CE-CP-MPRN-NY-STD-0019 COMMENT 01

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 ,and relocated to the southwelSt to 

cumulative amount since contract .tart.:. improve the .tream's hydraulics. 

(4) The dollar amount of subcontracll' . . 2. Scoping Process: Seoping for the 

awarded on the balSis of price . . 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 of subcontracts . other interested parties. Fonnal scoping 

awarded on the basis of design 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 study by 

atart. lubmittingin writing any concerns or (6) The dollar amount of subcontracts 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 of individual 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. A voilobility: The DEIS is expected 

to be available for public and agency B. Regulatory nexibiUty Act review in September/October 1986. 

Pursuant to the provisions of section 3 ADDRESS: Questions about the proposed 

of the 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, 

Directorate of 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 

(DE IS) for a local Flood Protection 

Pioject Along Swan Creek at Toledo, 

lucas County, OH 

AGENCY: Anny Corps of Engineers. 

Buffalo District, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS). 

SUMMARY: 1. Proposed Action: The 

proposed action would alleviate flood 

dame~es along Swan Creek in the 

Heatherdale Drive area of Toledo. 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 of Energy 

(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 

of Energy. Office of General Counlel. 

Mail Station CC-l2. Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue. 

SW •• Washington, DC 20585. (202) 

252-9513 

U.S. Department of Energy, 

Conservation and Renewable Energy. 

Office of Hearings and Dockets. Room 

6B-025. Forrestal Building. 1000 

Independence A\'enue, SW •• 

Washington. DC 20585, (202) 252-9319 

Background 

Part B of Title 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 Other Than 

Automobiles. Section 327 of the Act 

addresses the effect of Federal 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 of ARl. 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" 
CE-CP-MPRN-NY-STD-0019 COMMENT 01

3098 Federal Register I Vol. 51, No. 15 I Thmsday, January 23, 1986 I Notices 

requesting the Secretary of Energy to . 

preempt New York State's minimum 

efficiency standard for heat pumps.- . 

Section 1~118 of the New York Stale 

Energy Law prohibits the sale or 

installation of any heat pump 

manuFactured after September 1, 1982, 

with a seasonal energy efficiency ratio 

(SEER) less' than 7.5 and any heat 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 on March 

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 

certification from ARI that the petition 

had been served on the t\ew York State 

Energy Office. Section 430.42 of DOE'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 Sla te 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 of receipt of the 

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 in Wasbington. DC. January 7. 1986. 

DoIIJIa It. J'itzpatric:k. 

Assistont Secretory, ConServation OIId 

Renewable Enewy. 

Petition by Air:Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute for Preemption of 

Heat Pump Minimum Energy Efficiency 

Standard of Stale of New 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 or Energy k:l 

supersede New York's Sepklmber 1-

1984. &landar-d of 8.5 SEER on beat 

pumps. 

Am is a national trade association 

comprising manufacturers who 

collectively account for oYer 90 percent 

of U.S.-manulacturered air conditioning. 

refrigeration and heating products (other 

than room air conditioner&). ARI 

consists of over 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 of the 

~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 of ARrs 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 to DOE 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 State or local 

interest sufficient to justify 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 of the 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 in New 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 To IU5tify 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 of 9.5 

SEER for air wnditiuners and 6.5 SEER 

for heat pumps aTe justified in Nev.· 
CE-CP-MPRN-NY-STD-0019 COMMENT 01

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 calculation performed 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 

year from 10,008 to 10.000 the next year. 

This can hardly 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 of 36,000 Btub. 

Based on this calculation, the energy 

savings from the heat pump standard for 

New York are 0.00002 of the total New 

York energy consumption. To put it 

another way. this would mean a mileage 

reduction of 2/10 of a mile over 10,000 

miles. Both calculations are described in 

detailin the appendix to this statement. 

The lack of significance of the 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 of New 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 

of preemption 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 cents per person. 

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 of Alleged Markel failure 

As indicated ARl's comments on New 

York's petition for exemption from 

preemption of its 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 of appliances 

nationwide. This increase in the 

absence of national standards . 

demonstrates that there is no need to 

impose standards including state 

standards. For example: 

-The Antitrust Division of the Justice 

Department has stated that .. there is 

no evidence that appliance markets 

have failed or will fail to produce 

desired energy efficiency • 

objectives." Statement of Sanford 

Litvack, Assistant Attorney 

General. Antitrust Division, 

Department of Justice, Commeht No. 

1161, at 4 (Sept. 2, 1980). . 

-An Opinion Research Corporation 

survey (Public Knowledge and 

Attitudes Towards Central AirConditioning Systems, 1981) shows 

consumer willingness to spend up to 

one-third more for high efficiency 

air conditioners. . 

-A consumer preference survey by the 

National Association of Home 

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 if they 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 of American 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 cannot justify 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 of DOE and FlC rule5. See 10 CFR 

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 Economically and 

Technologically Justified 

An assessment of the state interest 

must take into account whether the 

standard is economically and 

technologically justified. The 8.5 SEER 

standard for heat pumps does not meet 

this criterion. 

DOE has properly observed: ''-I(t)here 

can be no doubt that a negative impact 

on manufacturers attributable to • 

standard is. no matter how 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 

of products. and it is standard practice 

for dealers to carry only one or two 

brands of products because it minimizes 

his problems related to stocking 

products. stocking parts, training 

employees and keeping current product 

information on hand. If a dealer has a 

full line of products he can closely 

match a homeowners building 

requirements. If he 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. if a full line 

of products is not available to a dealer. 

he may not be able to compete in the 

marketplace and. therefore. competition 

would be reduced. 

5. Lack of Enforcement 

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 of products 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 of productt; 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 of both a lad of si!1nificant 

atale interest in the standard a8 well 8S the 

Ex;stenCf> of undu~ bU!"clen on inlersta Ie commerce." 

(Hearing. OcLlt.. 19/10\. Transc.ript. p. 52.) 
CE-CP-MPRN-NY-STD-0019 COMMENT 01

3100 Federal Register I Vol. 51, No. 15 I Thursday, January 23, 1986 I Notices 

B. Undue Burr/en 

It is clear that the a.5 SEER .tandard 

for heat pumpB e&DSea an undue burden. 

1. The 8.5 Standard for Heat PumP' it 

Economically and Technologically, 

Unjustified 

, As discussed above the 8.5 Btandard 

is economically and technologically 

unjustified. ThiB discussion establishes 

the existence of an undue burden. ARI 

adds only the following to what is 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 of products manufactured in small ' 

capacity increments so that there is 8 

unit capacity within approximately p)us 

or minus 3.000 Btuh of any building load. 

For example. a full line of products to 

meet the DOE residential capacity range 

would have at least 8 mode1s ranging 

from 18.000 to 65.000 Btub. 

Of twenty manufacturers of heat , pumps we were able to contact, only 

three companies indicated they had a 

complete line of package heat pumps 

that meet or exceed the 805 SEER 

standard. In the split system category. 

only eight of the twenty manufacturers 

had a complete line of heat pumps. It is 

noteworthy that Howard Geller ~ of the 

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 if there are not 

a significant number of products that 

comply with it. 

The twenty manufacturers we 

contacted includes all major 

manufacturers of heat pumps and 

represent a vast majority of the products 

sold in New York State. From this 

survey it is clear that a significant 

number of products 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 of products 

currer,tly bemg manufactured that meet the 

IUandard and can be sold" {Hearing. Oct. 11l. 1984, 

TranscTlpt p.387.} 

..".. L 

least 3 lines of equipment 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 of this. there is a definite 

undue burden upon small and medium 

size manufacturers. In addition. the 

result is a lessening of competition and a 

tendency to raise prices in the state. 

The burdens of standards 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 of standards. 

Jd. 39406. ARJ believes that these 

conclusions are also true with respect to 

heat pumps 

2. Lack of Hardship Variance 

It was revealed at the DOE hearing on 

October 1.1984 in New York that there 

is no provision for a hardship variance 

with respect to New York'. standarda.lt 

wal clear at the hearing that this 

troubles the New State Energy 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 

of a provision for hardship relief as to 

this onerous Itate .tandard underminel 

the legal validity of the Btate ltandard. . 

That is even more 80 in the light of the 

admission by the responsible 

administrative agency that there should 

be such a provision. 

3. Lack of Enforcement 

Lack of enforcement is an additional 

burden. It burdens law-abiding persons 

by placing them in a potentially 

disadvantageous position. (Hearing. Oct. 

18.1984. Transcript pp. 52-S5.) 

CODclusioD 

ARL's petition should be granted. 

. Appendix 

AssumptioM 

1. ARL believe. it is reasonable to assume 

that the ration of beat 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 

National ratio --------~-~~--~-= =0.37 

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 of the 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 of New York 

is: 

Air Conditioner Annual Savings =4.37 X 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. 
CE-CP-MPRN-NY-STD-0019 COMMENT 01

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·aBtu/ y""" . '., Ratio of eDelIY AviDp to total enfll'lY4.37XI0' &cWh/yrx3413 BtuX1.95 

3.59X101J Btu/yr kWh . .. o.oooe 

" . 

Second ARJ Analysis 

Since the first analysis detennined beat 

pump energy savings as a function of air 

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 of 8.0 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 of 9.5 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 of 0.37 detennined on page 

1. 

Number of heat pumps=0.37 x 55047=20367 

Number of aIT conditioners=(1-

0.37) x5504i= 34600 

The annual energy savings for air 

conditioners is: 

=34680 unite X 284 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: 

=0.247 X (9.85 XI0"j 

=0.243 X 10' kWh 

And annual energy sa\'ings for heat pumps 

in the heating mode is, using Formula (2) from 

page 13 

=6.9 X .247 X (9.85 X 10') 

=1.68XI0'kWh 

Tolal Heat Pump Energy SOl'ed equals heat 

pump energy seved in the cooling mode plus 

heat pump energy saved in the heating mode: 

=(0.243 XI0')+ll.68 X10,) 

=1.92XI0'kWh . 

The ratio of heat 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 of ARI'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 electric COlt per person i. 

preaentJ,y 

1JJ6X101lXo.U08 

'. . 1..78 X 10' 

ARJdoel Dot believe 12 centa i •• 

'ignificant amount of $667.32-

McDermott. Walla Emery 

1850 K Street. NW. Wasbinston. D.C. 20008, 

202/887-8000 \ 

July 15, 1985. 

By Hand Delivery 

The Honorable Donna A. Fitzpatrick. 

Acti1l8 Assistant Secretary for Consen'Otion 

and Renewable Energy. Room 6C016. 

Forresta/ Building. 1000 Independence 

A l·enue. SW .. Washington. D.C. 20585 

Re: Amendment to Petition 

Dear Secretary Fitzpatrick: On Marcb 15. 

1985. the Air.Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute filed a petition requesting tbat tbe 

Department of Energy 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 Warner Central 

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 if you have 

any questions concerning the foregoing. 

Respectfully submitted. 

John A. Hodges. 

General Counsel. Air-Conditioning and 

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. 

United Stales Department of Energy 

"Section 327 Petition-Energy Efficiency 

Program for Consumer Products" 

The Honorable Donna A. Fitzpatrick. 

Assistant Secretor!' for Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Moil Station. CE-l. 

Forrestaf Building. 1000 independence 

Avenue. SW .. Washington. D.C. 20585 
CE-CP-MPRN-NY-STD-0019 COMMENT 01

8102 Federal Register I Vol. 51. No. 15 I Thllrsda~'. January !3. 1986 I Notices 

Dear Secretary Fitzpatrick: I hereby certify 

that today) have served by urtified mall on 

the New York State Energy 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 letter to 

Eugene Margolis dated July 24; 1985. The 

petition is on behalf of the 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 of most 

facets of the natural gas industry. In 

general. under Title II of the 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 of tbe 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 

of the alternative fuel price ceiling for 

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 per million 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 

So...'tr. 

r~Ja:-;::=-~=~:::::::'-===.__ CatoWn8 1-__________ ---1 _ ... :::::1 ~:E 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 in millions of snr. by 

-.dividing by 5.8. Therefore. the 

incremental pricing threshold for high 

cost natural 8aS. effective February 1. 

lD86.. il $7.93 per. million BnT •. 

Section m. Method Used To Compute 

Price Ceilinp 

The FERc' by Order No. SO, issued on 

September 29. 1979. in Docket No. 

RM7~21. established the basis for 

detennining the price ceilings required 

by the NGPA. FERC el80, by Order No. 

167. issued in Docket No JU.,.{81-z7 on 

July 24. 1981. made permanent the rule 

that established that only the price paid 

for No. tI bigh sulfur content residual 

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 of No.6 high sulfur content 

..{greater than 1 percent sulfur content by 

weight) residual fuel oil: for each selling 

price. the number of gallons sold to large 

industrial users in the months of 

September 1985. October 1985, and 

November 1985.S All reports of volume 

sold and price were identified bv the 

State into which the oil was sold. 

B. Method Used to Determine 

Alternative Pn'ce Ceilings 

(1) Calculation of Volume-Weighted 

A verage Price 

The prices which will become 

effective February 1, 19a5. (shown in 

section 11 are based on the repvrted 

price of No.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 of the adjusted September 1985 

and October 1985. and the reported 

.. Large Industrial Uaer-A peMlon/firm which 

purchases No.6 fuel oil in quantities of 4.000 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.