Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

37010

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE III.5ESTIMATED NATIONAL SITE ENERGY SAVINGS AND PERCENT ENERGY REDUCTIONS FOR WCUACS AND
ECUACS AT THE MAX-TECH LEVELContinued Cumulative site national energy savings quads

Cooling capacity range Btu/h
Trend 240,000 and <760,000

0.00005

Constant 0.00006

Regression 0.00007

Reduction in national site energy consumption percent 6.5

Cumulative national energy savings are measured over the lifetime of ECUACs and WCUACs purchased in the 30- year analysis period 20202049.

As noted in section III.C.1 of this document, in response to a UCA
comment regarding the completeness of shipment data, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis by multiplying annual shipments in the three shipment projections by 10 and calculating the resulting estimated energy savings using the higher shipment projections. This sensitivity resulted in estimated total site energy savings for the WCUAC
classes of between 0.0303 quads 8.5
percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment and 0.0456
quads 8.6 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment, and for the ECUAC classes of 0.0006
quads 6.2 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment and 0.0011 quads 6.0 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment during the analysis period. For both equipment categories, the resulting estimated savings ranged between 0.0308 quads 8.5 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment and 0.0467
quads 8.6 percent of estimated site energy use of the evaluated equipment during the analysis period.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

IV. Final Determination As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzes whether amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would result in significant conservation of energy, be technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6313a6AiiII. DOE has determined that the energy conservation standards for WCUACs and ECUACs do not need to be amended, having determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended standards would result in significant additional conservation of energy. As previously discussed, EPCA specifies that for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C.
6313a6Ai, including WCUACs and ECUACs, DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if clear
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Jul 13, 2021

Jkt 253001

and convincing evidence shows that a more stringent standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6313a6Ci; 42 U.S.C.
6313a6AiiII
IPI objected to DOEs reliance on the significance of energy threshold established in the Process Rule. IPI, No, 12 at p. 1 IPI reiterated its comments regarding the significance of energy threshold it previously submitted to the rulemaking to update the Process Rule.
See IPI, 14 No. 123 IPI stated that DOE
failed to analyze the benefit to consumers and the environment and the costs of achieving the 8.6 percent energy savings calculated using max-tech efficiency levels. IPI, No. 12 at p. 1
DOE disagrees with IPIs characterization of the statutory requirements applicable in the present case. EPCA specifically stipulates that the Secretary may not adopt a uniform national standard more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1
unless such standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6313a6AiiII. A determination of whether energy savings would be significant is distinct from consideration of potential consumer cost impacts or environmental impacts, which are separate considerations in determining whether an amended standard is economically justified. See 42 U.S.C.
6313a6Bii. In this final determination DOE is unable to determine, with clear and convincing evidence, that amended standards would result in significant additional conservation of energy based on the low projected energy savings combined with low and potentially declining product shipments see sections III.C.3 and III.C.1, respectively.
14 In the February 14, 2020 final rule amending the Process Rule the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York Universitys School of Law referred to as IPI in this document is abbreviated as NYU
Law. See 85 FR 8626.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

An analysis of shipments data, a review of the CCMS database and the AHRI Directory, and comments received indicate that WCUACs and ECUACs continue to be a minor portion of total commercial air-cooled shipments with total combined shipments of less than 1,300 units in 2018. The shipments of very large WCUACs may be cyclical, linked to investment in commercial buildings, but the shipment projections also suggest that shipments may be continuing to decline.
DOE estimates that amended standards for ECUACs at the respective max-tech levels would result in additional site energy savings of no more than 0.0001 quads during the analysis period. DOE has determined the energy savings potential for ECUACs is de minimis. A sensitivity analysis allowing for a factor of 10 increase in shipments also resulted in an energy savings potential that is de minimis see Section III.C.3. Therefore, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence that amended standards for ECUACs would result in significant additional conservation of energy.
For WCUACs, DOE estimated the additional energy savings based on the maxtech levels for small and large WCUACs, which were determined by identifying the highest efficiency ratings in the DOE CCMS Database. For very large WCUACs DOE determined that there is substantial doubt as to the appropriateness of using the highest efficiency reported in the DOE CCMS
Database as the max-tech level. As discussed, there is a substantial question of whether the combination of technologies used to achieve the highest reported level for very large WCUACs is practicable for basic models across the capacity range of that equipment class.
As such, DOE has determined that an energy savings calculation that would rely on the highest reported efficiency for very large WCUACs would not meet the clear and convincing evidence threshold required by EPCA. Instead, DOE analyzed the next most efficient level reported in the DOE CCMS

E:FRFM14JYR1.SGM

14JYR1