Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations additional costs associated with condensing products are not an independent basis for establishing separate product classes subject to differing efficiency standards. Id.
A.O. Smith commented that it is technologically feasible to replace a non-condensing gas-fired water heater with a condensing gas-fired water heater in all circumstances, but that there are certain instances where it is cost prohibitive to do so. To address such circumstances, A.O. Smith recommended that DOE expand the economic analysis for different subgroups with specific installation considerations as part of any future substantive rulemaking on efficiency standards. A.O. Smith, No. 133 at p. 9
Similarly, ASAP et al. recommended that the Department consider impacts on low-income populations, because low-income households are disproportionally renters, and, therefore, are responsible for the higher energy costs of less-efficient technologies, and not the cost of the system itself. ASAP et al., No. 143 at p.
3 A.O. Smith and the Institute for Policy Integrity commented that the January 2021 reinterpretation of the features provision double-counts the economic impact of certain costs as compared to the efficiency gains, in that installation issues would be considered in terms of both utility and the economic analyses. A.O. Smith, No.
133 at p. 4; Institute for Policy Integrity, No. 145 at pp. 2, 3
Turning to the commenters opposed to DOEs proposed change in approach, IER disagreed with the DOEs tentative finding that the issues sought to be addressed by the January 2021 Final Interpretative Rule were based on cost.
IER, No. 138 at p. 3 IER urged DOE to explain why the final interpretive rule was framed as a matter of cost when DOE stated in the January 2021 Final Interpretive Rule that the decision was not based on the cost of the feature. Id.
at p. 4
AGA et al. stated that economic justification is a separate consideration and that EPCA should be read in a manner that gives meaning to all its provisions. AGA et al., No. 135 at pp.
1819 AGA further commented that reading performance related-features to include those features that make a product useful for its intended purpose flows from the meaning and context of several provisions of EPCA, including that: 1 Energy conservation standards must be technically feasible for their intended application; 2 covered products should be subcategorized into classes to recognize different functions,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:59 Dec 28, 2021

Jkt 256001

consumer needs, and fuel types; 3
standards should not render covered products unavailable to American consumers; and 4 the Department should recognize performance-related features that make a product useful to consumers. AGA et al., No. 135 at pp.
1718 In addition, AGA reasoned that viewing physical, technical, architectural, and code constraints as purely economic considerations fails to give meaning to the entire purpose behind establishing separate classes of consumer products based on their performance-related features. AGA et al., No. 135 at p. 18
AGA et al. asserted that the proposed interpretation in the August 2021
NOPIR could render non-condensing natural gas furnaces, commercial water heaters, and boilers unavailable to millions of Americans whose homes and businesses cannot accommodate the alternative, condensing appliances without significant complications and, in many cases, renovation. AGA et al., No. 135 at p. 2 These commenters stated that when viewed in that light, non-condensing units provide an important performance-related feature in that they work with the homeowners or businesss existing utility structure venting system. Id. at p. 6 AGA et al.
argued that an evaluation of the factors for economic justification would show standards based on condensing technology to be economically unjustified in many applications. Id. at p. 17
Bradford White commented that although energy conservation standards at condensing levels would likely benefit their company, it predicted that eliminating non-condensing technologies from the market would impact both installers and consumers negatively, with there being circumstances where condensing gasfired water heaters could not be used, either due to installation challenges or increased cost. Bradford White, No. 146
at p. 1
Crown Boiler, New Yorker Boiler, and U.S. Boiler asserted that DOE itself acknowledged problems with sole reliance on the economic justification during promulgation of the current rule i.e., the January 2021 Final Interpretive Rule, including that: Subsets of the population particularly low-income people in urban areas may be disproportionately impacted by these costs, thereby resulting in consumers keeping unsafe equipment in service, installing the condensing equipment in unsuitable venting systems, or switching to less comfortable, more expensive, less safe forms of heat e.g., resistance electric or kerosene space
PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

73959

heaters; and the economic analysis cannot quantify consumer burdens that are associated with building modifications to accommodate venting, such as loss of interior space, loss of decks, aesthetic changes, etc. Crown Boiler, No. 127 at p. 2; New Yorker Boiler, No. 130 at p. 2; U.S. Boiler, No.
129 at p. 2
Kramer commented that the noncondensing feature of furnaces should be preserved to avoid economic burden for low-income households for which the installation of a condensing furnace is not feasible due to the current location of the installed unit and the costs associated with changing ductwork or upgrading electric services to accommodate a condensing unit.
Kramer, No. 124 at p. 1
HARDI commented that for existing homes, the need to change the venting system to install a condensing furnace leads to modifications to the living space that are unnecessary if the equipment is replaced with a noncondensing furnace or water heater. The commenter also stated that noncondensing furnaces and water heaters likewise obviate the need for a consumer to install heat-tape and other freeze mitigation equipment used to prevent the freezing of condensate in the vent and without which, there could be resulting damage to the furnace or water heater. Finally, HARDI argued that for consumers with heating equipment that is only in use part-time, the need to constantly heat the venting system would be impractical. HARDI, No. 142 at p. 2
DOE acknowledges that the interpretation adopted in this final interpretive rule is a departure from the January 2021 Final Interpretative Rule.
The interpretation adopted in this document, which reverts to DOEs historical interpretation, gives meaning to the features provision in the context of EPCAs direction to DOE to establish minimum levels of energy efficiency or maximum quantities of energy use for covered products and equipment when performing their intended function. Conversely, the January 2021 Final Interpretive Rule expanded the features provision to include consideration beyond the operation of a product or equipment, namely through consideration of other installation matters best characterized as cost issues. As explained previously in this document and in the paragraphs that follow, DOE has concluded that its historical interpretation is the best reading of the statute, an understanding shared by numerous commenters on the August 2021 NOPIR.

E:FRFM29DER1.SGM

29DER1