Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

73964

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
upgrade is necessary, which costs $2000
to $3000. Kramer, No. 124 at p. 1
GEUAG asserted that the proposed interpretive rule constrains fuel choice and is, therefore, incompatible with the law and detrimental to consumers.
GEUAG, No. 132 at p. 3 GEUAG
commented that the alternatives of electric resistance and heat pumps typically resort to electric resistance when cold weather conditions exist, negating much of the claimed benefit and putting lives at risk in extreme temperature events, asserting that grid reliability becomes an issue when switching to electric. Id. at pp. 1314
Once again, in response to these comments, DOE does not find potential fuel switching to be a basis to support a determination that non-condensing technology and associated venting constitute a performance-related feature.
As stated in the August 2021 NOPIR, nothing in EPCA precludes such effects, as long as DOEs standard would not eliminate the appliance of that fuel type entirely. 86 FR 48049, 48056 August 27, 2021. In this case, interpretation of EPCAs features provision that maintains non-condensing and condensing units under a single class of product or equipment would not eliminate residential furnaces or commercial water heaters that rely on natural gas, propane, or other any other fuel type, from the U.S. market. Notably, both non-condensing and condensing units rely on natural gas and propane as the fuel source. The interpretation adopted in this document would continue to preserve consumer choice, which DOE understands to be influenced by a variety of considerations, including market conditions, such as fuel prices. The final interpretive rule adopted in this document allows consumers to make the choice of when market forces and installation costs warrant replacement of a gas-fired appliance with a comparable electric appliance.
It bears noting that while EPCA
recognizes that various fuel types exist in the appliance marketplace and provides certain protections, the statute itself does not act, nor does it mandate, that DOE take regulatory action to preclude such marketplace effects, except in limited cases expressly defined. In certain areas, Congress set statutory energy conservation standard levels for products, such as consumer water heaters see 42 U.S.C. 6295e1
and consumer boilers see 42 U.S.C.
6295f3, based on fuel type e.g., gas, oil, electricity. EPCA also recognizes differences in fuel type under 42 U.S.C.
6295q1A, which provides for setting separate classes where
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:59 Dec 28, 2021

Jkt 256001

appliances consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type or class.
Where Congress required DOE to consider the potential impacts of fuel switching, it stated so explicitly.
Congress directed DOE to prescribe a final rule not later than January 1, 1989, to establish an energy conservation standard for certain furnaces, i.e., furnaces other than furnaces designed solely for installation in mobile homes having an input of less than 45,000 Btu per hour and manufactured on or after January 1, 1992, which DOE determined not likely to result in a significant shift from gas heating to electric resistance heating with respect to either residential new construction or furnace replacement. 42 U.S.C. 6295f1Bi and iii This consideration of fuel switching was specific to smallercapacity furnaces, rather than being placed in a more general provision of broader applicability. Further, this explicit direction to consider fuel switching did not preclude any and all fuel switching, only significant fuel shifting from gas to electric resistance heating.
Conversely, ECPAs features provision at 42 U.S.C. 6295o4 does not include fuel type within its ambit.
Thus, Congress structured EPCA to recognize fuel-type distinctions and to create a level playing field, while balancing the need for overall energy savings. For these reasons, DOE finds the positions of GEUAG, AGA et al., and other commenters expressing similar views on DOEs statutory obligations regarding fuel switching to be an overly broad reading that the statutory text cannot support.
Regarding the concerns raised by commenters about the safety of fuel switching and grid reliability, DOE
notes that modern gas-fired central furnaces also require electricity to operate and would, therefore, be rendered inoperable during a power outage without an appropriately-sized back-up generator. Thus, while grid reliability may be a legitimate societal concern, it is not limited to any one specific fuel type.
In response to concerns about using commercial electric water heaters in place of commercial gas-fired water heaters, DOE has concluded that solutions are available to resolve the potential issues raised by commenters.
For example, DOE notes that issues related to the maximum temperature setting on a heat pump water heater could be mitigated by utilizing electric resistance heating as a backup or supplementary source to reach the
PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

desired outlet temperature. The concerns raised about the panel and outlet upgrades needed to handle the increased amp draw are appropriately considered as installation costs. Finally, the recovery rate will largely be a function of the rate at which the water heater provides heat to the water, so sizing an electric water heater with a heating rate comparable to that of the gas-fired water heater it is replacing should not result in any loss of recovery ability.
Regarding the prevalence of fuel switching, DOE has typically found fuel switching to occur in a small number of cases in any given rulemaking, and the Department takes this potential into account as part of the analyses conducted to determine whether amended standards would be economically justified. For example, in the September 2016 Furnaces SNOPR, DOE estimated the percentages of consumers that would switch from a residential non-weatherized gas furnace to either a residential heat pump or electric furnace, and from a commercial gas-fired water heater to a commercial electric water heater as a result of the existing gas-fired water heater being orphaned that would occur under the various potential amended standards scenarios under consideration.19
Similarly, in the May 2016 Commercial Water Heaters NOPR, DOE considered the potential for fuel switching from gas to electric water heating equipment and tentatively concluded that fuel switching was very unlikely for both storage and instantaneous water heaters.
Therefore, DOE did not explicitly include fuel switching in its analyses for that rulemaking. 81 FR 34440, 34494
34495 May 31, 2016. DOE has determined its analytical methodologies to provide a robust assessment of potential fuel switching, and the Department stands by its results.
Although the gas industry commenters have faulted these methodologies in the past for a variety of reasons, DOE has disagreed and responded to such challenges in past rulemakings.20
Even if the Department had definitive evidence regarding the extent of difficult or impossible installation situations, loss of usable residential or commercial space, or fuel switching effects, DOE nonetheless had a strong statutorily-based rationale for its historical interpretation and the return 19 See Appendix 8J of the TSD for the September 2016 Furnace SNOPR Available at:
www.regulations.gov at Docket No. EERE2014BT
STD00310217.
20 For example, see the fuel switching analysis in the September 2016 Furnaces SNOPR. 81 FR 65720, 6579265793 Sept. 23, 2016.

E:FRFM29DER1.SGM

29DER1