Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations respectively, were a condensing product to present a difficult installation situation. Stated another way, neither the desire to maintain a homes or businesss current aesthetics and space configuration, nor the prospect of a difficult installation, would prevent a consumer from having heated air or water because in those instances an electric heat pump or electric water heater could be installed.
Commenters offered a variety of views on the topic of fuel switching. The CA
IOUs expressed their belief that fuel switching will occur in the market regardless of whether standards are changed, and that fuel switching should not be a rationale for designating noncondensing technologies as a feature.
CA IOUs, No. 141 at p. 3
NRDC et al. commented that fuel switching from gas to electric is not a rationale that EPCA recognizes as a reason for classifying a technology as a feature and it should not prevent DOE
from adopting a condensing standard.
NRDC noted that in performing its economic analysis, DOE should account for such impacts, consistent with the Departments practice in prior rulemakings. NRDC et al., No. 144 at p.
2 CEC commented that EPCA does not authorize DOE to limit energy conservation standards to allow for the inefficient consumption of energy by certain fuel types; instead, standards must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. CEC, No. 134
at p. 4
The State Attorneys General stated that nothing in EPCA precludes fuel switching, as long as DOEs standard would not eliminate the appliance of that fuel type entirely, and the commenters suggested that a consumer facing difficult installation could replace a gas-fired appliance with an electric unit to eliminate the need for extensive changes to existing venting.
State Attorneys General, No. 136 at p.
3 The State Attorneys General and ASAP et al. stated that fuel switching is a natural part of market operation for the subject appliances. State Attorneys General, No. 136 at p. 3; ASAP et al., No. 143 at p. 3 The State Attorneys General further stated the mere potential for fuel switching should not serve as the basis for establishment of a performance-related feature under EPCA. State Attorneys General, No. 136
at p. 4 ASAP et al. stated that the costs and benefits of switching to an electric heat pump can and should be evaluated as part of DOEs economic analysis
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:59 Dec 28, 2021

Jkt 256001

when considering new or amended energy conservation standards, as the Department has done in prior rulemakings. ASAP et al., No. 143 at p.
3 The Institute for Policy Integrity commented that the rulemakings would likely cause a small amount of fuel switching, but that theorizing about the extent of this impact would unnecessarily suggest that there is a threshold that violates EPCA.
Institute for Policy Integrity, No. 145 at pp. 1, 7 The commenter argued that fuel-type is not explicitly listed among the traits that standards may not make unavailable. Id. at p. 6 In addition, the Institute for Policy Integrity suggested that the subset of consumers who would face aesthetically undesirable installations of condensing units maintain the option of relying on technological solutions or switching to a heating appliance based on a different fuel source to avoid those unwelcome changes, thereby maintaining the aesthetic of their space. Id. at p. 5
In contrast, APGA et al. commented that DOEs fuel switching analysis is inconsistent with the statutory direction that any consumer impacts as a result of standards must be economically justified, but, according to these commenters, the analysis framed fuel switching as a means to avoid the changes in building design associated with a condensing standard, and fuel switching is used as a means to justify the costs of switching to a condensing system. APGA et al., No. 140 at pp. 14
15 These commenters further stated that DOEs analysis underestimates the extent to which the previously proposed standards would lead to fuel switching.
Id.
AGA et al., citing 42 U.S.C.
6295f1Biii, commented that Congress, in directing DOE to finalize standards for certain furnaces built after January 1, 1992, recognized that separate standards would be appropriate based on fuel and performance-related features and that Congress explicitly established separate standards for gas, oil, and electric furnaces among others. AGA et al., No. 135 at p. 13
AGA et al. further referenced EPCAs direction to issue separate standards for classes of products that consume a different kind of energy i.e., type of fuel than other covered products within such type and to issue separate standards for classes of products that have a performance-related feature which other products within such type or class do not have . Id. at p. 14
AGA et al. asserted that these provisions, read together with the features provision, make clear that
PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

73963

EPCA forecloses a standard that would force consumers to switch fuels or make natural-gas products unavailable to consumers who want to buy them for reasons beyond economics. Id. at p. 22
AGA et al. additionally commented that if the DOE has evidence to support the expectation that the proposal will not lead to significant fuel switching, it should be included in the proposal to allow stakeholders a meaningful opportunity to comment. Id. at p. 32
Crown Boiler, New Yorker Boiler, and U.S. Boiler asserted that DOE has not addressed its prior determination in the January 2021 Final Interpretive Rule that some enhanced level of fuel switching would occur. Crown Boiler, No. 127 at pp. 34; New Yorker Boiler, No. 130 at p. 4; U.S. Boiler, No. 129 at p. 4 Crown Boiler, New Yorker Boiler, and U.S. Boiler suggested that fuel switching will result in a loss of reliability for many consumers since electric products are only as reliable as the electric grid they are connected to.
Crown Boiler, No. 127 at p. 4; New Yorker Boiler, No. 130 at p. 4; U.S.
Boiler, No. 129 at p. 4
Bradford White stated that DOE
appeared to put a fair amount of weight in past trends related to fuel switching continuing to be representative of what will occur in the future, but the commenter disagreed with any such assumption because it argued that significant activity at the State and local levels is driving all parties to shift to primarily electric products. Bradford White No, 146 at p. 2
AGA et al. commented that some consumers may have no choice other than to switch to an electric appliance if it is untenable or infeasible, regardless of cost, to replace their non-condensing appliances with condensing ones, citing concerns ranging from aesthetics to functionality of living spaces. AGA et al., No. 135 at p. 21 Bradford White commented that while electric water heaters can be used to provide hot water, there are challenges with using them in place of commercial gas water heaters. According to Bradford White, some of the limitations or problems to overcome include, but are not limited to, slower recovery rates, maximum temperature settings on heat pump water heaters, and panel and outlet upgrades needed to handle the necessary amp draw. Bradford White, No. 146 at p. 3
Kramer commented that a fuel change to an electric unit is very frequently not economically feasible for lower income clients due to necessary electrical upgrades. Kramer elaborated that if the home only has 60 or 100 amp service, a breaker panel and electric meter
E:FRFM29DER1.SGM

29DER1