Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

30814

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
analysis. This efficiency trend is shown in Table IV.14.

TABLE IV.14AVERAGE STOCK EFFICIENCIES OF HOT-WATER SUPPLY
BOILERS FROM 20252050
Year
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050

Efficiency %

91.5
93.1
94.2
94.8
95.1
95.3

G. Discussion of Other Comments Received In response to the August 2019 RFI, DOE received several comments in support of the current efficiency standard. BWC stated that the current efficiency requirement a minimum insulation value of R12.5 is an appropriate baseline efficiency level.
BWC, No. 5 at p. 2 Similarly, AHRI
recommended that DOE maintain the current minimum insulation requirement of R12.5. AHRI, No. 6 at p. 2 BWC and A.O. Smith also said that there have not been significant market changes since their last energy conservation standard change and that a revised standard would not result in significant energy savings. BWC, No. 5
at p. 2; and A.O. Smith, No. 8 at p. 2
Additionally, BWC submitted comments related to the proposed manufacturer mark-up and the distribution channels used to characterize the UFHWST market in the August 2019 RFI. BWC, No. 5 at p. 2
A.O. Smith commented that the majority of UFHWSTs are sold as replacement units and stated that major redesigns of existing product lines are very uncommon and potentially costprohibitive. A.O. Smith, No. 8 at p. 2
As discussed previously, certain economic analyses were not conducted for this NOPD because it was determined they would be of limited use due to the lack of data and high degree of uncertainty regarding the inputs to those analyses. Furthermore, an MIA was also not conducted because of the lack of clear and convincing evidence that amended standards would be economically justified or result in significant conservation of energy. If DOE later determines that amended standards are warranted, these comments will be revisited.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions The following section addresses the results from DOEs analyses with respect to the considered energy
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:41 Jun 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

conservation standards for UFHWSTs. It addresses the ELs examined by DOE and the projected site energy savings of each of these levels. As discussed previously, certain economic analyses were not conducted for this NOPD because it was determined they would be of limited value due to the lack of data and high degree of uncertainty of the inputs to those analyses.
A. National Impact Analysis This section presents DOEs estimates of the site NES that would result from each of the ELs considered as potential amended standards.
1. Significance of Energy Savings To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended standards for UFHWSTs, DOE compared their energy consumption under the nonew-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each EL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance with amended standards 20252054. Table V.1
presents DOEs projections of the site NES for each EL considered for UFHWSTs. The savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.C of this document.

including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A4 also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this proposed determination, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of equipment shipments.
The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised standards.33 The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally not synchronized with the equipment lifetime, equipment manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to UFHWSTs. Thus, such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOEs analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V.2. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of UFHWSTs purchased in 2025
through 2033.

TABLE V.2CUMULATIVE NATIONAL
ENERGY
SITE
SAVINGS
FOR
UFHWSTS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
20252034

TABLE V.1CUMULATIVE NATIONAL
ENERGY SAVINGS FOR UFHWSTS;
30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

Efficiency level
20252054
Efficiency level
Site Energy quads ..
Percent Savings Over Baseline %

1

2

0.011

0.017

Site Energy quads ..
Percent Savings Over Baseline %

1

2

0.003

0.005

15%

26%

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits 15%
26%
As discussed in section IV.D of this document, increasing the size of OMB Circular A4 32 requires agencies to present analytical results, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A4: Regulatory Analysis Sept. 17, 2003
Available at: https
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_
a004_a-4/.
33 Under 42 U.S.C. 6313a6Ci and iv, EPCA
requires DOE to review its standards for covered ASHRAE equipment every 6 years, and it requires a 3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous standards. If DOE makes a determination that amended standards are not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review within three years following such a determination. 42 U.S.C.
6313a6CiiiII Furthermore, if ASHRAE acts to amend ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for any of the enumerated equipment covered by EPCA, DOE is triggered to consider and adopt the amended ASHRAE levels, unless the Department has clear and convincing evidence to support more-stringent standard levels, which would result in significant 32

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6313a6Aii If DOE adopts the amended ASHRAE levels, compliance with amended Federal energy conservation standards would be required either two or three years after the effective date of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendments depending upon the equipment type in question.
However, if DOE adopts more-stringent standards pursuant to the ASHRAE trigger, compliance with such standards would be required four years after publication of a final rule. 42 U.S.C. 6313a6D
As DOE is evaluating the need to amend the standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the review timeframe associated with amended standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE
notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year period and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop.
A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some equipment, the compliance period may be something other than 3 years.

E:FRFM10JNP1.SGM

10JNP1