating that performance testing for UFHWSTs would be overly burdensome, especially considering the relatively small and customized nature of the marketplace.
BWC also expressed concerns that a test procedure change, and ultimately an energy conservation standards change, could have anti-competitive impacts on the UFHWST market. BWC, No. 5 at pp. 13 AHRI also recommended maintaining the current prescriptive design requirement a minimum insulation requirement of R12.5, rather than a performance-based metric, stating that the prescriptive approach is simpler. AHRI, No. 6 at p. 2
As discussed in section II.A of this document, DOE is publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the 6-yearlookback review requirement in EPCA, which requires DOE to evaluate the energy conservation standards for certain commercial equipment, including UFHWSTs. Under that provision, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR that includes proposed amendments to the energy conservation standards proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate every six years. 42 U.S.C.
6313a6Ci Because test procedure amendments to adopt a standby loss requirement were not finalized for UFHWSTs, for this analysis of potential amended standards, DOE has only considered potential amended standards based on updating the prescriptive design requirement for insulation R-value.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

C. Technological Feasibility 1. General In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation standards, DOE
first conducts a market and technology assessment to survey all current technology options in products on the market and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the determination. This list of technology options for consideration is developed in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then conducts a screening analysis for the technologies identified,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:41 Jun 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

and, as a first step, determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE
considers technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. See generally 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 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 equipment utility or availability; 3 adverse impacts on health or safety; and 4 unique-pathway proprietary technologies. See generally 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6c3iiv and 7b25. Section IV.A.3 of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for UFHWSTs, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this proposed determination.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered equipment, as part of its analysis, the Department determines the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such equipment.
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible max-tech improvements in energy efficiency for UFHWSTs, using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described in section IV.B of this proposed determination.
D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each efficiency level EL
evaluated, DOE projected energy savings from application of the EL to the UFHWSTs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the potential amended standards 20252054. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of the UFHWSTs purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE
quantified the energy savings attributable to each EL as the difference
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-newstandards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for equipment would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards. DOE
used a simplified National Impacts Analysis NIA spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings NES
from potential amended or new standards for UFHWSTs. The simplified NIA for this analysis is to ascertain if potential efficiency improvements for UFHWSTs meet the required significance of savings described in section III.D.2 of this document;
however, it does not estimate the net present value NPV to the Nation of these savings that is typically performed as part of the NIA. The simplified NIA
spreadsheet model described in section IV.F of this document calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where it is used.
2. Significance of Savings In determining whether amended standards are needed for covered equipment addressed by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must consider whether such standards would result in significant additional conservation of energy.4 42 U.S.C. 6313a6Ci; 42
U.S.C. 6313a6AiiII
EPCA defines energy efficiency as the ratio of the useful output of services from an article of industrial equipment to the energy use of such article, measured according to the Federal test procedures. 42 U.S.C. 63113 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 Given this context, DOE relies on site energy as the appropriate metric for evaluating the significance of energy savings.
4 In setting a more-stringent standard for ASHRAE
equipment, DOE must have clear and convincing evidence that doing so would result in significant additional conservation of energy, in addition to being technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 6313a6AiiII. This language indicates that Congress had intended for DOE to ensure that, in addition to the savings from the ASHRAE standards, DOEs standards would yield additional energy savings that are significant.
In DOEs view, this statutory provision shares the requirement with the statutory provision applicable to other covered nonASHRAE equipment that significant conservation of energy must be present 42 U.S.C. 6295o3B; 42 U.S.C. 6316a, but it must also be supported with clear and convincing evidence to permit DOE to set a more stringent requirement than ASHRAE.

E:FRFM10JNP1.SGM

10JNP1