COMMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF NEW YORK, COLORADO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ILLINOIS, MAINE, MARYLAND, THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, OREGON, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, , WASHINGTON, AND THE CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

May 26, 2021

Submitted via e-mail: [email protected]

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

Re: Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0036 and RIN 1904-AE82 Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Boilers Early Assessment Review

The undersigned state and local governments make this submission in response to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) request for information in connection with its Early Assessment Review to determine whether energy efficiency standards for consumer boilers should be amended. 86 Fed. Reg. 15,804 (Mar. 25, 2021). As part of its evaluation, DOE seeks comment on whether a separate product class for non-condensing boilers is warranted under 42 U.S.C. § 6295(q)(1). See 86 Fed. Reg. at 15,805. Current regulations applicable to consumer boilers make no distinction between boilers using condensing and non-condensing technology. 10 C.F.R. § 430.32(e)(2). Thus, condensing and non-condensing boilers are in the same product class and subject to the same efficiency standards. We urge DOE to maintain this sensible, lawful regulatory approach. DOE lacks any basis under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6291-6317, as amended, to create a separate product class for higher energy-consuming, non- condensing boilers. Establishing a separate category of boilers based solely on their combustion technology would create an unnecessary loophole for less efficient boilers, allow these long- lived appliances1 to remain on the market, and thereby undermine Congress’s goal of conserving energy through stringent appliance efficiency standards. EPCA permits DOE to divide covered products into product classes based upon the type of energy used, capacity or other performance-related features. 42 U.S.C. § 6295(q). In determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies the creation of a

1 The estimated average operational lifetime of such boilers is 20+ years.

1 separate product class subject to a different standard, DOE considers such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer. Id. Although DOE issued a final interpretive rule on January 15, 2021 determining that the use of non-condensing technology and associated venting in residential furnaces, commercial water heaters, and similar products, constitutes a performance- related feature that could justify creation of a separate product category subject to lower standards, that rule is unlawful and is, accordingly, being challenged in court. See 86 Fed. Reg. 4776; New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Dkt. 21-602 (2d Cir. 2021). As explained in our comments during the interpretive rulemaking proceeding (incorporated herein by reference),2 DOE’s analysis there contradicts EPCA’s plain language and statutory purpose. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6295(o)(4), 6295(q), 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa). The performance-related utility of furnaces and water heaters – and in this case, consumer boilers – is their ability to provide heat and hot water. Whether an appliance uses one heat exchanger (non- condensing boilers) or two heat exchangers with drainage (condensing boilers) to generate heat or hot water for a consumer is, at best, a secondary consideration largely irrelevant to the appliance’s ultimate performance -- the relevant criterion. Thus, in considering whether to amend existing boiler standards, DOE should not treat consumer boilers that rely on older, non-condensing combustion technology and associated venting systems as appliances in a class of their own, subject to efficiency standards less stringent than standards applicable to newer, condensing boilers. Because a boiler’s combustion and venting technology is not a performance characteristic or feature within the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(4), DOE could increase the required efficiency of consumer boilers even if such a standard could only be met by condensing boilers. Indeed, DOE has historically rejected the notion that specific technology or design features can be used to preserve less-efficient technologies and thereby limit potential energy savings achievable through advancements in energy efficiency.3 For the reasons set forth here and in our prior comments, DOE should not create a separate product class for non-condensing boilers.

2 Comments of Attorneys General of New York, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the Corporation Counsel of New York City in Response to Gas Industry Petition (Mar. 1, 2019), available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2018-BT-STD-0018- 0049; Comments of Attorneys General of New York, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the Corporation Counsel of New York City in Response to DOE’s Proposed Interpretive Rule (Sept. 9, 2019), available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2018-BT-STD-0018-0082; Comments of Attorneys General of New York, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the Corporation Counsel of New York City in Response to DOE’s Proposed Supplemental Interpretive Rule (Nov. 9, 2020), available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0018-0115.

3 See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Announcement of Public Meeting, Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces, 80 Fed. Reg. 13119, 13138 (Mar. 12, 2015).

2

Respectfully submitted,

FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK

LETITIA JAMES ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Lisa S. Kwong LISA S. KWONG TIMOTHY HOFFMAN Assistant Attorneys General MICHAEL J. MYERS Senior Counsel LINDA M. WILSON Scientist Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Tel: 518-776-2422 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

3

FOR THE STATE OF MAINE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AARON M. FREY KARL A. RACINE Attorney General Attorney General

/s/ Katherine E. Tierney /s/ Brian R. Caldwell KATHERINE E. TIERNEY BRIAN R. CALDWELL Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 6 State House Station Social Justice Section Augusta, ME 04333 Office of the Attorney General Tel: (207) 626-8897 for the District of Columbia Email: [email protected] 400 6th Street N.W. 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 727-6211 (desk) FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Tel: (202) 445-1952 (mobile) Email: [email protected] ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS /s/ Steve Scheele STEVE SCHEELE Assistant Attorney General Attorney General Agriculture & Health Division P.O. Box 40109 /s/ Jason E. James Olympia, Washington 98504 JASON E. JAMES Tel: (360) 586-4900 Assistant Attorney General Email: [email protected] MATTHEW J. DUNN Chief, Environmental Enf./ Asbestos Litigation Div. FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK Office of the Attorney General Environmental Bureau JAMES E. JOHNSON 69 W. Washington St., 18th Floor Corporation Counsel Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 814-0660 /s/ Hilary Meltzer Email: [email protected] Hilary Meltzer Chief, Environmental Law Division New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 356-2070 Email: [email protected]

4

FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT

PHILIP J. WEISER THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General Attorney General

/s/ Jessica Lowrey /s/ Laura B. Murphy JESSICA L. LOWREY LAURA B. MURPHY Senior Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources and Environment Environmental Protection Division Section Vermont Attorney General’s Office Office of the Attorney General 109 State Street 1300 Broadway, 7th Floor Montpelier, VT 05609 Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (802) 828-3186 Tel: (720) 508-6167 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS

BRIAN FROSH Attorney General Attorney General

/s/ Steven J. Goldstein /s/ I. Andrew Goldberg STEVEN J. GOLDSTEIN I. ANDREW GOLDBERG Special Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Division 200 Saint Paul Place, 20th Floor ASHLEY GAGNON Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Assistant Attorney General Tel: (410) 576-6414 Energy and Telecommunications Division Email: [email protected] Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Tel: (617) 963-2429 Email: [email protected]

5

FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM AARON D. FORD Attorney General Attorney General

/s/ Steve Novick /s/ Heidi Parry Stern STEVE NOVICK HEIDI PARRY STERN Special Assistant Attorney General Solicitor General Natural Resources Section Office of the PAUL A. GARRAHAN 555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900 Attorney-in-Charge Las Vegas, NV 89101 Oregon Department of Justice Tel: (702) 486-3594 1162 Court Street NE Email: [email protected] Salem, OR 97301 Tel: (503) 947-4590 Email: [email protected] FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

DANA NESSEL Attorney General FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA /s/ DANA NESSEL Attorney General Office of the Michigan Attorney General P.O. Box 30212 /s/ Peter N. Surdo Lansing, MI 48909 PETER N. SURDO Special Assistant Attorney General Environmental Litigation FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Minnesota Attorney General’s Office 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 900 GURBIR S. GREWAL St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2127 Attorney General Tel: (651) 757-1061 Email: [email protected] /s/ Paul Youchak PAUL YOUCHAK Deputy Attorney General Division of Law R.J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112 Trenton, NJ 08625 Tel: (609) 376-3370 Email: [email protected]

6