Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers
Federal RegisterSep 27, 2010
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EE-2008-BT-STD-0012]
RIN 1904-AB79
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers
AGENCY:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.
SUMMARY:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment, including residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more stringent, amended standards for these products are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this NOPR, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The NOPR also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.
DATES:
DOE will hold a public meeting on Thursday, October 14, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. DOE must receive requests to speak at the public meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, September 30, 2010. Additionally, DOE plans to conduct the public meeting via webinar. To participate via webinar, DOE must be notified by no later than Thursday, October 7, 2010. Participants seeking to present statements in person during the meeting must submit to DOE a signed original and an electronic copy of statements to be given at the public meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, October 7, 2010.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than November 26, 2010.
See
section VII, “Public Participation,” for details.
ADDRESSES:
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures, requiring a 30-day advance notice. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 to initiate the necessary procedures.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, and provide docket number EE-2008-BT-STD-0012 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AB79. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
2.
E-mail: ResRefFreez-2008-STD-0012@hq.doe.gov
. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
3.
Mail:
Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed original paper copy.
4.
Hand Delivery/Courier:
Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone:
(202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process,
see
section VII of this document (Public Participation).
Docket:
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Subid Wagley, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, 202-287-1414,
e-mail: Subid.Wagley@ee.doe.gov
or Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9507, e-mail:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or review public comments and on how to participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone:
(202) 586-2945.
E-mail:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers
III. General Discussion
A. Test Procedures
1. Test Procedure Rulemaking Schedule
2. Icemaking
3. Circumvention
4. Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control
5. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
C. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Life-Cycle Costs
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Exclusion of Wine Coolers From This Rulemaking
2. Product Classes
a. French Door Refrigerators With Through-the-Door Ice Service
b. Chest Freezers With Automatic Defrost
c. All-Refrigerators
d. Products With Automatic Icemakers
e. Built-In Products
f. Combining Product Classes 2 With 1, and 12 With 11
g. Modification of the Definition for Compact Products
B. Screening Analysis
1. Discussion of Comments
a. Alternative Refrigerants
b. Alternative Foam-Blowing Agents
c. Vacuum-Insulated Panels
2. Technologies Considered
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Product Classes Analyzed/Representative Products
2. Baseline Energy Use Curves
a. Baseline Energy Use Under the Proposed New Test Procedure
b. Change of Energy Use Equation Slope
c. Energy Use Measurement Changes Associated With Other Test Procedure Changes
3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
4. Engineering Analysis Treatment of Design Options
a. Heat Exchangers
b. Variable Speed Compressors for Compact Products
c. Variable Anti-Sweat Heaters
d. Vacuum-Insulated Panels
5. Energy Modeling
6. Cost-Efficiency Curves
7. Development of Standards for Low-Volume Products
D. Markups To Determine Product Cost
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Energy Price Projections
6. Maintenance and Repair Costs
7. Product Lifetime
8. Discount Rates
9. Compliance Date of Amended Standards
10. Base Case Efficiency Distribution
11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis
12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period
G. National Impact Analysis—National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis
1. Shipments
2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
3. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion
4. Discount Rates
5. Benefits From Effects of Standards on Energy Prices
H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
a. Phase 1: Industry Profile
b. Phase 2: Industry Cash-Flow Analysis
c. Phase 3: Subgroup Impact Analysis
2. GRIM Analysis
a. GRIM Key Inputs
b. GRIM Scenarios
3. Discussion of Comments
a. Potential Regulation of HFCs
b. Manufacturer Tax Credits
c. Standards-Induced Versus Normal Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markups
4. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Potential for Significant Changes to Manufacturing Facilities
b. VIPs
c. Impact on U.S. Production and Jobs
d. Impacts to Product Utility
e. Technical Difficulties Associated With Higher Efficiency Levels
f. Changes in Consumer Behavior
g. Separate Product Classes for Built-Ins
h. Test Procedure Concerns
J. Employment Impact Analysis
K. Utility Impact Analysis
L. Environmental Analysis
M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
1. Social Cost of Carbon
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
N. Demand Response
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Cash-Flow Analysis Results
b. Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
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
C. Proposed Standards
1. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers
2. Standard-Size Freezers
3. Compact Refrigeration Products
4. Built-In Refrigeration Products
5. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Proposed Standards
6. Energy Standard Round-off
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
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. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To Speak
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291
et seq.;
EPCA or the Act), as amended, provides that any new or amended energy conservation standard DOE prescribes for certain consumer products, such as residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (collectively referred to in this document as “refrigeration products”), shall be designed to “achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency * * * which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The new or amended standard must “result in significant conservation of energy.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for refrigeration products. The proposed standards, which are the maximum allowable energy use expressed as a function of the calculated adjusted volume of a given product, are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after January 1, 2014.
Table I.1—Proposed Refrigeration Product Energy Conservation Standards
[Effective starting 1/1/2014]
Product class
Equations for maximum energy use (kWh/yr)
based on AV (ft
3
)
based on av (L)
1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost
7.99AV + 225.0
0.282av + 225.0
1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost
6.79AV + 193.6
0.240av + 193.6
2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost
7.99AV + 225.0
0.282av + 225.0
3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker
8.04AV + 232.7
0.284av + 232.7
3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker
8.57AV + 248.2
0.303av + 248.2
3I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service
8.04AV + 316.7
0.284av + 316.7
3I-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service
8.57AV + 332.2
0.303av + 332.2
3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost
7.07AV + 201.6
0.250av + 201.6
3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost
7.55AV + 215.1
0.266av + 215.1
4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker
8.48AV + 296.5
0.299av + 296.5
4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker
9.04AV + 316.2
0.319av + 316.2
4I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service
8.48AV + 380.5
0.299av + 380.5
4I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service
9.04AV + 400.2
0.319av + 400.2
5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker
8.80AV + 315.4
0.311av + 315.4
5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker
9.35AV + 335.1
0.330av + 335.1
5I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service
8.80AV + 399.4
0.311av + 399.4
5I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service
9.35AV + 419.1
0.330av + 419.1
5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
9.15AV + 471.3
0.323av + 471.3
5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
9.72AV + 4955.
0.343av + 495.5
6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
8.36AV + 384.1
0.295av + 384.1
7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
8.50AV + 431.1
0.300av + 431.1
7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
9.07AV + 454.3
0.320av + 454.3
8. Upright freezers with manual defrost
5.57AV + 193.7
0.197av + 193.7
9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker
8.62AV + 228.3
0.305av + 228.3
9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker
9.24AV + 244.6
0.326av + 244.6
10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers
7.29AV + 107.8
0.257av + 107.8
10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost
10.24AV + 148.1
0.362av + 148.1
11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost
9.03AV + 252.3
0.319av + 252.3
11A.Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost
7.84AV + 219.1
0.277av + 219.1
12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost
5.91AV + 335.8
0.209av + 335.8
13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer
11.80AV + 339.2
0.417av + 339.2
13A. Compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost
9.17AV + 259.3
0.324av + 259.3
14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer
6.82AV + 456.9
0.241av + 456.9
15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
12.88AV + 368.7
0.455av + 368.7
16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost
8.65AV + 225.7
0.306av + 225.7
17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost
10.17AV + 351.9
0.359av + 351.9
18. Compact chest freezers
9.25AV + 136.8
0.327av + 136.8
AV = adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters.
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant amount of energy—an estimated 4.48 quads of cumulative energy over 30 years (2014 through 2043). This amount is equivalent to three times the total energy used annually for refrigeration and freezers in U.S. homes.
The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of the proposed standards for products shipped in 2014-2043, in 2009$, ranges from $2.44 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $18.57 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate).
1
The net present value (NPV) is the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings during the analysis period, minus the estimated increased product costs, discounted to 2010. The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2010 to 2043). Using a real discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates that INPV for manufacturers of all refrigeration products in the base case is $4.434 billion in 2009$. If DOE adopts the proposed standards, it expects that manufacturers may lose 11 to 22 percent of their INPV, or approximately $0.495 to $0.995 billion. Using a 7-percent discount rate, the NPV of consumer costs and savings from today's proposed standards would amount to 2.5 to 4.9 times the total estimated industry losses. Using a 3-percent discount rate, the NPV would
amount to 19 to 38 times the total estimated industry losses.
1
DOE uses discount rates of 7 and 3 percent based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget. See section IV.G for further information.
The projected economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual consumers are generally positive. For example, the estimated average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings are $22 for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, $19 for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, $37 for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, $148 for upright freezers, $56 for chest freezers, $10 for compact refrigerators, $11 for compact freezers, and from $0 to $116 for built-in refrigeration products, depending on the product class.
2
2
The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a product, consisting of purchase 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.
In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits. The energy saved is in the form of electricity and DOE expects the energy savings from the proposed standards to eliminate the need for approximately 4.2 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity by 2043. The savings would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of 305 million metric tons (Mt
3
) of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) in 2014-2043. During this period, the proposed standards would result in emissions reductions of 245 kilotons (kt) of nitrogen oxides (NO
X
) and 1.55 tons (t) of mercury (Hg). DOE estimates the net present monetary value of the CO
2
emissions reduction is between $1.04 and $16.22 billion, expressed in 2009$ and discounted to 2010. DOE also estimates the net present monetary value of the NO
X
emissions reduction, expressed in 2009$ and discounted to 2010, is between $22 and $229 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and between $53 and $546 million at a 3-percent discount rate.
3
A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NO
X
and Hg are given in short tons.
DOE estimates emissions reduction benefits according to a multi-step approach. First, DOE analyzes monetized emissions benefits separately from the NPV of consumer benefits. Second, DOE calculates emissions relative to an “existing regulations” baseline determined by the most recent version of the Annual Energy Outlook forecast. The base case emissions scenario is described at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_6.pdf.
Finally, any emissions reductions are in addition to the regulatory emissions reductions modeled in AEO. DOE calculates this value by doing a perturbation of the base case AEO forecast as described in the TSD chapter 15 at section 15.2.4. As noted in section 15.2.4 of TSD chapter 15, the baseline accounts for regulatory emissions reductions through 2008, including CAIR but not CAMR. Subsequent regulations, including the currently proposed CAIR replacement rule, the Clean Air Transport Rule, do not appear in the baseline. DOE requests comment on its baseline treatment of regulatory emissions reductions.
See
Issue 1 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E.
The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values over the 2014-2043 period. Estimates of annualized values are shown in Table I.2. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value, expressed in 2009$, of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO
2
emission reductions.
4
The value of the CO
2
reductions, otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO
2
developed by a recent interagency process. The monetary costs and benefits of cumulative emissions reductions are reported in 2009$ to permit comparisons with the other costs and benefits in the same dollar units. The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M.
4
DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present value for the time-series of costs and benefits using a discount rate of either three or seven percent. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over the analysis time period (2014 through 2043) that yielded the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments.
Although combining the values of operating savings and CO
2
reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions while the value of CO
2
reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO
2
savings are performed with different methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of refrigeration products shipped in 2014-2043. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts go well beyond 2100.
Using a 7-percent discount rate and the SCC value of $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 2007$), which is discounted at 3 percent (
see
note below in Table I.2), the cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $1,841 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $2,112 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $316 million in CO
2
reductions, and $7 million in reduced NO
X
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $594 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate and the SCC value of $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 2007$), the cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $1,849 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $2,929 million per year in reduced operating costs, $316 million in CO
2
reductions, and $33 million in reduced NO
X
emissions. At a 3-percent discount rate, the net benefit amounts to $1,429 million per year.
Table I.2—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Refrigeration Products for 2014-2043 Period
Discount rate
Monetized (million 2009$/year)
Primary
estimate*
Low
estimate*
High
estimate*
Benefits
Operating Cost Savings
7%
2,112
1,852
2,377
3%
2,929
2,520
3,335
CO
2
Reduction at $4.7/th **
5%
85
85
85
CO
2
Reduction at $21.4/th **
3%
316
316
316
CO
2
Reduction at $35.1/th **
2.5%
492
492
492
CO
2
Reduction at $64.9/th **
3%
963
963
963
NO
X
Reduction at $2,519/th **
7%
7
7
7
3%
33%
33
33
Total (Operating Cost Savings, CO
2
Reduction and NO
X
Reduction) †
7% plus CO
2
range
2,204-3,082
1,944-2,822
2,469-3,348
7%
2,435
2,175
2,700
3%
3,278
2,869
3,684
3% plus CO
2
range
3,047-3,925
2,638-3,516
3,453-4,331
Costs
Incremental Product Costs
7%
1,841
1,733
1,950
3%
1,849
1,729
1,969
Net Benefits/Costs
Total (Operating Cost Savings, CO
2
Reduction and NO
X
Reduction, minus Incremental Product Costs) †
7% plus CO
2
range
363-1,241
211-1,089
519-1,397
7%
594
442
750
3%
1,429
1,140
1,714
3% plus CO
2
range
1,198-2,076
909-1,787
1,483-2,362
* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and Low Economic Growth case, respectively.
** The CO
2
values represent global monetized values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO
2
emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.70, $21.40, and $35.10 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $64.90 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NO
X
(in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis. NO
X
savings are in addition to the regulatory emissions reductions modeled in the Annual Energy Outlook forecast.
† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 2007$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO
2
range” and “3% plus CO
2
range,” the operating cost and NO
X
benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO
2
values with the $4.70/ton value at the low end, and the $64.90/ton value at the high end.
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 at least some, if not most, product classes covered by today's proposal. Based on the analyses described above, DOE found the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).
DOE also considered lower energy use levels as trial standard levels, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the lower energy use levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy use levels presented in this notice 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 today's proposal as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for refrigeration products.
A. Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other than Automobiles.
5
EPCA covers consumer products and certain commercial equipment (referred to collectively hereafter as “covered products”), including the types of refrigeration products that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1)-(2)), and directed DOE to conduct three cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)(A)(i), (b)(3)(B)-(C), and (b)(4)) As explained in further detail in section II.B, this rulemaking represents the third round of amendments to the standards for refrigeration products under 42 U.S.C. 6295(b). (DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, the next review that
DOE would need to conduct would occur no later than six years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.)
5
This part was titled Part B in EPCA, but was subsequently codified as Part A in the U.S. Code for editorial reasons.
Under the Act, DOE's energy conservation program for covered products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. Section 323 of the Act authorizes DOE, subject to certain criteria and conditions, to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 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 of efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted under EPCA.
Id.
The test procedures for refrigeration products currently appear at title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B, appendices A1 and B1, respectively. (These procedures are undergoing possible amendments and may ultimately be recodified as part of new appendices A and B. See 75 FR 29824 (May 27, 2010) (discussing possible amendments to the test procedures for refrigeration products).
EPCA provides criteria for prescribing amended standards for covered products. As indicated above, any amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, EPCA precludes DOE from adopting any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, including refrigeration products, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) The Act also provides that, 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 do so after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven 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 imposition of the standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of 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 imposition of the standard;
6. The need for national energy conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
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 a 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 of any covered product type (or class) with performance characteristics, 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))
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.
See
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products “for any group of covered products which have the same function or intended use, if * * * 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” than applies or will apply to the other products within that type or class.
Id.
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 such a 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)).
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE can, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Finally, Section 310(3) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg))) amended EPCA to require that energy conservation standards address standby mode and off mode energy use. Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after July 1, 2010, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards in section 325(o) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into the standard, if feasible, or 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 and standards for refrigeration products address standby and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended standard it adopts in the final rule, which is scheduled to be issued by December 31, 2010.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on April 28, 1997 (1997 Final Rule), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for refrigeration products manufactured on or after July 1, 2001. 62 FR 23102. This final rule completed the second round of rulemaking to amend the standards for refrigeration products, required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)(B)-(C). The standards consist of separate equations for each product class. Each equation provides a means to calculate the maximum levels of energy use permitted under the regulations. These levels vary based on the storage volume of the refrigeration product and on the particular characteristics and features included in a given product (
i.e.,
based on product class). 10 CFR 430.32(a). The current standards are set forth in Table II.1. DOE notes that the standard levels denoted in the proposed product classes listed as 5A and 10A were established by the Office of Hearings and Appeals through that Office's exception relief process.
Table II.1—Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers
Product class
Energy standard equations for maximum energy use
(kWh/yr)
Made effective by the 1997 final rule
1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost
8.82AV+248.4
0.31av+248.4
2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost
8.82AV+248.4
0.31av+248.4
3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service and all-refrigerator—automatic defrost
9.80AV+276.0
0.35av+276.0
4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service
4.91AV+507.5
0.17av+507.5
5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service
4.60AV+459.0
0.16av+459.0
6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
10.20AV+356.0
0.36av+356.0
7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
10.10AV+406.0
0.36av+406.0
8. Upright freezers with manual defrost
7.55AV+258.3
0.27av+258.3
9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost
12.43AV+326.1
0.44av+326.1
10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers
9.88AV+143.7
0.35av+143.7
11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost
10.70AV+299.0
0.38av+299.0
12. Compact refrigerator-freezer—partial automatic defrost
7.00AV+398.0
0.25av+398.0
13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer and compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost
12.70AV+355.0
0.45av+355.0
14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer
7.60AV+501.0
0.27av+501.0
15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
13.10AV+367.0
0.46av+367.0
16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost
9.78AV+250.8
0.35av+250.8
17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost
11.40AV+391.0
0.40av+391.0
18. Compact chest freezers
10.45AV+152.0
0.37av+152.0
Made effective
Product class
through OHA
exception relief
5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
5.0AV+539.0
0.18av+539.0
10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost
14.76AV+211.5
0.52av+211.5
AV: Adjusted Volume in ft
3
; av: Adjusted Volume in liters (L).
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers
The amendments made to EPCA by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA; Pub. L. 100-12) included mandatory energy conservation standards for refrigeration products and requirements that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1), (2), (3)(A)(i), and (3)(B)-(C)) DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in 1989 and 1990 by adopting amended performance standards for all refrigeration products manufactured on or after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916 (November 17, 1989); 55 FR 42845 (October 24, 1990). As indicated above, DOE completed a second rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for refrigeration products by issuing a final rule in 1997, which adopted the current standards for these products. 62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997).
In 2005, DOE granted a petition, submitted by a coalition of state governments, utility companies, consumer and low-income advocacy groups, and environmental and energy efficiency organizations, requesting that it conduct a rulemaking to amend the standards for residential refrigerator-freezers.
6
DOE then conducted limited analyses to examine the technological and economic feasibility of amended standards at the ENERGY STAR levels that were in effect for 2005 for the two most popular product classes of refrigerator-freezers. These analyses identified potential energy savings and other potential benefits and burdens from such standards, and assessed other issues associated with such standards. Most recently, DOE has undertaken this rulemaking to satisfy the statutory requirement that DOE publish a final rule no later than December 31, 2010, to determine whether to amend the standards for refrigeration products manufactured on or after January 1, 2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4))
6
The petition, submitted June 1, 2004, can be viewed at
http://www.standardsasap.org/documents/rfdoe.pdf
(last accessed August 18, 2010).
DOE initiated this rulemaking on September 18, 2008, by publishing on its Web site its “Rulemaking Framework Document for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers.” (A PDF of the framework document is available at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/refrigerator_freezer_framework.pdf
). DOE also published a notice announcing the availability of the framework document and a public meeting to discuss the document. It also requested public comment on the document. 73 FR 54089 (September 18, 2008). The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for refrigeration products and identified various issues to be resolved in conducting the rulemaking.
On September 29, 2008, DOE held the framework document public meeting. At that meeting, DOE discussed the issues detailed in the framework document and described the analyses the agency planned to conduct during the rulemaking. Through the public meeting, DOE sought feedback from interested parties on these subjects and provided information regarding the rulemaking process that DOE would follow. Interested parties discussed the following major issues at the public meeting: Test procedure revisions; product classes; technology options; approaches to the engineering, life-cycle cost, and payback period analyses; efficiency levels analyzed in the engineering analysis; and the approach for estimating typical energy consumption. At the meeting, and during the related comment period, DOE received many comments that helped it identify and resolve issues involved in this rulemaking.
DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary analyses for the purpose of developing potential amended energy conservation standards for refrigeration products. This process culminated in DOE's announcement of the preliminary analysis public meeting, at which DOE would discuss and receive comments on the following matters: The product classes DOE analyzed; the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE was using to evaluate standards; the results of the preliminary analyses performed by DOE; and potential standard levels that DOE could consider. 74 FR 58915 (November 16, 2009) (the November 2009 notice). DOE also invited written comments on these subjects and announced the availability on its Web site of a preliminary technical support document (preliminary TSD) it had prepared to inform interested parties and enable them to provide comments.
Id.
(The preliminary TSD is available at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ref_frz_prenopr_prelim_tsd.pdf.
) Finally, DOE stated its interest in receiving views concerning other relevant issues that participants believed would affect energy conservation standards for refrigeration products, or that DOE should address in this NOPR.
Id.
at 58917-18.
The preliminary TSD provided an overview of the activities DOE undertook in developing standards for the refrigeration products, and discussed the comments DOE received in response to the framework document. It also described the analytical framework that DOE used (and continues to use) in this rulemaking, including a description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships among the various analyses that are part of the rulemaking. The preliminary TSD presented and described in detail each analysis DOE had performed up to that point, including descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses were as follows:
• A
market and technology assessment
addressed the scope of this rulemaking, identified the potential classes for refrigeration products, characterized the markets for these products, and reviewed techniques and approaches for improving their efficiency;
• A
screening analysis
reviewed technology options to improve the efficiency of refrigeration products, and weighed these options against DOE's four prescribed screening criteria: (1) Technological feasibility, (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service, (3) impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability, (4) adverse impacts on health or safety;
• An
engineering analysis
estimated the increases in manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) associated with more energy-efficient refrigeration products;
• An
energy use analysis
estimated the annual energy use in the field of refrigeration products as a function of efficiency levels;
• A
markups analysis
converted estimated manufacturer selling price (MSP) increases derived from the engineering analysis to consumer prices;
• A
life-cycle cost analysis
calculated, at the consumer level, the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product, compared to any increase in installed costs likely to result directly from the imposition of a given standard;
• A
payback period (PBP) analysis
estimated the amount of time it would take consumers to recover the higher expense of purchasing more energy efficient products through lower operating costs;
• A
shipments analysis
estimated shipments of the refrigeration products over the 30-year analysis period (2014-
2043), which were used in performing the national impact analysis (NIA);
• A
national impact analysis
assessed the national energy savings, and the national net present value of total consumer costs and savings, expected to result from specific, potential energy conservation standards for refrigeration products;
• A
preliminary manufacturer impact analysis
took the initial steps in evaluating the effects new efficiency standards may have on manufacturers.
In the November 2009 notice, DOE summarized the nature and function of the following analyses: (1) Engineering, (2) energy use characterization, (3) markups to determine installed prices, (4) LCC and PBP analyses, and (5) national impact analysis.
Id.
at 58917.
The preliminary analysis public meeting announced in the November 2009 notice took place on December 10, 2009. At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. Major topics discussed at the meeting included test procedure revisions, product classes (including wine coolers, all-refrigerators,
7
and built-in refrigeration products), the use of alternative foam blowing agents and refrigerants, engineering analysis tools, the use of VIPs, mark-ups, field energy consumption, life-cycle cost inputs, efficiency distribution forecasts, and trial standard level selection criteria. DOE also discussed plans for conducting the NOPR analyses. The comments received since publication of the November 2009 notice, including those received at the preliminary analysis public meeting, have contributed to DOE's proposed resolution of the issues in this rulemaking. This NOPR quotes and summarizes many of these comments, and responds to the issues they raised. A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
7
An “all-refrigerator” is defined as “an electric refrigerator which does not include a compartment for the freezing and long time storage of food at temperatures below 32 °F (0.0 °C). It may include a compartment of 0.50 cubic feet capacity (14.2 liters) or less for the freezing and storage of ice.” (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 1.4).
In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE also received a comment submitted by groups representing manufacturers (Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Whirlpool, General Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG Electronics, BSH, Alliance Laundry, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships); and consumer groups (Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center). This collective set of comments, which DOE refers to in this notice as the “Joint Comments”
8
recommends specific energy conservation standards for refrigeration products that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the requirements under EPCA. DOE neither organized nor was a member of the group but sent staff to observe some meetings and made its contractors available to perform data processing. Consistent with its legal obligations when developing an energy conservation standard, DOE is providing the public with the opportunity to comment on the proposed levels that DOE is considering adopting for refrigeration products, which mirror those recommended in the Joint Comments. As DOE has not yet reached a final decision on the levels it should prescribe, DOE invites comment on these proposed levels, possible alternative levels, and all other aspects presented in today's NOPR.
8
DOE Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012, Comment 49. DOE considered the Joint Comments to supersede earlier comments by the listed parties regarding issues subsequently discussed in the Joint Comments.
III. General Discussion
The following section discusses various technical aspects related to this proposed rulemaking. In particular, it addresses aspects involving the test procedures for refrigeration products, the technological feasibility of potential standards to assign to these products, and the potential energy savings and economic justification for prescribing the proposed amended standards for refrigeration products.
A. Test Procedures
As noted above, DOE's current test procedures for refrigeration products appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A1 (for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers) and B1 (for freezers). DOE recently issued a NOPR in which it proposed to amend these appendices, and to create new Appendices A and B, applicable to refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers and freezers, respectively, for products covered by today's proposed standards, (
i.e.,
those manufactured on or after January 1, 2014). 75 FR 29824 (May 27, 2010). While the proposed test procedures would retain or revise many of the provisions currently in appendices A1 and B1, they would also add some new procedures. Most of the revisions and additions would apply to all refrigeration products, and would be reflected in both new appendices, as follows: Updating references to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) HRF-1 test standard; incorporating icemaking energy use into the energy use metric for products with automatic icemakers; clarifying the procedures for test sample preparation; modifying the test methods for convertible compartments and special-purpose compartments; modifying the anti-sweat heater definition to include those heaters that prevent sweat (
i.e.,
moisture condensation) on interior surfaces; establishing new compartment temperatures and volume calculation methods; modifying the test methods for advanced defrost systems; eliminating the optional third part of the test method for products with variable defrost systems; and adjusting and correcting the various energy use equations included in the test procedure regulatory text.
Id.
DOE also proposed to adopt language in a new appendix A to incorporate test methods for products equipped with variable anti-sweat heater control systems that are currently addressed in waivers. These waivers apply only to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.
Id.
at 29835-37.
Finally, DOE proposed to amend certain other provisions to clarify that combination freezer-wine storage products are not subject to the standards for refrigerator-freezers and to require manufacturers and private labelers to include additional information when they certify to DOE the compliance of refrigeration products that use advanced controls.
Id.
at 29829 and 29841-42.
The test procedure NOPR public meeting was held June 22, 2010. DOE received numerous comments from stakeholders at this meeting, addressing all aspects of the proposed test procedure amendments. The comment period for the test procedure rulemaking ended on August 10, 2010.
Id.
at 29824.
1. Test Procedure Rulemaking Schedule
The preliminary analysis documents were published, and the preliminary analysis public meeting was held, prior to publication of the test procedure
NOPR describing the amended test procedure on which the preliminary analysis was based. Because of this situation, AHAM commented that it was difficult for it to comment fully on the preliminary analysis because the specific test procedure changes were not yet known. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 17)
9
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) expressed concern about completion of the energy standards rulemaking, since the test procedure NOPR had not yet been published. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 25) The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) commented that test procedure rulemakings have been completed by the time of the energy standards NOPR in the past, and that this is a reasonable approach. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 26)
9
Comments made during the public meeting are cited as (Commenter acronym, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at [pages in the transcript at which the comment appears]).
While DOE acknowledges the advantages of publishing the test procedure rulemaking prior to discussing the preliminary analysis, the agency is working diligently to complete all of the rulemakings related to refrigeration products within the statutorily mandated schedule. DOE notes that under EPCA, an amended or new energy conservation standard may not be prescribed unless a test procedure for the regulated product has been prescribed. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3). DOE has every intention of complying with this requirement.
2. Icemaking
DOE received numerous comments regarding energy use attributable to icemaking during the preliminary analysis phase of this rulemaking.
Stakeholders generally agreed that icemaking energy use should be incorporated into the energy use metric for refrigeration products. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and ASAP submitted a joint comment (hereafter referred to as ACEEE/ASAP) urging that icemaker energy use and losses associated with through-the-door ice and water service be incorporated into the test method and rulemaking. (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 1)
10
These commenters added that water service as well as ice service should be included in the refrigeration product energy use metric. (
Id.
at 1-2) A group of California utilities consisting of Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Gas Company, and Southern California Edison, collectively organized as the California Investor Owned Utilities (IOU), commented that the energy associated with operating automatic ice makers should be addressed, because operational automatic ice makers contribute significantly to the refrigerator energy consumption. (IOU, No. 36 at p. 2) IOU also commented that energy use associated with water dispensing should be considered in the test procedure. (IOU, No. 36 at p. 6) The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) agreed with the guidance DOE developed on how to treat icemakers during testing (75 FR 2122 (January 14, 2010)), and commented that the guidance will be adequate for use in this rulemaking. NRDC added that it is imperative that DOE revise the test procedure to include ice maker energy usage in the next standard. (NRDC, No. 39 at p. 2) Support for incorporating icemaking energy use explicitly in the energy metric was also expressed by LG Electronics U.S.A. (LG), Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), ASAP, and in unpaginated comments submitted by Sub Zero-Wolf, Inc. (Sub Zero). (LG, No. 41 at p. 1; NEEP, No. 38 at p. 1; NPCC, No. 33 at p. 1; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 28; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 2)
10
Written comments are cited as (Commenter acronym, No. [assigned comment number in the docket] at p. [page number at which the comment appears]).
Regarding the inclusion of a method in the test procedure for measuring the energy use attributable to water dispensing, DOE is unaware of any publicly available information about the daily water usage by consumers using water dispenser-equipped refrigeration products. DOE developed a preliminary estimate for this energy use as follows. Assuming an average consumption of 0.63 gallons per standard size refrigerator per day,
11
a water temperature of 70 °F when entering the system (typical household ambient temperature to which the water in the refrigerator supply tubing would equilibrate between icemaking cycles) and a dispensed temperature of 39 °F (the standardized temperature for the fresh food compartment in the HRF-1-2008 test procedure), and a refrigeration system EER
12
of 5 Btu/hr-W, this energy use is equal to 12 kWh per year, roughly 2.5 percent of the average energy use of a typical refrigerator-freezer. Based on these data, there appears to be limited potential for savings from increasing the efficiency of the cooling and processing of the dispensed water. Although solenoid valves are energized while water is dispersed, the duration of valve actuation is so short that the valves do not contribute significantly to energy use. The only significant energy use attributable to water dispensation by the refrigeration system is for cooling the water. Unlike with the case of automatic icemaking, in which electric heaters are typically used to free ice from an ice mold, there is no obvious portion of the energy use that can be reduced or eliminated by improving component efficiency. Based on the limited amount of available data, DOE currently lacks sufficient information regarding the level of water consumption associated with water dispenser-equipped refrigeration equipment to either develop a test procedure or set a standard within the context of the agency's current rulemaking activities. DOE may consider the adoption of such a method in a future rulemaking to amend its test procedures.
11
Based on 0.22 gallons of drinking water per person per day (Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 283: R993-R1004, 2002.) and 2.89 people per household with a standard sized refrigerator (2005 RECS data for standard-size refrigerators with TTD ice.).
12
EER, the energy efficiency ratio, is a measure of the efficiency of a compressor or a refrigeration system, being equal to the delivered cooling in British Thermal Units per hour (Btu/hr) divided by the compressor or system power input in Watts (W). The value 5 Btu/hr-W is based on a typical EER of 5.5 Btu/hr-W for the compressor of a baseline standard-size refrigerator (See NOPR TSD Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, section 5.8.4), with some reduction of this efficiency associated with the additional power input of the evaporator and condenser fans.
Several stakeholders highlighted the challenges involved in the development of a test procedure for icemaking energy use. AHAM commented that developing a procedure to determine automatic icemaking energy consumption would be complex, and that any such procedure must be robust and repeatable. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2) GE commented that it is critical that DOE insist on a robust, repeatable procedure that minimizes variability for calculating icemaker energy prior to inclusion in any standards. (GE, No. 37 at p. 1) LG commented on the complexity of such a procedure and also emphasized that any such procedure that DOE adopts be verifiable, repeatable, and reliable. (LG, No. 41 at p. 3) Other stakeholders commenting on the complexity of development of an icemaking test procedure include Sub Zero and AHAM. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 3; Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 29; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, at pp. 30, 31)
AHAM's ongoing work to develop a test procedure to measure icemaking energy use was mentioned at the public
meeting. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 28-33) AHAM noted that there was significant variation in the initial measurements made by AHAM members to assess a preliminary icemaking energy use test procedure and that additional work is required to better understand the reasons for this variation. (See “AHAM Update to DOE on Status of Ice Maker Energy Test Procedure,” 11/19/2009, No. 46) AHAM further commented that the next step is to complete round robin evaluation, which is expected to take 3 to 4 months. The initial measurements made by AHAM members did not explore the potential impact of volume or product type on automatic ice maker energy use and provided no indication of how icemaker energy might be incorporated into the baseline energy efficiency curves. Additional testing to provide this information is expected to take another 4 months. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2) The projected date of completion of this process, based on the January 15 date of the comments, was at best the middle of August 2010.
Given the complexity of this test procedure development work, many stakeholders suggested that finalizing a standard in 2010 based on a test procedure which includes a measurement of icemaking energy use is not critical for purposes of setting appropriate energy efficiency levels. Stakeholders who held this view included ACEEE/ASAP, GE, NRDC, and Sub Zero. (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 1-2; GE, No. 37 at p. 1; NRDC, No. 39 at p. 2; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 3) NEEP disagreed with this viewpoint and commented that DOE should consider imposing a deadline for the industry-led process to finalize an updated test procedure that incorporates icemaking energy use, after which DOE should quickly finalize a procedure to incorporate into its regulations. NEEP also suggested that a test procedure update prior to promulgation of standards was a more ideal solution. (NEEP, No. 38 at p. 1) Sub Zero and NEEP commented that a short delay in publication of the final rule for this rulemaking would be acceptable if necessary to allow sufficient time to develop the icemaking test procedure. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 3; NEEP, No. 38 at p. 2)
Several stakeholder comments addressed details associated with an icemaking test procedure. AHAM commented that the energy use metric should be expressed in annual kWh per year. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 32) The AHAM draft proposal is based on converting a measurement of the energy required to produce one pound of ice by a production quantity of 1.8 pounds per day to determine annual icemaking energy use. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2) IOU recommended consideration of either a “kWh per pound of ice” metric or a “kWh per year” metric. (IOU, No. 36 at pp. 2-3) In light of these comments, DOE proposes to establish an annual energy use for ice that will be added to the energy use measured using the current test procedure (or an amended version of the current procedure) to provide a total annual energy use metric that includes the energy associated with icemaking.
Additionally, AHAM commented that “the test procedure may need to allow manufacturers to subtract the thermodynamic energy required to convert water to ice, so that this energy is not targeted for energy efficiency improvements.” (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2) However, AHAM acknowledged that the theoretical efficiency depends on the Coefficient of Performance (COP)
13
of the particular refrigerator-freezer, which can vary. (
Id.
) Consideration of the COP in this context is important, because the AHAM comment implication is that the thermodynamic energy required to convert water to ice is independent of refrigerator design. On the contrary, this energy use is indirectly proportional to the COP, which is a characteristic of the refrigerator's design. However, EPCA requires that test procedures “shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use * * * or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use * * *” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)). This statutory provision calls for measuring energy use, and does not single out for incorporation into the test procedure only that portion of the energy use that could be eliminated or reduced through design modifications. DOE tentatively interpreted this requirement to mean that the test procedure must measure all of the energy use associated with a given product function.
13
Coefficient of Performance, equal to cooling energy delivered by the refrigeration product divided by energy input. This is related to EER, explained above, by the conversion of the units of energy input from British Thermal Units (Btu) to Watt-Hours (W-h).
LG commented that an icemaking test procedure should consider the potential overlap of icemaking and defrost periods. (LG, No. 41 at p. 3) DOE interprets this comment as addressing the fact that achieving steady state operation during icemaking may take a long time to achieve—possibly longer than the elapsed time between defrosts. Hence, the energy use increment associated with icemaking is difficult to distinguish from the energy use increment associated with defrost. DOE is not at this time considering this level of detail regarding a potential icemaking test.
Both AHAM and Sub Zero mentioned the need to consider manual as well as automatic icemaking. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 32; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 3) DOE notes that there is limited information available regarding the energy use of automatic icemakers, while there is no publicly available information regarding the energy use involved in manual icemaking. Hence, DOE is examining the possibility of incorporating the energy use of automatic icemakers into the energy use metric while leaving open for the time being the treatment of energy use related to manual icemaking.
DOE plans to incorporate icemaking energy use into the energy use metric for refrigeration products. However, DOE acknowledges the challenges in developing an accurate and repeatable test procedure and the need to avoid uncontrolled variability in energy test results associated with adopting a premature procedure. DOE also seeks to address this aspect of energy consumption and to improve the accuracy of representations of energy use (
i.e.,
on the EnergyGuide label used to inform consumers regarding product energy use) and has attempted to lay the initial foundations for an improved measurement by proposing a fixed placeholder representing icemaking energy use in kWh per year for all products equipped with an automatic icemaker. 75 FR 29846-47 (May 27, 2010). The proposed placeholder value is equal to the average reported by AHAM of measurements made using a draft icemaking energy use test procedure. (“AHAM Update to DOE on Status of Ice Maker Energy Test Procedure,” No. 46 at p. 11) DOE intends to closely monitor industry efforts in developing a method of measuring icemaking energy use and may propose the incorporation of such a measurement into the test procedure and energy conservation standard at the appropriate time.
Stakeholders also commented regarding the approach used to set standards for icemaking energy use or to adjustment of energy standards to include icemaking energy use. DOE sought input regarding an appropriate method to establish maximum icemaking energy use as a function of product class and adjusted volume, as well as the available technology options to reduce icemaking energy use.
(Preliminary Analysis Public Meeting Presentation, No. 26 at p. 19) EEI commented that maximum icemaking energy is more a function of the number and characteristics of occupants/users than it is a function of volume. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 34) DOE agrees with this comment, but notes that energy conservation standards, defined by EPCA as “a performance standard which prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use * * * for a covered product * * *” (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)(A)), do not address characteristics of the product purchasers or users. IOU commented that ice maker efficiency is directly affected by refrigeration system efficiency, ice maker component efficiency, allowable sub freezing temperature, and ice maker type. (IOU, No. 36 at p. 6) Stakeholders including AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool commented that it is premature to evaluate design options for reducing icemaking energy use and/or to set standards for icemaking at other than current baseline levels. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 3; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 32, 33; GE, No. 37 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 5) AHAM further elaborated that a necessary first step before setting standards for icemaking would be to develop a robust test procedure and to establish that function's baseline energy use. In AHAM's view, the evaluation of design options and the potential for energy use reduction should be considered for a future rulemaking after fully demonstrating the validity of the test procedure (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 3)
DOE agrees that proposing a standard level for icemaking energy use is premature prior to the development of a test procedure that can be used to evaluate baseline icemaking energy use. EPCA prohibits the establishment of energy conservation standards for refrigeration products if no test procedure has been prescribed. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A). DOE's proposed approach of assigning a fixed quantity of energy to icemaking in the test procedure in lieu of a test that measures each product's icemaking efficiency for comparison with a standard would provide information to consumers regarding the additional energy use associated with icemaking, since the energy use measurement reported on EnergyGuide labels will include this component. This proposed method would also give the industry additional time in which to perfect its test procedure to address this particular energy-consuming component.
The test procedure, which is the basis for the engineering analysis, does not consider variation of icemaking energy use as a function of product characteristics (other than the presence of an automatic icemaker). For that reason, DOE stated during the preliminary analysis public meeting that the engineering analysis does not consider icemaking. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 27) NPCC pointed out that DOE's energy use analysis (see chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD) does address icemaking energy use through application in the calculations of the Usage Adjustment Factor (UAF) that converts energy test measurements to field energy use. (NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 27) DOE agrees that the usage adjustment factors (UAF) incorporate an adjustment to include icemaking energy use. (See Preliminary TSD, No. 22 at p. 7-6.) In the preliminary LCC analysis, DOE calculated energy savings by multiplying the energy use reduction under consideration (
e.g.,
20-percent energy use reduction) by multiplying this percentage reduction by all of the calculated baseline field energy use, including icemaking energy use for products having automatic icemakers. In contrast, the NOPR analysis separated icemaking energy use from consideration of energy use reduction as much as possible, which is consistent with the proposal DOE is currently considering to incorporate icemaking energy use into the test procedure. This process is described more fully in the NOPR TSD.
3. Circumvention
Consumers Union submitted comments that specifically addressed circumvention. Key points made in its submittal included the following:
• Test procedures need to keep up with product development and must be continually updated and strengthened. Test procedures must be updated more frequently. (Consumers Union, No. 44 at pp. 5, 6)
• Regulations should explicitly provide a procedure for DOE to quickly close testing loopholes and to hold manufacturers accountable for any intentional manipulation of test procedures. (Consumers Union, No. 44 at pp. 5, 6)
• The test procedure should require compartment temperatures to be within a smaller range of acceptable values, such as within +/−2° F of ideal storage values. (Consumers Union, No. 44 at p. 5)
• The test procedure should reflect typical consumer conditions by explicitly forbidding any special energy savings at test temperatures, settings, or conditions that consumers are unlikely to experience. (Consumers Union, No. 44 at p. 5)
DOE acknowledges the need to update test procedures more frequently. DOE also acknowledges that enforcement and verification activities are needed to ensure that manufacturers cannot circumvent the test procedure. To this end, DOE is examining a variety of options to address these concerns and notes that its concurrent test procedure rulemaking would likely deal with these issues. Additionally, by statute, the agency is obligated to update its test procedure at least once every seven years, which DOE has every intention to fulfill.
See
42 U.S.C. 6293(b).
4. Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control
Anti-sweat heaters are used to prevent the condensation of moisture on refrigeration product surfaces. Such accumulation of moisture as liquid droplets is undesirable because (1) It is unsightly, (2) it encourages mold growth, and (3) the water drops can fall to the floor and create a slip hazard. These heaters are often electricity-consuming resistance heaters. However, many refrigeration products also use waste heat from the refrigeration system to provide anti-sweat heating functions. This is accomplished by routing hot gas or warm liquid refrigerant tubing in the regions of the cabinet that require anti-sweat heating.
GE and AHAM both supported DOE's proposal to amend the current test procedure to address the treatment of products equipped with a variable anti-sweat heater control system. These systems control anti-sweat heater operation by reducing or eliminating their energy use when ambient conditions, such as humidity, indicate that heater operation at full load is unnecessary. (GE, No. 37 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 10) DOE notes that, while it plans to modify the current test procedure to enable it to address variable anti-sweat heater control systems, the agency may choose not to directly incorporate the current waiver language covering these types of systems into the test procedure.
See, e.g.,
variable antisweat heater waivers published at 73 FR 10425 (February 27, 2008) and 74 FR 20695 (May 5, 2009). DOE proposed as part of its test procedure amendments to incorporate a modified version of that procedure (
see
75 FR 29835-37 (May 27, 2010)), and is considering public comments in finalizing those amendments.
5. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use
DOE also notes that EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, requires DOE to
amend its test procedures for all covered products, including those for refrigeration products, to include measurement of standby mode and off mode energy consumption, except where current test procedures fully address such energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)) As indicated above, DOE's current test procedures for refrigeration products fully address standby and off mode energy use, and any amended test procedure that DOE adopts for these products will continue to do so.
B. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that have the potential to improve product or equipment efficiency. To conduct the analysis, DOE develops a list of design options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of these means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible if it is currently in use by the relevant industry, or if a working prototype exists.
See
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) (providing that “[t]echnologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.”)
Once DOE has determined that particular design options are technologically feasible, it evaluates each of these design options using the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)). Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for refrigeration products, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4, Screening Analysis, of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt (or not 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, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (hereafter max-tech) reductions in energy use for refrigeration products in the engineering analysis.
As described in the preliminary TSD, DOE conducted a full analysis of a set of product classes that comprise a large percentage of product shipments in the market today. DOE's approach for extending proposed standard levels established for these product classes to the non-analyzed product classes is described in chapter 2, Analytical Framework, of the preliminary TSD, in section 2.15. However, this section of this notice reports the max-tech efficiency levels only for the directly analyzed product classes.
DOE used the proposed test procedures that would apply once manufacturers must comply with the new standard to determine the max-tech efficiency levels of the directly analyzed product classes. The efficiency levels are defined as reductions in that portion of the energy use not associated with icemaking. As described in section III.A, above, the energy use associated with icemaking under the proposed test procedure is a fixed quantity not correlated with an efficiency level. Separating this fixed quantity of energy use from the definition of efficiency level allows a more direct comparison of products, irrespective of whether a given product is equipped with an automatic icemaker. This approach also allows DOE to compare the efficiency levels based on the proposed test procedure (
i.e.,
projections of possible energy use reductions) against the energy use based on the existing test procedure and current standard.
14
14
In other words, a product with energy usage that is a certain percentage below the current energy standard should remain the same percentage below the baseline energy use under the proposed test procedure after subtracting icemaking energy use. Hence, the max-tech levels expressed as percentage of energy use reduction should be the same for both sets of test procedures.
DOE used the full set of design options considered applicable for these products classes to determine the max-tech efficiency levels for the analyzed product classes. (
See
chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, section 5.4.4.) Table III.1 lists the max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking. The table also presents the max-tech levels that are commercially available. The max-tech levels differ from those presented in the preliminary TSD, and are generally lower (
i.e.,
the percent energy use reductions are lower for the NOPR analysis, thus the max-tech energy use is higher). The reduction in the max-tech efficiency levels is due to the revisions DOE implemented in the NOPR engineering analysis to address new information obtained during this phase of the work.
Table III.1—Max-Tech Efficiency Levels for the Refrigeration Products Rulemaking
Product class
Description
Efficiency level (percent
energy use reduction)
DOE analysis
(in percent)
Max tech
commercially
available
(in percent)
Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers
3
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service
36
30
5
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service
36
33
7
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
33
32
Standard-Size Freezers
9
Upright freezers with automatic defrost
44
27
10
Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers
41
16
Compact Products
11
Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost
59
27
18
Compact chest freezers
42
23
Built-In Products
3A-BI
Built-In All-refrigerators—automatic defrost
28
31
5-BI
Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service
27
27
7-BI
Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service
22
21
9-BI
Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost
27
27
The max-tech efficiency levels identified for commercially available products are in most cases different from the max-tech levels shown in Table III.1. These levels are significantly higher than the commercially available max-tech levels for product classes 9 (upright freezers with automatic defrost), 10 (chest freezers), 11 (compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost), and 18 (compact chest freezers). DOE determined that higher max-tech levels for these products were possible because the commercially available products generally do not use all of the energy efficient design options considered in the DOE max-tech analyses. Prototypes with the DOE max-tech levels have not been identified, but the design options are all used in commercially available products.
DOE determined the max-tech levels using the EPA Refrigerator Analysis (ERA) program to conduct energy modeling. DOE conducted this energy modeling for specific products examined during the engineering analysis. DOE created energy models for the existing products and adjusted these models to represent modified designs using the screened-in design options. The max-tech levels represent the most efficient design option combinations applicable for the analyzed products. This process is described in the NOPR TSD in chapter 5, Engineering Analysis in sections 5.4.4 and 5.7. DOE considered different sets of design options for each product class, as indicated in Table III.2,
Table III.2—Design Options Considered for Max Tech
Product class
Design option
BLDC* fan motors
Heat
exchanger
improvement
Thicker walls
Vacuum
insulation
panels (VIPs)
Variable speed
compressor
Adaptive
defrost
Variable anti-sweat
heater
control
Isobutane
refrigerant
3
√
√
√
√
√
5
√
√
√
√
√
√
7
√
√
√
√
√
√
9
√
√
√
√
√
√
10
√
√
√
√
11
√
√
√
√
√
18
√
√
√
√
3A-BI
√
√
√
√
√
5-BI
√
√
√
√
√
√
7-BI
√
√
√
√
√
√
9-BI
√
√
√
√
√
* Brushless-Direct-Current.
Stakeholder comments and questions regarding the preliminary analysis max-tech levels primarily address (a) The validity of max tech that is calculated based on technology options that are used in commercialized products but which is not achieved in actual products or prototypes, (b) the validity of consideration of variable speed compressors for compact products, (c) whether some of the design options, particularly heat exchanger size increases, would fit physically in the products, and (d) the validation of the energy modeling predictions. Comments falling under categories (b) through (d) address engineering analysis issues and are discussed in section IV.C, below.
Some stakeholders questioned DOE's use of energy analysis based on design options used in commercial products to determine max-tech levels rather than the maximum efficiency levels of available products.
AHAM questioned DOE's use of the max-tech evaluation. AHAM supports DOE's historical approach of using the max-tech reference to identify those units in the market that have achieved the maximum efficiency. (AHAM, No. 34 at pp. 10, 15)
GE also pointed out the discrepancy between the commercially available max-tech level and the theoretical max-tech level. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 77) GE mentioned that DOE has not provided a detailed comparison of the maximum efficiency levels currently available in the market with the model-based max tech. (
Id.
) In written comments, GE also stated that DOE should not use theoretical max-tech levels not yet proven as viable alternatives in the marketplace and noted that there may be some instances where the inclusion of certain designs options may not yield additive improvements in efficiency. (GE, No. 37 at p. 2)
While DOE has often selected max-tech levels that are based on commercially available efficiency levels, max-tech selections are not required to be limited to commercially available products or prototypes. DOE follows a prescribed method for evaluating technologies, which is laid out in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A. When DOE evaluates design options in ascertaining max-tech levels, these options are ones that have been incorporated into commercial products or in working prototypes. See,
e.g.,
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) and 5(b)(1). The range of candidate standard levels will typically include the most energy efficient combination of design options. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 5(c)(3)(i)(A). Because all of the design options represented by the max-tech levels examined by DOE are in use in the marketplace, DOE is considering max-tech levels that employ
combinations
of these design options, which, for some of the product classes, are not currently found in the marketplace. DOE considered in the analysis whether the chosen design options used for the max-tech analyses can be combined and concluded that the chosen combinations are valid. For example, when considering VIPs, DOE adjusted the analysis to remove some conventional insulation, and when considering variable-speed compressors, DOE removed high-efficiency single-speed compressor design options.
DOE requests comment on the max-tech levels identified and on the combinations of design options considered applicable to achieve max-tech designs. DOE requests that comments also address as appropriate the differences in applicable design options for different product classes.
See
Issue 2 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E. Based on comments received in response to these issues, DOE may make adjustments to its proposed levels.
C. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from amended standards for the refrigeration products that are the subject of this rulemaking.
15
For each TSL, DOE forecasted energy savings beginning in 2014, the year that manufacturers would be required to comply with amended standards, and ending in 2043. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between the standards case and the base case. The base case represents the forecast of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency standards, and considers market demand for more-efficient products.
15
The NIA spreadsheet model is described in section IV.G of this notice.
The NIA spreadsheet model calculates the electricity savings in “site energy” expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site energy is the energy directly consumed by refrigeration products at the locations where they are used. DOE reports national energy savings on an annual basis in terms of the aggregated source (primary) energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site energy. (See TSD chapter 10.) To convert site energy to source energy, DOE derived annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)
Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO2010).
2. Significance of Savings
As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting a standard for a covered product if such standard would not result in “significant” energy savings. While the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in
Natural Resources Defense Council
v.
Herrington,
768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in this context to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.
D. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted in section II.B, 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)) 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 an amended standard on manufacturers, DOE first determines the quantitative impacts using an annual cash-flow approach. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between the issuance of a regulation and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year analysis period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include INPV (which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows), cash flows by year, changes in revenue and income, and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, paying particular attention to 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 different DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. The LCC, which is separately specified in EPCA as one of the seven factors to be considered in determining the economic justification for a new or amended standard, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts on consumers over the forecast period used in a particular rulemaking.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy and maintenance and
repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects likely trends in the absence of amended standards. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. DOE assumed in its analysis that consumers will purchase the considered products in 2014.
To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values with probabilities attached to each value. A distinct advantage of this approach is that DOE can identify the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. In addition to identifying ranges of impacts, DOE evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by a national standard.
c. Energy Savings
While significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing 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)) DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE sought to develop standards for refrigeration products that would not lessen the utility or performance of these products. None of the TSLs presented in today's NOPR would substantially reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in the rulemaking. However, manufacturers may reduce the availability of features that increase energy use, such as multiple drawers, in response to amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (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)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE has transmitted a copy of today's proposed rule to the Attorney General and has requested that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will address the Attorney General's determination in the final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
Certain benefits of the proposed standards are likely to be reflected in improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity may also 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.
Energy savings from the proposed standards are also likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the environmental effects from the proposed standards for refrigeration products, and from each TSL it considered, in the environmental assessment contained in chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs.
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In developing the proposals of this notice, DOE has also considered the comments of the stakeholders, including those raised in the Joint Comments.
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 of 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 payback period for consumers of potential amended energy conservation standards. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 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). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.12 of this NOPR and chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.
IV. Methodology and Discussion
DOE used two spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's proposed standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and payback periods of potential new energy conservation standards. The second provides shipments forecasts, and then calculates national energy savings and net present value impacts of potential new energy conservation standards. DOE also assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). The two spreadsheets will be made available online at the rulemaking Web site:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/refrigerators_freezers.html.
Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts on utilities and the environment of energy efficiency standards for refrigeration products. DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its
Annual Energy Outlook,
a widely known energy forecast for the United States. The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called NEMS-BT,
16
and is based on the
AEO
version with minor modifications.
17
The
NEMS-BT offers a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards because it accounts for the interactions between the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole.
16
BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies Program.
17
The EIA allows the use of the name “NEMS” to describe only an
AEO
version of the model without any modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code
modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from
AEO
assumptions, the name “NEMS-BT” refers to the model as used here. For more information on NEMS, refer to
The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview,
DOE/EIA-0581 (98) (Feb.1998), available at:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, and market characteristics. 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 product classes and manufacturers; quantities, and types of products sold and offered for sale; retail market trends; regulatory and non-regulatory programs; and technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the product(s) under examination. See chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
Discussion presented in this section of today's NOPR primarily addresses the scope of coverage of refrigeration products and the product class structure. Both of these issues were discussed at length during the preliminary analysis public meeting. DOE is proposing several modifications of the product class structure, as discussed in section IV.A.2, Below.
1. Exclusion of Wine Coolers From This Rulemaking
During the preliminary analysis, DOE considered whether wine coolers are covered products under EPCA, and whether they would be considered in this rulemaking. DOE modified the definition of “Electric Refrigerator” on November 19, 2001, by limiting the definition to products designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 °F. 66 FR 57845, 57848 (November 19, 2001). The modification imposed an upper limit on the applicable storage temperature range, thus eliminating wine storage products, which operate with storage temperatures above 40 °F (and generally near 55 °F) from consideration as electric refrigerators. The industry generally urged DOE to consider wine coolers within the scope of its rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 9; Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 108; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 9; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 2) AHAM further argued that DOE does have the authority to regulate wine coolers, and stated that regulation of wine coolers under a DOE standard is important to prevent manufacturers from having to meet multiple State requirements. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 36) Sub Zero suggested that DOE establish a standard that is consistent with current standards set by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), and also argued that no State or foreign requirement should set a de facto national standard for any appliance. (Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 9) Other commenters, IOU and Energy Solutions, representing Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), supported DOE's proposal. (IOU, No. 36 at p. 12; PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 36)
DOE notes that residential wine coolers are appliances designed for the storage of wine at a temperature of approximately 55 °F. Because they are neither designed for food storage, nor maintain storage temperatures below 39 °F, they are not “electric refrigerators” as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. Since EPCA does not define the term “refrigerators” or “refrigeration products,” a definition could be developed to account for those products that operate with warmer compartment temperature ranges, including wine storage products. DOE may consider such a change in a future rulemaking.
2. Product Classes
In evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides covered products into classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related feature that justifies a different standard for those products. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). In deciding whether a feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility of the feature to users. (
Id.
) DOE normally establishes different energy conservation standards for different product classes based on these criteria. The CFR sets forth 18 product classes for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
18
These classes are based on the following characteristics: type of unit (refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer), size of the cabinet (standard or compact), type of defrost system (manual, partial, or automatic), presence or absence of through-the-door (TTD) ice service, and placement of the fresh food and freezer compartments for refrigerator-freezers (top, side, bottom).
18
Title 10—Energy, Chapter II—Department of Energy, Part 430—Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products, Subpart A—General Provisions, Section 430.32—Energy and Water Conservation Standards and Effective Dates.
DOE proposes to create 19 new product classes to account for the increasingly wider number of variants of products. Six new product classes were discussed and proposed in the preliminary analysis phase. Table IV.1 presents the product classes under consideration in this rulemaking, including both current and proposed classes. Note that the designation of some of the current product classes has changed in order to address the proposed division of these product classes. The subsections below provide additional details and discussion of comments relating to the product classes under consideration.
Table IV.1—Proposed Product Classes for Refrigeration Products
Number
Product class
Classes listed in the CFR
1
Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost.
2
Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost.
3
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.
4
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.
5
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.
6
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.
7
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.
8
Upright freezers with manual defrost.
9
Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker.
10
Chest freezers with manual defrost and all other freezers except compact freezers.
11
Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost.
12
Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost.
13
Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer.
14
Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer.
15
Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer.
16
Compact upright freezers with manual defrost.
17
Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost.
18
Compact chest freezers.
Product classes proposed to be established in this rulemaking and introduced in the preliminary TSD
1A
All-refrigerators—manual defrost.
3A
All-refrigerators—automatic defrost.
5A
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.
10A
Chest freezers with automatic defrost.
11A
Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost.
13A
Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost.
Additional product classes proposed to be established in this rulemaking
3-BI
Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.
3I
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.
3I-BI
Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.
3A-BI
Built-in all-refrigerators—automatic defrost.
4I
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.
4-BI
Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.
4I-BI
Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.
5I
Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.
5-BI
Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.
5I-BI
Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.
5A-BI
Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.
7-BI
Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.
9-BI
Built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker.
DOE proposed six new product classes in the preliminary TSD. Two of these, product class 5A, “automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service,” and product class 10A, “chest freezers with automatic defrost,” were identified in the framework document as product classes 19 and 20. DOE modified the designation of these product classes in order to maintain consistency with the product class designations adopted by Canada. DOE received comments from AHAM and Whirlpool supporting this modification. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 40; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 1)
Four additional product classes proposed in the preliminary TSD are all-refrigerators. As described below, the proposed new test procedure has led to DOE's proposal to establish separate product classes for these products.
As part of today's NOPR, DOE proposes 13 additional new product classes. These classes are based on incorporation of icemaking energy use into the test procedure, and the need to address the different consumer utility and energy use characteristics of built-in products.
EPCA requires that the establishment of separate product classes be based on either (A) consumption of a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have, where such feature justifies a higher or lower standard from that which applies to other products within such type (or class). (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). The second of these criteria is applicable to all of the new product classes proposed in this rulemaking.
a. French Door Refrigerators With Through-the-Door Ice Service
DOE proposes to establish a new product class 5A (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service). Most, if not all, products of this class have a pair of French doors rather than a single door serving the upper fresh food compartment. Products of class 5A have TTD ice service features which are not present in current product class 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service). These added features increase energy use because of the thermal load associated with the TTD dispenser penetration and the anti-sweat heater energy generally used in this area of the product.
See, e.g.,
Decision and Order (Maytag Corporation), Office of Hearings and Appeals, Case No. TEE-0022 (published August 11, 2005) (granting
exception relief to Maytag and creating a revised energy equation to permit the sale of refrigerator-freezers equipped with a bottom-mounted freezer and through-the-door ice service). Hence, because of the presence of this capability, DOE has determined that these unique features merit a separate product class and justify a separate maximum energy use standard.
b. Chest Freezers With Automatic Defrost
Products of class 10A (chest freezers with automatic defrost) include an automatic defrost function, a feature not present in chest freezers with manual defrost. Automatic, as opposed to manual, defrost is recognized as a feature with distinct consumer utility that increases energy use, justifying a separate energy use standard.
See, e.g.,
Decision and Order (Electrolux Home Products, Inc.), Office of Hearings and Appeals, Case No. TEE-0012 (published September 13, 2004).
c. All-Refrigerators
DOE proposes establishing four new all-refrigerator product classes to separate these products from their current product classes. These current product classes—1 (refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost), 3 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service and all-refrigerators—automatic defrost), 11 (compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost), and 13 (compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer and compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost)—include refrigerators with freezer compartments (“basic refrigerators”), refrigerator-freezers, and all-refrigerators. The proposed test procedure changes described in section III.A will result in significantly higher measured energy use for basic refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, and somewhat less energy use for all-refrigerators. At this time, DOE believes that these differences in energy use characteristics under the proposed new test procedures, combined with the distinct utility difference associated with presence of a freezer compartment (of 0.5 cubic foot size or greater) satisfy the criteria under EPCA to establish separate product classes. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B)). DOE received comments supporting this proposal from AHAM and Whirlpool (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 40; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 4; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 41-42) Whirlpool clarified in written comments that separate product classes should not be added for multi-door refrigerators (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 1).
DOE's proposal to separate all-refrigerators from the product classes that currently include all-refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and basic refrigerators is based on the performance afforded by the freezer compartments of refrigerator-freezers and basic refrigerators. All-refrigerators were not explicitly mentioned when the 1990 energy standard was established. 54 FR 6062, 6077 (February 7, 1989). Product class 1 includes all-refrigerators with manual defrost, since “all-refrigerator” is a sub-category of “refrigerator.” That final rule did not explicitly recognize the existence of all-refrigerators with automatic defrost. (
Id.
) These products were subsequently added to product class 3 starting with the 1993 standard. 54 FR 47916 (November 17, 1989). The NOPR for that final rule, made this change in response to comments received from Whirlpool and AHAM. 53 FR 48798, 48809 (December 2, 1988). When compact products were later separated from standard-size products with the 2001 standard, the compact all-refrigerators became part of product classes 11 (for manual defrost products) and 13 (for automatic defrost products). 62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997).
Under the proposed test procedures that underpin today's proposed levels, the energy use characteristics of all-refrigerators will not be consistent with the refrigerator-freezers and basic refrigerators of the same current product classes. Specifically, the measured energy use of all-refrigerators is expected to decrease under the proposed new test procedures, while the measured energy use of refrigerator-freezers and basic refrigerators is expected to increase significantly (See the preliminary TSD chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, section 5.4.2.1). Since the freezer compartments of refrigerator-freezers and basic refrigerators provide a different level of consumer utility than all-refrigerators, and because the product differences also contribute to different efficiency characteristics, DOE tentatively believes that separating these product classes is justified under EPCA.
See
42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
With respect to the treatment of those products equipped with off-cycle defrost, DOE sought comment on whether stakeholders agree with the agency's interpretation that this feature is a form of automatic defrost and whether the proposed product class 1A (all-refrigerators with manual defrost) is needed. In products with off-cycle defrost, the evaporator warms above freezing temperature when the compressor turns off, thus allowing the frost to melt. Such defrost systems are used only in all-refrigerators or fresh food compartments of refrigerator-freezers, because the compartment temperature must be above 32 °F for the evaporator to warm above freezing. The proposed product class 1A includes standard-size all-refrigerators with manual defrost. If off-cycle defrost is treated as automatic defrost rather than manual defrost, product class 1A would consist primarily of refrigerators with roll-bond evaporators enclosing freezer compartments with a size of less than 0.5 cubic foot. During the preliminary analysis discussion, DOE was unaware of whether standard-size products with such small freezer compartments exist and requested comment on these issues for this reason.
AHAM commented during the public meeting that it considers off-cycle defrost to be automatic defrost, but that it was not aware of any all-refrigerator products with manual defrost (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 40) However, Sanyo E&E Corporation (Sanyo) indicated in written comments that it manufacturers such products (Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 3) Based on this information, DOE proposes that product class 1A be established in addition to the other all-refrigerator product classes.
ASAP urged DOE to avoid introducing too many product classes, and that streamlining product classes has been shown to reduce overall energy consumption. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 41) DOE believes that each of its proposed product classes is needed to ensure that meaningful efficiency levels will be established for each of these products. Because the measured energy use of products with freezer compartments larger than 0.5 cubic foot is expected to increase roughly 15 percent under the proposed new test procedure and the energy use of all-refrigerators is expected to decrease roughly 3 percent (see chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, of the preliminary TSD, section 5.4.2.1), the energy use characteristics of the former group of products will determine the new standards for these product classes. The proposed test procedure would be more representative of field energy use differences of these product classes and would show higher energy use for basic refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers than all-refrigerators. Accordingly, by DOE's estimates, the potential energy savings associated with all-refrigerators resulting from the new energy standard would be roughly 18 percent less if DOE
retains the current product class structure than they would be if DOE establishes separate all-refrigerator product classes.
d. Products With Automatic Icemakers
The test procedure proposed to apply to refrigeration products covered under the proposed new energy conservation standards incorporates energy use associated with automatic icemaking. 75 FR 29846 (May 27, 2010). DOE considers an automatic icemaker to be a feature that provides unique consumer utility. Products equipped with an automatic icemaker would have energy characteristics that are distinct from those without one because the energy use measured under the proposed test procedure depends on the presence of an automatic icemaker. Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes that establishing product class distinctions based on the presence of an automatic icemaker is justified. (
See
42 U.S.C. 6295(q).)
Some of the existing product classes denote products that inherently have automatic icemakers. These include product classes 6 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service) and 7 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service). However, some of the other product classes denote products that may or may not include automatic icemakers. For these products, DOE proposes to establish new product classes, as indicated in Table IV.1, above. These proposed new product classes include conventional (free-standing) and built-in classes of refrigerator-freezers with automatic defrost. Built-in product classes are discussed further in section IV.A.2.e below.
DOE requests comments on its proposal to establish product classes for products with automatic icemakers, including DOE's proposed approach to account for icemakers in the product class structure. See Issue 3 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR. The classes and levels that DOE ultimately adopts may be adjusted from the proposal based on the comments an information DOE receives and gathers.
e. Built-In Products
DOE received several comments on the possible establishment of separate product classes for built-in refrigeration products. Sub Zero supported establishing separate product classes, citing (i) inherent design differences between built-in and free-standing products that make attaining higher efficiency levels more difficult for built-ins (the efficiency level difference was quantified as about 15 percent), (ii) limited design options for improving built-in unit efficiency, (iii) the unique utility of these products, not offered by conventional units, which, in Sub Zero's view, satisfies the criteria under EPCA to justify creating a new product class, and (iv) the precedent set in the previous refrigeration product rulemaking, where separate product classes were established for compact refrigerators. (Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 101-04; Sub Zero, No. 40 at pp. 5-7) In Sub Zero's view, the unique consumer utility offered by built-ins is their ability to fit seamlessly into the surrounding kitchen cabinetry. (Sub-Zero, No. 40 at p. 6) Sub Zero also commented that built-ins have numerous differences when compared to their free-standing counterparts. Typically, built-in units have more doors and drawers than other products, and may also have glass doors and several different temperature compartments. (
Id.
) Sub Zero supported these statements with additional comments and concluded that DOE's decision on whether to create product classes for built-in units is pivotal to Sub Zero's ability to compete in the market. (Sub Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 104; Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 7)
AHAM, Whirlpool, and Sanyo all submitted comments supporting Sub Zero's request for separate product classes for built-in units. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at pp. 104-05; AHAM, No. 34 at p. 8; Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 4; and Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 2) AHAM supported Sub Zero's statement that built-in products provide an important utility to a subset of refrigeration product consumers. (AHAM, No. 34 at p. 8) Whirlpool agreed that the characteristics of built-in units are sufficiently different from free-standing models, and noted that built-ins have significantly different cost requirements to reach higher efficiencies. (Whirlpool, No. 31 at p. 4) Sanyo stated that the design issues affecting standard-sized built-in models affect compact built-ins as well. (Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 2)
To address the built-in issue, AHAM suggested a definition for built-in products:
Refrigerators, freezers and refrigerators with freezer units that are 7.75 cubic feet or greater; are totally encased by cabinetry or panels by either accepting a custom front panel or being equipped with an integral factory-finished face; are intended to be securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor; has sides which are not fully finished and are not intended to be visible after installation.
(AHAM, No. 34 at p. 8)
Despite these comments in favor of establishing a separate built-in class, DOE also received a number of comments opposing this approach. In their joint comments, ACEEE and ASAP voiced concern that lower standards for built-in products would lead to a consumer shift toward the built-in segment, thereby reducing the projected energy savings from the standard. (ACEEE/ASAP, No. 43 at p. 5) IOU agreed with the ACEEE/ASAP concern regarding an increasing built-in market share and noted that the incremental cost and associated price increase that manufacturers would incur to design built-in products that would satisfy the same level of efficiency as their free-standing counterparts is likely to be small when compared to the final retail price. Additionally, IOU, along with Earthjustice and NRDC, indicated that built-in products provide essentially the same amenity and service as free-standing products, and do not warrant separate product classes on the basis of offering a unique customer utility. (IOU, No. 36 at p. 11; Earthjustice, No. 35 at pp. 1-5; NRDC, No. 39 at p. 2)
Requirements for consideration of separate product classes are addressed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). That section provides that when creating a separate class of products, certain criteria must be met:
(q) Special rule for certain types or classes of products.
(1) A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of covered products shall specify a level of energy use or efficiency higher or 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).
In making a determination under this paragraph concerning whether a performance-related 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.
(2) Any rule prescribing a higher or lower level of energy use or efficiency under paragraph (1) shall include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
Based on the available facts currently before DOE, built-in products appear to provide unique consumer utility by enabling consumers to build these products seamlessly into their kitchen cabinetry. These products are designed with standard dimensions to fit standard cabinet sizes, including a shallow depth of 24 inches. As Sub-Zero pointed out, many of the design differences that permit this capability also have an impact on energy use. DOE's analysis confirms the increased difficulty these products have as compared with freestanding units in achieving further reductions in energy use. This information is presented in detail in the NOPR TSD, and some of the information is summarized below in this section.
However, the use of glass doors or additional doors and drawers do not appear to be unique to built-in products. DOE's Web site research of the product offerings of four built-in manufacturers (Sub Zero, GE Monogram, Kitchenaid, and Viking, Web sites accessed June 3, 2010) showed that most built-in products do not have these features (“Online Research on Built-in Refrigeration Features”, No. 51). Table IV.2 shows the results of a review of built-in products on the Web sites of these four major manufacturers of built-in refrigeration products. A very limited number of the available products (13 out of 116) had these special features. Additionally, DOE's review of product offerings of conventional free-standing products shows that many product offerings have French doors or multiple drawers. Because these features are neither exclusive to built-ins nor shared by a vast majority of built-ins, DOE does not consider these features to be particularly relevant to the consideration of the consumer utility provided by built-in products.
Table IV.2—Built-In Product Special Features
Glass window
One extra drawer
French doors
One extra door and three extra drawers
Number of products
X
3
X
X
1
X
6
X
2
X
1
No special features
103
Total number of products
116
Note:
Based on products on the Web sites of four key manufacturers of built-in refrigeration products.
As noted above, in addition to providing special consumer utility, EPCA requires that the consumer utility offered by the product form the basis for the different efficiency characteristics that would merit the creation of a separate product class. Sub Zero's comments to DOE have enumerated the design differences associated with the utility provided by built-in products that affect their energy efficiency, including the following:
1. Built-ins are typically constrained by kitchen cabinetry, which can increase the exterior surface area and the door perimeter length per interior volume, and also limit manufacturers' ability to increase wall thickness for built-in products more so than for conventional products because depth increase is limited by the standard cabinetry depth.
2. Built-ins have more complex hinge motion to avoid adjacent cabinets, which increases the size of the hinge hardware embedded in the cabinet walls, thus increasing thermal loss.
3. Air flow is more restricted for built-ins, since the installation imposes more limits on access for air movement. Condenser air flow is often in and out of the front of the condenser area, thus reducing condenser air flow rate.
(Sub-Zero, No. 40 at p. 6)
In addition, some built-in products use hot gas rather than warm liquid anti-sweat heating loops. Nearly all conventional free-standing products with refrigerant anti-sweat loop use warm liquid. Warm liquid loops use refrigerant liquid that has left the condenser to warm the surfaces in question, while hot gas loops use hot gas that has not yet entered the condenser. Because the hot gas refrigerant is at a higher temperature than the warm liquid used in a warm liquid loop, it can transfer significantly more heat to the heated surface and, in turn, to the cabinet interior. Hot gas loops are sometimes used in built-ins because the paneling mounted on the doors blocks the door frame surfaces from being warmed by ambient air, which more readily leads to condensation during field use (
i.e.,
in a customer's home). This design can increase cabinet load, resulting in a higher measured energy use.
19
19
Cabinet load refers to the thermal load (heat) entering the cabinet. The refrigeration system must remove this load from the cabinet to maintain compartment temperatures, and it expends energy in doing so.
DOE analyzed four built-in products for the NOPR to determine whether their efficiency characteristics differ significantly from those of conventional free-standing products. These four products represent four key product classes for built-in products, all of standard (not compact) size: All-refrigerator—automatic defrost (proposed product class 3A), refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service (product class 5), refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service (product class 7), and upright freezers with automatic defrost (product class 9). DOE compared the results of these analyses with those conducted for conventional (free-standing) products for product classes 3 (refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), 5, 7, and 9.
Product class 3 under the current standard includes both all-refrigerator—automatic defrost and refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service. Because there are very few shipments of built-in top-mount refrigerators, and all-refrigerators are a minority product for the free-standing market, DOE compared a conventional top-mount refrigerator with the built-in all-refrigerator.
DOE analyzed two conventional products of each examined product class. The max-tech levels for the analyzed built-ins and conventional products are compared in Table IV.3. The max-tech levels for the built-in
products are significantly lower than those for the conventional products, by roughly 10 percent for the refrigerator-freezers (product classes 5 and 7) and 15 percent for the upright freezers (product class 9). The difference is greater for upright freezers because DOE considered wall thickness increases appropriate for conventional upright freezers but not for built-in upright freezers, due to the limited-space kitchen installation typical for built-in upright freezers.
Table IV.3—Max-Tech Differences between Built-In and Conventional Products
Product class
Built-in: 3A
conventional: 3
5
(see Note 1)
7
9
Design Options
• Larger Heat Exchangers
• BLDC Fan Motors
• VIPs (see Note 2)
• Variable-Speed Compressors
• Adaptive Defrost
• Larger Heat Exchangers
• BLDC Fan Motors
• VIPs (see Note 2)
• Variable-Speed Compressors
• Adaptive Defrost
• Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control (see Note 4)
• Larger Heat Exchangers.
• BLDC Fan Motors.
• VIPs (see Note 2).
• Variable-Speed Compressors.
• Adaptive Defrost.
• Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control for Ice Dispenser
• Larger Heat Exchangers
• BLDC Fan Motors
• VIPs (see Note 2)
• Variable-Speed Compressors
• Adaptive Defrost
• Forced Convection Condenser (see Note 5).
• Wall Thickness Increase (see Note 6).
Percentage energy use lower than a baseline-efficiency product
Built-In Max Tech
29%
27%
22%
27%
Conventional Max Tech
36%
36%
33%
44%
Notes:
1. Percentage reduction is from reference standard curve with increased slope for product class 5.
2. VIPs applied fully to doors and to half of cabinet.
3. Many of the design options such as BLDC fan motors and adaptive defrost are already present in baseline-efficiency built-in products.
4. Variable Anti-Sweat Heater control was not considered for the built-in products of product class 5, since French doors are not common for product class 5 built-ins.
5. Forced convection condenser already present in the baseline built-in upright freezer.
6. Wall thickness increase considered only for the conventional upright freezer, since the built-in upright freezer is designed primarily for installation in a kitchen, where limitations to product growth apply.
Information provided by built-in unit manufacturers during the NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA) discussions is generally consistent with the design differences between built-in and conventional products shown in the detailed analysis described above. For example, achieving the ENERGY STAR efficiency level for built-in standard-size refrigerator-freezers generally requires use of variable-speed compressors, VIPs, or both. In contrast, conventional standard-size refrigerator-freezers generally achieve this efficiency level without use of either of these design options. This situation leaves fewer options available for further efficiency improvements for built-in products. Accordingly, based on this information, there do not appear to be additional design options currently available to enable manufacturers to produce built-ins to an efficiency level matching their free-standing counterparts.
Moreover, the unique consumer utility offered by built-in products is demonstrated in part by the higher costs some customers are willing to pay to obtain this utility. While cost difference alone is generally not considered to be basis for consumer utility, the significantly higher price paid by consumers for built-in products can be considered an indicator that consumers value the utility associated with the built-in design. The cost difference between built-in and conventional products is presented in Table IV.4 for product classes 4 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), 5, 7, and 9. This comparison is based on proprietary retail price data collected by The NPD Group, which includes retail purchase price information for millions of purchases of refrigeration products. The comparison between the built-in and conventional product types is based on separate consideration of brands that include only built-in products and brands that include only conventional products. Brands that include both built-in and conventional products (
e.g.,
KitchenAid) are not represented in the table because the NPD Group dataset does not clearly distinguish built-in status in the data of such brands. The data show that built-in product average prices are approximately $3,500 to $6,200 higher than those of conventional products.
Table IV.4—Built-In Product Cost Compared With Conventional Products
Product
class 4
Product
class 5
Product
class 7
Product
class 9
Built-In Median
$6,214
$5,190
$6,637
$3,181
Average
7,017
4,983
7,213
4,062
Std. Deviation
1,990
817
1,018
1,023
Conventional Median
1,073
797
1,019
509
Average
2,220
852
1,048
520
Std. Deviation
1,333
239
485
209
Source:
NPD, 2007-2008.
DOE notes that retail price differences alone do not form the basis for consumer utility. In the commercial clothes washer (CCW) rulemaking, Alliance Laundry Systems (Alliance) asserted that the ability to load a clothes washer from the top is a “feature” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295 because it provides consumers the opportunity to purchase lower cost CCWs. 75 FR 1122, 1130 (January 8, 2010). DOE disagreed and noted that while price is an important consideration to consumers, DOE accounts for these consumer impacts in its LCC and PBP analyses. 75 FR 1134.
In the case of built-in refrigeration products, the facts suggest that the higher price paid for a built-in unit reflects the view of consumers that these products have a special utility when compared to free-standing equivalent products. As a result, unlike in the case of commercial clothes washers, where pricing itself was alleged to be a critical feature within the meaning of EPCA, pricing with respect to built-in products reflects the additional utility provided by these units. This price differential between built-in and stand-alone units indicates that consumers believe that built-in products offer a unique utility or other performance characteristic not offered by stand-alone units—in this case, that utility or performance would be the seamless integration of refrigeration products into kitchen cabinetry and the surrounding environment.
In summary, DOE tentatively concludes that built-in products provide consumer utility associated with the ability to build the products into the kitchen cabinetry, an attribute that is not provided by other products, and that the design details associated with this product characteristic result in the reduced efficiency of these products. DOE has tentatively concluded that these criteria satisfy 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and is tentatively proposing the creation of a separate built-in product class.
DOE also proposes to adopt a modified version of the draft definition developed by AHAM for built-in products cited above, which would read as follows (changes from the AHAM draft are shown with italics for additions and bracketed text for deletions):
Built-In Refrigerator/Refrigerator-Freezer/Freezer means any refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer or freezer with 7.75 cubic feet or greater total volume
and 24 inches or less depth not including handles and not including custom front panels;
is
designed to be
[totally] encased
on the sides and rear
by cabinetry [or panels by either accepting a custom front panel or being equipped with an integral factor-finish face]; is
designed
[intended] to be securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor; and has sides which are not fully finished and are not designed to be visible after installation.
DOE considered AHAM's draft definition's exclusion of products with volumes less than 7.75 cubic feet. This limitation would exclude compact products, which are currently defined as having total volume less than 7.75 cubic feet and height less than 36 inches. (10 CFR 430.2). The draft definition would also exclude non-compact products that have volume less than 7.75 cubic feet (such products would exceed 36 inches in height). DOE proposes retaining the AHAM draft definition's omission of additional clarification regarding the 36-inch height limitation because DOE proposes to remove this limitation from the definition of compact products (see section IV.A.2.g, below). Sanyo suggested that DOE consider compact products as part of any built-in product classes that the agency establishes. (Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 2) However, DOE notes that special consideration for compact products was provided when the current energy standards were established in 1997. 62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997). In particular, DOE created separate product classes with less stringent standards for all compact refrigeration products to address their particular characteristics. (
Id.
) As discussed in section IV.A.2.g, the arguments for creating separate product classes for compact products at that time emphasized the issues associated with undercounter products (essentially built-in compact products) rather than compact products in general. For this reason, in DOE's view, the relief sought by Sanyo for compact built-in products has already been provided and, under the available facts, no additional consideration appears to be merited at this time.
Further, DOE understands that undercounter products are generally sold with finished sides to permit both free-standing and undercounter use. As a result, these products would not meet the proposed built-in definition. DOE does not propose relaxing the requirement for unfinished sides to allow for the inclusion of undercounter products. DOE is declining to take this step to prevent potential gaming by manufacturers seeking to claim their conventional products as built-in units.
DOE also proposes to include a depth limitation in the definition for built-in products. The consumer utility and energy impacts associated with the depth limitation are highlighted in stakeholder comments (
see, e.g.,
Sub Zero, No. 40 at p. 6). Investigation of dimensional data for built-in products shows that nearly all of these products have a 24-inch depth. DOE requests comments on whether any adjustment of the 24-inch dimension specified in the proposed definition should be made.
See
Issue 4 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.
DOE does not propose to adopt the portion of AHAM's proposed built-in definition that addresses the front portion of the product—
i.e.,
“* * * by either accepting a custom front panel or being equipped with an integral factory‐finished face * * *”) DOE declines to adopt this aspect of AHAM's definition because it does not distinguish built-in products from conventional free-standing products, which generally have an integral factory-finished face.
DOE is aware of the potential that manufacturers may attempt to apply the proposed definition in order to avail themselves of the more lenient efficiency levels that DOE proposes to permit built-in units to meet. DOE tentatively believes that the modified definition presented above provides sufficient protection against such improper use of the definition. DOE requests comment on whether the proposed definition is adequate to prevent potential gaming or whether changes are needed to further strengthen it while avoiding disqualifying any legitimate built-in products. (
See
Issue 4 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.)
DOE's investigation of the built-in market through examination of built-in product offerings and discussion with manufacturers shows that the key standard-size built-in product classes include current product classes 4, 5, 7, 9, and the all-refrigerators associated with current product class 3. DOE proposes establishing seven new built-in product classes, as listed in Table IV.1, above. Two of these product classes address the need to separate products with automatic icemakers from those without automatic icemakers, as described in section IV.A.2.d above.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish separate product classes for built-in products. (
See
Issue 4 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.) As with all other aspects of this proposal, DOE may adjust its treatment of built-in products depending on the comments and information it receives in response to the NOPR.
DOE also requests comment on whether any additional product classes are required to fully address icemaking
and built-in products. (
See
Issue 5 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.)
f. Combining Product Classes 2 With 1, and 12 With 11
In the preliminary analysis phase, DOE proposed combining product class 2 (refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost) with product class 1 (refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost); and product class 12 (compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost), with product class 11 (refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost). DOE noted that units in product classes 2 and 12 contain freezer compartments that undergo manual defrost and fresh food compartments that undergo off-cycle defrost, a process which does not require additional energy to defrost. Hence, the defrost energy consumption for these units is expected to be the same as it would be for an identical unit in either product class 1 or 11.
Additionally, DOE noted that shipments for product classes 1 and 2 are very low (representing roughly 0.1 percent of shipments), and the energy consumption standards for those product classes are identical. The shipments for product class 12 are also very low (representing less than 0.1 percent of shipments).
Finally, DOE noted that although the energy consumption standard for product class 12 is currently at a higher energy level than for product class 11, there is no obvious technical basis for this distinction. AHAM supported DOE's proposal to combine these pairs of product classes into two classes (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 28 at p. 40 and No. 34 at p. 4) The Joint Comments that DOE received, to which AHAM was a signatory, suggested that DOE continue to maintain these separate classes.
DOE requests comment on whether these proposed combinations (combining product class 2 with product class 1 and combining product class 12 with product class 11) should be adopted. DOE notes that the Joint Comments suggested maintaining the current separation.
20
(See Issue 6 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.) This approach may be adjusted based on comments and information submitted in response to today's NOPR.
20
DOE Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012, Comment 49.
g. Modification of the Definition for Compact Products
Sanyo suggested in its comments that DOE remove the current 36 inch height limit for compact products. Sanyo stated that this requirement qualifies some Sanyo products as standard-size units even though they meet the volume provision under the compact unit definition. The energy consumption standards for standard-size products are more stringent than the standards for compact products. Sanyo believes that energy consumption is strongly correlated with volume, and only minimally correlated with height. (Sanyo, No. 32 at p. 2)
DOE recognizes that a relationship between energy consumption and internal volume exists. DOE notes that the compact product classes were created as part of the rulemaking establishing the 2001 energy standards. As DOE explained in a July 1995 NOPR, these classes were created because fewer design options exist for reducing the energy consumption in these products. 60 FR 37388, 37396 (July 20, 1995). The July 1995 NOPR discussed this 36-inch limitation within the context of insulation thickness and noted that issues related to the increase in insulation thickness in top and bottom panels “is recognized in the new definition of the compact class as limited to models below 36 inches in height.” 60 FR 37397. U-Line comments summarized in the 1995 NOPR indicated that “consumer uses of undercounter refrigerators and freezers will not permit increased exterior cabinet dimensions; exterior cabinet dimensions cannot exceed 24 inches in depth and width and 34 inches in height.” (
Id.
)
However, the majority of compact products are not undercounter products with these specified dimensions. For example, the external dimensions of the compact products examined for reverse engineering during the engineering analysis, are summarized in Table IV.5.
21
Some of these products are smaller than the undercounter maximum dimensions and some are larger. If smaller, increasing the height of these products to a 34-inch height and/or 24-inch depth or width would be possible. If larger, the product would not be used in the restricted undercounter application. The chest freezers would not be used in undercounter applications in any case because such installation would interfere with door operation, since the doors of chest freezer open upwards. As a result, DOE believes that the absolute restriction on external size increase suggested by the undercounter dimension limits (
i.e.,
24 inches and 34 inches) does not apply to these products. Hence, DOE tentatively concludes that, while the 36-inch height limitation may be relevant for undercounter products, it is not relevant for compact products in general.
21
Throughout this notice the term “reverse-engineered product” refers to the products purchased and examined (reverse engineered) as part of the engineering analysis. Many of these products were entirely dismantled (torn down) to completely examine manufacturing details.
Table IV.5—External Dimensions of Compact Reverse-Engineered Products
Product
Height
(inches)
Width
(inches)
Depth
(inches)
1
1.7 cubic foot refrigerator
18.5
17.5
17.6
4 cubic foot refrigerator
32.9
18.6
17.5
4 cubic foot ENERGY STAR refrigerator
33.0
19.5
19.8
3.4 cubic foot chest freezer
32.0
21.0
23.0
7 cubic foot chest freezer
31.5
36.5
20.4
Second 7 cubic foot chest freezer
31.0
37.0
23.0
1
Depth does not include door handle and condenser (if applicable).
Basic thermal considerations also suggest that the 36-inch limitation is not a particularly reliable indicator of the potential for energy use reduction. For example, consider two 7-cubic foot volume products, one 40 inches high and the other 30 inches high, both with a depth of 20 inches. Assuming a 1.5-inch insulation thickness and ignoring the volume associated with the evaporator, the 40-inch product would have an insulated surface area of 28
square feet (based on external dimensions) and door gasket perimeter length of 121 inches, while the 30-inch product would have both less surface area (27 square feet) and less door gasket perimeter length (114 inches). DOE expects that the taller product would have a greater thermal load as a result (because of the greater surface area and door perimeter length), yet it would not be considered a compact product under the current definition and would, thus, have to satisfy a more stringent energy standard. This example shows that basic theoretical considerations do not support the 36-inch limitation.
Because the justification of limited undercounter space that led to the 36-inch limitation does not apply to most compact products, and because basic thermal considerations suggest that the limitation does not have a firm theoretical basis, DOE proposes to eliminate the limitation from the definition of compact products. DOE requests comment on its proposal to eliminate the 36-inch height limitation for compact products. (
See
Issue 7 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this NOPR.)
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which design options are suitable for further consideration in a standards rulemaking:
1.
Technological feasibility.
DOE will consider technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible.
2.
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
If mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercially available products could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time the standard comes into effect, DOE would consider that technology practicable to manufacture, install, and service.
3.
Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability.
If DOE determines that a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to 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 consider this technology further.
4.
Adverse impacts on health or safety.
If DOE determines that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not consider this technology further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b)
In the framework document
22
and accompanying public workshop held on September 29, 2008, DOE identified the technologies for improving refrigeration product efficiency that were under consideration for the rulemaking analyses. These technologies are listed in Table IV.6.
Please see
chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for detailed descriptions of these technology options.
22
Available at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/refrigerator_freezer_framework.pdf.
Table IV.6—Technologies DOE Considered for Residential Refrigeration Products
Insulation:
Expansion Valve:
Improved
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.