[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22324-22335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9041]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 22324]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010]
RIN 1904-AA89
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes
energy conservation standards for various consumer products and
commercial and industrial equipment, including residential clothes
dryers and room air conditioners. EPCA also requires the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) to determine if amended standards for these
products are technologically feasible and economically justified, and
would save a significant amount of energy. In this proposed rule, DOE
proposes energy efficiency standards for residential clothes dryers and
room air conditioners identical to those set forth in a direct final
rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. If DOE receives
adverse comment and determines that such comment may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE will
publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and will proceed with this
proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the
proposed standards no later than August 9, 2011.
ADDRESSES: See section III, ``Public Participation,'' for details. If
DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of
any meeting in the Federal Register.
Any comments submitted must identify the proposed rule for Energy
Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air
Conditioners, and provide docket number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010 and/or
regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AA89. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: [email protected]. Include the
docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed
copies.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see section III of this document
(Public Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Not all documents listed in the index may be
publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public
disclosure. A link to the docket Web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to submit or review public comments
or view hard copies of the docket in the Resource Room, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or e-mail: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-
7463, e-mail: [email protected].
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121, (202) 586-7796, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Legal Authority
II. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Clothes Dryers
B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Room Air
Conditioners
C. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction and Legal Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve 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.\1\ The program covers consumer products and
certain commercial equipment (referred to hereafter as ``covered
products''), including clothes dryers and room air conditioners (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(2) and (8)), and EPCA prescribes energy conservation
standards for certain clothes dryers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)) and for
room air conditioners (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(1)). EPCA further directs DOE
to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend
these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(2) and (g)(4)) This rulemaking
represents the second round of amendments to both the clothes dryer and
room air conditioner standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was re-designated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that this rulemaking is one of the required agency
actions in the consolidated Consent Decree in State of New York, et al.
v. Bodman et al., 05 Civ. 7807 (LAP), and Natural Resources Defense
Council, et al. v. Bodman, et al., 05 Civ. 7808 (LAP), DOE is required
to
[[Page 22325]]
complete a final rule for amended energy conservation standards for
room air conditioners and clothes dryers that must be sent to the
Federal Register by June 30, 2011.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub.
L. 110-140) amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to
issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a ``direct final rule'')
establishing an energy conservation standard for a covered product on
receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary, that contains
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). EPCA also
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an
identical energy efficiency standard be published simultaneously with
the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of
at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Not later
than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if one or more
adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation are received
relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether
the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable
basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.
If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the
direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published notice
of proposed rulemaking. DOE must also publish in the Federal Register
the reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn. Id.
In response to the preliminary analysis conducted during DOE's
consideration of amended standards for room air conditioners and
clothes dryers, 75 FR 7987 (Feb. 23, 2010), DOE received the
``Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances,
Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances''
(hereinafter, the ``Joint Petition'') \2\, a comment submitted by
groups representing manufacturers (the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General
Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home
Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-
Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele,
Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell
Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch,
Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards
Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE),
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer groups (Consumer
Federation of America (CFA) and the National Consumer Law Center
(NCLC)) (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners''). The Joint
Petitioners recommended specific energy conservation standards for
residential clothes dryers and room air conditioners that they believed
would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010, Comment 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has considered the recommended energy conservation standards
and believes that they meet the EPCA requirements for issuance of a
direct final rule. As a result, DOE has published a direct final rule
establishing energy conservation standards for clothes dryers and room
air conditioners elsewhere in today's Federal Register. If DOE receives
adverse comments that may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal and
withdraws the direct final rule, DOE will consider those comments and
any other comments received in determining how to proceed with today's
proposed rule.
For further background information on these proposed standards and
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. That document includes
additional discussion on the EPCA requirements for promulgation of
energy conservation standards, the current standards for room air
conditioners and clothes dryers, and the history of the standards
rulemakings establishing such standards, as well as information on the
test procedures used to measure the energy efficiency of clothes dryers
and room air conditioners. The document also contains an in-depth
discussion of the analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking, the
methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the analytical
results.
II. Proposed Standards
When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of
covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining
whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine
whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to the greatest
extent practicable, in light of the seven statutory factors set forth
in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must
also result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))
The Department considered the impacts of standards at each trial
standard level considered by DOE, beginning with maximum
technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was
economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not economically
justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and
undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency
level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified
and saves a significant amount of energy.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and burdens of each
trial standard level, DOE has included tables that present a summary of
the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each trial standard
level (TSL). In addition to the quantitative results presented in the
tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect
economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable
subgroups of consumers, such as low-income households and seniors, who
may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section
V.B.1 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these
subgroups.
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Clothes Dryers
Table II.1 and Table II.2 present a summary of the quantitative
impacts estimated for each TSL for clothes dryers. The efficiency
levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct
final rule.
[[Page 22326]]
Table II.1--Summary of Results for Clothes Dryer Trial Standard Levels: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings (quads).................. 0.00 0.062 0.37 0.39 1.45 3.14
NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion):
3% discount rate............................. 0.00 0.62 3.00 3.01 0.22 (1.53)
7% discount rate............................. 0.01 0.25 1.10 1.08 (2.60) (6.72)
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (million metric tons).................... 0.119 2.99 17.75 18.67 70.47 186.6
NOX (thousand tons).......................... 0.097 2.41 14.26 15.14 57.26 151.3
Hg (ton)..................................... 0.000 0.009 0.053 0.051 0.188 0.569
Value of Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (2009$ million) *........................ 1 to 10 15 to 239 88 to 1,417 93 to 1,490 351 to 5,626 929 to 14,902
NOX--3% discount rate (2009 million)......... 0.031 to 0.314 0.759 to 7.8 4.49 to 46.2 4.77 to 49.0 18.0 to 185 47.6 to 490
NOX--7% discount rate (2009$ million)........ 0.013 to 0.136 0.328 to 3.37 1.94 to 20.0 2.06 to 21.2 7.8 to 80.2 20.6 to 212
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **............ 0.002 0.060 0.358 0.345 1.27 2.27
Employment Impacts:
Total Potential Change in Domestic Production 0.00 to (3.96) 0.00 to (3.96) 0.41 to (3.96) 0.46 to (3.96) 1.08 to (3.96) 2.26 to (3.96)
Workers in 2014 (thousands).................
Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) **............ 0.01 0.01 1.82 1.75 4.25 9.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2043.
Table II.2--Summary of Results for Clothes Dryer Trial Standard Levels: Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2009$ million)...................... (2.5) to (2.5) (3.6) to (4.9) (41.1) to (64.5) to (176.5) to (303.9) to
(55.5) (80.6) (397.4) (730.0)
Industry NPV (% change)........................... (0.3) to (0.3) (0.4) to (0.5) (4.1) to (5.5) (6.4) to (8.0) (17.6) to (30.3) to
(39.6) (72.7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard................................. $0 $2 $14 $14 ($30) ($146)
Compact 120V...................................... $0 $14 $14 $14 ($99) ($264)
Compact 240V...................................... $0 $8 $8 $8 ($99) ($246)
Gas............................................... $0 $2 $2 $2 ($100) ($100)
Ventless 240V..................................... $0 $20 $20 $0 ($42) ($177)
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer................. $0 $73 $73 $0 $73 ($166)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Median PBP (years) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard................................. 3.9 0.2 5.3 5.3 19.1 22.1
Compact 120V...................................... n/a 0.9 0.9 0.9 36.1 40.1
Compact 240V...................................... 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 45.1 38.2
Gas............................................... 2.2 0.5 0.5 11.7 49.5 49.5
Ventless 240V..................................... n/a 0.9 0.9 n/a 25.3 26.9
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer................. n/a 5.3 5.3 n/a 5.3 22.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard:
Net Cost (%).................................. 1% 0% 19% 19% 75% 81%
No Impact (%)................................. 98% 79% 25% 25% 1% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 2% 21% 56% 56% 24% 19%
Compact 120V:
Net Cost (%).................................. 0% 4% 4% 4% 95% 95%
No Impact (%)................................. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 0% 96% 96% 96% 5% 5%
Compact 240V:
Net Cost (%).................................. 0% 2% 2% 2% 93% 95%
No Impact (%)................................. 100% 41% 41% 41% 4% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 0% 56% 56% 56% 3% 5%
Gas:
Net Cost (%).................................. 1% 0% 0% 32% 95% 95%
No Impact (%)................................. 93% 85% 85% 42% 1% 1%
[[Page 22327]]
Net Benefit (%)............................... 7% 15% 15% 26% 4% 4%
Ventless 240V:
Net Cost (%).................................. 0% 0% 0% 0% 92% 88%
No Impact (%)................................. 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 0% 100% 100% 0% 8% 12%
Ventless Combination Washer/Dryer:
Net Cost (%).................................. 0% 21% 21% 0% 21% 82%
No Impact (%)................................. 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 0% 79% 79% 0% 79% 18%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a payback
period is not applicable.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. TSL 6 would save 3.14 quads of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefit would
be -$6.72 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$1.53
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 186.6 Mt of
CO2, 151.3 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.569 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 6 ranges from $929 million to $14,902 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 2.27 GW under
TSL 6.
At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $146
for electric standard clothes dryers, a cost of $264 for 120V compact
clothes dryers, a cost of $246 for 240V compact clothes dryers, a cost
of $100 for gas clothes dryers, a cost of $177 for ventless 240V
clothes dryers, and a cost of $166 for combination washer/dryers. The
median payback period is 22.1 years for electric standard clothes
dryers, 40.1 years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 38.2 years for 240V
compact clothes dryers, 49.5 years for gas clothes dryers, 26.9 years
for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 22.4 years for combination
washer/dryers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is
19 percent for electric standard clothes dryers, 5 percent for 120V
compact clothes dryers, 5 percent for 240V compact clothes dryers, 4
percent for gas clothes dryers, 12 percent for ventless 240V clothes
dryers, and 18 percent for combination washer/dryers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 81 percent for electric standard
clothes dryers, 95 percent for 120V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent for gas clothes dryers, 88
percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 82 percent for
combination washer/dryers.
At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$303.9 million to a decrease of $730.0 million. TSL 6 would effectively
require heat pump clothes dryers for all electric clothes dryer product
classes. Changing all electric models to use heat pump technology would
be extremely disruptive to current manufacturing facilities and would
require substantial product and capital conversion costs. In addition,
the large cost increases would greatly harm manufacturer profitability
if they were unable to earn additional operating profit on these
additional costs. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the risk of very large
negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced
profit margins and large conversion costs are realized. If the high end
of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 6 could result
in a net loss of 72.6 percent in INPV to clothes dryer manufacturers.
DOE concludes that at TSL 6 for residential clothes dryers, the
benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of
consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction of
consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a very
large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the
Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5 would save 1.45 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be -$2.60 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent,
and $0.22 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 70.47 Mt of
CO2, 57.26 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.188 tons
of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $351 million to $5,626 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.27 GW under
TSL 5.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $30
for electric standard clothes dryers, a cost of $99 for 120V compact
clothes dryers, a cost of $99 for 240V compact clothes dryers, a cost
of $100 for gas clothes dryers, a cost of $42 for ventless 240V clothes
dryers, and a savings of $73 for combination washer/dryers. The median
payback period is 19.1 years for electric standard clothes dryers, 36.1
years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 45.1 years for 240V compact
clothes dryers, 49.5 years for gas clothes dryers, 25.3 years for
ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 5.3 years for combination washer/
dryers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 24
percent for electric standard clothes dryers, 5 percent for 120V
compact clothes dryers, 3 percent for 240V compact clothes dryers, 4
percent for gas clothes dryers, 8 percent for ventless 240V clothes
dryers, and 79 percent for combination washer/dryers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 75 percent for electric standard
clothes dryers, 95 percent for 120V compact clothes dryers, 93 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 95 percent for gas clothes dryers, 92
percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and 21 percent for
combination washer/dryers.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$176.5 million to a decrease of $397.4 million. While most changes at
TSL 5 could be made within existing product design, redesigning units
to the most efficient technologies on the market today would take
considerable capital and product
[[Page 22328]]
conversion costs. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the risk of very large
negative impacts if manufacturers are not able to earn additional
operating profit from the additional production costs to reach TSL 5.
If the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL
5 could result in a net loss of 39.6 percent in INPV to clothes dryer
manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for residential clothes
dryers, the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions,
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction
of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large
reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary
has concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 0.39 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $1.08 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$3.01 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 18.67 Mt of
CO2, 15.14 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.051 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $93 million to $1,490 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.345 GW under
TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average LCC impact is a savings
(LCC decrease) of $14 for electric standard clothes dryers, a savings
of $14 for 120Vcompact clothes dryers, a savings of $8 for 240V compact
clothes dryers, a savings of $2 for gas clothes dryers, and no change
for ventless 240V clothes dryers and combination washer/dryers. The
median payback period is 5.3 years for electric standard clothes
dryers, 0.9 years for 120V compact clothes dryers, 0.9 years for 240V
compact clothes dryers, 11.7 years for gas clothes dryers, and is not
applicable for ventless 240V clothes dryers and combination washer/
dryers.\3\ The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 56
percent for electric standard clothes dryers, 96 percent for 120V
compact clothes dryers, 56 percent for 240V compact clothes dryers, 26
percent for gas clothes dryers, zero percent for ventless 240V clothes
dryers, and zero percent for combination washer/dryers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 19 percent for electric standard
clothes dryers, 4 percent for 120V compact clothes dryers, 2 percent
for 240V compact clothes dryers, 32 percent for gas clothes dryers,
zero percent for ventless 240V clothes dryers, and zero percent for
combination washer/dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For these product classes, the efficiency level at TSL 4 is
the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are
impacted and therefore calculation of a payback period is not
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$64.5 million to a decrease of $80.6 million. The design changes
required at TSL 4 for the most common standard-size gas and electric
products are incremental improvements that are well known in the
industry but would still require moderate product and capital
conversion costs to implement. At TSL 4, DOE recognizes the risk of
negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced
profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of impacts is
reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 8.0 percent
in INPV to clothes dryer manufacturers.
DOE concludes that at TSL 4 for residential clothes dryers, the
benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission
reductions and the estimated monetary value of the CO2
emissions reductions, and positive NPV of consumer benefits outweigh
the economic burden on some consumers due to the increases in product
cost and the profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in
INPV for the manufacturers.
In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 4 correspond to the
recommended levels in the consensus agreement, which DOE believes sets
forth a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged
the submission of consensus agreements as a way to get diverse
stakeholders together, to develop an independent and probative analysis
useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process.
DOE also believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus
agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while
decreasing the risk of litigation.
After considering the analysis, comments on the preliminary TSD,
and the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes that this trial
standard level will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in
the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today adopts TSL
4 for clothes dryers. The proposed energy conservation standards for
clothes dryers, expressed as combined energy factor (CEF) in pounds
(lb) per kilowatt-hour (kWh), are shown in Table II.3.
Table II.3--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Clothes
Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential clothes dryers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum CEF
Product class levels lb/kWh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft \3\ or greater 3.73
capacity)...........................................
2. Vented Electric, Compact (120 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3.61
\3\ capacity).......................................
3. Vented Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3.27
\3\ capacity).......................................
4. Vented Gas........................................ 3.30
5. Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 2.55
ft \3\ capacity)....................................
6. Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer........ 2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22329]]
B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Room Air Conditioners
Table II.4 and Table II.5 present a summary of the quantitative
impacts estimated for each TSL for room air conditioners. The
efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of
the direct final rule.
Table II.4--Summary of Results for Room Air Conditioner Trial Standard Levels: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings (quads)................... 0.105 0.205 0.218 0.305 0.477 0.665
NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion):
3% discount rate.............................. 0.75 1.30 1.51 1.47 1.46 (5.62)
7% discount rate.............................. 0.35 0.57 0.71 0.57 0.33 (4.44)
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (million metric tons)..................... 9.83 11.9 12.5 17.4 26.9 37.7
NOX (thousand tons)........................... 8.02 9.69 10.2 14.2 21.9 30.7
Hg (ton)...................................... 0.012 0.015 0.017 0.022 0.032 0.044
Value of Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (2009$ million) *......................... 43 to 648 52 to 790 55 to 826 77 to 1164 118 to 1803 166 to 2541
NOX--3% discount rate (2009$ million)......... 2.34 to 24.0 2.83 to 29.1 2.99 to 30.7 4.16 to 42.7 6.40 to 65.8 8.96 to 92.1
NOX--7% discount rate (2009$ million)......... 1.25 to 12.9 1.50 to 15.4 1.61 to 16.6 2.2 to 22.6 3.35 to 34.4 4.64 to 47.7
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **............. 0.348 0.429 0.436 0.632 1.01 1.46
Employment Impacts:
Total Potential Changes in Domestic Production N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Workers in 2014 (thousands)..................
Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) **......... 0.74 0.73 0.74 1.16 1.94 3.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2043.
Table II.5--Summary of Results for Room Air Conditioner Trial Standard Levels: Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2009$ million)...................... (44.2) to (65.4) to (65.7) to (111.3) to (86.6) to (80.2) to
(84.9) (112.7) (112.4) (177.6) (184.4) (344.5)
Industry NPV (% change)........................... (4.6) to (8.9) (6.8) to (11.8) (6.9) to (11.8) (11.6) to (9.1) to (19.3) (8.4) to (36.0)
(18.6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Mean LCC Savings * (2009$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers....................... $9 $11 $9 $7 $7 ($58)
8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers.................. 16 16 22 22 22 (38)
20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers................. 6 6 0 6 0 (214)
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers...................... 1 1 0 1 0 (227)
8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers............... 4 4 13 13 20 (66)
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers................... 5 5 11 11 11 (64)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Median PBP (years) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers....................... 4.1 5.8 4.1 8.6 8.6 20.9
8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers.................. 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 7.1 14.7
20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers................. 4.3 4.3 n/a 4.3 n/a 73.8
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers...................... 10.3 10.3 n/a 10.1 n/a 107.7
8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers............... 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.1 4.9 25.2
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers................... 2.6 2.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 25.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 6,000 Btu/h, with Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 21% 33% 21% 65% 65% 90%
No Impact (%)................................. 31% 31% 31% 1% 1% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 48% 37% 48% 34% 34% 10%
8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 9% 9% 34% 34% 56% 77%
No Impact (%)................................. 60% 60% 2% 2% 1% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 30% 30% 64% 64% 43% 22%
20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with Louvers:
[[Page 22330]]
Net Cost (%).................................. 5% 5% 0% 5% 0% 98%
No Impact (%)................................. 85% 85% 0% 85% 0% 2%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 10% 10% 0% 10% 0% 0%
> 25,000 Btu/h, with Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 11% 11% 0% 9% 0% 100%
No Impact (%)................................. 85% 85% 0% 88% 0% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 4% 4% 0% 4% 0% 0%
8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 1% 1% 12% 12% 38% 92%
No Impact (%)................................. 90% 90% 25% 25% 6% 2%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 9% 9% 62% 62% 56% 6%
> 11,000 Btu/h, without Louvers:
Net Cost (%).................................. 2% 2% 23% 23% 23% 93%
No Impact (%)................................. 90% 90% 31% 31% 31% 0%
Net Benefit (%)............................... 8% 8% 47% 47% 47% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.
** In some cases the standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a payback
period is not applicable.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. TSL 6 would save 0.665 quads of energy, an amount
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefit
would be -$4.44 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$5.62
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 37.7 Mt of
CO2, 30.7 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.044 tons of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 6 ranges from $166 million to $2,541 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.46 GW under
TSL 6.
At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $58
for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a cost of $38
for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a cost of
$214 for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a
cost of $227 for room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a
cost of $66 for room air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without
louvers; and a cost of $64 for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers. The median payback period is 20.9 years for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 14.7 years for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 73.8 years for room air
conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 107.7 years for room
air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 25.2 years for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 25.9 years for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 10 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 22 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 6 percent for room
air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 7 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 90 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 77 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 98 percent for room air
conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 100 percent for room
air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 92 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 93 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers.
At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$80.2 million to a decrease of $344.5 million. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes
the risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 6 could result in a net
loss of 36.0 percent in INPV to room air conditioner manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 6 for room air conditioners,
the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions,
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction
of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the
capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in
a large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the
Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 5. TSL 5 would save 0.477 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $0.33 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$1.46 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 26.9 Mt of
CO2, 21.9 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.032 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $118 million to $1,803 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.01 GW under
TSL 5.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of $7
for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $22
for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a savings
of $0 for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; a
savings of $0 for room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; a
savings of $20 for room air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without
louvers; and a savings of $11 for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h,
without louvers. The median payback period is 8.6 years for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 7.1 years for room air
[[Page 22331]]
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; not applicable for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers or for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; \4\ 4.9 years for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 3.7 years for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 34 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 43 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 56 percent for room
air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 47 percent
for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 65 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 56 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; zero percent for
room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 38 percent for room
air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 23 percent
for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In these cases the standard level is the same as the
baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and
therefore calculation of a payback period is not applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$86.6 million to a decrease of $184.4 million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes
the risk of moderately negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could result in a net
loss of 19.3 percent in INPV to room air conditioner manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for room air conditioners,
the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits,
generating capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be
outweighed by the economic burden on a significant fraction of
consumers in some product classes due to the large increases in product
cost, and the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that
could result in a moderate reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. In
particular, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 56
percent for room air conditioners with 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with
louvers, which is the product class with the largest market share.
Based on the above findings, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is
not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 0.305 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $0.57 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$1.47 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 17.4 Mt of
CO2, 14.2 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.022 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $77 million to $1,164 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.632 GW under
TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average LCC impact is a savings
(LCC decrease) of $7 for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with
louvers; a savings of $22 for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h,
with louvers; a savings of $6 for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999
Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $1 for room air conditioners > 25,000
Btu/h, with louvers; a savings of $13 for room air conditioners 8,000-
10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and a savings of $11 for room air
conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The median payback period
is 8.6 years for room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 2.8
years for room air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 4.3
years for room air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 10.1
years for room air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 2.1 years
for room air conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 3.7
years for room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 34 percent for
room air conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 64 percent for room
air conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 10 percent for room
air conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 4 percent for room
air conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 62 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 47 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 65 percent for room air
conditioners < 6,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 34 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-13,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 5 percent for room air
conditioners 20,000-24,999 Btu/h, with louvers; 9 percent for room air
conditioners > 25,000 Btu/h, with louvers; 12 percent for room air
conditioners 8,000-10,999 Btu/h, without louvers; and 23 percent for
room air conditioners > 11,000 Btu/h, without louvers.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$111.3 million to a decrease of $177.6 million. DOE recognizes the risk
of moderately negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net
loss of 18.6 percent in INPV to room air conditioner manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for room air conditioners,
the benefits of energy savings, generating capacity reductions,
emission reductions and the estimated monetary value of the
CO2 emissions reductions, positive NPV of consumer benefits
and positive average consumer LCC savings outweigh the economic burden
on some consumers (a significant fraction for one product class but
small to moderate fractions for the other product classes) due to the
increases in product cost, and the capital conversion costs and profit
margin impacts that could result in a moderate reduction in INPV for
the manufacturers.
In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 4 correspond to the
recommended levels in the consensus agreement, which DOE believes sets
forth a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged
the submission of consensus agreements as a way to get diverse
stakeholders together, to develop an independent and probative analysis
useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process.
DOE also believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus
agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while
decreasing the risk of litigation.
After considering the analysis, comments on the preliminary TSD,
and the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes preliminarily that
this trial standard level would offer the maximum improvement in
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Therefore,
DOE proposes to
[[Page 22332]]
adopt TSL 4 for room air conditioners. The proposed energy conservation
standards for room air conditioners, expressed as combined energy
efficiency ratio (CEER) in Btu per watt-hour (Wh), are shown in Table
II.6.
Table II.6--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air
Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room air conditioners
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum CEER
Product class levels Btu/Wh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 11.0
less than 6,000 Btu/h...............................
2. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 11.0
6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h................................
3. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 10.9
8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h...............................
4. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 10.7
14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h..............................
5a. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 9.4
20,000 to 24,999 Btu/h..............................
5b. Without reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 9.0
25,000 Btu/h or more................................
6. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 10.0
less than 6,000 Btu/h...............................
7. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 10.0
6,000 to 7,999 Btu/h................................
8a. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, 9.6
and 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h...........................
8b. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, 9.5
and 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h..........................
9. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 9.3
14,000 to 19,999 Btu/h..............................
10. Without reverse cycle, without louvered sides, 9.4
and 20,000 Btu/h or more............................
11. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and less 9.8
than 20,000 Btu/h...................................
12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 9.3
less than 14,000 Btu/h..............................
13. With reverse cycle, with louvered sides, and 9.3
20,000 Btu/h or more................................
14. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides, and 8.7
14,000 Btu/h or more................................
15. Casement-only.................................... 9.5
16. Casement-slider.................................. 10.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards
The benefits and costs of today's standards can also be expressed
in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the
sum of (1) the annualized national economic value, expressed in 2009$,
of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed
standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using
less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is
another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value
of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2
emission reductions.\5\ The value of the CO2 reductions,
otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using
a range of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a
recent interagency process. The monetary costs and benefits of
cumulative emissions reductions are reported in 2009$ to permit
comparisons with the other costs and benefits in the same dollar units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-
series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE
calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as
shown in Table II.7. From the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in 2011, that
yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the
annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this
does not imply that the time-series of costs and benefits from which
the annualized values were determined would be a steady stream of
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although combining the values of operating savings and
CO2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues
should be considered. First, the national operating savings are
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of
market transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods
that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national
operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped
in 2014-2043. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present
value of future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of
one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts go well beyond
2100.
Table II.7 and Table II.8 show the annualized values for clothes
dryers and room air conditioners, respectively. Using a 7-percent
discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$), the
cost of the standards for clothes dryers in today's rule is $52.3
million per year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized
benefits are $139.1 million per year in reduced equipment operating
costs, $25.0 million in CO2 reductions, and $0.9 million in
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts
to $112.7 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate and the SCC
value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$), the cost of the standards for
clothes dryers in today's rule is $55.4 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the benefits are $209.1 million per year in
reduced operating costs, $25.0 million in CO2 reductions,
and $1.4 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the
net benefit amounts to $180.1 million per year.
Using a 7-percent discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in
2010 (in 2009$), the cost of the standards for room air conditioners in
today's rule is $107.7 million per year in increased equipment costs,
while the annualized benefits are $153.7 million per year in reduced
equipment operating costs, $19.5 million in CO2 reductions,
and $0.999 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case,
the net benefit amounts to $66.4 million per year. Using a 3-percent
discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$), the
cost of the standards for room air conditioners in today's rule is
$111.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
benefits are $186.2 million per year in reduced operating costs, $19.5
million in CO2 reductions, and $1.20 million in reduced
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to
$95.9 million per year.
[[Page 22333]]
Table II.7--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards (TSL 4) for Clothes Dryers Sold in 2014-2043
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized (million 2009$/year)
Discount rate -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary estimate * Low estimate * High estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings.......................... 7% 139.1 120.6 158.3
3% 209.1 177.4 241.3
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t **...................... 5% 6.0 6.0 6.0
CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t **..................... 3% 25.0 25.0 25.0
CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t **..................... 2.5% 39.8 39.8 39.8
CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t **..................... 3% 76.0 76.0 76.0
NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton **.................. 7% 0.9 0.9 0.9
3% 1.4 1.4 1.4
Total [dagger].............................. 7% plus CO2 range 146.1 to 216.1 127.6 to 197.6 165.3 to 235.3
7% 165.0 146.5 184.3
3% 235.4 203.7 267.6
3% plus CO2 range 216.5 to 286.5 184.8 to 254.8 248.7 to 318.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs....................... 7% 52.3 48.8 55.9
3% 55.4 51.2 59.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger].............................. 7% plus CO2 range 93.7 to 163.7 78.7 to 148.7 109.4 to 179.4
7% 112.7 97.7 128.3
3% 180.1 152.5 208.1
3% plus CO2 range 161.1 to 231.1 133.6 to 203.6 189.1 to 259.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case,
and High Economic Growth case, respectively.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.1, and
$36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of
$67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2009$) is the
average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is
$22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are
calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.
Table II.8--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards (TSL 4) for Room Air Conditioners Sold in 2014-2043
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized (million 2009$/year)
Discount rate -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary estimate * Low estimate * High estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings.......................... 7% 153.7 145.1 161.9
3% 186.2 174.2 197.3
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t **...................... 5% 5.0 5.0 5.0
CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t **..................... 3% 19.5 19.5 19.5
CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t **..................... 2.5% 30.7 30.7 30.7
CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t **..................... 3% 59.4 59.4 59.4
NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton **.................. 7% 0.999 0.999 0.999
3% 1.197 1.197 1.197
Total [dagger].............................. 7% plus CO2 range 159.6 to 214.0 151.1 to 205.5 167.9 to 222.3
7% 174.1 165.5 182.4
3% 206.8 194.9 218.0
3% plus CO2 range 192.3 to 246.7 180.4 to 234.8 203.5 to 257.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs....................... 7% 107.7 107.7 107.7
3% 111.0 111.0 111.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger].............................. 7% plus CO2 range 51.9 to 106.3 43.4 to 97.8 60.2 to 114.6
7% 66.4 57.8 74.7
3% 95.9 83.9 107.0
[[Page 22334]]
3% plus CO2 range 81.4 to 135.8 69.4 to 123.8 92.5 to 146.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case,
and High Economic Growth case, respectively.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.1, and
$36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of
$67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2009$) is the
average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is
$22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are
calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.
III. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov web
page will require you to provide your name and contact information.
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE
may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any
CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting
CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via e-mail, hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also
will be posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, e-
mail address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. E-mail submissions are
preferred. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please
provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit
printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential business information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
e-mail, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked non-confidential with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via e-mail or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
[[Page 22335]]
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
B. Public Meeting
As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for additional
comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of any meeting
in the Federal Register.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule
for further details.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's
proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Small businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2011.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology
Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
2. Revise Sec. 430.32 paragraphs (b) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and effective
dates.
* * * * *
(b) Room air conditioners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy efficiency Combined energy
ratio, effective efficiency ratio,
Product class from Oct. 1, 2000 effective as of
to April 20, 2014 April 21, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Without reverse cycle, with 9.7 11.0
louvered sides, and less than
6,000 Btu/h......................
2. Without reverse cycle, with 9.7 11.0
louvered sides, and 6,000 to
7,999 Btu/h......................
3. Without reverse cycle, with 9.8 10.9
louvered sides, and 8,000 to
13,999 Btu/h.....................
4. Without reverse cycle, with 9.7 10.7
louvered sides, and 14,000 to
19,999 Btu/h.....................
5a. Without reverse cycle, with 8.5 9.4
louvered sides, and 20,000 to
24,999 Btu/h.....................
5b. Without reverse cycle, with ................. 9.0
louvered sides, and 25,000 Btu/h
or more..........................
6. Without reverse cycle, without 9.0 10.0
louvered sides, and less than
6,000 Btu/h......................
7. Without reverse cycle, without 9.0 10.0
louvered sides, and 6,000 to
7,999 Btu/h......................
8a. Without reverse cycle, without 8.5 9.6
louvered sides, and 8,000 to
10,999 Btu/h.....................
8b. Without reverse cycle, without ................. 9.5
louvered sides, and 11,000 to
13,999 Btu/h.....................
9. Without reverse cycle, without 8.5 9.3
louvered sides, and 14,000 to
19,999 Btu/h.....................
10. Without reverse cycle, without 8.5 9.4
louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h
or more..........................
11. With reverse cycle, with 9.0 9.8
louvered sides, and less than
20,000 Btu/h.....................
12. With reverse cycle, without 8.5 9.3
louvered sides, and less than
14,000 Btu/h.....................
13. With reverse cycle, with 8.5 9.3
louvered sides, and 20,000 Btu/h
or more..........................
14. With reverse cycle, without 8.0 8.7
louvered sides, and 14,000 Btu/h
or more..........................
15. Casement-Only................. 8.7 9.5
16. Casement-Slider............... 9.5 10.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(h) Clothes dryers. (1) Gas clothes dryers manufactured after
January 1, 1988 shall not be equipped with a constant burning pilot.
(2) Clothes dryers manufactured on or after May 14, 1994 and before
[DATE 3 YEARS AFTER FINAL RULE FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION], shall
have an energy factor no less than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy factor
Product class (lbs/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater capacity) 3.01
ii. Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ 3.13
capacity)...........................................
iii. Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\ 2.90
capacity)...........................................
iv. Gas.............................................. 2.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Clothes dryers manufactured on or after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER
FINAL RULE FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION], shall have a combined energy
factor no less than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined energy
Product class factor (lbs/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater 3.73
capacity)...........................................
ii. Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 3.61
ft\3\ capacity).....................................
iii. Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 3.27
ft\3\ capacity).....................................
iv. Vented Gas....................................... 3.30
v. Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 2.55
ft\3\ capacity).....................................
vi. Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer...... 2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-9041 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P