### Federal Register 

## I VoL 51, No. 15 

## I Thursday. January 23. 1986 

## I Notices 

### 3091

(3) 

### The total dollar amount

.**~ ~**  

### '. channel would be straightened slightly lSubcontracted during the quarter and ,andrelocated to the southwelSt to 

### cumulative amount since contract

# .tart.:. improve the .tream'shydraulics.

(4) 

### The dollar amount ofsubcontracll'

. .2. 

### Scoping Process: 

### Seoping for the awarded on the balSis ofprice

. . 

### DEIS 

### will include continued c.ompetition during the quarter.Bnd

. coordination with affected·Federal. cumulative amount since contract Itm. State. and local agencies, as well as

(5) The dollar amount ofsubcontracts

. other interested parties. Fonnal scoping awarded on the basis ofdesign or meetings are not planned at this time, technical competition during the quarter however. all interested parties are urged and cumulative amount since contract to actively participate in 

### the studyby atart. lubmittingin writing any concerns or

(6) The dollar amount ofsubcontracts recommendations to the Buffalo District. awarded on a non competitive balil Significant issues to be addressed in 

### during the quarter and cumulative' the DEIS include. but are not limited to amount lince contract start. fish and wildlife habitat, water quality.

(7) A list ofindividual noncompetitive recreation, aesthetic values. cultural subcontracts in excess of$100.000, by resources, health and safety. and other contractor and dollar amount, placed locial impacts. during the reporting quarter.' 3.

### Avoilobility:

### The DEIS is 

### expected to 

### be available for public and agency B. 

### Regulatory nexibiUty Act review in September/October 1986.

Pursuant to the provisions ofsection 3 ADDRESS: 

### Questions about the proposed ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5· 

### action and DElS can be answered by: U.S.C. 605(b)). it 

### has been determined 

### Mr. William E. 

### Butler. Em;ronmental that this notice will not have any 

### Analysil Branch, U.S. 'Army Corps of economic impact on small entities as Engineers, Buffalo District. 1776 Niagara defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act Street. Buffalo, NY 14207-3199. and. therefore. no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

Dated: January 13. 1986. Josepb AlIi5Oll, Directorateof Contracting. ODCSLOG. HQDA. IFR Doc. 86-1379 Filed 1-22-86: 8:45 am]
eILLI

..G CODE 31 11>-01-11



### Engineers Corps, Department of the**A~my** 

### Intent To Prepare 8 

### Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a local Flood Protection Pioject Along Swan Creek at Toledo, lucas County, OH

AGENCY: 

### Anny Corps ofEngineers. Buffalo District, DOD.
ACTION: 

### Notice ofintent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

SUMMARY: 

### 1. ProposedAction:

### The proposed action would alleviate flood**dame~es** 

### along Swan Creek in the Heatherdale Drive area ofToledo. Lucas County. Ohio. Approximately 2.720 linear feet of earthen levees would be constructed along the left bank of the creek. At the Bethel Lutheran Church. where a\'ailable space to construct a levee is limited. 200 linear feet :t 

### of vertical concrete floodwall would be constructed. To allow for interior drainage. 24·inch culverts would be piaced in the levee at three locations. Using a cut and fill technique. approximately 500 linear feet of creek Daled:January 13, 1986. Daniel R. Cl.ark, Colonel. Corps of Engineers District Commonder. (FR Doc. 86-1376 Filed 1-22-86: 8:45 am)

BIUJNG CODE 371o-GP-II



### DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy

lDoctlet No. CE-CP-MPRM-NYOO1]


### Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; New York State Energy Efficiency Standard for Heat Pumps; Exemption Petition

AGENCY: 

### Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy. DOE.
ACTION: 

### Notice.

SUMMARY: 

### Today's notice publishes a petition from the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) requesting
a rule from the Department ofEnergy (DOE) to preempt New York State's 8.5 SEER standard for heat pumps. DOE is soliciting comments, data and infonnation regarding the petition.
DATE: 

### DOE will accept comments. data and infonnation not later than February

I 

### 24.1986.

ADDRESSES: 

### Written comments (six copies) should be sent to: Department of Energy. Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy. Office of Hearings and Dockets. Docket No. CE-CPMPRM-NYOO1, Room 6B-025. Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue. SW

.. Washington, 

### DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Michael

## J. McCabe. U.S. Department of

Energy, Mail Station CE-132. FOrr,!stal Building. 1000 Independence Avenue. SW

.. Washington. DC 20585, (202) 

### 252-91%7 Eugene Margolis. Esq

.. 

### U.s. Dep·artment

ofEnergy. Office ofGeneral Counlel. Mail Station CC-l2. Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue. SW•• Washington, DC 20585. (202) 252-9513 U.S. Department ofEnergy,

Conservation and Renewable Energy. Office ofHearings and Dockets. Room 6B-025. Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence A\'enue, SW •• Washington. DC 20585, (202) 252-9319 Background



### Part BofTitle 

## m of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L 94.163). as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) (Pub. L

### 95-619).' created the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products OtherThan Automobiles. Section 327 of the Act addresses the effect ofFederal rules concerning testing. labeling. and standards on State laws or regulations concerning such matters. Generally. all such State laws or regulations are preempted by the Federal rule. Section 32i(a). If. 

### because there is no Federal rule. a State or local efficiency standard is not preempted. persons subject to it 

### may petition DOE to have such a standard. in whole or in part. superseded on the basis that there is no**6i~nificant** 

### State or local interest sufficient to justify the regulation and that such regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce. Section 327(b)(I). On December 22.1982. DOE published a final rule that. among other pro\'isions, sets forth the procedures by which persons subject to a State or local standard may obtain a rule to preempt that standard (4i 

### FR 57198).

As provided by seciton 327(b)(1) of the Act and pursuant to the procedures outlined in the December 1982 rule. DOE has received a petition from the Air**Conditionin~** 

### and Refri!2eration Institute (ARl) 

### on behalf ofARl. Borg Warner Central En\'ironmental Svstems. Inc

.. Lennox Industries. American Standard and Rheem Manufacturing Company

I ParI B of**Till~** III of EPCA. 8S amended b\' NECPA. 42 U.S.c. 6291-6309. IS referred 10 in'lhis DOhce 8S Ihe "AcL"

### 3098 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 51, 

### No. 15 

# I Thmsday, January 23, 1986 

# I Notices

requesting the Secretary ofEnergy to

. preempt New York State's minimum efficiency standard for heatpumps.-

. Section**1~118** 

### ofthe New York Stale Energy Law prohibits the saleor installation of

### any heat pump manuFactured after September 1, 1982, with a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) less'than 7.5 and anyheat pump manufactured after September 

### 1. 1984- with a SEER less than B.S. The petition ' addresses the New York requirement for heat pumps manufactured after September 1. 1984.

DOE received the petiticn onMarch 18.1985. and received an amendment to

.the petition on July 15. 1985. However. the peWion WlnI deemed filed on September 17. 1985. when DOE receiveil certificationfrom ARI that the petition had been served on the t\ew York State Energy Office. Section 430.42 ofDOE's regulations requires that 

### a petition for iI rule to supersede a State or local

. regulation be served upon the Slate agency or department ,,·hose regulation the petitioner seeks to supersede.

A pelilion requesting DOE to supersede a State reg:Jlalion is requiTed to present informalion that would show why such regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce and that there is no significant Slate or local ir;terest sufficient to justify the regulation. The petition argues that t\ew York's standard imposes an ur.due burden on interstate commerce and that there is no significant Slate interest in maintaining the standard. The petition states that almost no energy**saving~** can be attributed to the standaJd; that the standard reduces competition; that the standard is not adequately enforced: that the standard has DO provision for hardship relief: end 

### th2t market forces, not the standard. have been responsible for increasing levels in heat pump efficiency. In evaluating the petition. the Secretary is required to issue the requested rule oBly if it is detemtined that there is no si.gnificanl State or local interest sufficien1 to justify the regulation and that the regula1ion unduly burdens intereslate commerce.

Pursuant kll0 CFR 430.43. DOE is hereby I?iving notice ofreceipt ofthe petition. The pe1ition is being published

as pari of this Rotice. DOE solicits

commems. data and infonrnltion respecting 

### tm petition.

2 The petilion submilled by ARIon bffiltH of ARt**andthefear~c~l.~e~dlojncm8** notice a5**~** -**~ 'Pfrnion~**  or the "petition.- Issued inWasbington. DC. January 7. 1986. DoIIJIa It.J'itzpatric:k. 

### AssistontSecretory, ConServation OIId RenewableEnewy.

Petitionby Air:Conditioning 

### and Refrigeration Institute for Preemption of Heat Pump Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard ofStale 

### ofNew York



### Filed: March 15. 1985 

### By: Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration

Institute. 1501 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, 

### V A 12209 The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARl) bereby petitions the Department orEnergy k:l supersede New York's Sepklmber 1- 1984. &landar-d of8.5 

### SEER onbeat pumps.



### Am is a national trade association comprising manufacturers who collectively account for oYer 90 percent ofU.S.-manulacturered air conditioning. refrigeration and heatingproducts (other than room air conditioner&). ARI consists ofover 175 mamdacturing members spread over 23 separate product sections. In addition to its trade association functions. ARI administers certification programs for air conditioning. refrigeration. and heating systems. These programs are open to members and non-members ofthe**~ssocation** alike.

This petition is made on behalf of ARI's Unitary Small Equipment Section. This section**comprise~** 28 manufacturing members. This section is responslble for the UnHary Small Equipment Certificatiun Program, whose participants produce air conditioning products for 53 brand names listed in the ARI Directory of Certified Unitary Air Conditioners. This petition reflects a
consensus position ofARrs members. representing the majority views of the industry.

I. Statutory Basis for the Petition

The Energy Policy Bnd Cooservation Act, 42 U.S.C.**~tion** 6297(b)(1). provides that a petition may be submitted toDOE request.ing it to prescribe a rule that supersedes a s.tate regulation establishing em energy efficiency standard for a covered product that is not otherwise superseded. DOE is to issue the requested rule 

### if it finds that (aJ there is no significant State or local interest sufficient to justify such State regulation and (b) .such State regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce. 

# n. The 8.5 SEER Standard on Heat Pumps Does 

### Not Meet the SlalulOrJ 

### Criteria

There is no si@llificant Stateorlocal interest sufficient tojustify the New York 8.5 SEER heat pump standard. 

### In addition, that standard unduly burdens**intersta~** commerce. Therefore, DOE should issue a rule that BupersdeB BUch standard.

Section 1&-118 ofthe New York State Energy Law provide& in relevant part that no heat pump manufactured after September 1,1982. with less than a 7.5 SEER may be sold in New York: and no bent pump manufactured after September 1. 1984. with less than an 8.5 SEER may be sold 

### in New York. (Section**1~118(4)(c).)**

There are parallel provisions relating to central air conditioners. No central air conditioner manufactured after September 1, 1982, with less than an 8.0 SEER may be Bold in New York: and no central air conditioner manufactured after September 1. 1984. with less than a 9.5 SEER mev be Bold inNew York. (Section 16-118(4}(b).)

.

New York has petitioned DOE requesting that DOE'& final rule determining that minimum energy efficiency standards on central air conditioners are unjustified should not preempt New York's standards on central air cpnditioners. This petition is currently pending before DOE. New York's 9.5 SEER standard has been the primary focus of the DOE proceedinFs

on state petitions. ARI and others in the central air conditioning industry have argued vigorouly that the September 1, 1984, standard for central air conditioners should be preempted.The industry has argued that there is no significant state interest in the September 1.1984. standard on central air conditioners and that it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce. These are also the statutory criteria applicable to ARI'& petition concerning New York's September 1. 1984. iu!al pump standard.

ARl believes that both standards should be superseded.
A. There is Not a Signifiermt State Interest ToIU5tify New yt7rll:·s 8.5 SEER Standard

### lar Heat Purr.p 1.8.5 SEER Standard WiH Not Relndt in Significant Energy Savin,gs

The 8.5 SEER standard cannot be jwtified on the 

### basil of an alleged at.ate interest in energy uvingro.. Although New York. in its .unf' 11. 1984 leiter to DOE. claims that emCteIlcy Levels of9.5 SEER for air wnditiuners and 6.5 SEER for heat pumps aTe justified in Nev.·

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 5t, 

### No. "15 

## I Thursday, January 23, 1986 

## I Notices 3099

York. the analyis only addresses air conditioners. For that reason, ARl ha. performed calculations regarding potential energy savings in New York resulting from the 8.5 SEER standard for heat pump •• The first calculationperformed by ARlshows the heat pump standard 

### will

save 0.0008 ofJhe total energy consumed by New York State. This is equivalent to**r~ducing** the amount ofmiJes.driven one yearfrom 10,008 to 10.000 the nextyear. This canhardly

### be described as significant

ARl's second analysis on potential energy saved from the heat pump standard is based on shipment data from the ARI statistics program and energy saved per unit based on SEER and an average unit size of36,000 Btub. Based on this calculation, the energy savings from the heat pump standard for New York are 0.00002 ofthe total New York energy consumption. To put it anotherway. this would mean a mileage reduction of2/10 ofa mile over 10,000 miles. Both calculations are described in detailin the appendix to this statement.

The lack of significance ofthe claimed energy savings can be put in another way based on ARI calculated energy savings. The State Energy Overview. dated October. 1983. produced by DOE's Energy Information Administration. shows that the total electrical energy consumption in the State ofNew York in 1982 was 106 billion kWh and its population was 17.598.000. Using the average rate of $O.1108/kWh. determined by the State and used in the supplement to its petition for exemption ofpreemption of its central air conditioner standards. to determine each person's share of the state electricity cost. the share is $667.32. \\'hen the savings to be realized by the 8.5 SEER standard are deducted the share is reduced to**$567.2~** reduction of 12

### centsperperson.

Again. this meager amount cannot represent a state interest of such magnitude as to justify being considered "signiflcant."
2. New York Cannot Justify its Standard

on the Basis ofAlleged Markel failure

As indicated ARl's comments on New York's petition for exemption from preemption ofits standard on central air conditioners (pp. 9-13) New York cannot justify its standards on the basis of alleged market failure.

ARI statistics show that the shipmentweighted average energy efficie[lcy rating for central air conditioners (including heat pumps) rose from 6.66 ERR I in 1972 to 7.51 ERR in 1980 aDd to 8.6 SEER today.

In addition, as dicussed below, the record demonstrates a dramatic

. increase in the efficiency ofappliances nationwide. This increase in the absence ofnational standards

. demonstrates that there is no need to impose standards including state standards. For example: -The Antitrust Division ofthe Justice Department has stated that

..there is

no evidence that appliance markets have failed or will fail to produce desired energy efficiency • objectives." Statement ofSanford Litvack, Assistant Attorney General. Antitrust Division, Department ofJustice, Commeht No. 1161, at 4 (Sept. 2, 1980).

. -An Opinion Research Corporation survey 

### (Public Knowledge and Attitudes Towards CentralAirConditioningSystems, 1981) shows

consumer willingness to spend up to one-third more for high efficiency air conditioners.

. -A consumerpreference survey by the National Association ofHome Builders 

### (Decisions of the 80's, Dec,. 198D) showed that 60 percent of

. surveyed persons regarded energysaving features as an important factor in selecting their homes and thaI 79 percent said it would be important 

### ifthey moved again. The impro\,ements made in the efficiency of central air cond'ilioners (including heal pumps) were and continue to be due to changes in

consumer demand based upon the

. realization ofAmerican consumers that

energy efficiency is an important factor in the purchase of energy consuming products. The increases in efficiency of air conditioners and heal pumps have occurred steadily on a yearly basis and

are on a national level. New York cannot conVincingly argue that its standards should receive credit for improvements in efficiences when New York only represents approximately 2.5 percent of the total number of units shipped in the United States. 3. New York Cannot Justify its 8.5 SEER Standard for Heat Pumps on the Basis That the Standard Exists

New York cannotjustify the 8.5 SEER standard on the basis that the standard exists. The mere existence of a standard does Dot pro\'ide the "justification" required by Congresfl.

• The cnan!,c in dpocriptor from ERR (energ\' effiCiency ralio) to SEER (H",ona) enec,t:.\' em'denc)" rali,,) is B**re.~lt** ofDOE and FlC rule5. See 10CFR P-oirt 4J0. Subpar! B (HI&;j; id III Appendix M: 16**CF'R~.4;dl** {JI/II4J. 4. The 8.5 SEER Standards for Heat Pumps is Not Economicallyand TechnologicallyJustified



### An assessment ofthe state interest must take into account whether the standard is economically and technologicallyjustified. The 8.5 SEER standard for heatpumps does notmeet 

### this criterion.

DOEhas properly observed:''-I(t)here

can beno doubt that a negative impact

on manufacturers attributable to • standard is. no matterhow small•• burden to be weighed." 49 

### FR 39386 (Aug. 30. 1984).

Companies must offer a full line I of products like larger corporations to compete effectively. 

### A manufacturer may have a single model that meets a standard, but not a complete line. To be competitive it is essential that an air conditioning dealer who sells to
consumers and builders have a 

### full line ofproducts. and it is standardpractice for dealers to carry onlyone ortwo brands ofproducts because it minimizes his problems related to stocking products. stocking parts, training employees and keeping current product information on hand. 

### Ifa dealerhas a full line ofproducts he can closely match a homeowners building requirements. 

### Ifhe does not. 

## qe is likely to install an oversized unit that may not perform well and add to the peak load of the power company. Or. 

### ifa full line ofproducts is not available to a dealer. he may not be able to compete in the marketplace and. therefore. competition would be reduced.
5. Lack ofEnforcement

The lack of a significant state interest is further demonstrated by the lack of enforcement in New York." Its feeble assertions about enforcement were strongly contradicted. At best. its enforcement has been so minimal that the efforts is asserted it has made (assuming they actually occurred) have gone virtually without notice.

In light of these factors DOE should determine that New York does not ha\'e

a "significant state interest" with respect to its 8.5 SEER standard for heat pumps.

• A full line ofproducts i. 8 line of products manufactured i8 amall capacity increments ao thai there is a unil capacity

....ithin apprOXimately plus or minus 3.000 Bluh of any buildinF load. For example.

8 full line ofproductt; to meet Ihe DOE residential capacity rafllile would have at least 8 models ranging from 18.000 to 65.000 Btuh.

• "A state "'hich fails to enforce its own standard orlers clear evidence ofboth a lad of si!1nificant atale interest in the standard a8 well 8S the Ex;stenCf> of**undu~** bU!"clen on inlerstaIe commerce." (Hearing. OcLlt.. 19/10\. Transc.ript. p. 52.)

### 3100 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 51, No. 15 

# I Thursday, January 

### 23, 1986 

# I Notices

B. Undue Burr/en



### Itis 

### clear

### that the a.5 

### SEER 

### .tandard for heatpumpB e&DSea 

### an

### undue burden.
1.

### The 8.5 

### Standardfor Heat

# PumP' it Economically andTechnologically, Unjustified

,As discussed above the 8.5 

### Btandard is economically and technologically unjustified. ThiB discussion establishes the existence ofan undue burden. ARI 

### adds only the following to whatis 

### baB already Baid.
, .

In 

### determining whether

### the New York standard imposes aD undue burden, ARI 

### has asked those manufacturers that Bell heat pumps in New York Stati! whether they will be able to comply with the 8.5 

### SEER standard. It

### i. important to note,
as stated above in this statement that in order for a manufacturer, di.tributor, or dealer to compete effective)y in any area. it 

### must be able to offer 8 

### complete product line. Again. by this is 

### meant 8 

### line ofproducts manufactured in small ' capacity increments so that there is 8 

### unit capacity within approximately p)us
or minus 3.000 Btuh ofany building load. For example. a full line ofproducts to meet the DOE residential capacity range would have at least 8 

### mode1s ranging 

### from 18.000 

### to 65.000 Btub.

Oftwenty manufacturers ofheat
, pumps we were able to contact, only three companies indicated they had a complete line ofpackage heat pumps that meet or exceed the 805 SEER standard. In 

### the split system category. only eight ofthe twenty manufacturers had a complete line ofheat pumps. It

### is noteworthy that Howard Geller**~** 

### ofthe American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy. bardly a foe of standards. indicated at the DOE bearing

on October 19,1984, 

### that a standard would not be appropriate ifthere are not
a significant number ofproducts that comply with it.

The twenty manufacturers we contacted includes all major manufacturers ofheat pumps and represent a vast majority ofthe products sold in New York State. From this survey it 

### is clear that a significant number ofproducts do not meet the standards.

Standards calling for high efficiency levels impact manufacturers in different w.sys depending on their size. Therefore. the burden on each is different. If

### one classifies manufacturers broadly 8S 

### small. medium and large. one can see that a large manufacturer might have at

• "In my opinion standards should be eet at the level where there's a iignificant number ofproducts currer,tly bemg manufactured that meet the IUandard and can be sold" {Hearing. Oct. 11l. 1984, TranscTlpt p.387.} ..".. L


### least 3 lines ofequipment 

### with efficiency levels classified as 

### "sood." "better," and '"best." 

### A Imall manufacturer who cannot normally afford to offer more than one line of products therefore is most likely to have models sold in the "better"range.For this reason. the small (and in some cases, medium size) manufacturers may not be able tei provide models in a state that has the highest minimum efficiency levels. Because ofthis. there is a definite undue burden upon small and medium size manufacturers. In 

### addition. the result is a lessening ofcompetition and a tendency to raise prices in the state.

The burdens ofstandards are confirmed in 

### the DOE rulemaking proceeding. DOE found that standards would impose "significant" "negative impacts on consumers at all standard levels." 48 FR 

### 39406; see also ld. 39403- 05. It

### further found that imposition of standards would have negative impacts

. on medium and small firms. Jd. 39403. 39406. Such burdens "clearly outweigh" any small alleged benefits ofstandards. Jd. 39406. ARJ 

### believes that these conclusions are also true with respect to heat pumps 2. Lack ofHardship Variance

It 

### was revealed at the DOE hearing on October 1.1984 

### in New York that there is no provisionfor 

### a hardshipvariance with respectto NewYork'. standarda.lt wal clearat

### the hearing

### that

### this troubles the New StateEnergy Office, 81 

### weD it 

### should. Indeed. the Office indicated that it

### wisheB that there were Buch a provision and that it

### had unsuccessfully Bought one.The absence ofa provision for hardship reliefas to this onerous Itate .tandardunderminel the legal validity ofthe Btate ltandard.

. That is evenmore 80 

### in 

### the light ofthe admission bythe responsible administrative agency that there should be such a provision.
3. 

### Lack ofEnforcement

Lack ofenforcement is an additional burden. It

### burdens law-abiding persons by placing them ina potentially disadvantageous position. (Hearing. Oct. 18.1984.

### Transcript pp. 52-S5.) 

### CODclusioD

ARL's petition should be granted.

. Appendix AssumptioM

1. ARLbelieve. it is reasonable to assume that the ration ofbeat pump to air conditioner shipments into New York is the same or doe to the national ratio {Based on Central Air Conditioners covered by DOE rules; under 65.000 Btuh, single phase and air cooled.}

Annual national heat pump shipments' 616.346**--------~-~~--~-=** =0.37 National ratio Annual national air conditioner shipments' 1.659,384

"Industry data from the "ARl Comparative Study of Energy Efficiency Ratios" for 1983.

%. New York's analvsis for air conditioners is based on improving SEER by 1.5 19.5-8.0]. The improvement in heat pump SEER Is 1.0 18.S-7.5]. Therefore a new heat pump in the cooling mode would save only**~** 11.0/1.5) of the energy a new air conditioner would save.

Therefore. heat pump energy in the cooling mode is related to total air conditioner energy 88 follows:

Fonnula {l)=heat pump energy use in the cooling mode=0.2471.37 X %] times air conditioner energy use in the cooling mode.

To calculate heat pump energy in the heating mode. assume the percent improvement in the seasonal heatmg efficiency (HSPF) is dtrectly proporttonal to the percent improvement ofthe SEER. (This will overstate energy savings l!I small amount) in the heating mode.

3. The heating hours of operation are: 6.912750 heating hours'/400 cooling hollJ"ll"J times the cooling hours.

• For Npw York moE Region V} F.R, Dec, 27. 1979**pa~** i672.3. Note. tlws rallO Ls probably too hign and tends to overstate energy saVIIl!lS, Therefore, beat pump energy in the heating mode is related to air conditioner eDergy as follows: Formula (2)=heat pump energy use in the heating mode=6.9xO.247xair conditioner energy use in the cooling mode Then. total heat pump energy (coolin.g+heating) is Formula (11+Formula (2): Formula (3)=1.95 17.9X0.247]x air conditioner energy used in the cooling mode,

First ARI Analysis

Besec on ilgures from the New York Analysis. heal pump energy saved compared
to tolal energy used by the slate ofNew York is: Air ConditionerAnnual Savings=4.37X 10' kWh/yr'<

'Attachments to New York State Energy Office Letter of lune 11. 1964 page 6. ARJ believes New**Yor~'5** claimed energy saving is 44 times the aclua! savlIlgs.

### Federal Register 

# I Voi. 51. No. 15 

# I Thursday. January 23. 1986 

# I Notices 

## 3101

Multiplier for Heat Pump=I.9517.9XIl.247) (see formula 3. pap 13) Total New York enellY use=3.59X10·a

### Btu/ 

# y"""

. '.,

Ratio

### ofeDelIY AviDp to total enfll'lY4.37XI0' &cWh/yrx3413 BtuX1.95

3.59X10 1JBtu/yrkWh

. 

### ..o.oooe " 

# .

Second ARJ Analysis

Since the first analysis detennined beat pump energy savings as a function ofair conditioning savings. the same procedUJ'l! is used in this. the second analysis for clarity.

Up 10 Ihis point ARI has worked with energy savings based on numbers provided by New York. The New York values are not .

# .

lubstantiated and ARt believes they 

### are grossly exaggerated.

The following calculations are baaed on ARt shipmenlllata and energy saved per unit based on SEER and an average unit lize of 36.000 Bluh.

.

Annual Energy Used by a 36.000 Btub air conditioner with an SEER of8.0 i, approximately:

36.000 Bruxw.bx&CwX400h·

b 8 Bru 1.000w yr =1.800 kWh

Annual Energy Used by a 36.000 Btuh air conditIOner with an SEER of9.5 is. approximately:

1.800 kwhx8=1.516 kWh

9.5

Then the saving using the higher effiCiency is: 1800-1516=284 k\'\'h annual per unit.

The average number of air**c~nditioners** and heat pumps shipped into New York per year over the last 5 years is 55.047' [based on ARI statis!lcs).

To determine the number of air condilioners Bnd the nUl!1ber of heat pumps shipped into New York annually. ARJ used Ihe national ratio of0.37 detennined on page 1. Number of heat pumps=0.37x 55047=20367 Number of aIT conditioners=(1- 0.37) x5504i=34600 The annual energy savings for air conditioners is: =34680 unite X284 kWh saved per unit =9.85X10'kWh

Then the annual energy savings for beat pumps in the cooling mode is. using Fonnula (1) from page 12 is: =0.247X(9.85 XI0"j =0.243X10'kWh

And annual energy sa\'ings for heat pumps in the heating mode is, using Formula (2) from page 13 =6.9X .247X(9.85 X10') =1.68XI0'kWh

TolalHeat Pump EnergySOl'ed equals heat pump energy seved in the cooling mode plus heat pump energy saved in the heating mode: =(0.243XI0')+ll.68X10,) =1.92XI0'kWh

.

The ratio ofheat pump energy savings to lotal energy use by the state is:

1.92,<10'kWh/yrx3.413 Btu/kWh

3.59xIO"Btu/yr =0.00002

ThiS IS eqUivalent to one dTl\·inI110.000.2 miles In one year then decreesin!! it to 10.000

le next year and saying the miiea/i!e was IgTlihcantly reduced. On the basis ofARI'6 calculated energy

• SIBlE. Energy Overview. DOE/ElA...()3.54 j62) savin!!s each person's share of the total New York electrical energy cost is reduced

1.92)( 10'X 0.1108

1.76XI0' =12c The lotal electricCOlt

# per person i. 

### preaentJ,y

1JJ6X10 1lXo.U08
'.

. 1..78X10'

ARJdoel Dot believe 12centa i•• 'ignificant amount of$667.32-
McDermott. Walla Emery
1850K Street. NW. Wasbinston. D.C. 20008,

202/887-8000 \ July 15, 1985. ByHandDelivery The Honorable Donna A. Fitzpatrick. Acti1l8AssistantSecretaryfor Consen'Otion andRenewableEnergy. Room 6C016. Forresta/Building. 1000Independence Al·enue. SW

.. Washington. D.C. 20585
Re:Amendment to Petition

Dear Secretary Fitzpatrick: OnMarcb 15. 1985. the Air.Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute filed a petition requesting tbat tbe Department ofEnergy supersede New York', Septemoer 1. 1984. Standard of 8.5 SEER on beat pumps. ARI has been informed that the following ARI member companies have authorized it to include them a8 petitioners in the petition: Borg WarnerCentral Environmental Systems Inc.; Lennox Industries; American Standard: Rheem Manufacluring Company. These companies have standing to be petitioners: among other things. their heat pumps are marketed in N"w York and they are therefore actually and directly impacted by the New York standard.

In the light of the foregOing. ARI hereby amends the petition to add the foregoing companies as petitioners.

Please let us know immediately ifyou have any questions concerning the foregoing. Respectfully submitted. John A. Hodges. GeneralCounsel. Air-Conditioningand Refrigeration institute.

cc: Mr. Eugene Margolis. DOE: Mr. Michael McCabe. DOE; Mr. Joseph M. McGuire. ARI Mc;Dennott. Will & Emery
1850 K Street. NW. Washington. D.C. 20006.

202/887-8000 September 13. 1985.
UnitedStales Department of Energy "Section 327 Petition-Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products" The Honorable Donna A. Fitzpatrick. AssistantSecretor!'for Conservation and Renewable Energy. Moil Station. CE-l. ForrestafBuilding. 1000 independence Avenue. SW

.. Washington. D.C. 20585

### 8102 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 51. No. 15 

## I**Thllrsda~'.** 

### January !3. 

### 1986 

## I Notices

DearSecretaryFitzpatrick: I hereby certify that today) have served by urtified mall on the New York StateEnergy Office a petition dated March 15. 1985. to supersede New York Stale', September 1. 1985.minimum energy efficiency .tandard for beal pumps; my letter to you dated July 15. 1985: and my letterto Eugene Margolis dated July 24; 1985. The petition is on behalfofthe Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute; Borg Warner Central Environmental Systems Inc.: Lennox Industries; American Standard; and Rheem Manufacturing Company. Enclosed is my
cover letter to the New York State Energy Office transmitting these documents. Sincerely. John A. Hodges. Enclosure

cc:Eugene Margolis. Esq. 

### IFR Doc. 86-1325 Filed**1-2:!~;** 8:45 am)

BIWNG CODE**~50-01""**
Energy Information Administration

Put.lication of Alternative Fuel Price Ceilings and Incremental Price Threshold for High Cost Natural 

### Gas

The N<lturaJ Gas Policy Act of 1978 INGPA) [Pub. L.**~:HJ21)** signed into law

on November 9. 19:-0. mandated a new iramework for the regulation ofmost facets ofthe natural gas industry. In general. underTitle II ofthe NGPA. i;::erstete natural g3S pipeline companies are required to pass through certain portions of their acquisition costs for natural gas to industrial users in the form of a surcp:!rge. The statute requ;res that the ultimate costs of gas to the industrial facility should not exceed the cost of the fuel oil which the facility could use as an alternative.

Pursuant to Title II oftbe NGPA. section 204(e), the Energy InforIIl<ltion Administration (EIA) herewith publishes for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [ITRC) computed natural gHS ceiling prices and the high cost gas incremental pricing threshold which are to be effective February 1. 1986. These prices are based on the prices of alternative fllels.

For fur:hrr info!111Htion contact: Leroy Brown. jr

.. E:1ergy Info:mation Administration. 1000 Independence Avenue S\\·., Room BE-034.**Wa~hington.** D.C. 20585. Telephone: (202) 252-W7i.
Section I.

As required by FERC Order No. SO. computed prices are shown for the 48 contiguous States. The District of

. Columbia's ceiling is included with the ceiling for the State of Maryland. FERC. by an Interim Rule issued on April 2. 1981. in Docket No.**R~1:-9-21.** revised the methodology for calculating the monthly alternative 

### fuel price ceilings for State regions. Under the revised methodology. the applicable altemative fuel price ceiling published for each of the contiguous States shall be the lower ofthe alternative fuel price ceilingfor the State or the alternative fuel price ceiling for the multistate region in which the State is located.

The price ceiling is expressed in dollars permillion British Thennal Units (BUTs).The method used to determine the price ceilings is described in section 

### In.

Alabam&._.. ------.
__

# I
329

## =~-;-:::==-::-"::=:::::::::::===-=-.J**~:~ CaI~omtI**  ' 

### "1 'S.72**~'** .._. a.41 Connec1JCUI ' • 3.52 Oela_ '.

_____._. __ .._.. S.B5

## ~

# ..**~:========--:::::::::::I .i::~**  idalia

...... _____ ...____**~........** 3.41 IIimoIs '

...__ •

____.___ sa IndIana_

...._ ...._............. •

...... 3.21

_ ••.

_ .._____....______ ... S.10

# =i~:-- 

# ..**~~::==-** 

# .....:::J**~:~** M;t..,.,._

..._. _____________, .8.48

# ~~ ..

# ~=:~.......

# ~:~=====::j**i~**

# ~=::~::~.:-

# .....**_==:=:.~=~:-**

# ....::

....::=::i

# H~**=~:.' ;'::==:=:=::::=::==:~::=::::::=:=::=:=I** **;:~ :::.:~;;.;;~~:::=::=-~:::::::::~~=::::==:=:=:::==:::j** **~.~** New Jersey'

..........._ ............_._.........__..._.... 3.85

### ~::**~:~:::::::::::::::::=::::==:::::=::::=::=:::::::::::) ~.~**  NotlI', Ca-oIno •

___..________.__.J 3.61 No<tr1 0""'0111 '

..___ .__.______..; 3.10 O<>oc. ' 3.10 ()O

....;;;.;:.:.;

..**;·:::::=:::...-::-.::::::..-.:::::-.:::~~:~~==~** 

## .. ::::::::::::i 'lI.!5

# r~Ja:-;::=-~=~:::::::'-===.__ 

# _

...:::::1

# ~:E So...'tr. CatoWn8 1-

__________ 

## ---1 3.61 S<MI1 Del<oU!

..... _ ...__............._ .............._.............. :3 10 Tennessee

......._._...__.........__..__.._._...-' Ui' Texas J ••••••

___•••_._._••

_ •••

_ ••••••••••••••••••

_ •••••••

_ •••_.,.••••; 325 Utah

..................._ .._..........._.................. _ ......_........ 341

### ~~.:.::::::-..:~::::::::::::=:::~~:::::==-.:-

# ..



# ===!**~fs W.s"'~or.**  ..................................................................... 3.58 Yvest ¥lrg.OIo8 1•.•_._••••_._•••

__._•••••

_.•••.••_.__••_._......' 9.2'6 W.."".,..., J

..._ ... ___._ ........._._.___._.._ ....1 326 W)'O'f1W'IIg 1._ ••

__..____._. __••••_._._••

_ ...

___.•.•.1 3.411

•**R~ ~**  prx:e**~** P'eOUf"'e'C**D'~' .~C** **~.~tanm** RuMi. IS&.IeO on A.p*"..
,.**'9-e~,** rn Dcx:-"el No r.

......-. ":J-rL'

t ReQt.O!"l ba,5-e"j pnce corT'IOIJ1eO 8!: ttl€>**~"'ed** lWer8Q€ pnc:E oj Reg.ons. E. F. G. and h

.. ..
Section 

### n. Incremental Pricing Threshold for High Cost Natural Gas

The ElA has determined that the volume-weighted average price for No.2 distillate fuel oil landed in the greater New York city Metropolitan area during November 1985 was $35.38 per barrel. In order to establish the incremental pricing threshold for high cost natural gas. as identified ir. the NGPA. Title II. section 203(a)(7). this price was multiplied by 1.3 and converted to its equivalent

### inmillions of

# snr.by



### -.dividing by5.8.

### Therefore. the

incrementalpricing threshold for high costnatural 8aS. effectiveFebruary 1. 

### lD86.. il$7.93

### per.million 

### BnT •. 

### Section

# m. Method UsedTo Compute 

### Price Ceilinp

The

### FERc' by OrderNo. 

### SO, issued on September29. 1979. inDocket No.**RM7~21.** established the basis for detennining the price ceilings required by

### the 

### NGPA. FERC el80, by OrderNo. 167.issued 

### in Docket No JU.,.{81-z7 on July 24. 1981.made permanent the rule that established that onlythe price paid for No. tI bigh sulfur contentresidual 

### fuel oil would be used 

### to determine the price ceilings. 

### In addition. the FERC. by Order No. 181, issued on November 6. 1981. in Docket No. &\181-28. established that price ceilings should be published for only the 48 contiguous States on a permanent basis. 

### A. Data ColJected

The fonowing data were required from all companies identified by the 

### ElA

as sellers ofNo.6 high sulfur content ..{greater than 1 percent sulfur content by weight) residual fuel oil: for each selling price. the number ofgallons sold to large industrial users in the months of September 1985. October 1985, and November 1985. S All reports ofvolume sold and price were identified bv the State into which 

### the oil was sold.


### B. Method Used to Determine AlternativePn'ce Ceilings (1) Calculation ofVolume-Weighted AveragePrice

The prices which will become effective February 1, 19a5. (shown in section 

### 11 are based on the repvrted price ofNo.6 high sulfur content residual fuel oil. for each of the 48 contiguous States. for each of the 3 months. September 1985. October 1985, and November 1985. Reported prices for aales in September 1985 were adjusted by the percent change in the nationwide volume-weighted average price from September 1985 to November 1985. Prices for October 1985 were similarly adjusted by the percent change in the nationwide volume-weighted average price from October 1985 to November 1985. The volume-weighted 3-month average ofthe adjusted September 1985 and October 1985. and the reported

.. Large Industrial Uaer-A peMlon/firm which purchases No.6 fuel oil in quantities of4.000 gallon

or I1reater for consumption in a business. including the !pace heating of the business premises. Electnc utilities. governmental bodies (Federal Slate,or l..ocIil). and the military lire excluded.