Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

52426

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
that DOE does not have authority under EPCA to crosswalk and combine multiple metrics into a single combined metric, or the authority to combine the standby mode and off mode power consumption metrics with active mode energy consumption for furnaces.
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 41
at pp. 46; NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 36
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club also stated that DOE does not have authority under EPCA to combine the electrical energy consumption of furnace fans into the fuel efficiency standards for furnaces. Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 41 at pp. 23 Consumer Groups stated that AHRIs position that 42 U.S.C. 6293e provides the authority for DOE to develop an AFUE2 standard to replace the three current standards is in error because AHRI is not proposing to amend an existing test procedure which is what 42 U.S.C. 6293e addresses, but rather to eliminate existing test procedures and replace them with an entirely new test procedure and associated standards.
Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p. 6
Multiple commenters also asserted that under the combined metric, lessefficient furnace fans could be used and that this would reduce the potential for future energy savings or enable the use of less-efficient furnace fans than are currently allowed. NEEP, No. 36 at p.
1; CEC, No. 38 at pp. 34; CT DEEP, No.
46 at p. 1; NYSERDA, No. 30 at pp. 1
2; National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; CA
IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 14; NEMA, No. 26
at pp. 58; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at pp.
34; NPCC, No. 29 at p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 23, 7;
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 41
at pp. 34
Regal Beloit commented that the AFUE2 test procedure could potentially result in an increase in the maximum allowable energy use from furnace fans because the AFUE2 test procedure would change certain definitions and/or values of certain variables that could lead to an increase in the maximum allowable energy use of furnace fans.
Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p. 4 NEEP and CT DEEP commented that combining efficiency standards could present new challenges for energy efficiency efforts that use Federal standards in their calculations. NEEP, No. 36 at p. 1; CT
DEEP, No. 46 at p. 1
PHCC supported the effort to consolidate metrics and streamline the regulatory process which it asserted would lead to reduced costs for consumers, but also expressed concerns that the proposal should undergo further review to ensure that no backsliding could occur. PHCC, No. 32
at pp. 12 NEMA supported the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:38 Sep 20, 2021

Jkt 253001

initiative to reduce regulatory burden by consolidating the three existing test procedures into a single metric for furnaces, but expressed concerns that the proposal outlined in the AHRI
Petition would not comply with statutory requirements set forth in EPCA
specifically referencing the antibacksliding provision at 42 U.S.C.
6295o1. NEMA encouraged DOE to deny AHRIs petition but encouraged AHRI to reformulate its proposed metric to ensure compliance with EPCA.
NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 28
Several commenters expressed concern that the AFUE2 metric could confuse, mislead, or otherwise negatively impact consumers by masking the operating costs of different elements and products with different energy sources, or lead to increased consumer costs. NEEA, No. 35 at pp. 1
4; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 1, 4, 8; NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 2, 8; NYSERDA, No. 30 at pp. 12; National Grid, No. 28
at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1, 56;
Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p. 3; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at pp. 45 Similarly, ASE
commented that the use of site-energy equivalents rather than primary energy or average energy costs to combine electricity and natural gas consumption into a single metric could lead to backsliding and could significantly misrepresent the relative energy operating costs to homeowners and consumers. ASE, No. 40 at p. 2
NYSERDA stated that AFUE2 would incentivize manufacturers to optimize their designs to reduce site energy use, rather than consumer costs or total energy use. NYSERDA, No. 30 at p. 2
National Grid and the CA IOUs stated that combining fuel sources into one metric creates confusion for utilities when estimating fuel savings associated with different products, which could make it difficult to develop incentive programs. National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1;
CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1, 56 The CA
IOUs suggested that a shift to AFUE2
would result in higher peak loads for electric utilities which these commenters argued could in turn lead to higher utility bills for customers because the saturation of efficient furnace fans and low standby loss units will decrease as fan/electrical efficiency has a very limited impact on AFUE2 ratings. CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp.
78 Regal Beloit added that maintaining the FER metric would protect consumer choice by driving the use of high-efficiency motors in all furnace types. Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p.
4 Regarding manufacturer burden, the Joint Commenters suggested that moving forward with the AFUE2 metric
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

could undermine regulatory predictability because it would strand the investments that furnace fan component manufacturers and furnace manufacturers have already made towards FER compliance. Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 67 NEEP
asserted that the AFUE2 petition and enforcement policy would create regulatory uncertainty and undue hardship for motor manufacturers, retailers, distributors, and customers who are unclear about which furnaces will be compliant with the new standards. NEEP, No. 36 at p. 1 NEEA
and the Joint Commenters also suggested that AHRIs proposal would be damaging to manufacturers and their component and assembly suppliers, who have already invested in the design and production of products that meet the most recent efficiency standards.
NEEA, No. 35 at p. 3; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2, 67 The CA IOUs also commented that there is no need for trade-offs between furnace fan and furnace efficiency, asserting that DOE has shown efficiency improvements to each rating to be costeffective on their own. CA IOUs, No. 27
at p. 7
Consumer Groups remarked that while reductions in regulatory burden in the abstract are desirable, nothing in EPCA establishes reducing regulatory burden as a statutory goal, and according to these commenters, the contents of the AHRI petition violate explicit provisions of that statutory scheme. Specifically, the Consumer Groups provided several citations, which they argue require DOE to adopt and enforce standards for furnaces, including 42 U.S.C. 629123 defining furnace, 42 U.S.C. 629122 setting annual fuel utilization efficiency as the efficiency descriptor for furnaces, 42 U.S.C 6295f1 setting initial AFUE standards for furnaces, 42
U.S.C. 6295f4D directing DOE to set standards for furnace fans, and 42
U.S.C. 6295gg directing DOE to set standards for furnace standby mode and off mode energy use. Consumer Groups, No. 31 at pp. 24
NEEA disagreed with AHRIs claim that innovation would increase as a result of adoption the AFUE2 metric and suggested that innovation would actually decrease because manufacturers often improve product features unrelated to efficiency at the same time that they redesign products to meet new energy efficiency requirements. NEEA, No. 35 at p. 2 Similarly, the Joint Commenters commented that AFUE2
would allow manufacturers to avoid innovating air movement designs and suggested that increases in standards
E:FRFM21SEP1.SGM

21SEP1