Are boilers next?

Tim McElwain

Appliance Standards Introduced in Senate

<a href="http://www.achrnews.com/NEWS/Home/Images/ApplianceStandards-map-BIG.gif"><img src="http://www.achrnews.com/NEWS/Home/Images/ApplianceStandards-map-SMALL.gif" width="140" height="99" alt="" /></a>by Kimberly Schwartz



Posted: April 4, 2011



Regional Standards for Furnaces, Heat Pumps, Central A/C



On Feb. 17, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., introduced a bill in the Senate to update the efficiency standards for a host of appliances and building systems, including furnaces, heat pumps, and central air conditioners. Titled the “Implementation of National Consensus Appliance Agreements Act of 2011,” or INCAAA, the bill (S. 398) divides the nation into three regions with different efficiency standards for each. It also recommends more stringent building codes for new construction.



INCAAA is cosponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Bingaman is the chairman and Murkowski is the ranking member of the Senate’s Energy & Natural Resources Committee, which the bill was referred to after its introduction.



The INCAAA bill is based on the consensus standards agreement signed in October 2009 by major industry associations, including the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) and more than a dozen individual furnace and air conditioner manufacturers. According to David Calabrese, senior vice president of policy at AHRI, the consensus standards were developed in response to the Obama administration’s push for higher standards. “When the Obama administration came in, they made it very clear that they intended to increase the standards,” he said. As a result, AHRI chose to engage with leading environmental groups to craft the new standards. “We decided that it was important to work cooperatively with environmental groups and to fashion them,” Calabrese explained.



PROPOSED REGIONAL STANDARDS



According to Calabrese, “The bill includes new standards for central air conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces in three regions of the country; essentially, there are different standards for each region, taking into account the climatic conditions in each.”



The INCAAA bill divides the United States into three regions: North, South, and Southwest. Specifically, the North region comprises states with population-weighted heating degree days (HDD) equal to or greater than 5,000; the South comprises states with population-weighted HDD less than 5,000; and the Southwest comprises Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico.



According to an AHRI fact sheet, in the North region, most furnaces will be required to have an AFUE of 90 percent or more, an increase from the current national standard of 78 percent. In the South, central air conditioners will be required to have a SEER of 14, up from the present national requirement of 13 SEER. Heat pump and oil furnace standards will rise on a nationwide basis.



AHRI also noted that the standards apply to residential single-phase air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btuh of cooling capacity (except through-the-wall and small duct, high velocity products), and single-phase weatherized and non-weatherized forced-air furnaces (including mobile home furnaces) below 225,000 Btuh heat input.



For split air conditioners, minimum EER values are specified for the Southwest region.



If the bill is passed, the new standards for nonweatherized furnaces would become effective in 2013, with the new standards for air conditioners, heat pumps, and weatherized furnaces following suit in 2015.



BUILDING CODE REVISIONS



<a href="http://www.achrnews.com/NEWS/Home/Images/Table1-pg16-BIG.jpg"><img src="http://www.achrnews.com/NEWS/Home/Images/Table1-pg16-SMALL.jpg" width="140" height="96" alt="" /></a>Table 1. Minimum Federal Standards (Retrofits) Not only does the INCAAA bill provide new standards for appliances, it also gives the Department of Energy (DOE) the ability to authorize new building codes at the state level. According to Calabrese, “It provides DOE the authority to establish levels that states could adopt in their building codes. Right now [the states are] prohibited from establishing anything in their codes that would be different from the federal minimum standards. This would allow them to go beyond the federal minimum standards to levels that are identified in the legislation.”



These levels would be applicable for new construction and major renovations in each of the three regions. Calabrese added that this is a unique provision in the bill, since DOE currently does not have this authority.



WILL THE BILL PASS?



<a href="http://www.achrnews.com/NEWS/Home/Images/Table2-pg16-BIG.jpg"><img src="http://www.achrnews.com/NEWS/Home/Images/Table2-pg16-SMALL.jpg" width="140" height="60" alt="" /></a>Table 2. Energy Efficiency Standards for Performance-Based Building Codes (for new construction and significant-upsizing only) According to AHRI, the last version of this bill “nearly passed under unanimous consent during the December 2010 ‘lame duck’ session.” Now, passing the bill is one of the association’s top priorities in 2011.



“Now we’re looking at what can happen in the Senate, and how do we move it in the House,” Calabrese said. The critical aspect to passing the bill in the Senate, he explained, is finding the right legislative vehicle for it. If INCAAA were to be considered as a standalone bill, Calabrese said it would have a high likelihood of passing. However, he added, “Standalone bills are very rare.” Because of the press of legislative activity, senators generally pair bills into larger pieces of legislation. “My concern is that if the vehicle is a larger energy bill that has opposition or concern from others, then it could get tied up in that,” Calabrese said.



While the Senate is generally perceived as being favorable toward the bill, it is harder to predict how the House would receive the bill. “It’s hard to say with the new leadership there,” Calabrese said. He did point out, however, that the bill has the support of many industry groups and environmental groups, as well as the support of the Obama administration.



<strong>Publication date:</strong> 04/04/2011



Kimberly Schwartz

News & Legislation Editor. E-mail her at <a href="mailto:kimberlyschwartz@achrnews.com">kimberlyschwartz@achrnews.com</a>.



<img src="http://secure-us.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/m?rnd=1302641043096&ci=us-bpaww&cg=0&cc=1&sr=1024x768&cd=32&lg=en-us&je=y&ck=y&tz=-4&ct=lan&hp=n&si=http%3A//www.achrnews.com/copyright/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000001025163%3Fview%3Dprint&rp=http%3A//www.achrnews.com/Articles/Cover_Story/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000001025163" width="1" height="1" alt="" /> 

Robert O'Brien

Doubt it

There are new standards going into effect on 11/2012 . Standing pilots will go away and boilers(except tankless coil equipped) will need some type of energy saving control.

jp_2

who buys a

78% eff FHA unit anymore?  I admit there probably is a small minority, but seems most people go in the other direction.  



i would like to see ECM motors on the frig though.

Tom Blackwell_2

Builders

An answer to the question "Who buys a...." is in simple terms builders. Particularly in the southern states the builder buys the cheapest and most inefficient equipment allowed by law. Hence the "Builder's model" offered by various manufacturer's. It's going to take a paradigm shift in the way business is done. Perhaps some type of "energy report card" or a simple btu/sq ft/degree day for building envelopes would put all on an equal footing. Financial institutions are the cause of a lot of this, by not allowing financing for anything over and above the minimum code. As much as I hate to say it, what the industry needs to reduce energy is sustained higher energy prices-that will drive the push for efficiency.

Robert O'Brien

CI boilers

are still the vast majority of the market and will be for quite awhile

Gordy

really moving forward?

 What a waste of time... and energy.



80% 14 seer?   Wow why would any savy consumer with a bit of dollar sense even consider such old efficiency ratings.



 Gordy

Robert O'Brien

Who?

14 SEER? There are numerous posts in the last few days about repairing 50,60,70 year old oil burners and how a cracked HX isn't that bad. 

Jim Davis_3

Equipment ratings

It is a shame that everyone puts all the efficiency emphasis on the rating of equipment versus its actual field performance after it is installed.  Most 14 SEER a/c in the field have been tested to only be running at about 8 SEER after they are installed.  95% efficient furnaces are running around 59%.  Efficiency ratings are faked performance based on fictitious government standards.  When one actually measures delivered btus versus how much fuel they are paying for there is a big difference.  Actual operation efficiences can be brought up considerably, but not near what equipment is actually rated.

But then every rule our industry follows has been written by someone with no actual field experience.  Maybe someday verification of performance will become the rule instead of the exception. 

The Steam Whisperer (Formerly Boilerpro)

That's what I was thinking......

Field tested actual performance standards.  With the previous discussions here about the massive inefficiencies of standard modern forced air systems, the gross oversizing of boilers (the AFue numbers assume 60% oversizing, IIRC),  the lack of accounting for electrical use by equipment and adding the extra heat to the output of the fuel burned,  I am sure there are plenty here that agree. Having the industry set the standards, however, is problematic.  If the automobile manufacturers set the fuel economy standards, we would still be driving tanks.....Oh yeah we still are! due to the huge loopholes given for supposed trucks!

Jamie Hall

Your mileage may vary...

Need I say much more?  But I do so agree with Boilerpro... it would be nice to have things based on real-world data, gathered by real-world people in real-world situations.  And not in some cubicle high above reality in Washington, DC.



What, might I ask, does one do for a "90% efficient" oil-fired steam boiler, if an when this nonsense passes?  Double the price for heat recovery feed water heat exchangers on the exhaust, plus induced draught fans to compensate for the losses through the heat exchanger, plus pumps to take the formerly gravity return through the heat exchanger?  Right...

jp_2

bioler pro

if GM could built a 3/4 ton truck that got 40mpg, why wouldn't they?   they would out sell all  other truck manufacturers in the WORLD and  could afford to buy an oil company.



try loading up a prius with all your tool and euipment/supplies and report back on it's performance.  you might need to pull a 2 ton trailer, but shouldn't still get 40mpg?



how can a manufacturer be subject to poor installations?

Mark Eatherton

Performance based ratings...

This could get real muddled up, but I think that the proof of the pudding is where the rubber meets the road.



Base the energy rebates on the actual NET field reduction in energy consumption per square foot of conditioned space per degree day of weather exposure. Where it becomes muddled, is what if the consumer also does a significant energy conservation move. WHo gets credit for the reduction associated with the application of windows, insulation and crack sealing?



But in general, ALL conservation effort rebates should be tied to the actual field reduction, and it should also be tracked over time, because what was today, may not be the same 2 years from now, especially if the appliance is not properly serviced. And yes, the therms per square foot per degree day SHOULD include the energy associated with electrical consumption, regardless of where it goes.



Unfortunately, the "Machine", known as Washington is involved, and politics will play a major role, as it already has and does, so expect a mess.



Jeez, in the last few years, our gubernmint just established a "standard" for appliance efficiency. What was it, 80%? Now THAT is progress at its finest.... Expect more of the same in the future.



ME

Tim McElwain

In a recent discusion

with some folks from a well known utility this very subject came up.



Once so called 90 + equipment is installed the only follow up is to ensure it was actually installed. There is no requirement for a combustion test (in some cases it is done but no required), no actual observation of the system itself, in many cases no heat loss done, and in fact the new equipment may not even be compatible with the existing emitters installed.



The rebates are still issued and very little follow up as to actual ove4r all system operation and efficiency takes place.



Factory reps then have to follow up on problem installs as often the installer is not required to go back.



Real world measure of efficiency must be mandated and then people who know what is actually correct need to be doing the follow up. A statistical analyst does not understand combustion but they do understand bill complaints from unhappy customers.

Gordy

Robert

 ME pretty summed it up in the last paragraph of his post for MY feelings on this bill.



 I know there are a lot of people out there who are trying to hang on to their old mechanical equipment. But with the pending bill if they do buy new they only have to comply with a 80- 90% heating appliance, or a 14 seer cooling appliance.  That stuff has been around for decades.



Why bother wasting time passing a bill as such. you pretty much get those efficiencies as a bear minimum anymore.



 Government only seems to be up to speed with the latest weapons technology, or surveillance technology.



I also add the fact that this is following the same suit as the auto industry. They made cars in the late 70's, and early 80's that got better gas milage then the cars today over 20 years later. I remember the diesel Chevette got near 55 miles to the gallon it only had a 6.5 gal tank in it.



 Enough said