[Federal Register: December 17, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 75518-75521]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17de04-51]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and
Order Denying the American Water Heater Company Petition for Waiver of
the DOE Test Procedure for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Water
Heaters (Case No. WH-010)
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Decision and Order; Denial of Petition for Waiver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's notice denies the American Water Heater Company's
(American) Petition for Waiver from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE
or the Department) Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy
Consumption of Water Heaters. American claims the DOE test method does
not allow for an accurate representation of the true energy consumption
of its residential water heaters fitted with an automatic, adaptive,
control, a microprocessor-based control system. The Department does not
believe the current test procedure misrepresents the true energy
consumption of the American water heater equipped with an automatic,
adaptive, electronic control.
ADDRESSES: To read background documents or comments received, go to the
U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource
Room of the Building Technologies Program), 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC, (202) 586-9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda
Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for additional information
regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please note: The Department's
Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 at the
Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-2J, Forrestal
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121,
(202) 586-7892; e-mail: Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov; or Francine Pinto,
Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail Stop
GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507; e-mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR part 430.27(l),
notice is hereby given of the issuance of the Decision and Order as set
out below. In the Decision and Order, American is denied a Waiver from
the Department's Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy
Consumption of Water Heaters for its water heaters that have automatic,
adaptive, electronic controls.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2004.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Decision and Order
In the matter of: American Water Heater Company (American). (Case
No. WH-010)
Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) sets
forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency. Part B of
Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the ``Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles'' which requires,
among other things, that DOE prescribe standardized test procedures to
measure the energy consumption of certain consumer products, including
water heaters. The relevant DOE test procedure for purposes of today's
decision and order is ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy
Consumption of Water Heaters'' (current test procedure). The current
test procedure is set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix E.
It prescribes a method for characterizing the energy requirements of
all types of water heaters and yields model-specific energy efficiency
information that can aid consumers in their purchasing decisions.
The Department's regulations contain provisions allowing a person
to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered
consumer products and electric motors. These provisions are set forth
in 10 CFR 430.27 and 10 CFR 431.29. The waiver provisions allow the
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(Assistant Secretary) to waive temporarily the test procedure for a
particular basic model when a petitioner shows that the basic model
contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing
according to the prescribed test procedures, or when the prescribed
test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so
unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide
materially inaccurate comparative data. (10 CFR 430.27(l)) Waivers
generally remain in effect until final test procedure amendments become
effective, thereby resolving the problem that is the subject of the
waiver.
On January 24, 2002, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register, 67 FR 3449, (hereafter referred to as the January
2002 notice) regarding a Petition for Waiver and Application for
Interim Waiver received on April 26, 2001, from American. In its
Petition for Waiver, American sought modifications to the DOE test
procedure to accommodate its electric water heaters which are fitted
with an automatic, adaptive, electronic control device said to
automatically raise or lower the thermostat set point based on patterns
of use. American has developed the automatic, adaptive, electronic
control in an effort to reduce standby energy losses. American stated
that by lowering the temperature of the water within the water heater
tank, standby losses can be reduced. American requested four
modifications to the current test procedure:
(1) The inclusion of a qualification test on the automatic,
adaptive, electronic control to ensure that it automatically changes
the set point;
(2) Change the specified nominal average tank temperature to the
lowest stable temperature achieved by the automatic, adaptive,
electronic control from the existing constant set point of 135[deg] F;
(3) Change the volume of water of each draw to provide an equal
amount of thermal energy as would be provided in each draw of the
current procedure; and
(4) Change the equations to compute the energy factor by replacing
the 135[deg] F nominal temperature with Tsu, the maximum
average tank temperature
[[Page 75519]]
observed after the recovery following the sixth draw.
In the January 2002 notice, the Department denied an Interim Waiver
to American from the current test procedure and solicited comments,
data and information as to whether to grant the Petition for Waiver as
well as comments on testing water heaters with electronic controls.
Assertions and Determinations
The Department believes American's proposed test procedure is not
appropriate because of certain issues which would arise from modifying
the current test procedure as American requests. DOE received comments
from the American Gas Association (AGA), American, Applied Energy
Technology (AET), Rheem Manufacturing Company (Rheem), and Southern
California Gas Company (SCG) in response to the Petition for Waiver and
the January, 2002, notice. This section provides a discussion of the
comments and places the issues into context.
The current test procedure stipulates a first-hour rating test that
provides for an estimate of the amount of ``hot'' water (water having a
temperature above 110[deg] F) a storage water heater can supply within
one hour. In its comments, AET and Rheem expressed concern that
American did not propose a modified first-hour rating. In response to a
similar DOE statement in the January 2002 notice, American provided
results from first-hour rating tests for three of its basic models.
These models were tested in accordance with the current test procedure
except with the starting water heater tank temperature set at the
lowest stable temperature, approximately 115[deg] F instead of 135[deg]
F set point requirement. American asserted that this change to the
first-hour rating test is appropriate because American advises
consumers to use a thermostat set point of 120[deg] F. American further
argued that its modified first-hour rating test accurately reflects the
typical hourly consumption of actual consumer use since 115[deg] F is
the typical temperature of tanks used by consumers.
DOE believes the first-hour rating test, as proposed by American in
its response to the January 2002 notice, is unacceptable because
drawing hot water until a 25[deg] F drop is observed at the tank outlet
from an initial temperature of 115[deg] F would result in water that
could be too cold for residential use. For example, Chapter 49 of the
2003 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Applications Handbook lists the following
representative hot water temperatures for various uses:
Hand washing: 105[deg] F
Shaving: 115[deg] F
Showers and tubs: 110[deg] F
Residential dish washing and laundry: 140[deg] F.
None of the temperatures listed above for residential applications
are less than 105[deg] F. Allowing American to draw water until the
water temperature becomes 25[deg] F cooler than the 115[deg] F start
temperature, as prescribed in its modified test proposal, would result
in 90[deg] F water from the water heater. Water at 90[deg] F is below
the recommended hot water temperatures such as those indicated in the
ASHRAE Applications Handbook.
With respect to American's proposal for a modified start-
temperature of 115[deg] F, AET recommended setting a lower limit on the
temperature of the outlet water as a criterion for stopping a draw
during the first-hour rating test as opposed to using a fixed
temperature drop. Again, considering the ASHRAE recommended
temperatures, DOE believes that a lower limit should not be less than
105[deg] F. Allowing American to perform a first-hour rating test at a
lower limit of 105[deg] F with a start temperature of 115[deg] F (or
even 120[deg] F) could result in unequal delivery capacity ratings
compared to water heaters that are unequipped with an automatic,
adaptive, electronic control since start temperatures would be
different and the lower limit could be different.
The Department also believes that the effectiveness of the
automatic, adaptive, electronic control in establishing and maintaining
a lowest stable temperature under typical use patterns is
unpredictable. In the January 2002 notice, DOE stated that ``American
did not provide any test data that DOE could use to determine that a
lower thermostat set point would result from typical household use * *
*.'' American responded by reiterating that the laboratory test data of
three of its water heater models showed that the automatic, adaptive,
electronic control would reach a lowest stable temperature. While
American's data demonstrates that three of its water heaters equipped
with automatic, adaptive, electronic controls can create a lowest
stable temperature in a laboratory setting, American did not provide
data that shows that the lowest stable temperature achievable in a
laboratory represents, or correlates to, what may be typical of
household use in the field. AET, Rheem, and SCG argued that American's
request to test the water heater at the lowest stable temperature is
inappropriate because there is no guarantee that in actual practice,
the water heater would operate at such a level. Rheem and AET both
stated that the proposed test procedure uses a best-case scenario and
not necessarily thermostat set-points representative of actual field
use.
American did not respond to DOE's request for data that
characterizes water usage in family dwellings. American also did not
provide evidence that, in actual field use, its water heaters would
store water at the lowest stable temperature said to be achievable by
the automatic, adaptive, electronic control. The data American provided
to DOE on February 14, 2002, in response to the notice of January 2002,
however, shows the performance of one water heater from each of four
classes under a regulated draw pattern that artificially moves the
thermostat set point up or down. The regulated draws are not
necessarily representative of typical household water demand patterns
and thus not necessarily representative of typical set-point
temperatures and hot water temperatures. In its comments, American
provides additional laboratory-derived data for four of the six basic
models for which it seeks a waiver. American states that this data
shows that the lowest, stable attainable temperatures range from
112[deg] F to 118[deg] F, and the temperature difference results from
the control algorithm and hardware. Again however, American did not
provide data that shows how the lowest stable temperature achievable in
a laboratory represents or correlates to what may be typical of
household use in the field.
Rheem also points out that the automatic, adaptive, electronic
control has (four) different modes which can be manually selected. In
addition to the ``Energy Saver Cycle'' mode, which American terms the
control mode responsible for adjusting the stored water temperature
based on the actual hot water usage pattern, the automatic, adaptive,
electronic control includes a manually selectable constant temperature
mode, a manually selectable vacation mode, and a manually selectable
low-temperature mode. Because these modes can be manually selected, the
Department recognizes that consumers may select a mode other than the
Energy Saver Cycle mode. The potential energy savings, which American
claims are achievable in the Energy Saver Cycle mode, would not be
attained if the user selects an operating mode other than the Energy
Saver Cycle (e.g., a fixed set point of 135[deg] F). The Department
believes American has not demonstrated how the
[[Page 75520]]
consumer would set, and keep, the automatic, adaptive, electronic
control in the Energy Saver Cycle mode.
The automatic, adaptive, electronic control's ability to
automatically raise the set-point temperature when hot water demand is
high poses a concern. It is conceivable that in actual field use, the
new automatic, adaptive, electronic control could result in higher
energy consumption since it is capable of upwardly adjusting the set
point, making the water temperature inside the tank higher than that
ordinarily observed or higher than the set-point temperature prescribed
in the current test procedure. Operating at set-point temperatures
higher than those prescribed in the current test procedure would result
in energy consumption higher than that observed using the current test
procedure.
Another reason the DOE believes American's proposed modifications
are not suitable is that the modifications could allow for inequitable
testing. AGA, AET, Rheem, and SCG believe American's proposed test
procedure is biased towards the specific control device American has
introduced. AGA, AET, and SCG commented that providing an exemption for
such a control offers an unfair advantage to electric water heaters, as
most gas water heaters do not incorporate an electricity source whereby
an automatic controller such as American's can be powered and operated.
Rheem and AET indicated that the proposed waiver would discount other
types of controls. For example, conventional thermostats are also a
type of control, but these simple and low-cost devices would not be
covered under American's proposed rating procedure. American proposes a
particular test that would qualify its control, but other controllers
that work in a slightly different manner would not qualify under
American's test, despite being capable of forcing the tank temperature
to a lower level. SCG stated that, because of the large variability in
hot water use, the purpose of the current test procedure is to provide
a level playing field while not necessarily duplicating actual
household energy consumption. Besides its assertion of posing an unfair
advantage, AET also stated that, since American indicates no lowest
stable temperature, the proposed modification would result in a test
procedure potentially subject to abuse by allowing water heaters to be
tested at temperatures that would not be considered useful. The
proposed test procedure is potentially subject to further abuse since
American has not specified thermostat cut-out and cut-in temperatures.
DOE believes the current test procedure provides for an equitable
test metric for all applicable water heaters and an evaluation method
that is representative of the true energy consumption of the water
heater in question under the demand conditions specified. The current
24-hour-simulated-use test procedure simulates the consumption of hot
water; the test begins with six draws at one-hour intervals. The total
amount of water removed from the tank in these equally sized draws is
64.3 gallons at a flow rate of three gallons per minute. After the draw
portion of the test, the water heater sits idly until a period of time
totaling 24 hours has elapsed. The temperature of the water in the tank
is set at 135[deg] F, and the temperature of the inlet water is set at
58[deg] F. The current test procedure says 135[deg] F is the needed
water temperature; American's proposed test would not allow the water
heater to yield a water temperature of 135[deg] F. American suggests a
modified procedure, which is to deliver the identical amount of thermal
energy by increasing the amount of water drawn from the tank at a lower
temperature. This modification however, would not emulate a demand
condition requiring 135[deg] F water. Granting American's waiver
request would result in an inequitable metric as some water heaters
would need to satisfy demands at 135[deg] F while others would only
need to satisfy demands at much lower temperatures.
A control device such as American's can provide an automated means
for changing the temperature of the water stored in a water heater.
However, DOE does not believe that a waiver for a lower set-point-
temperature is warranted on the basis of automation. American argues
that its automatic, adaptive, electronic control will automatically
cause the water heater to operate at a lower temperature than is
required in the current test procedure and thus, should be tested at a
lower temperature. While water heaters with conventional controllers
can be manually set to operate at a lower temperature than is specified
in the DOE test procedure and thus achieve the same effect as
American's automatic, adaptive, electronic control, the current test
procedure does not allow for a manual change. American's control
feature does not change the fundamental operation of its water heater
or create a unique operating regime that is unattainable by water
heaters equipped with conventional controls. For these reasons also,
DOE believes that allowing American to test its water heater equipped
with its automatic, adaptive, electronic control at a set-point
temperature lower than that specified in the current test procedure
would create an inequitable test standard.
DOE believes American has not provided sufficient evidence to
establish that the current test procedure misrepresents the true energy
consumption of its water heater equipped with its new automatic,
adaptive, electronic control. American has also not substantiated its
claim that a water heater with its automatic, adaptive, electronic
control will save energy compared to a water heater with a conventional
control when responding to the same demand conditions. American has
responded to DOE's request for more data by providing results on three
tanks in a laboratory setting in which a series of short draws
demonstrated an automatic decrease in tank temperature, and longer
draws show an automatic increase in temperature. While the test results
show that the automatic, adaptive, electronic control can decrease the
temperature of the water inside the tank to a minimally acceptable
temperature, as defined by the automatic, adaptive, electronic control,
the results fail to demonstrate energy savings at temperatures matching
those prescribed in the current DOE test procedure. Moreover, American
has not provided data that justify a deviation from the prescribed
temperatures. A demonstration of performance under an artificial draw
pattern that is designed to force the water heater to its optimum
control settings, which do not correspond to set-point temperatures
prescribed in the current DOE test procedure and which are too low to
yield water that is sufficiently warm for recommended household uses,
is insufficient to establish that testing in accordance with the
current test procedure would result in materially inaccurate
comparative energy consumption data. The energy consumption measured
under the current test procedure would not be misrepresentative of
American's water heaters' true energy consumption under the demand
conditions assumed in the test procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner
has not met the criterion in 10 CFR 430.27 (l) that a waiver be granted
if the prescribed test procedure evaluates the basic model in a manner
so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide
materially inaccurate comparative data.
Furthermore, the Department believes American's automatic,
adaptive, electronic control does not preclude testing in accordance
with the current test procedure, and no other aspect of
[[Page 75521]]
the water heater's design precludes testing it in accordance with the
provisions in the current test procedure. The Department has determined
that the relevant basic models of water heaters that are the subject of
the application for waiver can be tested under the current test
procedure. AGA agrees with this conclusion; it stated that there is
nothing that prevents American's water heater from being tested under
the current test procedure, and that test results would accurately
predict energy consumption under the behavioral assumptions inherent in
the test procedure (namely, the amount of water required and the
temperature at which that water is needed). Accordingly, the petitioner
has not met the criterion in 10 CFR 430.27 (l) that the basic model
contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing
according to the prescribed test procedures.
Conclusion
Following a careful consideration of all the material that was
submitted by American, the comments received, and based on the criteria
for granting a waiver as provided in 10 CFR 430.27 (l), it is ordered
that no waiver will be granted.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2004.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 04-27643 Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P