Proposed Rules

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.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Publication of the

Petition for Waiver of the American

Water Heater Company's Energy Saver

Control From the DOE Water Heater

Test Procedure, Denial of the

Application for an Interim Waiver, and

Request for Comments on Testing

Water Heater Performance With

Electronic Controls (Case No. WH-010)

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Solicitation of comments.

SUMMARY: This document publishes a

Petition for Waiver to the Department of

Energy (DOE or Department) water

heater test procedure from the American

Water Heater Company (American)

regarding an adaptive thermostat

control. American's Petition for Waiver

requests that DOE lower the average

tank temperature and base the water

draws on equal energy content

compared to the existing test procedure.

This document also denies an Interim

Waiver to American from the existing

DOE water heater test procedure. The

Department solicits comments, data,

and information as to whether to grant

the Petition for Waiver as well as

comments on testing water heaters with

electronic controls.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,

and information not later than February

25, 2002 on American's Petition for

Waiver and comments on testing water

heaters with electronic controls.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

statements shall be sent to: Department

of Energy, Office of Building Research

and Standards, Case No. WH-Ol0, Mail

Stop EE-41, Room lJ-018, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202)

586-9127. We welcome electronic

comments but they must be followed by

a signed letter. Send email comments to

terry.logee@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Terry Logee, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-41,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington. DC 20585-

0121, (202) 586-1689, email:

Terry.Logee@ee.doe.gov or Ms. Francine

Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of General Counsel, Mail Station

GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-

7432.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products (other than

automobiles) was established pursuant

to the Energy Policy and Conservation

Act, as amended, (EPCA) which requires

DOE to prescribe standardized test

procedures to measure the energy

consumption of certain consumer

products, including water heaters.

The DOE test procedure. "Uniform

Test Method for Measuring the Energy

Consumption of Water Heaters"

prescribes a method for characterizing

the energy requirements of all types of

water heaters and yields model-specific

energy efficiency information that can

aid consumers in their purchasing

decisions. The test procedure is set forth

in Title 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B,

Appendix E.

The Department amended the test

procedure rules on September 26, 1980,

to provide for a waiver process by

adding Section 430.27 to Title 10 CFR

part 430.45 FR 64108. The waiver

process allows the Assistant Secretary

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy (Assistant Secretary) to

temporarily waive test procedures for a

particular basic model. On November

26,1986, DOE amended the waiver

process to allow the Assistant Secretary

to grant an Interim Waiver for

immediate relief from test procedure

requirements to manufacturers that have

petitioned DOE for a waiver of such

prescribed test procedures. 51 FR 42823.

The amendment is codified at 10 CFR

430.27(a)(2).

Any person may submit a petition to

waive the requirements of the

applicable test procedure based on a

claim that a basic model contains one or

more design characteristics that prevent

3449

Federal Register

Vol. 67, No. 16

Thursday, January 24, 2002

testing according to the prescribed test

procedures, or when the prescribed test

procedures may evaluate a basic model

in a manner so unrepresentative of its

true energy consumption as to provide

materially inaccurate comparative data.

The Department publishes the Petition

for Waiver in the Federal Register and

requests comments from interested

parties during a 30-day comment

period. The Department analyzes the

petition, including all comments, and

publishes a notice of each waiver

granted or denied in the Federal

Register. Prior to a decision, the

Assistant Secretary will consult with the

Federal Trade Commission pursuant to

10 CFR 430.27(1). Waivers generally

remain in effect until future test

procedure amendments become

effective; resolving the problem that is

the subject of the waiver.

Any interested person who has

submitted a Petition for Waiver may

also file an Application for Interim

Waiver to the applicable test procedure

requirements. The Application may be

filed jointly with, or subsequent to, the

filing of a Petition for Waiver.

Each Application for Interim Waiver

must identify the basic models for

which the interim waiver is requested,

demonstrate that it meets the criteria in

10 CFR 430.27, and be signed by the

applicant or by an authorized

representative. In addition, each

applicant for an Interim Waiver must

notify all known manufacturers of

domestically marketed units of the same

product type of its filing and provide

copies of both the Application for

Interim Waiver and the Petition for

Waiver to these manufacturers. These

manufacturers may send comments to

DOE regarding the Petition for an

Interim Waiver. An application for an

Interim Waiver does not allow the

manufacturer to disregard DOE's test

procedure requirements until an Interim

Waiver has been granted.

An Interim Waiver will be granted if

it is determined that the applicant will

experience economic hardship if the

Application for Interim Waiver is

denied, if it appears likely that the

Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/

or the Assistant Secretary determines

that it would be desirable for public

policy reasons to grant immediate relief

pending a determination on the Petition

for Waiver. 10 CFR 430.27 (g). An

Interim Waiver remains in effect for a

 Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 06
3450 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 16/Thursday, January 24, 2002/Proposed Rules

period of 180 days or until DOE issues compute the energy factor. The current

its determination on the Petition for DOE test procedure requires a constant

Waiver, whichever is sooner, and may tank temperature of 135 of and does not

be extended for an additional 180 days, permit a variable thermostat setpoint.

if necessary. The test procedure does not have a

controller qualification test. DOE's Summary of Petition current test procedure also requires a

On April 26, 2001, American Water first hour rating test to determine the

Heater Company filed an Application amount of hot water that can be

for Interim Waiver and a Petition for withdrawn from a tank of water heated

Waiver, Case No. WH-010, concerning to 135 of.

the tank temperature of water heaters American's first proposed change for

during testing of water heaters with a qualification test for the "Energy Saver

adaptive electronic controls. There was Cycle" would prove that the controller

no confidential material deleted from could automatically adjust the

American's petition. However, thermostat setpoint. In its proposal,

American submitted test data at DOE's American prescribes a large number of

request which was originally marked water draws to allow the tank

confidential. Thereafter, on December thermostat to reach a minimum setpoint

13,2001, American withdrew its and then to return to 135 OF. The

designation of confidentiality for this petition calls this control process an

test data (Letter dated December 13, "Energy Saver Cycle" ifthe controller

2001, from Alex Kovalenko, Manager of reaches an equilibrium temperature

Product Development Engineering, lower than 135 OF when the water heater

American Water Heater Company to is subjected to the following water usage

Terry Logee, U.S. Department of pattern, herein called draws. Each draw

Energy). The test data is in the docket would end when the lower element

file. A copy of American's Petition for energizes, and the subsequent draw

Waiver and Application for Interim would commence when the thermostat

Waiver is appended to this notice. turns off the power to the lower

Whereas the typical electric water element. The test would initially start

heater control has a fixed temperature with the tank at 135 OF. The petition

thermostat setpoint, American's states that the sequence will continue

electronic controller can automatically until the mean tank temperature reaches

adjust the thermostat setpoint up or 125°F or less. This test shows that the

down according to actual household control will lower the set point in

water usage patterns. This automatic response to small water draws. If this

thermostat adjustment is called an sequence is continued, the lowest

"Energy Saver Cycle." American does "stable" temperature can be determined.

not identify any upper or lower The petition defines the lowest stable

thermostat setpoints in its proposal. temperature as the point at which water

American's application seeks the draws of 10.7 gallons will not cause the

following changes to DOE's test controller to increase the thermostat

procedure for a controller with an setpoint.

"Energy Saver Cycle": (1) Add a To test whether the controller will

qualification test; (2) Decrease the also automatically raise the temperature,

temperature of the thermostat to the water draws large enough to energize

lowest stable temperature; (3) Adjust the the upper element must be made until

amount of water withdrawn from the . the controller has returned to the mean

tank during the simulated-use test; and tank temperature of 135 OF. These tests

(4) Modify the equations used to demonstrate that the controller adjusts

the set point up and down based on

actual water usage. Since the

"adjusting" process could take

approximately 100 cycles for the

American control logic, the petition

seeks to run this test only once for each

model of controller; once the controller

has been qualified, any water heaters

using that controller would qualify to

use the "Energy Saver Cycle" test

procedure.

American's second proposed change

would lower the water heater thermostat

set point to the lowest stable

temperature. This temperature would be

obtained through knowledge of the

temperature adjustment logic for the

"Energy Saver Cycle". This lowest

stable temperature must be maintained

during the six draws of 10.7 gallons or

the test is invalid. In this case, the test

would need to be repeated at a higher

stable temperature.

American's third proposed change is

to modify the amount of water drawn in

each of the six draws to match the

energy contained in each draw of the

current procedure. This accounts for the

fact that the temperature of the water

delivered from the water heater in

American's proposal will be lower than

that delivered in the current DOE test

procedure. Each draw is approximately

10.7 gallons of water and the energy

required to raise 10.7 gallons of water

from its inlet temperature of 58 OF to

135 OF is 6836 BTU. For the Energy

Saver Cycle, the draw would be

terminated when 6836 BTU have been

removed.

American's fourth proposed change is

to modify several calculations in the

current test procedure. The calculations

in the current DOE test procedure

reference a nominal tank temperature of

135 OF and a nominal outlet temperature

of 135 OF. The petition for waiver seeks

to modify Section 6.1.6, the calculation

of the adjusted daily water heating

energy consumption from:

to:

 Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 06
Federal Register/Vol. 57, No. 15/Thursday, January 24, 2002/Proposed Rules 3451

where Tsu is the maximum tank

te~peratureobserved after the sixth

draw of the simulated-use test.

The petition seeks to change the

calculation of Qhw.77 in Section 6.1.6

from:

to:

_ MiCp,i(Tsu-58° F)

Qhw.77 - L.. 'Y\

i=l 'Ir

The last calculation that the petition

for waiver seeks to modify is that of the

energy factor in Section 6.1.7. The

proposed modification would change

the equation from:

to:

Discussion of American's Petition for

Waiver

The Department's waiver regulations

provide that the applicant for Interim

Waiver is required to notify in writing

all known manufacturers of

domestically marketed units of the same

product type that it has filed an

Application for Interim Waiver and a

Petition for Waiver and provide copies

of these documents to the

manufacturers. The regulations also

provide that the Assistant Secretary will

receive and consider timely written

comments on the Application for

Interim Waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(c)(2).

The Department received comments

from Rheem and Applied Energy

Technology (AET), Rheem has indicated

DOE should recognize new control

technologies for water heaters and

should pursue changes to credit

resulting energy savings. Rheem is

concerned, however, that American's

proposed method is designed

specifically for one type of control

system and disqualifies or discounts

other well-known alternative control

schemes.

Rheem expressed a concern that the

proposed procedure assumes the bestcase scenario for the test condition.

Rheem indicates that potential savings

would only be realized if the "Energy

Saver Cycle" were selected and if a

homeowner's water use patterns

resulted in a water heater setpoint

temperature below 135 OF. Rheem is

concerned the proposed procedure

would lead to manufacturers claiming

water heater efficiencies not

representative of those achieved in

practice.

Rheem also believes that the first hour

rating would need to be adjusted if the

tank temperature is lowered. Rheem

states that the revised tank temperature,

Le., the lowest stable temperature,

should be used for the first-hour rating

test.

AET commented that a

comprehensive reexamination ofthe

DOE water heater test procedure is

needed to allow proper representation

of in-field efficiency improvements

made possible by a variety of control

approaches. While AET indicates that

the proposed test method is an

improvement over the current test

procedure, AET claims that the

proposed test method excludes other

forms of controls that could be applied

to water heaters and therefore would

provide a competitive advantage to

American.

AET is concerned that because a

lowest stable temperature is not

specified in the proposed test

procedure, the delivered water

temperature could consequently be

extremely low, AET also commented

that the proposed test procedure's

absence of a lower and upper setpoint

temperature could be abused. A

manufacturer could use a large on-off

temperature differential on the upper

thermostat so that the upper heating

element would not energize. This could

allow a lowest stable temperature of

about 59 OF, resulting in nearly 100

percent efficiency.

AET's final point echoes the concern

of Rheem that the proposed test

procedure would yield a best-case

scenario and would not necessarily

reflect the energy use patterns that are

typical of consumers. AET claims that

the proposed test procedure does not

use long draws, like those seen in actual

use that would force the controller to

reach a stable temperature different

from the lowest stable temperature.

In response to these comments, the

Department notes that a waiver is issued

for specific basic models and that

American has identified those models it

is seeking to waive in its petition for

waiver. Other basic models or other

control schemes would have a different

waiver and test procedure. The

comments by Rheem and AET on the

general test procedure are of use

because they have identified issues

related to the methodology of how to

arrive at a test temperature

representative of actual consumer use

and how to measure the first hour

rating. These issues would need to be

discussed and resolved before a waiver

could be issued regarding testing of

water heaters with electronic controls.

Discussion ofAmerican's Application

for Interim Waiver

Pursuant to the requirements in 10

CFR 430,27(g), an Interim Waiver will

be granted if the applicant can show

that it will experience economic

hardship if the application for Interim

Waiver is denied, if the petition for

waiver will likely be granted and/or if

the Assistant Secretary determines for

public policy reasons to grant

immediate relief pending a

determination on the petition for

waiver. DOE will address each of these

criteria separately as applied to

American's petition for an interim

waiver.

First, DOE does not believe American

has provided information in its

application for the interim waiver to

support its claim of economic hardship'.

In its application, American merely

stated, "From an economic point of

view, American Water Heater Company

has invested significantly in the

development of this product and to not

be able to present one of its best features

would cause loss of sales and

discourage further development."

(Letter dated April 26, 2001 from

Timothy J. Schellenberger, Senior Vice

President-Product Engineering, to the

Assistant Secretary, Application for

Interim Waiver). American's mere

assertion of economic hardship does not

establish that it will experience such

hardship, American did not provide any

factual information to justify its

assertion.

Second, at this time, the Assistant

Secretary does not have adequate

information from American to

determine that American's Petition for

Waiver from the DOE test procedure

will likely be granted. The petition is

incomplete for the following reasons: American's proposed test protocol

depends on establishing a lowest stable

temperature for their thermostat

controller. The procedure outlined in

the petition uses a 100 draw-cycle to

qualify the controller as having an &

Idquo;Energy Saver Cycle". However,

this procedure only establishes that the

controller will lower and raise the

thermostat setpoint. American did not

provide any test data that DOE could

use to determine that a lower thermostat

setpoint would result from typical

household use and what that lower

thermostat setpoint might be. For the

petition for waiver to be complete, it

must contain the test temperature for

each basic model for which a waiver is

requested. From the confidential test

 Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 06
3452 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 16/Thursday, January 24, 2002/Proposed Rules

data that was provided, DOE can only

determine that the controller can

automatically reduce or raise the

thermostat setpoint.

DOE believes that American must

provide data from field tests of water

heaters using this controller to

determine an average lowest stable

temperature for the U.S. for each basic

model for which a waiver is requested.

There are probably a number of

variables that should be considered so

that the resultant lowest stable

temperature is representative of u.s.

households including tank volumes,

various inlet water temperatures and

varying family sizes. The appropriate

test time and the allowed variability to

demonstrate a "stable" temperature

would have to be determined.

Furthermore, the field tests should

contain a sample large enough to be

statistically relevant at high confidence.

The Department would like to receive

comments on the concerns listed above.

DOE recognizes that developing the

necessary data to quantify the lowest

stable temperature for each basic model

could be a time consuming and costly

task. Since this petition for waiver from

the DOE test procedure for an automatic

thermostat controller is the first DOE

has received for this type of device, we

are very interested in receiving

comments that would help develop a

general test method for automatic

thermostat controllers. For instance, is it

practical to develop a computer model

that could be used to qualify any

automatic controller? Is it possible to

use existing databases such as the

Energy Information Administration's

Residential Energy Consumption Survey

for housing and family characteristics

combined with average inlet water

temperature data from ground water

temperatures to develop an algorithm

that would yield a reasonable lowest

stable temperature? Are there other

ways to simplify and generalize the test

procedure for an automatic thermostat

controller?

Second, American's petition for

waiver does not address the first hour

rating of the water heater. This test

result is used by retailers and installers

as an indication of what size water

heater to install in a given home. The

FTC also uses this value to determine

which group of water heaters a given

model belongs in for establishing the

range of energy factors and yearly costs

of operation. In the current DOE test

procedure, the first hour rating test

starts at a maximum temperature of 135

oaF ±5 of and continues until the

average tank temperature has dropped

25 of. If the water is reheated within the

hour, the draw is initiated again and the

water withdrawn is summed.

American's proposed modification to

the current 24-hour simulated-use test

did not provide a first hour rating test

which is a necessary component of the

water heater test procedure. DOE

believes it would be logical for the first

hour rating test to be conducted at the

same tank temperature as the test for

determining the energy factor. However,

if that temperature is much lower than

the current 135 of ±5 of, the final water

temperature could be too cool to be

considered useful.

Finally, the Department has

determined that there are no public

policy impacts that warrant granting

immediate relief pending a

determination on the Petition for

Waiver.

Conclusions

Following a careful consideration of

all material that was submitted by

American and based on the criteria for

granting an interim waiver as provided

in 10 CFR 430.27(g), and for the reasons

stated above, the Department has

concluded that American's Application

for an Interim Waiver should be denied.

At the same time, the Department

solicits comments, data, and

information as to whether to grant the

Petition for Waiver, as well as

comments on testing water heaters with

electronic controls. Such comments will

assist the Department in determining

whether it can develop a practical test

procedure for these devices.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 17,

2002.

David K. Garman,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

April 26, 2001

Assistant Secretary for Conservation and

Renewable Energy

United States Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20585

To Whom It May Concern: Subject:

Petition for Waiver

Specific Requirements to be Waived.

American Water Heater Company

seeks a waiver in the application of the

"Uniform Test Method for Measuring

the Energy Consumption of Water

Heaters" contained in 10 CFR Part 430

Subpart B Appendix E as applied to

electric water heater models that have

adaptive electronic controls.

Utilizing a microprocessor-based

control on an electric water heater

allows a level of intelligence to be

added to the control logic that is not

possible with the conventional electromechanical control systems used today.

One use of this intelligence is to have

the control adjust the stored water

temperature based on the actual hot

water usage pattern to determine the

lowest possible temperature to store

water that will meet the needs of the

consumer. The result of this new control

logic is a reduction in energy

consumption. Such a control cycle will

be identified as an "Energy Saver

Cycle".

American Water Heater plans to

commercialize a microprocessor-based

control system with an Energy Saver

Cycle. However, we are unable to

characterize and market the true

efficiency benefit to the consumer

through the "Uniform Test Method for

Measuring the Energy Consumption of

Water Heaters" ratings process. The test

procedure does not allow the efficiency

benefit of an Energy Saver Cycle to be

demonstrated. These types of intelligent

electronic controls are more expensive

and without the ability to demonstrate

the benefits in terms of energy savings,

it is difficult to justify the additional

cost to the consumer. We are

specifically petitioning to allow the use

of an alternate test procedure described

below to rate and label the efficiency of

a water heater when using the "Energy

Saver Cycle".

Basic Models and all Manufacturers

(See attached list)

Design Characteristics

Background Information

The predominate energy loss of a tank

type electric water heater is the standby

loss associated with storing the hot

water. There are two methods of

reducing these losses; one can increase

the effectiveness of the insulation

system, or reduce the stored water

temperature. The "Energy Saver Cycle"

saves energy by reducing the stored

water temperature.

The study report "Baseline Results

and Methodology of the Consumer Subgroup Analysis for Residential Water

Efficiency Standards", submitted to the

Department of Energy October 1998,

shows that the average set point

temperature of residential water heaters

varies widely across the United States.

The northern states tend to be hotter

with average set points as high as 142

OF and the south as low as 123 OF. This

corresponds inversely with the average

inlet water temperature in the same

areas. At the time of use, the hot water

is blended with cold water to produce

the desired use temperature. This

process of blending causes the usage

quantity of hot water to change

inversely with the stored water

temperature. For example: A shower

 Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 06
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 16/Thursday, January 24, 2002/Proposed Rules 3453

lasting 10 minutes with a delivered

water temperature of 105 of and a flow

rate of 2.5 gallons/minute uses 25

gallons of water. If 135 of hot water,

supplied by a water heater, is blended

with cold water at 58 of, the shower

will consume 9.74 gallons of cold water

and 15.26 gallons of hot water. In

contrast, if the hot water supply

temperature were reduced to 115 of the

usage proportions would change to 4.39

gallons of cold water and 20.61 gallons

of hot water. The energy consumed and

the quantity of water used in the shower

is the same in both cases but the

proportion of heated water goes up. The

important difference is that, in the time

between showers, the energy consumed

to maintain the stored water

temperature goes down by 29.85%

when the water is stored at 115 of

versus 135 of. The person taking the

shower didn't know the difference

except they had to use more hot water

to get the desired temperature. As the

stored water temperature is further

lowered, eventually the water heater

will not be able to supply the needed

amount of blended hot water and the

water temperature will have to be

increased.

The adaptive control logic continually

adjusts stored water temperature within

specified limits to get to the temperature

where the maximum demand event can

be met by the quantity and temperature

of water stored in the heater. This

"Energy Saver Cycle" will produce real

energy savings in a significant number

of households and thus deserves to have

a test procedure designed to allow the

efficiency benefits to be demonstrated.

The current test procedure doesn't allow

this because the mean tank test

temperature is fixed at 135 of.

Energy Saver Cycle Qualification test

It is simple for a manufacturer to put

an electronic control on a water heater

and label a cycle as an "Energy Saver

Cycle" without having an adaptive

control that will adjust stored water

temperature based on usage. Some

examples of other controls that would

not qualify for this modified test

procedure could be, a conventional

control with a fixed but lower set point

which is identified as an "Energy Saver

Cycle" or an off peak type control that

simply adjusts the set point based on

the time of the day. This new test is

required to prove that the control meets

the "Energy Saver Cycle" criteria as a

qualifier to use the energy saver test

modifications. The object of the Page 3

test is to confirm that the control does

adapt the stored water temperature

based on water usage.

The following simple test would be

used to prove that the control adapts

water temperature to water usage.

1. The unit is set up per the "Uniform

Test Method for Measuring the Energy

Consumption of Water Heaters", 10 CFR

430.23.

2. The unit is run on normal cycle and

the thermostat is adjusted until the

mean tank temperature is 135 OF. Then

the control is switched to the "Energy

Saver Cycle" and a series of small draws

are made. Each draw should be

sufficient to cause the lower element to

come on. The lower element will reheat

the water until it shuts off at which time

another draw will start. This sequence

will continue until the mean tank

temperature, at the element shutoff

point, is 125 OF or less. The mean tank

temperature after the first cycle should

be 135 OF and the last cycle will be 125

OF or less to show that the control will

lower the set point in response to a low

water usage situation.

3. Then the draw size will be changed

to be large enough that the control will

adjust the temperature up. After each

reheat the draw will be repeated until

the control has adjusted the set point up

enough to return the mean tank

temperature back to the 135 OF point. At

this point, the test would have proven

that the control adjusts set point up and

down based on actual water usage. If the

control can not demonstrate the

adaptive ability to adjust stored water

temperature based on actual usage, it

will not qualify to use the proposed

modified procedure.

4. This test is somewhat cumbersome

in that a large number of draw reheat

cycles would be required to complete

the test. In our case, it would require

approximately 100 cycles. The test

could be automated and allowed to run

over night to speed up the qualification

process. The test should only have to be

run once for a given manufacturer's

control. Once the control has been

qualified, any units using that control

would qualify for the Energy Saver

Cycle test sequence.

Test Procedure Changes

Staying with the principal that the

delivered hot water energy doesn't

change as the stored water temperature

changes, the following changes are

required to allow the energy savings of

an "Energy Saver Cycle" to be

demonstrated and evaluated.

1. The size of the six water draws will

be adjusted such that the BTUs of

delivered hot water (BTUs to heat the

water from 58F to delivery temperature)

is equal to BTUs for the six 10.7 gallon

draws heated from 58F to 135F. This

calculation = (Gallons x Lbs.lgal. x

Specific Heat x (delivered temp. - 58F)

= (6851 BTU for 10. 7 gal. heated from

58F to 135F). Since the delivered water

temperature is not a constant during a

draw, this calculation could be

accomplished by using "Simpson's

Rule" method or another suitable

numerical method to integrate the

delivered water temperature-volume

function. The water draw is started and

the total is calculated every 5 seconds

until the 6851 BTU of delivered hot

water energy is reached. The actual

volume of each draw will vary inversely

as the delivered water temperature

varies. The Energy Saver Cycle typically

draws about 90 tol00 gallons versus the

64.2 gallons of the current test

procedure. The hot water energy

delivered in both cases is the same. One approach to running this

modified test on a heater with an

"Energy Saver Cycle" would be to set

up the heater as "normal" with the

thermostat set to give a mean tank

temperature of 135 OF. Then run the test

draw sequence repeatedly until the

temperature adjustment logic of the

control lowers the temperature to the

lowest stable temperature. At that point,

a full 24 hour efficiency test would be

conducted to determine the efficiency of

the heater using Energy Saver Cycle.

This would require over 100 draw and

reheat cycles using our control

algorithm. This approach is impractical.

The practical approach is to run the

control in normal mode and adjust the

water temperature to the lowest stable

temperature that the "Energy Saver

Cycle" would reach ifthe above

approach were used.

2. Definition oflowest stable

temperature: This is the lowest water

temperature set point such that when

the six draw sequence in step 1 is

performed, the control will not adjust

the set point higher. In our control logic,

the set point is increased if the cold

water rises far enough in the tank to

cause the upper element to come on.

Thus for our control logic, the lowest

temperature where the draw sequence

in step 1 doesn't cause the upper

element to come on is our "lowest stable

temperature". Other control logic could

result in another "lowest stable

temperature" point. To determine this

temperature, the tester would need to

know the temperature adjustment logic

for the Energy Saver Cycle. He would

set the test water temperature to the

lowest stable temperature based on that

logic. He then would observe the draw

quantities and temperatures during the

efficiency test to see that a temperature

adjustment condition was not present. If

a temperature adjustment would have

been made the test is invalid and the

 Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 06
3454 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 16/ Thursday, January 24, 2002/ Proposed Rules

test would need to be repeated at a

higher temperature.

3. In the current procedure, the mean

tank temperature is to be adjusted to

135F. There are three places in the

calculation of efficiency where the raw

data is adjusted back to 135F to correct

for variation between actual and ideal

test conditions. Since the Energy Saver

Cycle test doesn't run at 135F mean tank

temperature, this correction needs to be

changed to reflect the new test

conditions. This means that the hard

coded 135 values in the calculations

must be changed to a variable so the

actual value can reflect the current test

conditions. The most appropriate

variable is "Tsu" which is the

maximum mean tank temperature

observed after the sixth draw. In the

current procedure, Tsu must be 135F ±

5F and is the logical equivalent of the

135F of the current procedure. Thus the

calculation of Qda is changed from

Qda = Qd- «Tstby,2 - Ta,stby,2)-(135-67.5» VA tstby,2 to

Qda = Qd- «Tstby,2 - Ta,stby,2)-(Tsu- 67.5» VA tstby,2 and QHW,77 is change from

QHW,77=±Mi Cpi (l35F-58F) to QHW,77=± Mi Cpi (Tsu-58F)

1=1 Nr ;=1 Nr

Ef ' h d fi Ef Mi Cpi (Tsu - 58F) Ef Mi Cpi(Tsu - 58F) IS C ange rom =£... to =£... .

I~! Qdm I=! Qdm

Conclusion

New technologies can foster changes

that obsolete current practices.

American Water Heater's adaptive

control has created an energy saving

control method that was not anticipated

or covered by the current DOE test

procedure. This waiver will allow the

efficiency benefits of this improved

control method to be demonstrated

while the test procedures are modified

to keep up with technology. This change

in control method will reduce water

heater energy consumption, and thus its

adoption by the industry should be

encouraged. This can best be done by

granting this waiver and modifying the

test procedure. Confidential test data,

which demonstrates the energy

efficiency benefit, can be made available

upon your request.

Respectfully submitted,

Timothy J. Shellenberger,

Sr. Vice President-Product Engineering.

April 26. 2001

Assistant Secretary for Conservation and

Renewable Energy United States

Department of Energy,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585

To Whom It May Concern: Subject:

Application for Interim Waiver.

American Water Heater Company seeks a

waiver in the application of the "Uniform

Test Method for Measuring the Energy

Consumption of Water Heaters" contained in

10 CFR Part 430 Subpart B Appendix E as

applied to electric water heater models that

have adaptive electronic controls. We are

seeking this interim waiver to allow the

initial marketing of our new product to claim

the benefits of the "Energy Saving Cycle" as

described in the petition for waiver.

We feel that the interim waiver should be

granted because it is likely that the petition

for waiver will be granted. The new

technology addressed by the petition for

waiver yields a legitimate energy savings and

improvement in the energy efficiency level of

this category of appliance. This improvement

serves the interest and goal of the Department

of Energy and thus should be supported.

Allowing the waiver will encourage other

manufacturers to produce similar products

creating a.general improvement in energy

conservation. As new technology is

developed, test procedures need to be

modified to accommodate the improvement

and allow the benefits to be shown to the

consumer. These are all good arguments as to

why the waiver should be granted and thus

the interim waiver be granted.

From an economic point of view, American

Water Heater Company has invested

significantly in the development of this

product and to not be able to present one of

its best features would cause loss ofsales and

discourage further development.

Respectfully submitted,

DOE WAIVER MODEL COMPARISON

Timothy Shellenberger,

Sr. Vice President-Product Engineering.

TJS/meh

I, the undersigned, on behalf of American

Water Heater Company, hereby certify that a

copy of the foregoing Petition for Waiver and

Petition for Interim Waiver, has been sent to

each of the following known manufacturers

of domestically marketed units of the same

product type (as listed in Section 322(a) of

the Act), as follows:

. Rheem Water Heater Division, Rheem

Manufacturing Company, 2600 Gunter Park

Drive East, Montgomery, AL 36109-1413,

Attention: Scott D. Martin

A.O. Smith Water Products Company,

Rochelle Park, Suite 200, 600 E. John

Carpenter Freeway, Irving, TX 75062-3990,

Attention: Ronald Massa

Bradford White Corporation, 200 Lafayette

Street, Middleville, MI 49333-9492,

Attention: Eric M. Lannes

State Industries, 500 Lindahl Parkway,

Ashland City, TN 37015-1234, Attention:

John R. Lindahl, Jr.

Lochinvar Corporation, 2005 Elm Hill Pike,

Nashville, TN 37210-3807, Attention: Mr.

William 1. Vallett, Jr.

I further hereby certify that the Assistant

Secretary for Conservation and Renewable

Energy will receive and consider timely

written comments on the Application for

Interim Waiver.

This the 26th day of April 2001.

Timothy J. Shellenberger.

AWHC wholesale mod- AWHC retail mod- AWHC wholesale AWHC retail mod- RHEEM (Rich- Stale Industries

els electronic els electronic models standard als standard mond. Rudd. GE) A.O. Smith Bradford White (Reliance. Lochinvar

Maylag. Sears)

EE92-40H'"O''' EE2H40HO······ E92-40W"O'" E2H40HD.....•.. 81XH400 PEST-40 M+40T100S PS-40-20RT STA040KK-3

MOH40-2 M-II-40T100S 9-40-2KRT

82R40-2 HE20-40T

EXR40-2 SSX-40-2LRT

32746

 Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 06
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 16/Thursday, January 24, 2002/Proposed Rules

DOE WAIVER MODEL COMPARISON-Continued

3455

AWHC wholesale mod- AWHC relail mod- AWHC wholesale AWHC relail mod- RHEEM (Rich- Slale Industries

A.D.Smilh Bradford While (Reliance, Lochinvar els electronic els electronic models standard els standard mond, Rudd, GE) Maylag, Sears)

EE122-40W"D'" EE2J40HD······ E122-40W"D'" E2J40HD...... 81XH40D PEST-40 M-I-40T10DS PX-40-20RT STA040KK-3

MEH40-2 M-II-40T10DS 9-40-2KRT

HE29-40T

SSX-40-2LRT

32746

12-40-2ART

EE122-40W"D'" EE3H40HD...... E93-40W"D'" E3H40HD...... MR40245 PEHT-40 M-III-40T10DS 32049

MP40245 LT-40-2LRT

EE93-40H"'D'" EE3J40HD...... E123-40H"'D'" EJ40HD...... MR40245 PDHT-40 M-III-40T10DS 32049

MP40245 LT-40-2LRT

EE92-40R'"D''' EE2H40RD...... EE92-40R"'D'" E2H40RD...... RMEMKR 40-2 PES-40 M-III-40S10DS SSX-40-2LRS

9-40-2KRS

EE122-40R"'D'" EE2J40RD...... E122-40R"'D'" E2J40RD...... RMEMKR 40-2 PES-40 M-II-40S10DS SSX-40-2LRS

PE40M9A 9-40-SK4S

12-40-2ARS

EE93-40R'"D''' EE3H40RD...... E93-40R'"D''' E3H40RD'''W'' RMEMXR 40- PEC-40 HE21240S LT

2TI 40-2LRS

SE40M12A

EE123-40R'"D'" EE3J40RD...... E123-40R"'D'" E3J40RD·....• RMEMXR 40- PEC-40 HE21240S LT

2TI 40-2LRS

SE40M12A

EE92-50H'"D''' EE2H50HD..•..• E92-50W"D'" E2H50HD...... 81X52 D PEST-52 M-II-50T10DS PX-52-20RT STA052KK-3

ME52-2 9-52-2KRT

RMEKR 50-2 HE29 SOT

PE50T9A 32756

82XR52-2 SSX-52-2LRT

EXR52-2

EE122-50W"D'" EE2J50HD...... E122-50W"D'" E2J50HD...... RMEXR 50- M-II-50T10DS 12-52-ART

2TI 32059

SE50T12A

EE93-50H"'D'" EE3H50HD...... E93-50H"'DC'" E3H50HD'"C''' MR50245 PEH-52 M-III-50T10DS HE21250T

MP50245 LT-52-2LRT

32151

EE123-50W"D'" EE3J50HD...... E123- E3J50HD'"C''' MR50245 PEH-52 M-III-50T10DS HE21250T

50Hwu DC··· MP50245 LT-52-2LRT

32151

EE92-50R'"D''' EE2H50RD...... E92-50R'"D''' E2H50RD·..•.. RMEMKR 50-2 PES-52 M-II-50S10DS PX-52-20RS

PE50M9A SSX-52-2LRS

82 MXR52-2 9-52-2KRS

EMXR52-2 HE2950S

EE122-50R"'D'" EE2J50RD...... E122-50R"'D'" E2J50RD...... RMEMXR 50- PEC-52 12-52-2ARS

2TI HE21250S

SE50M12A

EE93-50R'"D''' EE3H50RO...... E93-50R'"OC''' E3H50RO'"C''' LT-52-2LRS

EE123-50R"'D'" EE3J50RO...... E123- E3J50RO'"C'''

50R"'OC'"

EEZ3-50R'"O''' EE3Z50RO...... EZ3- E3Z50RO"'C'" MSR50245

SOR**"'DC***

EE92-65W"O'" EE2H65HO...... E92-65H"'O'" E2H65HD...... 81X660 PEC-66 M-II-65R100S HE2966T STA066KK-3

ME66-2 32766

RMEKR65-2 SSX-66-2LRT

82XR66-2

EXR66-2

PE65T9A

E122-65H"'D'" EE2J65HO...... E122-65H"'O'" E2J65HO...... 12-66-2ART

EE93-65W"D'" EE3H65HO...... E93-65H'"OC''' E3H65HO'"C'''

E123-65H'"O''' EE3J65HO...... E123- E3J65HO'"C''' RMEXR 65- PEH-66 M-III-65R100S 32069

65W"OC'" 2TI

EE92-80H'"O''' EE2H80HO...... E92-80W"O'" E2H80HO...... RMEKR80-2 PES-80 32786 STA082KK-3

82XR80-2 SSX-82-2LRT

EXR80-2

EE122-80H"'O'" EE2J80HO...... E122-80H"'D'" E2J80HD·....• PEC-80 12-82-2ART

EE93-80W"O'" EE3H80HO...... E93-80H"'OC'" E3H80HO"'C'"

EE123-80W"D'" EE3J80HO...... E123- E3J80HO'"C''' RMEXR 80- PEH-80 M-III-80R10DS HE21282T

80H"'OC'" 2TI 32089 LT

SE80T12A 82-2LRT

MR85245

MP85245

[FR Doc, 02-1747 Filed 1-23-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 Case No. WH-010 COMMENT 06