CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 15

32372: Federal Register I Vol 54. No. 156 I Monday, August 7. 1989 I Notices 

Office of Conservation and 

Reaewab~ Energy 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; Petition for 

Waiver and ApplicatiOn for Interim 

Waiver of Centrm Air Conditioner and 

Heat Pump Test Procedures From 

Carrier Corporation (CAC-OOS) 

AGENCY: Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Enm-gy Office, DOE. 

SUMMARY: Today's notice publishes a 

"Petition for Waiver~' from the Carrier. 

Corporation (CarrierJ. of Syracuse, New 

York. requesting a waiver from the 

existing Department of Energy (DOE} 

test procedure for central air 

conditioners and central air conditioning 

heat pumps. In addition, loday's notice 

publishes a letter denying Carrier's 

Application for an Interim Waiver. 

Carrier manufactures residential central 

air conditioners and central air 

conditioning heat pumps. Carrier 

requests that the Department grant relief 

from the DOR test procedure relating to 

testing of its split system HydroTech 

2000 model heat pump. Carrier requests 

. this· relief because. in addition to 

providing space heating and cooling, the 

HydroTech 2000 also provides domestic 

water heating. Camel' claims that while 

the HydroTecb 2DOO is capable of being 

tested in accordance with the DOE 

central air conditioner test procedure for 

space heating and cooling efficiency. the 

test procedure does not give a true 

representation of the energy 

consumption of the HydroTech 2000 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 15

Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 150 I Monday, August 7. 1989 I Notices 32373 

heat pump. DOE is soliciting comments, 

data and information respecting the 

petition~ 

DATE: DOE will accept comments. data 

and information not later than 

September 6. 1989. 

ADDRESS: Written comments and 

statements shall be sent to: Department 

of Energy. Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Case No. CAC-005. 

Mail Stop CE-132, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

FOR FURTHER Ii\IFORMATIOtJ CONTACT: 

Douglass S. Abramson, U.S. Department 

of Ene15f, Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy, Mail Station CE132, Forrestal Building, lOC·tj 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 585-9127. 

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of General COlL'1sel, 

Mail Station GC-12, Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue. 

SW., Washington, DC 20585. (202) 

586-9507. 

Background 

The Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products (other than 

automobiles) was established pursuant 

to the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA), (Pub. L. 94-163), 89 Stat. 

917, as amended by the National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), (Pub. 

L. 95-619), 92 Stat. 3266, the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 

1987 (NAECA), (pub. L. 10!H2). and the 

National Appliance Energy 

Conservation AJnemlments of 1988 

(NAECA 1988), (Pub. L. 100-357}.1. The 

Act requires DOE to prescribe 

standardized test procedures to measure 

the energy consumption of certain 

consumer products, including central air 

conditioners and central air conditioning 

heat pumps. The intent of the test 

procedures is to provide a comparable 

measure of energy consumption that will 

assist consumers in making purchasing 

decisions. These test procedures appear 

at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B. 

DOE has amended the prescribed test 

procedures on September 26. lSBO, by 

adding 10 CFR 430.27 creating the 

waiver process. 45 FR 64103. DOE 

further amended the Department's 

appliance test procedure waiver process 

to allow the Assistant Secretary for 

Conservation and Renewable Energy to 

grant an interim waiver from test 

procedure requirements to 

manufacturers that have petitioned DOE 

for a waiver of such prescribed test 

1 Part B of Title III of EPCA. as amended. is 

referred to.in this notice as the "Act," Part B of Title 

III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. 

procedures. 51 FR 42823, November 26, 

1986. The waiver process allows the 

Assistant Secretary for Conservation 

and Renewable Energy to waive 

temporarily test procedures for a 

particular basic model when a petitioner 

shows that the basic model contains one 

or more design characteristics which 

prevent testing according to the 

prescribed test procedures or when the 

prescribed test procedures may evaluate 

the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. Waivers 

generally remain in effect until final test 

procedure amend.'l1ents become 

effective, resolving the problem that is 

the subject of a waiver. 

The interim waiver prmrisions, added 

by the 1986 amendment. allow the 

Assistant Secretary to grant an interim 

waiver when 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 vvill 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. 

Carrier seeks a waiver from the DOE 

test provisions for central air 

conditioners and central air conditioning 

heat pumps for its HydroTech 2000 

model heat pump. Carrier requests this 

relief because. in addition to providing 

space heating and cooling, the 

HydroTech 2000 also provides domestic 

water heating. Carrier claims that while 

the HydroTech 2000 is capable of being 

tested in accordance with the DOE 

central air conditioner test procedure for 

Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) 

and Heating Seasonal Performance 

Factor (HSPF), the test procedure does 

not give a true representation of the 

enrgy consumption of the HydroTech 

2000 heat pump. The HydroTech 2000 

heat pump provides domestic water 

heating during the space cooling mode 

with the heat rejected from the house. 

The excess heating capacity of the heat 

PU.'IlP provides supplementary water 

heating during the space heating mode. 

When space conditioning is not 

required, the unit operates in a water 

heating only mode. This results in 

reduced energy consumption for water 

heating, as compared to a standard twoelement electric resistance water heater. 

Carrier requests that the water heating 

energy savings, compared to a 

conventional water heater. should be 

applied to the HydroTech 2000's space 

cooling and heating performance. 

Carrier requests the allowance to test 

and rate the HydroTech 2000 with an 

FE ""'f"" TT_ 

equivalent SEER and an equivalent 

HSPF. The test procedure proposed by 

Carrier is based on the Department's 

test procedure for central air 

conditioning heat pumps and would 

credit the unit's SEER and HSPF with 

the reduced energy use for water 

heating. 

Carrier also request an Interim 

Waiver from the central air conditioner 

test procedure for the HydroTech 2000 

heat pump, Carrier. in the Application 

for Interim Waiver. states that its 

Petition for Waiver will likely be 

granted since it includes a feature, water 

heating, that is not included in the 

existing central air conditioner and 

central air conditioning heat pump test 

procedure. Furthermore, Carrier claims 

that it is in the national interest for Ii 

waiver to be granted, since without a 

waiver, Carrier will not be able to claim 

the electric energy savings capabilities 

of the HydroTech 2000, and as a result, 

will lose sales which, in turn, will result 

in increased national energy 

consumption and the corresponding 

release of greenhouse gases. Finally; 

Carrier claims that it will experience 

economic hardship if the Application is 

denied since, Carrier estimates, it will 

lose approximately $7 million in gross 

margin in the next three years. 

DOE has reviewed Carrier's Petition 

for Waiver and agrees that the extant 

test procedures for central air 

conditioners and central air conditioning 

heat pumps evalutes the Carrier 

HydoTech 2000 heat pump in a manner 

unrepresentative of ita true energy 

consumption since it does not consider 

the energy usage due to water heating. 

However. the Department believes that 

the remedy proposed by Carrier. 

adjusted SEER and HSPF, are also not 

representative of the unit's true energy 

efficiency. SEER, HSPF, and Energy 

Factor (EF) are measures of efficiency 

that result from ratios of energy outputs 

and inputs for well-defined and separate 

space cooling, space heating and 

domestic water heating processes. If it 

were possible to allocate the input 

energy separately to the space heating, 

space cooling and domestic water 

heating functions, t.~en EF, SEER and 

HSPF could be calculated for L1.is unit 

However, DOE believes this is not 

possible when two processes occur 

simultaneously. Therefore, DOE 

believes that to subtract an energy 

savings quantity for water heating from 

the denominator of an output/input ratio 

that applies to space heating or cooling 

artificially inflates SEER and AFUE and 

would not represent hi-a efficiency of the 

HydroTech 2000 in either mode. 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 15

32374 Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 150 I Monday, August 7, 1989 I Notices 

If, based on the evidence included in 

Carrier's Appliance for Interim Waiver, 

DOE were to grant Camer relief from 

the central air conditioner test 

procedure, it would be to waive the test 

procedure entirely. Doe believes that 

this is contrary to Carrier's intent since 

Carrier requested the waiver in order to 

make SEER and HSPF representations. 

Carrier claims that not being able to 

make representations of equivalent 

SEER and equivalent HSPF makes it 

difficult for consumers to "have a clear 

understanding of this product's energysaving capability." Similarly, DOE 

believes that granting outright relief 

from the test procedure would cause 

further hardships for Carrier since it 

would be unable to make either SEER or 

HSPF representations. 

Therefore. based on the above. 

Carrier's Application for an Interim 

Waiver is denied. This is not a 

determination, however, on Carrier's 

Petition for Waiver, which is being· 

published today for comment. 

Carrier proposes a test method based 

on, to a signiflcant extent, the existing 

central air conditioning and central air 

conditioning heat pump test procedures. 

For water heating. Camel' proposes two 

simulated use tests with an outdoor 

temperature of 17°F and 67°F with four 

water draws to simulate household 

water usage. For combined space 

cooling/domestic water heating. Carrier 

proposes two tests, 67°F at low 

compressor speed and 95°F at high 

compressor speed. For combined space 

heating/domestic water heating. Carrier 

iJfOpOSes that one cyclic test and one 

:steady-state test be performed at 17"F. 

These tests are presented in detail in 

Carner's Petition for Waiver and its 

proposed alternate test procedure. 

Pursuant to paragraph (b) of 10 CPR 

430.27, DOE is hereby publishing the 

"Petition for Waiver." Due to its length. 

Carrier's proposed alternate test 

procedure (of 23 pages) (Attachment A), 

is not being published in the Federal 

Register. It is, however. available upon 

request at the address provided at the 

beginning of loday's notice. DOE solicits 

comments, data, and information 

respecting the petition. 

In addition, pursuant to paragraph (e} 

of § 430.27 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, the following letter denying 

the Application for Interim v'\laiver was 

issued to Carrier Corporation. 

Issued in Washington. DC. July 1, 1989. 

John R. Berg, 

Assistant Secretary, Consel1fation and 

Renewable Energy. 

May 30, 1989. 

Assistant Secretary. 

Office of Conservation and RenewabJe 

Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Mail 

StatioR CE-l32, Room GF-217, FOITestai 

Building. 1{)()(} Independence A veJ'lue 

Sw., Washington. DC 29585 

Gentlemen: 

Re: Petition for Waiver orD.O.E. Test 

Procedures for Central Air Conditioners 

(Including Heat Pumps) as They Apply to 

the Carrier HydroTech 2000 Series Heat 

Pumps 

Carner's new HydroTech 2000 heat pump 

is an innovative unit that has a unique ability 

to enhance residential ene..-gy conservation. 

The unit is the product of six years of 

research and development by Carrier and the 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The 

unit was developed and desigl1ed with one 

principal objective: significant energy 

conservation. 

Our objective in this petition for waiver is 

to seek a modification to the procedure for 

testing central ail' conditioners (including 

heat pumps). Because this product is a heat 

pump that provides domestic water heating in 

addition to space heating and cooling, a new 

and different procedure is required to rate 

this product accurately andin terms the 

consumer can understand. We recognize that 

we can test for the Seasonal Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (SEER} and Heating 

Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) of this 

unit under existing test procedures, and the 

unit can be rated accordingly. . 

However, these procedures do not describe 

to consumers this heat pump's true measure 

of efficiency or give credit for the water 

heating feature. Our recommended 

procedure, which is compatible with current 

Department of Energy test procedures for 

heat pumps and water heaters, is included in 

the attached documents "''ith supporting 

technical information. The procedure we are 

proposing can be used to test any central air 

conditioner or heat pump that also heats 

domestic hot water, such as units which 

include desuperheaters. 

The procedure being proposed is similar 

but not identical to one drafted by NIST at 

the request of DOE and EPRI. This similarity 

is in the data gaL':lering sections of each 

procedure, not in the way that data are 

applied to estabiishing systems efficiency 

ratings~ 

Specificaliy. the Carrier procedures take 

less time, and mus are les3 cosily, yet an! felt 

to provide sufficient data to develop realistic 

system efficiency ratings. The detailed 

differences between L'lese two procedures 

are pro\cided as Attachment A,l 

Specifically. we request a waiver of test 

pn)ce'UUre3 to allow the HydroTech 2000 

system to be tested and rated with an 

equkalent Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio 

(SEER) and an equivalent Heating Seasonal 

Performance Factor lHSPF) 30 that 

consumers will have a clear understanding of 

this product's energy-saving capability. 

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

was passed to conserve energy. This product 

is a quantum leap toward the goals set forth 

in thaa legislation. Energy conservation is 

now even more important as the issue of 

1 Attachment A is available upon request from 

DOE. 

global warming becomes a matter of national 

and international concern. 

The recent history of heat pump 

development in the United States reflects a 

steady progression toward more energyefficient equipment The year 1974 brought 

widespread acknowledgement and 

acceptance of the single-speed heat pump's 

energy-conserving abilities. 

Two-speed heat pumps in 1975 and 

variable-speed units in 1986 increased energy 

conservation further. 

Carner's new unit, the HydroTech 2000 

system. now provides the step beyond the 

energy-saving capability of variable speed. 

By integrating domestic water heating, which 

accounts for as much as one-third of th.e 

energy used in a home, energy-savings can be 

extended as much as 20% beyond today's 

variable speed heat pumps. 

Consumers will be able to recoup their 

hIgher initial investment in HydroTech 2000 

quickly ilirough reduced energy bills. But 

again, they must be able to evaluate this new 

unit's energy-saving abilities in terms they 

understand. 

The HydroTech 2000 heat pump is a natural 

progression in the trend toward more energyefficient equipment. However, we must be 

able to present this new system's energy 

efficiency in II. way that is familiar and 

understood by consumers so they can make 

rational comparisons. Therefore, we are 

requesting II. waiver and the ability to present 

this unit's efficiency in terms of equivalent 

SEER and HSPF, which are measurements 

and comparisons that consumers understand. 

Our recommended approach to rating this 

new system is as ioflows. Because the 

HydroTecn 2000 unit provides virtually free 

water heating during the cooling mode, and 

reduced energy consumption for water 

heating during the space heating mode and 

water heating only modes, the resulting 

energy-use reduction from that of 

conventional electric resistance heat water 

heaters should be applied to the unit's space 

cooling and heating performance. 

This is iIlustrated in Attachment B. In (1) 

the energy consumption of the HydroTech 

2000 and its HSPF and SEER are shown when 

tesled as II. heat pump only without its water 

heating function included. Tne energy-use 

values shown for DHW are based on the 

consumption of a typical household electric 

resistance water heater. In {2} is shown total 

annual energy consumption for comfort 

heating and cooling and water heating when 

tested as an integrated appliance. Here the 

reduction in ihe system's energy consumption 

(in kWh) is applied to water heating. 

Therefore, the HSPF and SEER remain the 

same (9.0 and 14.0 respectively). 

In [3J. however. the reduction in total 

energy consu'{nption is applied to heating and 

cooling and not to water heating. (Noie that 

the KWH of energy consuInption for domestic 

hot water is identical in scenarios 1 and 3.) 

Ther€fore, the unit's HSPF becomes 11.0 and 

its SEER becomes 20.4. These are the 

numbers that Carrier Corporation believes 

represent the system's true efficiencies and 

are appropriate to present to the consumer. 

It has been suggested that doliars (annual 

operating cost) be used as a comparative. No 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 15

Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 150 I Monday, August 7, 1989 I Notices 32375 bug 

listing showing combined costs of heat pumps 

and water heaters exists against which the 

operating cost of the HydroTech 2000 could 

be compared. Furnace fact sheets have not 

been effective in comparing total gas and 

electric operating costs of gas-fired furnaces. 

AFUE is the generic comparative used to 

make gas furnace purchase decisions Just as 

SEER and HSPF are the descriptors used to 

judge comparative efficiency of heat pumps. 

As a nation. the United States is becoming 

increasL'1g1y concerned with energy 

conservation. the burning of fossil fuels, and 

the greenhouse effect. The nation has also 

been concerned that A."i1erican corporations 

are taking the short-term approach to the 

future and are not investing for the long term. 

Carrier Corporation, through its new 

HydroTech 2000 unit. is addressing both of 

these major issues: energy conservation and 

long-term investment. We request that the 

Department of Energy recognizes this 

investment. and therefore we respectfully 

request a waiver from current DOE test 

procedures. 

A waiver will enable Carrier to present the 

true energy-saving capability of this new 

system to the consumer. Without the waiver. 

consumers will not be afforded the 

opportunity to understand the actual energysaving potential of this unit and will 'be 

disadvantaged when making their !)quipmentbuying decisions. They will not have'useful 

comparative information to help them make 

an informed purchasing decision. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Edward A. Baily. 

Vice President, Government & Industry 

Relations, North American Operations. 

Attachment A-Comparison With NIST Draft 

Report 

The testi!1g and rating procedure 

ff1commended by Carrier Corporation are 

similar to those recommended in a recent 

MST project which addresses the same type 

of equipment. 

The results of the NIST study have been 

compiled into a draft report by Brian 

Dougherty entitled "A Proposed Methodology 

for Rating Air-Source, integrated Heat Pump! 

\'V;:;\er Heating Appliances having Combined 

aIld Dedicated Water Heating". which wiil be 

publ.lshed in the near future as a NISTIR 

report. Although t·aST project was d'Jne 

in.oepend:::ntly. the results are similar to those 

in the Carrier proposaL 

mfferences between the hvo proposals 

exist in two areas: (1J The type and number 

of tests, and {2) the merhod01ogy for deriving 

L'1e. rating descriptors. The principc:~ , 

C'lflct€nCes can be SU.1--:nmal'12ed as lodows: 

1. Test P')ints, NIST. like Carrier. proposes 

two simulated ,lse tests (dynamic drew testsj. 

N!ST proposes tests at ourdoo, temperatures 

of'17F and 82F; Carrie!' proposes 17F and 67F 

bac:al1se we feel that these better cover the 

wide runge of water heating capacities. NIST 

proposes a slngle draw. Carrier propos€1i! a 

more comulex 4-draw schedule which is more 

representative of typical households, For the 

combined space cooling/DBIN mode. Carrier 

proposes .2 tests which cover the range of 

operation in this mode. 67F with low 

compressor speed and 95F with high 

compressor speed. with a simple 

H rmErms 

interpolation between these two points. NIST 

added two more intermediate points at 82F 

in order to cover the shift between 

desuperheating and full condensing water 

heating. Although these extra points would 

better describe the system performance, we 

do not believe that the net effects would 

justify the added testing and analysis burden. 

For the combined space heat!DHW mode. 

Carrier proposes that one cyclic test and one 

steady state test be performed at 17F 

representing system performance at a lower 

DHW capacity is low (It is higher in all other 

tests). NIST had proposed these tests at 47F 

only. 

2. Methodology. Both proposals use 

temperature bin type procedures. NIST 

averages the daily DHW load (converted to 

BTUs) evenly over a 24 hour period. resulting 

in a low lORd {IllS!! than 2000 BTU/hour). We 

feel that this will over-estimate the 

capabilities of an integrated Dffi'V unit, 

especially low-capacity. desuperheating-oruy 

types. since DHW loads are normally 

discrete and require quick responses with 

capacities comparable to 4.5 kW (15358 BTU/ 

hr) tank heater elements. If heat pump 

equipment has lower capacities, the auxiliary 

elements will be used If the load is always 

low. the use of auxiliary elements will be 

under-estimated. Carrier proposes splitting 

the typical day intQ two parts-an active 

draw period (all draws. high BTU/hr loads) 

and a standby period (no draws. low BW/hr 

loads). 

Concerning rating and reporting 

descriptors, Carder proposes the use of 

equivalent SEER and HSPF factors, which 

combine the system energy savings eccrued 

in all operating modes, into factors (SEER 

and f ISPFl which are universally accepted 

and understood by both manufacturers and 

purchasers of heat pump equipment. By using 

SEER and HSPF factnfs. the benefits of th,e 

advanced heat PU\llP system are related to 

- ATTACHMENT 8,-V.l\RIABLE-SPEEO HE.i\T 

PUMP SYSTEM ANNUAL PERFORMANCE 

REPORTING OPTiONs-Continued 

[DOE Heating Region 4] 

Annual energy I 

use,KWH I 

!--~r-----i HSPf I SEER 

Heat- Ceoi· i 

ing il19 I 

StH!..._............... 1135 

·DHW.................... 3233 

Total ......... " ... 10164 

2, FullyInte<jrated-- I 

Option A: I 

I I 

···'i~~~··I:::::::::::::I:::::::::::: 

I I SP~~~:··· .... ·· .. · ...... ·I 

8tHt .................. . 

5796 21:.61 i 9(1 I 14.0 

~!~~ 1"""821"':::::::::::::1:::::::::::: 

8691 3752 "." .... " .. 1" ........ .. ·DHw" .. · ...... ··· ...... 11 

Total ............. . 

3. Fully- I 

I IntegratedOption S: I sp~~~:................... 4523 

SIHt ................... 

1 

1135 

·OHW.................... 3233 

Total .............. 1 

8891 

1965 11,0 20.4 

1787 ............ ,., ....... ,., 

3752 ....... " ...... ,,"_ .... . 

'Based on domestic hot water tank Energy Factor 

of 0.87, daily hot water usage of 64.3 gallons, 77 F 

hot waler temperature rise (58 to 135 Fl. 

July 31, 1989. 

Mr. Edward A. Baily, 

Vice President. Government and Industry 

Operations, North American Operaiions, 

Carrier Corporation, P.O. Box 4808. 

Carrier Parkway, Syracuse, IvY 1322.1 

Dear Mr. Baily: This ls in response to your 

May 30, 19119. Application for Interim Waiver. 

from the Department of Energy (DOE) test 

procedures for central air conditioners when 

testing Carrier's HydroTech 2000 model split 

system central air conditioning heat pumps. 

Pursuant to the Energy Policy and the operating modes (space cooling and 

heating) which account for the major energy 

costs to the consumer and to which he would 

be mos! responsive. The use of overall 

efficiency factors (including space 

and cooling and DHWj. as proposed 

by would not effectively signal the true 

energy savings potential of advanced heat 

to til" con1'umer because til the 

would be jOWHf than the standard 

air-io-air SEER and HSPF values for 

convemiona! heat pumps. and (2) the use of a 

{"qn",;",l:>lv new efficiency term WORld 

- Conservation Act, as amended. the 

Department has prescribed test procedures to 

measure the energy consumption of certain 

major household appliances, including 

central air conditioners. The intent of the test 

procedures is to provide a comparable 

mBasure of energy consumption that win 

assist consumers in making purchase 

decisions, Th",se test procedures appear in 

the COGe of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR 

Part 430, Subpart B. 

sales persons and consumers to 

the point t"at they may be ignored. 

ATTACHMENT B.-VARIABLE-SPEED Han 

PUMP SYSTEM ANNUAL PERFORMANCE 

REPORTiNG OPTiONS 

mOE Heaiing Region 4] 

'--------:I-A-n-,n-u-'a-I-e-n-er-g-y-Ir-----cr----

use, KWH I ' I HSPF SEER 

, Heat-I Coo;- I ! 1119 Ing. 

1, SejJarate DHW: III -j--' ---+1-9-.0-+-.'11 --

Space: I 

HP" .... " ............ .J 5796 2851 14,0 

DO£ amended the test procedure 

ref-uiations on September 25, 1980 {45 FR 

&HD8j and November 15. 19B$ (51 FR 4.2523). 

ThAse provisions allow the Assistant 

Secretary for Conservation and Renewable 

Energ-y to waive temporarily test pr'Ocedures 

for !i particular basic model when a petitioner 

snO'lNs that the b2.5ic mOth:l cor:tains one or 

charactelisties which prevent 

basic modd according to the 

test rrroced1Jl'f:s or when the 

prescribed test procedures may evaluate t1,e 

basic model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption characteristics 

as to provide materiaily inadequate 

comparative data. The 1985 amendments 

provide that an interim waiver from test 

procedure requirements will be granted by 

the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 15

32376 Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 150 I Monday, August 7; 1989 I Notices 

Renewable Energy 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 de.termination on 

the petition for waiver. Paragraph 430.27. 

Carrier seeks a waiver from the DOE test 

provisions for central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps for its 

HydroTech 2000 model heat pump. Carrier 

requests tPis relief because, in addition to 

providing space heating and cooling, the 

HydroTech 2000 also provides domestic 

water heating. Carrier claims Llmt while 

HydroTech2000 is capable of being tested in 

accorclllr!ce with the DOE central air 

conc1itioner test procedure for Seasonal 

Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and Heating 

Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF). the test 

procedure does not give a true representation 

of the energy consumption of the HydroTech 

2000 heat pump. The HydroTech 2000 heat 

pump provides domestic water heating during 

the space cooling mode with the heat rejected 

from the house, which results in reduced 

energy consumption for water heating, as 

compared to electric resistance water 

heating, during the space heating mode and 

water heating mode. Carrier requests Ll-tat the 

water heating energy savings, compared to a conventional water heater, should be applied 

to the HydroTech 2000's space cooling and 

heating performance. Carrier requests the 

aHowance to test and rate the HydroTech 

2000 with an equivalent SEER and an 

equivalent HSPF. The test procedure 

proposed by Carrier is based on the 

Depart.'llent's test procedure for central air 

conditioning heat pumps and would credit the 

units SEER and HSPF with the reduced 

energy use for water heating. 

DOE has reviewed Carrier's Application 

for Interim Waiver and agrees that the extant 

test procedures for central air conditioners 

and central air conditioning heat pumps 

evaluates the Carrier HydroTech 2000 heat 

pump in a maIl..ner unrepresentative of its true 

energy consumption since it does not 

consider the energy usage due to water 

heating. However, the Department believes 

that the remedy proposed by Carrier, 

adjusted SEE.~ and HSPF, are also not 

representative of the unit's L'1le energy 

efficiency. SEER, HSPF, and Energy Factor 

(EF) are measures of efficiency that result 

from ratios of energy outputs and inputs for 

well-defined and separate space cooling, 

space heating and domestic water heating 

processes. If it were possible to allocate the 

. input energy separately to the space heating, 

space cooling and domestic waler heating 

functions, then EF, SERR and HSPF could be 

calculated for this unit. However, DOE 

believes this is not possible when two 

processes occur simultaneously. Therefore, 

DOE believes that to subtract an energy 

sallt."1gs quantity for water heating from the 

denominator of an output/input ratio that 

applies to space heating or cooling artificially 

inflates SEER and AFUE and would not 

represent the efficiency of the HydroTech 

2000 in either mode. 

If, based on the evidence included in 

Carrier's Application for Interim Waiver, 

DOE were to grant Carrier relieffrom the 

central air conditioner test procedure, it 

would be to waive the test procedure 

entirely: DOE Believes that this is contrary to/ 

Ca.lTier's intent since Carrier requested the 

waiver to be able to make SEER and HSPF 

representations. Carrier claims that not being 

able to make representations of equivalent 

SEEH. and equivalent HSPF would "limit their 

ability to attract consumers." Similarly, DOE 

believes that granting outright relief from the 

test procedure would cause further hardships 

for Carrier since it would be unable to make 

either SEER or HSPF representations. 

Therefore Carrier's Application for Interim 

Waiver requesting relief from the DOE test 

procedures for its HydroTech 2000 heat pump 

is denied. 

This determination does not prejudice 

Carrier's Petition for Waiver on this issue. 

Yours truly, 

Dr. John R. Berg, 

Assistant Secretary, Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 89-18423 Filed 6-4-89; 8;45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-1)1-1.1 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. QFB1-463-002] 

AES Barbers POint, Inc.; ApplicaUon 

for Commission Recertification of 

Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration 

Faciiity 

July 31, 1989. 

On July 24. 1989. AES Barbers Point, 

Inc. (Applicant), cIa Paul T. Hanrahan 

of 1001 North 19th Street, Arlington, 

Virginia 22209 submitted for filing an 

application for recertification of a 

facility as a qualifying cogeneration 

facility pursuant to § 292.207 of the 

Commission's regulations. No 

determination has been made that the 

submittal constitutes a complete filing. 

The topping-cycle cogeneration 

facility will be located in Oahu. Hawaii. 

The facility will consist of two 

circulating fluidized bed boilers and one 

extraction/ condensing steam turbinegenerator. Thermal energy recovered 

. from the facility will be used for heating 

oil tanks at the Chevron U.S. Inc. 

refiner!. The primary energy source will 

be coal. Construction of the facility is 

expe..::ted to begin on or about October 1. 

1989. 

The original application was filed on 

July 15, 1988, and certification was 

granted on October 3, 1988 (45 PERC 

1\62,002). The recertification is requested 

due to a change in the net electric power 

production capacity from 161 megawatts 

to 189 megawatts. 

Any person desiring to be heard or 

objecting to the granting of qualifying 

status should file a petition to intervene 

or protest with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 825 North 

Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 

214 of the Commission's Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. All such 

petitions or protests must be filed within 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice and must be served on the 

applicant. Protests will be considered by 

the COI111I'Jssion in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a petition to 

intervene. Copies of this filing are on file 

with the Commission and are available 

for public inspection. 

Lois D. Cashell, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 89-18330 Filed 8-4-89; 8:45 am] 

BIlliNG CODE 6717-111-1.1 

[Docket 1'113. 01"89-226-000] 

The Des Moines Integrated Community 

Area; Application for Commission 

Certification of Qualifying Status of a 

Cogeneration Facility 

July 31, 1989. 

On July 24, 1989, The Des Moines 

Integrated Community Area (Applicant), 

of City Hall, East First and Locust, Des 

Moines. Iowa 50307 submitted for filing 

an application for certification of a 

facility as a qualifying cogeneration 

facility pursuant to § 292.207 oJ the 

Commission's regulations. No 

determination has been made that the 

submittal constitutes a complete filing. 

The topping-cycle cogeneration 

facility will be located in Des Moines, 

Iowa. The facility will consist of three 

gas-fired engine-generators. Thermal 

energy recovered from the facility will 

be used for sludge healing for the 

anaerobic digestion system and building 

space heating. The primary energ'i 

source will be digester gas. The electric 

power production capacity of the facility 

will be 1,800, kW. 

Any person desiring to be heard or 

objectiIlg to the granting of qualifying 

status shonld file a petition to intervene 

or protest with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 825 North 

Capitol Street, ~'E., Washington, DC 

20426. in accordance with rules 211 and 

214 of the Com.rrJssion's Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. All such 

petitions or protests must be filed within 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice and must be served on the 

applicant. Protests will be considered by 

the Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken but will