Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

58784

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

1. National Energy Savings The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of national energy consumption of the considered equipment between each potential TSL
and the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE
calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the number of units stock of each equipment type by vintage or age by the unit energy consumption also by vintage. DOE calculated annual NES
based on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site electricity using annual conversion factors derived from AEO 2021.
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the timeframe of the analysis.
DOE generally accounts for the direct rebound effect in its NES analyses.
Direct rebound reflects the idea that as appliances become more efficient, customers use more of their service because their operating cost is reduced.
In the case of lighting, the rebound effect could be manifested in increased hours of use or in increased lighting density lumens per square foot. In response to the July 2019 RFI, NEMA
commented that a rebound rate of 0 is appropriate. NEMA, No. 3 at p. 9 DOE
assumed no rebound effect for MHLFs in this final determination.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, DOE
announced its intention to use FFC
measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions to the extent that emissions analyses are conducted.
76 FR 51281 Aug. 18, 2011. After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE
published a statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination that Energy Information Administrations EIAs National Energy Modeling System NEMS is the most appropriate tool for its FFC
analysis and its intention to use NEMS
for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 Aug. 17, 2012. NEMS is a public domain, multi-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Oct 22, 2021

Jkt 256001

sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector 26 that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural gas including fugitive emissions and additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is described in appendix 10B of the final determination TSD.
2. Net Present Value Analysis The inputs for determining the NPV
of the total costs and benefits experienced by customers are 1 total annual installed cost, 2 total annual operating costs energy costs and repair and maintenance costs, and 3 a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE
calculates net savings each year as the difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of equipment shipped during the analysis period.
Energy cost savings, which are part of operating cost savings, are calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average national marginal electricity prices by the forecast of annual national-average commercial or industrial electricity price changes in the Reference case from AEO 2021, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2041 to 2050.
DOE includes the cost of replacing failed lamps and ballasts over the course of the lifetime of the fixture. DOE
assumed that lamps and ballasts were replaced at their rated lifetime. When replacing a ballast, DOE assumed the lamp was also replaced at the same time, independent of the timing of the previous lamp replacement. For more details see chapter 10 of the final determination TSD.
DOE also estimates the residual monetary value remaining in the lamp and ballast at the end of the fixture lifetime and applies it as a credit to 26 For
more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA05812009, October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

operating costs i.e., the residual value is deducted from operating costs. See chapter 10 of the final determination TSD for more details on DOEs calculation of the residual value.
In calculating the NPV, DOE
multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this final determination, DOE estimated the NPV
of customer benefits using both a 3percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget OMB to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.27
The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a customers perspective. The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S.
economy. The 3-percent real value represents the social rate of time preference, which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions The following section addresses the results from DOEs analyses with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for MHLFs. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE
and the projected impacts of each of these levels. Additional details regarding DOEs analyses are contained in the final determination TSD
supporting this document.
A. Trial Standard Levels DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three TSLs for MHLFs. TSL
1 is composed of EL 1 for all equipment classes. TSL 2 is composed of the efficiency levels corresponding to the least efficient electronic ballast level for each equipment class, if any efficiency levels corresponding to an electronic ballast exist. TSL 3 is composed of the max-tech level for each equipment class.
Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs.
27 United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A4: Regulatory Analysis.
September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03
21.html.

E:FRFM25OCR1.SGM

25OCR1