22640 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[EERE–2021–BT–STD–0020] 

RIN 1904–AD49 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Pool Heaters 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including consumer pool heaters. EPCA 

also requires the U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to periodically 

determine whether more-stringent, 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant energy 

savings. In this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), DOE proposes 

definitions for the different classes of 

pool heaters, amended energy 

conservation standards for gas-fired 

pool heaters, new energy conservation 

standards for electric pool heaters, and 

also announces a public meeting to 

receive comment on these proposed 

standards and associated analyses and 

results. 

DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting via webinar on this NOPR on 

Wednesday, May 4, 2022, from 1 p.m. 

to 4 p.m. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: Comments regarding the 

likely competitive impact of the 

proposed standard should be sent to the 

Department of Justice contact listed in 

the ADDRESSES section on or before May 

16, 2022. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this NOPR no 

later than June 14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments by email to the 

following address: 

PoolHeaters2021STD0020@ee.doe.gov. 

Include ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards for Consumer Pool Heaters’’ 

and the docket number EERE–2021–BT– 

STD–0020 and/or RIN number 1904– 

AD49 in the subject line of the message. 

Submit electronic comments in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 

ASCII file format, and avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is 

currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the Covid–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VII of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2021-BT-STD0020. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VII for 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy following the instructions at 

www.regulations.gov. 

EPCA requires the Attorney General 

to provide DOE a written determination 

of whether the proposed standard is 

likely to lessen competition. The U.S. 

Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

invites input from market participants 

and other interested persons with views 

on the likely competitive impact of the 

proposed standard. Interested persons 

may contact the Division at 

energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or 

before the date specified in the DATES

section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ 

line of your email the title and Docket 

Number of this proposed rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 597– 

6737. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

2002. Email: Kathryn.McIntosh@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the webinar, contact the Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program staff 

at (202) 287–1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Consumer Pool Heaters 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

F. Other Issues 

1. Regulatory Approach For Consumer Pool 

Heaters 

2. Certification and Enforcement 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22641 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 

2. Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

2. Remaining Technologies 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency analysis 

2. Cost Analysis 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

1. Pool Heater Consumer Samples 

2. Energy Use Estimation 

3. Energy Use Results 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

6. Product Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

G. Shipments Analysis 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

K. Emissions Analysis 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in 

DOE’s Analysis 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

2. Monetization of Other Air Pollutants 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

3. National Impact Analysis 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

8. Summary of National Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Consumer Pool Heater 

Standards 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part B1 of EPCA,2 established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

These products include consumer pool 

heaters, the subject of this rulemaking. 

(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(11)) 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must result in a 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also 

provides that not later than 6 years after 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking including new proposed 

energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

document, DOE proposes amended 

energy conservation standards for gasfired pool heaters and new energy 

conservation standards for electric pool 

heaters. In addition, the proposed new 

and amended standards are expressed in 

terms of the integrated thermal 

efficiency (TEI) metric, which replaces 

the thermal efficiency (TE) metric for 

gas-fired pool heaters, and are shown in 

Table I.1. The proposed TEI standards 

are expressed as a function of the active 

mode electrical input power (PE) in 

British thermal units per hour (Btu/h) 

for electric pool heaters and the gas 

input rating (QIN) in Btu/h for gas-fired 

pool heaters. These proposed standards, 

if adopted, would apply to all consumer 

pool heaters listed in Table I.1 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States starting on the date 5 

years after the publication of the final 

rule for this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(4)(A)(ii)) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22642 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3The average LCC savings refer to consumers that 

are affected by a standard and are measured relative 

to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the 

compliance year in the absence of new or amended 

standards (see section IV.F.9 of this NOPR). The 

simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific 

efficiency levels, is measured relative to the 

baseline product (see section IV.C of this NOPR). 

4The discount rate was derived from industry 

financials from publicly traded companies and then 

modified according to feedback received during 

manufacturer interviews. 

5All monetary values in this document are 

expressed in 2020 dollars. 

6The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.H.1 of this document. 

7A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on consumers of consumer 

pool heaters, as measured by the average 

life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings and the 

simple payback period (‘‘PBP’’).3 The 

average LCC savings are positive for 

electric pool heaters and gas-fired pool 

heaters, and the PBP is less than the 

average lifetime of electric pool heaters 

and gas-fired pool heaters, which is 

estimated to be 11.2 years (see section 

IV.F.6 of this NOPR). 

TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF POOL HEATERS

Product class 

Average LCC 

savings 

2020$ 

Simple payback period 

years 

Electric Pool Heater ................................................................................................................................................. 1,029 0.7 

Gas-fired Pool Heater .............................................................................................................................................. 43 1.5 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this 

document. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value 

(‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted 

cash flows to the industry from the 

reference year through the end of the 

analysis period (2021–2057). Using a 

real discount rate of 7.4 percent,4 DOE 

estimates that the INPV for 

manufacturers of consumer pool heaters 

in the case without new and amended 

energy conservation standards is $188.7 

million in 2020$. Under the proposed 

standards, the change in INPV is 

estimated to range from ¥14.7 percent 

to ¥7.7 percent, which is 

approximately ¥$27.7 million to 

¥$14.4 million. In order to bring 

products into compliance with the 

proposed standards, it is estimated that 

the consumer pool heater industry 

would incur conversion costs of 

approximately $38.8 million. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on manufacturers is 

described in section IV.J of this 

document. The analytic results of the 

manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) 

are presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 5

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for consumer pool heaters would save a 

significant amount of energy. Relative to 

the case without new or amended 

standards, the lifetime energy savings 

for consumer pool heaters purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

anticipated first full year of compliance 

with the new or amended standards 

(2028–2057) amount to 0.49 quadrillion 

British thermal units (‘‘Btu’’), or quads.6

This represents a savings of 5.3 percent 

relative to the energy use of electric and 

gas-fired pool heaters in the case 

without amended standards (referred to 

as the ‘‘no-new-standards case’’). 

The cumulative net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of 

the proposed standards for consumer 

pool heaters ranges from $0.95 billion 

(at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.39 

billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). 

This NPV expresses the estimated total 

value of future operating-cost savings 

minus the estimated increased product 

and installation costs for consumer pool 

heaters purchased in 2028–2057. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

for consumer pool heaters are projected 

to yield significant environmental 

benefits. DOE estimates that the 

proposed standards would result in 

cumulative emission reductions (over 

the same period as for energy savings) 

of 19 million metric tons (‘‘Mt’’) 7 of 

carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 5.5 thousand 

tons of sulfur dioxide (‘‘SO2’’), 90 

thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15AP22.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22643 

8 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the no-new-standards case, which reflects key 

assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2021 

(‘‘AEO2021). AEO2021 represents current federal 

and state legislation and final implementation of 

regulations as of the time of its preparation. See 

section IV.K for further discussion of AEO2021 

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions. 

9See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost 

of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 

Washington, DC, February 2021. Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf (last 

accessed March 17, 2022). 

10 DOE estimated the monetized value of SO2 and 

NOX emissions reductions associated with site and 

electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates 

from the scientific literature. See section IV.L.2 of 

this document for further discussion. 

11 DOE estimates the economic value of these 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

TSLs for the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

12 DOE plans to update its methodology to reflect 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent 

updates to benefit-per-ton values in a future impact 

analysis if DOE issues a final rule and generally for 

forthcoming rulemakings, but DOE does not have 

time to fully vet the new methods for this impact 

analysis. 

13On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal 

government’s emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary 

injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv– 

1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth 

Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no 

longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. Among other things, the preliminary 

injunction enjoined the defendants in that case 

from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or 

relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the 

Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to 

monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further intervening 

court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior 

to the injunction and present monetized benefits 

where appropriate and permissible under law. 

(‘‘NOX’’), 161 thousand tons of methane 

(‘‘CH4’’), 0.15 thousand tons of nitrous 

oxide (‘‘N2O’’), and 0.03 tons of mercury 

(‘‘Hg’’).8

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases using four different estimates of 

the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SC–CO2’’), the 

social cost of methane (‘‘SC–CH4’’), and 

the social cost of nitrous oxide (‘‘SC– 

N2O’’). Together these represent the 

social cost of greenhouse gases (SC– 

GHG). DOE used interim SC–GHG 

values developed by an Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG).9 The 

derivation of these values is discussed 

in section IV.L of this document. For 

presentational purposes, the climate 

benefits associated with the average SC– 

GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 

estimated to be $0.9 billion. DOE does 

not have a single central SC–GHG point 

estimate and it emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the 

benefits calculated using all four SC– 

GHG estimates. 

DOE also estimates health benefits 

from SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions.10 DOE estimates the present 

value of the health benefits would be 

$0.1 billion using a 7-percent discount 

rate, and $0.3 billion using a 3-percent 

discount rate.11 DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NOX) 

ozone precursor health benefits but will 

continue to assess the ability to 

monetize other effects such as health 

benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions 12 13

Table I.3 summarizes the economic 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the proposed standards for 

consumer pool heaters. In the table, 

total benefits for both the 3-percent and 

7-percent cases are presented using the 

average GHG social costs with 3-percent 

discount rate. DOE does not have a 

single central SC–GHG point estimate 

and it emphasizes the importance and 

value of considering the benefits 

calculated using all four SC–GHG 

estimates. The estimated total net 

benefits using each of the four SC–GHG 

estimates are presented in section V.B.8. 

of this document. 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS

[TSL 5] 

Billion 2020$ 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.2 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.9 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.3 

Total Benefits † .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.4 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .............................................................................................................................................. 0.8 

Net Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.6 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.4 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.9 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

Total Benefits † .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.4 

Consumer Incremental Product costs ‡ ............................................................................................................................................... 0.4 

Net Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.0 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown in Table 

V.17 through Table V.19. Together these represent the global social cost of greenhouse gases (SC–GHG). For presentational purposes of this 

table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a 

single central SC–GHG point estimate. See section. IV.L of this document for more details 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone 

precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22644 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

14To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2028, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted 

the present value from each year to 2028. The 

calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent 

for all costs and benefits. Using the present value, 

DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over 

a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, 

that yields the same present value. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central 

SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. 

See Table V.22 for net benefits using all four SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted 

the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. 

Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the 

defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 

gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the 

benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards, for consumer pool heaters 

sold in 2028–2057, can also be 

expressed in terms of annualized values. 

The monetary values for the total 

annualized net benefits are (1) the 

reduced consumer operating costs, 

minus (2) the increase in product 

purchase prices and installation costs, 

plus (3) the value of the benefits of 

GHGs, SO2 and NOX emission 

reductions, all annualized.14

The national operating savings are 

domestic private U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products and 

are measured for the lifetime of 

consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028– 

2057. The climate and health benefits 

associated with reduced emissions 

achieved as a result of the proposed 

standards are also calculated based on 

the lifetime of consumer pool heaters 

shipped in 2028–2057. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards are 

shown in Table I.4. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards proposed in this 

rule is $49.0 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $164 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $54.5 million in climate benefits, 

and $15.6 million in health benefits. In 

this case, the net benefit would amount 

to $185 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $49.3 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$195 million in reduced operating costs, 

$54.5 million in climate benefits, and 

$19.6 million in health benefits. In this 

case, the net benefit would amount to 

$220 million per year. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

CONSUMER POOL HEATERS

[TSL 5] 

Million 2020$/year 

Primary 

estimate 

Low-netbenefits 

estimate 

High-netbenefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 194.9 179.0 212.8 

Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................................... 54.5 52.4 56.6 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 19.6 18.9 20.4 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................ 269 250 290 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................................... 49.3 51.4 49.4 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 220 199 240 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 164.2 152.7 177.7 

Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................................... 54.5 52.4 56.6 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 15.6 15.0 16.1 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................ 234 220 250 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................................... 49.0 50.7 49.2 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 185 169 201 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). Together these 

represent the global social cost of greenhouse gases (SC–GHG). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with 

the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it 

emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. See section. IV.L of this document for more details. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22645 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone 

precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central 

SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. On 

March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal 

of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or 

relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social 

Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible 

under law. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the proposed standards is described 

in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this 

document. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. DOE further 

notes that products achieving these 

standard levels are already 

commercially available for all product 

classes covered by this proposal. Based 

on the analyses described previously, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

benefits of the proposed standards to the 

Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, consumer LCC 

savings, and emission reductions) 

would outweigh the burdens (loss of 

INPV for manufacturers and LCC 

increases for some consumers). 

DOE also considered more-stringent 

energy efficiency levels as potential 

standards and is still considering them 

in this rulemaking. However, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the potential 

burdens of the more-stringent energy 

efficiency levels would outweigh the 

projected benefits. 

Based on consideration of the public 

comments DOE received in response to 

this document and related information 

collected and analyzed during the 

course of this rulemaking effort, DOE 

may adopt energy efficiency levels 

presented in this document that are 

either higher or lower than the proposed 

standards, or some combination of 

level(s) that incorporate the proposed 

standards in part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed rule, as well 

as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for consumer pool heaters. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include consumer pool 

heaters, the subject of this document. 

(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(11)) EPCA prescribed 

energy conservation standards for these 

products (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(2)) and 

directs DOE to conduct two cycles 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(e)(4)) EPCA further provides that, 

not later than 6 years after the issuance 

of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

The energy conservation program for 

covered products under EPCA consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) the establishment of 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under EPCA. 

(See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of 

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 

these test procedures to determine 

whether the products comply with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test 

procedures for consumer pool heaters 

appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430, subpart B, 

appendix P (‘‘appendix P’’). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including consumer pool heaters. Any 

new or amended standard for a covered 

product must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) For certain products, 

including consumer pool heaters, if no 

test procedure has been established for 

the product, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) 

In deciding whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 

this determination after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22646 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

15A correction notice was published on April 27, 

2010, correcting a reference to the compliance date 

for the energy conservation standard. 75 FR 21981. 

and by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard if interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the standard is likely 

to result in the unavailability in the 

United States in any covered product 

type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating an 

energy conservation standard for a 

covered product that has two or more 

subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of product that has the same 

function or intended use, if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group: (A) Consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Finally, pursuant to the amendments 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), 

Public Law 110–140, any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, is required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when 

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into a single 

standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt 

a separate standard for such energy use 

for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test 

procedures for consumer pool heaters, 

which measures integrated thermal 

efficiency, addresses standby mode and 

off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, 

DOE intends to incorporate such energy 

use into any new or amended energy 

conservation standards it adopts in the 

final rule through use of integrated 

thermal efficiency as the regulating 

metric. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

The current energy conservation 

standard for gas-fired pool heaters is set 

forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

430.32(k) and is repeated in Table II.1 

of this document. The current energy 

conservation standard for gas-fired pool 

heaters is in terms of thermal efficiency, 

which measures only active mode 

efficiency. Electric pool heaters are a 

covered product under EPCA, but there 

is currently no Federal energy 

conservation standard. 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS

Product class 

Minimum 

thermal 

efficiency 

(percent) 

Gas-Fired Pool Heaters ........ 82 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Consumer Pool Heaters 

On April 16, 2010, DOE published a 

final rule in which it concluded the first 

round of rulemaking required under 

EPCA and established an amended 

energy conservation standard for 

consumer pool heaters. 75 FR 20112 

(‘‘April 2010 final rule’’).15 In relevant 

part, the April 2010 final rule amended 

the statutorily prescribed standards for 

gas-fired pool heaters with a compliance 

date of April 16, 2013, on and after 

which gas-fired pool heaters were 

required to achieve a thermal efficiency 

of 82 percent. 

On December 17, 2012, DOE 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register that established a new 

efficiency metric for gas-fired pool 

heaters, ‘‘integrated thermal efficiency.’’ 

77 FR 74559, 74565 (‘‘December 2012 

TP final rule’’). The integrated thermal 

efficiency (TEI) metric built on the 

existing thermal efficiency metric for 

measuring active mode energy 

efficiency, and also accounts for the 

energy consumption during standby 

mode and off mode operation. DOE 

stated in the December 2012 TP final 

rule that for purposes of compliance 

with the energy conservation standard, 

the test procedure amendments related 

to standby mode and off mode (i.e., 

integrated thermal efficiency) are not 

required until the compliance date of 

the next standards final rule, which 

addresses standby and off mode. 77 FR 

74559, 74559. 

On January 6, 2015, DOE published a 

final rule pertaining to its test 

procedures for direct heating equipment 

(‘‘DHE’’) and consumer pool heaters. 80 

FR 792 (‘‘January 2015 TP final rule’’). 

In that final rule, DOE established test 

methods for measuring the integrated 

thermal efficiency of electric resistance 

and electric heat pump pool heaters. 

To evaluate whether to propose 

amendments to the energy conservation 

standard for consumer pool heaters, 

DOE issued a request for information 

(‘‘RFI’’) in the Federal Register on 

March 26, 2015. 80 FR 15922 (‘‘March 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22647 

16The rulemaking docket for DHE can be found 

at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE2016-BT-STD-0007. 

17The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for pool heaters. (Docket No. EERE–2021– 

BT–STD–0020, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

2015 RFI’’). Through the March 2015 

RFI, DOE requested data and 

information pertaining to its planned 

technical and economic analyses for 

DHE and consumer pool heaters. Among 

other topics, the March 2015 RFI sought 

data and information pertaining to 

electric pool heaters. 80 FR 15922, 

15924–15925. Although the March 2015 

RFI and the previous energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

(concluding with the April 2010 final 

rule) included both DHE and consumer 

pool heaters, DOE has elected to review 

its energy conservation standards for 

each of these products separately.16

DOE subsequently published a notice 

of data availability (‘‘NODA’’) in the 

Federal Register on October 26, 2015, 

which announced the availability of its 

analyses for electric pool heaters. 80 FR 

65169 (‘‘October 2015 NODA’’). The 

purpose of the October 2015 NODA was 

to make publicly available the initial 

technical and economic analyses 

conducted for electric pool heaters, and 

present initial results of those analyses 

to seek further input from stakeholders. 

DOE did not propose new or amended 

standards for consumer pool heaters at 

that time. The initial technical support 

document (‘‘TSD’’) and accompanying 

analytical spreadsheets for the October 

2015 NODA provided the analyses DOE 

undertook to examine the potential for 

establishing energy conservation 

standards for electric pool heaters and 

provided preliminary discussions in 

response to a number of issues raised by 

comments to the March 2015 RFI. It 

described the analytical methodology 

that DOE used and each analysis DOE 

had performed. 

In response to the publication of the 

March 2015 RFI, DOE received seven 

comments from interested parties 

regarding DOE’s analytical approach 

pertaining to both electric and gas-fired 

pool heaters. The March 2015 RFI 

comments relating to electric pool 

heaters were addressed in chapter 2 of 

the October 2015 NODA TSD. DOE 

received nine comments in response to 

the October 2015 NODA. Commenters 

on the March 2015 RFI and October 

2015 NODA are listed in Table II.2 of 

this document. The comments received 

in response to October 2015 NODA, as 

well as those comments received in 

response to the March 2015 RFI not 

previously addressed in the October 

2015 NODA, are discussed in the 

appropriate sections of this document. 

TABLE II.2—INTERESTED PARTIES PROVIDING WRITTEN COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE MARCH 2015 RFI AND/OR

OCTOBER 2015 NODA 

Name(s) Commenter 

type * Acronym 

Association of Pool and Spa Professionals and International Hot Tub Association 

(Joint Comment).

TA APSP and IHTA. 

Appliance Standard Awareness Project and Natural Resources Defense Council 

(Joint Comment).

EA ASAP and NRDC. 

Appliance Standard Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and 

National Consumer Law Center (Joint Comment).

EA ASAP et al. 

Laclede Group ............................................................................................................ U Laclede. 

National Propane Gas Association ............................................................................. U NPGA. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute ................................................. TA AHRI. 

Edison Electric Institute .............................................................................................. U EEI. 

California Investor Owned Utilities ............................................................................. U CA IOUs. 

Adriana Murray ........................................................................................................... I Murray. 

Jeffery Tawney ........................................................................................................... I Tawney. 

Raypak, Inc ................................................................................................................. M Raypak. 

Lochinvar, LLC ........................................................................................................... M Lochinvar. 

Coates Heater Manufacturing Co., Inc ....................................................................... M Coates. 

* EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; I: Individual; M: Manufacturer; TA: Trade Association; U: Utility or Utility Trade Association. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.17

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in 

appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR 

stages for an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of 

appendix A specifies that the length of 

the public comment period for a NOPR 

will vary depending upon the 

circumstances of the particular 

rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 

calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has 

opted to instead provide a 60-day 

comment period. As stated, DOE 

requested comment in the March 2015 

RFI on the technical and economic 

analyses and provided stakeholders a 

30-day comment period. 80 FR 15922. 

Additionally, DOE provided a 45-day 

comment period for the October 2015 

notice of data availability 80 FR 65169. 

DOE has relied on many of the same 

analytical assumptions and approaches 

as used in the preliminary assessment 

presented in the notice of data 

availability and has determined that a 

60-day comment period in conjunction 

with the prior comment periods 

provides sufficient time for interested 

parties to review the proposed rule and 

develop comments. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposal after 

considering written comments, data, 

and information from interested parties 

that represent a variety of interests. The 

following discussion addresses issues 

raised by these commenters. 

A. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22648 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

18Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency 

levels for each product class. The TSLs considered 

for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this 

document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify differing standards. 

In determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility of the feature to the 

consumer and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) 

This NOPR covers consumer ‘‘pool 

heaters’’ defined as an appliance 

designed for heating nonpotable water 

contained at atmospheric pressure, 

including heating water in swimming 

pools, spas, hot tubs and similar 

applications. 10 CFR 430.2. The scope 

of coverage and product classes for this 

NOPR are discussed in further detail in 

section IV.A.1 of this NOPR. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

DOE’s current energy conservation 

standards for consumer pool heaters are 

expressed in terms of thermal efficiency. 

See 10 CFR 430.32(k)(2). As stated in 

section II.A, DOE’s test procedure for 

consumer pool heaters is found at 

appendix P. 

As discussed in section II of this 

document, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to 

require DOE to amend its test 

procedures for covered consumer 

products generally to include 

measurement of standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) The test procedure 

applicable to fossil fuel-fired pool 

heaters, as amended in the December 

2012 TP final rule, relies on the TEI

metric, which accounts for energy 

consumption during active mode 

operation (sections 2.1.1, 3.1.1, and 

4.1.1 of appendix P) and standby mode 

(sections 2.2, 3.2, and 4.2 of appendix 

P) and off mode operation (sections 2.3, 

3.2, and 4.3 of appendix P), as required 

by EISA 2007. 77 FR 74559, 74572. See 

also, 77 FR 74559, 74564–74565. 

The DOE test procedure for electric 

resistance and electric heat pump pool 

heaters incorporates by reference AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) Standard 1160–2009, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Heat Pump Pool 

Heaters’’ (‘‘AHRI 1160’’) and American 

National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’)/ 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 146– 

2011, ‘‘Method of Testing and Rating 

Pool Heaters’’ (‘‘ASHRAE 146’’). The 

procedures referenced in AHRI 1160 

and ASHRAE 146 are used to determine 

the active mode energy use for electric 

resistance (sections 2.1.2, 3.1.2, and 

4.1.2 of appendix P) and electric heat 

pump pool heaters (sections 2.1.3, 3.1.3, 

and 4.1.3 of appendix P). Standby mode 

and off mode energy use are also 

recorded using the same procedures 

used for fossil-fuel fired pool heaters 

(sections 2.2, 3.2, and 4.2 and 2.3, 3.2, 

and 4.3 of appendix P, respectively). 

The active mode, standby mode, and off 

mode energy use is then combined into 

the TEI metric (section 5 of appendix P). 

In this document, DOE is proposing 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards for consumer pool heaters. To 

the extent DOE is also proposing 

amendments to the test procedure, such 

proposed amendments are limited to 

those necessary to accommodate the 

proposed definitions and the proposed 

product classes. As discussed further in 

sections III.F.2 and IV.A.1 of this 

document, DOE is proposing to amend 

appendix P to add definitions for active 

electrical power, input capacity, and 

output capacity, add a calculation to 

determine the output capacity for 

electric pool heaters, and clarify the 

calculation of input capacity for fossil 

fuel-fired pool heaters. The proposed 

amendments to appendix P, if made 

final, would not impact how the test 

procedure is conducted in terms of the 

measurements taken, but rather the 

additional provisions use existing 

measurements to calculate the values 

necessary for comparing product 

efficiency to the proposed standards. 

In response to the March 2015 RFI 

and October 2015 NODA, DOE received 

several comments from stakeholders 

relating to the consumer pool heater test 

procedure, which DOE will consider 

further in the next revision of its 

consumer pool heater test procedure. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In evaluating potential amendments 

to energy conservation standards, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the 

efficiency of the products or equipment 

that are the subject of the rulemaking. 

As the first step in such an analysis, 

DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

Sections 6(c)(1), (2) of 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A. DOE then 

determines which of those means for 

improving efficiency are technologically 

feasible. DOE considers technologies 

incorporated in commercially-available 

products or in working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. Sections 

6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 

part 430, subpart C. 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. Sections 

6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of 

appendix A to part 430 subpart C. 

Section IV.B of this document discusses 

the results of the screening analysis for 

consumer pool heaters, particularly the 

designs DOE considered, those it 

screened out, and those that are the 

basis for the standards considered in 

this rulemaking. For further details on 

the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for consumer pool heaters, 

using the design parameters for the most 

efficient products available on the 

market or in working prototypes. The 

max-tech levels that DOE determined 

for this rulemaking are described in 

section IV.C.1.c of this document and in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’), 

DOE projected energy savings from 

application of the TSL to consumer pool 

heaters purchased in the 30-year period 

that begins in the first full year of 

compliance with the proposed 

standards (2028–2057).18 The savings 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22649 

that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9- 

year period. 

19The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

20A numeric threshold for determining the 

significance of energy savings was established in a 

final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 

8626, 8670), but was subsequently eliminated in a 

final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 

70892). 

are measured over the entire lifetime of 

consumer pool heaters purchased in the 

previous 30-year period. DOE quantified 

the energy savings attributable to each 

TSL as the difference in energy 

consumption between each standards 

case and the no-new-standards case. 

The no-new-standards case represents a 

projection of energy consumption that 

reflects how the market for a product 

would likely evolve in the absence of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet model to estimate 

national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from 

potential amended or new standards for 

consumer pool heaters. The NIA 

spreadsheet model (described in section 

IV.H of this document) calculates energy 

savings in terms of site energy, which is 

the energy directly consumed by 

products at the locations where they are 

used. For electricity, DOE reports 

national energy savings in terms of 

primary energy savings, which is the 

savings in the energy that is used to 

generate and transmit the site 

electricity. For natural gas, the primary 

energy savings are considered to be 

equal to the site energy savings. DOE 

also calculates NES in terms of full-fuelcycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy savings. The FFC 

metric includes the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and thus presents a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.19 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 

of this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt standards for a covered 

product, DOE must determine that such 

action would result in ‘‘significant’’ 

energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B))) Although the term 

‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the 

EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the 

District of Columbia Circuit in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), opined that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in 

the context of EPCA to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.20 For example, the 

United States has now rejoined the Paris 

Agreement and will exert leadership in 

confronting the climate crisis. 

Additionally, some covered products 

and equipment have most of their 

energy consumption occur during 

periods of peak energy demand. The 

impacts of these products on the energy 

infrastructure can be more pronounced 

than products with relatively constant 

demand. In evaluating the significance 

of energy savings, DOE considers 

differences in primary energy and fullfuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) effects for different 

covered products and equipment when 

determining whether energy savings are 

significant. Primary energy and FFC 

effects include the energy consumed in 

electricity production (depending on 

load shape), in distribution and 

transmission, and in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus present a more complete 

picture of the impacts of energy 

conservation standards. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluated the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. As discussed in section 

V.C of this document, DOE is proposing 

to adopt TSL 5, which would save an 

estimated 0.49 quads of energy (FFC). 

DOE has initially determined the energy 

savings for the TSL proposed in this 

proposed rulemaking are nontrivial, 

and, therefore, DOE considers them 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted previously, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)– 

(VII)) The following sections discuss 

how DOE has addressed each of those 

seven factors in this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts a MIA, as 

discussed in section IV.J of this 

document. DOE first uses an annual 

cash-flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

(1) INPV, which values the industry on 

the basis of expected future cash flows, 

(2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in 

revenue and income, and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new or 

amended standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the consumer costs and 

benefits expected to result from 

particular standards. DOE also evaluates 

the impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be affected disproportionately 

by a standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered product that 

are likely to result from a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts 

this comparison in its LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates appropriate 

for consumers. To account for 

uncertainty and variability in specific 

inputs, such as product lifetime and 

discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22650 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

values, with probabilities attached to 

each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

due to a more-stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first full 

year of compliance with new or 

amended standards. The LCC savings 

for the considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.F of this document. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) 

As discussed in section III.D of this 

document, DOE uses the NIA 

spreadsheet models to project national 

energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing product classes and in 

evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 

available to DOE, the standards 

proposed in this document would not 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

products under consideration in this 

rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the 

Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will 

transmit a copy of this proposed rule to 

the Attorney General with a request that 

the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE will publish and respond to the 

Attorney General’s determination in the 

final rule. DOE invites comment from 

the public regarding the competitive 

impacts that are likely to result from 

this proposed rule. In addition, 

stakeholders may also provide 

comments separately to DOJ regarding 

these potential impacts. See the 

ADDRESSES section for information to 

send comments to DOJ. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) 

The energy savings from the proposed 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of 

this document. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. The proposed standards 

are likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (‘‘GHGs’’) associated 

with energy production and use. As part 

of the analysis of the need for national 

energy and water conservation, DOE 

conducts an emissions analysis to 

estimate how potential standards may 

affect these emissions, as discussed in 

section IV.K of this document; the 

estimated emissions impacts are 

reported in section V.B.7 of this 

document. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) 

To the extent DOE identifies any 

relevant information regarding 

economic justification that does not fit 

into the other categories described 

previously, DOE could consider such 

information under ‘‘other factors.’’ No 

other factors were considered in this 

analysis. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the Nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F.9 of this 

document. 

F. Other Issues 

1. Regulatory Approach for Consumer 

Pool Heaters 

In response to the March 2015 RFI, 

EEI stated that if DOE intends to 

establish new energy efficiency 

standards for electric resistance pool 

heaters and electric heat pump pool 

heaters, it must follow the process used 

by DOE when considering whether to 

include a product as a covered product 

under EPCA. (EEI, No. 6 at p. 2) In 

response, DOE notes that the December 

11, 2009 NOPR that preceded the April 

2010 final rule explained in detail that 

the definition of ‘‘pool heater’’ in EPCA 

covers both gas-fired pool heaters and 

electric pool heaters, including heat 

pump pool heaters. 74 FR 65852, 

65866–65867. And, as noted previously, 

DOE has established a test procedure for 

electric pool heaters and is now 

proposing standards in this document. 

In the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

requested comment on its determination 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22651 

21For example, the enforcement provisions for 

commercial water heating equipment, at 10 CFR 

429.134(n), requires that the tested input rate be 

within 2 percent of the certified rated input. 

to forgo a preliminary analysis for gasfired pool heaters and noted that 

interested parties will have the 

opportunity to comment on DOE’s 

analyses for gas-fired pool heaters 

during the next phase of the analysis. 80 

FR 65169, 65171. In response, NPGA 

and EEI argued that DOE should publish 

a NODA for gas-fired pool heaters in 

order to provide the public with equal 

opportunities to provide comments for 

both products. (NPGA, No. 15 at p. 2; 

EEI, No. 21 at p. 2) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

notes that the analysis conducted for 

gas-fired pool heaters in this proposed 

rulemaking follows similar 

methodologies to those presented and 

used in the April 2010 final rule. 

Stakeholders were informed that the 

analysis methodology employed in this 

proposed determination would be based 

on the prior rulemaking. As such, DOE 

determined that a preliminary analysis 

was not necessary for gas-fired pool 

heaters. Interested parties have an 

opportunity to comment on the analysis 

during the course of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

Laclede stated that it opposes any 

limitation of minimum efficiency 

standards for consumer pool heaters to 

those fueled by natural gas and propane. 

(Laclede Group, No. 17 at p. 3) As noted 

previously, DOE is proposing to adopt 

the TEI metric for gas-fired pool heater 

standard, as well as proposing to 

establish a new standard for electric 

pool heaters, in this document. 

The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to 

establish standards for standby and off 

mode energy consumption separately 

from thermal efficiency, because 

establishing a requirement for an 

integrated thermal efficiency metric may 

lead to the standby and off mode energy 

consumption not being considered by 

manufacturers, as they are small relative 

to overall consumer pool heater energy 

consumption. The CA IOUs added that 

establishing separate standby and off 

mode requirements and thermal 

efficiency requirements will ensure that 

seasonal off switches remain on most 

consumer pool heaters. (CA IOUs, No. 

20 at p. 3) In response, DOE notes that 

it is required by EISA 2007 to include 

the standby and off mode energy 

consumption in the test procedure of all 

covered products unless such an 

integrated test procedure is technically 

infeasible for a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE must 

prescribe separate standby mode and off 

mode energy use test procedure if an 

integrated test procedure is deemed 

technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) DOE notes that such 

determinations are based on the 

technical characteristics of a product 

and, as such, are product specific. In the 

case of consumer pool heaters, in the 

December 2012 TP final rule DOE 

determined that the inclusion of the 

standby and off mode energy use into an 

integrated metric would provide a 

measurable performance differentiation 

and concluded that an integrated metric 

is technically feasible. 77 FR 74559, 

74564 (December 17, 2012). DOE 

disagrees with the CA IOUs’ assertion 

that the integrated thermal efficiency 

may lead to standby and off mode 

energy consumption not being 

considered by manufacturers. DOE has 

initially found that the presence of a 

seasonal off switch improves the 

integrated thermal efficiency and has 

included it as a technology option in its 

analysis. Standby and off mode energy 

consumption may have a large impact 

on the integrated thermal efficiency, 

primarily due to the large number of 

operational hours in standby and off 

modes as compared to active mode. For 

instance, the standby fuel consumption 

of a pilot light on a gas-fired pool heater 

has a dramatic impact on its integrated 

thermal efficiency. Likewise, DOE 

estimates that for a heat pump pool 

heater inclusion of the standby and off 

mode energy consumption can reduce 

the overall efficiency by as much as 8 

percent. 

2. Certification and Enforcement 

DOE reviewed its certification and 

enforcement provisions as they pertain 

to consumer pool heaters and proposes 

several provisions to clarify its 

procedures for gas-fired pool heaters. 

DOE proposes to harmonize its 

terminology related to the capacity of 

consumer pool heaters as it relates to 

certification. For gas-fired pool heaters, 

DOE proposes to use the term ‘‘input 

capacity’’ in its provisions. DOE notes 

that input capacity is already certified 

for basic models of gas-fired pool 

heaters and DOE’s proposed revisions to 

its regulations are a clarification only. If 

standards for gas-fired pool heaters are 

adopted via this proposed rulemaking, 

DOE would consider requirements for 

reporting and certifying to TEI in lieu of 

TE in a separate rulemaking. 

If standards for electric pool heaters 

are adopted via this rulemaking, DOE 

would consider requirements for 

reporting and certifying active electrical 

power (as applicable) along with the 

representative value for integrated 

thermal efficiency in a separate 

rulemaking. 

To provide clarity on how values 

would be determined for certification, 

DOE also proposes clarifications in its 

test procedure found in appendix P by 

adding definitions for the terms ‘‘input 

capacity’’ (QIN), ‘‘active electrical 

power’’ (PE), and ‘‘output capacity’’ 

(QOUT) and identifying which measured 

variables in the test procedure represent 

these characteristics. Specifically, DOE 

proposes to: Use values measured 

during the active mode test described in 

Section 2.10.1 of ANSI Z21.56 (i.e., 

heating value times correction factor 

times the quantity of fossil-fuel used 

divided by the length of the test) to 

determine the input capacity of a fossil 

fuel-fired water heater, as this 

calculation was not stated clearly within 

appendix P; to clarify that active 

electrical power is represented by the 

variable PE; and to provide a calculation 

for output capacity so the product class 

for an electric pool heater can be 

appropriately determined. 

Also, DOE proposes that for 

enforcement testing, the input capacity 

or active electrical power (as applicable) 

would be measured pursuant to 

appendix P and compared against the 

rated value certified by the 

manufacturer. If the measured input 

capacity or active electrical power (as 

applicable) is within ±2 percent of the 

certified value, then DOE would use the 

certified value when determining the 

applicable standard. The ±2 percent 

threshold is already used 21 within the 

DOE enforcement provisions and test 

procedures as a reasonable range for 

input capacity to account for 

manufacturing variations that may affect 

the input capacity. 

During enforcement testing for a gasfired pool heater, if the measured input 

capacity is not within ±2 percent of the 

certified value, then DOE would follow 

these steps to attempt to bring the fuel 

input rate to within ±2 percent of the 

certified value. First, DOE would 

attempt to adjust the gas pressure in 

order to increase or decrease the input 

capacity as necessary. If the input 

capacity is still not within ±2 percent of 

the certified value, DOE would then 

attempt to modify the gas inlet orifice 

(i.e., drill) if the unit is equipped with 

one. Finally, if these measures do not 

bring the input capacity to within ±2 

percent of the certified value, DOE 

would use the mean measured input 

capacity (either for a single unit sample 

or the average for a multiple unit 

sample) when determining the 

applicable standard for the basic model. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22652 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

22Heat pump pool heaters move heat from the 

ambient air and to the pool water instead of heating 

the pool water directly, as is done with electric 

resistance pool heaters. Heat pumps move heat as 

opposed to generating heat, so a relatively small 

amount of energy is required to provide a large 

amount of heat. 

For an electric pool heater, DOE 

would not take any steps to modify the 

unit to bring the active electrical power 

of the unit within the ±2 percent 

threshold. Rather, if the active electrical 

power is not within ±2 percent of the 

certified value, DOE would use the 

measured active electrical power (either 

for a single unit sample or the average 

for a multiple unit sample) when 

determining the applicable standard for 

the basic model. DOE proposes this 

verification process to provide 

manufacturers with additional 

information about how DOE will 

evaluate compliance. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to add to its enforcement 

provisions to use a ±2 percent threshold 

on the certified value of input capacity 

or active electrical power (as applicable) 

when determining the applicable energy 

conservation standard for the basic 

model. 

In response to the October 2015 

NODA, AHRI expressed concern 

regarding the representation of the 

integrated thermal efficiency values. 

AHRI acknowledged that the inclusion 

of the standby and off mode 

consumptions in the TEI calculation 

results in percentages that are lower 

than the coefficient of performance 

(‘‘COP’’) equivalent, but suggested that 

the relative scale of the ratings has been 

lost in this process. AHRI suggested that 

for products where the efficiency ratings 

are less than 100 percent, a change of 

one or two percentage points may make 

a difference. However, for products such 

as heat pump pool heaters with 

efficiency ratings that exceed 300 

percent,22 a difference of 1 or 2 points 

is inconsequential. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 

3) 

In response, in the context of an 

initial analysis, DOE used the test 

procedure equations in appendix P to 

arrive at the analyzed efficiency levels 

examined in the NODA. See chapter 5 

of the NODA TSD. For this NOPR, 

however, DOE proposes capacitydependent standards as described in 

section IV.C.1 of this document. It is 

important to preserve a higher level of 

precision in the test procedure and 

certification criteria because the 

evaluated standards are continuous 

functions that vary greatly dependent on 

capacity of the pool heater (input 

capacity or active electrical power, as 

applicable). In order to clarify this 

precision, DOE would consider 

rounding requirements for consumer 

pool heater in a separate rulemaking 

addressing certification reports. 

In response to the March 2015 RFI, 

Lochinvar and Raypak expressed 

concern that the use of the integrated 

thermal efficiency metric would reduce 

the efficiency ratings for consumer pool 

heaters. (Lochinvar, No. 2 at p. 2; 

Raypak, No. 4 at p. 2) Lochinvar 

highlighted that the small reduction in 

the efficiency rating would impose a 

significant burden on manufacturers 

who will be required to assign new 

model numbers to all products due to 

the efficiency reduction. (Lochinvar, No. 

2 at p. 2) AHRI requested that DOE 

clarify whether manufacturers will be 

required to change model numbers 

when implementing the new efficiency 

metric. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 2) Raypak 

requested clarification on how DOE will 

address products that currently meet the 

minimum 82% thermal efficiency 

requirement but would no longer meet 

the minimum standard. (Raypak, No. 4 

at p. 2) 

In response, DOE first clarifies that 

specifying amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

pool heaters in terms of TEI rather than 

in terms of TE would not require new 

basic model numbers. Were certification 

to TEI required, pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.12(b)(7), manufacturers may submit 

updated or corrected certification 

information for basic models. Therefore, 

at such time as certification were 

required using TEI manufacturers could 

submit an updated certification report 

with the TEI for a given basic model 

rather than assign a new basic model 

number upon the compliance date of 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

Regarding the reduction in efficiency 

ratings for models rated using the TEI

metric relative to the TE metric, DOE 

accounted for the differences between 

the metrics in its analysis. DOE 

examined efficiency levels, including 

the baseline efficiency level 

corresponding to the current energy 

conservation standards, in terms of TEI

that account for to the inclusion of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption and electrical energy 

consumption that will cause the TEI

value to be lower than the TE value of 

a given model. See section IV.C.1 for 

discussion of the TEI efficiency levels 

analyzed. Furthermore, EPCA requires 

that when a test procedure amendment 

changes the measured energy efficiency, 

models in use before the date on which 

the amended energy conservation 

standard becomes effective that comply 

with the energy conservation standard 

applicable to such covered products on 

the day before such date shall be 

deemed to comply with the amended 

energy conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(3)) 

DOE seeks comment on its proposed 

certification and enforcement provisions 

and clarifications. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this rulemaking 

with regard to consumer pool heaters. 

Separate subsections address each 

component of DOE’s analyses. 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of the standards 

proposed in this document. The first 

tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 

LCC savings and PBP of potential 

amended or new energy conservation 

standards. The NIA uses a second 

spreadsheet set that provides shipments 

projections and calculates national 

energy savings and net present value of 

total consumer costs and savings 

expected to result from potential energy 

conservation standards. DOE uses the 

third spreadsheet tool, the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to 

assess manufacturer impacts of potential 

standards. These three spreadsheet tools 

are available on the DOE website for this 

proposed rulemaking: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/standards.aspx?

productid=44&action=viewcurrent. 

Additionally, DOE used output from the 

latest version of the Energy Information 

Administration’s (‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual 

Energy Outlook (‘‘AEO’’) 2020, a widely 

known energy projection for the United 

States, for the emissions and utility 

impact analyses. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly-available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include (1) a determination 

of the scope of the rulemaking and 

product classes, (2) manufacturers and 

industry structure, (3) existing 

efficiency programs, (4) shipments 

information, (5) market and industry 

trends; and (6) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of consumer pool heaters. The 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22653 

23EPCA prescribed a minimum thermal 

efficiency of pool heaters and initially only defined 

thermal efficiency of pool heaters in the context of 

test conditions for gas-fired pool heaters. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6291(26)) 

findings of the market assessment 

inform downstream analyses, such as 

the engineering analysis and LCC 

analysis, and are presented in detail in 

chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD. In addition, 

chapter 3 of the TSD includes a detailed 

discussion of technology options for 

improving the energy efficiency of 

consumer pool heaters; the key findings 

and updates to the technology 

assessment are summarized in the 

following section. 

1. Scope of Coverage and Product 

Classes 

Under EPCA, pool heaters (which 

include electric pool heaters, and gasfired pool heaters, and oil-fired pool 

heaters) are covered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(11)) EPCA defines ‘‘pool heater’’ 

as an ‘‘appliance designed for heating 

nonpotable water contained at 

atmospheric pressure, including heating 

water in swimming pools, spas, hot tubs 

and similar applications.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(25)) However, energy conservation 

standards have only been established for 

gas-fired pool heaters.23 For this 

proposed rulemaking, DOE proposes to 

establish additional product classes for 

electric pool heaters, establish energy 

conservation standards for electric pool 

heaters, and for gas-fired pool heaters, to 

translate the existing standard from the 

TE metric to an equivalent level in 

terms of the TEI metric and to amend 

the energy conservation standards. DOE 

has tentatively determined not to 

analyze potential standards for oil-fired 

pool heaters based on the understanding 

that such standards would result in 

minimal energy savings. DOE also did 

not perform energy conservation 

standards analysis for electric spa 

heaters as DOE was unable to identify 

technology options available to improve 

the efficiency of such products. 

Accordingly, DOE is not proposing 

amended standards for these products 

in this NOPR. 

In the March 2015 RFI, DOE noted 

that oil-fired pool heaters have an 

extremely small market share and 

requested comment on the potential 

energy savings that could result from 

energy conservation standards for oilfired pool heaters. 80 FR 15922, 15925. 

In response, Raypak and AHRI indicated 

that there is little opportunity for 

savings. (Raypak, No. 4 at p. 3; AHRI, 

No. 7 at p. 3) AHRI noted that they only 

knew of one oil-fired pool heater on the 

market currently. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) 

EEI suggested that DOE should analyze 

oil-fired pool heaters if they have 

significant market share (i.e., greater 

than 2%) in order to maintain fuel and 

market neutrality. (EEI, No. 6 at p. 4) For 

this NOPR, DOE tentatively determined 

not to analyze potential standards for 

oil-fired pool heaters based on its 

previous understanding that the market 

for oil-fired pool heaters is extremely 

limited and, thus, any standards would 

be unlikely to result in significant 

energy savings. DOE’s market research 

and the comments from AHRI and 

Raypak indicate that oil-fired pool 

heaters comprise a very small share of 

the consumer pool heater market. DOE 

does not anticipate a significant number 

of consumers would choose an oil-fired 

pool heater as a substitute for a gas-fired 

or electric pool heater due to the high 

first cost associated with installing a 

fuel oil tank, and the ongoing cost of 

fuel oil for pool heating. 

In response to the March 2015 RFI, 

AHRI suggested that DOE limit the 

scope to less than 400,000 Btu/h for gasand oil-fired pool heaters and less than 

or equal to 140,000 Btu/h for heat pump 

pool heaters to make a clear distinction 

between residential and commercial 

products. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 2) Raypak 

stated that gas-fired pool heaters 

typically range from 50,000 Btu/h to 

400,000 Btu/h for residential pools and 

commercial pool heaters typically range 

from 200,000 Btu/h to 4,000,000 Btu/hr. 

Raypak also stated that it is not 

uncommon to see multiple smaller pool 

heaters used together instead of utilizing 

a larger pool heater(s). (Raypak, No. 4 at 

p. 4) 

EPCA places no capacity limit on the 

pool heaters it covers in terms of its 

definition of ‘‘pool heater.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(25)) Furthermore, EPCA covers 

pool heaters as a ‘‘consumer product,’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(2), 42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(11)) and defines ‘‘consumer 

product,’’ in part, as an article that ‘‘to 

any significant extent, is distributed in 

commerce for personal use or 

consumption by individuals.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6291(1)) Standards established 

for pool heaters as a consumer product 

under EPCA apply to any pool heater 

distributed to any significant extent as 

a consumer product for residential use, 

regardless of input capacity and 

including consumer pool heater models 

that may also be installed in commercial 

applications. DOE has initially 

concluded that further delineation by 

adding an input capacity limit is not 

necessary. As discussed in the April 

2010 final rule, pool heaters marketed as 

commercial equipment contain 

additional design modifications related 

to safety requirements for installation in 

commercial buildings. 75 FR 20112, 

20127. In that final rule, DOE noted that 

this would include pool heating systems 

that are designed to meet a high volume 

flow and are matched with a pump from 

the point of manufacture to 

accommodate the needs of commercial 

facilities. Id. DOE stated that 

manufacturers can distinguish those 

units from pool heaters distributed to 

any significant extent as a consumer 

product for residential use, regardless of 

input capacity. Id. at 75 FR 20127– 

20128. Moreover, standards for gas-fired 

pool heaters regardless of size have been 

in place since 1990, and to place a 

capacity limit on standards now would 

result in backsliding for products over 

the capacity limit, which would be 

contrary to the anti-backsliding 

provision in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) 

In response to the March 2015 RFI, 

AHRI suggested that DOE consider 

atmospheric gas-fired heaters separately 

from fan-assist gas-fired heaters. 

Similarly, AHRI suggested that DOE 

consider condensing and noncondensing products separately as well. 

(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4) 

EPCA requires that a rule prescribing 

an energy conservation standard for a 

type (or class) of covered products must 

specify a level of energy use higher or 

efficiency lower, than that which 

applies (or would apply) for such type 

(or class) for any group of covered 

products which have the same function 

or intended use, if the Secretary 

determines that covered products 

within such group—(A) consume a 

different kind of energy from that 

consumed by other covered products 

within such type (or class); or (B) have 

a capacity or other performance-related 

feature which other products within 

such type (or class) do not have and 

such feature justifies a higher or lower 

standard from that which applies (or 

will apply) to other products within 

such type (or class). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In making a determination 

concerning whether a performancerelated feature justifies the 

establishment of a higher or lower 

standard, the Secretary shall consider 

such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of such a feature, and such 

other factors as the Secretary deems 

appropriate. (Id.) DOE is not proposing 

to increase the stringency of the 

standard for gas-fired pool heaters to a 

level that would be unachievable by the 

gas-fired pool heaters described by 

AHRI. The gas-fired pool heaters 

described by AHRI are subject to the 

current standard and presently there are 

atmospheric, fan-assist, noncondensing, and condensing models on 

the market in compliance with that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22654 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

24 DOE gave similar consideration to establishing 

a separate product class for heat pump water 

heaters and consistent with the proposal in this 

document, DOE determined that heat pump electric 

water heaters do not warrant a separate product 

class. See, 75 FR 20112, 20135 (April 16, 2010). 

standard. As such, there is no need to 

evaluate in the present document 

whether atmospheric, fan-assist, noncondensing, and/or condensing gas-fired 

pool heaters provide a unique feature 

and if so whether such feature justifies 

a different standard for gas-fired pool 

heaters. 

In the March 2015 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether capacity or other 

performance related features that may 

affect efficiency would justify the 

establishment of consumer pool heater 

product classes that would be subject to 

different energy conservation standards. 

80 FR 15922, 15925. Specifically, DOE 

sought comment on whether heat pump 

technology was a viable design for 

applications which typically utilize 

electric resistance pool heaters. 

The CA IOUs and ASAP et al. both 

encouraged DOE to regulate electric 

pool heaters under a single product 

class, and to consider heat pump 

technology as a design option for 

electric pool heaters. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at 

p. 5 and No. 20 at p. 5; ASAP et al., No. 

3 at p. 1–2) Murray stated support for 

a uniform homogenous standard for all 

consumer pool heaters. (Murray, No. 14 

at p. 1) The CA IOUs further noted that 

in DOE’s residential water heater 

standard, electric resistance and heat 

pump water heaters are combined into 

one product class and are not treated 

separately. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 5) The 

CA IOUs encouraged DOE to investigate 

the national savings potential from 

water heating in portable electric spas 

which is almost entirely provided by 

electric resistance heating. (CA IOUs, 

No. 5 at p. 5) 

EEI suggested that separate product 

classes should be established for electric 

resistance pool heaters and heat pump 

pool heaters in DOE’s analysis, and 

AHRI recommended that each fuel type 

(gas, electric, and heat pump) be 

analyzed separately. (EEI, No. 6 at p. 2; 

AHRI, No. 7 at p. 2) EEI asserted that 

electric resistance pool heaters and heat 

pump pool heaters are distinct products 

with different characteristics and as 

such require different product classes. 

EEI stated that key differences include 

space constraints and operational 

considerations. (EEI, No. 6 at pp. 2–3) 

AHRI and Raypak stated that heat 

pump technology is not a viable design 

for all applications in which electric 

resistance pool heaters are found. 

(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Raypak, No. 4 at 

p. 2) The electric resistance-type units 

are typically installed as a component 

into a larger, more complex piece of 

equipment such as a spa or hot tub. 

AHRI stated that heat pumps could not 

typically be installed in the same 

housing. They further asserted that 

electric resistance pool heaters are 

typically installed in indoor 

applications where heat pump 

technology is not a cost-effective 

substitution. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) 

Coates stated that heat pump pool 

heaters have proven ineffective in 

climates that do not have high 

temperature and high humidity, being 

expensive and unable to perform as 

needed. Coates indicated that electric 

resistance spa heaters range from 1.5 kW 

to 11 kW. Coates added that heat pump 

pool heaters are usually not acceptable 

for spas due to their slow heat-up time, 

high cost, and inability to heat during 

the cool or cold months in northern 

climates. (Coates, No. 8 at p. 2) 

In response to Murray’s comment, 

DOE notes that, in evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, EPCA directs DOE to divide 

covered products into classes based on 

the type of energy used. EPCA also 

directs DOE to divide covered products 

into classes based on capacity or other 

performance-related feature if such 

feature justifies a different standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

DOE considered comments raised by 

stakeholders when considering whether 

separate product classes should be 

evaluated in its analysis of potential 

standards for electric resistance pool 

heaters and electric heat pump pool 

heaters. DOE recognizes that that the 

performance of a heat pump is 

dependent upon the air temperature and 

air humidity at which it operates. 

However, DOE disagrees with Coates’s 

assertion that heat pump pool heaters 

are ineffective in colder climates. 

Although heat pump pool heaters 

perform best when operating within an 

environment with high air temperature 

and high air humidity, they are 

nonetheless capable of operating 

effectively in cooler climates during the 

swimming season. DOE is aware of 

consumer heat pump pool heaters 

currently on the market with the 

capability of operating at below-freezing 

temperatures. DOE recognizes that heat 

pump pool heaters may have difficulty 

providing adequate heat to pools if 

operating during the colder months in 

northern climates. Rare cases such as 

these could be accommodated through 

the use of heat pump pool heaters that 

incorporate electric resistance backup in 

their designs (as is done in the case of 

some heat pump water heater 

designs 24). Therefore, DOE proposes to 

maintain a single product class for 

electric pool heaters. 

For this analysis, DOE has tentatively 

determined to separate certain electric 

pool heaters into an ‘‘electric spa 

heaters’’ product class. ANSI/APSP/ 

International Code Council (‘‘ICC’’) 

Standard 6–2013, ‘‘American National 

Standard for Residential Portable Spas 

and Swim Spas’’ (ANSI 6) provides 

recommended minimum guidelines for 

the design, equipment, installation, and 

use of residential portable spas and 

swim spas. Spas and hot tubs come in 

many different configurations but are 

distinguished in section 1 of ANSI 6 

based on whether they are portable or 

built-in and within the portable 

distinction whether they are selfcontained or non-self-contained. Lower 

capacity electric heaters used to heat 

water in spas are a covered product by 

virtue of being within EPCA’s definition 

of pool heater. (42 U.S.C. 6291(25)) 

Electric spa heaters are often 

incorporated into the construction of a 

self-contained spa or hot tub, resulting 

in the heater performing its major 

function (heating spa water) in a space 

constrained environment. These space 

constraints preclude the use of higher 

efficiency technologies (heat pump) and 

manufacturers instead rely on electric 

resistance heating elements. DOE has 

initially determined that heat pump 

technology is not a viable option for 

electric spa heaters designed for use 

within a self-contained portable electric 

spa because the space required for a 

heat pump impedes its incorporation 

into the construction of a spa or hot tub. 

DOE has also initially determined that 

heat pump technology is a viable option 

for heating a spa or hot tub if the heater 

is separate from the construction of the 

hot tub or spa (i.e., non-self-contained as 

defined in section 1 of ANSI 6). As a 

result, DOE has separated electric spa 

heaters from the analysis of electric pool 

heaters. The proposed definition of 

‘‘electric spa heater’’ distinguishes this 

product based on capacity and whether 

the product is designed to be installed 

within a portable electric spa. The 

proposed definitions for ‘‘electric spa 

heater’’ and ‘‘portable electric spa’’ are 

presented later in this section. 

Electric spa heaters rely on electric 

heating elements for which there is 

currently negligible opportunity for 

efficiency gains. Consequently, DOE did 

not perform energy conservation 

standards analysis for electric spa 

heaters as DOE did not initially identify 

technology options that could be 

implemented to improve the efficiency 

of these products. 

For the October 2015 NODA analysis, 

DOE defined electric spa heaters to be 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22655 

25 Very large pools or pool in colder climates. 

(AHRI, No. 16, at p. 1) 

heaters that: (1) Have a rated output 

capacity of 11 kW (37,534 Btu/h) or less; 

and (2) are factory- or field-assembled 

within the envelope of a spa, hot tub, or 

pool as defined by 10 CFR 430.2. See 

chapter 3 of the October 2015 NODA 

TSD. In the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

identified the 11 kW threshold as being 

a typical output capacity below which 

electric resistance heaters are integrated 

in spas. Id. DOE tentatively used this 

threshold in the October 2015 NODA 

analysis based on its assessment of the 

market. The threshold was also 

suggested in response to the March 2015 

RFI by Coates, a manufacturer of electric 

resistance spa and pool heaters. (Coates, 

No. 8 at p. 2) Table IV.1 lists the product 

classes for consumer pool heaters 

outlined in Table 2.4.1 of the October 

2015 NODA TSD. 

TABLE IV.1—OCTOBER 2015 NODA PRODUCT CLASSES FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS

Product class Additional description Analyzed in October 2015 NODA? 

Gas-fired Pool Heater ..................... ................................................................................................................ No. 

Electric Pool Heater ........................ ................................................................................................................ Yes. 

Electric Spa Heater ......................... Output Capacity ≤11 kW; Assembled within spa, hot tub, or pool envelope.No. 

In response to the scope of coverage 

presented in the October 2015 NODA, 

AHRI stated that the analysis appears 

not to consider the market segment 25

that may require capacities much higher 

than the largest heat pump pool heaters 

available on the market. AHRI stated 

that the analysis must consider the 

entire current market for electric pool 

heaters and should not establish an 

efficiency standard that will make 

products unavailable for some segments 

of that market. AHRI recommended 

DOE establish separate product classes 

for electric pool heaters based on a 

capacity breakpoint. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 

1) 

DOE’s review of the heat pump pool 

heater market found that most models 

have output capacities less than 200,000 

Btu/h, however, DOE did find electric 

heat pump pool heaters with output 

capacities up to 500,000 Btu/h. Whereas 

gas-fired pool heaters are available with 

output capacities approaching 4,100,000 

Btu/h. Therefore, DOE agrees with 

AHRI’s comment that heat pump 

technology is not currently utilized to a 

significant extent in the high capacity 

pool heater market segment. As 

discussed in section IV.C.1 of this 

document, DOE is proposing capacity 

dependent energy conservation 

standards for gas-fired and electric pool 

heaters. Further, the estimated TEI

values for the high capacity heat pump 

pool heaters available on the market are 

greater than the proposed efficiency 

levels discussed in section V.C, 

therefore, there DOE has tentatively 

determined that it is not currently 

necessary to establish separate product 

classes for electric pool heaters based on 

a capacity breakpoint. 

DOE requested comment regarding 

whether the product classes outlined in 

the October 2015 NODA adequately 

describes the electric pool heater 

market. See chapter 3 of the October 

2015 NODA. 

Several commenters agreed with 

DOE’s position to exclude electric spa 

heaters from the analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 

20 at p. 6; APSP and IHTA No. 18 at p. 

1) APSP and AHRI agreed with DOE’s 

assumption that heat pump technology 

could not be implemented within a spa 

heater. (APSP and IHTA No. 18 at p. 1; 

AHRI, No. 16 at p. 2) The CA IOUs 

encouraged DOE to explore the energy 

savings potential from portable electric 

spas in another rulemaking. (CA IOUs, 

No. 20 at p. 6) 

AHRI agreed that the basic concept of 

the product classes is adequate for the 

consumer pool heater market but 

suggested further development be made 

to the electric spa heater definition. 

AHRI agreed with the specification of a 

maximum output capacity as part of the 

definition of the electric spa heater 

product class, noting that the 11 kW 

limit is reasonable for spa heaters. 

However, AHRI stated that the second 

part of the definition (assembled within 

spa, hot tub, or pool envelope) is not 

clear enough. AHRI noted that the 

definition appears to exclude spa 

heaters that may be physically separate 

from the spa, hot tub, or pool but which 

are required to heat water for those 

units. AHRI suggested that either the 

specification of an ‘‘envelope’’ needs to 

be described in greater detail, or such 

specification should be reconsidered. 

(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 2) 

DOE has considered AHRI’s comment 

and agrees that the criterion that an 

electric spa heater is shipped within the 

spa envelope may cause confusion and 

issues for replacement electric spa 

heaters intended for existing portable 

electric spas. Due to these concerns, 

DOE has amended the envelope 

criterion in the definition of an electric 

spa heater to include electric spa heaters 

that are designed to be installed within 

a portable electric spa, which does not 

preclude electric spa heaters that are 

sold and shipped outside of the 

envelope of a spa, hot tub, or pool. The 

updated proposed definition is 

presented later in this section of this 

document. 

In response to the product classes 

presented in the October 2015 NODA, 

Tawney suggested that DOE set separate 

standards for electric pool heaters that 

have both heating and cooling 

capabilities. Tawney stated that the 

addition of reversing components 

creates a diminished performance for all 

other components (i.e., the compressor, 

evaporator, and condenser) and, 

therefore, requiring the minimum 

efficiency level to be set equal for these 

two different types of products would 

create design issues for the 

manufacturer and consumers. (Tawney, 

No. 13 at p. 1) 

DOE recognizes that heat/cool heat 

pumps have reverse cycle capabilities to 

provide the cooling function, and, 

theoretically, manufacturers could 

design products intended for heating 

and cooling differently from those 

intended for heating only (i.e., different 

size heat exchanger coils). However, 

based on DOE’s review of products 

currently on the market, DOE does not 

expect the reverse cycle capability 

would negatively impact the integrated 

thermal efficiency of heat/cool heat 

pumps in heating mode. DOE examined 

parts diagrams found in manufacturer 

literature of traditional heat pump pool 

heaters and heat/cool heat pump models 

within the same product family which 

revealed the addition of a reversing 

valve as the only differentiator between 

the two products. DOE then compared 

the rated heating efficiency of both 

models and found them to be identical 

in the majority of cases, indicating that 

the presence of the reversing valve and 

reverse cycle capability does not 

inherently reduce heating performance. 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the creation of a 

separate product classes for heat pump 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22656 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

pool heaters with cooling capability is 

not necessary. 

DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that electric pool heaters 

that have both heating and cooling 

capabilities do not suffer diminished 

efficiency performance in heating mode. 

DOE analyzed new and amended 

standards for gas-fired pool heaters and 

electric pool heaters but did not analyze 

energy conservation standards for 

electric spa heaters (i.e., electric pool 

heaters with output capacity ≤ 11 kW 

that are designed to be installed in a 

portable electric spa). 

DOE requests comment on the 

product classes analyzed for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

DOE is proposing definitions for 

electric pool heaters, electric spa 

heaters, gas-fired pool heaters, oil-fired 

pool heaters, and portable electric spas 

to clarify its regulations as they apply to 

consumer pool heaters. Based on 

comments received in response to the 

October 2015 NODA, DOE refined its 

definition for electric spa heaters. The 

proposed definitions are as follows: 

Electric pool heater means a pool 

heater other than an electric spa heater 

that uses electricity as its primary 

energy source. 

Electric spa heater means a pool 

heater that (1) uses electricity as its 

primary energy source; (2) has an output 

capacity (as measured according to 

appendix P to subpart B of part 430) of 

11 kW or less; and (3) is designed to be 

installed within a portable electric spa. 

Gas-fired pool heater means a pool 

heater that uses gas as its primary 

energy source. 

Oil-fired pool heater means a pool 

heater that uses oil as its primary energy 

source. 

Portable electric spa means a selfcontained, factory-built spa or hot tub in 

which all control, water heating and 

water circulating equipment is an 

integral part of the product. Selfcontained spas may be permanently 

wired or cord connected. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for electric pool 

heater, electric spa heater, gas-fired pool 

heater, oil-fired pool heater, and 

portable electric spa. 

DOE also proposes to define output 

capacity and provide equations for its 

calculation for electric pool and spa 

heaters in its test procedure at appendix 

P. As described in section III.B of this 

document, appendix P incorporates by 

reference ASHRAE 146. DOE’s proposed 

calculation for output capacity for an 

electric pool or spa heater utilizes 

measurements already taken for other 

calculations in appendix P and therefore 

DOE does not consider this provision to 

result in any additional test procedure 

burden. DOE proposes to define the 

output capacity for electric pool heaters 

and spa heaters as follows: 

Output capacity for an electric pool or 

spa heater means the maximum rate at 

which energy is transferred to the water. 

DOE proposes separate equations for 

the calculation of output capacity of an 

electric resistance pool heater and 

electric heat pump pool heater. For 

electric pool heaters that rely on electric 

resistance heating elements, DOE 

proposes that the output capacity be 

calculated as: 

QOUT,ER = k * W * (Tmo ¥ Tmi) * (60/ 

30) 

where k is the specific heat of water, W 

is the mass of water collected during the 

test, Tmo is the average outlet water 

temperature recorded during the 

primary test, Tmi is the average inlet 

water temperature record during the 

primary test, all as defined in Section 

11.1 of ASHRAE 146, and (60/30) is the 

conversion factor to convert unit from 

per 30 minutes to per hour. 

DOE proposes that the output 

capacity of an electric pool heater that 

uses heat pump technology be 

calculated as: 

QOUT,HP = k * W * (Tohp ¥ Tihp) * (60/ 

tHP) 

where k is the specific heat of water, W 

is the mass of water collected during the 

test, Tohp is the average outlet water 

temperature during the standard rating 

test, Tihp is the average inlet water 

temperature during the standard rating 

test, all as defined in Section 11.2 of 

ASHRAE 146, and tHP is the elapsed 

time of data recording during the 

thermal efficiency test on electric heat 

pump pool heater, as defined in Section 

9.1 of ASHRAE 146, in minutes. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition for output capacity, 

as well as its proposed calculations for 

determining the output capacity of 

electric pool heaters. 

2. Technology Options 

In response to the March 2015 RFI, 

Coates stated their concern that DOE 

used the term ‘‘less efficient products, 

such as electric resistance pool heaters’’ 

and that the efficiency of electric pool 

and spa heaters is very high (98 percent 

or higher). (Coates, No. 8 at p. 5) DOE 

agrees that electric resistance pool 

heaters have efficiencies around 98 

percent. However, the statement DOE 

made compares the efficiency of electric 

resistance pool heaters to heat pump 

pool heaters which have efficiencies 

greater than 100 percent. 80 FR 15922, 

15929 (March 26, 2015). Therefore, 

electric resistance pool heaters are less 

efficient than heat pump pool heaters. 

In the October 2015 NODA market 

and technology analysis for electric pool 

heaters, DOE identified eight technology 

options that would be expected to 

improve the efficiency of electric pool 

heaters, as measured by the DOE test 

procedure: Insulation improvements; 

control improvements; heat pump 

technology; heat exchanger 

improvements (heat pump); compressor 

improvements (heat pump); expansion 

valve improvements (heat pump); fan 

improvements (heat pump); and off 

switch. See section 3.3 of chapter 3 of 

the October 2015 NODA TSD. 

DOE received no comments 

suggesting technology options be added 

to those listed in the October 2015 

NODA analysis for electric pool heaters. 

In this NOPR analysis, DOE added 

switching mode power supply to the list 

of technology options for electric pool 

heaters. 

In the March 2015 RFI, DOE 

identified five technology options that it 

expected to improve the efficiency of 

gas-fired pool heaters, as measured by 

the DOE test procedure: Insulation 

improvements; control improvements; 

improved heat exchanger design; 

condensing heat exchanger technology; 

and electronic ignition systems. 80 FR 

15922, 15925. 

In response to the potential 

technology options identified for gasfired pool heaters in the March 2015 

RFI, Raypak stated that improved 

insulation, improved controls, and 

improved ignition systems are currently 

widely used and have little opportunity 

to provide improvements in thermal 

efficiency. (Raypak, No. at 4 at p. 3) 

AHRI stated that improved controls are 

expected to have minimal or negative 

impact on efficiency due to the large 

size of pools as modulating heat is not 

an effective way to heat up pools. AHRI 

stated that most gas-fired pool heaters 

on the market currently are equipped 

with electronic ignition systems and the 

pilot light only comes on when heat is 

called. AHRI also opined that 

condensing heat exchanger technology 

is not an economically feasible option 

for gas-fired pool heaters due to the 

relatively short burner operating hours. 

(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) 

In response, DOE notes that in its 

review of the market and during the 

engineering analysis (see section IV.C of 

this document), DOE generally 

identifies technologies that are 

commonly incorporated at the baseline 

efficiency level, as well as those 

typically implemented to achieve higher 

efficiencies. In the technology 

assessment DOE identifies all 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22657 

technologies that are possibilities for 

improving efficiency, in the event that 

any models do not already utilize them. 

DOE’s engineering analysis is based on 

the typical technology or combination of 

technologies used to achieve each 

efficiency level, as observed in products 

on the market. 

For this NOPR analysis, DOE 

identified three more technology 

options that would be expected to 

improve the integrated thermal 

efficiency of gas-fired pool heaters as 

measured by the test procedure, which 

were not listed in the March 2015 RFI. 

These technologies include: Condensing 

pulse combustion, switch mode power 

supply, and seasonal off switch. 

After identifying all potential 

technology options for improving the 

efficiency of consumer pool heaters, 

DOE performed the screening analysis 

(see section IV.B of this document or 

chapter 4 of the TSD) on these 

technologies to determine which could 

be considered further in the analysis 

and which should be eliminated. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the projected compliance 

date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that a technology would have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product for significant subgroups 

of consumers or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further. 

(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary 

Technologies. If a design option utilizes 

proprietary technology that represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, that technology will not 

be considered further, due to the 

potential for monopolistic concerns. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 

In summary, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. 

The subsequent sections include 

comments from interested parties 

pertinent to the screening criteria, 

DOE’s evaluation of each technology 

option against the screening analysis 

criteria, and whether DOE determined 

that a technology option should be 

excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the 

screening criteria. DOE did not receive 

any comments from interested parties 

related to the screening analysis. 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

DOE eliminated condensing pulse 

combustion from its analysis having 

tentatively determined that it is not 

technologically feasible and not 

practical to manufacture, install, and 

service. Although condensing pulse 

combustion technology shows 

promising results in increasing 

efficiency, it has not yet penetrated the 

consumer pool heater market, and 

similar efficiencies are achievable with 

other technologies that have already 

been introduced on the market. 

2. Remaining Technologies 

Through a review of each technology, 

DOE tentatively concludes that all of the 

other identified technologies listed in 

section IV.A.2 met all five screening 

criteria to be examined further as design 

options in DOE’s NOPR analysis. In 

summary, DOE did not screen out the 

technology options shown in Table IV.2 

of this document and considers them as 

design options in the engineering 

analysis. 

TABLE IV.2—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS WHICH PASSED SCREENING CRITERIA

Technology option Electric pool 

heater 

Gas-fired pool 

heater 

Insulation improvements .......................................................................................................................................... X X 

Control improvements .............................................................................................................................................. X X 

Heat pump technology ............................................................................................................................................. X ........................

Heat exchanger improvements ................................................................................................................................ X X 

Expansion valve improvements ............................................................................................................................... X ........................

Fan improvements ................................................................................................................................................... X ........................

Condensing heat exchanger .................................................................................................................................... ........................ X 

Electronic ignition systems ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ X 

Switch mode power supply ...................................................................................................................................... X X 

Seasonal off switch .................................................................................................................................................. X X 

DOE has initially determined that 

these technology options are 

technologically feasible because they are 

being used or have previously been used 

in commercially-available products or 

commercially viable, existing 

prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the 

remaining technology options meet the 

other screening criteria (i.e., practicable 

to manufacture, install, and service and 

do not result in adverse impacts on 

consumer utility, product availability, 

health, or safety, unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies). For additional 

details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of 

consumer pool heaters. There are two 

elements to consider in the engineering 

analysis; the selection of efficiency 

levels to analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency 

analysis’’) and the determination of 

product cost at each efficiency level 

(i.e., the ‘‘cost analysis’’). In determining 

the performance of higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22658 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the baseline cost, as well as the 

incremental cost for the product at 

efficiency levels above the baseline. The 

output of the engineering analysis is a 

set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are 

used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 

LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

Relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge 

large gaps between other identified 

efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate 

to the max-tech level (particularly in 

cases where the max-tech level exceeds 

the maximum efficiency level currently 

available on the market). 

In this proposed rulemaking, DOE 

relies on the efficiency-level approach. 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

identified the efficiency levels for 

analysis based on a review of products 

on the market and then, as described in 

section IV.C.2 of this document, used a 

cost-assessment approach which 

includes product teardowns to 

determine the technologies used at each 

efficiency level and the associated 

manufacturing costs at those levels. See 

section 5.7 of chapter 5 of the October 

2015 NODA TSD. 

DOE continued to use the same 

analytical approaches for this NOPR. 

DOE received specific comments from 

interested parties on certain aspects of 

the engineering analysis in response to 

the October 2015 NODA. A brief 

overview of the methodology, a 

discussion of the comments DOE 

received, DOE’s response to those 

comments, and any adjustments made 

to the engineering analysis methodology 

or assumptions as a result of those 

comments is presented in the sections 

below. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD 

for additional details about the 

engineering analysis. 

a. Efficiency Levels 

As noted previously, for analysis of 

consumer pool heater standards, DOE 

used an efficiency-level approach to 

identify incremental improvements in 

efficiency for each product class. An 

efficiency-level approach enabled DOE 

to identify incremental improvements in 

efficiency for efficiency-improving 

technologies that consumer pool heater 

manufacturers already incorporate in 

commercially available models. After 

identifying efficiency levels for analysis, 

DOE used a cost-assessment approach 

(section IV.C.2 of this document) to 

determine the manufacturer production 

cost (‘‘MPC’’) at each efficiency level 

identified for analysis. 

Integrated thermal efficiency accounts 

for the fuel and electricity consumption 

in active, standby, and off modes. 

However, at the time the engineering 

analysis for this NOPR was performed, 

manufacturers had not yet begun 

publishing the integrated thermal 

efficiency of their products (there are no 

existing standards for electric pool 

heaters, and standards for gas-fired pool 

heaters are currently in terms of thermal 

efficiency as described in section III.B of 

this document). Therefore, in the 

gathering of information to inform the 

engineering analysis, DOE was limited 

to thermal efficiency in the case of gasfired pool heaters, and coefficients of 

performance (‘‘COP’’) (set equal to 

thermal efficiency by the test procedure) 

in the case of heat pump pool heaters. 

DOE then calculated the integrated 

thermal efficiency by combining the 

thermal efficiency (as defined in section 

5.1 of the DOE test procedure) of the 

product, with typical values for active 

mode, standby mode, and off mode 

energy consumption. DOE derived these 

typical values from test data and sought 

manufacturer feedback during 

confidential manufacturer interviews to 

confirm that the values were 

appropriate. 

The energy consumption rate 

measurements that contribute to the 

integrated thermal efficiency metric are 

presented in Table IV.3 of this 

document, and vary by consumer pool 

heater type (i.e., electric resistance, 

electric heat pump, and gas-fired). DOE 

notes that these measurements also vary 

by efficiency level. The ‘‘typical case’’ 

energy use assumptions used to 

determine the efficiency levels are 

presented in greater detail in sections 

IV.C.1.b and IV.C.1.c of this document. 

TABLE IV.3—INPUTS TO INTEGRATED THERMAL EFFICIENCY BY CONSUMER POOL HEATER TYPE

Consumer pool heater type Inputs to TEI Description 

Electric Resistance Pool Heater ..... Et .................................................... Thermal efficiency (11.1 of ASHRAE 146). 

PE .................................................. Average annual electrical energy consumption. 

EC .................................................. Electrical consumption in Btu per 30 mins. 

PW,SB ............................................. Standby power consumption rate. 

PW,OFF ........................................... Off power consumption rate. 

Heat Pump Pool Heater .................. Et .................................................... Thermal efficiency (11.1 of ASHRAE 146). 

PE .................................................. Average annual electrical energy consumption. 

Ec,hp ............................................... Electrical consumption during test time. 

tHP .................................................. Test time. 

PW,SB ............................................. Standby power consumption rate. 

PW,OFF ........................................... Off power consumption rate. 

Gas-Fired Pool Heater .................... Et .................................................... Thermal efficiency (2.10 of ANSI Z21.56). 

EC .................................................. Electrical consumption in Btu per 30 mins. 

QPR ................................................ Consumption rate of pilot. 

Qoff,R .............................................. Off mode fuel consumption rate. 

PW,SB ............................................. Standby power consumption rate. 

PW,OFF ........................................... Off Power consumption rate. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22659 

The integrated thermal efficiency 

metric is the ratio of the seasonal useful 

output of the consumer pool heater 

divided by the annual input to the 

consumer pool heater. Based on 

manufacturer interviews, DOE has 

tentatively determined that standby and 

off mode electricity consumption do not 

increase as capacity increases. This 

causes differences in the resulting 

integrated thermal efficiencies for units 

at different capacities that have the 

same thermal efficiency and same 

standby and off mode energy 

consumption. Lower capacity units will 

have lower integrated thermal efficiency 

ratings due to standby and off mode 

energy use comprising a larger share of 

the total energy use of the product than 

for larger capacity units. To account for 

this, instead of standards that are fixed 

integrated thermal efficiency levels as 

presented in section 5.3 of chapter 5 of 

the October 2015 NODA TSD, DOE is 

proposing equation-based efficiency 

levels in which the integrated thermal 

efficiency level is a function of the 

capacity of the unit. 

DOE developed these integrated 

thermal efficiency equations using a 

similar methodology to the one used to 

develop the integrated thermal 

efficiency levels in the October 2015 

NODA analysis for electric pool heaters. 

See section 5.3 of chapter 5 of the 

October 2015 NODA. Specifically, DOE 

selected the efficiency levels based on 

thermal efficiency, and then determined 

the typical values for all other energy 

consumption rate values that contribute 

to the integrated thermal efficiency 

metric (i.e., standby mode, off mode). 

DOE then calculated the integrated 

thermal efficiency as a function of 

capacity by utilizing these typical 

values for all efficiency levels other than 

the max-tech level. As discussed further 

in section IV.C.1.c of this document, the 

max-tech level is the maximum 

efficiency theoretically possible and 

uses technologies (i.e., seasonal off 

switch and switch mode power supply) 

that result in energy consumption rate 

values that are lower than the typical 

values used for the other efficiency 

levels. 

Additional information regarding the 

selection of efficiency levels is provided 

in the following sections and in chapter 

5 of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Baseline Levels 

For each product class, DOE generally 

selects a baseline model as a reference 

point for each class, and measures 

changes resulting from potential energy 

conservation standards against the 

baseline. The baseline model in each 

product class represents the 

characteristics of a product typical of 

that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 

Generally, a baseline model is one that 

just meets current energy conservation 

standards, or, if no standards are in 

place, the baseline is typically the most 

common or least efficient unit on the 

market. 

DOE uses the baseline model for 

comparison in several phases of the 

analyses, including the engineering 

analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, 

and NIA. To determine energy savings 

that will result from a new or amended 

energy conservation standard, DOE 

compares energy use at each of the 

higher energy efficiency levels to the 

energy consumption of the baseline 

unit. Similarly, to determine the 

changes in price to the consumer that 

will result from an amended energy 

conservation standard, DOE compares 

the price of a baseline unit to the price 

of a unit at each higher efficiency level. 

In the March 2015 RFI, DOE requested 

information regarding typical energy use 

(fossil fuel and electricity) in all modes, 

including standby and off modes for all 

consumer pool heater types. 80 FR 

15992, 15924. 

Raypak responded that the typical 

fossil fuel energy use in standby and off 

modes is zero because gas-fired pool 

heaters only fire when there is a call for 

heat to maintain a set temperature. 

Raypak commented that the electricity 

consumption is limited to standby and 

off mode for all types of consumer pool 

heaters and that the magnitude of these 

electricity consumption values may 

change slightly based on the input 

capacity of the unit. (Raypak, No. 4 at 

p. 2) 

DOE has found several consumer pool 

heaters on the market which utilize 

standing pilots. These pilot lights 

operate when the consumer pool heater 

is not in use and contribute to fossil fuel 

energy use in standby mode. DOE does 

not disagree that electricity 

consumption may change slightly based 

on input capacity but has tentatively 

determined to use a single typical value 

for the various types of electrical energy 

consumption based on feedback 

received during confidential 

manufacturer interviews. Table IV.4 of 

this document presents the baseline 

efficiency level identified for gas-fired 

pool heaters. 

Table IV.5 of this document presents 

the baseline efficiency level identified 

for electric pool heaters. No comments 

were received in response to the 

October 2015 NODA in regard to the 

baseline efficiency level for electric pool 

heaters. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15AP22.001</GPH>
22660 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

26 ‘‘ECM’’ refers to the constant-airflow BPM 

offerings of a specific motor manufacturer. DOE 

refers to this technology using the generic term, 

‘‘BPM motor.’’ 

Additional details on the selection of 

baseline models and the development of 

the baseline efficiency equations may be 

found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

c. Other Efficiency Levels 

As part of DOE’s analysis, the 

maximum available efficiency level is 

the highest efficiency model currently 

available on the market. DOE also 

defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to 

represent the maximum possible 

efficiency for a given product. 

Table IV.6 of this document shows the 

efficiency levels DOE selected for the 

October 2015 NODA analysis. See 

section 5.3 of chapter 5 of the October 

2015 NODA. As described previously in 

this section, all else being equal, the 

integrated thermal efficiency metric is 

expected to vary depending on a 

consumer pool heater’s capacity. The 

integrated thermal efficiencies listed in 

Table IV.6 are based on an output 

capacity of 110,000 Btu/h. (Note, the 

large increase in integrated thermal 

efficiency between EL 0 and EL 1 is the 

result of a technology option change 

from electric resistance elements as the 

heat source to a heat pump.) 

TABLE IV.6—OCTOBER 2015 NODA EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR ELECTRIC POOL HEATERS AT OUTPUT CAPACITY OF 110,000 

BTU/H

Efficiency level Et

(percent) 

PW,SB

(W) * 

PW,OFF

(W) * 

TEI** 

(percent) 

EL 0 ................................................................................................................. 99 1.2 1.2 99 

EL 1 ................................................................................................................. 360 5.2 5.2 344 

EL 2 ................................................................................................................. 520 5.2 5.2 486 

EL 3 ................................................................................................................. 580 5.2 5.2 538 

EL 4 ................................................................................................................. 600 5.2 5.2 556 

EL 5 ................................................................................................................. 610 5.2 5.2 564 

* Presented in terms of Btu/h in appendix P. 

** Values are based on Et and assumptions for PW,SB and PW,OFF at left, and uses equation 5.4.3 in the DOE test procedure found in appendix 

P. 

DOE requested comment on the 

efficiency levels presented in the 

October 2015 NODA analysis, including 

the typical standby and off mode energy 

consumption of electric pool heaters. 

In response to the October 2015 

NODA analysis, AHRI stated that many 

manufacturers have not measured the 

standby and off mode consumption for 

many of their consumer pool heater 

models. Therefore, AHRI stated that 

they are not able to address the 

‘‘typical’’ values used in the preliminary 

analysis. AHRI also stated that the 

efficiency levels presented in the 

October 2015 NODA analysis were 

acceptable. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 2, 3) 

In response to the efficiency levels 

presented in the October 2015 NODA 

for electric pool heaters ASAP and 

NRDC and CA IOUs encouraged DOE to 

re-evaluate the max-tech level for 

electric pool heaters. The commenters 

stated that the AHRI database includes 

models that exceed a COP of 6.1, the 

level presented as max-tech in the 

October 2015 NODA. The commenters 

stated that those units with a COP 

greater than 6.1 are smaller in capacity 

than the representative unit size of 

110,000 Btu/h. (CA IOUs, No. 20 at p. 

5; ASAP and NRDC, No. 19 at p. 2) CA 

IOUs stated their belief that larger 

capacity units could achieve similarly 

high COP levels. (CA IOUs, No. 20, at 

p. 5) 

DOE recognizes that there are models 

on the market with higher COP ratings 

than the assumed COP rating used in 

the max-tech energy level. However, as 

noted by commenters, these units have 

a lower capacity than DOE’s 

representative capacity. DOE has not 

identified larger residential heat pump 

pool heaters with a COP rating greater 

than 6.1 on the market or in prototypes. 

Smaller heat pump pool heaters with a 

COP greater than 6.1 may not be 

representative of efficiency 

improvements of which larger heat 

pump pool heaters are capable. 

Therefore, DOE maintained the same 

COP max-tech level used in the October 

2015 NODA as an input to the 

integrated thermal efficiency equation 

for this analysis. 

ASAP and NRDC urged DOE to 

evaluate a level that incorporates 

technology options presented in the 

October 2015 NODA TSD that may not 

be present in currently available 

consumer pool heaters including 

electronically commutated motor 

(‘‘ECM’’) fan motors (i.e., brushless 

permanent magnet (‘‘BPM’’) motors),26

toroidal transformers, and an off switch. 

(ASAP and NRDC, No. 19 at p. 3) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

has incorporated standby and off mode 

technology options at the max-tech level 

to decrease the standby and off mode 

electricity consumption and thereby 

increase the integrated thermal 

efficiency at that level. These 

technology options include: 

Transformer improvements, switching 

mode power supply, and a seasonal off 

switch. 

As was noted in chapter 3 of the 

October 2015 NODA TSD, the efficiency 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15AP22.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22661 

of permanent split capacitor (‘‘PSC’’) 

motors is highest at a single speed, with 

significant diminishing operation 

efficiency at other speeds, whereas BPM 

motors are capable of maintaining a 

high operating efficiency at multiple 

speeds. However, the energy savings 

associated with this technology may be 

limited as heat pump pool heaters 

operate at full capacity to satisfy the call 

for heat. As noted by ASAP and NRDC, 

heat pump pool heaters on the market 

do not currently utilize BPM fan motors. 

Therefore, DOE has not been able to test 

products in order to determine the 

magnitude of efficiency improvement, if 

any, that could be expected due to the 

incorporation of BPM motors. 

DOE requests comment on the 

efficiency improvement expected from 

replacing a PSC fan motor with a BPM 

fan motor in heat pump pool heater. 

AHRI stated that the use of straight 

(EL 1) or twisted (EL 2) titanium tube 

coils are two different ways to get to the 

same end. AHRI further commented that 

the two different design features 

described for EL 1 and EL 2, 

respectively, do not inherently result in 

the significantly different efficiencies 

estimated in the analysis. AHRI stated 

that the efficiency that will result from 

the use of straight or twisted titanium 

tubing will be based on the effectiveness 

of the overall design of the heat 

exchanger; the twisted tube provides no 

significant efficiency improvement of 

itself. (AHRI, No. 16 at pp. 3–4) 

In response to AHRI’s assertions, DOE 

notes that for electric pool heaters it 

selected efficiency levels and units for 

teardown based on the published 

coefficients of performance of models 

currently on the market (as integrated 

thermal efficiency data were not yet 

available). As shown in Table IV.7, the 

heat exchanger design of the model DOE 

analyzed at EL 1 in the October 2015 

NODA included two straight titanium 

tube coils in submerged water tanks; at 

EL2, the model that was analyzed had 

a heat exchanger consisting of a single 

twisted titanium tube coil in concentric 

counter-flow PVC pipe. These models 

were included in the engineering 

analysis described in chapter 5 of the 

October 2015 NODA TSD. DOE did not 

assume a priori that the concentric/ 

counter-flow PVC heat exchanger design 

would result in a certain efficiency 

increase compared to the submerged 

coil design, but rather found that these 

were the design paths for units with 

such rated efficiencies on the market. 

Upon further review of the models on 

the market, DOE has tentatively 

determined that consideration of two 

straight titanium tube coils in 

submerged water tanks as a design 

option for EL 1, as presented in the 

October 2015 NODA, does not represent 

a typical design for the lowest efficiency 

heat pump pool heater and, as discussed 

later in section IV.C.2.c of this 

document, this design option is more 

expensive than other designs that are 

similar to those used at the other ELs. 

As such, DOE has amended the design 

option for EL 1 to a heat pump with a 

heat exchanger consisting of a single 

twisted titanium tube coil in concentric 

counter-flow PVC pipe as this design 

better resembles the lowest efficiency 

heat pump pool heater on the market. 

Table IV.7 provides a description of 

the typical technological change at each 

efficiency level for electric pool heaters. 

TABLE IV.7—TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR

ELECTRIC POOL HEATERS

Efficiency level Technology 

EL 0 ............... Electric Resistance. 

EL 1 * .............. Heat Pump, twisted Titanium 

tube coil in concentric/ 

counter flow PVC Pipe. 

EL 2 ............... EL1 + increased evaporator 

surface area. 

EL 3 ............... EL2 + increased evaporator 

surface area. 

EL 4 ............... EL3 + increased evaporator 

surface area. 

EL 5 ............... EL4 + condenser coil length 

+ seasonal off switch + 

switch mode power supply. 

*The EL 1 design option has been updated 

from that presented in the October 2015 

NODA. The description in the October 2015 

NODA was, ‘‘Heat Pump, two straight Titanium tube coils in submerged water tanks.’’ 

Table IV.8 shows the efficiency levels 

DOE selected for the NOPR analysis for 

electric pool heaters based on 

application of the design options 

presented in Table IV.7. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22662 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

In the March 2015 RFI, DOE also 

requested information on the max-tech 

efficiency levels for gas-fired pool 

heaters. 80 FR 15922, 15926. In 

response, Raypak stated that the maxtech efficiency level for gas-fired pool 

heaters would be in the range of 94 to 

96-percent thermal efficiency. Raypak 

stated that the selection of heat 

exchanger materials for gas-fired pool 

heaters restricts the max-tech efficiency 

from being higher because the materials 

used have to be resistant to the 

chemicals used in pools, particularly 

when the pool chemistry is not properly 

maintained. (Raypak, No. 4 at p. 3) 

DOE analyzed a max-tech efficiency 

level of 95-percent thermal efficiency in 

this NOPR analysis based on its review 

of the gas-fired pool heater market. At 

the time of the analysis, 95-percent 

thermal efficiency represented the 

highest level available on the market. 

Table IV.9 shows the efficiency levels 

DOE analyzed for this NOPR with 

respect to gas-fired pool heaters. DOE 

selected the thermal efficiency levels 

based on its review of the gas-fired pool 

heaters market. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15AP22.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22663 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties regarding the efficiency levels 

selected for the NOPR analysis. 

Table IV.10 provides a description of 

the typical technological change(s) at 

each efficiency level for gas-fired pool 

heaters. 

TABLE IV.10—TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR

GAS-FIRED POOL HEATERS

Efficiency level Technology 

EL 0 ............... Standing Pilot + Cu or CuNi 

Finned Tube + Atmospheric. 

EL 1 ............... Electronic Ignition + Cu or 

CuNi Finned Tube + Atmospheric. 

EL 2 ............... Electronic Ignition + Cu or 

CuNi Finned Tube + Blower Driven Gas/Air Mix. 

EL 3 ............... Condensing + CuNi and Cu 

Finned Tube + seasonal 

off switch + switch mode 

power supply. 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties regarding the typical 

technological changes associated with 

each efficiency level. 

See section VII.E for a list of issues on 

which DOE seeks comment. 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, the availability 

and timeliness of purchasing the 

product on the market. The cost 

approaches are summarized as follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g. large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

At the start of the engineering 

analysis, DOE identified the energy 

efficiency levels associated with 

consumer pool heaters on the market 

using data gathered in the market 

assessment. DOE also identified the 

technologies and features that are 

typically incorporated into products at 

the baseline level and at the various 

energy efficiency levels analyzed above 

the baseline. Next, DOE selected 

products for the physical teardown 

analysis having characteristics of typical 

products on the market at the 

representative capacity. DOE gathered 

information from performing a physical 

teardown analysis (see section IV.C.2.a 

of this document) to create detailed bill 

of materials (BOMs), which included all 

components and processes used to 

manufacture the products. DOE used the 

BOMs from the teardowns as inputs to 

calculate the MPC for products at 

various efficiency levels spanning the 

full range of efficiencies from the 

baseline to the maximum technology 

available. DOE reexamined and revised 

its cost assessment performed for the 

October 2015 NODA analysis. 

During the development of the 

analysis for the NOPR, DOE held 

interviews with manufacturers to gain 

insight into the consumer pool heater 

industry, and to request feedback on the 

engineering analysis. DOE used the 

information gathered from these 

interviews, along with the information 

obtained through the teardown analysis 

and public comments, to refine its MPC 

estimates for this rulemaking. Next, 

DOE derived manufacturer markups 

using publicly-available consumer pool 

heater industry financial data in 

conjunction with manufacturers’ 

feedback. The markups were used to 

convert the MPCs into manufacturer 

sales prices (MSPs). Further information 

on comments received and the 

analytical methodology is presented in 

the following subsections. For 

additional detail, see chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

a. Teardown Analysis 

To assemble BOMs and to calculate 

the manufacturing costs for the different 

components in consumer pool heaters, 

DOE disassembled multiple units into 

their base components and estimated 

the materials, processes, and labor 

required for the manufacture of each 

individual component, a process 

referred to as a ‘‘physical teardown.’’ 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15AP22.004</GPH>
22664 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

27American Metals Market, available at 

www.amm.com/. 28U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, Producer Price Indices, available at 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

29For gas-fired pool heaters, manufacturers are 

currently required to certify input capacity 

pursuant to 10 CFR 429.12. For electric heat pump 

pool heaters, manufacturers currently use output 

capacity in order to represent the capacity of a unit. 

DOE used a combination of the AHRI directory data 

(www.ahridirectory.org/) and product literature to 

obtain data regarding electric heat pump pool 

heater output capacity. 

Using the data gathered from the 

physical teardowns, DOE characterized 

each component according to its weight, 

dimensions, material, quantity, and the 

manufacturing processes used to 

fabricate and assemble it. 

DOE also used a supplementary 

method, called a ‘‘virtual teardown,’’ 

which examines published 

manufacturer catalogs and 

supplementary component data to 

estimate the major physical differences 

between a product that was physically 

disassembled and a similar product that 

was not. For supplementary virtual 

teardowns, DOE gathered product data 

such as dimensions, weight, and design 

features from publicly-available 

information, such as manufacturer 

catalogs. 

The teardown analysis allowed DOE 

to identify the technologies that 

manufacturers typically incorporate into 

their products, along with the efficiency 

levels associated with each technology 

or combination of technologies. The 

BOMs from the teardown analysis were 

then used as inputs to calculate the 

MPC for each product that was torn 

down. The MPC’s resulting from the 

teardowns were used to develop an 

industry average MPC for each 

efficiency level of each product class 

analyzed. 

More information regarding details on 

the teardown analysis can be found in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Cost Estimation Method 

The costs of individual models are 

estimated using the content of the BOMs 

(i.e., materials, fabrication, labor, and all 

other aspects that make up a production 

facility) to generate the MPCs. For 

example, these MPCs include overhead 

and depreciation. DOE collected 

information on labor rates, tooling costs, 

raw material prices, and other factors as 

inputs into the cost estimates. For 

purchased parts, DOE estimates the 

purchase price based on volumevariable price quotations and detailed 

discussions with manufacturers and 

component suppliers. For fabricated 

parts, the prices of raw metal 

materials 27 (i.e., tube, sheet metal) are 

estimated using the average of the most 

recent 5-year period. The cost of 

transforming the intermediate materials 

into finished parts was estimated based 

on current industry pricing at the time 

of analysis.28

c. Manufacturing Production Costs 

DOE estimated the MPC at each 

efficiency level considered for each 

product class, from the baseline through 

the max-tech and then calculated the 

percentages attributable to each cost 

category (i.e., materials, labor, 

depreciation, and overhead). These 

percentages are used to validate the 

assumptions by comparing them to 

manufacturers’ actual financial data 

published in annual reports, along with 

feedback obtained from manufacturers 

during interviews. DOE uses these 

production cost percentages in the MIA 

(see section IV.J of this document). 

DOE’s analysis focused on a single 

representative capacity for each product 

class analyzed. DOE selected a 

representative output capacity of 

110,000 Btu/h for electric pool heaters 

and a representative input capacity of 

250,000 Btu/h for gas-fired pool 

heaters.29 DOE selected these 

representative capacities based on the 

number of available models on the 

market and by referencing a number of 

sources, including information collected 

for the market and technology 

assessment, as well as information 

obtained from product literature. DOE 

then sought feedback on the 

representative capacities during 

confidential manufacturer interviews. 

AHRI stated that the MPC estimates 

for electric pool heaters presented in the 

October 2015 NODA analysis are 

significantly flawed. AHRI stated that 

the relationship of manufacturing cost 

to efficiency for heat pump pool heaters 

is relatively linear and proportional, 

similar to other consumer products. 

AHRI suggested that the design features 

assumed for EL 1 and EL 2 

mischaracterize how those respective 

efficiency levels are achieved and 

provide an unrealistic estimate of MPC, 

i.e., a 40% improvement in the EL 1 

efficiency cannot be achieved for only a 

$1 increase in MPC. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 

3–4) 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.c, the 

electric pool heaters selected for 

teardown and to represent each 

efficiency level were based on the 

published coefficients of performance of 

models currently on the market (as 

integrated thermal efficiency data were 

not yet available). DOE did not assume 

a priori that the concentric/counter-flow 

PVC heat exchanger design would result 

in a certain efficiency increase 

compared to the submerged coil design, 

but rather found that these were the 

design paths for units with such rated 

efficiencies on the market. Further, as 

demonstrated by DOE’s cost-efficiency 

curves, although the design at EL 2 

provides a large improvement in 

efficiency as compared to the design 

evaluated at EL 1 in the October 2015 

NODA, DOE’s estimate of the MPC 

based on its teardown analysis indicated 

that the cost to manufacture the product 

with a heat exchanger as designed at EL 

2 was not substantially more than that 

at EL 1. For the analysis conducted for 

this NOPR, as discussed in section 

IV.C.1.c, DOE has tentatively 

determined to change the design option 

for the electric pool heater EL 1 to be 

more similar to the design options at the 

other ELs (i.e., twisted Titanium tube 

coil in concentric/counter flow PVC 

Pipe). 

For this NOPR analysis, DOE revised 

the cost analysis assumptions it used for 

the October 2015 NODA analysis based 

on updated pricing information (for raw 

materials and purchased parts) and 

additional manufacturer feedback. This 

resulted in refined MPCs and 

production cost percentages. 

Table IV.11 presents DOE’s estimates 

of the MPC’s by efficiency level for 

electric pool heaters in the NOPR 

analysis. The integrated thermal 

efficiencies and MPCs listed in Table 

IV.11 are based on an output capacity of 

110,000 Btu/h. 

TABLE IV.11—MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION COST FOR ELECTRIC POOL HEATERS AT REPRESENTATIVE OUTPUT

CAPACITY OF 110,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level TEI

(percent) 

MPC 

($2020) 

EL 0 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 99 893 

EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 387 1,093 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22665 

30For example, assume that at EL 1, 60 percent 

of the market currently uses copper heat exchangers 

and 40 percent of the market currently uses 

cupronickel heat exchangers. Then, if EL 1 was 

chosen as the amended standard level, DOE 

assumes that 60 percent of the market would 

continue to use copper heat exchangers and 40 

percent of the market would continue to use 

cupronickel heat exchangers. 

TABLE IV.11—MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION COST FOR ELECTRIC POOL HEATERS AT REPRESENTATIVE OUTPUT

CAPACITY OF 110,000 BTU/H—Continued 

Efficiency level TEI

(percent) 

MPC 

($2020) 

EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 483 1,144 

EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 534 1,188 

EL 4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 551 1,220 

EL 5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 595 1,304 

In developing the MPCs for gas-fired 

pool heaters for this NOPR, DOE 

considered the heat exchanger material 

and whether a model would utilize a 

cupronickel or copper heat exchanger at 

a given efficiency level. DOE surveyed 

the market and found that the 

percentage of models at each efficiency 

level that currently utilize copper or 

cupronickel heat exchangers and 

assumed that, under an amended 

standard, the percentage would remain 

unchanged.30

DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that the fraction of 

shipments which utilize cupronickel 

heat exchangers would not change as a 

result of amended standards. 

Table IV.12 presents DOE’s estimates 

of the MPCs by efficiency level for gasfired pool heaters in the NOPR analysis. 

The integrated thermal efficiencies and 

MPCs listed in Table IV.12 are based on 

an input capacity of 250,000 Btu/h. 

TABLE IV.12—MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION COST FOR GAS-FIRED POOL HEATERS AT REPRESENTATIVE INPUT

CAPACITY OF 250,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level TEI

(percent) 

MPC 

($2020) 

EL 0 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 61.1 659 

EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 81.3 665 

EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 83.3 827 

EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 94.8 1,157 

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD presents 

additional detail regarding the 

development of DOE’s estimates of the 

MPCs for consumer pool heaters. 

d. Manufacturer Markups 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE 

applies a non-production cost multiplier 

(the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. 

The resulting MSP is the price that DOE 

research suggests the manufacturer can 

sell a given unit into the marketplace 

under a standards scenario. To meet 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards, manufacturers typically 

redesign their baseline products. These 

design changes typically increase MPCs 

relative to those of previous baseline 

MPCs. Depending on the competitive 

environment for these particular 

products, some or all of the increased 

production costs may be passed from 

manufacturers to retailers and 

eventually to customers in the form of 

higher purchase prices. As production 

costs increase, manufacturers may also 

incur additional overhead (e.g., 

warranty costs). 

The manufacturer markup has an 

important bearing on profitability. A 

high markup under a standards scenario 

suggests manufacturers can readily pass 

along the increased variable costs and 

some of the capital and product 

conversion costs (the one-time 

expenditures) to consumers. A low 

markup suggests that manufacturers will 

have greater difficulty recovering their 

investments, product conversion costs, 

and/or incremental MPCs. 

DOE estimated manufacturer markups 

based on publicly available financial 

information for consumer pool heater 

manufacturers, and information 

obtained during manufacturer 

interviews, DOE assumed the nonproduction cost markup—which 

includes selling, general, and 

administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, 

research and development (‘‘R&D’’) 

expenses, interest, and profit—to be 

1.33 for gas-fired pool heaters and 1.28 

for electric pool heaters. See chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD for more details about 

the manufacturer markup calculation. 

e. Manufacturer Interviews 

Throughout the rulemaking process, 

DOE has sought and continues to seek 

feedback and insight from interested 

parties that would improve the 

information used in its analyses. DOE 

interviewed manufacturers as a part of 

the NOPR manufacturer impact analysis 

(see section IV.J.3 of this document). 

During the interviews, DOE sought 

feedback on all aspects of its analyses 

for consumer pool heaters. For the 

engineering analysis, DOE discussed the 

analytical assumptions and estimates, 

cost analysis, and cost-efficiency curves 

with consumer pool heater 

manufacturers. DOE considered all the 

information manufacturers provided 

when refining the cost analysis and 

assumptions. DOE incorporated 

equipment and manufacturing process 

figures into the analysis as averages to 

avoid disclosing sensitive information 

about individual manufacturers’ 

products or manufacturing processes. 

More details about the manufacturer 

interviews are contained in chapter 12 

of the NOPR TSD. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., wholesaler 

and distributors, pool contractors, pool 

retailers, pool builders) in the 

distribution chain and sales taxes to 

convert the MSP estimates derived in 

the engineering analysis to consumer 

prices, which are then used in the LCC 

and PBP analysis. At each step in the 

distribution channel, companies add 

markup to the price of the product to 

cover business costs and profit margin. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22666 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

31Buying groups are intermediaries between the 

pool heater manufacturers and contractors. A 

buying group is a coalition of companies within a 

shared category who leverage their collective 

purchasing power to negotiate price reductions 

from manufacturers. 

32Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the 

price of baseline products, using the same markup 

for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 

result in higher per-unit operating profit. While 

such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in 

markets that are reasonably competitive it is 

unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable 

increase in profitability in the long run. 

33 DOE estimates that 6 percent of electric pool 

heaters and 13 percent of gas pool heaters will be 

shipped to commercial applications in 2028. See 

section IV.E.1 of this document for further 

discussion. 

34Pkdata, 2020 Residential and Commercial 

Swimming Pool, Hot Tub, and Pool Heater 

Customized Report for LBNL, October 15, 2020, 

available at: www.pkdata.com/ 

datapointstrade.html#/ (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

35POOLCORP, 2020 Form 10–K, available at: 

dd7pmep5szm19.cloudfront.net/603/0000945841- 

21-000022.pdf (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

36PRNewswire, United Aqua Group, one of the 

nation’s largest organizations dedicated to the 

professional pool construction, service and retail 

industry, announces that POOLCORP® is no longer 

the preferred distributor for its swimming pool 

products or building materials, May 15, 2018, 

available at: www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ 

united-aqua-group-one-of-the-nations-largestorganizations-dedicated-to-the-professional-poolconstruction-service-and-retail-industry-announcesthat-poolcorp-is-no-longer-the-preferred-distributorfor-its-swimming-pool-produ-300648220.html (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

37PoolPro, Channel Choices, PoolPro Magazine, 

March 5, 2018, available at: poolpromag.com/ 

channel-choices/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

38Herman, E., Distributors: The Middleman’s 

Role, Aqua Magazine, December 2017, available at: 

aquamagazine.com/features/the-middleman-srole.html (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

39 Green, L., Forward Thinking: A Look at 

Distributor Sector in Pool, Spa Industry Distributors 

adapt with the times, Pool and Spa News, March 

27, 2015, available at: www.poolspanews.com/ 

business/retail-management/forward-thinking-alook-at-distributor-sector-in-pool-spa-industry_o 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

40Based on 2020 Pkdata, in residential pools and 

spas, DOE assumes that the consumer pool heater 

goes through the wholesaler 45 percent of the time, 

10 percent of the time wholesaler to retailer, 40 

percent of the time directly through the pool 

retailer, and 5 percent of the time through the 

buying group. 

41Based on 2020 Pkdata, DOE estimated that 

about 40 percent of consumer pool heater 

installations in new pools are distributed through 

a wholesaler and about 60 percent are distributed 

through a buying group. 

42Based on 2020 Pkdata, which showed a much 

larger fraction of pool heaters being sold through 

distributors (about 70 percent) and directly to end 

users (about 20 percent) in commercial applications 

compared to pool heaters in residential 

applications. 

43U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC 

10–K Reports (2016–2020), available at 

www.sec.gov/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

44U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Retail Trade 

Report, available at www.census.gov/programssurveys/arts.html (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

Note that the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Report is 

the latest version of the report that includes 

detailed operating expenses data. 

45U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census 

Data. available at www.census.gov/programssurveys/economic-census.html (last accessed April 

15, 2021). 

46Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration 

Distributors International (‘‘HARDI’’), 2013 HARDI 

Profit Report, available at hardinet.org/ (last 

For consumer pool heaters, the main 

parties in the distribution chain are: (1) 

Manufacturers; (2) wholesalers or 

distributors; (3) pool contractors; (4) 

pool retailers; (5) buying groups; 31 and 

(6) pool builders. For each actor in the 

distribution chain except for 

manufacturers, DOE developed baseline 

and incremental markups. Baseline 

markups are applied to the price of 

products with baseline efficiency, while 

incremental markups are applied to the 

difference in price between baseline and 

higher-efficiency models (the 

incremental cost increase). The 

incremental markup is typically less 

than the baseline markup and is 

designed to maintain similar per-unit 

operating profit before and after new or 

amended standards.32

At each step in the distribution 

channel, companies add markup to the 

price of the product to cover business 

costs and profit margin. For the electric 

pool heater October 2015 NODA, DOE 

characterized two markets in which 

pool products pass from the 

manufacturer to residential and 

commercial consumers: 33 (1) 

Replacement or new installation of 

consumer pool heater for existing 

swimming pool or spa; (2) installation of 

consumer pool heater in new swimming 

pool or spa. For this NOPR, DOE 

gathered data from several sources 

including 2020 Pkdata report,34

POOLCORP’s 2020 Form 10–K,35

PRNewswire,36 PoolPro Magazine,37

Aqua Magazine,38 and Pool and Spa 

News 39 to determine the distribution 

channels and fraction of shipments 

going through each distribution 

channel. The distribution channels for 

replacement or new installation of a 

consumer pool heater for existing 

swimming pool or spa are characterized 

as follows: 40

Manufacturer → Wholesaler → Pool 

Contractor → Consumer 

Manufacturer → Wholesaler → Pool 

Retailer → Consumer 

Manufacturer → Pool Retailer → 

Consumer 

Manufacturer → Buying Group → Pool 

Contractor → Consumer 

The distribution channels for 

installation of consumer pool heaters in 

a new swimming pool or spa are 

characterized as follows: 41

Manufacturer → Wholesaler → Pool 

Builder → Consumer 

Manufacturer → Buying Group → Pool 

Builder → Consumer 

Lochinvar stated that the distribution 

channels for pool heaters sold for 

commercial applications are similar to 

those used in commercial packaged 

boiler and commercial water heater 

rulemakings. (Lochinvar, No. 2 at p. 2) 

Lochinvar did not provide specific 

fractions of shipments for each 

distribution channel. For the NOPR 

analysis, DOE estimated that half of 

consumer pool heaters installed in 

commercial applications would use 

similar distribution channels to 

commercial packaged boilers and 

commercial water heaters (Manufacturer 

→ Wholesaler → Mechanical Contractor 

→ Consumer for replacements and new 

owners; and Manufacturer → 

Wholesaler → Mechanical Contractor → 

General Contractor → Consumer for new 

swimming pool construction),42 while 

the remaining consumer pool heaters 

would have the distribution channels 

described previously. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

the distribution channels described 

above are appropriate for consumer pool 

heaters and are sufficient to describe the 

distribution markets. In addition, DOE 

seeks input on the percentage of 

products being distributed through the 

different distribution channels, and 

whether the share of products through 

each channel varies based on product 

class, capacity, or other features. 

To estimate average baseline and 

incremental markups, DOE relied on 

several sources, including: (1) Form 

10–K from U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’) for Pool Corp 

(pool wholesaler and retailers); 43 (2) 

form 10–K from U.S. SEC for the Home 

Depot, Lowe’s, Wal-Mart, and Costco 

(for pool retailers); (3) U.S. Census 

Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade 

Report for miscellaneous store retailers 

(NAICS 453) (for direct pool retailers),44

(4) U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Economic 

Census data 45 on the residential and 

commercial building construction 

industry (for pool builder, pool 

contractor, and general and plumbing/ 

mechanical contractors for commercial 

applications); and (5) the Heating, Air 

Conditioning & Refrigeration 

Distributors International (‘‘HARDI’’) 

2013 Profit Report 46 (for wholesalers for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22667 

accessed April 15, 2021). Note that the 2013 HARDI 

Profit Report is the latest version of the report. 47Air Conditioning Contractors of America 

(‘‘ACCA’’), Financial Analysis for the HVACR 

Contracting Industry (2005), available at 

www.acca.org/store#/storefront (last accessed April 

15, 2021). Note that the 2005 Financial Analysis for 

the HVACR Contracting Industry is the latest 

version of the report and is only used to 

disaggregate the mechanical contractor markups 

into replacement and new construction markets. 

48Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax 

Rates Along with Combined Average City and 

County Rates (Feb. 8, 2021), available at thestc.com/ 

STrates.stm (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

49For electric pool heater sample, DOE only 

considered a small fraction of large spas that require 

a pool heater large than 11 kW. For this NOPR, the 

fraction of spas with an electric pool heater larger 

than 11 kW was determined based on 2020 Pkdata 

and DOE’s shipments analysis. 50U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. 2009 RECS Survey Data, available 

at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/ 

2009/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

51U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. 2015 RECS Survey Data, available 

at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/ 

2015/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). RECS 2015 

uses the term hot tub instead of spa. When a 

household has a pool heater and spa heater of the 

same fuel, RECS 2015 does not provide information 

about whether the pool heater is used for both. For 

the NOPR, DOE assumes that in this case, a single 

pool heater is used to heat both the pool and spa. 

52U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. 2012 CBECS Survey Data, available 

at www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/ 

2012/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

53Pkdata. 2020 Residential and Commercial 

Swimming Pool, Hot tub, and Pool Heater 

Customized Report for LBNL, available at 

www.pkdata.net/datapointstrade.html (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

commercial applications). DOE assumes 

that the markups for buying group is 

half of the value of pool wholesaler 

markups derived from Pool Corp’s form 

10–K. In addition, DOE used the 2005 

Air Conditioning Contractors of 

America’s (‘‘ACCA’’) Financial Analysis 

on the Heating, Ventilation, AirConditioning, and Refrigeration 

(‘‘HVACR’’) contracting industry 47 to 

disaggregate the mechanical contractor 

markups into replacement and new 

construction markets for consumer pool 

heaters used in commercial 

applications. 

In addition to the markups, DOE 

obtained state and local taxes from data 

provided by the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse.48 These data represent 

weighted average taxes that include 

county and city rates. DOE derived 

shipment-weighted average tax values 

for each region considered in the 

analysis. 

DOE requests comment on the data 

sources used to establish the markups 

for the parties involved with the 

distribution of covered products. 

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of 

markups for consumer pool heaters. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of consumer pool 

heaters at different efficiencies in 

representative U.S. applications, and to 

assess the energy savings potential of 

increased consumer pool heater 

efficiency. The energy use analysis 

estimates the range of energy use of 

consumer pool heaters in the field (i.e., 

as they are actually used by consumers). 

The energy use analysis provides the 

basis for other analyses DOE performed, 

particularly assessments of the energy 

savings and the savings in consumer 

operating costs that could result from 

adoption of amended or new standards. 

1. Pool Heater Consumer Samples 

DOE created individual consumer 

samples for seven pool heater market 

types: (1) pool heaters in single family 

homes that serve a swimming pool only 

(pool type 1); (2) pool heaters in single 

family homes that serve both a 

swimming pool and spa (pool type 2); 

(3) pool heaters in single family homes 

that serve a spa only (pool type 3); 49 (4) 

pool heaters in single-family community 

swimming pools or spas (pool type 4); 

(5) pool heaters in multi-family 

community swimming pools or spas 

(pool type 5); (6) pool heaters in indoor 

commercial swimming pools or spas 

(pool type 6); (7) pool heaters in outdoor 

commercial swimming pools or spas 

(pool type 7). DOE used the samples not 

only to determine pool heater annual 

energy consumption, but also as the 

basis for conducting the LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

used EIA 2009 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS 2009’’) to 

establish a sample of single family 

homes that use an electric pool heater 

in swimming pool or spa or both.50 For 

the NOPR, DOE used the EIA’s 2015 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(‘‘RECS 2015’’) to establish a sample of 

single family homes that use an electric 

or gas-fired pool heater in a swimming 

pool or spa or both.51 RECS 2015 

includes information such as the 

household or building owner 

demographics, fuel types used, months 

swimming pool used in the last year, 

energy consumption and expenditures, 

and other relevant data. 

For consumer pool heaters used in 

indoor swimming pools in commercial 

applications, DOE developed a sample 

using the 2012 Commercial Building 

Energy Consumption Survey (‘‘CBECS 

2012’’).52 CBECS 2012 does not provide 

data on community pools or outdoor 

swimming pools in commercial 

applications. To develop samples for 

consumer pool heaters in single or 

multi-family community pools and/or 

spas, DOE used a combination of RECS 

2015, U.S. Census 2017 American Home 

Survey Data, and the 2020 Pkdata.53 To 

develop a sample for pool heaters in 

outdoor swimming pools in commercial 

applications, DOE used a combination 

of CBECS 2012 and the 2020 Pkdata. 

Table IV.13 shows the estimated 

weights for the samples of electric pool 

heaters and gas pool heaters by the 

seven pool heater market types. See 

chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for more 

details about the creation of the samples 

and the regional breakdowns. 

TABLE IV.13—FRACTION OF ELECTRIC POOL HEATERS AND GAS-FIRED POOL HEATERS BY POOL HEATER MARKET

Pool type ID Description 

Electric pool 

heaters 

(%) 

Gas-fired pool 

heaters 

(%) 

1 ....................................................... Single Family with Pool Heater Serving Swimming Pool Only ................. 58.4 32.5 

2 ....................................................... Single Family with Pool Heater Serving Swimming Pool + Spa .............. 28.3 28.7 

3 ....................................................... Single Family with Pool Heater Serving Spa Only ................................... 7.1 25.7 

4 ....................................................... Community Pools or Spas (Single-Family) ............................................... 0.8 1.5 

5 ....................................................... Community Pools or Spas (Multi-Family) ................................................. 2.8 5.1 

6 ....................................................... Commercial Indoor Pools and Spas ......................................................... 1.0 3.9 

7 ....................................................... Commercial Outdoor Pools and Spas ...................................................... 1.5 2.6 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22668 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

54For the October 2015 NODA (80 FR 65169), 

RECS 2009 estimates of the annual energy 

consumption from the household’s energy bills 

using conditional demand analysis does not 

provide separate estimates for electric pool heater 

energy use. Instead, RECS 2009 groups these pool 

heaters in the ‘‘other devices and purposes not 

elsewhere classified.’’ Furthermore, RECS 2009 

does not provide any energy use data for 

community pools with pool heaters and CBECS 

2012 does not provide separate energy use estimates 

for pool heaters in other commercial applications. 

AHRI stated that although the RECS 

information is readily available and 

useful, the usage and installation 

circumstances of electric pool heaters 

may be such that a more detailed 

estimate of installations per state is 

needed to properly analyze an efficiency 

standard for electric pool heaters. AHRI 

stated that because climate affects the 

electricity use of electric pool heaters, 

any changes in the assumed 

geographical distribution of electric 

pool heaters would alter electricity use. 

(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 4) DOE contends 

that RECS provides a reasonable 

distribution of users of electric pool 

heaters, since it closely matches 

regional data for electric pool heaters 

from 2020 Pkdata. DOE acknowledges 

that there is some uncertainty related to 

the distribution of electric pool heaters 

and discusses its assumptions in more 

detail in appendix 7A of the NOPR TSD. 

EEI stated that because commercial 

pools, including community pools, 

commercial indoor spas or pools, and 

commercial outdoor swimming pools, 

are usually much larger in volume and 

operate for many more hours during the 

year than pools in residential 

applications, their inclusion in the 

analysis distorts the baseline energy 

usage and the impacts of energy 

efficiency improvements. EEI stated that 

because commercial swimming pool 

heaters are outside of the scope of this 

residential product rulemaking, any 

data or estimates associated with such 

units should be removed from the final 

analysis. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 5, 13) 

EPCA specifies pool heaters as a 

consumer product that is a covered 

product for the purpose of the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(11)) EPCA defines 

‘‘consumer product,’’ in part, as ‘‘any 

article [. . .] of a type- (A) which in 

operation consumes, or is designed to 

consume, energy [. . .]; and (B) which, 

to any significant extent, is distributed 

in commerce for personal use or 

consumption by individuals; without 

regard to whether such article of such 

type is in fact distributed in commerce 

for personal use or consumption by an 

individual[.] (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) As 

such, if a product meets the definition 

of ‘‘pool heater,’’ regardless of whether 

that unit it is installed in a residential 

or commercial application, that product 

is still subject to regulation as a 

consumer product. Because pool heaters 

are considered a consumer product 

under this definition, and because the 

definition of pool heaters does not 

include a capacity limit, DOE’s 

authority to consider energy 

conservation standards for pool heaters 

includes consumer pool heaters used in 

commercial settings. 

To accurately estimate the costs and 

benefits of potential standards, DOE 

must consider all applications of the 

covered product, including commercialsector usage of a consumer product. 

DOE limited consideration of pool 

heaters installed in commercial pools in 

its energy use analysis to pool heaters 

installed in commercial pools of similar 

size as pools in residential applications, 

because it has limited data on the 

number of pool heaters serving larger 

commercial pools and their energy use. 

For the NOPR, DOE revised its energy 

use estimates based on all available 

data, including recent data from the 

2020 Pkdata about pool heaters in 

commercial applications. DOE notes 

that the fraction of electric pool heaters 

used in commercial applications 

decreased from 10 percent in the 

October 2015 NODA to 6 percent in the 

NOPR (see the section regarding 

residential and commercial applications 

in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD). 

AHRI stated that it seems 

unreasonable that the cold and 

relatively sparsely populated Mountain 

Census division would have a higher 

fraction of electric pool heaters than the 

Pacific Census division, which includes 

highly populated and warm California. 

(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 4) The CA IOUs 

stated that in California the vast 

majority of pool heaters are gas-fired, 

and that they understand that electric 

pool heaters are used extensively 

elsewhere throughout the country. (CA 

IOUs, No. 5 at p. 5) 

In response, DOE notes that in RECS 

2015, the Mountain Census division 

does consistently show a lower fraction 

of pool heaters than the Pacific Census 

division (see Table IV.14 for details), 

and these data are consistent with the 

comments from AHRI and the CA IOUs. 

TABLE IV.14—FRACTION OF POOL HEATERS IN MOUNTAIN CENSUS DIVISION AND PACIFIC DIVISION

Region 

Percent of existing installations 

in U.S. 

Mountain 

Census 

division 

(percent) 

Pacific division 

(percent) 

All swimming pool heaters (gas-fired and electric) ................................................................................................. 10 21 

Electric swimming pool heaters ............................................................................................................................... 4 11 

All spa and hot tub heaters (gas-fired and electric) ................................................................................................ 8 26 

Electric spa and hot tub heaters ............................................................................................................................. 9 23 

Source: RECS 2015 

DOE requests comment on the data 

sources and methodology used to 

establish pool heater consumer samples. 

2. Energy Use Estimation 

For the October 2015 NODA, to 

estimate the annual energy consumption 

of consumer pool heaters at the 

considered efficiency levels, DOE first 

calculated the pool heater load for each 

sampled consumer based on 

assumptions regarding the size of a 

typical pool, ambient conditions for 

different locations, length of the 

swimming pool season, and whether the 

pool has a cover.54 For each household 

or building with a consumer pool 

heater, DOE matched the pool heating 

load to the sampled swimming pool 

based on household or building 

geographical location and an 

assumption of whether the pool is 

covered or not. DOE then used the pool 

heating load together with the consumer 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22669 

55For heat pump pool heaters, pool heater output 

capacity is adjusted based on average outdoor 

conditions, since the rated output is measured at 

outdoor ambient conditions that are often different 

from actual field conditions. The adjustment is 

done based on coefficient of performance (COP) 

from heat pump pool heater data at different 

ambient conditions. 

56NRDC’s Response to CEC’s Invitation to 

Participate in the Development of Appliance Energy 

Efficiency Measures 2013 Appliance Efficiency PreRulemaking on Appliance Efficiency Regulations: 

Docket Number 12–AAER–2F—Residential Pool 

Pumps and Motors (May 2013), available at efiling.

energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=

70721&DocumentContentId=8266 (last accessed 

April 15, 2021). 

57State of Florida. Chapter 515. Residential 

Swimming Pool Safety Act, available at 

www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=

Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0515/0515.html 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

58CA Health and Safety Code, section 115922, 

available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/

codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=

115922.&nodeTreePath=43.11.5.3&lawCode=HSC 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

59RECS 2015 provides separate estimates for 

electric spa heaters, natural gas pool heaters, and 

natural gas spa heaters in single family homes. 

However, RECS 2015 does not provide separate 

estimates for electric pool heater energy use and 

propane pool and spa heaters. Instead, RECS 2015 

groups these pool heaters in the ‘‘other devices and 

purposes not elsewhere classified.’’ 

60Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), 

CEESM High Efficiency Residential Swimming Pool 

Initiative, January 2013, available at 

library.cee1.org/system/files/library/9986/CEE_Res_

SwimmingPoolInitiative_01Jan2013_Corrected.pdf 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

61Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), 

Performance Study of Swimming Pool Heaters, 

January 2009, available at www.bnl.gov/isd/

documents/73878.pdf (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

pool heater output 55 to determine the 

burner operating hours. The electricity 

or fuel consumption in active mode was 

calculated by multiplying the burner 

operating hours by the input capacity. 

For heat pump pool heaters, DOE 

accounted for the potential increase in 

pump electricity use due to longer 

operating hours of these products (see 

discussion below). For heat pump pool 

heaters, to account for variations of 

output capacity, input capacity, and 

COPs observed in the field, DOE 

determined these values based on the 

geographical location of the sampled 

household. 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

assumed that 32 percent of pools with 

consumer pool heaters use a cover and 

68 percent of pools with consumer pool 

heaters do not use a cover based on 

comments from NRDC in a CEC pool 

pumps rulemaking.56 See chapter 7 of 

the October 2015 NODA TSD. 

EEI stated that since at least 2001, 

residential and commercial swimming 

pool heaters installed with or in new 

buildings are required to have covers, 

readily accessible on-off switches, and 

time switches. EEI also stated that 

assuming no pool cover overstates the 

baseline energy usage by at least 5 times 

the actual energy usage. (EEI, No. 21 at 

p. 6) For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

did account for a fraction of 

installations with a pool cover. See 

chapter 7 of the October 2015 NODA 

TSD. DOE also notes that code 

requirements only affect pools built 

since these codes went into effect, and 

the timing of requirements for pools 

varies among the different States. Also, 

these building code requirements are 

focused on safety and do not necessarily 

require only pool covers. For example, 

Florida requirements can be met using 

fencing or alarms instead of pool 

covers.57 California requires that when a 

building permit is issued for the 

construction of a new swimming pool or 

spa or the remodeling of an existing 

swimming pool or spa at a private 

single-family home, the respective 

swimming pool or spa is required to 

have a minimum of two drowning 

prevention safety features, one of which 

may be a pool cover.58 Furthermore, 

there is a lack of statistics and data of 

the usage pattern of pool covers 

combined with pool heaters. For 

example, 2020 Pkdata shows that less 

than half of pool covers are installed 

primarily to reduce energy use, while 

the rest are primarily safety covers or 

only used to cover the pool during the 

winter season. In the absence of any 

other information, DOE maintained its 

assumptions on use of pool covers. 

For the NOPR, DOE revised its energy 

use analysis based on all available data 

including RECS 2015,59 CBECS 2012, a 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency 

(‘‘CEE’’) report,60 a Brookhaven National 

Laboratory report,61 and 2020 Pkdata. In 

particular, for consumer pool heaters in 

single family homes, DOE was able to 

use the energy use estimates provided in 

RECS 2015 to estimate the pool heater 

load for each sampled pool or spa. For 

consumer pool heaters in commercial 

buildings, DOE used the same energy 

use methodology as in the October 2015 

NODA. See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD 

for more details. 

DOE requests comment on the overall 

methodology for determining consumer 

pool heater energy use. 

a. Consumer Pool Heater Operating 

Hours 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

estimated that electric pool heaters 

operate on average approximately 400 

hours per year at the representative 

output capacity of 110 kBtu/h. See 

chapter 7 of the October 2015 NODA 

TSD. 

EEI asserted that the estimated 

operating hours appear to be overstated 

for most States or regions. (EEI, No. 21 

at p. 6–8) For the October 2015 NODA, 

DOE’s estimate of operating hours was 

based on a fixed output capacity of 110 

kBtu/h for electric pool heaters. For this 

NOPR, DOE assigned a consumer pool 

heater size for each sampled pool or spa, 

so that the estimated operating hours 

vary by region and application. DOE 

estimated that electric resistance pool 

heaters operate on average 

approximately 260 hours per year and 

heat pump pool heaters operate on 

average approximately 360 hours per 

year. The decrease in consumer pool 

heater operating hours between the 

October 2015 NODA and the NOPR is 

primarily due to updating the 

methodology for assignment of pool 

size, changes in the methodology for 

estimating pool heater load, and 

changes in sample, which includes a 

decrease in the estimate of consumer 

pool heaters in commercial applications 

from 10 percent in the October 2015 

NODA to 6 percent in the NOPR (for 

more details see chapter 7 of the NOPR 

TSD). DOE estimated that gas-fired pool 

heaters operate on average 

approximately 190 hours per year. 

EEI stated that for the South Atlantic 

region, DOE used the pool operating 

hours from Florida only (12 months of 

operation) and ignores the values from 

the other States that are estimated to 

operate for 5 months or 7 months. EEI 

stated that a weighted average for the 

region would be much more 

appropriate. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 8) For the 

October 2015 NODA, DOE’s analysis for 

single-family pool heaters (which 

account for the majority of shipments) 

uses separate values for the number of 

months of operation for Florida 

compared to other States in the South 

Atlantic region. The analysis for pool 

heaters servicing community and 

commercial swimming pool is divided 

into Census divisions, and the South 

Atlantic values for the number of 

months are a shipment-weighted 

average between Florida and the 

different States in this region. For the 

NOPR, DOE’s analysis for single-family 

pool heaters is based on the months the 

swimming pool is used, as reported in 

RECS 2015, in the last year for each 

individual household. For pool heaters 

servicing community and commercial 

pools, DOE kept its approach of using 

the shipment-weighted average between 

Florida and the other States in the South 

Atlantic region, as well as assigning a 

fraction of pools for year-round use. 

Raypak and AHRI stated that gas-fired 

pool heaters heat a pool rapidly and so 

do not need to operate when the pool 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22670 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

62 DOE Energy Saver, available at 

www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pumpswimming-pool-heaters (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

63NRDC, NRDC’s Response to CEC’s Invitation to 

Participate in the Development of Appliance Energy 

Efficiency Measures 2013 Appliance Efficiency PreRulemaking on Appliance Efficiency Regulations: 

Docket Number 12–AAER–2F Residential Pool 

Pumps and Motors (May 2013), available at 

efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=70721&

DocumentContentId=8266 (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

64Synapse Infusion Group, Inc., Report on Solar 

Pool Heating Quantitative Survey, August 1998– 

December 1998, April 1998, NREL/SR–550–26485, 

available at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/26485.pdf 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

65Pentair. UltraTemp ETi Hybrid Heater, 

available at www.pentair.com/en/products/poolspa-equipment/pool-heaters/ultratemp-hybridheater.html (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

is not in use; in contrast, heat pump 

pool heaters generally take several days 

to heat a pool. (Raypak, No. 4 at p. 7; 

AHRI, No. 7 at p. 9) DOE’s analysis 

takes into account longer operating 

hours for heat pump pool heaters 

compared to gas-fired pool heaters and 

electric resistance pool heaters. 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

assigned different swimming pool use 

hours depending on the region the 

consumer pool heater is installed in, 

based on DOE’s Energy Saver website 

assumptions.62 See chapter 7 of the 

October 2015 NODA TSD. EEI stated 

that a study by the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratories (‘‘NREL’’) shows 

that in Florida, California, and Arizona 

(three of the top four States with the 

highest number of in-ground pools 

according to NRDC63), consumer pool 

heaters are used less than DOE’s 

analysis would indicate. The report 

states that ‘‘the majority of solar [pool 

heating] users actually use their pools 

from April through October, whereas a 

majority of non-users [of solar pool 

heating] only use their pools from May 

through September.’’ 64 EEI stated that 

although this information is somewhat 

dated, it clearly shows that even in the 

best climates, a very small percentage of 

residential pool owners use their pools 

(and consumer pool heaters) anywhere 

close to the values estimated by DOE. 

(EEI, No. 21 at p. 8–9) In response, DOE 

contends that a study of users of solar 

pool heating (i.e., those who own a 

home with a swimming pool heated by 

a solar collector) is not representative of 

users of electric and gas-fired pool 

heaters. Also, as stated in the NREL 

report, non-users of solar pool heaters 

include those who do not heat their 

pool at all and therefore the pool usage 

is not an appropriate comparison. For 

the NOPR, DOE used RECS 2015 data 

that include average number of pool and 

spa operating months for each of the 

single-family households with a pool 

and/or spa heater, as well as 2020 

Pkdata that include average pool 

operating months by state for pool 

heaters in commercial pool 

applications. 

The CA IOUs stated that portable 

electric spas are typically heated yearround, while consumer pool heaters 

often are only used occasionally during 

the swimming months. (CA IOUs, No. 5 

at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 20 at p. 7) DOE’s 

analysis for electric pool heaters is not 

currently analyzing portable electric spa 

heaters, which are typically at or below 

11 kW. DOE’s analysis accounts for 

differences in operation between 

consumer pool heaters used in 

swimming pools compared to spas by 

using RECS 2015 reported months of 

use. RECS 2015 data show that on 

average heated swimming pools are 

used 5.2 months per year, while spas are 

used on average 7.4 months per year. 

DOE requests comment on the data 

sources and methodology for 

determining consumer pool heater 

hours of operation as well as swimming 

pool and spa hours of operation. 

b. Heat Pump Pool Heater Energy Use 

For both the October 2015 NODA and 

NOPR, DOE took into account variations 

in heat pump pool heaters regarding 

output capacity, input capacity, and 

COPs observed in the field based on the 

geographical location. 

Commenting on the March 2015 RFI, 

the CA IOUs stated that although heat 

pump pool heaters have diminished 

performance at temperatures below 

55 °F, most consumer pool heaters only 

operate during the swimming months, 

when ambient temperatures are often 

significantly higher than 55 °F. They 

added that the outside air temperature 

constraint on heat pump technology has 

been successfully addressed in water 

heaters that utilize heat pump 

technology whenever possible, with 

electric resistance as a backup only 

when needed. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 5) 

DOE accounted for outdoor air 

temperature and pool season length in 

determining the energy use of heat 

pump pool heaters. In the October 2015 

NODA, DOE assigned an average COP 

value for each heat pump efficiency 

level based on climate region (Hot 

Humid, Warm, or Cold climate). For 

example, for EL 2 the weighted COPs by 

region are 5.2 for the Hot Humid region, 

4.6 for the Warm region, and 4.0 for the 

Cold region. See chapter 7 of the 

October 2015 NODA TSD. For the 

NOPR, DOE refined its methodology to 

adjust the COP for heat pumps based on 

pool season length and monthly average 

temperatures for the different climate 

regions in the analysis. For example, for 

EL 2 the weighted COPs by region are 

5.44 for the Hot Humid region, 5.20 for 

the Warm region, and 3.76 for the Cold 

region. DOE is not aware of any hybrid 

units in the market that utilize electric 

resistance as a heat pump pool heater 

backup but agrees with CA IOUs that 

this is a potential solution for a fraction 

of installations that might require 

operation at very low ambient 

temperatures or during a period of high 

demand. DOE is aware of a hybrid gasfired/heat pump unit.65

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

accounted for the potential increase in 

pool pump electricity use due to longer 

operating hours of heat pump pool 

heaters, since the pool pump used by 

the pool heater needs to operate while 

the pool heater heats the pool. DOE 

assumed that heat pumps would tend to 

run longer than an electric resistance 

pool heater with similar output capacity 

and would therefore require the pool 

pump to work longer. See chapter 7 of 

the October 2015 NODA TSD. ASAP 

and NRDC commented that typical daily 

pool pump operating hours are 

significantly higher than pool heater 

operating hours; therefore, the 

additional pool heater operating hours 

estimated for heat pump pool heaters 

would not necessarily translate directly 

to additional pool pump operating 

hours. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 19 at p. 

3) Similarly, the CA IOUs stated that 

most pool heating is achieved during 

the normal daily filtration pumping 

cycle, minimizing the need for 

additional pumping energy to heat 

pools. The CA IOUs additionally stated 

as filtration pumping is increasingly met 

by energy efficient dual-speed, multispeed, and variable-speed pumps, 

which often run at lower flows for a 

longer number of hours, the need for 

increased pumping for pool heating is 

further reduced. (CA IOUs, No. 20 at p. 

6) The CA IOUs, ASAP, and NRDC 

encouraged DOE to ensure that it is not 

overestimating the additional pool 

pump energy required for heat pump 

pool heaters. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 19 

at p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 20 at p. 6) 

For the NOPR, DOE updated its 

analysis to take into account the 

coincidental heat pump pool heater and 

typical pool pump use, as well as the 

use of higher efficiency pumps. This 

revision decreased the impact of the 

heat pump pool heater on additional 

pool pump energy use by about half 

compared to the October 2015 NODA 

estimates. 

DOE requests comment on the 

methodology used for determining heat 

pump pool heater energy use. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22671 

66Previous to the RECS 2015, RECS only reported 

disaggregated conditional demand analysis 

electricity use estimates for space heating, space 

cooling, water heating, and refrigerator appliances. 

67This value includes a mixture of households 

with electric resistance and heat pump pool heaters. 

68U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. 2005 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey: Energy Consumption and 

Expenditures Tables. Table WH6. Average 

Consumption for Water Heating by Major Fuels 

Used, 2005 Physical Units per Household, Page 8, 

available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/ 

data/2005/c&e/pdf/tablewh6.pdf (last accessed 

April 15, 2021). 

69U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. 2005 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey: Energy Consumption and 

Expenditures Tables. Table WH7. Average 

Consumption for Water Heating by Major Fuels 

Used, 2005 Million British Thermal Units (Btu) per 

Household, Page 8, available at www.eia.gov/ 

consumption/residential/data/2005/c&e/pdf/ 

tablewh7.pdf (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

70U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. 2001 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey: Energy Consumption and 

Expenditures Tables. Table 2. Residential 

Consumption of Electricity by End Use, 2001, 

available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/ 

data/2001/index.php?view=consumption#Water 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

71Wenzel, Tom, Jonathan G. Koomey, Gregory J. 

Rosenquist, Marla Sanchez, and James W. Hanford. 

Energy Data Sourcebook for the U.S. Residential 

Sector, September 1997, page 128, available at etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl40297.pdf (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

c. Consumer Pool Heater Standby and 

Off Mode Energy Use 

Lochinvar estimated that, based on 

DOE’s estimates of burner operating 

hours (‘‘BOH’’) and average pool 

operating hours (‘‘POH’’), the annual 

power consumption in standby mode 

and off mode will be between 0.1 

percent and 1 percent of the total annual 

power consumption for all Lochinvar 

pool heaters. (Lochinvar, No. 2 at p. 2) 

DOE’s estimate of annual power 

consumption in standby mode and off 

mode is consistent with Lochinvar’s 

comment. Lochinvar stated that its gasfired pool heaters use spark ignition and 

have no fossil fuel consumption in 

either standby mode or off mode. 

(Lochinvar, No. 2 at p. 1) Raypak stated 

that the typical fossil fuel energy use in 

standby mode and off mode is zero 

because gas-fired pool heaters only fire 

when there is a call for heat to maintain 

a setpoint temperature. Raypak also 

stated that standby and off-mode is 

limited to electricity consumption for 

all gas-fired, electric resistance, and 

electric heat pump pool heaters and that 

the magnitude of the electricity 

consumption may change slightly based 

on the input capacity of the unit. 

(Raypak, No. 4 at p. 2) DOE’s 

understanding based on a review of the 

market and product literature is 

consistent with Raypak’s comments 

about fossil fuel consumption in either 

standby or off mode for units not 

equipped with standing pilot ignition. 

DOE only accounted for standby or off 

mode fossil fuel consumption for gasfired pool heaters equipped with 

standing pilot ignition. DOE’s 

understanding based on a review of the 

market and product literature is also 

consistent with Raypak’s comment that 

all pool heaters have standby and off 

mode electricity use. For all gas-fired 

pool heaters, regardless of ignition type, 

as well as for electric resistance and 

electric heat pump pool heaters, DOE’s 

analysis accounts for standby and off 

mode electricity use. 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

assumed that most consumers are 

unlikely to set their electric pool heaters 

to the off mode during the non-heating 

season. See chapter 7 of the October 

2015 NODA TSD. AHRI disagreed with 

this assumption and stated that in 

climates with a long and cold nonheating season, many consumers will 

put their pool heater in the off mode as 

part of the process of closing their pool 

for the season. AHRI stated that in parts 

of the country where the non-heating 

season is either relatively short or 

relatively mild, some consumers will 

also put their pool heater in the off 

mode. AHRI stated that in parts of the 

country where there is a minimal nonheating season, consumers are unlikely 

to put the pool heater in the off mode. 

(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 5) 

Upon further consideration, including 

consideration of the comments received, 

for the NOPR, DOE revised its standby 

and off mode analysis to account for a 

large fraction of consumers that turn off 

their equipment during the non-pool 

heating season, especially in colder 

regions of the country. Chapter 7 of the 

NOPR TSD provides details on DOE’s 

standby and off mode analysis for 

consumer pool heaters. 

DOE requests comment on the 

methodology used for determining 

standby and off mode energy use. 

3. Energy Use Results 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

estimated that the average electric pool 

heater load is 47.9 million Btu per year, 

which resulted in average energy use of 

14,034 kWh per year for an electric 

resistance pool heater and 4,091 to 

2,505 kWh per year for an electric heat 

pump pool heater, depending on the 

efficiency level. See chapter 7 of the 

October 2015 NODA TSD. 

EEI stated that according to RECS 

2005, the average electricity use of a 

consumer pool heater was 3,512 kWh 

per year. EEI stated that RECS 2005 also 

estimates that electric pool heaters use 

an average of 37.7 million Btu/year, 

corresponding to 11,046 kWh per year. 

EEI stated that RECS 2001 data show an 

average annual energy use for electric 

pool heaters, spa heaters, and hot tubs 

of 2,300 kWh/year. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 3) 

The values presented by EEI do not 

represent pool heater electricity use, but 

instead represent the estimated 

electricity use for the domestic water 

heater. RECS data before 2015 did not 

report disaggregated pool heater energy 

use, but instead groups such energy use 

with other appliances (including pool 

pumps, furnace fans, freezers, 

dishwashers, lighting, etc.), while the 

domestic water heating energy use 

associated by the electric water heater is 

disaggregated.66 For households with an 

electric pool heater in RECS 2009 this 

value (energy use with other appliances) 

is 16,953 kWh per year.67 The quoted 

value reported by EEI from RECS 2005 

of 3,512 kWh represents the domestic 

hot water energy use by the electric 

water heater for households with both 

an electric water heater and a pool 

heater.68 Meanwhile the 37.7 million 

Btu/year figure in RECS 2005 represents 

the domestic hot water energy use for 

any water heater used in households 

with an electric pool heater.69 Neither of 

these values include the electric pool 

heater energy use. The 2,300 kWh/year 

average annual energy use for electric 

pool heaters, spa heaters, and hot tubs 

from RECS 2001 70 does not represent 

RECS 2001 data, but instead references 

a 1997 report.71 It is important to note 

that this 2,300 kWh/year represents all 

electric pool heaters, spa heaters, and 

hot tubs, most of which are small spa 

heaters and hot tubs with electric 

resistance heaters below 11 kW (which 

are outside of the scope of the proposed 

standards). Therefore, the 2,300 kWh is 

not necessarily inconsistent with DOE’s 

current energy use estimates for electric 

pool heaters. For the NOPR, the 

estimated shipment-weighted average 

electricity consumption for electric pool 

heaters in residential applications in 

2028 is 2,635 kWh. 

EEI also stated that pool pumps 

represent about 70 percent of energy 

used in swimming pools, consuming 

around 3,500 kWh per year, so electric 

pool heaters use about 29 percent of the 

residential swimming pool energy use 

in the US and Canada. EEI stated that 

using these data, an electric pool heater 

would use about 1,050 kWh per year. 

(EEI, No. 21 at p. 4) In response, the 

study cited by EEI includes all 

swimming pools with and without a 

pool heater. Swimming pools with both 

a pool heater and pool pump tend to 

consume much more energy than the 

numbers cited by EEI. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22672 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

72 DOE estimated that commercial applications 

account for 6 percent of electric pool heater 

shipments in 2028. 

73 DOE estimated that commercial applications 

account for 13 percent of gas-fired pool heater 

shipments in 2028. 

74Crystal BallTM is commercially-available 

software tool to facilitate the creation of these types 

of models by generating probability distributions 

and summarizing results within Excel, available at 

www.oracle.com/middleware/technologies/ 

crystalball.html (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

For this NOPR, DOE updated its 

energy use analysis to account for RECS 

2015 and CBECS 2012 pool heater data. 

For residential applications, DOE 

estimated that on average electric 

resistance pool heater load is 22.9 

million Btu per year, which resulted in 

average shipment-weighted energy use 

of 6,788 kWh per year, and on average 

electric heat pump pool heater load is 

37.6 million Btu per year, which 

resulted in average shipment-weighted 

energy use of 2,315 kWh per year. For 

commercial applications,72 DOE 

estimated that on average electric 

resistance pool heater load is 129.0 

million Btu per year, which resulted in 

average shipment-weighted energy use 

of 38,187 kWh per year, and on average 

electric heat pump pool heater load is 

151.6 million Btu per year, which 

resulted in average shipment-weighted 

energy use of 9,202 kWh per year. 

For gas-fired pool heaters, DOE also 

based its analysis on RECS 2015 data, 

CBECS 2012 data, and updated energy 

use methodology. For residential 

applications, DOE estimated that the 

consumer pool heater load is 28.9 

million Btu per year, which resulted in 

average shipment-weighted energy use 

of 35.0 million Btu per year. For 

commercial applications,73 DOE 

estimated that on average gas-fired pool 

heater load is 206.2 million Btu per 

year, which resulted in average 

shipment-weighted energy use of 247.2 

million Btu per year. 

See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for 

further details. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for consumer pool heaters. The effect of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards on individual consumers 

usually involves a reduction in 

operating cost and an increase in 

purchase cost. DOE used the following 

two metrics to measure consumer 

impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of consumer pool heaters in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In contrast, the 

PBP for a given efficiency level is 

measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of consumers. As 

stated previously, DOE developed 

consumer samples primarily from the 

2015 RECS and 2012 CBECS. For each 

sample consumer, DOE determined the 

energy consumption for the consumer 

pool heater and the appropriate energy 

price. By developing a representative 

sample of consumers, the analysis 

captured the variability in energy 

consumption and energy prices 

associated with the use of consumer 

pool heaters. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, retailer and 

distributor markups, and sales taxes— 

and installation costs. Inputs to the 

calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE 

created distributions of values for 

product lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a 

Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate 

uncertainty and variability into the 

analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations 

randomly sample input values from the 

probability distributions and consumer 

pool heater user samples. For this 

proposed rule, the Monte Carlo 

approach is implemented in MS Excel 

together with the Crystal BallTM addon.74 The model calculated the LCC and 

PBP for products at each efficiency level 

for 10,000 consumer pool heater 

installations per simulation run. The 

analytical results include a distribution 

of 10,000 data points showing the range 

of LCC savings for a given efficiency 

level relative to the no-new-standards 

case efficiency distribution. In 

performing an iteration of the Monte 

Carlo simulation for a given consumer, 

product efficiency is chosen based on its 

probability. If the chosen product 

efficiency is greater than or equal to the 

efficiency of the standard level under 

consideration, the LCC and PBP 

calculation reveals that a consumer is 

not impacted by the standard level. By 

accounting for consumers who already 

purchase more-efficient products, DOE 

avoids overstating the potential benefits 

from increasing product efficiency. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

all consumers of pool heaters as if each 

were to purchase a new product in the 

expected year of required compliance 

with new or amended standards. Any 

amended standards would apply to 

consumer pool heaters manufactured 5 

years after the date on which any new 

or amended standard is published. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(ii)) For this 

analysis DOE assumed publication of a 

final rule, were standards to be 

amended, in 2023. Therefore, for 

purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2028 

as the first year of compliance with any 

amended standards for consumer pool 

heaters. 

Table IV.15 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its 

appendices. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22673 

75Low-NOx gas-fired pool heaters account for 11 

percent of gas-fired pool heaters at EL 0 and 59 

percent of pool heaters at EL 1. 

76Low-NOx gas-fired pool heaters with a rated 

heat input capacity less than or equal to 2,000,000 

Btu/h Hour are required in South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (‘‘SCAQMD’’) and San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District (‘‘SJAPCD’’). 

SCAQMD Rule 1146.2, available at www.aqmd.gov/ 

docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1146– 

2.pdf; SJAPCD Rule 4308, available at 

www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/03–4308_

CleanRule.pdf (last accessed April 15, 2021). Low 

NOX gas-fired pool heaters with a rated heat input 

capacity 400,001 to 2,000,000 Btu/h are required in 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

(‘‘BAAQMD’’). Regulation 9, available at 

www.baaqmd.gov/∼/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-9- 

rule-6-nitrogen-oxides-emissions-from-naturalgasfired-water-heaters/documents/rg0906.pdf?la=en 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

77Low-NOX gas-fired pool heaters with a rated 

heat input capacity less than 2,000,000 Btu/Hour. 

Utah Code 15A–6–102, available at le.utah.gov/ 

xcode/Title15A/Chapter6/15A–6– 

S102.html?v=C15A–6–S102_2017050920170509 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

78Low NOX gas-fired pool heater with a rated 

heat input capacity less than or equal to 2,000,000 

Btu/h Hour are required (except for units installed 

in single-family residences, used exclusively to heat 

swimming pools and hot tubs). Texas 

Administrative Code, Control of Air Pollution from 

Nitrogen Compounds, available at 

texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/ 

readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_

view=5&ti=30&pt=1&ch=117&sch=E&div=3&rl=Y 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

79Pires, K. It’s A Low-NOX Life. AQUA. November 

2008, available at aquamagazine.com/it-s-a-lownox-life.html (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

TABLE IV.15—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS* 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost ............................................................................. Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales 

tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling index to 

project product costs. 

Installation Costs ...................................................................... Baseline and incremental installation cost determined with data from 2021 RS 

Means. 

Annual Energy Use .................................................................. The total annual energy use multiplied by the hours per year. Average number of 

hours based on field data. 

Variability: Based on regional data and 2015 RECS and 2012 CBECS. 

Energy Prices ........................................................................... Natural Gas: Based on EIA’s Natural Gas Navigator data for 2020. 

Propane: Based on EIA’s SEDS for 2019. 

Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2020. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 10 regions for pool heaters in 

individual single-family homes and 9 census divisions for pool heaters in community and commercial pool heaters. 

Marginal prices used for both natural gas and electricity. 

Energy Price Trends ................................................................ Based on AEO2021 price projections. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs ................................................ Based on 2021 RS Means data and other sources. Assumed variation in cost by 

efficiency. 

Product Lifetime ....................................................................... Average: 11.2 years for both electric and gas-fired pool heaters. 

Discount Rates ......................................................................... Residential: Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that 

might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 

Commercial: Calculated as the weighted average cost of capital for businesses 

purchasing pool heaters. Primary data source was Damodaran Online. 

Compliance Date ...................................................................... 2028. 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the markups 

described previously (along with sales 

taxes). DOE used different markups for 

baseline products and higher-efficiency 

products because DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the increase in 

MSP associated with higher-efficiency 

products. Many 82-percent thermal 

efficiency (EL 0 and EL 1) gas-fired pool 

heaters without low-NOX burners are 

currently available that do not meet 

low-NOX criteria in California, Utah, 

and Texas.75 Thus, for the NOPR, DOE 

included the additional cost of a lowNOX burner to all gas-fired pool heaters 

installed in certain California,76 Utah,77

or Texas 78 locations and applications. 

DOE assigned a fraction of installations 

outside these three regions the low-NOX

burner cost adder since the models are 

so widespread.79

DOE requests comments on its 

assumption that gas-fired pool heaters 

installed in California, Utah, or Texas 

would have a low-NOX burner and the 

fraction of installations outside these 

three regions that would have a lowNOX burner. 

Commenting on the October 2015 

NODA, EEI stated that publicly 

available information on websites shows 

price differentials between electric 

resistance pool heaters and heat pump 

pool heaters on the order of $2,000 or 

$3,000, at least two to three times more 

than DOE’s estimates. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 

11) DOE compared its estimated prices 

to available online retail prices for 

electric resistance pool heaters and heat 

pump pool heaters with a size close to 

110 kBtu/h and found them to be 

consistent with DOE’s analysis. DOE’s 

derivation of product costs is discussed 

in more detail in sections IV.C.2 and 

IV.D of this document. 

In the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

developed separate product price 

projections for baseline electric 

resistance pool heaters and heat pump 

pool heaters. For baseline electric 

resistance pool heaters, DOE used the 

historical producer price index (‘‘PPI’’) 

data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 

(‘‘BLS’’) for ‘‘heating equipment (except 

warm air furnace) manufacturing’’ from 

1980 to 2014 to determine a constant 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22674 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

80Bureau of Labor Statistics. Heating equipment 

PPI series ID: PCU 333414333414, available at 

www.bls.gov/ppi/(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

81Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unitary air 

conditioners manufacturing product series ID: 

PCU333415333415E, available at www.bls.gov/ppi/ 

(last accessed April 15, 2021). 

82Pkdata, 2020 Residential and Commercial 

Swimming Pool, Hot tub, and Pool Heater 

Customized Report for LBNL, October 15, 2020, 

available at: www.pkdata.com/ 

datapointstrade.html#/ (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

83RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means 

Residential Cost Data 2015 (2015), available at 

www.rsmeans.com/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

84RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means 

Residential Cost Data 2021 (2021), available at 

www.rsmeans.com/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

85A ‘‘P-trap’’ is required by many city codes. It 

helps to isolate the condensate from back-flowing 

into the pool water and prevents the sewer gas from 

back-flowing. 

price trend.80 Because heat pump pool 

heaters share similar technology with 

heat pumps used for space conditioning, 

DOE used historical PPI data for 

‘‘unitary air conditioners 

manufacturing’’ spanning the period 

1978–2014 to determine a decreasing 

price trend for these products.81 See 

chapter 8 of the October 2015 NODA 

TSD. 

EEI stated that DOE provides no 

evidence for assuming that heat pump 

pool heater costs will decrease on a real 

basis, while electric resistance pool 

heater prices stay constant on a real 

basis. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 11) AHRI and 

EEI stated that pool heaters are 

significantly different from the space 

heating and cooling equipment used to 

derive the product price trend used in 

the October 2015 NODA analysis. AHRI 

and EEI also stated that there are 

different economies of scope and scale, 

as electric pool heater shipments are in 

the tens of thousands per year, while 

space heating and cooling equipment 

have shipments of about six to seven 

million units per year. (AHRI, No. 16 at 

p. 5; EEI, No. 21 at p. 10) AHRI stated 

that there is no economy of scale 

available to the manufacturers of heat 

pump pool heaters. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 

5) EEI also stated that over the past 

several years, the real price of unitary 

air conditioners has increased, and to 

project downward prices ignores this 

recent trend. EEI stated that DOE should 

only use data for pool heaters for price 

projections, and if not available, use the 

same price factor index projections for 

electric resistance pool heaters and heat 

pump pool heaters. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 10) 

DOE acknowledges that use of a price 

trend for heat pumps may not accurately 

reflect the trend for heat pump pool 

heaters. For the NOPR, DOE used 

shipment-weighted wholesaler listed 

prices from 2003–2019 from the 2020 

Pkdata report.82 This data was used to 

produce different decreasing price 

trends for electric resistance pool 

heaters, heat pump pool heaters, and 

gas-fired pool heaters. DOE performed a 

sensitivity analysis on price trend as 

detailed in appendix 8C of the NOPR 

TSD. Further details about the 

development of the price trends can be 

found in chapter 8 and appendix 8C of 

the NOPR TSD. 

DOE requests comments on its 

assumption and methodology for 

determining equipment price trends. 

DOE also requests data that would allow 

for use of different price trend 

projections for electric resistance and 

heat pump pool heaters. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. DOE estimates all the 

installation costs associated with fitting 

a consumer pool heater in a new 

housing unit, as a replacement for an 

existing pool heater, or in an existing 

pool without a pool heater (new 

owners). This includes any additional 

costs, such as electric modifications that 

would be required to install equipment 

at various efficiency levels. For the 

October 2015 NODA, DOE used 2015 RS 

Means for the materials and labor cost 

data needed to estimate the installation 

costs for electric pool heaters.83 See 

chapter 8 and appendix 8C of the 

October 2015 NODA TSD. DOE 

accounted for regional differences in 

labor costs by using RS Means regional 

cost factors. 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

accounted for the increased cost of 

additional electrical requirements for 

new swimming pool and new owner 

installations. 80 FR 65169. For new 

electric pool heater owners (including 

owners of new swimming pools and 

owners of existing swimming pools), 

DOE assumed that an electric resistance 

pool heater would have higher electrical 

connection installation costs in 

comparison to the electrical 

requirements for a heat pump pool 

heater. For replacements in outdoor 

swimming pools, DOE assumed that the 

installation costs would be the same for 

all efficiency levels because the old 

consumer pool heater already has 

adequate electrical service for the new 

pool heater. For replacements in indoor 

installations, DOE assumed that they are 

all electrical resistance and that 

replacement with a heat pump pool 

heater would add a significant cost to 

run water piping and an electrical 

connection to outside the building, 

where the heat pump pool heater will be 

installed. See chapter 8 and appendix 

8C of the October 2015 NODA TSD. 

EEI stated that the difference in 

installation cost between efficiency 

levels for replacements of outdoor 

electric pool heaters is understated. EEI 

stated that based on information from 

poolheatpumps.com and 

worldwidepoolheaters.com, electric 

resistance pool heaters weigh between 

40 and 50 pounds, while heat pump 

pool heaters weigh anywhere between 

140 and 328 pounds (depending on the 

capacity and features). EEI stated that 

therefore, shipping and labor costs will 

be higher, as it is likely that a twoperson crew will be needed to move and 

install the heat pump pool heater. It 

added that the existing electric 

resistance pool heater may be located in 

a space-constrained area, and 

addressing the space constraints to 

install a heat pump unit will increase 

the installation cost dramatically in a 

number of cases (on the order of 

thousands of dollars). (EEI, No. 21 at p. 

12) DOE’s estimates for installing a 

consumer pool heater come from RS 

Means, which assumes a two-person 

crew. DOE also accounts for significant 

increased installation costs for heat 

pump pool heaters installed indoors. 

Further details about the development 

of the heat pump installation costs can 

be found in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE seeks comment regarding the 

fraction of electric pool heater 

installations that are located in a spaceconstrained area that could increase the 

cost of installing a heat pump pool 

heater. 

The October 2015 NODA analysis 

accounted for installing the electrical 

connection new swimming pool 

installations with electric pool heaters. 

AHRI stated that DOE needs to account 

for installing utilities in new pool 

installations. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) For 

the NOPR, DOE added the cost of new 

gas piping and electrical connection for 

new swimming pool installations with a 

natural gas or propane pool heater. 

For the NOPR, DOE updated the 

installation cost data using RS Means 

2021 84 (including labor costs) and 

included the costs for installing a gasfired pool heater. For gas-fired pool 

heaters, the incremental installation cost 

for the condensing design includes the 

cost of the condensate drain piping that 

goes from the consumer pool heater to 

a P-trap device 85 located at the sewer 

line entrance. See chapter 8 of the 

NOPR TSD for more details. 

DOE requests comments on its 

assumption, methodology, and sources 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22675 

86U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Form EIA–861M (formerly EIA– 

826) Database Monthly Electric Utility Sales and 

Revenue Data (2013), available at www.eia.gov/ 

electricity/data/eia861m/ (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

87U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Form EIA–861M (formerly EIA– 

826) Database Monthly Electric Utility Sales and 

Revenue Data (1990–2020), available at 

www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861m/ (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

88U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Natural Gas Navigator (1990–2020), 

available at www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_

nus_m.htm (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

89U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, 2019 State Energy Consumption, 

Price, and Expenditure Estimates (SEDS) (2019), 

available at www.eia.gov/state/seds/ (last accessed 

April 15, 2021). 

90U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2021 with 

Projections to 2050, available at www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

91Lavappa, Priya D. and J. D. Kneifel. Energy 

Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle 

Cost Analysis—2021 Annual Supplement to NIST 

Handbook 135. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). NISTIR 85–3273–36, available 

at www.nist.gov/publications/energy-price-indicesand-discount-factors-life-cycle-cost-analysis-2021- 

annual (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

92RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means 

Residential Cost Data 2015 (2015), available at 

www.rsmeans.com/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

for determining installation costs for 

consumer pool heaters. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled installation, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a consumer pool heater at different 

efficiency levels using the approach 

described previously in section IV.E of 

this document. 

a. Rebound Effect 

Higher-efficiency consumer pool 

heaters reduce the operating costs for a 

consumer, which can lead to greater use 

of the consumer pool heater. A direct 

rebound effect occurs when a product 

that is made more efficient is used more 

intensively, such that the expected 

energy savings from the efficiency 

improvement may not fully materialize. 

At the same time, consumers benefit 

from increased utilization of products 

due to rebound. Overall consumer 

welfare (taking into account additional 

costs and benefits) is generally 

understood to increase from rebound. 

DOE did not find any data on the 

rebound effect that is specific to 

consumer pool heaters. In the April 

2010 final rule, DOE estimated a 

rebound of 10 percent for pool heaters 

for the NIA but did not include rebound 

in the LCC analysis. 75 FR 20112, 

20165. Given the uncertainty and lack of 

data specific to pool heaters, DOE does 

not include the rebound effect in the 

LCC analysis for this NOPR. DOE does 

include rebound in the NIA for a 

conservative estimate of national energy 

savings. DOE estimates a rebound effect 

of 10 percent for consumer pool heaters 

used in residential applications based 

on studies of other residential products 

and 0 percent for consumer pool heaters 

used in commercial applications. See 

section IV.H.2 for further details on how 

the rebound effect is applied in the NIA. 

AHRI stated that DOE should include 

the rebound effect in the LCC analysis. 

AHRI stated that although the increased 

use of the heated pool is real, it has no 

real monetary value. AHRI stated that 

the increase in a consumer’s monthly 

energy bill due to the rebound effect is 

real. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 6) DOE 

disagrees that the benefit of using a 

heated pool more often has no real 

monetary value. The value of any 

service can be inferred from what a user 

will pay for it. In the case of a rebound 

effect, the user indirectly pays for the 

increased use by foregoing savings on 

the utility bill. For the LCC analysis, 

DOE does not include the rebound effect 

due to a lack of data specific to pool 

heaters. DOE recognizes, however, that 

increased consumer pool heater usage 

associated with the rebound effect 

provides consumers with increased 

welfare (e.g., more pool usage or higher 

swimming pool water temperature). 

Economic theory suggests that, if it were 

able to monetize the welfare change to 

consumers due to the rebound effect, 

consumer welfare would increase. 

DOE requests comments on its 

approach for determining the rebound 

effect, including the magnitude of the 

rebound effect and data sources specific 

to pool heaters. 

4. Energy Prices 

Because marginal electricity price 

more accurately captures the 

incremental savings associated with a 

change in energy use from higher 

efficiency, it provides a better 

representation of incremental change in 

consumer costs than average electricity 

prices. Therefore, DOE applied average 

electricity prices for the energy use of 

the product purchased in the no-newstandards case, and marginal electricity 

prices for the incremental change in 

energy use associated with the other 

efficiency levels considered. 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

derived average and marginal 

residential marginal electricity prices 

for 30 geographic regions and 

commercial average and marginal 

electricity prices for 9 census divisions 

based on data from EIA’s form EIA– 

861M (formerly EIA–826).86 80 FR 

65169. 

EEI stated that if DOE analyzes 

commercial pools in this pool heater 

rulemaking, then the estimated 

residential energy prices must be 

decreased significantly to account for 

lower commercial electricity prices. 

(EEI, No. 21 at p. 13) In the October 

2015 NODA and this NOPR, DOE used 

commercial energy prices for pool 

heaters in commercial applications and 

residential energy prices for pool 

heaters in residential applications. 

For the NOPR, DOE derived average 

monthly residential and commercial 

marginal electricity and natural gas 

prices for the various regions using 2020 

data from EIA, 87 88 and average 

monthly residential and commercial 

LPG prices for the various regions using 

2019 data from EIA.89 The methodology 

and data sources are described in detail 

in appendix 8E of the NOPR TSD. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the average 

regional energy prices by a projection of 

annual change in national-average 

residential or commercial energy price 

in the Reference case from AEO2021, 

which has an end year of 2050.90 To 

estimate price trends after 2050, DOE 

used simple extrapolations of the 

average annual growth rate in prices 

from 2045 to 2050 based on the methods 

used in the 2021 Life-Cycle Costing 

Manual for the Federal Energy 

Management Program (‘‘FEMP’’).91

DOE requests comments on its 

approach for developing gas, LPG, and 

electricity prices. 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing product 

components that have failed in an 

appliance; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the product. Typically, 

small incremental increases in product 

efficiency produce no or only minor 

changes in repair and maintenance costs 

compared to baseline efficiency 

products. 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

used 2015 RS Means for the materials 

and labor cost data needed to estimate 

the maintenance and repair costs for 

electric pool heaters.92 80 FR 65169. In 

addition, DOE used information 

provided in comments, manufacturer 

literature, and expert consultants to 

calculate maintenance and repair costs, 

as well as the frequency of maintenance 

and repairs. DOE accounted for regional 

differences in labor costs by using RS 

Means regional cost factors. 

DOE estimated that the repair cost for 

heat pump pool heaters is slightly 

greater than for electric resistance pool 

heaters due to the presence of more 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22676 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

93RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means Facilities 

Repair and Maintenance 2021 (2021), available at 

www.rsmeans.com/ (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

94Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 

2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010, available at 

www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

complex components. DOE assumed 

that electric resistance pool heaters do 

not require maintenance. DOE assumed 

that a fraction of consumers maintain 

their heat pump pool heaters regularly, 

while the rest do not. DOE estimated the 

frequency of annual maintenance of 

heat pump pool heaters using data from 

RECS 2009 about how often air source 

heat pump (space heating and cooling) 

owners perform maintenance. DOE 

included the cost of preventative 

maintenance, such as cleaning the air 

filter and checking the evaporator and 

refrigeration system, in the maintenance 

cost of heat pump pool heaters. 

AHRI stated that the estimated annual 

maintenance and repair costs are too 

low. AHRI is not aware of 2015 RS 

Means Facilities Repair and 

Maintenance Data specific to the repair 

and maintenance of heat pump pool 

heaters. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 6) DOE 

determined maintenance and repair 

costs based on RS Means data for 

products that are similar to heat pump 

pool heaters, such as air source space 

heating and cooling heat pumps and air 

conditioners. For the NOPR, DOE used 

2021 RS Means for the materials and 

labor cost data needed to estimate the 

maintenance and repair costs for electric 

pool heaters.93 The methodology and 

data sources are described in detail in 

appendix 8F of the NOPR TSD. 

Raypak stated that the repair costs for 

gas-fired pool heaters vary as a function 

of efficiency. Raypak stated that the 

lowest-efficiency products have the 

lowest repair costs because they are 

generally atmospheric units that do not 

have blowers and the associated 

controls. Raypak stated that fan-assisted 

pool heaters have higher repair costs, 

and condensing gas-fired pool heaters 

have the highest repair costs because of 

the use of materials that are more 

resistant to both the pool chemicals on 

one side and corrosive condensate on 

the other side of the heat exchanger. 

(Raypak, No. 4 at p. 6) For the NOPR, 

DOE included additional repair costs for 

higher efficiency gas-fired pool heaters 

(including repair costs associated with 

electronic ignition, controls, and 

blowers for fan-assisted designs) based 

on 2021 RS Means data. 

Further detail regarding the 

maintenance and repair costs developed 

for consumer pool heaters can be found 

in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE requests comments on its 

approach for calculating maintenance 

and repair costs. 

6. Product Lifetime 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

used consumer pool heater lifetime 

estimates from published literature and 

manufacturer input. The data allowed 

DOE to develop a survival function, 

which provides a distribution of lifetime 

ranging from 1 to 25 years with a mean 

value of 11 years. DOE assumes that the 

distribution of lifetimes accounts for the 

impact of the pool water quality on the 

life of the product, the level of 

maintenance of a consumer pool heater, 

and the fraction of consumers 

winterizing the consumer pool heater. 

AHRI stated that an average lifetime 

of 10 years should be applied 

consistently throughout the analysis. 

(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 6) For the October 

2015 NODA, the 11.2-year average 

estimate used was primarily based on 

published literature and manufacturer 

input from the RFI. For the NOPR, DOE 

updated its lifetime methodology by 

using historical shipments data and 

pool heater stock data from RECS 1987– 

2015 and 2020 Pkdata. The updated 

average lifetime is 11.2 years for both 

electric and gas-fired pool heaters. 

Appendix 8G of the NOPR TSD includes 

a sensitivity analysis of higher and 

lower lifetime estimates. 

DOE welcomes additional comments 

and data regarding lifetime estimates, 

particularly in relation to differences 

between electric resistance pool heaters, 

heat pump pool heaters, and gas-fired 

pool heaters. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

households to estimate the present 

value of future operating costs. DOE 

estimated a distribution of residential 

discount rates for consumer pool heaters 

based on consumer financing costs and 

the opportunity cost of consumer funds. 

DOE applies weighted average 

discount rates calculated from consumer 

debt and asset data, rather than marginal 

or implicit discount rates. DOE notes 

that the LCC does not analyze the 

appliance purchase decision, so the 

implicit discount rate is not relevant in 

this model. The LCC estimates net 

present value over the lifetime of the 

product, so the appropriate discount 

rate will reflect the general opportunity 

cost of household funds, taking this 

time scale into account. Given the long 

time horizon modeled in the LCC, the 

application of a marginal interest rate 

associated with an initial source of 

funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the 

method of purchase, consumers are 

expected to continue to rebalance their 

debt and asset holdings over the LCC 

analysis period, based on the 

restrictions consumers face in their debt 

payment requirements and the relative 

size of the interest rates available on 

debts and assets. DOE estimates the 

aggregate impact of this rebalancing 

using the historical distribution of debts 

and assets. 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the October 2015 NODA LCC 

analysis, DOE identified all relevant 

household debt or asset classes in order 

to approximate a consumer’s 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings. It 

estimated the average percentage shares 

of the various types of debt and equity 

by household income group using data 

from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey 

of Consumer Finances 94 (‘‘SCF’’) for 

1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. 

Using the SCF and other sources, DOE 

developed a distribution of rates for 

each type of debt and asset by income 

group to represent the rates that may 

apply in the year in which amended 

standards would take effect. DOE 

assigned each sample household a 

specific discount rate drawn from one of 

the distributions. The average rate 

across all types of household debt and 

equity and income groups, weighted by 

the shares of each type, was 4.0 percent. 

AHRI stated that the true marginal 

discount rates for consumers are much 

more likely to cluster around 8–9 

percent than around 3–5 percent. AHRI 

stated that only a minority of consumers 

will be able to use cash or other savings 

to pay for a consumer pool heater. AHRI 

stated that even then, cash is not a low/ 

no cost source of funds because it must 

be replaced with high cost funds or 

deferred consumption to rebuild the 

liquidity cushion. AHRI stated that the 

marginal source of funds for most 

consumers is credit card debt (estimated 

by DOE to have a rate of 14.2–15.0 

percent). AHRI stated that according to 

the American Housing Survey, only 7 

percent of respondents had home equity 

loans or lines of credit (the lowest cost 

of borrowing for most consumers). 

(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 7) 

AHRI stated DOE applies weighted 

average discount rates calculated from 

consumer debt and asset data, rather 

than marginal or implicit discount rates, 

and as the LCC does not analyze the 

appliance purchase decision the 

implicit discount rate is not relevant in 

this model. For the NOPR, DOE 

maintained its existing approach to 

derive discount rates, but included data 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22677 

95 Damodaran Online, Data Page: Costs of Capital 

by Industry Sector, (2021), available at 

pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/ (last accessed 

April 15, 2021). 

96AHRI. Directory of the Certified Pool Heater 

models, available at www.ahridirectory.org/ (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 97 2017 Florida Energy & Conservation Code 

Chapter 4 section R403.10.5 states: ‘‘Heat pump 

pool heaters shall have a minimum COP of 4.0 

when tested in accordance with AHRI 1160, Table 

2, Standard Rating Conditions-Low Air 

Temperature.’’ State of Florida. Energy & 

Conservation Code, Chapter 4, available at 

codes.iccsafe.org/content/FEC2017/chapter-4-reresidential-energy-efficiency?site_type=public (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

98California Title 20 Section 1605.3 (g) (3) states: 

‘‘For heat pump pool heaters manufactured on or 

after March 1, 2003, the average of the coefficient 

of performance (COP) at Standard Temperature 

Rating and the coefficient of performance (COP) at 

Low Temperature Rating shall be not less than 3.5.’’ 

California Energy Commission. California Code of 

Regulations: Title 20. Public Utilities and Energy, 

Division 2. State Energy Resources Conservation 

and Development Commission, Chapter 4. Energy 

Conservation, Article 4. Appliance Efficiency 

Regulations (Refs & Annos), 1605.3. State Standards 

for Non-Federally-Regulated Appliances available 

at govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ 

IEEDE2D64EF7B4F168C0E85379828A8C2?

viewType=FullText&originationContext=

documenttoc&transitionType=Category

PageItem&contextData=(sc.Default) (last accessed 

April 15, 2021). 

99AHRI. Directory of Certified Heat Pump Pool 

Heater Models. February 9, 2021, available at 

www.ahridirectory.org (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

100CEC. Modernized Appliance Efficiency 

Database System. February 9, 2021, available at 

cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/

AdvancedSearch.aspx (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

101Connecticut’s Regulations and Procedures for 

Establishing Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain 

Appliances and Products Section 16a–48–4(S)(4) 

states: ‘‘Heat pump pool heaters shall have a 

coefficient of performance (COP) of not less than 3.5 

at standard temperature rating and at low 

temperature rating.’’ State of Connecticut. Title 

16a—Planning and Energy Policy. 2015, available at 

eregulations.ct.gov/eRegsPortal/Browse/RCSA/

Title_16aSubtitle_16a-48Section_16a-48-4/ (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

from the 2013 SCF, 2016 SCF, and 2019 

SCF, and updated several other data 

sources. The average rate in the NOPR 

analysis across all types of household 

debt and equity and income groups, 

weighted by the shares of each type, is 

3.8 percent for electric pool heaters and 

3.7 percent for gas-fired pool heaters. 

To establish commercial discount 

rates for the fraction of instances where 

businesses are using consumer pool 

heaters, DOE estimated the weightedaverage cost of capital using data from 

Damodaran Online.95 The weightedaverage cost of capital is commonly 

used to estimate the present value of 

cash flows to be derived from a typical 

company project or investment. Most 

companies use both debt and equity 

capital to fund investments, so their cost 

of capital is the weighted average of the 

cost to the firm of equity and debt 

financing. DOE estimated the cost of 

equity using the capital asset pricing 

model, which assumes that the cost of 

equity for a particular company is 

proportional to the systematic risk faced 

by that company. The average rate in the 

October 2015 NODA analysis across all 

commercial groups was 4.0 percent for 

electric resistance pool heaters. For the 

NOPR analysis, the commercial 

discount rate average is 5.5 percent for 

electric pool heaters and 5.5 percent for 

gas-fired pool heaters. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

further details on the development of 

consumer discount rates. 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of product 

efficiencies under the no-new-standards 

case (i.e., the case without amended or 

new energy conservation standards). 

For the October 2015 NODA, to 

estimate the energy efficiency 

distribution of heat pump pool heaters 

in the compliance year, DOE used the 

2015 AHRI Directory of the Certified 

Pool Heater models as a primary data 

source.96 The fraction of heat pump 

pool heaters was adjusted to take into 

account standards in Florida 97 and 

California 98 that require higher 

efficiency heat pump pool heaters. The 

region and market specific fraction of 

electric resistance pool heaters was 

determined for each region and 

consumer pool heater market. For 

example, DOE assumed that warmer 

areas of the country such as Florida, 

which are better suited for heat pump 

installations, have a lower fraction of 

electric resistance installations (pool 

type 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7; see section IV.E.1 

of this document), while large spas 

(pool type 3) have a larger fraction of 

electric resistance installations and all 

indoor installations (pool type 6) were 

estimated to be electric resistance pool 

heaters. 

Raypak stated that there are no data 

available on shipments by efficiency 

and that all heat pump pool heater 

models and all electric resistance pool 

heater models have approximately the 

same efficiency range. Only gas-fired 

pool heaters have a range of efficiencies. 

(Raypak, No. 4 at p. 6) AHRI stated that 

by 2022, some percentage of commercial 

indoor pools will be heated with heat 

pump pool heaters. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 

7) The CA IOUs understand that heat 

pump pool heaters comprise most of the 

electric pool heater market, given their 

significantly higher efficiency compared 

to electric resistance pool heaters. (CA 

IOUs, No. 5 at p. 5) 

For the NOPR, based on input from 

manufacturer interviews, DOE adjusted 

its fraction of electric resistance pool 

heaters in 2020, as shown in Table 

IV.16, by assuming a larger growth in 

heat pump pool heater shipments 

compared to electric resistance pool 

heater shipments and an overall lower 

total fraction of electric resistance pool 

heaters based on input from 

manufacturer interviews. DOE also 

updated the market shares of the 

different heat pump pool heater 

efficiency levels based on 2021 AHRI 

Directory of Certified Product 

Performance 99 and CEC’s 2021 

Modernized Appliance Efficiency 

Database System (‘‘MAEDbS’’) 100 for 

heat pump pool heaters models as well 

as manufacturer product literature. The 

fraction of heat pump pool heaters was 

also adjusted to take into account 

standards in Connecticut that require 

higher efficiency heat pump pool 

heaters,101 in addition to standards in 

California and Florida. To extrapolate 

from 2020 to 2028, DOE assumed 

different growth rates for the electric 

resistance and heat pump pool heater 

shipments. These assumptions resulted 

in a 7.8 percent overall market share for 

electric resistance pool heaters in 2028. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22678 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

102 DOE. Compliance Certification Management 

System. February 9, 2021, available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

103CEC. Modernized Appliance Efficiency 

Database System. February 9, 2021, available at 

cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/

AdvancedSearch.aspx (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

104California Title 20 Section 1605.3(g)(1) states: 

‘‘Energy Design Standard for Natural Gas Pool 

Heaters. Natural gas pool heaters shall not be 

equipped with constant burning pilots.’’ California 

Energy Commission. California Code of Regulations: 

Title 20. Public Utilities and Energy, Division 2. 

State Energy Resources Conservation and 

Development Commission, Chapter 4. Energy 

Conservation, Article 4. Appliance Efficiency 

Regulations (Refs & Annos), 1605.3. State Standards 

for Non-Federally-Regulated Appliances available 

at govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ 

IEEDE2D64EF7B4F168C0E85379828A8C2?view

Type=FullText&originationContext=

documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPage

Item&contextData=(sc.Default) (last accessed April 

15, 2021). 

105Connecticut’s Regulations and Procedures for 

Establishing Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain 

Appliances and Products Section 16a–48–4(S)(2) 

states: ‘‘Natural gas pool heaters shall not be 

equipped with a constantly burning pilot light.’’ 

State of Connecticut. Title 16a—Planning and 

Energy Policy. 2015, available at 

eregulations.ct.gov/eRegsPortal/Browse/RCSA/

Title_16aSubtitle_16a-48Section_16a-48-4/ (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

106 2017 Florida Energy & Conservation Code 

Chapter 4 section R403.10.4 states: ‘‘Pool heaters 

fired by natural or LP gas shall not have 

continuously burning pilot lights.’’ State of Florida. 

Energy & Conservation Code, Chapter 4, available 

at codes.iccsafe.org/content/FEC2017/chapter-4-reresidential-energy-efficiency?site_type=public (last 

accessed September 2, 2021). 

107 2020 Energy Conservation Construction Code 

of New York State Chapter 4 section R403.10.1 

states: ‘‘Gas-fired heaters shall not be equipped with 

continuously burning ignition pilots.’’ State of New 

York, available at codes.iccsafe.org/content/

NYSECC2020P1 (last accessed September 2, 2021). 

TABLE IV.16—MARKET SHARE OF ELECTRIC RESISTANCE POOL HEATERS BY CONSUMER POOL HEATER MARKET AND

REGION IN 2028 

Consumer pool heater 

market type * and region 

Electric resistance 

pool heater 

market share 

(%) 

Sample 

weight of 

pool heater 

market 

(%) 2020 2028 

Pool Type = 1 and 2, 4, 5, 7 (in South Atlantic) ..................................................................................... 1.9 1.6 40.0 

Pool Type = 1 and 2, 4, 5, 7 (in California, Connecticut) ....................................................................... 3.8 3.2 13.4 

Pool Type = 1 and 2, 4, 5, 7 (in Rest of Country) .................................................................................. 7.5 6.3 38.4 

Pool Type = 3 (in South Atlantic) ............................................................................................................ 18.8 15.8 1.0 

Pool Type = 3 (in California, Connecticut) .............................................................................................. 37.5 31.7 1.7 

Pool Type = 3 (in Rest of Country) ......................................................................................................... 75.0 63.4 4.5 

Pool Type = 6 .......................................................................................................................................... 87.5 73.9 1.1 

Overall Electric Resistance Market Share ....................................................................................... 9.2 7.8 

* Consumer Pool Heater Market Types are described in Table IV.13. 

Raypak stated that the majority of the 

gas-fired pool heater market is and will 

continue to be at the minimum 

efficiency level (82-percent thermal 

efficiency) because of the high price of 

higher-efficiency models and the low 

number of annual operating hours. 

Raypak estimated that the market share 

for non-condensing gas-fired pool 

heaters is 98 percent, while the market 

share for condensing units is 2 percent 

or less. Raypak believes that this market 

share trend will continue in the absence 

of a significant increase in the efficiency 

standards. (Raypak, No. 4 at p. 5, 7) 

For the NOPR, to estimate the energy 

efficiency distribution of gas-fired pool 

heaters for the compliance year, DOE 

used the DOE’s 2021 Compliance 

Certification Management System 

(‘‘CCMS’’) 102 and CEC’s 2021 

MAEDbS 103 for gas-fired pool heaters 

models as well as manufacturer product 

literature. During manufacturer 

interviews, DOE received input that 

consumer pool heaters with standing 

pilot only represented about 4 percent 

of gas-fired pool heater shipments. In 

addition, DOE accounted for the ban on 

pilot lights in gas-fired pool heaters in 

California,104 Connecticut,105

Florida,106 and New York.107 DOE’s 

NOPR estimates a higher fraction of gasfired pool heaters will be above the 

baseline or condensing compared to 

Raypak’s comment due to the number of 

models currently available. For 

example, DOE estimates that the EL 2 

market share will be approximately 35 

percent and the condensing efficiency 

level (EL 3) will be approximately 7 

percent. 

The estimated market shares in the 

no-new-standards case for consumer 

pool heaters used for the NOPR are 

shown in Table IV.17 and Table IV.18. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

further information on the derivation of 

the efficiency distributions. 

TABLE IV.17—EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION IN THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS

CASE FOR ELECTRIC POOL HEATERS

IN 2028 

Efficiency level 

Representative TEI

(%) 

National 

market 

share 

(%) 

EL 0 .................. 99 7.8 

EL 1 .................. 387 11.7 

EL 2 .................. 483 59.1 

EL 3 .................. 534 9.1 

EL 4 .................. 551 9.1 

EL 5 .................. 595 3.1 

TABLE IV.18—EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION IN THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS

CASE FOR GAS-FIRED POOL HEATERS IN 2028 

Efficiency level 

Representative TEI

(%) 

National 

market 

share 

(%) 

EL 0 .................. 61.1 4.9 

EL 1 .................. 81.3 43.6 

EL 2 .................. 83.3 45.3 

EL 3 .................. 94.8 6.2 

DOE welcomes additional comments 

and data regarding estimates for energy 

efficiency distribution for 2020 and 

future distribution in 2028. 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of moreefficient products, compared to baseline 

products, through energy cost savings. 

Payback periods are expressed in years. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22679 

108 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

109 DOE assumed in the October 2015 NODA that 

new owners also account for potential switching 

between gas and electric pool heater products. 

110 In preparing the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

did not find historical shipments data for electric 

pool heaters, so DOE ‘‘backcasted’’ the shipments 

model (i.e., applied the shipments model to years 

prior to 2015) to estimate historical shipments. 

111Pkdata. 2015 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater 

Customized Report for LBNL, available at 

www.pkdata.com/datapointstrade.html#/ (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

112Number of existing swimming pools without 

an electric pool heater was based on 1990–2015 

RECS data. 

113Pkdata. 2016 Residential and Commercial 

Swimming Pool, Hot tub, and Pool Heater 

Customized Report for LBNL, June 21, 2016, 

available at www.pkdata.com/ 

datapointstrade.html#/ (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

114Pkdata. 2020 Residential Swimming Pool, Hot 

tub, and Pool Heater Customized Report for LBNL, 

October 15, 2020, available at www.pkdata.com/ 

datapointstrade.html#/ (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

115U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Codes and 

Standards, Technical Support Document: Energy 

Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Room 

Air Conditioners, Water Heaters, Direct Heating 

Equipment, Mobile Home Furnaces, Kitchen Ranges 

and Ovens, Pool Heaters, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

& Television Sets, 1993. Washington, DC Vol. 1 of 

3. Report No. DOE/EE–0009. 

116Association of Pool & Spa Professionals 

(APSP). 2003–2009 Gas-fired Pool Heater 

Shipments Data (Comment #135 for 2010 Heating 

Products Final Rule), available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD0129-0135 (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

117 2016 Pkdata provided estimated combined 

historical shipments for electric and gas-fired pool 

heaters used in commercial applications from 

2010–2015. 

Payback periods that exceed the life of 

the product mean that the increased 

total installed cost is not recovered in 

reduced operating expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 

that discount rates are not needed. 

As noted previously, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the first 

year’s energy savings resulting from the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered 

efficiency level, DOE determined the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

by calculating the energy savings in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, and multiplying those 

savings by the average energy price 

projection for the year in which 

compliance with the new and amended 

standards would be required. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential or new 

amended energy conservation standards 

on energy use, net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’), and future manufacturer cash 

flows.108 The shipments model takes an 

accounting approach, tracking market 

shares of each product class and the 

vintage of units in the stock. Stock 

accounting uses product shipments as 

inputs to estimate the age distribution of 

in-service product stocks for all years. 

The age distribution of in-service 

product stocks is a key input to 

calculations of both the NES and NPV, 

because operating costs for any year 

depend on the age distribution of the 

stock. 

For the October 2015 NODA, DOE 

estimated electric pool heater shipments 

by projecting shipments in three market 

segments: (1) Replacements; (2) new 

swimming pool owners; and (3) new 

owners with an existing swimming pool 

that did not previously have an electric 

pool heater,109 as follows: 

(1) To project electric pool heater 

replacement shipments in the 

residential sector, DOE developed 

retirement functions for electric pool 

heaters from the lifetime estimates (see 

section IV.F.6 of this document) and 

applied them to the existing products in 

the stock. DOE estimated the existing 

stock of products using estimated 

historical shipments and survival 

function for electric pool heaters from 

the lifetime estimates. DOE took into 

account replacement rate of retired 

(failed) residential electric pool heaters, 

which DOE estimated to be 70 percent 

(in other words 30 percent are not 

replaced).110

(2) To project shipments to the new 

swimming pool market in the 

residential sector, DOE utilized 

projected new swimming pool 

(inground and above ground) 

installations and saturation rates. DOE 

estimated projected new swimming pool 

(inground and above ground) 

installations based on 2015 Pkdata and 

projected saturation rates based on 

saturation data from 2015 Pkdata and 

1990–2009 RECS data.111

(3) To project shipments to new 

owners in existing swimming pools that 

did not previously have an electric pool 

heater in the residential sector, DOE 

estimated that a small fraction of 

existing swimming pools (0.1 percent) 

would add an electric pool heater.112

In addition, in the October 2015 

NODA to account for consumer pool 

heaters in commercial applications, 

DOE assumed that the market for 

electric pool heaters used in commercial 

swimming pools and spas (including 

community swimming pools and spas) 

accounted for about 10 percent of the 

total electric pool heaters market over 

the analysis period. 

AHRI stated that the projected rate of 

growth in future shipments of electric 

pool heaters is significantly 

overestimated. AHRI also stated that the 

rate of growth in historical shipments of 

heat pump pool heaters does not 

support the rate of increase estimated by 

DOE. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 7) EEI also 

questioned the dramatic increase in 

electric pool heater shipments from 

2015 through 2040. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 13) 

For the NOPR, DOE updated its 

shipments estimates based on 

information from manufacturer 

interviews, 2016 Pkdata,113 2020 

Pkdata,114 and RECS 2015 data, a 

revised regression methodology for 

determining projected new swimming 

pool shipments, and a modified 

approach for projecting electric pool 

heaters in standalone spas (without 

connecting to swimming pools) and in 

the commercial sector. As a result, DOE 

projected a lower average annual growth 

rate of electric pool heater shipments for 

the NOPR compared to the October 2015 

NODA. In regard to heat pump pool 

heaters, DOE did not have access to the 

historical data mentioned by AHRI. See 

chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for details. 

For the NOPR, DOE used a similar 

approach for projecting gas-fired pool 

heater shipments. There are limited 

historical gas-fired pool heater 

shipments data that were used to 

calibrate the shipments model.115 116 117

See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for 

details. 

DOE requests comment on DOE’s 

methodology and data sources used for 

projecting the future shipments of 

consumer pool heaters in the absence of 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

Because the standards-case 

projections take into account the 

increase in purchase price and the 

decrease in operating costs caused by 

amended standards, projected 

shipments for a standards case typically 

deviate from those for the no-newstandards case. Because purchase price 

tends to have a larger impact than 

operating cost on appliance purchase 

decisions, standards-case projections 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22680 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

118The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and U.S. territories. 

119For the NIA, DOE adjusts the installed cost 

data from the LCC analysis to exclude sales tax, 

which is a transfer. 

typically show a decrease in product 

shipments relative to the no-newstandards case. 

EEI stated that if there is a dramatic 

increase in the efficiency standards for 

electric pool heaters, while the 

standards (and retail prices) for 

competing gas products do not change, 

it would be reasonable to project a much 

more dramatic impact on shipments of 

electric pool heaters than what is 

currently shown in the TSD. (EEI, No. 

21 at p. 13) EEI stated that with a 

relative price elasticity of ¥0.68, a 10- 

percent increase in price would result in 

a 6.8-percent decrease in shipments. EEI 

stated that given the estimated 

incremental total installed cost 

increases, shipments would be reduced 

(before any fuel switching) by 10.7 

percent to 20.1 percent, which is much 

higher than the decrease in shipments 

DOE projected of 5 percent to 7.7 

percent. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 14) 

DOE’s relative price elasticity 

incorporates the energy cost savings of 

a more-efficient product as well as the 

increase in installed cost. Because the 

energy cost savings of a heat pump 

water heater are very large compared to 

the baseline product, the impact of the 

higher installed cost is lessened. DOE 

maintained its approach to estimate the 

impact of any proposed standard on 

consumer pool heater shipments, but it 

also conducted a sensitivity analysis 

that assumes that the energy cost 

savings of higher efficiency design 

options are given less weight. Appendix 

10C of the NOPR TSD describes this 

analysis. 

Raypak asserted that some consumers 

may repair existing pool heaters instead 

of purchasing new units. (Raypak, No. 4 

at p. 7) The application of the relative 

price elasticity implicitly accounts for 

reduction in shipments for any reason, 

including extension of the lifetime by 

repairing existing pool heaters. 

EEI stated that if electric resistance 

heaters are removed from the market, it 

is very likely that a significant portion 

of consumers will shift to natural gas-, 

propane-, or oil-fired pool heaters due to 

lower first costs. EEI stated that DOE 

should account for fuel switching in this 

analysis unless the proposed increases 

in gas or oil pool heater standards 

increase the efficiency and/or costs as 

much as for electric pool heaters. (EEI, 

No. 21 at p. 14) 

DOE reasons that costs associated 

with switching from an electric pool 

heater to a gas-fired pool heater (such as 

extending the gas line, adding a propane 

tank, or accounting for venting) would 

tend to limit such switching. 

To estimate the impact on shipments 

of the price increase for the considered 

efficiency levels, DOE used a relative 

price elasticity approach. DOE 

welcomes stakeholder input on the 

effect of amended standards on future 

consumer pool heater shipments. 

DOE welcomes any additional 

information that would help to estimate 

the likely magnitude of fuel and 

equipment switching in response to the 

evaluated standards. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

NPV from a national perspective of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels.118 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context 

refers to consumers of the product being 

regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual product shipments, along with 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data from the energy 

use and LCC analyses.119 For the 

present analysis, DOE projected the 

energy savings, operating cost savings, 

product costs, and NPV of consumer 

benefits over the lifetime of consumer 

pool heaters sold from 2028 through 

2057. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each product class in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. For this 

projection, DOE considers historical 

trends in efficiency and various forces 

that are likely to affect the mix of 

efficiencies over time. DOE compares 

the no-new-standards case with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of products with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each TSL. Interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV.19 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of 

these inputs and methods follows the 

table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD 

for further details. 

TABLE IV.19—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

Shipments ................................................................................. Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Modeled Compliance Date of Standard ................................... 2028. 

Efficiency Trends ...................................................................... No-new-standards case: Based on historical data. 

Standards cases: Roll-up in the compliance year and then DOE estimated growth 

in shipment-weighted efficiency in all the standards cases, except max-tech. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ..................................... Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each TSL. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit .................................................... Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each TSL. 

Incorporates projection of future product prices based on historical data. 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit ................................................... Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption 

per unit and energy prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit ................................... Annual values do not change with efficiency level. 

Energy Price Trends ................................................................ AEO2021 projections (to 2050) and extrapolation thereafter. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion .......................... A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2021 (to 2050) and extrapolation 

thereafter. 

Discount Rate ........................................................................... 3 percent and 7 percent. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22681 

120For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2009, DOE/EIA–0581, Oct. 2009, available at 

www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/nems/overview/pdf/ 

0581(2009).pdf (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

TABLE IV.19—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS—Continued 

Inputs Method 

Present Year ............................................................................ 2021. 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. Section IV.F.8 of 

this document describes how DOE 

developed an energy efficiency 

distribution for the no-new-standards 

case (which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) and for each of the 

considered product classes for the first 

full year of anticipated compliance with 

an amended or new standard. The 

approach is further described in chapter 

10 of the NOPR TSD. 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

first full year that standards are assumed 

to become effective (2028). In this 

scenario, the market shares of products 

in the no-new-standards case that do not 

meet the standard under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new 

standard level, and the market share of 

products above the standard would 

remain unchanged. In the standards 

cases, the efficiency after the 

compliance year increases at a rate 

similar to that of the no-new-standards 

case. 

To develop no-new standards case 

efficiency trends after 2020, DOE 

assumed an annual decreasing trend of 

negative 2 percent in the market share 

for the minimum efficiency levels (EL 0) 

for both electric and gas-fired pool 

heaters. This resulted in a market share 

for EL 0 of 8 percent in 2028 and 4 

percent in 2057 for electric pool heaters 

and 4 percent in 2028 and 2 percent in 

2057 for gas-fired pool heaters. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The NES analysis involves a 

comparison of national energy 

consumption of the considered products 

between each potential standards case 

(TSL) and the case with no new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE calculated the national 

energy consumption by multiplying the 

number of units (stock) of each product 

(by vintage or age) by the unit energy 

consumption (also by vintage). DOE 

calculated annual NES based on the 

difference in national energy 

consumption for the no-new-standards 

case and for each higher efficiency 

standard case. DOE estimated energy 

consumption and savings based on site 

energy and converted the electricity 

consumption and savings to primary 

energy (i.e., the energy consumed by 

power plants to generate site electricity) 

using annual conversion factors derived 

from AEO2021. Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year over the timeframe of the analysis. 

Use of higher-efficiency products is 

occasionally associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. DOE 

did not find any data on the rebound 

effect specific to consumer pool heaters. 

DOE applied a rebound effect of 10 

percent for consumer pool heaters used 

in residential applications based on 

studies of other residential products and 

0 percent for consumer pool heaters 

used in commercial applications (see 

section IV.F.3.a for more details). The 

April 2010 final rule also utilized a 10 

percent rebound when calculating the 

NES. 75 FR 20112, 20165. The 

calculated NES at each efficiency level 

is therefore reduced by 10 percent in 

residential applications. DOE does not 

include the rebound effect in the NPV 

analysis. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use full-fuelcycle (‘‘FFC’’) measures of energy use 

and greenhouse gas and other emissions 

in the national impact analyses and 

emissions analyses included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 

2011). After evaluating the approaches 

discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, 

DOE published a statement of amended 

policy in which DOE explained its 

determination that EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’) is 

the most appropriate tool for its FFC 

analysis and its intention to use NEMS 

for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 

2012). NEMS is a public domain, multisector, partial equilibrium model of the 

U.S. energy sector 120 that EIA uses to 

prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The 

FFC factors incorporate losses in 

production and delivery in the case of 

natural gas (including fugitive 

emissions) and additional energy used 

to produce and deliver the various fuels 

used by power plants. The approach 

used for deriving FFC measures of 

energy use and emissions is described 

in appendix 10B of the NOPR TSD. 

NPGA commented that the 

calculation of primary (source) energy 

savings is misleading and unnecessary 

given the use of FFC analysis. NPGA 

further stated that DOE’s reliance on an 

additional energy consumption 

calculation conflicts with the purpose 

and function of FFC analysis. NPGA 

urged DOE to rely on the FFC analysis 

to calculate NES as the best estimation 

of energy consumption and as intended 

by the agency’s formal policy adoption 

of FFC. (NPGA, No. 15 at p. 3) 

As indicated in section I and Table 

V.23 of this document, DOE primarily 

uses FFC energy savings when 

considering the energy savings from 

standards. DOE presents primary energy 

savings in some tables for information 

purposes. 

NPGA stated that there is no clear 

difference between the FFC analysis that 

measures energy consumption in 

‘‘extracting, processing, and 

transporting’’ versus primary (source) 

energy that measures energy loss in 

transmission and distribution and in 

electricity generation.’’ (NPGA, No. 15 

at p. 3) The FFC includes primary 

energy as well as upstream energy, 

which refers to the extracting, 

processing, and transporting of the 

primary fuels, such as coal or natural 

gas that are used to generate electricity. 

In contrast, losses in transmission and 

distribution and in electricity generation 

refer to the losses in the conversion 

from the primary fuel to electricity and 

in distribution of electricity. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22682 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

121Pkdata, 2020 Residential and Commercial 

Swimming Pool, Hot tub, and Pool Heater 

Customized Report for LBNL, October 15, 2020, 

available at /www.pkdata.com/ 

datapointstrade.html#/ (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

122The regional 2020 average and marginal 

energy prices are converted to national averages 

using the regional weights calculated by the pool 

heater sample discussed in section IV.E.1. The 

census division price trends from AEO2021 are also 

converted to national average values using the pool 

heater sample weights. 

123Lavappa, Priya D. and J.D. Kneifel. Energy 

Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle 

Cost Analysis—2021 Annual Supplement to NIST 

Handbook 135. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). NISTIR 85–3273–36, available 

at www.nist.gov/publications/energy-price-indicesand-discount-factors-life-cycle-cost-analysis-2021- 

annual (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

124United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

EEI stated that the national average 

site-to-source conversion factors ignore 

the significant variation in electric 

generation by region. EEI also stated that 

the factors incorrectly assign a fossil 

fuel heat rate to renewable electric 

generation. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 15) 

DOE’s approach uses end-use 

dependent site-to-primary energy 

conversion factors. The correlation 

between regional variations in end-use 

energy consumption and regional 

variations in the mix of generation 

technologies is accounted for by this 

approach. Regarding renewable electric 

generation, DOE uses the same 

convention that EIA uses in national 

energy statistics. Renewable electric 

generation technologies transform the 

inputs of solar, wind, and hydro energy 

into electricity, but characterizing these 

inputs in terms of primary energy 

consumption is difficult and not very 

relevant for national energy accounting. 

The convention used by EIA reflects the 

likelihood that renewable electricity 

generation displaces conventional fossil 

fuel generation. 

EEI stated that the factors that convert 

site electricity use to primary energy use 

in the October 2015 NODA NIA 

spreadsheet increase slightly from 2035 

to 2040 without explanation and with 

no improvement after 2040. EEI stated 

that the post-2035 increase does not 

comport with the expected fuel mix that 

will be generating electricity post-2030. 

(EEI, No. 21 at pp. 14–15) 

The increase from 2035 to 2040 is 

consistent with the projections of the 

mix of electricity generation in 

AEO2015, which was used in the 

October 2015 NODA. Regarding the 

factors after 2040, the marginal 

conversion factors derived from 

projections in AEO2015 do not show a 

clear trend, so DOE refrained from 

projecting a change after 2040. For the 

NOPR, DOE used conversion factors 

based on AEO2021, which shows a 

generally flat trend from 2035 to 2050 

for these factors. AEO2021 provides 

trends up to 2050, after which DOE 

maintained the 2050 value. 

EEI expressed concern that DOE used 

an annual conversion factor for an 

appliance that operates primarily during 

the summer season in the majority of 

the country. EEI stated that if DOE is 

going to use annualized data, it should 

at least recognize in its analysis that 

summer usage often corresponds with 

the use of more solar electricity (central 

station and distributed). (EEI, No. 21 at 

pp. 15–16) 

DOE acknowledges that marginal siteto-source conversion factors in the 

summer may vary from annual factors; 

however, AEO does not provide 

information that would allow for 

derivation of such factors. DOE notes 

that the greater use of solar electricity in 

the summer does not necessarily mean 

that solar electricity would be 

disproportionately reduced at the 

margin if electricity demand declines. 

EEI stated that the site-to-source 

conversion factors do not account for 

the changes that are due to the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(‘‘EPA’’) Clean Power Plan (‘‘CPP’’). 

(EEI, No. 21 at p. 16) EEI also stated that 

any estimated upstream losses analysis 

regarding the production of electricity 

should properly account for new 

Federal regulations and increases in the 

use of lower carbon and renewable 

electric generation. (EEI, No. 21 at p. 16) 

On July 8, 2019, EPA published a 

final rule repealing the Clean Power 

Plan. 84 FR 32520. As stated previously, 

for this NOPR, DOE used projections 

from AEO2021. The AEO2021 reference 

case does not include the CPP but does 

account for recent Federal regulations. 

Because renewable electricity 

generation is assigned a fossil-fuelequivalent site-to-primary factor, 

increases in the share of such generation 

would have little impact on the site-tosource conversion factors. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 

document, DOE used historical 

shipment-weighted wholesaler prices to 

produce different decreasing price 

trends for electric resistance pool 

heaters, heat pump pool heaters, and 

gas-fired pool heaters. DOE’s projection 

of product prices is described in 

appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. 

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty 

regarding the price trend estimates, DOE 

investigated the impact of different 

product price projections on the 

consumer NPV for the considered TSLs 

for consumer pool heaters. In addition 

to the default price trend, DOE 

considered two product price sensitivity 

cases: (1) A low price—high declining 

trend case based on exponential fit to 

2003 to 2014 wholesale price data from 

the 2020 Pkdata report 121 for electric 

resistance pool heaters, heat pump pool 

heaters, and gas-fired pool heaters, and 

(2) a constant price trend. The 

derivation of these price trends and the 

results of these sensitivity cases are 

described in appendix 10C of the NOPR 

TSD. 

The operating cost savings are the 

sum of the differences in energy cost 

savings, maintenance, and repair costs, 

which are calculated using the 

estimated energy savings in each year 

and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the calculated 2020 national 

average and marginal residential and 

commercial energy prices by the 

projection of annual national-average 

residential or commercial energy price 

changes from the Reference case from 

AEO2021, which has an end year of 

2050.122 To estimate price trends after 

2050, DOE used the average of annual 

growth rates in prices from 2045 

through 2050.123 As part of the NIA, 

DOE also analyzed scenarios that used 

inputs from variants of the AEO2021 

Reference case that have lower and 

higher economic growth. Those cases 

have lower and higher energy price 

trends compared to the Reference case. 

NIA results based on these cases are 

presented in appendix 10D of the NOPR 

TSD. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPR, DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.124 The discount 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22683 

September 17, 2003. Section E, available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/ 

omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

125 DOE did not evaluate low-income consumer 

subgroup impacts for pool heaters because the 

sample size of the subgroups is too small for 

meaningful analysis. 

126See www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 

127See www.ahridirectory.org/ 

NewSearch?programId=36&searchTypeId=3. 

128See www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/ 

data.html. 

129See www.dnb.com. 

rates for the determination of NPV are 

in contrast to the discount rates used in 

the LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a new or 

amended national standard. The 

purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 

determine the extent of any such 

disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers by analyzing the LCC 

impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard 

levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the 

impacts of the considered standard 

levels on senior-only households and 

small businesses.125 The analysis used 

subsets of the consumer pool heater 

sample composed of households or 

buildings that meet the criteria for the 

subgroup. DOE used the LCC and PBP 

spreadsheet model to estimate the 

impacts of the considered efficiency 

levels on these subgroups. Chapter 11 in 

the NOPR TSD describes the consumer 

subgroup analysis. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impacts of new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of consumer pool 

heaters and to estimate the potential 

impacts of such standards on 

employment and manufacturing 

capacity. The MIA has both quantitative 

and qualitative aspects and includes 

analyses of projected industry cash 

flows, the INPV, investments in research 

and development (‘‘R&D’’) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how new and amended 

energy conservation standards might 

affect manufacturing employment, 

capacity, and competition, as well as 

how standards contribute to overall 

regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 

serves to identify any disproportionate 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups, 

including small business manufacturers. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and investments in R&D and 

manufacturing capital required to 

produce compliant products. The key 

GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is 

the sum of industry annual cash flows 

over the analysis period, discounted 

using the industry-weighted average 

cost of capital, and the impact to 

domestic manufacturing employment. 

The model uses standard accounting 

principles to estimate the impacts of 

more-stringent energy conservation 

standards on a given industry by 

comparing changes in INPV and 

domestic manufacturing employment 

between a no-new-standards case and 

the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs). 

To capture the uncertainty relating to 

manufacturer pricing strategies 

following new and amended standards, 

the GRIM estimates a range of possible 

impacts under different markup 

scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as a potential 

standard’s impact on manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups. 

The complete MIA is outlined in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

proposed rulemaking in three phases. In 

Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a 

profile of the consumer pool heater 

manufacturing industry based on the 

market and technology assessment, 

preliminary manufacturer interviews, 

and publicly-available information. This 

included a top-down analysis of 

consumer pool heater manufacturers 

that DOE used to derive preliminary 

financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., 

revenues; materials, labor, overhead, 

and depreciation expenses; selling, 

general, and administrative expenses 

(‘‘SG&A’’); and R&D expenses). DOE 

also used public sources of information 

to further calibrate its initial 

characterization of the consumer pool 

heater manufacturing industry, 

including company filings of form 10– 

K from the SEC,126 corporate annual 

reports, industry trade association 

product database from AHRI,127 the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s Economic Census,128

and reports from Dun & Bradstreet.129

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash-flow analysis 

to quantify the potential impacts of new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses several 

factors to determine a series of annual 

cash flows starting with the 

announcement of the standard and 

extending over a 30-year period 

following the compliance date of the 

standard. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) Creating a need for increased 

investment, (2) raising production costs 

per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of consumer pool 

heaters in order to develop other key 

GRIM inputs, including product and 

capital conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with representative 

manufacturers. During these interviews, 

DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of 

this document for a description of the 

key issues raised by manufacturers 

during the interviews. As part of Phase 

3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by new 

and amended standards or that may not 

be accurately represented by the average 

cost assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash flow analysis. Such 

manufacturer subgroups may include 

small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers, niche players, 

and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22684 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

structure that largely differs from the 

industry average. DOE identified one 

manufacturer subgroup for a separate 

impact analysis: Small business 

manufacturers. The small business 

subgroup is discussed in section VI.B, 

‘‘Review under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ of this document, and 

in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow due to new and 

amended standards that result in a 

higher or lower industry value. The 

GRIM uses a standard, annual 

discounted cash-flow analysis that 

incorporates manufacturer costs, 

markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs. The 

GRIM models changes in costs, 

distribution of shipments, investments, 

and manufacturer margins that could 

result from new and amended energy 

conservation standards. The GRIM 

spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at 

a series of annual cash flows, beginning 

in 2021 (the base year of the analysis) 

and continuing to 2057. DOE calculated 

INPVs by summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during this 

period. For manufacturers of consumer 

pool heaters, DOE used a real discount 

rate of 7.4 percent, which was derived 

from industry financials and then 

modified according to feedback received 

during manufacturer interviews. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case. The difference in INPV 

between the no-new-standards case and 

a standards case represents the financial 

impact of the new and amended energy 

conservation standards on consumer 

pool heater manufacturers. As discussed 

previously, DOE developed critical 

GRIM inputs using a number of sources, 

including publicly available data, 

results of the engineering analysis, and 

information gathered from industry 

stakeholders during the course of 

manufacturer interviews. The GRIM 

results are presented in section V.B.2. of 

this document. Additional details about 

the GRIM, the discount rate, and other 

financial parameters can be found in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

products is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline products 

due to the use of more complex 

components, which are typically more 

costly than baseline components. The 

changes in the manufacturer production 

costs (‘‘MPCs’’) of covered products can 

affect the revenues, gross margins, and 

cash flow of the industry. 

In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs 

calculated in the engineering analysis, 

as described in section IV.C and in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE used 

information from its teardown analysis, 

described in section IV.C.2 of this 

document to disaggregate the MPCs into 

material, labor, depreciation, and 

overhead costs. To calculate the MPCs 

for products above the baseline, DOE 

added incremental material, labor, 

depreciation, and overhead costs from 

the engineering cost-efficiency curves to 

the baseline MPCs. These cost 

breakdowns were validated with 

manufacturers during manufacturer 

interviews. 

For a complete description of the 

MPCs, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Shipments Projections 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

projections and the distribution of those 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For the no-newstandards case, the GRIM uses the NIA’s 

annual shipment projections derived 

from the shipment analysis from the 

reference year, 2021, to the end of the 

analysis period in 2057. For the 

standards case shipment projection, the 

GRIM uses the NIA standards case 

shipment projections. The NIA assumes 

elasticity in demand as explained in 

section IV.G and chapter 9 of the NOPR 

TSD. Therefore, the total number of 

shipments per year in the standards 

cases could be fewer than the total 

number of shipments per year in the nonew-standards case. DOE assumed that 

products that did not meet the analyzed 

standards in the no-new-standards case 

in the compliance year and beyond, 

would become minimally compliant 

products in the standards cases. This is 

referred to as a ‘‘roll up’’ shipment 

scenario (i.e., new and amended energy 

conservation standards only impact 

models and shipments that do not meet 

the adopted standards). 

For a complete description of the 

shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

New and amended energy 

conservation standards could cause 

manufacturers to incur conversion costs 

to bring their production facilities and 

product designs into compliance. DOE 

evaluated the level of conversion-related 

expenditures that would be needed to 

comply with each considered efficiency 

level in each product class. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these conversion costs 

into two major groups: (1) Product 

conversion costs; and (2) capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are investments in research, 

development, testing, marketing, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make product designs comply with new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. Capital conversion costs are 

investments in property, plant, and 

equipment necessary to adapt or change 

existing production facilities such that 

new compliant product designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

To evaluate the level of capital 

conversion costs manufacturers would 

likely incur to comply with new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards, DOE used data gathered from 

manufacturer interviews as well as 

information derived from the product 

teardown analysis and engineering 

model. In developing its conversion cost 

estimates, DOE conservatively assumed 

manufacturers would redesign all 

noncompliant heat pump pool heater 

models and gas-fired pool heater models 

to comply with new and amended 

energy conservation standards. 

Manufacturers could choose to drop 

some models that do not meet the levels 

prescribed by new and amended 

standards. Therefore, total product and 

capital conversion costs may be lower 

than the estimates calculated as part of 

this analysis. 

Product conversion are calculated on 

a per model basis and are primarily 

driven by R&D costs. R&D costs include 

redesign, selection and purchasing of 

new components, and testing to 

demonstrate compliance with adopted 

energy conservation standards for those 

redesigned models. DOE assumed that 

manufacturers would discontinue all 

their electric resistance pool heater 

models for any standard level above 

baseline for electric pool heaters, 

because electric resistance pool heaters 

use different technologies and designs 

than heat pump pool heaters. 

Consequently, no redesign costs are 

assigned to the redesign of electric 

resistance pool heater models. For heat 

pump pool heaters, all design options 

include growing the size of the 

evaporator. DOE assumed that the per 

model redesign effort is the same 

irrespective of how much the size of the 

evaporator is increased and the per 

model redesign cost does not vary by 

the analyzed standard for electric pool 

heaters, however, the number of models 

that would be required to be redesigned 

would vary by the analyzed standard. 

DOE estimated a redesign effort of six 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22685 

130See www.ahridirectory.org/ (last accessed 

April 15, 2021). 

131See www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

months of engineering time per model 

for electric heat pump pool heaters. 

For gas-fired pool heaters, DOE 

estimated that the redesign effort varies 

by efficiency level. The design option 

analyzed at EL 1 replaces the standing 

pilot with an electronic ignition system. 

This entails a component swap and 

requires the addition of a sparker. DOE 

estimates a total of two months of 

engineering time per model to redesign 

a model with a standing pilot to an 

electronic ignition. The design option 

analyzed at EL 2 incorporates a blower. 

Product conversion costs involve the 

selection, qualification, and safety 

testing of the blower. DOE estimated a 

redesign effort of 18 months of 

engineering time per model, or three 

fully utilized engineers for a period of 

six months. The design option analyzed 

at max-tech level incorporates 

condensing technology. This requires a 

significant amount of redesign to fine 

tune the gas-fired pool heater such that 

it can accommodate condensate. DOE 

estimated a redesign effort of 24 months 

of engineering per model, or four fully 

utilized engineers for a period of six 

months each. 

The product conversion costs 

presented in Table IV.20 also include 

costs of testing and demonstrating 

compliance that would result from new 

and amended standards. Since gas-fired 

pool heaters already must meet DOE 

energy conservation standards, only the 

models that are redesigned because of 

amended energy conservation standards 

would have to be retested to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards. In contrast, electric pool 

heaters are not currently required to be 

tested to demonstrate compliance with 

a DOE energy conservation standard. 

Therefore, for the analyzed TSLs that set 

standards for electric pool heaters, 

manufacturers would have to test all 

electric pool heater models to comply 

with potential standards. 

Capital conversion costs are estimated 

on a per manufacturer basis. DOE 

developed a list of manufacturers of gasfired, heat pump, and electric resistance 

pool heaters using manufacturer 

websites and public databases such as 

AHRI 130 and DOE’s publicly available 

Compliance Certification Database.131

For gas-fired pool heaters capital 

conversion costs would be minimal at 

EL 1 and EL 2, which would likely not 

require the use of condensing 

technology to meet these efficiency 

levels. However, manufacturers would 

likely be required to use condensing 

technology to meet EL 3. This would 

require larger investments from 

manufacturers to necessitate major 

changes to tooling to make condensing 

heat exchangers as well as changes to 

injection molding machinery to 

accommodate larger cabinet sizes. 

In general, DOE assumes all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year of publication of the 

final rule and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new and amended standards. The 

conversion cost figures used in the 

GRIM can be found in Table IV.20 and 

in section V.B.2.a of this document. For 

additional information on the estimated 

capital and product conversion costs, 

see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE seeks additional information on 

industry capital and product conversion 

costs of compliance associated with the 

analyzed energy conservation standards 

for consumer pool heaters evaluated in 

this NOPR. 

d. Stranded Assets 

In addition to capital and product 

conversion costs, new and amended 

energy conservation standards could 

create stranded assets (i.e., tooling and 

equipment that would have enjoyed 

longer use if the energy conservation 

standard had not made them obsolete). 

In the compliance year, manufacturers 

write down the remaining 

undepreciated book value of existing 

tooling and equipment rendered 

obsolete by new and amended energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE assumed that manufacturers 

discontinue all electric resistance pool 

heaters for any electric pool heater 

standard above baseline. Manufacturers 

of electric resistance pool heaters 

typically purchase components from 

vendors and assemble them in-house. 

These manufacturers do not own capital 

equipment or machinery and therefore 

stranded assets are limited for electric 

resistance pool heater manufacturers. 

DOE estimated stranded assets for the 

electric pool heater industry at $0.7 

million for any level above baseline. 

This includes welding machines and 

other tools used to assemble these 

products. 

Based on manufacturer interviews, 

manufacturers could strand assets for 

gas-fired pool heaters if standards were 

set at max-tech. Manufacturers stated 

that existing injection molding 

machines, fin presses, and fin dies 

could be orphaned. DOE estimated the 

industry stranded assets for gas-fired 

pool heaters to be $5.6 million if 

standards were set at max-tech. 

DOE requests comment on the 

estimated stranded assets for both 

electric resistance pool heaters and gasfired pool heaters. 

e. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

MSPs include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, materials, 

and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) 

and all non-production costs (i.e., 

SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with 

profit. To calculate the MSPs in the 

GRIM, DOE applied non-production 

cost markups to the MPCs estimated in 

the engineering analysis for each 

product class and efficiency level, and 

then added the cost of shipping. 

Modifying these markups in the 

standards case yields different sets of 

impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, 

DOE modeled two standards-case 

manufacturer markup scenarios to 

represent uncertainty regarding the 

potential impacts on prices and 

profitability for manufacturers following 

the implementation of new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards: (1) A preservation of gross 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15AP22.005</GPH>
22686 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

132Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_

apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2021). 

133U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

External Combustion Sources. In Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors. AP–42. Fifth Edition. 

Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 

Chapter 1, available at www.epa.gov/air-emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemissions-factors (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

margin percentage markup scenario; and 

(2) a preservation of per-unit operating 

profit markup scenario. These scenarios 

lead to different manufacturer markup 

values that, when applied to the MPCs, 

result in varying revenue and cash flow 

impacts. 

Under the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario, DOE 

applied a single uniform ‘‘gross margin 

percentage’’ manufacturer markup 

across all efficiency levels. As 

production costs increase with 

efficiency, this scenario implies that the 

absolute dollar markup will increase as 

well. Based on publicly available 

financial information for consumer pool 

heater manufacturers, and information 

obtained during manufacturer 

interviews, DOE assumed the nonproduction cost manufacturer markup— 

which includes SG&A expenses, R&D 

expenses, interest, and profit—to be 

1.33 for gas-fired pool heaters and 1.28 

for electric pool heaters. These 

manufacturer markups are consistent 

with the ones DOE assumed in the 

engineering analysis (see section IV.C of 

this document). Therefore, DOE 

assumes that this scenario represents 

the upper bound to industry 

profitability under energy conservation 

standards. 

Under the preservation of per-unit 

operating profit markup scenario, DOE 

modeled a scenario in which 

manufacturers are not able to increase 

per-unit operating profit in proportion 

to increases in MPCs. Under this 

scenario, as the MPCs increase, 

manufacturers are generally required to 

reduce the manufacturer markup to 

maintain a cost competitive offering in 

the market. Therefore, gross margin (as 

a percentage) shrinks in the standards 

cases. This manufacturer markup 

scenario represents the lower bound to 

industry profitability under new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

A comparison of industry financial 

impacts under the two manufacturer 

markup scenarios is presented in 

section V.B.2.a of this document. 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE conducted additional interviews 

with manufacturers following the 

October 2015 NODA as part of the 

NOPR analysis. In these interviews, 

DOE asked manufacturers to describe 

their major concerns with new and 

amended consumer pool heater energy 

conservation standards. Manufacturers 

identified three major areas of concern: 

(1) Use of integrated thermal efficiency 

metric for electric pool heaters; (2) cost 

and complexity of installing condensing 

gas-fired pool heaters; and (3) impact on 

profitability. Manufacturer interviews 

are conducted under non-disclosure 

agreements (‘‘NDAs’’), so DOE does not 

document these discussions in the same 

way that it does public comments in the 

comment summaries and DOE’s 

responses throughout the rest of this 

document. 

a. Use of Integrated Thermal Efficiency 

Metric for Electric Pool Heaters 

Manufacturers stated that the 

coefficient of performance is currently 

used by industry and consumers to 

evaluate the efficiency of electric heat 

pump pool heaters. This metric is 

accepted throughout the industry and is 

widely used in state regulations such as 

California, Connecticut, and Florida. 

Manufacturers commented that 

changing the metric to integrated 

thermal efficiency would be confusing 

to consumers, because it shows 

efficiencies over 100 percent. 

Furthermore, using integrated thermal 

efficiency would make the comparison 

between existing heat pumps with a 

coefficient of performance label, and 

heat pumps with an integrated thermal 

efficiency metric more difficult. 

b. Cost and Complexity of Installing 

Condensing Gas-Fired Pool Heaters 

Manufacturers indicated that a 

condensing standard would require 

greater investment in R&D and capital 

equipment than a non-condensing 

standard and would also raise per-unit 

production costs, resulting in higher 

end-user purchase prices. They 

expressed concern that the combination 

of higher installation costs and retail 

prices for condensing pool heaters could 

deter consumers from purchasing new 

units, potentially impacting 

manufacturer revenues and reducing the 

prospective energy savings from new 

and amended standards. 

c. Impacts on Profitability 

Manufacturers have indicated that it 

would be optimistic for DOE to assume 

that as MPCs increase in response to 

energy conservation standards, 

manufacturers would be able to 

maintain the same gross margin 

percentage markup. Manufacturers 

stated that consumer pool heaters are 

typically purchased on a first-cost basis 

and they indicated that they do not earn 

a premium on more efficient units. They 

indicated that consumer pool heaters 

are relatively low-margin offerings and 

consumers are typically more concerned 

with capacity and speed of heating than 

with efficiency and therefore look to 

purchase the least expensive consumer 

pool heater at the right capacity. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

The emissions analysis consists of 

two components. The first component 

estimates the effect of potential energy 

conservation standards on power sector 

and site (where applicable) combustion 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 

The second component estimates the 

impacts of potential standards on 

emissions of two additional greenhouse 

gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the 

reductions to emissions of other gases 

due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. 

The analysis of power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

uses marginal emissions factors that 

were derived from data in AEO2021, as 

described in section IV.M of this 

document. Details of the methodology 

are described in the appendices to 

chapters 13 and 15 of the TSD for this 

NOPR. 

Power sector emissions of CO2, CH4, 

and N2O are estimated using Emission 

Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

published by the EPA.132 The FFC 

upstream emissions are estimated based 

on the methodology described in 

chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD. The 

upstream emissions include both 

emissions from extraction, processing, 

and transportation of fuel, and 

‘‘fugitive’’ emissions (direct leakage to 

the atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2. 

The on-site operation of certain 

consumer pool heaters requires 

combustion of fossil fuels and results in 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, CH4, and 

N2O at the sites where these products 

are used. DOE accounted for the 

reduction in these site emissions and 

the associated FFC upstream emissions 

due to potential standards. Site 

emissions of these gases were estimated 

using Emission Factors for Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories and emissions intensity 

factors from an EPA publication.133

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

megawatt-hour (MWh) or million British 

thermal units (MMBtu) of site energy 

savings. Total emissions reductions are 

estimated using the energy savings 

calculated in the national impact 

analysis. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22687 

134For further information, see the Assumptions 

to AEO2021 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed April 15, 

2021). 

135CSAPR requires states to address annual 

emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the 

formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to 

address the ozone season (May-September) 

emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of 

ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that 

included an additional five states in the CSAPR 

ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 

(Supplemental Rule). 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated 

in DOE’s Analysis 

DOE’s no-new-standards case for the 

electric power sector reflects the 

AEO2021, which incorporates the 

projected impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO2021 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, 

that were in place at the time of 

preparation of AEO2021, including the 

emissions control programs discussed in 

the following paragraphs.134

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) 

SO2 emissions from numerous States in 

the eastern half of the United States are 

also limited under the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 FR 48208 

(Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these 

States to reduce certain emissions, 

including annual SO2 emissions, and 

went into effect as of January 1, 

2015.135 AEO2021 incorporates 

implementation of CSAPR, including 

the update to the CSAPR ozone season 

program emission budgets and target 

dates issued in 2016, 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 

26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is 

flexible among EGUs and is enforced 

through the use of tradable emissions 

allowances. Under existing EPA 

regulations, any excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand caused by the 

adoption of an efficiency standard could 

be used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by another regulated 

EGU. 

However, beginning in 2016, SO2

emissions began to fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, 

EPA established a standard for hydrogen 

chloride as a surrogate for acid gas 

hazardous air pollutants (‘‘HAP’’), and 

also established a standard for SO2 (a 

non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions are being reduced 

as a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. To continue operating, coal 

power plants must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed. Both technologies, 

which are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. 

Because of the emissions reductions 

under the MATS, it is unlikely that 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand would be needed or used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by another regulated EGU. 

Therefore, energy conservation 

standards that decrease electricity 

generation would generally reduce SO2

emissions. DOE estimated SO2

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2021. 

CSAPR also established limits on NOX

emissions for numerous States in the 

eastern half of the United States. Energy 

conservation standards would have 

little effect on NOX emissions in those 

States covered by CSAPR emissions 

limits if excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions from other EGUs. In such 

case, NOX emissions would remain near 

the limit even if electricity generation 

goes down. A different case could 

possibly result, depending on the 

configuration of the power sector in the 

different regions and the need for 

allowances, such that NOX emissions 

might not remain at the limit in the case 

of lower electricity demand. In this case, 

energy conservation standards might 

reduce NOX emissions in covered 

States. Despite this possibility, DOE has 

chosen to be conservative in its analysis 

and has maintained the assumption that 

standards will not reduce NOX

emissions in States covered by CSAPR. 

Energy conservation standards would be 

expected to reduce NOX emissions in 

the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE 

used AEO2021 data to derive NOX

emissions factors for the group of States 

not covered by CSAPR. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would be expected to slightly reduce Hg 

emissions. DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2021, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

DOE welcomes any additional 

comments on the approach for 

conducting the emissions analysis for 

pool heaters. 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, DOE considered 

the estimated monetary benefits from 

the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, 

NOX, and SO2 that are expected to result 

from each of the TSLs considered. In 

order to make this calculation analogous 

to the calculation of the NPV of 

consumer benefit, DOE considered the 

reduced emissions expected to result 

over the lifetime of products shipped in 

the projection period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

values used for monetizing the 

emissions benefits and presents the 

values considered in this NOPR. 

On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) 

granted the federal government’s 

emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, 

preliminary injunction issued in 

Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074– 

JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the 

Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary 

injunction is no longer in effect, 

pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction 

or a further court order. Among other 

things, the preliminary injunction 

enjoined the defendants in that case 

from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as 

binding, or relying upon’’ the interim 

estimates of the social cost of 

greenhouse gases—which were issued 

by the Interagency Working Group on 

the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on 

February 26, 2021—to monetize the 

benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further 

intervening court orders, DOE will 

revert to its approach prior to the 

injunction and present monetized 

benefits where appropriate and 

permissible under law. DOE requests 

comment on how to address the climate 

benefits and other non-monetized 

effects of the proposal. 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

For the purpose of complying with 

the requirements of Executive Order 

12866, DOE estimates the monetized 

benefits of the reductions in emissions 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22688 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

136See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost 

of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 

Washington, DC, February 2021. Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf (last 

accessed March 17, 2021). 

of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a 

measure of the social cost (‘‘SC’’) of each 

pollutant (e.g., SC–GHGs). These 

estimates represent the monetary value 

of the net harm to society associated 

with a marginal increase in emissions of 

these pollutants in a given year, or the 

benefit of avoiding that increase. These 

estimates are intended to include (but 

are not limited to) climate-changerelated changes in net agricultural 

productivity, human health, property 

damages from increased flood risk, 

disruption of energy systems, risk of 

conflict, environmental migration, and 

the value of ecosystem services. DOE 

exercises its own judgment in 

presenting monetized climate benefits 

as recommended by applicable 

Executive Orders and guidance, and 

DOE would reach the same conclusion 

presented in this notice in the absence 

of the social cost of greenhouse gases, 

including the February 2021 Interim 

Estimates presented by the Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases. 

DOE estimated the global social 

benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O 

reductions (i.e., SC–GHGs) using the 

estimates presented in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990 published in February 

2021 by the Interagency Working Group 

on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 

(IWG) (IWG, 2021).136 The SC–GHGs is 

the monetary value of the net harm to 

society associated with a marginal 

increase in emissions in a given year, or 

the benefit of avoiding that increase. In 

principle, SC–GHGs includes the value 

of all climate change impacts, including 

(but not limited to) changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health 

effects, property damage from increased 

flood risk and natural disasters, 

disruption of energy systems, risk of 

conflict, environmental migration, and 

the value of ecosystem services. The 

SC–GHGs therefore, reflects the societal 

value of reducing emissions of the gas 

in question by one metric ton. The SC– 

GHGs is the theoretically appropriate 

value to use in conducting benefit-cost 

analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O 

and CH4 emissions. As a member of the 

IWG involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD), the DOE 

agrees that the interim SC–GHG 

estimates represent the most appropriate 

estimate of the SC–GHG until revised 

estimates have been developed 

reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed 

science. 

The SC–GHGs estimates presented 

here were developed over many years, 

using transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best 

science available at the time of that 

process, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, in 2009, an interagency 

working group (IWG) that included the 

DOE and other executive branch 

agencies and offices was established to 

ensure that agencies were using the best 

available science and to promote 

consistency in the social cost of carbon 

(SC–CO2) values used across agencies. 

The IWG published SC–CO2 estimates 

in 2010 that were developed from an 

ensemble of three widely cited 

integrated assessment models (IAMs) 

that estimate global climate damages 

using highly aggregated representations 

of climate processes and the global 

economy combined into a single 

modeling framework. The three IAMs 

were run using a common set of input 

assumptions in each model for future 

population, economic, and CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These 

estimates were updated in 2013 based 

on new versions of each IAM. In August 

2016 the IWG published estimates of the 

social cost of methane (SC–CH4) and 

nitrous oxide (SC–N2O) using 

methodologies that are consistent with 

the methodology underlying the SC– 

CO2 estimates. The modeling approach 

that extends the IWG SC–CO2

methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has 

undergone multiple stages of peer 

review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates were developed by Marten et 

al. (2015) and underwent a standard 

double-blind peer review process prior 

to journal publication. In 2015, as part 

of the response to public comments 

received to a 2013 solicitation for 

comments on the SC–CO2 estimates, the 

IWG announced a National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

review of the SC–CO2 estimates to offer 

advice on how to approach future 

updates to ensure that the estimates 

continue to reflect the best available 

science and methodologies. In January 

2017, the National Academies released 

their final report, Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 

recommended specific criteria for future 

updates to the SC–CO2 estimates, a 

modeling framework to satisfy the 

specified criteria, and both near-term 

updates and longer-term research needs 

pertaining to various components of the 

estimation process (National 

Academies, 2017). Shortly thereafter, in 

March 2017, President Trump issued 

Executive Order 13783, which 

disbanded the IWG, withdrew the 

previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 

ensure SC–CO2 estimates used in 

regulatory analyses are consistent with 

the guidance contained in OMB’s 

Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to 

the consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 

rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to 

ensure that the U.S. Government’s 

estimates of the social cost of carbon 

and other greenhouse gases reflect the 

best available science and the 

recommendations of the National 

Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 

with first reviewing the SC–GHG 

estimates currently used in Federal 

analyses and publishing interim 

estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that 

reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including by taking global 

damages into account. The interim SC– 

GHG estimates published in February 

2021, specifically the SC–CH4 estimates, 

are used here to estimate the climate 

benefits for this proposed rulemaking. 

The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake 

a fuller update of the SC–GHG estimates 

by January 2022 that takes into 

consideration the advice of the National 

Academies (2017) and other recent 

scientific literature. 

The February 2021 SC–GHG TSD 

provides a complete discussion of the 

IWG’s initial review conducted under 

E.O. 13990. In particular, the IWG found 

that the SC–GHG estimates used under 

E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact 

of GHG emissions in multiple ways. 

First, the IWG found that a global 

perspective is essential for SC–GHG 

estimates because it fully captures 

climate impacts that affect the United 

States and which have been omitted 

from prior U.S.-specific estimates due to 

methodological constraints. Examples of 

omitted effects include direct effects on 

U.S. citizens, assets, and investments 

located abroad, supply chains, and 

tourism, and spillover pathways such as 

economic and political destabilization 

and global migration. In addition, 

assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 

mitigation activities requires 

consideration of how those actions may 

affect mitigation activities by other 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22689 

137For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses 

how the understanding of discounting approaches 

suggests that discount rates appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 

change may be lower than 3 percent. 

countries, as those international 

mitigation actions will provide a benefit 

to U.S. citizens and residents by 

mitigating climate impacts that affect 

U.S. citizens and residents. If the United 

States does not consider impacts on 

other countries, it is difficult to 

convince other countries to consider the 

impacts of their emissions on the United 

States. As a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees with this assessment and, 

therefore, in this proposed rule DOE 

centers attention on a global measure of 

SC–GHG. This approach is the same as 

that taken in DOE regulatory analyses 

from 2012 through 2016. Prior to that, 

in 2008 DOE presented Social Cost of 

Carbon (SCC) estimates based on values 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) identified in literature at 

that time. As noted in the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to 

review developments in the literature, 

including more robust methodologies 

for estimating a U.S.-specific SC–GHG 

value, and explore ways to better inform 

the public of the full range of carbon 

impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE 

will continue to follow developments in 

the literature pertaining to this issue. 

Second, the IWG found that the use of 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under current OMB Circular A– 

4 guidance) to discount the future 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions 

inappropriately underestimates the 

impacts of climate change for the 

purposes of estimating the SC–GHG. 

Consistent with the findings of the 

National Academies (2017) and the 

economic literature, the IWG continued 

to conclude that the consumption rate of 

interest is the theoretically appropriate 

discount rate in an intergenerational 

context (IWG 2010, 2013, 2016a, 2016b), 

and recommended that discount rate 

uncertainty and relevant aspects of 

intergenerational ethical considerations 

be accounted for in selecting future 

discount rates. As a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees with this assessment and will 

continue to follow developments in the 

literature pertaining to this issue. 

While the IWG works to assess how 

best to incorporate the latest, peer 

reviewed science to develop an updated 

set of SC–GHG estimates, it set the 

interim estimates to be the most recent 

estimates developed by the IWG prior to 

the group being disbanded in 2017. The 

estimates rely on the same models and 

harmonized inputs and are calculated 

using a range of discount rates. As 

explained in the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended 

that agencies revert to the same set of 

four values drawn from the SC–GHG 

distributions based on three discount 

rates as were used in regulatory analyses 

between 2010 and 2016 and subject to 

public comment. For each discount rate, 

the IWG combined the distributions 

across models and socioeconomic 

emissions scenarios (applying equal 

weight to each) and then selected a set 

of four values recommended for use in 

benefit-cost analyses: An average value 

resulting from the model runs for each 

of three discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 

percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth 

value, selected as the 95th percentile of 

estimates based on a 3 percent discount 

rate. The fourth value was included to 

provide information on potentially 

higher-than-expected economic impacts 

from climate change. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

DOE agrees, this update reflects the 

immediate need to have an operational 

SC–GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications that 

was developed using a transparent 

process, peer-reviewed methodologies, 

and the science available at the time of 

that process. Those estimates were 

subject to public comment in the 

context of dozens of proposed 

rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 

public comment period in 2013. 

DOE’s derivations of the SC–GHG 

(i.e., SC–CO2, SC–N2O, and SC–CH4) 

values used for this NOPR are discussed 

in the following sections, and the results 

of DOE’s analyses estimating the 

benefits of the reductions in emissions 

of these pollutants are presented in 

section V.B.6. of this document. 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SC–CO2 values used for this 

NOPR were generated using the values 

presented in the 2021 update from the 

IWG’s February 2021 TSD. Table IV.21 

shows the updated sets of SC–CO2

estimates from the latest interagency 

update in 5-year increments from 2020 

to 2050. The full set of annual values 

used is presented in appendix 14A of 

the NOPR TSD. For purposes of 

capturing the uncertainties involved in 

regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 

determined it is appropriate to include 

all four sets of SC–CO2 values, as 

recommended by the IWG.137

TABLE IV.21—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% 

(95th 

percentile) 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 14 51 76 152 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 17 56 83 169 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 19 62 89 187 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 22 67 96 206 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 25 73 103 225 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 28 79 110 242 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 32 85 116 260 

In calculating the potential global 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2

emissions, DOE used the values from 

the 2021 interagency report, adjusted to 

2020$ using the implicit price deflator 

for gross domestic product (GDP) from 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis. For 

each of the four sets of SC–CO2 cases 

specified, the values for emissions in 

2020 were $14, $51, $76, and $152 per 

metric ton avoided (values expressed in 

2020$). DOE derived values from 2051 

to 2070 based on estimates published by 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22690 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

138See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf 

(last accessed January 13, 2022). 

139See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost 

of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 

Washington, DC, February 2021. Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf (last 

accessed March 17, 2021). 

140U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Technical Support Document: Estimating the 

Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 

17 Sectors, available at: www.epa.gov/benmap/ 

estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors17-sectors (last accessed August 11, 2021). 

EPA.138 These estimates are based on 

methods, assumptions, and parameters 

identical to the 2020–2050 estimates 

published by the IWG. DOE derived 

values after 2070 based on the trend in 

2060–2070 in each of the four cases in 

the IWG update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SC–CO2 value for that year in each of 

the four cases. To calculate a present 

value of the stream of monetary values, 

DOE discounted the values in each of 

the four cases using the specific 

discount rate that had been used to 

obtain the SC–CO2 values in each case. 

See chapter 13 for the annual emissions 

reduction. See appendix 14A for the 

annual SC–CO2 values. 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this NOPR were generated using the 

values presented in the 2021 update 

from the IWG.139 Table IV.22 shows the 

updated sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates from the latest interagency 

update in 5-year increments from 2020 

to 2050. The full set of annual values 

used is presented in appendix 14A of 

the NOPR TSD. To capture the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, DOE has determined it 

is appropriate to include all four sets of 

SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values, as 

recommended by the IWG. 

TABLE IV.22—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton] 

Year 

SC–CH4 discount rate and statistic SC–N2O discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% 

(95th 

percentile) 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% 

(95th 

percentile) 

2020 .................................. 670 1500 2000 3900 5800 18000 27000 48000 

2025 .................................. 800 1700 2200 4500 6800 21000 30000 54000 

2030 .................................. 940 2000 2500 5200 7800 23000 33000 60000 

2035 .................................. 1100 2200 2800 6000 9000 25000 36000 67000 

2040 .................................. 1300 2500 3100 6700 10000 28000 39000 74000 

2045 .................................. 1500 2800 3500 7500 12000 30000 42000 81000 

2050 .................................. 1700 3100 3800 8200 13000 33000 45000 88000 

DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the 

cases. To calculate a present value of the 

stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

cases using the specific discount rate 

that had been used to obtain the SC–CH4

and SC–N2O estimates in each case. See 

chapter 13 for the annual emissions 

reduction. See appendix 14A for the 

annual SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values. 

2. Monetization of Other Air Pollutants 

DOE estimated the monetized value of 

NOX and SO2 emissions reductions from 

electricity generation using benefit per 

ton estimates based on air quality 

modeling and concentration-response 

functions conducted for the Clean 

Power Plan final rule. 84 FR 32520. DOE 

used EPA’s reported values for NOX (as 

PM2.5) and SO2 for 2020, 2025, and 2030 

calculated with discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent, and EPA’s values 

for ozone season NOX, which do not 

involve discounting since the impacts 

are in the same year as emissions. DOE 

derived values specific to the sector for 

pool heaters using a method described 

in appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD. For 

this analysis DOE used linear 

interpolation to define values for the 

years between 2020 and 2025 and 

between 2025 and 2030; for years 

beyond 2030 the values are held 

constant. 

DOE estimated the monetized value of 

NOX and SO2 emissions reductions from 

gas pool heaters using benefit per ton 

estimates from the EPA’s ‘‘Technical 

Support Document Estimating the 

Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5

Precursors from 17 Sectors’’ (‘‘EPA 

TSD’’).140 Although none of the sectors 

refers specifically to residential and 

commercial buildings, and by 

association pool heaters, the sector 

called ‘‘area sources’’ would be a 

reasonable proxy for residential and 

commercial buildings. ‘‘Area sources’’ 

represents all emission sources for 

which states do not have exact (point) 

locations in their emissions inventories. 

Because exact locations would tend to 

be associated with larger sources, ‘‘area 

sources’’ would be fairly representative 

of small dispersed sources like homes 

and businesses. The EPA TSD provides 

high and low estimates for 2016, 2020, 

2025, and 2030 at 3- and 7-percent 

discount rates. DOE primarily relied on 

the low estimates to be conservative. 

DOE multiplied the site emissions 

reduction (in tons) in each year by the 

associated $/ton values, and then 

discounted each series using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as 

appropriate. DOE will continue to 

evaluate the monetization of avoided 

NOX emissions and will make any 

appropriate updates for the final rule. 

Additional details on the monetization 

of NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 

are included in chapter 14 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the electric power 

generation industry that would result 

from the adoption of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. The 

utility impact analysis estimates the 

changes in installed electrical capacity 

and generation that would result for 

each TSL. The analysis is based on 

published output from the NEMS 

associated with AEO2021. NEMS 

produces the AEO Reference case, as 

well as a number of side cases that 

estimate the economy-wide impacts of 

changes to energy supply and demand. 

For the current analysis, impacts are 

quantified by comparing the levels of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22691 

141U.S. Department of Commerce—Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.bea.gov/ 

resources/methodologies/RIMSII-user-guide (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

142Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and 

R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies Model Description and User Guide. 

2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. Available at 

www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/ 

technical_reports/PNNL-24563.pdf (last accessed 

April 15, 2021). 

electricity sector generation, installed 

capacity, fuel consumption and 

emissions in the AEO2021 Reference 

case and various side cases. Details of 

the methodology are provided in the 

appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

The output of this analysis is a set of 

time-dependent coefficients that capture 

the change in electricity generation, 

primary fuel consumption, installed 

capacity and power sector emissions 

due to a unit reduction in demand for 

a given end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts from new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

include both direct and indirect 

impacts. Direct employment impacts are 

any changes in the number of 

employees of manufacturers of the 

products subject to standards, their 

suppliers, and related service firms. The 

MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 

employment impacts are changes in 

national employment that occur due to 

the shift in expenditures and capital 

investment caused by the purchase and 

operation of more-efficient appliances. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, caused by (1) reduced 

spending by consumers on energy, (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry, (3) increased 

consumer spending on the products to 

which the new standards apply and 

other goods and services, and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.141 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data 

suggest that net national employment 

may increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts for the standard 

levels considered in this NOPR using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).142

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer- based I– 

O model having structural coefficients 

that characterize economic flows among 

187 sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and that 

the uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rule. 

Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to 

generate results for near-term 

timeframes (2028–2033), where these 

uncertainties are reduced. For more 

details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

pool heaters. It addresses the TSLs 

examined by DOE, the projected 

impacts of each of these levels if 

adopted as energy conservation 

standards for consumer pool heaters, 

and the standards levels that DOE is 

proposing to adopt in this NOPR. 

Additional details regarding DOE’s 

analyses are contained in the NOPR 

TSD supporting this document. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In general, DOE typically evaluates 

potential amended standards for 

products and equipment by grouping 

individual efficiency levels for each 

class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE 

to identify and consider manufacturer 

cost interactions between the equipment 

classes, to the extent that there are such 

interactions, and market cross elasticity 

from consumer purchasing decisions 

that may change when different 

standard levels are set. DOE analyzed 

the benefits and burdens of six TSLs for 

consumer pool heaters. DOE presents 

the results for the TSLs in this 

document, while the results for all 

efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are 

in the NOPR TSD. 

Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding efficiency levels at the 

representative capacity (input for gasfired, output for electric) that DOE has 

identified for potential amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

pool heaters. TSL 6 represents the maxtech energy efficiency for both electric 

and gas-fired pool heaters and 

represents the maximum energy savings 

possible given the specific efficiency 

levels analyzed by DOE (see section 

III.C.2 of this NOPR). TSL 5 represents 

efficiency levels below max-tech for 

both electric and gas-fired pool heaters 

and represents the maximum energy 

savings excluding max-tech efficiency 

levels. A greater fraction of gas-fired 

pool heater consumers experience a net 

cost compared to electric pool heater 

consumers at TSL 5. Therefore, TSL 4 is 

constructed with the same efficiency 

level for electric pool heaters (i.e., EL 4) 

but the next highest efficiency level for 

gas-fired pool heaters (i.e., EL 1). 

Finally, because EL 1 is the lowest 

analyzed efficiency level above baseline, 

TSLs 3, 2, and 1 are also constructed 

with EL 1 for gas-fired pool heaters as 

opposed to analyzing a no-newstandards case for this product class. 

TSLs 3, 2, and 1 consist of the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22692 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

remaining efficiency levels for electric 

pool heaters. 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Efficiency Level and RepresentativeTEI

Electric Pool Heaters ............................... 1 (387%) 2 (483%) 3 (534%) 4 (551%) 4 (551%) 5 (595%) 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ............................ 1 (81.3%) 1 (81.3%) 1 (81.3%) 1 (81.3%) 2 (83.3%) 3 (94.8%) 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on consumer pool heater consumers by 

looking at the effects that potential new 

or amended standards at each TSL 

would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE 

also examined the impacts of potential 

standards on selected consumer 

subgroups. These analyses are discussed 

in the following sections. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

Purchase price increases and (2) annual 

operating costs decrease. Inputs used for 

calculating the LCC and PBP include 

total installed costs (i.e., product price 

plus installation costs), and operating 

costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy 

prices, energy price trends, repair costs, 

and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime 

and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the 

NOPR TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V.2 through Table V.5 show the 

LCC and PBP results for the TSLs 

considered for each product class. In the 

first of each pair of tables, the simple 

payback is measured relative to the 

baseline product. In the second table, 

impacts are measured relative to the 

efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case in the compliance year 

(see section IV.F.8 of this document). 

Because some consumers purchase 

products with higher efficiency in the 

no-new-standards case, the average 

savings are less than the difference 

between the average LCC of the baseline 

product and the average LCC at each 

TSL. The savings refer only to 

consumers who are affected by a 

standard at a given TSL. Those who 

already purchase a product with 

efficiency at or above a given TSL are 

not affected. Consumers for whom the 

LCC increases at a given TSL experience 

a net cost. 

TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC POOL HEATERS

TSL Representative TEI

(%) 

Average costs 2020$ Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed cost (years) First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

1 ............................ 387 ........................ 3,974 502 4,610 8,584 0.6 11.2 

2 ............................ 483 ........................ 4,063 419 3,868 7,932 0.6 11.2 

3 ............................ 534 ........................ 4,140 389 3,601 7,741 0.7 11.2 

4,5 ......................... 551 ........................ 4,196 380 3,521 7,716 0.7 11.2 

6 ............................ 595 (Max Tech) .... 4,342 363 3,374 7,716 0.8 11.2 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC POOL HEATERS

TSL Representative TEI

(%) 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average LCC 

savings * 

2020$ 

Percent of 

consumers 

that experience net cost 

(%) 

1 .................................................................................... 387 ................................................................................ 7,995 0.4 

2 .................................................................................... 483 ................................................................................ 3,695 0.9 

3 .................................................................................... 534 ................................................................................ 1,123 11.0 

4,5 ................................................................................. 551 ................................................................................ 1,029 20.9 

6 .................................................................................... 595 (Max Tech) ............................................................ 929 37.8 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22693 

TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR GAS-FIRED POOL HEATERS

TSL 

Representative 

TEI

(%) 

Average costs (2020$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed cost (years) First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

1,2,3,4 .......................... 81.3 ................ 2,881 884 8,374 11,255 0.1 11.2 

5 ................................... 83.3 ................ 3,059 871 8,261 11,320 1.5 11.2 

6 ................................... 94.8 (Max 

Tech).

3,749 798 7,603 11,352 4.4 11.2 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR GAS-FIRED POOL HEATERS

TSL Representative TEI

(%) 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2020$) 

Percent of 

consumers 

that experience net cost 

(%) 

1,2,3,4 ........................................................................... 81.3 ............................................................................... 1,085 0.0 

5 .................................................................................... 83.3 ............................................................................... 43 31.9 

6 .................................................................................... 94.8 (Max Tech) ........................................................... (15) 70.1 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the consumer subgroup analysis, 

DOE estimated the impact of the 

considered TSLs on senior-only 

households and small businesses. Table 

V.6 and Table V.7 compare the average 

LCC savings and PBP at each efficiency 

level for the consumer subgroup, along 

with the average LCC savings for the 

entire consumer sample for electric pool 

heaters and gas-fired pool heaters, 

respectively. In most cases, the average 

LCC savings and PBP for senior-only 

households and small businesses at the 

considered efficiency levels are 

substantially different from the average 

for all households, since all households 

includes consumer pool heaters in 

homes and commercial applications. 

Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD presents 

the complete LCC and PBP results for 

the subgroup. 

TABLE V.6—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR

ELECTRIC POOL HEATERS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings (2020$) Simple payback period (years) 

Senior-only 

households 

Small 

business All households Senior-only households 

Small 

business All households 

1 ............................................................... 2,758 24,716 7,995 1.1 0.3 0.6 

2 ............................................................... 1,165 25,600 3,695 1.2 0.3 0.6 

3 ............................................................... 302 16,750 1,123 1.3 0.3 0.7 

4,5 ............................................................ 251 16,295 1,029 1.4 0.4 0.7 

6 ............................................................... 140 15,383 929 1.6 0.4 0.8 

TABLE V.7—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR GASFIRED POOL HEATERS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings (2020$) Simple payback period (years) 

Senior-only 

households 

Small 

business All households Senior-only households 

Small 

business All households 

1,2,3,4 ...................................................... 1,122 384 1,085 0.1 0.3 0.1 

5 ............................................................... (22) 126 43 1.6 2.6 1.5 

6 ............................................................... (464) 800 (15) 6.0 3.0 4.4 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section III.E.2, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the increased 

purchase cost for a product that meets 

the standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy savings 

resulting from the standard. In 

calculating a rebuttable presumption 

payback period for each of the 

considered TSLs, DOE used discrete 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22694 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

values, and, as required by EPCA, based 

the energy use calculation on the DOE 

test procedure for consumer pool 

heaters. In contrast, the PBPs presented 

in section V.B.1.a of this document were 

calculated using distributions that 

reflect the range of energy use in the 

field. 

Table V.8 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the 

considered TSLs for consumer pool 

heaters. These results show that, in most 

cases, the projected payback period will 

be three years or less with respect to 

each TSL examined. While DOE 

examined the rebuttable-presumption 

criterion, it considered whether the 

standard levels considered for the NOPR 

are economically justified through a 

more detailed analysis of the economic 

impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers 

the full range of impacts to the 

consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and 

environment. The results of that 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level, thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic justification. 

TABLE V.8—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS (YEARS) 

TSL Electric pool 

heaters 

Gas-fired pool 

heaters 

1 ................ 2.41 0.11 

2 ................ 2.52 0.11 

3 ................ 2.68 0.11 

4 ................ 2.83 0.11 

5 ................ 2.83 1.72 

6 ................ 3.20 5.87 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of consumer pool 

heaters. The following section describes 

the expected impacts on manufacturers 

at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of 

the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in 

further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides GRIM 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

would result from a standard. The 

following tables illustrate the estimated 

financial impacts (represented by 

changes in INPV) of potential new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of consumer pool 

heaters, as well as the conversion costs 

that DOE estimates manufacturers of 

consumer pool heaters would incur at 

each TSL. 

As discussed in section IV.J.2.e of this 

document, DOE modeled two 

manufacturer markup scenarios to 

evaluate a range of cash flow impacts on 

the consumer pool heater industry: (1) 

The preservation of gross margin 

percentage markup scenario and (2) the 

preservation of operating profit. DOE 

considered the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario by applying 

a ‘‘gross margin percentage’’ markup for 

each product class across all efficiency 

levels. As MPCs increase with 

efficiency, this scenario implies that the 

absolute dollar markup will increase. 

DOE assumed a manufacturer markup of 

1.33 for gas-fired pool heaters and 1.28 

for electric pool heaters. This 

manufacturer markup is consistent with 

the one DOE assumed in the engineering 

analysis and the no-new-standards case 

of the GRIM. Because this scenario 

assumes that a manufacturer’s absolute 

dollar markup would increase as MPCs 

increase in the standards cases, it 

represents the upper-bound to industry 

profitability under potential new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

The preservation of operating profit 

scenario reflects manufacturers’ 

concerns about their inability to 

maintain margins as MPCs increase to 

reach more-stringent efficiency levels. 

In this scenario, while manufacturers 

make the necessary investments 

required to convert their facilities to 

produce compliant products, operating 

profit does not change in absolute 

dollars and decreases as a percentage of 

revenue. 

Each of the modeled manufacturer 

markup scenarios results in a unique set 

of cash-flows and corresponding 

industry values at each TSL. In the 

following discussion, the INPV results 

refer to the difference in industry value 

between the no-new-standards case and 

each standards case resulting from the 

sum of discounted cash-flows from 2021 

through 2057. To provide perspective 

on the short-run cash-flow impact, DOE 

includes in the discussion of results a 

comparison of free cash flow between 

the no-new-standards case and the 

standards case at each TSL in the year 

before new and amended standards are 

required. 

Table V.9 and Table V.10 show the 

MIA results for both product classes at 

each TSL using the manufacturer 

markup scenarios previously described. 

TABLE V.9—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN MARKUP SCENARIO

Units No-new-standards case 

Trial standard level * 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

INPV ............. 2020$ 

millions.

188.7 186.5 184.2 171.8 171.1 174.2 187.3 

Change in 

INPV.

2020$ 

millions.

........................ (2.2) (4.4) (16.9) (17.5) (14.4) (1.4) 

% ....... ........................ (1.2) (2.3) (9.0) (9.3) (7.7) (0.7) 

Product Conversion 

Costs.

2020$ 

millions.

........................ 2.7 6.1 22.9 24.1 32.6 41.5 

Capital Conversion 

Costs.

2020$ 

millions.

........................ ........................ 0.6 5.3 5.3 6.2 17.5 

Total Investment Requires **.2020$ 

millions.

........................ 2.7 6.6 28.3 29.4 38.8 59.0 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22695 

TABLE V.10—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units 

No-newstandards 

case 

Trial standard level * 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

INPV ............. 2020$ 

millions.

188.7 186.1 183.6 170.3 169.0 161.0 135.5 

Change in 

INPV.

2020$ 

millions.

........................ (2.5) (5.0) (18.3) (19.6) (27.7) (53.2) 

% ....... ........................ (1.3) (2.7) (9.7) (10.4) (14.7) (28.2) 

Product Conversion 

Costs.

2020$ 

millions.

........................ 2.7 6.1 22.9 24.1 32.6 41.5 

Capital Conversion 

Costs.

2020$ 

millions.

........................ ........................ 0.6 5.3 5.3 6.2 17.5 

Total Investment Requires.2020$ 

millions.

........................ 2.7 6.6 28.3 29.4 38.8 59.0 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$2.5 million 

to ¥$2.2 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥1.3 to ¥1.2 percent. At TSL 1, 

industry free cash-flow is $13.4 million, 

which is a decrease of approximately 

$0.9 million compared to the no-newstandards case value of $14.3 million in 

2027, the year leading up to the 

proposed standards. 

TSL 1 would set the energy 

conservation standard for both gas-fired 

consumer pool heaters and electric 

consumer pool heaters at EL 1. DOE 

estimates that 96 percent of gas-fired 

pool heater shipments and 93 percent of 

electric pool heater shipments already 

meet or exceed the efficiency levels 

analyzed at TSL 1. Gas-fired pool heater 

manufacturers would likely need to 

redesign any models with a standing 

pilot light. DOE assumed this would 

require approximately two months of 

engineering time per model, which 

would cost manufacturers 

approximately $0.5 million. Electric 

heat pump pool heater manufacturers 

would incur approximately $2.2 million 

in product conversion costs primarily to 

test all compliant electric pool heater 

models to demonstrate compliance with 

standards at TSL 1. DOE estimates pool 

heater manufacturers will incur 

minimal to no capital conversion costs 

at TSL 1. 

Furthermore, no electric resistance 

pool heaters meet or exceed the electric 

pool heater efficiency level analyzed at 

TSL 1 or above. DOE estimates 

manufacturers will not incur conversion 

costs for electric resistance pool heaters, 

because of the expectation that these 

consumer pool heater products will be 

discontinued, as described in section 

IV.J.2.c of this document. 

At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all consumer pool 

heaters increases by 0.5 percent relative 

to the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all consumer 

pool heaters in 2028. In the preservation 

of gross margin markup scenario, 

manufacturers are able to fully pass on 

this slight cost increase to consumers. 

The slight increase in shipmentweighted average MPC for consumer 

pool heaters is slightly outweighed by 

the $2.7 million in conversion costs, 

causing a slightly negative change in 

INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same per-unit operating profit 

as would be earned in the no-newstandards case, but manufacturers do 

not earn additional profit from their 

investments. In this scenario, the 0.5 

percent shipment-weighted average 

MPC increase results in a reduction in 

the manufacturer markup after the 

analyzed compliance year. This 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

and the $2.7 million in conversion costs 

incurred by manufacturers cause a 

slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 

1 under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$5.0 million 

to ¥$4.4 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥2.7 percent to ¥2.3 percent. At TSL 

2, industry free cash-flow is $11.9 

million, which is a decrease of 

approximately $2.4 million compared to 

the no-new-standards case value of 

$14.3 million in 2027, the year leading 

up to the proposed standards. 

DOE estimates that 96 percent of gasfired pool heater shipments and 79 

percent of electric pool heater 

shipments already meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 2. To 

bring non-compliant electric heat pump 

pool heaters into compliance and to test 

all electric heat pump pool heaters to 

demonstrate compliance with standards 

at TSL 2, electric heat pump pool heater 

manufacturers would incur 

approximately $5.5 million in product 

conversion costs and $0.6 million in 

capital conversion costs at TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all consumer pool 

heaters increases by 0.9 percent relative 

to the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all consumer 

pool heaters in 2028. In the preservation 

of gross margin markup scenario, the 

slight increase in shipment-weighted 

average MPC for consumer pool heaters 

is slightly outweighed by the $6.6 

million in conversion costs, causing a 

slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 

2 under the preservation of gross margin 

markup scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 0.9 percent 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer markup after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer markup and the $6.6 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 2 under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$18.3 million 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22696 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

to ¥$16.9 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥9.7 percent to ¥9.0 percent. At TSL 

3, industry free cash-flow is $3.8 

million, which is a decrease of 

approximately $10.6 million compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$14.3 million in 2027, the year leading 

up to the proposed standards. 

DOE estimates that 96 percent of gasfired pool heater shipments and 19 

percent of electric pool heater 

shipments already meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 3. To 

bring non-compliant electric heat pump 

pool heaters into compliance and to test 

all electric heat pump pool heaters to 

demonstrate compliance with standards 

at TSL 3, electric heat pump pool heater 

manufacturers would incur 

approximately $22.4 million in product 

conversion costs and $5.3 million in 

capital conversion costs at TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all consumer pool 

heaters increases by 2.1 percent relative 

to the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all consumer 

pool heaters in 2028. In the preservation 

of gross margin markup scenario, the 

increase in shipment-weighted average 

MPC for consumer pool heaters is 

outweighed by the $28.3 million in 

conversion costs, causing a moderately 

negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 2.1 percent 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer markup after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer markup and the $28.3 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a moderately 

negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$19.6 million 

to ¥$17.5 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥10.4 percent to ¥9.3 percent. At 

TSL 4, industry free cash-flow is $3.4 

million, which is a decrease of 

approximately $11.0 million compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$14.3 million in 2027, the year leading 

up to the proposed standards. 

DOE estimates that 96 percent of gasfired pool heaters and 10 percent of 

electric pool heaters meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 4. To 

bring non-compliant products into 

compliance, consumer pool heater 

manufacturers would incur 

approximately $24.1 million in product 

conversion costs for redesign and 

testing. DOE estimates manufacturers 

will incur approximately $5.3 million in 

capital conversion costs associated with 

TSL 4 to make changes to existing 

machinery and tooling. 

At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all consumer pool 

heaters increases by 3.1 percent relative 

to the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all consumer 

pool heaters in 2028. In the preservation 

of gross margin markup scenario, the 

increase in shipment-weighted average 

MPC for consumer pool heaters is 

outweighed by the $29.4 million in 

conversion costs, causing a moderately 

negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 3.1 percent 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer markup after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

manufacturer markup and the $29.4 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers causing a moderately 

negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from ¥$27.7 million 

to ¥$14.4 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥14.7 percent to ¥7.7 percent. At 

TSL 5, industry free cash-flow is slightly 

negative (less then ¥$0.1 million), 

which is a decrease of approximately 

$14.4 million compared to the no-newstandards case value of $14.3 million in 

2027, the year leading up to the 

proposed standards. 

DOE estimates that 45 percent of gasfired pool heaters and 10 percent of 

electric pool heaters meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 5. To 

bring non-compliant products into 

compliance, consumer pool heater 

manufacturers would incur 

approximately $32.6 million in product 

conversion costs for redesign and 

testing. DOE estimates manufacturers 

will incur approximately $6.2 million in 

capital conversion costs associated with 

TSL 5 to make changes to existing 

machinery and tooling. The design 

options analyzed at TSL 5 incorporate a 

blower for gas-fired pool heaters. 

At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all consumer pool 

heaters increases by 10.2 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

consumer pool heaters in 2028. In the 

preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario, the increase in shipmentweighted average MPC for consumer 

pool heaters is outweighed by the $38.8 

million in conversion costs, causing a 

moderately negative change in INPV at 

TSL 5 under the preservation of gross 

margin markup scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 10.2 percent 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a reduction in the 

manufacturer markup after the analyzed 

compliance year. This reduction in 

manufacturer markup and the $38.8 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a moderately 

negative change in INPV at TSL 5 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. 

At TSL 6, DOE estimates that impacts 

on INPV will range from $53.2 million 

to ¥$1.4 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥28.2 percent to ¥0.7 percent. At 

TSL 6, industry free cash-flow is ¥$8.3 

million, which is a decrease of 

approximately $22.6 million compared 

to the no-new-standards case value of 

$14.3 million in 2027, the year leading 

up to the proposed standards. 

DOE estimates 9 percent of gas-fired 

pool heaters and less than 1 percent of 

electric pool heaters meet the efficiency 

levels analyzed at TSL 6. To bring noncompliant products into compliance, 

consumer pool heater manufacturers 

would incur approximately $41.5 

million in product conversion costs for 

redesign and testing. DOE estimates 

manufacturers will incur approximately 

$17.5 million in capital conversion costs 

associated with TSL 6 to make changes 

to existing machinery and tooling. The 

design options at TSL 6 analyzed the 

implementation of condensing 

technology for gas-fired pool heaters, 

which requires a significant redesign 

effort and capital investment. 

At TSL 6, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all consumer pool 

heaters significantly increases by 37.0 

percent relative to the no-new-standards 

case shipment-weighted average MPC 

for all consumer pool heaters in 2028. 

In the preservation of gross margin 

markup scenario, the large increase in 

shipment-weighted average MPC for 

consumer pool heaters is still 

outweighed by the $59.0 million in 

conversion costs, causing a slightly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 6 under 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 37.0 percent 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase results in a significant 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

after the analyzed compliance year. This 

large reduction in manufacturer markup 

and the significant $59.0 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 6 under 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22697 

143TSL 6 is estimated to have an increase in 

domestic employment, while TSL 1 through TSL 5, 

are estimated to have a reduction in domestic 

employment, assuming all production remains in 

the U.S. 

144 326 domestic production employees 

manufacturing consumer gas-fired pool heaters and 

30 domestic production and non-production 

employees manufacturing consumer electric 

resistance pool heaters. 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the potential 

impacts of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on direct 

employment in the consumer pool 

heater industry, DOE used the GRIM to 

estimate the number of direct 

production employees and nonproduction employees in the no-newstandards case, and the standards cases 

at each TSL. 

Production employees are those who 

are directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling products within an original 

equipment manufacturer facility. 

Workers performing services that are 

closely associated with production 

operations, such as materials handling 

tasks using forklifts, are included as 

production labor, as well as line 

supervisors. 

DOE used the GRIM to calculate the 

number of production employees from 

labor expenditures. DOE used statistical 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019 

Annual Survey of Manufacturers 

(‘‘ASM’’) and the results of the 

engineering analysis to calculate 

industry-wide labor expenditures. Labor 

expenditures related to product 

manufacturing depend on the labor 

intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

The total labor expenditures in the 

GRIM were then converted to domestic 

production employment levels by 

dividing production labor expenditures 

by the annual payment per production 

worker. 

Non-production employees account 

for those workers that are not directly 

engaged in the manufacturing of the 

covered product. This could include 

sales, human resources, engineering, 

and management. DOE estimated nonproduction employment levels by 

multiplying the number of consumer 

pool heater production workers by a 

scaling factor. The scaling factor is 

calculated by taking the ratio of the total 

number of employees, and the total 

production workers associated with the 

industry NAICS code 333414, which 

covers heating equipment (except warm 

air furnaces) manufacturing. 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that 

there would be 857 domestic production 

workers, and 495 non-production 

workers for consumer pool heaters in 

2028 in the absence of new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. Table V.11 shows the range 

of the impacts of energy conservation 

standards on U.S. production on 

consumer pool heaters. 

TABLE V.11—TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC CONSUMER POOL HEATER PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2028 

No-newstandards 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Domestic Production Workers in 2028 .... 857 853 853 853 850 852 1,064 

Domestic Non-Production Workers in 

2028 ...................................................... 495 492 492 492 491 492 614 

Total Direct Employment in 2028 ............ 1,352 1,345 1,345 1,345 1,341 1,344 1,678 

Potential Changes in Total Direct Employment in 2028 .................................. .................... (30)–(7) (30)–(7) (30)–(7) (30)–(11) (30)–(8) (356)–326 

The direct employment impacts 

shown in Table V.11 represent the 

potential changes in direct employment 

that could result following the 

compliance date for the consumer pool 

heaters in this proposal. Employment 

could increase or decrease due to the 

labor content of the various products 

being manufactured domestically or if 

manufacturers decided to move 

production facilities abroad because of 

the new and amended standards. At one 

end of the range, DOE assumes that all 

manufacturers continue to manufacture 

the same scope of the products 

domestically after new and amended 

standards. However, since the labor 

content of consumer pool heaters varies 

by efficiency level, this can either result 

in an increase or decrease in domestic 

employment, even if all domestic 

product remains in the U.S.143 The 

other end of the range assumes that 

some domestic manufacturing either is 

eliminated or moves abroad due to the 

analyzed new and amended standards. 

DOE assumes that for electric pool 

heaters, only the electric resistance pool 

heater employees would be impacted at 

all TSLs analyzed. DOE estimates there 

would be approximately 30 domestic 

production and non-production 

employees manufacturing electric 

resistance pool heaters in 2028. 

Therefore, DOE assumes that for all 

TSLs analyzed, there would be a 

reduction in 30 domestic employees due 

to electric resistance pool heaters no 

longer being manufactured 

domestically. For gas pool heaters, DOE 

assumes there would not be any impact 

to domestic production until TSL 6, 

max-tech. At this TSL, DOE assumes 

that up to half of all domestic gas pool 

heater production could move abroad 

due to the new and amended standards 

at TSL 6. DOE estimated there would be 

approximately 651 domestic production 

workers manufacturing gas-fired pool 

heaters in 2028. Therefore, DOE 

estimates that if standards were set at 

TSL 6, max-tech, there could be a loss 

of up to 356 domestic employees 

responsible for manufacturing consumer 

pool heaters.144 Additional detail on the 

analysis of direct employment can be 

found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

DOE did not identify any significant 

capacity constraints for the design 

options being evaluated for this NOPR. 

The design options evaluated for this 

NOPR are available as products that are 

on the market currently, with models 

meeting all the efficiency levels 

analyzed as part of this analysis. The 

materials used to manufacture models at 

all efficiency levels are widely available 

on the market. As a result, DOE does not 

anticipate that the industry will likely 

experience any capacity constraints 

directly resulting from energy 

conservation standards at any of the 

TSLs considered. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

As discussed in section IV.J.1 of this 

document, using average cost 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22698 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

assumptions to develop an industry 

cash-flow estimate may not be adequate 

for assessing differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche manufacturers, 

and manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure substantially different from the 

industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. DOE used the 

results of the industry characterization 

to group manufacturers exhibiting 

similar characteristics. Consequently, 

DOE identified small business 

manufacturers as a subgroup for a 

separate impact analysis. 

For the small business subgroup 

analysis, DOE applied the small 

business size standards published by 

the Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) to determine whether a 

company is considered a small business. 

The size standards are codified at 13 

CFR part 121. To be categorized as a 

small business under NAICS code 

333414, ‘‘heating equipment (except 

warm air furnaces) manufacturing,’’ a 

consumer pool heater manufacturer and 

its affiliates may employ a maximum of 

500 employees. The 500-employee 

threshold includes all employees in a 

business’s parent company and any 

other subsidiaries. Based on this 

classification, DOE identified six 

potential manufacturers that could 

qualify as domestic small businesses. 

All six small businesses manufacture 

electric pool heaters and none of them 

manufacture gas-fired pool heaters. 

Therefore, only new standards set for 

electric pool heaters would impact any 

of the small businesses. Five of the six 

small businesses exclusively 

manufacture electric heat pump pool 

heaters, while the other small business 

exclusively manufacturers electric 

resistance pool heaters. 

The small business subgroup analysis 

is discussed in more detail in chapter 12 

of the NOPR TSD. DOE examines the 

potential impacts on small business 

manufacturers in section VI.B of this 

NOPR. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies that affect the manufacturers of 

a covered product or equipment. While 

any one regulation may not impose a 

significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several existing 

or impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. 

Some consumer pool heater 

manufacturers also make other products 

or equipment that could be subject to 

energy conservation standards set by 

DOE. DOE looks at regulations that 

could affect consumer pool heater 

manufacturers that will take effect three 

years before or after the estimated 2028 

compliance date. Therefore, this 

cumulative regulatory burden analysis 

focuses on DOE regulations taking place 

between 2025 and 2031. DOE was not 

able to identify any potential energy 

conservation standard or test procedure 

for other products or equipment 

manufactured by consumer pool heater 

manufacturer that are scheduled to 

require compliance between 2025 and 

2031. 

DOE requests information regarding 

the impact of cumulative regulatory 

burden on manufacturers of consumer 

pool heaters associated with multiple 

DOE standards or product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the NES and the NPV of consumer 

benefits that would result from each of 

the TSLs considered as potential 

amended standards. 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential new or 

amended standards for consumer pool 

heaters, DOE compared their energy 

consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each TSL. 

The savings are measured over the 

entire lifetime of products purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of anticipated compliance with 

amended standards (2028–2057). Table 

V.12 presents DOE’s projections of the 

national energy savings for each TSL 

considered for consumer pool heaters. 

The savings were calculated using the 

approach described in section IV.H of 

this document. 

TABLE V.12—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2028–2057] 

Energy 

savings Product class 

Trial standard level (quads *) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Site energy Electric Pool Heaters ...... 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.80 

Total ............................ 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.23 0.96 

Primary energy.Electric Pool Heaters ...... 0.22 0.27 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.43 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.80 

Total ............................ 0.25 0.30 0.38 0.40 0.47 1.23 

FFC energy Electric Pool Heaters ...... 0.23 0.28 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.45 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.88 

Total ............................ 0.26 0.31 0.39 0.42 0.49 1.33 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 

Note numbers may not add to totals, due to rounding. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22699 

145U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

146Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to 

review its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after 

any new standard is promulgated before 

compliance is required, except that in no case may 

any new standards be required within 6 years of the 

compliance date of the previous standards. While 

adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 

period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 

undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year 

period and that the 3-year compliance date may 

yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis 

period may not be appropriate given the variability 

that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and 

the fact that for some products, the compliance 

period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 

147U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last 

accessed April 15, 2021). 

OMB Circular A–4 145 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this proposed 

rulemaking, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather 

than 30 years, of product shipments. 

The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 

for the timeline in EPCA for the review 

of certain energy conservation standards 

and potential revision of and 

compliance with such revised 

standards.146 The review timeframe 

established in EPCA is generally not 

synchronized with the product lifetime, 

product manufacturing cycles, or other 

factors specific to consumer pool 

heaters. Thus, such results are presented 

for informational purposes only and are 

not indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

sensitivity analysis results based on a 9- 

year analytical period are presented in 

Table V.13 of this document. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

consumer pool heaters purchased in 

2028–2057. 

TABLE V.13—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2028–2036] 

Energy 

savings Product class 

Trial standard level (quads *) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Site energy Electric Pool Heaters ...... 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.22 

Total ............................ 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.26 

Primary energy.Electric Pool Heaters ...... 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.22 

Total ............................ 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.35 

FFC energy Electric Pool Heaters ...... 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.24 

Total ............................ 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.37 

* quads = quadrillion British thermal units. 

Note numbers may not add to totals, due to rounding. 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for consumer pool 

heaters. In accordance with OMB’s 

guidelines on regulatory analysis,147

DOE calculated NPV using both a 7- 

percent and a 3-percent real discount 

rate. Table V.14 shows the consumer 

NPV results with impacts counted over 

the lifetime of products purchased in 

2028–2057. 

TABLE V.14—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS; 30 YEARS OF

SHIPMENTS

[2028–2057] 

Discount rate Product class 

Trial standard level (billion 2020$) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

7 percent ..... Electric Pool Heaters ...... 0.64 0.77 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.95 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 (0.01) (0.18) 

Total ............................ 0.72 0.85 1.02 1.04 0.95 0.77 

3 percent ..... Electric Pool Heaters ...... 1.49 1.81 2.25 2.32 2.32 2.36 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.37 

Total ............................ 1.67 1.99 2.43 2.50 2.39 2.73 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

Note numbers may not add to totals, due to rounding. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22700 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V.15. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2028–2057. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical methodology 

or decision criteria. 

TABLE V.15—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS; 9 YEARS OF

SHIPMENTS

[2028–2036] 

Discount rate Product class 

Trial standard level (billion 2020$) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

7 percent ..... Electric Pool Heaters ...... 0.35 0.42 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.51 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 (0.01) (0.13) 

Total ............................ 0.40 0.46 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.37 

3 percent ..... Electric Pool Heaters ...... 0.64 0.76 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.95 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ... 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.04 

Total ............................ 0.71 0.83 0.99 1.02 0.96 0.99 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

Note numbers may not add to totals, due to rounding. 

The above results reflect the use of a 

default trend to estimate the change in 

price for consumer pool heaters over the 

analysis period (see section IV.H.3 of 

this document). DOE also conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a larger price decline from 

the reference case and one scenario with 

a constant price. The results of these 

alternative cases are presented in 

appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. In the 

high-price-decline case, the NPV of 

consumer benefits is higher than in the 

default case. In the constant-price case, 

the NPV of consumer benefits is lower 

than in the default case. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

It is estimated that that new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

for consumer pool heaters would reduce 

energy expenditures for consumers of 

those products, with the resulting net 

savings being redirected to other forms 

of economic activity. These expected 

shifts in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section IV.N of this 

document, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy to estimate 

indirect employment impacts of the 

TSLs that DOE considered. There are 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for near-term timeframes (2028– 

2033), where these uncertainties are 

reduced. 

The results suggest that the proposed 

standards would be likely to have a 

negligible impact on the net demand for 

labor in the economy. The net change in 

jobs is so small that it would be 

imperceptible in national labor statistics 

and might be offset by other, 

unanticipated effects on employment. 

Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents 

detailed results regarding anticipated 

indirect employment impacts. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.b of 

this document, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the standards proposed 

in this NOPR would not lessen the 

utility or performance of the consumer 

pool heaters under consideration in this 

rulemaking. Manufacturers of these 

products currently offer units that meet 

or exceed the proposed standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considered any lessening of 

competition that would be likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

As discussed in section III.E.1.e of this 

document, the Attorney General 

determines the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard, and transmits 

such determination in writing to the 

Secretary, together with an analysis of 

the nature and extent of such impact. To 

assist the Attorney General in making 

this determination, DOE has provided 

DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the 

accompanying TSD for review. DOE will 

consider DOJ’s comments on the 

proposed rule in determining whether 

to proceed to a final rule. DOE will 

publish and respond to DOJ’s comments 

in that document. DOE invites comment 

from the public regarding the 

competitive impacts that are likely to 

result from this proposed rule. In 

addition, stakeholders may also provide 

comments separately to DOJ regarding 

these potential impacts. See the 

ADDRESSES section for information on 

how to send comments to DOJ. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts (costs) of energy 

production. Reduced electricity demand 

due to energy conservation standards is 

also likely to reduce the cost of 

maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the 

NOPR TSD presents the estimated 

impacts on electricity generating 

capacity, relative to the no-newstandards case, for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this proposed rulemaking. 

Energy conservation resulting from 

potential new and amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

pool heaters is expected to yield 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of certain air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table 

V.16 provides DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative emissions reductions 

expected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.K. of 

this document. DOE reports annual 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22701 

TABLE V.16—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Site and Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 8.5 10.1 12.7 13.6 17.2 56.4 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 3.2 4.00 5.1 5.5 5.4 6.8 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 8.4 9.1 10.2 10.5 67.0 74.1 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 2.0 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.24 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.5 6.2 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.10 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 10.5 12.3 15.2 16.2 23.2 95.0 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 71 83 103 109 160 681 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Total FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 9.2 11.0 13.8 14.7 18.8 62.7 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 3.2 4.0 5.2 5.6 5.5 6.9 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 19 21 25 27 90 169 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 72 84 104 110 161 683 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.26 

Note numbers may not add to totals, due to rounding. 

As part of the analysis for this 

proposed rulemaking, DOE estimated 

monetary benefits likely to result from 

the reduced emissions of CO2 that DOE 

estimated for each of the considered 

TSLs for consumer pool heaters. Section 

IV.L of this document discusses the SC– 

CO2 values that DOE used. Table V.17 

presents the value of CO2 emissions 

reduction at each TSL. 

TABLE V.17—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 

SC–CO2 case discount rate and statistics (million 2020$) 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% 

(95th 

percentile) 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 79 347 545 1,053 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 94 413 649 1,253 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 117 517 813 1,569 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 125 552 868 1,675 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 158 701 1,103 2,126 

6 ....................................................................................................................... 521 2,319 3,656 7,030 

As discussed in section IV.L.1.b of 

this document, DOE estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of methane and N2O 

that DOE estimated for each of the 

considered TSLs for consumer pool 

heaters. Table V.18 presents the value of 

the CH4 emissions reduction at each 

TSL, and Table V.19 presents the value 

of the N2O emissions reduction at each 

TSL. 

TABLE V.18—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS SHIPPED IN 2028– 

2057 

TSL 

SC–CH4 case discount rate and statistics (million 2020$) 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% 

(95th 

percentile) 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 28 86 120 226 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 33 100 141 265 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 40 124 174 326 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 42 131 185 347 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22702 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.18—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS SHIPPED IN 2028– 

2057—Continued 

TSL 

SC–CH4 case discount rate and statistics (million 2020$) 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% 

(95th 

percentile) 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 62 192 270 506 

6 ....................................................................................................................... 258 807 1,139 2,130 

TABLE V.19—PRESENT VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS SHIPPED IN

2028–2057 

TSL 

SC–N2O case discount rate and statistics (million 2020$) 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% 

(95th 

percentile) 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.27 1.11 1.74 2.96 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.33 1.35 2.13 3.62 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.42 1.74 2.74 4.65 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.45 1.87 2.94 5.00 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 0.47 1.94 3.05 5.19 

6 ....................................................................................................................... 0.82 3.39 5.35 9.09 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed on reduced GHG emissions 

in this rulemaking is subject to change. 

That said, because of omitted damages, 

DOE agrees with the IWG that these 

estimates most likely underestimate the 

climate benefits of greenhouse gas 

reductions. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

DOE notes that the proposed standards 

would be economically justified even 

without inclusion of monetized benefits 

of reduced GHG emissions. 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the economic benefits 

associated with SO2 emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for consumer pool 

heaters. The dollar-per-ton values that 

DOE used are discussed in section IV.L 

of this document. Table V.20 presents 

the present value for SO2 emissions 

reduction for each TSL calculated using 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rates. 

TABLE V.20—PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE

OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR

CONSUMER POOL HEATERS SHIPPED

IN 2028–2057 

TSL 

7% 

Discount rate 

(million 2020$) 

3% 

Discount rate 

(million 2020$) 

1 ................ 28 72 

2 ................ 35 88 

3 ................ 44 114 

4 ................ 47 123 

5 ................ 47 120 

6 ................ 58 152 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for consumer pool 

heaters. The dollar-per-ton values that 

DOE used are discussed in section IV.L 

of this document. Table V.21 presents 

the present value for NOX emissions 

reduction for each TSL calculated using 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rates. 

TABLE V.21—PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE

OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR

CONSUMER POOL HEATERS SHIPPED

IN 2028–2057 

TSL 

7% 

Discount rate 

(million 2020$) 

3% 

Discount rate 

(million 2020$) 

1 ................ 39 93 

2 ................ 45 109 

3 ................ 55 133 

4 ................ 59 142 

5 ................ 82 202 

TABLE V.21—PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE

OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR

CONSUMER POOL HEATERS SHIPPED

IN 2028–2057—Continued 

TSL 

7% 

Discount rate 

(million 2020$) 

3% 

Discount rate 

(million 2020$) 

6 ................ 324 819 

The benefits of reduced CO2, CH4, 

and N2O emissions are collectively 

referred to as climate benefits. The 

benefits of reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions are collectively referred to as 

health benefits. For the time series of 

estimated monetary values of reduced 

emissions, see chapter 14 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors 

were considered in this analysis. 

8. Summary of National Economic 

Impacts 

Table V.22 presents the NPV values 

that result from adding the monetized 

estimates of the potential economic, 

climate, and health benefits resulting 

from reduced GHG, SO2, and NOX

emissions to the NPV of consumer 

benefits calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

consumer benefits are domestic U.S. 

monetary savings that occur as a result 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22703 

148P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic 

Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/ 

0034-6527.00354. 

of purchasing the covered pool heaters 

and are measured for the lifetime of 

products shipped in 2028–2057. The 

climate benefits associated with reduced 

GHG emissions resulting from the 

adopted standards are global benefits 

and are also calculated based on the 

lifetime of pool heaters shipped in 

2028–2057. The climate benefits 

associated with four SC–GHG estimates 

are shown. DOE does not have a single 

central SC–GHG point estimate and it 

emphasizes the importance and value of 

considering the benefits calculated 

using all four SC–GHG estimates. 

TABLE V.22—NPV OF CONSUMER BENEFITS COMBINED WITH MONETIZED CLIMATE AND HEALTH BENEFITS FROM

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

3% discount rate for NPV of Consumer and Health Benefits (billion 2020$) 

5% d.r., Average SC–GHG case ............. 1.9 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 4.5 

3% d.r., Average SC–GHG case ............. 2.3 2.7 3.3 3.5 3.6 6.8 

2.5% d.r., Average SC–GHG case .......... 2.5 3.0 3.7 3.8 4.1 8.5 

3% d.r., 95th percentile SC–GHG case .. 3.1 3.7 4.6 4.8 5.3 12.9 

7% discount rate for NPV of Consumer and Health Benefits (billion 2020$) 

5% d.r., Average SC–GHG case ............. 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 

3% d.r., Average SC–GHG case ............. 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.0 4.3 

2.5% d.r., Average SC–GHG case .......... 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.5 6.0 

3% d.r., 95th percentile SC–GHG case .. 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.2 3.7 10.3 

The national operating cost savings 

are domestic U.S. monetary savings that 

occur as a result of purchasing the 

covered products and are measured for 

the lifetime of products shipped in 

2028–2057. The benefits associated with 

reduced GHG emissions achieved as a 

result of the adopted standards are also 

calculated based on the lifetime of 

consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028– 

2057. 

C. Conclusion 

When considering new or amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

standards that DOE adopts for any type 

(or class) of covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by, to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 

amended standard must also result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For this NOPR, DOE considered the 

impacts of new and amended standards 

for consumer pool heaters at each TSL, 

beginning with the maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most efficient level 

and undertook the same evaluation until 

it reached the highest efficiency level 

that is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. DOE refers 

to this process as the ‘‘walk-down’’ 

analysis. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. There is evidence that 

consumers undervalue future energy 

savings as a result of (1) a lack of 

information, (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases, (4) excessive focus on the 

short term, in the form of inconsistent 

weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other 

investments, (5) computational or other 

difficulties associated with the 

evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (6) 

a divergence in incentives (for example, 

between renters and owners, or builders 

and purchasers). Having less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways. First, if 

consumers forego the purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers, and the impact on 

manufacturers attributed to lost revenue 

is included in the MIA. Second, DOE 

accounts for energy savings attributable 

only to products actually used by 

consumers in the standards case; if a 

standard decreases the number of 

products purchased by consumers, this 

decreases the potential energy savings 

from an energy conservation standard. 

DOE provides estimates of shipments 

and changes in the volume of product 

purchases in chapter 9 of the NOPR 

TSD. However, DOE’s current analysis 

does not explicitly control for 

heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 

preferences across subcategories of 

products or specific features, or 

consumer price sensitivity variation 

according to household income.148

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE is 

committed to developing a framework 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22704 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

149Sanstad, A. H. Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. Available at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_

theory.pdf (last accessed April 15, 2021). 

that can support empirical quantitative 

tools for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

standards. DOE has posted a paper that 

discusses the issue of consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance energy 

conservation standards, and potential 

enhancements to the methodology by 

which these impacts are defined and 

estimated in the regulatory process.149

DOE welcomes comments on how to 

more fully assess the potential impact of 

energy conservation standards on 

consumer choice and how to quantify 

this impact in its regulatory analysis in 

future rulemakings. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Consumer Pool Heater 

Standards 

Table V.23 and Table V.24 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for consumer pool heaters. 

The national impacts are measured over 

the lifetime of consumer pool heaters 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the anticipated year of 

compliance with amended standards 

(2028–2057). The energy savings, 

emissions reductions, and value of 

emissions reductions refer to full-fuelcycle results. DOE exercises its own 

judgment in presenting monetized 

climate benefits as recommended in 

applicable Executive Orders and DOE 

would reach the same conclusion 

presented in this notice in the absence 

of the social cost of greenhouse gases, 

including the February 2021 Interim 

Estimates presented by the Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases. The efficiency levels 

contained in each TSL are described in 

section V.A of this document. 

TABLE V.23—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings (quads) 

Quads ....................................................... 0.26 0.31 0.39 0.42 0.49 1.33 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 9 11 14 15 19 63 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 3.2 4.0 5.2 5.6 5.5 6.9 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 19 21 25 27 90 169 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 72 84 104 110 161 683 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.26 

Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2020$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......... 1.73 2.10 2.68 2.87 3.20 7.16 

Climate Benefits * ..................................... 0.43 0.51 0.64 0.69 0.89 3.13 

Health Benefits ** ..................................... 0.16 0.20 0.25 0.26 0.32 0.97 

Total Benefits † ........................................ 2.33 2.81 3.57 3.82 4.42 11.26 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .. 0.07 0.11 0.25 0.37 0.81 4.43 

Consumer Net Benefits ............................ 1.67 1.99 2.43 2.50 2.39 2.73 

Total Net Benefits .................................... 2.27 2.70 3.32 3.45 3.61 6.83 

Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billions 2020$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......... 0.75 0.90 1.15 1.23 1.36 2.98 

Climate Benefits * ..................................... 0.43 0.51 0.64 0.69 0.89 3.13 

Health Benefits * ....................................... 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.38 

Total Benefits † ........................................ 1.25 1.50 1.89 2.02 2.38 6.49 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .. 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.40 2.21 

Consumer Net Benefits ............................ 0.72 0.85 1.02 1.04 0.95 0.77 

Total Net Benefits .................................... 1.22 1.44 1.76 1.83 1.98 4.28 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown in Table 

V.17 through Table V.19. Together these represent the global social cost of greenhouse gases (SC–GHG). For presentational purposes of this 

table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a 

single central SC–GHG point estimate. See section. IV.L of this document for more details. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone 

precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central 

SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. 

See Table V.22 for net benefits using all four SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted 

the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. 

Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the 

defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 

gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the 

benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22705 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

TABLE V.24—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER POOL HEATERS TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND

CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (million 2020$) (No-newstandards case INPV = 188.7) ............. 186.1–186.5 183.6–184.2 170.3–171.8 169.0–171.1 161.0–174.2 135.5–187.3 

Industry NPV (% change) ........................ (1.3)–(1.2) (2.7)–(2.3) (9.7)–(9.0) (10.4)–(9.3) (14.7)–(7.7) (28.2)–(0.7) 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2020$) 

Electric Pool Heaters ............................... 7,995 3,695 1,123 1,029 1,029 929 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ............................ 1,085 1,085 1,085 1,085 43 (15) 

Shipment-Weighted Average * ................. 7,995 3,695 1,123 1,121 677 465 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

Electric Pool Heaters ............................... 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ............................ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 4.4 

Shipment-Weighted Average * ................. 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.3 3.3 

Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost (%) 

Electric Pool Heaters ............................... 0.4 0.9 11.0 20.9 20.9 37.8 

Gas-fired Pool Heaters ............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.9 70.1 

Shipment-Weighted Average * ................. 0.1 0.3 3.3 3.3 28.6 60.3 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2028. 

DOE first considered TSL 6, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 6 would save an estimated 

1.33 quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 6, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$0.77 billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $2.73 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 6 are 63 Mt of CO2, 6.9 thousand 

tons of SO2, 169 thousand tons of NOX, 

0.04 tons of Hg, 683 thousand tons of 

CH4, and 0.26 thousand tons of N2O. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

climate benefits from reduced GHG 

emissions (associated with the average 

SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 

TSL 6 is $3.13 billion. The estimated 

monetary value of the health benefits 

from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 

TSL 6 is $0.38 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $0.97 billion using a 

3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total monetized NPV at TSL 6 is $4.28 

billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate 

for all benefits and costs, the estimated 

total monetized NPV at TSL 6 is $6.83 

billion. The estimated total monetized 

NPV is provided for additional 

information, however DOE gives 

considerable weight to the NPV of 

consumer benefits and the percentage of 

consumers experiencing a net cost when 

determining whether a proposed 

standard level is economically justified. 

At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $929 for electric pool 

heaters and an average LCC loss of $15 

for gas-fired pool heaters. The simple 

payback period is 0.8 years for electric 

pool heaters and 4.4 years for gas-fired 

pool heaters. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 37.8 

percent for electric pool heaters and 

70.1 percent for gas-fired pool heaters. 

At TSL 6, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $53.2 

million to a decrease of $1.4 million, 

which corresponds to decreases of 28.2 

percent and 0.7 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$59.0 million to comply with standards 

set at TSL 6. DOE estimates that 

approximately nine percent of gas-fired 

pool heater shipments and less than one 

percent of electric pool heater 

shipments would meet the efficiency 

levels analyzed at TSL 6. There are 18 

pool heater manufacturers that 

manufacture electric pool heaters 

covered by this rulemaking. Only one of 

the 18 electric pool heater 

manufacturers offers electric pool heater 

models that meet the efficiency level 

required at TSL 6 for electric pool 

heaters. All other electric pool heater 

manufacturers do not offer any models 

that would meet the efficiency level 

required at TSL 6 for electric pool 

heaters covered by this rulemaking. If 

these manufacturers decide to leave the 

electric pool heater market, there would 

be only one manufacturer of electric 

pool heaters, which could raise 

concerns related to anti-competitive 

market forces. There are four pool heater 

manufacturers that manufacture gasfired pool heaters covered by this 

rulemaking. Only one of the four gasfired pool heater manufacturers offers 

gas-fired pool heater models that meet 

the efficiency level required at TSL 6 for 

gas-fired pool heaters. All other gasfired pool heater manufacturers do not 

offer any models that would meet the 

efficiency level required at TSL 6 for 

gas-fired pool heaters covered by this 

rulemaking. At TSL 6, most 

manufacturers would be required to 

redesign every pool heater model 

covered by this rulemaking. It is unclear 

if most manufacturers would have the 

engineering capacity to complete the 

necessary redesigns within the 5-year 

compliance period. If manufacturers 

require more than 5 years to redesign all 

their covered pool heater models, they 

will likely prioritize redesigns based on 

sales volume. There is risk that some 

pool heater models will become either 

temporarily or permanently unavailable 

after the compliance date. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 6 for consumer pool heaters, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22706 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

the benefits of energy savings, positive 

NPV of consumer benefits, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the climate and health benefits 

would be outweighed by the economic 

burden on many consumers, and the 

impacts on manufacturers, including the 

large conversion costs, profit margin 

impacts that could result in a large 

reduction in INPV, and the lack of 

manufacturers currently offering 

products meeting the efficiency levels 

required at this TSL, including most 

small businesses. A majority of gas-fired 

pool heater consumers (70.1 percent) 

would experience a net cost and the 

average LCC savings would be negative. 

The potential reduction in INPV could 

be as high as 28.2 percent. Additionally, 

only one pool heater manufacturer 

offers models that meet the efficiency 

level required at TSL 6 for electric pool 

heaters covered by this rulemaking and 

only one pool heater manufacturer 

offers models that meet the efficiency 

level required at TSL 6 for gas-fired pool 

heaters covered by this rulemaking. Due 

to limited amount of engineering 

resources each manufacturer has, it is 

unclear if most manufacturers will be 

able to redesign their entire product 

offerings of pool heaters covered by this 

rulemaking in the 5-year compliance 

period. Lastly, only one small business 

offers pool heater models that meet the 

efficiency levels required at TSL 6. No 

other small businesses offer any pool 

heater models that meet the efficiency 

levels required at TSL 6. Consequently, 

the Secretary has tentatively concluded 

that TSL 6 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 5, which 

represents efficiency level 4 for electric 

pool heaters and efficiency level 2 for 

gas-fired pool heaters. TSL 5 would save 

an estimated 0.49 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $0.95 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.39 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 19 Mt of CO2, 5.5 thousand 

tons of SO2, 90 thousand tons of NOX, 

0.03 tons of Hg, 161 thousand tons of 

CH4, and 0.15 thousand tons of N2O. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

climate benefits from reduced GHG 

emissions (associated with the average 

SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 

TSL 5 is $0.89 billion. The estimated 

monetary value of the health benefits 

from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 

TSL 5 is $0.13 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $0.32 billion using a 

3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total monetized NPV at TSL 5 is $1.98 

billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate 

for all benefits and costs, the estimated 

total monetized NPV at TSL 5 is $3.61 

billion. The estimated total NPV is 

provided for additional information, 

however DOE gives considerable weight 

to the NPV of consumer benefits and the 

percentage of consumers experiencing a 

net cost when determining whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $1,029 for electric pool 

heaters and $43 for gas-fired pool 

heaters. The simple payback period is 

0.7 years for electric pool heaters and 

1.5 years for gas-fired pool heaters. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing a net 

LCC cost is 20.9 percent for electric pool 

heaters and 31.9 percent for gas-fired 

pool heaters. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $27.7 

million to a decrease of $14.4 million, 

which correspond to decreases of 14.7 

percent and 7.7 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$38.8 million to comply with standards 

set at TSL 5. DOE estimates that 

approximately 45 percent of gas-fired 

pool heater shipments and ten percent 

of electric pool heater shipments would 

meet the efficiency levels analyzed at 

TSL 5. All gas-fired pool heater 

manufacturers and eight of the 18 

electric pool heater manufacturers offer 

products that meet or exceed the 

efficiency levels required at TSL 5. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

at a standard set at TSL 5 for consumer 

pool heaters would be economically 

justified. At this TSL, the average LCC 

savings for both electric and gas-fired 

pool heater consumers is positive. An 

estimated 20.9 percent of electric pool 

heater consumers and 31.9 percent of 

gas-fired pool heater consumers 

experience a net cost. The FFC national 

energy savings are significant and the 

NPV of consumer benefits is positive 

using both a 3-percent and 7-percent 

discount rate. Notably, the benefits to 

consumers vastly outweigh the cost to 

manufacturers. At TSL 5, the NPV of 

consumer benefits, even measured at the 

more conservative discount rate of 7 

percent is over 34 times higher than the 

maximum estimated manufacturers’ loss 

in INPV. The positive LCC savings—a 

different way of quantifying consumer 

benefits—reinforces this conclusion. 

The standard levels at TSL 5 are 

economically justified even without 

weighing the estimated monetary value 

of emissions reductions. When those 

monetized climate benefits from GHG 

emissions reductions and health 

benefits from SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions are included—representing 

$0.89 billion in climate benefits 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) and $0.32 

billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) 

or $0.13 billion (using a 7-percent 

discount rate) in health benefits—the 

rationale becomes stronger still. 

As stated, DOE conducts a ‘‘walkdown’’ analysis to determine the TSL 

that represents the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. The walk-down is not a 

comparative analysis, as a comparative 

analysis would result in the 

maximization of net benefits instead of 

energy savings that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 

70892, 70908. Although DOE has not 

conducted a comparative analysis to 

select the proposed energy conservation 

standards, DOE notes that as compared 

to TSL 6, TSL 5 has higher average LCC 

savings, smaller percentages of 

consumer experiencing a net cost, a 

lower maximum decrease in INPV, and 

lower manufacturer conversion costs. 

Accordingly, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 5 would 

offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Although results 

are presented here in terms of TSLs, 

DOE analyzes and evaluates all possible 

ELs for each product class in its 

analysis. For both gas-fired pool heaters 

and electric pool heaters, TSL 5 is 

comprised of the highest efficiency level 

below max-tech. For gas-fired pool 

heaters, the max-tech efficiency level 

results in negative average LCC savings 

and a large percentage of consumers that 

experience a net LCC cost, in addition 

to significant manufacturer impacts. For 

electric pool heaters the max-tech 

efficiency level can only be achieved by 

a single manufacturer, resulting in large 

expected conversion costs and 

significant reductions in INPV. The ELs 

one level below max-tech, representing 

the proposed standard levels, result in 

positive LCC savings for both classes, 

significantly reduce the number of 

consumers experiencing a net cost, and 

reduce the decrease in INPV and 

conversion costs to the point where 

DOE has tentatively concluded they are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22707 

economically justified, as discussed for 

TSL 5 in the preceding paragraphs. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE proposes to adopt 

the energy conservation standards for 

consumer pool heaters at TSL 5. The 

proposed amended energy conservation 

standards for pool heaters, which are 

expressed as TEI, are shown in Table 

V.25. 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2020$) of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the proposed standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in product purchase costs, and 

(2) the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of GHGs, SO2, and NOX

emission reductions. 

Table V.26 shows the annualized 

values for consumer pool heaters under 

TSL 5, expressed in 2020$. The results 

under the primary estimate are as 

follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards proposed in this 

rule is $49.0 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $164 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $54.5 million in climate benefits, 

and $15.6 million in monetized health 

benefits. In this case, the net monetized 

benefit would amount to $185 million 

per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $49.3 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$195 million in reduced operating costs, 

$54.5 million in climate benefits, and 

$19.6 million in monetized health 

benefits. In this case, the net monetized 

benefit would amount to $220 million 

per year. 

TABLE V.26—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

CONSUMER POOL HEATERS

[TSL 5] 

Million 2020$/year 

Primary 

estimate 

Low-netbenefits 

estimate 

High-netbenefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 194.9 179.0 212.8 

Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................................... 54.5 52.4 56.6 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 19.6 18.9 20.4 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................ 269 250 290 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................................... 49.3 51.4 49.4 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 220 199 240 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 164.2 152.7 177.7 

Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................................... 54.5 52.4 56.6 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 15.6 15.0 16.1 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................ 234 220 250 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................................... 49.0 50.7 49.2 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 185 169 201 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15AP22.006</GPH>
22708 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). Together these 

represent the global social cost of greenhouse gases (SC–GHG). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with 

the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it 

emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. See section. IV.L of this document for more details. 

* Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone 

precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central 

SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. On 

March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal 

of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or 

relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social 

Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible 

under law. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

(‘‘E.O.’’)12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning 

and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 

1993), requires each agency to identify 

the problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that the 

proposed standards set forth in this 

NOPR are intended to address are as 

follows: 

(1) Insufficient information and the 

high costs of gathering and analyzing 

relevant information leads some 

consumers to miss opportunities to 

make cost-effective investments in 

energy efficiency. 

(2) In some cases, the benefits of 

more-efficient equipment are not 

realized due to misaligned incentives 

between purchasers and users. An 

example of such a case is when the 

equipment purchase decision is made 

by a building contractor or building 

owner who does not pay the energy 

costs. 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of appliances and equipment 

that are not captured by the users of 

such products. These benefits include 

externalities related to public health, 

environmental protection, and national 

energy security that are not reflected in 

energy prices, such as reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases that impact human 

health and global warming. 

The Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the OMB has determined 

that the proposed regulatory action is a 

significant regulatory action under 

section (3)(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 

6(a)(3)(B) of the Order, DOE has 

provided to OIRA: 

(i) The text of the draft regulatory 

action, together with a reasonably 

detailed description of the need for the 

regulatory action and an explanation of 

how the regulatory action will meet that 

need; and 

(ii) An assessment of the potential 

costs and benefits of the regulatory 

action, including an explanation of the 

manner in which the regulatory action 

is consistent with a statutory mandate. 

DOE has included these documents in 

the rulemaking record. A summary of 

the potential costs and benefits of the 

regulatory action is presented in Table 

VI.1. 

TABLE VI.1—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS

Category 

Million 2020$/year 

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................................................................................... 194.9 164.2 

Climate Benefits * ..................................................................................................................................................... 54.5 54.5 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................................................................................... 19.6 15.6 

Total Benefits † ........................................................................................................................................................ 269 234 

Costs ‡ ..................................................................................................................................................................... 49.3 49.0 

Net Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................. 220 185 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer pool heaters shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). Together these 

represent the global social cost of greenhouse gases (SC–GHG). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with 

the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it 

emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone 

precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22709 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central 

SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. On 

March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal 

of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or 

relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social 

Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible 

under law. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

In addition, the Administrator of 

OIRA has determined that the proposed 

regulatory action is an ‘‘economically’’ 

significant regulatory action under 

section (3)(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 

6(a)(3)(C) of the Order, DOE has 

provided to OIRA an assessment, 

including the underlying analysis, of 

benefits and costs anticipated from the 

regulatory action, together with, to the 

extent feasible, a quantification of those 

costs; and an assessment, including the 

underlying analysis, of costs and 

benefits of potentially effective and 

reasonably feasible alternatives to the 

planned regulation, and an explanation 

why the planned regulatory action is 

preferable to the identified potential 

alternatives. These assessments are 

summarized in this preamble and 

further detail can be found in the 

technical support document for this 

rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this proposed 

regulation pursuant to E.O. 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011). E.O. 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in E.O. 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are required 

by E.O. 13563 to (1) propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 

13563 requires agencies to use the best 

available techniques to quantify 

anticipated present and future benefits 

and costs as accurately as possible. In its 

guidance, OIRA has emphasized that 

such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this NOPR is 

consistent with these principles, 

including the requirement that, to the 

extent permitted by law, benefits justify 

costs and that net benefits are 

maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed 

this proposed rule under the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. DOE has prepared 

the following IRFA for the products that 

are the subject of this rulemaking. 

For manufacturers of consumer pool 

heaters, the SBA has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry 

description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of 

consumer pool heaters is classified 

under NAICS 333414, ‘‘heating 

equipment (except warm air furnaces) 

manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 500 employees or fewer for 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

DOE has undertaken this rulemaking 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(4)(B), 

which requires DOE to conduct a 

second round of amended standards 

rulemaking for consumer pool heaters. 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (EPCA), also requires 

that not later than six years after 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of the determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking including new proposed 

energy conservation standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) This rulemaking is in 

accordance with DOE’s obligations 

under EPCA. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

As discussed previously in section II, 

Title III, Part B of EPCA, sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency and 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles, a program covering 

most major household appliances and 

certain industrial and commercial 

equipment. The National Appliance 

Energy Conservation Act of 1987 

(NAECA), Public Law 100–12, amended 

EPCA to establish energy conservation 

standards for residential pool heaters 

and set requirements to conduct two 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22710 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

cycles of rulemaking to determine 

whether these standards should be 

amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(2) and (4)) 

The first of these two rulemakings, 

which amended standards for gas-fired 

pool heaters, concluded with the 

promulgation of a final rule on April 16, 

2010. 75 FR 20112. (Codified at 10 CFR 

430.32(k)). This rulemaking satisfies the 

statutory requirements under EPCA to 

conduct a second round of review of the 

pool heaters standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(e)(4)(B)) This proposed rulemaking 

is also in accordance the six-year review 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1). 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

For manufacturers of consumer pool 

heaters, the SBA has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

this proposed rule. See 13 CFR part 121. 

The size standards are listed by NAICS 

code and industry description and are 

available at www.sba.gov/document/ 

support--table-size-standards. 

Manufacturing of consumer pool 

heaters is classified under NAICS code 

333414, ‘‘heating equipment (except 

warm air furnaces) manufacturing.’’ The 

SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees 

or fewer for an entity to be considered 

as a small business for this category. 

DOE reviewed the potential standard 

levels considered in this NOPR under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. During its market survey, DOE 

used publicly available information to 

identify potential small manufacturers. 

DOE’s research involved industry trade 

association membership directories 

(e.g., AHRI), information from previous 

rulemakings, individual company 

websites, and market research tools 

(e.g., D&B Hoover’s reports) to create a 

list of companies that manufacture 

consumer pool heaters. DOE also asked 

stakeholders and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any additional small manufacturers 

during manufacturer interviews. DOE 

reviewed publicly available data and 

contacted various companies on its 

complete list of manufacturers to 

determine whether they met the SBA’s 

definition of a small business 

manufacturer. DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer products 

impacted by this rulemaking, do not 

meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned and 

operated. 

DOE identified 21 companies 

manufacturing consumer pool heaters 

covered by this rulemaking. Of these 

manufacturers, DOE identified six as 

domestic small businesses. All six 

domestic small businesses only 

manufacture electric pool heaters. DOE 

did not identify any domestic small 

businesses that manufacture gas-fired 

pool heaters. 

DOE was able to reach and discuss 

potential standards with two of the six 

small businesses. Additionally, DOE 

requested information about small 

businesses and potential impacts on 

small businesses while interviewing 

large manufacturers. 

Gas-fired pool heaters account for 

most of the consumer pool heater 

market, with approximately 70 percent 

of all consumer pool heater units 

shipped annually. Within the electric 

pool heater market, over 90 percent of 

shipments are heat pump pool heaters 

and only a small fraction of the 

shipments are electric resistance pool 

heaters. (See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD 

for more information on the shipments 

analysis conducted for this rulemaking.) 

Although the electric pool heater market 

is smaller than the gas-fired pool heater 

market, it is also more fragmented. 

Whereas DOE identified five 

manufacturers of gas-fired pool heaters, 

DOE identified 20 manufacturers of 

electric pool heaters (four of the 

companies make both gas-fired and 

electric pool heaters). 

Four major players dominate the 

market for electric pool heaters, three 

are large manufacturers and one is a 

small business. The rest of the market is 

served by a combination of large and 

small businesses with market shares 

estimated to be in the single digits. Of 

the six small businesses identified, five 

only manufacture electric heat pump 

pool heaters and one only manufactures 

electric resistance pool heaters. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements Including 

Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different 

Groups of Small Entities 

As stated previously, DOE identified 

six small manufacturers of electric pool 

heaters and no small manufacturers of 

gas-fired pool heaters. Accordingly, this 

analysis of small business impacts 

focuses exclusively on the electric pool 

heater industry. Within the electric pool 

heater industry, this analysis focuses 

only on products impacted by this 

rulemaking (i.e., electric heat pump 

pool heaters and electric resistance pool 

heaters with capacities greater than 11 

kW, as discussed in section III.A of this 

document). 

This NOPR proposes minimum 

energy conservation standards for 

electric pool heaters at efficiency levels 

above those achieved by electric 

resistance pool heaters. Given that the 

designs of electric heat pump pool 

heaters and electric resistance pool 

heaters use different types of 

technology, DOE assumes 

manufacturers of electric resistance pool 

heaters with capacities greater than 11 

kW would discontinue those product 

lines rather than redesign them as 

electric heat pump pool heaters. As a 

result, expected impacts on 

manufacturers vary based on the type of 

electric pool heaters they manufacture. 

As described in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document, there are two types of 

conversion costs that small businesses 

could incur due to the proposed 

standards for electric pool heaters: 

Product conversion costs and capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are investments in R&D, testing, 

marketing, and other non-capitalized 

costs necessary to make product designs 

comply with new and amended energy 

conservation standards. Capital 

conversion costs are investments in 

property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

compliant product designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

Manufacturers would only need to make 

these investments if they have products 

that do not meet the adopted energy 

conservation standards. Testing costs 

are costs manufacturers must make to 

test their electric pool heaters in 

accordance with DOE’s test procedure to 

demonstrate compliance with adopted 

energy conservation standards. 

Manufacturers must do this for all 

compliant electric pool heaters that are 

in the scope of this rulemaking. 

DOE estimates there are three small 

businesses that do not have any electric 

heat pump pool heater models that 

would meet the proposed standards. 

DOE applied the conversion cost 

methodology described in section 

IV.J.2.c of this document to calculate 

small business product and capital 

conversion costs. To calculate product 

conversion costs DOE estimated it 

would take six months of engineering 

time to redesign a single electric heat 

pump pool heater model to meet the 

proposed standards. DOE estimates that 

there are approximately 101 electric 

heat pump pool heaters manufactured 

by small businesses that may need to be 

redesigned to comply with the proposed 

energy conservation standards for 

electric pool heaters, if adopted. To 

calculate capital conversion costs DOE 

estimates that most small businesses 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22711 

would need to make minor investments 

in tooling to accommodate electric heat 

pump pool heater models with a larger 

evaporator. Small business conversion 

costs are presented in Table VI.2. of this 

document. 

The five small businesses that 

manufacture electric heat pump pool 

heaters would incur testing costs to 

demonstrate compliance of electric pool 

heaters with adopted energy 

conservation standards in accordance 

with DOE’s test procedure. Electric pool 

heaters are currently not subject to DOE 

energy conservation standards. This 

NOPR proposes to establish new energy 

conservation standards for electric pool 

heaters. Manufacturers, including small 

businesses, would have to test all 

electric pool heaters that are subject to 

this rulemaking after the compliance 

date. DOE estimates that small 

businesses manufacture approximately 

131 electric heat pump pool models that 

would be included in the scope of this 

rulemaking. All 118 electric heat pump 

pool heater models would need to be 

tested after the compliance date. DOE 

estimates a per model testing cost for 

these electric heat pump pool heater 

models. Small business conversion and 

testing costs are presented in Table VI.2. 

TABLE VI.2—SMALL BUSINESS COSTS

Small 

business 

costs 

(2020$) 

Average cost 

per small 

business 

(2020$) 

Product Conversion Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 6.34 million ... 1.27 million 

Capital Conversion Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 0.23 million ... 0.05 million 

Testing Costs for Compliance .................................................................................................................................... 0.66 million ... 0.13 million 

Total Small Business Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 7.23 million ... 1.45 million 

DOE estimates the average small 

business would incur approximately 

$1.45 million per small business. DOE 

assumes that all consumer pool heater 

manufacturers would spread these costs 

over the five-year compliance 

timeframe, as standards are expected to 

require compliance approximately five 

years after the publication of a Final 

Rule. Therefore, DOE assumes that the 

average consumer pool heater small 

business would incur on average 

$290,000 annually in the five years 

leading up to the compliance date for 

consumer pool heaters. Using publicly 

available data, DOE estimated the 

average annual revenue of the five small 

businesses that manufacturer electric 

heat pump pool heaters to be $4.89 

million. Table VI.3 compares these 

average small business costs to average 

annual revenue of small businesses. 

Additionally, these manufacturers 

could choose to discontinue their least 

efficient models and ramp up 

production of existing, compliant 

models rather than redesign each of 

their noncompliant models. Therefore, 

actual conversion costs could be lower 

than estimates developed under the 

conservative assumption that 

manufacturers would redesign all 

noncompliant models. 

TABLE VI.3—AVERAGE SMALL BUSINESS COSTS COMPARED TO ANNUAL REVENUE

Units 

Estimated compliance 

costs 

(2020$) 

Annual revenue 

(2020$) 

Compliance 

costs as a 

percent of 

annual 

revenue 

(%) 

5 Years of revenue 

(2020$) 

Compliance 

costs as a 

percent of 5 

years of 

revenue 

(%) 

Average Small Business .. 1.45 million ..................... 4.89 million ..................... 29.5 24.47 million ................... 5.9 

Lastly, for the one small business that 

manufactures only electric resistance 

pool heaters, based on public company 

literature, this small business 

manufactures 72 electric resistance pool 

heaters with capacities greater than 11 

kW. This small business also 

manufactures electric resistance pool 

heaters with capacities less than or 

equal to 11 kW and a small selection of 

other heating products that would still 

be allowed to be sold, even if this 

proposal is adopted in a final rule. If the 

proposed standards were adopted, this 

manufacturer’s business and 

competitive position in the electric pool 

heater market (for electric resistance 

pool heaters with capacities greater than 

11 kW) would be negatively impacted, 

since the proposed standards result in a 

minimum efficiency level that is not 

feasible for electric resistance pool 

heaters to achieve. This small business 

does not offer any compliant consumer 

pool heater products that could serve as 

a replacement product for the noncompliant electric resistance pool 

heaters. However, this small business 

would still be able to sell electric 

resistance pool heaters with capacities 

less than or equal to 11 kW and would 

still be able to export electric resistance 

pool heaters with capacities greater than 

11 kW to other countries, including into 

Canada. 

DOE requests comment on its findings 

that there are six domestic small 

businesses that manufacture consumer 

pool heaters and its estimate of the 

potential impacts on these small 

businesses. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule being 

considered today. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion in the previous 

section analyzes impacts on small 

businesses that would result from DOE’s 

proposed rule, represented by TSL 5. In 

reviewing alternatives to the proposed 

rule, DOE examined energy 

conservation standards set at lower 

efficiency levels. While TSL 1, TSL 2, 

and TSL 3 would reduce the impacts on 

small business manufacturers, it would 

come at the expense of a reduction in 

energy savings and, for some TSLs, a 

reduction in NPV benefits to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22712 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

150TSL 4 would have an identical impact on 

electric pool heater manufacturers as TSL 5 since 

the standards for electric pool heaters are identical 

at TSL 4 and TSL 5. Both TSL 4 and TSL 5 require 

the same EL for electric pool heaters, EL 4. All small 

businesses only manufacture electric pool heaters. 

No small businesses manufacture gas-fired pool 

heaters. Therefore, the impacts on small businesses 

are identical at TSL 4 and TSL 5. 

consumers.150 TSL 1 achieves 47 

percent lower energy savings and 24 

percent less NPV benefits discounted at 

7 percent to consumers compared to the 

energy savings and NPV benefits at TSL 

5. TSL 2 achieves 37 percent lower 

energy savings and 11 percent less NPV 

benefits discounted at 7 percent to 

consumers compared to the energy 

savings and NPV benefits at TSL 5. TSL 

3 achieves 20 percent lower energy 

savings compared to the energy savings 

at TSL 5. 

DOE tentatively concludes that 

establishing standards at TSL 5 balances 

the benefits of the energy savings with 

the potential burdens placed on 

consumer pool heater manufacturers, 

including small business manufacturers. 

Accordingly, DOE does not propose one 

of the other TSLs considered in the 

analysis, or the other policy alternatives 

examined as part of the regulatory 

impact analysis and included in chapter 

17 of the NOPR TSD. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed $8 

million may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)). 

Additionally, manufacturers subject to 

DOE’s energy efficiency standards may 

apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals for exception relief under 

certain circumstances. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional 

details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of consumer pool 

heaters currently subject to energy 

conservation standards must certify to 

DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

consumer pool heaters, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

consumer pool heaters. 76 FR 12422 

(Mar. 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 

2015). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This 

requirement has been approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 35 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

DOE is proposing to amend energy 

conservation standards for gas-fired 

consumer pool heaters and proposing to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for electric consumer pool heaters. DOE 

is not proposing to amend the existing 

reporting requirements or establish new 

DOE reporting requirements. Were DOE 

to establish amended and new energy 

conservation standards as proposed in 

this NOPR, DOE would consider 

associated reporting and certification 

requirements in a future rulemaking. 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that amended energy 

conservation standards for gas-fired 

consumer pool heaters and new energy 

conservation standards for electric 

consumer pool heaters would not 

impose additional costs for 

manufacturers related to reporting and 

certification. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed 

regulation in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for rulemakings 

that establish energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE 

anticipates that this rulemaking 

qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 

because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, none of the 

exceptions identified in categorical 

exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

require further environmental analysis, 

and it otherwise meets the requirements 

for application of a categorical 

exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 

will complete its NEPA review before 

issuing the final rule. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has tentatively determined that 

it would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that executive 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22713 

151The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: https://energy.gov/eere/

buildings/downloads/energy-conservationstandards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0. 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met, or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For a proposed regulatory action likely 

to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal intergovernmental mandate, 

nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year by the private sector. As 

a result, the analytical requirements of 

UMRA do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

rule, if finalized, would not result in 

any takings that might require 

compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated

%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec

%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this 

NOPR under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy 

Effects for any proposed significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that (1) is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

this regulatory action, which proposes 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards for consumer pool heaters, is 

not a significant energy action because 

the proposed standards are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on this proposed rule. 

L. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a report describing that peer review.151

Generation of this report involved a 

rigorous, formal, and documented 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22714 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

evaluation using objective criteria and 

qualified and independent reviewers to 

make a judgment as to the technical/ 

scientific/business merit, the actual or 

anticipated results, and the productivity 

and management effectiveness of 

programs and/or projects. DOE has 

determined that the peer-reviewed 

analytical process continues to reflect 

current practice, and the Department 

followed that process for developing 

energy conservation standards in the 

case of the present proposed 

rulemaking. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

maintain the following material 

previously approved for incorporation 

by reference in appendix P: The test 

standard published by American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., titled 

‘‘Method of Testing and Rating Pool 

Heaters’’, approved February 2, 2011, 

ASHRAE 146; and the test standard 

published by American National 

Standards Institute, titled ‘‘Standard for 

Gas-Fired Pool Heaters’’, approved 

December 13. 2005. ANSI Z21.56. 

ASHRAE 146 is an industry standard 

for testing and rating pool heaters. 

Appendix P references ASHRAE 146 to 

establish the active mode equilibrium 

condition for fossil fuel-fired pool 

heaters and the active mode test 

method, measurements, and 

calculations for electric resistance and 

electric heat pump pool heaters. The 

proposed amendments to appendix P 

include additional references to 

ASHRAE 146 to clarify the calculations 

of average annual electrical energy 

consumption and for electric pool 

heaters, output capacity. Copies of 

ASHRAE 146 can be obtained from 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc., Publication Sales, 1791 

Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, 

800–527–4723 or 404–636–8400, or go 

to www.ashrae.org. 

ANSI Z21.56 is an industry standard 

for testing gas-fired pool heaters. 

Appendix P references ANSI Z21.56 to 

establish the active mode test method, 

test conditions, measurements, and 

calculations for fossil fuel-fired pool 

heaters. The proposed amendments to 

appendix P include additional 

references to ANSI Z21.56 to clarify the 

calculations of input capacity and active 

electrical power for fossil fuel-fired pool 

heaters. Copies of ANSI Z21.56 can be 

obtained from, American National 

Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 

4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, 212– 

642–4900, or go to www.ansi.org. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar 

meeting are listed in the DATES section 

at the beginning of this document. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s website: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/standards.aspx?

productid=44&action=viewcurrent. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this NOPR, or who 

is representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit 

requests to speak by email to: Appliance

StandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. 

Persons who wish to speak should 

include with their request a computer 

file in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, 

PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that 

briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this proposed rulemaking 

and provide a telephone number for 

contact. DOE requests persons selected 

to make an oral presentation to submit 

an advance copy of their statements at 

least two weeks before the webinar. At 

its discretion, DOE may permit persons 

who cannot supply an advance copy of 

their statement to participate, if those 

persons have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Office. As necessary, 

requests to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar and may also use 

a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

webinar. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar and 

until the end of the comment period, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings and any 

aspect of the rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present summaries of comments 

received before the webinar, allow time 

for prepared general statements by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this proposed 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this proposed 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this NOPR. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22715 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No 

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to add to its enforcement 

provisions to use a ±2 percent threshold 

on the certified value of input capacity 

or active electrical power (as applicable) 

when determining the applicable energy 

conservation standard for the basic 

model. 

(2) DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that electric pool heaters 

that have both heating and cooling 

capabilities do not suffer diminished 

efficiency performance in heating mode. 

(3) DOE requests comment on the 

product classes analyzed for this 

rulemaking. 

(4) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for electric pool 

heater, electric spa heater, gas-fired pool 

heater, oil-fired pool heater, and 

portable electric spa. 

(5) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition for output capacity, 

as well as its proposed calculations for 

determining the output capacity of 

electric pool heaters. 

(6) DOE requests comment on the 

efficiency improvement expected from 

replacing a PSC fan motor with a BPM 

fan motor in heat pump pool heater. 

(7) DOE seeks comment from 

interested parties regarding the 

efficiency levels selected for the NOPR 

analysis. 

(8) DOE seeks comment from 

interested parties regarding the typical 

technological changes associated with 

each efficiency level. 

(9) DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that the fraction of 

shipments which utilize cupronickel 

heat exchangers would not change as a 

result of amended standards. 

(10) DOE requests comment on 

whether the distribution channels 

described above are appropriate for 

consumer pool heaters and are sufficient 

to describe the distribution markets. In 

addition, DOE seeks input on the 

percentage of products being distributed 

through the different distribution 

channels, and whether the share of 

products through each channel varies 

based on product class, capacity, or 

other features. 

(11) DOE requests comment on the 

data sources used to establish the 

markups for the parties involved with 

the distribution of covered products. 

(12) DOE requests comment on the 

data sources and methodology used to 

establish pool heater consumer samples. 

(13) DOE requests comment on the 

overall methodology for determining 

consumer pool heater energy use. 

(14) DOE requests comment on the 

data sources and methodology for 

determining consumer pool heater 

hours of operation as well as swimming 

pool and spa hours of operation. 

(15) DOE requests comment on the 

methodology used for determining heat 

pump pool heater energy use. 

(16) DOE requests comment on the 

methodology used for determining 

standby and off mode energy use. 

(17) DOE requests comments on its 

assumption that gas-fired pool heaters 

installed in California, Utah, or Texas 

would have a low-NOX burner and the 

fraction of installations outside these 

three regions that would have a lowNOX burner. 

(18) DOE requests comments on its 

assumption and methodology for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22716 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

determining equipment price trends. 

DOE also requests data that would allow 

for use of different price trend 

projections for electric resistance and 

heat pump pool heaters. 

(19) DOE seeks comment regarding 

the fraction of electric pool heater 

installations that are located in a spaceconstrained area that could increase the 

cost of installing a heat pump pool 

heater. 

(20) DOE requests comments on its 

assumption, methodology, and sources 

for determining installation costs for 

consumer pool heaters. 

(21) DOE requests comments on its 

approach for determining the rebound 

effect. 

(22) DOE requests comments on its 

approach for developing gas, LPG, and 

electricity prices. 

(23) DOE requests comments on its 

approach for calculating maintenance 

and repair costs. 

(24) DOE welcomes additional 

comments and data regarding lifetime 

estimates, particularly in relation to 

differences between electric resistance 

pool heaters, heat pump pool heaters, 

and gas-fired pool heaters. 

(25) DOE welcomes additional 

comments and data regarding estimates 

for energy efficiency distribution for 

2020 and future distribution in 2028. 

(26) DOE requests comment on DOE’s 

methodology and data sources used for 

projecting the future shipments of 

consumer pool heaters in the absence of 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

(27) To estimate the impact on 

shipments of the price increase for the 

considered efficiency levels, DOE used 

a relative price elasticity approach. DOE 

welcomes stakeholder input on the 

effect of amended standards on future 

consumer pool heater shipments. 

(28) DOE seeks additional information 

on industry capital and product 

conversion costs of compliance 

associated with the analyzed energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

pool heaters evaluated in this NOPR. 

(29) DOE requests comment on the 

estimated stranded assets for both 

electric resistance pool heaters and gasfired pool heaters. 

(30) DOE welcomes any additional 

comments on the approach for 

conducting the emissions analysis for 

pool heaters. 

(31) DOE requests information 

regarding the impact of cumulative 

regulatory burden on manufacturers of 

consumer pool heaters associated with 

multiple DOE standards or productspecific regulatory actions of other 

Federal agencies. 

(32) DOE requests comment on its 

findings that there are six domestic 

small businesses that manufacture 

consumer pool heaters and its estimate 

of the potential impacts on these small 

businesses. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this rulemaking that may 

not specifically be identified in this 

document. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on March 28, 2022, 

by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on March 31, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend 10 

CFR parts 429 and 430 as set forth 

below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 429.134 is amended by 

adding paragraph (s) to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(s) Pool heaters. Beginning on [DATE 

5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE]: 

(1) Verification of input capacity for 

gas-fired pool heaters. The input 

capacity of each tested unit will be 

measured pursuant to the test 

requirements of § 430.23(p). The results 

of the measurement(s) will be compared 

to the represented value of input 

capacity certified by the manufacturer 

for the basic model. The certified input 

capacity will be considered valid only if 

the measurement(s) (either the 

measured input capacity for a single 

unit sample or the average of the 

measured input capacity for a multiple 

unit sample) is within two percent of 

the certified input capacity. 

(i) If the representative value of input 

capacity is found to be valid, the 

certified input capacity will serve as the 

basis for determination of the applicable 

standard and the mean measured input 

capacity will be used as the basis for 

calculation of the integrated thermal 

efficiency standard for the basic model. 

(ii) If the representative value of input 

capacity is not within two percent of the 

certified input capacity, DOE will first 

attempt to increase or decrease the gas 

pressure within the range specified in 

manufacturer’s installation and 

operation manual shipped with the gasfired pool heater being tested to achieve 

the certified input capacity (within two 

percent). If the input capacity is still not 

within two percent of the certified input 

capacity, DOE will attempt to modify 

the gas inlet orifice. If the input capacity 

still is not within two percent of the 

certified input capacity, the mean 

measured input capacity (either for a 

single unit sample or the average for a 

multiple unit sample) determined from 

the tested units will serve as the basis 

for calculation of the integrated thermal 

efficiency standard for the basic model. 

(2) Verification of active electrical 

power for pool heaters. The active 

electrical power of each tested unit will 

be measured pursuant to the test 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 22717 

requirements of § 430.23. The results of 

the measurement(s) will be compared to 

the represented value of active electrical 

power city certified by the manufacturer 

for the basic model. The certified active 

electrical power will be considered 

valid only if the measurement(s) (either 

the measured active electrical power for 

a single unit sample or the average of 

the measured active electrical power for 

a multiple unit sample) is within two 

percent of the certified active electrical 

power. 

(i) If the representative value of active 

electrical power is found to be valid, the 

certified active electrical power will 

serve as the basis for determination of 

the applicable standard and the mean 

measured active electrical power will be 

used as the basis for calculation of the 

integrated thermal efficiency standard 

for the basic model. 

(ii) If the representative value of input 

capacity is not within two percent of the 

certified input capacity, the mean 

measured active electrical power (either 

for a single unit sample or the average 

for a multiple unit sample) determined 

from the tested units will serve as the 

basis for calculation of the integrated 

thermal efficiency standard for the basic 

model. 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 4. Section 430.2 is amended by adding 

in alphabetical order definitions for 

‘‘Electric pool heater’’, ‘‘Electric spa 

heater’’, ‘‘Gas-fired pool heater’’, ‘‘Oilfired pool heater’’, and ‘‘Portable 

electric spa’’ to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Electric pool heater means a pool 

heater other than an electric spa heater 

that uses electricity as its primary 

energy source. 

Electric spa heater means a pool 

heater that— 

(1) Uses electricity as its primary 

energy source; 

(2) Has an output capacity (as 

measured according to appendix P to 

subpart B of part 430) of 11 kW or less; 

and 

(3) Is designed to be installed within 

a portable electric spa. 

* * * * * 

Gas-fired pool heater means a pool 

heater that uses gas as its primary 

energy source. 

* * * * * 

Oil-fired pool heater means a pool 

heater that uses oil as its primary energy 

source. 

* * * * * 

Portable electric spa means a selfcontained, factory-built spa or hot tub in 

which all control, water heating and 

water circulating equipment is an 

integral part of the product. Selfcontained spas may be permanently 

wired or cord connected. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Appendix P of subpart B of part 430 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory note. 

■ b. Revising sections 1., 5.2, and 5.3; 

and 

■ c. Adding sections 5.5, 5.5.1, and 

5.5.2; 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix P to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Pool Heaters 

Note: On and after [Date 180 days after 

publication of final rule], any representations 

made with respect to the energy use or 

efficiency of all pool heaters must be made 

in accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to this appendix. Until [Date 180 

Days After Publication of Final Rule], 

manufacturers must test gas-fired pool 

heaters in accordance with this appendix, or 

appendix P as it appeared at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B revised as of January 1, 2021. Prior 

to [Date 180 days after publication of final 

rule], if a manufacturer makes 

representations of standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption, then testing must 

also include the provisions of this appendix, 

or appendix P as it appeared at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B revised as of January 1, 2021, 

related to standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption. 

1. Definitions 

Active electrical power means the 

maximum electrical power consumption 

in active mode for an electric pool 

heater. 

Active mode means the condition 

during the pool heating season in which 

the pool heater is connected to the 

power source, and the main burner, 

electric resistance element, or heat 

pump is activated to heat pool water. 

Coefficient of performance (COP), as 

applied to heat pump pool heaters, 

means the ratio of heat output in kW to 

the total power input in kW. 

Electric heat pump pool heater means 

an appliance designed for heating 

nonpotable water and employing a 

compressor, water-cooled condenser, 

and outdoor air coil. 

Electric resistance pool heater means 

an appliance designed for heating 

nonpotable water and employing 

electric resistance heating elements. 

Fossil fuel-fired pool heater means an 

appliance designed for heating 

nonpotable water and employing gas or 

oil burners. 

Hybrid pool heater means an 

appliance designed for heating 

nonpotable water and employing both a 

heat pump (compressor, water-cooled 

condenser, and outdoor air coil) and a 

fossil fueled burner as heating sources. 

Input capacity means the maximum 

fuel input rate for a fossil fuel-fired pool 

heater. 

Off mode means the condition during 

the pool non-heating season in which 

the pool heater is connected to the 

power source, and neither the main 

burner, nor the electric resistance 

elements, nor the heat pump is 

activated, and the seasonal off switch, if 

present, is in the ‘‘off’’ position. 

Output capacity for an electric pool or 

spa heater means the maximum rate at 

which energy is transferred to the water. 

Seasonal off switch means a switch 

that results in different energy 

consumption in off mode as compared 

to standby mode. 

Standby mode means the condition 

during the pool heating season in which 

the pool heater is connected to the 

power source, and neither the main 

burner, nor the electric resistance 

elements, nor the heat pump is 

activated. 

* * * * * 

5.2 Average annual fossil fuel energy 

for pool heaters. For electric resistance 

and electric heat pump pool heaters, the 

average annual fuel energy for pool 

heaters, EF = 0. 

For fossil fuel-fired pool heaters, the 

average annual fuel energy for pool 

heaters, EF, is defined as: 

EF = BOH QIN + (POH¥BOH) QPR + 

(8760¥POH) Qoff,R

where: 

BOH = average number of burner operating 

hours = 104 h, 

POH = average number of pool operating 

hours = 4,464 h, 

QIN = input capacity, in Btu/h, calculated as 

the quantity CF × Q × H in the equation 

for thermal efficiency in Section 2.10.1 

of ANSI Z21.56 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) and divided by 0.5 

h (For electric resistance and electric 

heat pump pool heaters, QIN = 0.), 

QPR = average energy consumption rate of 

continuously operating pilot light, if 

employed, = (QP/1 h), 

QP = energy consumption of continuously 

operating pilot light, if employed, as 

measured in section 4.2 of this appendix, 

in Btu, 

8760 = number of hours in one year, 

Qoff,R = average off mode fossil fuel energy 

consumption rate = Qoff/(1 h), and 

Qoff = off mode energy consumption as 

defined in section 4.3 of this appendix. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
22718 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5.3 Average annual electrical energy 

consumption for pool heaters. The 

average annual electrical energy 

consumption for pool heaters, EAE, is 

expressed in Btu and defined as: 

(1) EAE = EAE,active + EAE,standby,off

(2) EAE,active = BOH * PE 

(3) EAE,standby,off = (POH¥BOH) 

PW,SB(Btu/h) + (8760¥POH) 

PW,OFF(Btu/h) 

where: 

EAE,active = electrical consumption in the 

active mode, 

EAE,standby,off = auxiliary electrical 

consumption in the standby mode and 

off mode, 

PE = active electrical power, calculated as: 

= 2Ec, for fossil fuel-fired heaters tested 

according to SSection 2.10.1 of ANSI 

Z21.56 and for electric resistance pool 

heaters, in Btu/h, 

= 3.412 PEaux,rated, for fossil fuel-fired heaters 

tested according to Section 2.10.2 of 

ANSI Z21.56, in Btu/h, 

= Ec,HP * (60/tHP), for electric heat pump pool 

heaters, in Btu/h. 

Ec = electrical consumption in Btu per 30 

min. This includes the electrical 

consumption (converted to Btus) of the 

pool heater and, if present, a 

recirculating pump during the 30-minute 

thermal efficiency test. The 30-minute 

thermal efficiency test is defined in 

section 2.10.1 of ANSI Z21.56 for fossil 

fuel-fired pool heaters and Section 9.1.4 

of ASHRAE 146 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) for electric 

resistance pool heaters. 

2 = conversion factor to convert unit from per 

30 min. to per h. 

PEaux,rated = nameplate rating of auxiliary 

electrical equipment of heater, in Watts 

Ec,HP = electrical consumption of the 

electric heat pump pool heater 

(converted to equivalent unit of Btu), 

including the electrical energy to the 

recirculating pump if used, during the 

thermal efficiency test, as defined in 

Section 9.1 of ASHRAE 146, in Btu. tHP

= elapsed time of data recording during 

the thermal efficiency test on electric 

heat pump pool heater, as defined in 

Section 9.1 of ASHRAE 146, in minutes. 

BOH = as defined in section 5.2 of this 

appendix, 

POH = as defined in section 5.2 of this 

appendix, 

PW,SB(Btu/h) = electrical energy consumption 

rate during standby mode expressed in 

Btu/h = 3.412 PW,SB, Btu/h, 

PW,SB = as defined in section 4.2 of this 

appendix, 

PW,OFF(Btu/h) = electrical energy 

consumption rate during off mode 

expressed in Btu/h = 3.412 PW,OFF, Btu/ 

h, and 

PW,OFF = as defined in section 4.3 of this 

appendix. 

* * * * * 

5.5 Output capacity for electric pool 

heaters. 

5.5.1 Calculate the output capacity of 

an electric heat pump pool heater as: 

QOUT,HP = k * W * (Tohp¥Tihp) * (60/tHP) 

where k is the specific heat of water, W is 

the mass of water collected during the 

test, Tohp is the average outlet water 

temperature during the standard rating 

test, Tihp is the average inlet water 

temperature during the standard rating 

test, all as defined in Section 11.2 of 

ASHRAE 146, and tHP is the elapsed time 

in minutes of data recording during the 

thermal efficiency test on electric heat 

pump pool heater, as defined in Section 

9.1 of ASHRAE 146. 

5.5.2 Calculate the output capacity of 

an electric resistance pool heater as: 

QOUT,ER = k * W * (Tmo¥Tmi) * (60/30) 

where k is the specific heat of water, W is 

the mass of water collected during the 

test, Tmo is the average outlet water 

temperature recorded during the primary 

test, and Tmi is the average inlet water 

temperature record during the primary 

test, all as defined in Section 11.1 of 

ASHRAE 146, and 60/30 is the 

conversion factor to convert unit from 

per 30 minutes to per hour. 

■ 6. Section 430.32 is amended by 

revising paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(k) Pool heaters. (1) Gas-fired pool 

heaters manufactured on and after April 

16, 2013 and before [DATE 5 YEARS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE], shall have a thermal efficiency 

not less than 82%. 

(2) Gas-fired pool heaters and electric 

pool heaters manufactured on and after 

[DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE], shall have an 

integrated thermal efficiency not less 

than the following: 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–07145 Filed 4–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15AP22.007</GPH>