Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

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:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine if more stringent, amended standards for these products are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this final rule, DOE is adopting more stringent energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. It has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in the significant conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is November 14, 2011. Compliance with the amended standards established for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in today's final rule is September 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

For access to the docket to read background documents, the technical support document, transcripts of the public meetings in this proceeding, or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (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. You may also obtain copies of certain previous rulemaking documents in this proceeding (

i.e.,

framework document, notice of public meeting and announcement of a preliminary technical support document (TSD), notice of proposed rulemaking), draft analyses, public meeting materials, and related test procedure documents from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/refrigerators_freezers.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lucas Adin, 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, 202-287-1317, e-mail:

Lucas.Adin@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:

Micahel.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits

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. Adjustment of the Energy Standards for the New Test Procedure

a. Products with Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control

b. Products With Multiple Defrost Cycle Types

c. Amendments To Capture Precooling Energy Use

d. Test Procedures for Special Compartments

3. 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. General Discussion Regarding Added Product Classes

b. Possible Combination of Product Class 2 With 1, and Class 12 With 11

c. All-Refrigerators and Basic Refrigerators

d. Built-In Refrigeration Products

e. Modification of the Definition for Compact Products

f. Icemaking

B. Screening Analysis

1. Discussion of Comments

a. Compressors

b. Alternative Refrigerants

c. Alternative Foam-Blowing Agents

d. Vacuum-Insulated Panels

2. Technologies Considered

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Discussion of Comments

2. Adjustment of the Baseline Energy Use Equations

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. Installed Cost per Unit

4. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion

5. Discount Rates

6. Benefits From Effects of Standards on Energy Prices

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Comments From Interested Parties

2. GRIM Key Inputs

a. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

b. Markup Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

J. Employment Impact Analysis

K. Utility Impact Analysis

L. Environmental Assessment

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

V. Discussion of Other Comments

A. Demand Response

B. Energy Standard Round-Off

C. Trial Standard Levels and Proposed Standards

1. Efficiency Levels

2. Maximum Energy Use Equations

VI. 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(s) 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. Conclusion

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 Amended Standards

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

M. Congressional Notification

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits

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 the 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 is adopting amended energy conservation standards for refrigeration products. The standards in today's final rule, 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 standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting in 2014.

Table I.1—Refrigeration Product Energy Conservation Standards (Effective Starting 2014)

Product class

Equations for maximum energy use (kWh/yr)

Based on AV

(ft

3

)

Based on av

(L)

1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators 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

8.07AV + 233.7

0.285av + 233.7

3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker

9.15AV + 264.9

0.323av + 264.9

3I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service

8.07AV + 317.7

0.285av + 317.7

3I-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service

9.15AV + 348.9

0.323av + 348.9

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost

7.07AV + 201.6

0.250av + 201.6

3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost

8.02AV + 228.5

0.283av + 228.5

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker

8.51AV + 297.8

0.301av + 297.8

4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker

10.22AV + 357.4

0.361av + 357.4

4I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service

8.51AV + 381.8

0.301av + 381.8

4I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service

10.22AV + 441.4

0.361av + 441.4

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker

8.85AV + 317.0

0.312av + 317.0

5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker

9.40AV + 336.9

0.332av + 336.9

5I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service

8.85AV + 401.0

0.312av + 401.0

5I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service

9.40AV + 420.9

0.332av + 420.9

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

9.25AV + 475.4

0.327av + 475.4

5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

9.83AV + 499.9

0.347av + 499.9

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

8.40AV + 385.4

0.297av + 385.4

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

8.54AV + 432.8

0.302av + 432.8

7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service

10.25AV + 502.6

0.362av + 502.6

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

9I. Upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker

8.62AV + 312.3

0.305av + 312.3

9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker

9.86AV + 260.9

0.348av + 260.9

9I-BI. Built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker

9.86AV + 344.9

0.348av + 344.9

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 refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost

9.03AV + 252.3

0.319av + 252.3

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—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

13I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker

11.80AV + 423.2

0.417av + 423.2

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—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

14I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker

6.82AV + 540.9

0.241av + 540.9

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer

11.80AV + 339.2

0.417av + 339.2

15I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker

11.80AV + 423.2

0.417av + 423.2

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 amended standards would save a significant amount of energy-an estimated 4.84 quads of cumulative energy over 30 years (2014 through 2043). This amount is equivalent to three times the total energy used annually for refrigeration products in U.S. homes.

The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of the amended standards for products shipped in 2014-2043, in 2009$, ranges from $6.4 to $10.4 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $28.1 to $36.1 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate).

1

The 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 $3.731 billion in 2009$. By adopting the amended standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose 15 to 24 percent of their INPV, or approximately $0.573 to $0.887 billion. Using a 7-percent discount rate, the NPV of consumer costs and savings from today's amended standards would amount to 4 to 16 times the total estimated industry losses. Using a 3-percent discount rate, the NPV would amount to 26 to 60 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 amended standards on individual consumers are generally positive. For example, the estimated average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings are $42 for top-mount refrigerator-freezers, $22 for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, $57 for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, $195 for upright freezers, $69 for chest freezers, $14 for compact refrigerators, $12 for compact freezers, and from $2 to $71 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. The sources and methods used to derive purchase, installation and operating costs are described in section IV.F of this notice.

In addition, the amended standards are projected to have significant environmental benefits. The energy saved is in the form of electricity and DOE expects the energy savings from the amended standards to eliminate the need for approximately 4.8 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity by 2043. The savings would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of 344 million metric tons (Mt)

3

of carbon dioxide (CO

2

) in 2014-2043. During this period, the amended standards would result in emissions reductions

4

of 277,000 short tons (tons) of nitrogen oxides (NO

X

) and 1.45 tons of mercury (Hg).

3

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NO

X

and Hg are given in short tons.

4

DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the most recent version of the

Annual Energy Outlook

(

AEO

) Reference case forecast. This forecast accounts for regulatory emissions reductions through 2008, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, including the proposed CAIR replacement rule, the Clean Air Transport Rule (75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 2010)), do not appear in the forecast. DOE notes that a new CAIR rule has recently been finalized. See

http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/

.

The value of the CO

2

reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO

2

(otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent interagency process. The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. DOE estimates the present monetary value of the CO

2

emissions reduction is between $2.8 and $27.5 billion, expressed in 2009$ and discounted to 2010. DOE also estimates that the present monetary value of the NO

X

emissions reduction, expressed in 2009$ and discounted to 2010, is between $35 and $360 million at a 7-percent discount

rate, and between $87 and $890 million at a 3-percent discount rate.

5

5

The range of values at each discount rate reflects use of low and high estimates of the benefits of avoiding one ton of NO

X

emissions. With respect to mercury, DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values used in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.

Table I.2 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from today's standards for refrigeration products.

Table I.2—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Refrigeration Product Energy Conservation Standards

Category

Present value

billion 2009$

Discount rate

(percent)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

21.7

55.4

7

3

CO

2

Reduction Monetized Value (at $4.9/t)*

2.8

5

CO

2

Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.1/t)*

9.0

3

CO

2

Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.3/t)*

13.5

2.5

CO

2

Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.1/t)*

27.5

3

NO

X

Reduction Monetized Value (at $447/ton)*

0.035

0.087

7

3

NO

X

Reduction Monetized Value (at $4,591/ton)*

0.36

0.89

7

3

Total Benefits†

30.9

7

64.9

3

Costs

Incremental Installed Costs

11.3 to 15.3

7

19.3 to 27.3

3

Net Benefits

Including CO

2

and NO

X

†

15.6 to 19.5

37.5 to 45.5

7

3

* The CO

2

values represent global monetized values of the SCC in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.1, and $36.3 per metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate.

** The range of results for incremental product costs reflects the range of product price forecasts discussed in section IV.G.3.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, and the average of the low and high NO

X

values used in DOE's analysis.

The benefits and costs of today's standards, for products sold in 2014-2043, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. 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 amended standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO

2

emission reductions.

6

6

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 in 2010, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO

2

reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2014 through 2043) that yields the same present value. This payment includes benefits to consumers which accrue after 2043 from the refrigerators purchased from 2014 to 2043. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2014 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of these costs and benefits depends on the projected price trends of refrigerators since consumer demand of refrigerators is a function of refrigerator prices. 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 adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission reductions provides a valuable 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 SCC are performed with different methods that use 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 future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of today's standards are shown in Table I.3. The results under the primary estimate, expressed in 2009$, are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate and the SCC series having a value of $22.1/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards in today's rule is $1,167 to $1,569 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $2,275 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $515 million in CO

2

reductions, and $21 million in reduced NO

X

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $1,241 to $1,643 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate and the SCC series having a value of $22.1/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards in

today's rule is $1,081 to $1,526 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $3,160 million per year in reduced operating costs, $515 million in CO

2

reductions, and $28 million in reduced NO

X

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $2,176 to $2,622 million per year.

Table I.3—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards for Refrigeration Products Shipped in 2014-2043 *

Discount rate

Monetized (million 2009$/year)

Primary

estimate *

Low net benefits

estimate *

High net

benefits

estimate *

Benefits:

Operating Cost Savings

7%

2275

1996

2560.

3%

3160

2720

3596.

CO

2

Reduction at $4.9/t **

5%

162

162

162.

CO

2

Reduction at $22.1/t **

3%

515

515

515.

CO

2

Reduction at $36.3/t **

2.5%

772

772

772.

CO

2

Reduction at $67.1/t **

3%

1567

1567

1567.

NO

X

Reduction at $2,519/ton **

7%

21

21

21.

3%

28

28

28.

Total (Operating Cost Savings, CO

2

Reduction and NO

X

Reduction) †

7% plus CO

2

range

7%

2457 to 3863

2810

2178 to 3584

2531

2742 to 4148.

3095.

3%

3703

3263

4139.

3% plus CO

2

range

3350 to 4755

2910 to 4315

3786 to 5192.

Costs:

Incremental Product Costs

7%

1167 to 1569

1480

1232.

3%

1081 to 1526

1430

1147.

Net Benefits:

Total †

7% plus CO

2

range

888 to 2696

698 to 2103

1511 to 2916.

7%

1241 to 1643

1051

1863.

3%

2176 to 2622

1832

2993.

3% plus CO

2

range

1823 to 3674

1479 to 2885

2640 to 4045.

*This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with refrigerators shipped between 2014 and 2043. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2043 from the refrigerators purchased from 2014 to 2043. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2014 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of these costs and benefits depends on the projected price trends of refrigerators since consumer demand of refrigerators is a function of refrigerator prices. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the projected price trends of refrigerators, as the consumer demand for refrigerators is a function of refrigerator prices. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for projected product price trends using a Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected product price trends using a High Benefits Estimate. The different techniques used to derive projected price trends for each estimate are explained in section IV.G.3. In the Primary estimate, the range of results for incremental product costs reflects the range of projected price trends.

** The CO

2

values represent global monetized values (in 2009$) of the SCC in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.1, and $36.3 per metric ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1/t 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.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.1/t in 2010 (in 2009$). 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.

DOE has concluded that the standards in today's rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both 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 ruling. Based on the analyses described above, DOE found the benefits of today's 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).

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today's final rule 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.

7

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 0, this rulemaking satisfies the third round of amendments 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 six years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.)

7

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 generally responsible for labeling issues for consumer products, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. Section 323 of the Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6293) 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. Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 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 have recently been amended and recodified as part of new Appendices A and B, which will, pending further comment from interested parties, be required to be used when certifying compliance with the standards detailed in today's final rule. See 75 FR 78810 (December 16, 2010)).

EPCA prescribes specific criteria for DOE to consider when amending 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)) 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 for certain products, including refrigeration products, (1) if no test procedure has been established for that product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the amended 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 an amended 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 DOE 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, DOE 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).

8

8

In this context, the presumption provides a legal finding that the criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2) have been met if the specified level of savings within the first year occur. To ensure that it has fully examined the potential costs and benefits of a given level, DOE routinely conducts a full analysis of the potential standards it considers.

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies the requirements for setting classes of a covered product. In such cases, DOE may 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 one of two conditions is met: (A) The specific group of products for which a class category would apply consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) that specific group of products has 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))

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 (and recently amended) test procedures and current standards for refrigeration products address standby and off mode energy use, as do the amended standards adopted in this final rule. Standby and off mode energy use is measured by the test procedures and integrated into the energy use metric, thus separate metrics for these quantities are not needed.

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is supplemental to, and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in, Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.” For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today's final rule is consistent with these principles, including that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits.

Given the range of inputs and parameters analyzed in this rulemaking, there may be multiple standards that would maximize annualized net benefits.

9

For some product classes, depending on different assumptions, the standard that maximized annualized net benefits could fall within a range of TSLs. Five different TSLs were considered for each product class grouping with high and low values for the maximum annualized net benefits estimated for each TSL. For standard-size refrigerator-freezers, the TSL with maximum annualized net benefits with the highest value was TSL 3, although certain values for maximum annualized net benefits fell within the ranges estimated for TSL 1 to TSL 3. For standard-size freezers, the maximum annualized net benefits fell within the calculated ranges for TSL 3 to TSL 4. However, DOE noted that even using the low end of this range, efficiency levels are significantly higher than the most efficient products already available on the market (see Section VI.C.2). Therefore, DOE selected TSL 2, which DOE also notes corresponds to the recommended level in the Joint Comments. For compact refrigeration products, the maximum annualized net benefits fell within the calculated ranges for TSL 1 to TSL 3, and DOE selected TSL 2. With respect to compact refrigeration products, DOE estimates an approximately 10 percent increase in total installation costs as a result of the standard. Because DOE was unable to estimate the income subgroup LCC effects due to lack of data, the agency believes choosing a TSL on the lower end of the range of estimated cost impacts (

i.e.,

TSL 2) would provide a more conservative approach to minimize any potentially negative consumer welfare impacts on lower income consumers. For built-in refrigeration products, the TSL with maximum annualized net benefits was TSL 2, and DOE selected TSL 2. Therefore, consistent with EO 13563, the energy efficiency standards adopted herein by DOE achieves maximum net benefits.

9

The maximum annualized net benefits included monetized emissions savings.

B. Background

The following discussion provides some background information describing the events leading up to today's final rule.

1. Current Standards

In a final rule published on April 28, 1997 (1997 Final Rule), DOE prescribed energy conservation standards for refrigeration products manufactured on or after July 1, 2001. 62 FR 23102. This 1997 rule set the energy conservation standards that are currently in place and 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 current 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 additional product classes listed as 5A and 10A were established by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) through that Office's exception relief process, and are applicable to basic models of those types if their manufacturer has applied for and been granted exception relief for them by OHA.

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

Product Class

Made Effective 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 a rulemaking to amend the standards for residential refrigerator-freezers.

10

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 not only identified potential energy savings, benefits and burdens from such standards, but also assessed other issues related to them. Most recently, DOE has undertaken this rulemaking to satisfy

the statutory requirement that DOE publish a final rule to determine whether to amend the standards for refrigeration products manufactured in 2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)) The limited 2005 analyses served as background for the more extensive analysis conducted for this rulemaking.

10

The petition, submitted June 1, 2004, can be viewed at

http://www.standardsasap.org/documents/rfdoe.pdf

(last accessed August 18, 2010) and is in the docket as item No. 117.

DOE initiated this rulemaking by making available on its Web site a framework document for refrigeration products, a PDF copy of which 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 resolve during the rulemaking.

On September 29, 2008, DOE held the framework document public meeting and discussed the issues detailed in the framework document. DOE also described the analyses that it 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 public announcement of the preliminary analysis public meeting. 74 FR 58915 (November 16, 2009) (the November 2009 notice) At that meeting, which was held on December 10, 2009, DOE discussed 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. DOE also invited written and verbal 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

) DOE also sought views concerning other relevant issues that participants believed would affect energy conservation standards for refrigeration products, or that merited addressing in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR).

Id.

at 58917-18.

The preliminary TSD provided an overview of the activities DOE undertook in developing potential standards for refrigeration products, and discussed the comments DOE received in response to the framework document. It also described the analytical framework that DOE used, 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 included a market and technology assessment, a screening analysis, an engineering analysis, an energy use analysis, a markups analysis, a life-cycle cost analysis, a payback period (PBP) analysis, a shipments analysis, a national impact analysis, and a preliminary manufacturer impact analysis. See the NOPR for an overview of these assessments and analyses. 75 FR 59470, 59477 (September 27, 2010).

At the preliminary analysis 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,

11

and built-in refrigeration products), the use of alternative foam blowing agents and refrigerants, engineering analysis tools, the use of vacuum insulated panels (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. Comment received in response to the November 2009 notice, helped shape DOE's resolution of the issues raised in the preliminary analysis meeting.

11

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 jointly 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,”

12

recommended specific energy conservation standards for refrigeration products that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the requirements under EPCA. According to this submission, negotiations between these various groups commenced in the spring of 2010, resulting in a finalized agreement with recommended standards on July 30, 2010. (Joint Comments, No. 52 at p. 8) Those recommended standards were reported in percentages of energy use reductions and in annual energy use based on the test procedure then in place but after DOE had published its NOPR proposing to amend that procedure. (Id. See also 75 FR 29824 (May 27, 2010)) DOE neither organized nor was a member of the group but made its contractors available to perform data processing. Consistent with its legal obligations when developing an energy conservation standard, DOE provided the public with the opportunity to comment on the proposed levels that DOE considered adopting for refrigeration products in

the NOPR, which mirror those recommended in the Joint Comments.

12

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.

DOE published the NOPR on September 27, 2010. 75 FR 59470. The NOPR and its accompanying NOPR TSD described the analyses that DOE conducted after the preliminary analyses, including revisions of analyses to address stakeholder comments. The additional analyses performed during the NOPR phase included the consumer subgroup analysis, manufacturer impact analysis, employment impact analysis, utility impact analysis, environmental analysis, and regulatory impact analysis. The NOPR discussed all of the NOPR analyses in depth, including the revision of analyses initially conducted in the preliminary analysis phase. (see 75 FR at 59485-59530 (September 27, 2010)) DOE held a public meeting to discuss the NOPR on October 14, 2010. At the meeting, DOE presented its analyses and raised issues for comment. The issues discussed at the meeting included the measurement changes associated with the new test procedures under consideration, product classes, product class definitions, status of specific technologies (

e.g.

high-efficiency compressors, VIPs, and isobutane refrigerant), max-tech levels, energy use equation slope changes, adjustments to the methodology for field energy use estimates, maintenance costs, efficiency distributions, energy standard round-off, impacts on small manufacturers, setting built-in standards at levels determined to have negative consumer impacts, and DOE's treatment of emissions reductions. DOE considered comments received at the public meeting and during the NOPR comment period in finalizing the standards.

As discussed in greater detail in section IV.F.1 below, after publishing the NOPR, DOE more carefully examined trends in product prices and the possible impact of such trends on its analyses. On February 22, 2011, DOE published a notice of data availability (NODA) that discussed the approach it was considering to use in its forecasts of product prices. 76 FR 9696. DOE requested comments on the information provided in the NODA, and several stakeholders responded, including some that had not commented on the NOPR.

Table II.2 below lists the stakeholders that provided comments on the NOPR and the NODA.

Table II.2—Stakeholders Providing Comments on the NOPR and NODA

Name

Acronym

Type *

NOPR oral comments

Written

comments

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

AHRI

IR

NODA

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy

ACEEE

EA

NODA

American Gas Association

AGA

UA

NODA

American Public Power Association

APPA

UA

NOPR

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP)

ASAP

EA

✓

NODA

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and Others

13

Joint Advocates' Comment (JAC)

EA, CA

NOPR

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

AHAM

IR

✓

NOPR, NODA

California Investor-Owned Utilities

IOUs

U

NOPR, NODA

Consumer Federation of America

CFA

CA

NODA

Earthjustice

Earthjustice

EA

✓

NOPR

Edison Electric Institute

EEI

UA

NOPR, NODA

Electrolux Home Products

Electrolux

M

✓

General Electric Consumer and Industrial

GE

M

✓

NOPR

Ingersoll Rand Residential Solutions

Ingersoll Rand

M

NODA

National Consumer Law Center

NCLC

CA

NODA

Natural Resources Defense Council

NRDC

EA

NODA

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships

NEEP

EA

NODA

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

EA

NODA

Northwest Power and Conservation Council

NPCC

UA

✓

People's Republic of China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center

PRC

FG

NOPR

Portland General Electric Company

PGEC

U

NOPR

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

SMUD

U

NOPR

Southern Company

SC

U

NOPR, NODA

Sub Zero-Wolf, Inc

Sub Zero

M

NOPR

Traulsen

Traulsen

M

NODA

Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool

M

✓

NOPR

* IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; CA: Consumer Advocate; CS: Component Supplier: TE: Technical Expert: I: Individual; U: Utility; UA: Utility Advocate; FG: Foreign Government Agency.

DOE

notes that comments from the PRC indicated that it received notice of the September 27th NOPR on October 27, 2010, which permitted the Chinese government less than 60 days to provide comment on the proposed regulation. In DOE's view, the publication of the September 2010 proposal, along with its immediate availability on the Government Printing Office's Web site (

http://www.gpoaccess.gov

), provided any interested party with the specified 60 days of comment period. In future, however, to accommodate the PRC's concerns, and to the extent feasible, DOE may examine possible steps to ensure the availability of its proposals to interested foreign parties.

13

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Consumer Federation of America (CFA), National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).

III. General Discussion

The following section discusses various technical aspects related to this 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

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 published a notice containing both the test procedure final rule (affecting products manufactured prior to 2014) and an interim final rule (for products manufactured starting in 2014). The final/interim final rule notice amended Appendices A1 and B1 (which affect pre-2014 products) and created new Appendices A and B (which affect products starting in 2014). Appendix A applies to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers covered by today's amended standards (

i.e.,

those manufactured or after the 2014 compliance date prescribed by today's rule) and Appendix B applies to freezers covered by today's amended standards. 75 FR 78810 (December 16, 2010) (this notice contains both the final and interim final rules that detail the test procedures for refrigeration products). The new Appendices A and B share many of the same revisions and additions made in Appendices A1 and B1, but also include additional revisions not made in Appendices A1 and B1. See

id.

at 78817-78818 DOE notes, however, that because the new Appendices A and B were issued as an interim final rule, these additional amendments may be subject to possible adjustment based on comments that DOE receives. DOE had previously provided commenters with 60 days within which to provide additional feedback regarding the interim final rule.

Id.

at 78810. DOE may reopen this comment period for a limited period of time after the publication of today's standards final rule.

EPCA requires DOE to consider during a test procedure rulemaking whether test procedure amendments alter the measured energy use of products, and, if so, to amend the energy standards. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)-(2)) In this case, DOE simultaneously considered the impacts of any measured energy changes within the context of the standards rulemaking required by statute. Section III.A.0 discusses the adjustment of the final energy conservation standard with respect to any test procedure changes. The approach used to implement this adjustment is also discussed in the Section 0 below.

1. Test Procedure Rulemaking Schedule

The NOPR analysis documents were published, and the NOPR public meeting was held, prior to publication of the final rule describing the amended test procedure on which the analysis was based. The test procedure final/interim final rule was issued and DOE made copies available to all interested parties prior to the end of the energy conservation standard NOPR comment period.

AHAM and GE both commented that, despite DOE's May 2010 publication of its proposed test procedure, it is difficult to prepare comments on an energy standard when the final test procedure is not yet known. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 18; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 37) AHAM clarified that determination of the impact on energy use measurement of the test procedure changes cannot be done without having a final test procedure (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 13-14, 35) In written comments, AHAM argued that because the test procedure final/interim final rule was not issued until November 24, 2010, manufacturers did not have a sufficient opportunity to test products to evaluate the impacts of the final test procedure changes—as a result, AHAM claimed it was not able to comment on the proposed energy standard equations (AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 1-2)

14

GE commented that the industry wanted to know the final test procedure before starting test work to determine whether the energy standard adjustments implemented by DOE in the NOPR sufficiently represent all of the test procedure changes. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 46-47) AHAM also asked whether any rulemaking process options allowed under EPCA could be considered to give the industry more time to assess the test procedure impacts. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 37-38)

14

The rule was issued on November 23, 2010, not November 24 as indicated in AHAM's comments.

DOE notes that the test procedure NOPR was published May 27, 2010, roughly two months prior to the completion of negotiations conducted by industry and advocates in creating the standards recommended in their joint comments. 75 FR 29824 (May 27, 2010). In developing those consensus standards, the industry and other stakeholders had knowledge of DOE's test procedure proposals and ample time to consider adjustments to the negotiated standards to address the proposals for today's final rule. DOE also notes that stakeholders have had several months since the publication of the test procedure NOPR to quantify the impacts of the proposed test procedure amendments. DOE again asked stakeholders at the energy conservation standard NOPR public meeting for information that would help quantify these impacts. None was provided and participants gave no indication that they had performed any such testing. In the absence of such information, DOE has developed its own information to finalize the energy conservation standards, as described in section III.A.0.

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 met this requirement.

In response to AHAM's request regarding additional time to evaluate the test procedure impacts, DOE has issued the test procedure amendments affecting products starting in 2014 as an interim final rule. This approach resulted in providing interested parties with an additional 60 days to comment on the interim final rule's amendments. 75 FR at 78810 (December 16, 2010). Additionally, as already indicated, DOE plans to provide interested parties with additional time to comment on the interim final rule. Notice of that limited reopening of the comment period will be provided in the

Federal Register

.

2. Adjustment of the Energy Standards for the New Test Procedure

As described above, DOE amended its test procedures for refrigeration products. These amendments will impact the measured energy use. DOE's amended standard levels incorporated adjustments (called a “crosswalk”) to reflect these changes in energy use measurements. DOE described the crosswalk process in its September 2010 NOPR. See 75 FR at 59502-59505 (September 27, 2010). In short, DOE applied the crosswalk to the baseline (current energy standard) equations, thus developing baseline energy use equations using the new test procedure. DOE applied the percentage energy use reductions representing the new energy standards to these baseline equations to determine the new energy standards. The NOPR also indicated that DOE tentatively concluded that the only test procedure changes that would be likely to impact measured energy use are those associated with compartment temperatures and the volume measurement method. 75 FR at 59505 (September 27, 2010). The term “NOPR crosswalk” refers to this set of energy

standard adjustments addressing these two test procedure changes.

Commenters addressed both (a) the NOPR crosswalk addressing test procedure changes in compartment temperatures and volume measurements and (b) the additional test procedure changes that could affect energy use measurements. The NOPR public meeting was held on October 14, 2010, before the publication of the test procedure final/interim final rule. Hence, stakeholder comments from the meeting addressed the proposed test procedure, rather than the final one that DOE ultimately adopted.

Whirlpool indicated that it could not comment on the proposed standard levels prior to publication of the test procedure and comprehensive testing to determine the impact of the test procedure changes. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 7) GE echoed this comment, indicating that it is essential to have the final test procedure to allow evaluation of the impacts of the test procedure changes in order to be able to comment effectively on the proposed standard levels. (GE, No. 76 at p. 1) AHAM commented that the NOPR crosswalk is partly theoretical since it uses extrapolation and analysis to determine adjustments for some product classes. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 17) AHAM also commented that it “is critical” to do testing to determine the impact of the test procedure changes, and that the industry was not provided sufficient time between issuance of the final/interim final rule and the end of the comment period to conduct such testing. (AHAM, 73 at p. 2)

The IOUs supported DOE's approach for adjustment of the energy standards to address test procedure changes. In light of the limited time available to complete the rulemaking, the IOUs commented that DOE's approach was appropriate in spite of comments by parties at the public meeting calling for additional testing to perform a crosswalk. (IOUs, No. 77 at p. 2)

DOE notes that the NOPR crosswalk was based primarily on data provided by AHAM—which DOE described in detail in its TSD. See chapter 5, “Engineering Analysis”, section 5.4.2. Because AHAM did not initially provide data for all product classes, DOE conducted additional analysis and developed estimates to supplement the gaps present in AHAM's data. These additional steps helped DOE to establish appropriate crosswalks for the remaining product classes. DOE first presented this process in its preliminary TSD, which DOE posted on its Web site in November 2009. Stakeholders have had more than twelve months to comment on the crosswalks for these remaining product classes, but have not done so.

Numerous commenters identified other test procedure changes that they believed would affect the measured energy use of refrigeration products and offered their views on how to address them in a final crosswalk. AHAM first indicated that the NOPR crosswalk does not represent all of the measurement impacts of the test procedure modifications. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 16; AHAM, No. 73 at p. 2) It asserted that there are many test procedure changes and that some of these changes, other than those changes affecting compartment temperature and volume calculation, can impact measured energy use. (AHAM asserted that the impact of these changes cannot be determined as a sum of the impacts of the individual changes, but did not provide data illustrating this assertion, nor did AHAM explain why an additive approach is not reasonable. (Id. at p. 35-36)) To this end, AHAM identified four specific proposed test procedure changes that it believed would impact measured energy use: (1) Test procedures addressing products with variable anti-sweat heater control, (2) use of the highest energy use position for special compartments, (3) modification of the long-time-defrost test procedure to capture precooling energy use, and (4) test procedures addressing products with multiple defrost cycle types. (Id. at 42-43) DOE notes that AHAM identified these same four additional test procedure changes in its comments on the test procedure rulemaking NOPR (AHAM, Test Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, No. 16 at p. 3) In its written comments, AHAM indicated that the final test procedure that DOE developed for products with variable anti-sweat heater control does not alter measured energy use, since DOE adopted the procedure provided in waivers already granted to companies who manufacture products with such features. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 3)

Whirlpool asserted that applying the highest energy usage setting for special compartments, including procedures designed to capture precooling energy and to address products that use multiple defrost cycles, will alter measured energy use. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 7)

The IOUs agreed that there were additional test procedure changes that could alter measured energy use that had not been considered in establishing the proposed standards, including test procedures for products with variable anti-sweat heater control, new procedures to capture precooling energy use, and new procedures for special compartments. The IOUs recommended that the energy standards should be adjusted to account for these test procedure changes. They noted that if the measured impacts of these test procedure changes have not been determined through testing, DOE should estimate their impact and direction of the impact (positive or negative). They added that if these impacts are small or applicable to only a small portion of the market, DOE should not adjust the baseline energy use equations

15

to avoid the risk of backsliding on the standard levels. (IOUs, No. 77 at p. 2) The IOUs indicated that they did not have any additional data regarding the impacts of the test procedure changes. (Id.)

15

The baseline energy use equations represent energy use for baseline products (i.e. products which are minimally compliant using the current test procedure) when tested using the new test procedure.

GE generally noted the importance of conducting tests to evaluate the impacts of the test procedure changes. It also expressed concerns that a number of the test procedure changes may have significant measurement impacts. GE did not, however, specifically identify these test procedure changes. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 36-37) Whirlpool commented that the test procedures addressing products with variable anti-sweat heater controls represent a significant test burden (in some cases, an additional week of test time) and could impact the measured energy use of a given product. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 44-45) Whirlpool further identified electric heaters and/or fans in special compartments that may be used to prevent freezing in such compartments as a factor in the potential energy use measurement impact of the test procedure amendments for special compartments. (Id.)

When asked by DOE whether there are any manufacturer data that quantify the impacts of the cited additional test procedure amendments, AHAM indicated that they did not have such data. Instead, AHAM cited DOE's own statement from the refrigeration product test procedure rulemaking public meeting presentation discussing the NOPR that the amendments to capture defrost precooling energy use would increase energy use 2 percent for one tested product (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 44, 45-46, 43)

AHAM further stressed the importance of evaluating the entire modified test procedure rather than investigating the potential impacts from individual changes, because the measurement impacts of the changes may not be additive. (Id. at pp. 26-27) However, AHAM did not provide data illustrating or supporting this assertion, nor did AHAM explain why an additive approach is not reasonable.

Stakeholders also commented on the approach used to apply the projected energy measurement impacts to the energy conservation standards. When asked by DOE during the public meeting if the crosswalk should apply to the population average of the minimally compliant products, AHAM agreed, indicating that the Joint Agreement used the words “average” and “minimally compliant”, but that the crosswalk should also be based on evaluating low-volume and high-volume products to properly reflect capacity impacts. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 33-34) ASAP also agreed that the crosswalk should apply to the “average”. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 34) DOE agrees that a shipment-weighted average approach for applying the energy use measurement impacts of test procedure changes is appropriate and is consistent with the requirements of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) Consistent with this approach, and the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2), DOE applied a shipment-weighted approach, which provides the best indication across all shipped products of the magnitude of the impact.

AHAM also commented that anti-backsliding considerations would not apply because the changes in test procedures and energy standards will take effect simultaneously. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 41) DOE notes that amending a test procedure without an accompanying energy standard rulemaking that increases stringency may result in an increase in the maximum allowable energy use for some products. Such a change would not be allowed if the anti-backsliding provisions of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) applied to any particular product rather than to the average for the product class population. However, such considerations do not apply in this case, as indicated by AHAM, because the test procedure and energy standard changes will occur simultaneously.

DOE notes that it has received no new information from stakeholders quantifying the changes in measured energy use associated with any of the test procedure changes. Hence, DOE adjusted its standards using the data discussed above that AHAM provided during the preliminary analysis phase, as well as supplemental data and analysis (

e.g.

testing DOE conducted during the rulemaking) that DOE developed on its own.

a. Products With Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control

DOE amended its test procedures to require the use of the procedure currently being used by manufacturers under waivers that DOE granted. This procedure, along with a change to assure the consistency of compartment temperatures during testing, will be required to establish compliance with the 2014 standards for variable anti-sweat heater control-equipped products. The change involves the description of the conditions that apply to the anti-sweat heater wattages used in the calculation of the anti-sweat heater adjustment factor: the wattages will apply to a 0 °F freezer compartment temperature and a 39 °F fresh food compartment temperature, rather than the 5 °F and 45 °F, respectively, used in the waivers. 75 FR at 78828-78830 (December 16, 2010). DOE considers that the adjustments made to the energy conservation standards to account for compartment temperature changes also apply to the adjustment factor for anti-sweat heaters operating with variable control. Hence, no additional energy standard adjustment is needed to address this test procedure amendment.

b. Products With Multiple Defrost Cycle Types

DOE amended the test procedure to address products with multiple defrost cycle types.

Id.

at 78836-78838. As explained in the test procedure final rule, the previous procedure could not ensure that the entire defrost energy used for such products would be sufficiently captured. DOE received one test procedure waiver petition for such products, from Samsung, requesting waiver of the current test procedure of Appendix A1 for products manufactured before 2014. 76 FR 16760 (March 25, 2011). The waiver petition requests use of the same test procedure to address multiple defrost cycle types that was set forth in the test procedure interim final rule for Appendix A. Samsung did not provide information regarding the change in measured energy use associated with the modified test procedure. Furthermore, they indicated that the current energy efficiency standards are adequate, and they did not request adjustment of the standards for the products that are the subject of the waiver petition.

Id.

at p. 16763. DOE is unaware of any other manufacturer who employs this type of design. Accordingly, DOE is unaware of any impact on the measured energy use of these multiple defrost cycle products associated with this test procedure amendment.

c. Amendments To Capture Precooling Energy Use

DOE amended the test procedure for products with long-time or variable defrost to capture precooling and partial recovery energy use.

Id.

at 78832-78836. Testing performed during the engineering phase of this rulemaking indicates that capturing precooling energy use would yield an impact of roughly two percent of the total measured energy use. Additionally, the impact of capturing the energy from full temperature recovery (

i.e.

extending the test period until the compartment temperatures have recovered to their steady-state levels) for products exhibiting partial recovery may comprise another 0.5 percent of total measured energy use for those products that do not achieve a full temperature recovery within the test period prescribed by the current test procedure. Of the nine refrigerator-freezers tested during the engineering analysis phase, two of these units incorporated precooling. These units fell into current product classes 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service) and 7 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service). DOE is unaware of any significant percentage of products that currently do not fully recover temperature within the time period allotted by the current test procedure. DOE has adjusted the energy standard levels for these and related product classes using the observed measurement impact for capturing precooling energy use and applying that measured impact consistently with the frequency with which this feature has been observed in this group of tested products. The adjustment details are described in detail in section 0 below.

d. Test Procedures for Special Compartments

DOE amended the test procedures to require that products with special compartments using the addition of heat (“heat addition”) as a form of temperature control be tested twice. The energy use measurement of such products will be an average of measurements made with the special compartment temperature controls set in the warmest position for the first test

and in the coldest position for the second test.

Id.

at 78825-78826. Of the eleven refrigerator-freezers purchased for reverse engineering analysis performed during the engineering analysis phase, two had special compartments with separate temperature control. Neither of these products used heat addition for controlling special compartment temperatures. In examining features of refrigeration products on manufacturer Web sites, DOE found that the prevalence of special compartments in standard-size refrigerator-freezers comprised 20 percent of the models examined.

Id.

at 78823. Because of the limited nature of these data, DOE conducted further study of products that employ heat addition.

DOE identified thirteen basic models that have heated special compartments. In this assessment, DOE concluded that special compartments use heaters for temperature control if the high end of their controllable temperature range is significantly higher than typical fresh food compartment temperatures. DOE considered typical fresh food compartment temperature to be the default settings set at the factory. These default settings are in the 37 °F to 39 °F range. (see,

e.g.,

GE Bottom Freezer Refrigerators, No. 78 at p. 4; LG Owner's Manual LFX28978**, No. 79 at p. 23) The controllable temperature range of heated special compartments typically reaches temperatures of up to 41 °F or 42 °F. By comparison, special compartments that rely on cooling air to manage temperatures do not exceed the typical fresh food compartment temperature range. (See,

e.g.,

GE Bottom Freezer Refrigerators, No. 78 at p. 18; Use and Care Guide Electrolux 242046401, No. 80 at p. 18) The thirteen products identified include products from current products classes 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), 5A (refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service), and 7 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service). (Heated Special Compartments Web Pages, No. 81)

DOE does not have information on shipment weighting for these products. As a proxy for shipment weighting, DOE instead determined the percentage of available products represented by the identified products with heated special compartments for each of the represented product classes. To do this, DOE considered the number of available products listed in the California Energy Commission (CEC) database, adjusted to account for out-of-date product listings. The details of this approach are described in the TSD in chapter 5, section 5.4.2.6. The calculated percentages of products having heated special compartments are 10.6 percent for current product class 5A, 1.5 percent for current product class 5, and 0.7 percent for current product class 7. DOE used these percentages to adjust the standards for these product classes. The determination of the adjustment is discussed in greater depth in section 0 below.

DOE initially conducted analysis, described below in section IV.C.2, to estimate what the projected impact from the relevant test procedures would be on the measured energy use for a product with a heated special compartment. Initial estimates indicated that the change would increase measured energy use by 5.9 percent for this type of product. DOE also conducted testing for two of the thirteen products that were identified as having heated special compartments. These tests compared the measured energy use not including icemaking energy use when tested using the interim final test procedures set forth in the new Appendix A with a modified test procedure in which the heated special compartment is tested only in its coldest setting. For both of these tests, the Appendix A requirement to average measurements representing the coldest and warmest setting of the compartment resulted in higher energy use. The impacts were 6.5 percent for one product and 1.7 percent for the other—the average impact determined for these tests was 4.1 percent, which is somewhat lower than the estimated 5.9 percent impact.

After reviewing these results, DOE determined that, because the test data represent only two products, the uncertainty associated with the average of the measured impacts is fairly high. As a result, DOE concluded that the more conservative approach of basing its adjustment of the energy standard on the calculation rather than the limited testing data is appropriate to ensure that the final standard is not overly aggressive. Taking such an approach is consistent in this instance with EPCA's prohibition to make subsequent adjustments that would increase the permitted energy usage (or reduce the energy efficiency) of a regulated product. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). Accordingly, as described in greater detail in section IV.C.2, the results of the more conserevative calculation were used to adjust the energy standard.

3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use

DOE 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 a measurement for 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 test procedures for refrigeration products, both the previous and recently amended versions, already fully address standby and off mode energy use. Whirlpool agreed with this assessment. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 7) No commenters challenged this assessment. Because the test procedures address standby and off mode energy use, the energy conservation standards, which are based on the test procedures, also address this energy use.

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 typically develops a list of design options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of these options 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 one 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, namely, 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 (“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 amended 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. Similarly, this section of today's rule reports the max-tech efficiency levels for the fully analyzed product classes, which include Classes 3 (refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), 7 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service), 9 (upright freezers with automatic defrost), 10 (chest freezers), 11 (compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost), 18 (compact chest freezers), 3A-BI (built-in all-refrigerators—automatic defrost), 5-BI (built-in Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), 7-BI (built-in Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service, and 9-BI (built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost). DOE considers the max-tech levels for these product classes to be representative of the max-tech levels of similar product classes. For example, product class 7 can be considered to represent product class 4 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service) because they are both side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the only difference being the through-the-door ice feature of product class 7.

In determining the max-tech efficiency levels of the directly analyzed product classes, DOE used the amended test procedures that would apply once manufacturers are required to meet the new standard. 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 amended test procedure is a fixed quantity not correlated with an efficiency level. Separating this fixed quantity of energy use from the established 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 amended test procedure (

i.e.,

projections of possible energy use reductions) against the energy use based on the existing test procedure and current standard.

16

16

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 a 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 to these directly analyzed product classes to determine their max-tech efficiency levels. (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 rulemaking (see the discussion of changes made to the engineering analysis in the NOPR, Table IV.10. 75 FR 59470, 59501-59502 (September 27, 2010)). DOE obtained the new information through NOPR phase interviews with manufacturers.

Table III.1—Max-Tech Efficiency Levels for the Refrigeration Products Rulemaking

Product class

Description

Efficiency level (percent

energy use reduction)

DOE analysis (percent)

Max tech

commercially

available

(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. The levels in Table III.1 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 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 a program initially developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) called the Efficient Refrigerator Analysis program (known simply as the ERA) 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 Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. See NOPR TSD, 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

ER15SE11.108

DOE requested comments on its max-tech efficiency levels and on the evaluated groups of design options DOE's analyses indicated would be necessary to employ to achieve these levels. 75 FR at 59484 (September 27, 2010). Sub Zero commented that DOE's analysis leading to the max-tech feasible levels is reasonable. (Sub Zero, No. 69

at p. 1) Sub Zero also commented that many of the design options still available to improve the efficiency of freestanding products have already been used in built-in products that are available on the market.

Whirlpool commented that some of the design option combinations may not be practical, that the resulting efficiency gains may not be additive, and that the combinations may not be cost-effective. Whirlpool also commented that it does not believe that DOE has met the obligation to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of these combinations. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 1). Whirlpool did not identify the specific combinations that it believed to be impractical. Accordingly, DOE has not adjusted its max-tech analysis. DOE adds that max-tech efficiency levels are not required to be cost-effective levels, but that DOE is required by EPCA to determine the maximum improvement that is technologically feasible, and to explain why the standard is not set at this level, if it is not. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1))

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

DOE used its National Impact Analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate the energy savings from amended standards for the refrigeration products covered by this rulemaking.

17

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.

17

The NIA spreadsheet model is described in section IV.G of this rule.

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, DOE must adopt a standard for a covered product that results in “significant” energy savings. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 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 (D.C. 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.A, EPCA provides seven factors for DOE to consider when evaluating 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

As required by EPCA, DOE considered the economic impact of potential standards on consumers and manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) For consumers, DOE measured the economic impact as the change in installed cost and life-cycle operating costs (

i.e.,

the change in LCC). (

See

section 0, section 0 and chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.) DOE investigated the impacts on manufacturers through the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). (

See

section 0 and section 0 of today's final rule, and chapter 12 of the final rule TSD accompanying this rule.) The economic impact on consumers and manufacturers is discussed in detail in the NOPR. See 75 FR at 59484-59485, 59512-59516, 59519-59526, 59532-59537, and 59537-59549 (September 27, 2010).

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (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 products affected by this rule 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. Aside from 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, such as low-income people or the elderly.

c. Energy Savings

While the significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, in determining the economic justification of a standard, DOE must 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 product classes, 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 final rule would substantially reduce the utility or performance of the products under

consideration in the rulemaking. However, the cost premium for features that increase energy use, such as multiple drawers, may increase, thus shifting their availability to higher-priced products. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV).

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA requires DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from setting new or amended standards for a covered product. Consistent with its obligations under EPCA, DOE sought the views of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). DOE asked DOJ to provide a written determination of the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from the amended standards, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii).

To assist DOJ in making such a determination, DOE provided DOJ with copies of both the NOPR and NOPR TSD for review. DOJ did not provide DOE with comments on this rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE concludes that today's final rule would not be likely to lead to a lessening of competition.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

Certain benefits of the amended 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 amended 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 reported the environmental effects from the amended standards for refrigeration products, and from each TSL it considered, in the environmental assessment contained in chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD. DOE also reported 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 this final rule, DOE also considered the comments of the stakeholders, including those raised in the Joint Comments, which DOE believes sets forth a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

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 and chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

DOE used two spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's amended standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and payback periods of new energy conservation standards. The second one provides shipments forecasts, and then calculates national energy savings and net present value impacts of new energy conservation standards. DOE also assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). The two spreadsheets are 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 stemming from 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

18

, and is based on the

AEO

version with minor modifications.

19

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.

18

BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies Program.

19

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 initiating 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 TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

Discussion presented in this section of today's notice primarily addresses the scope of coverage of refrigeration products, the product class structure, and product class definitions. These issues were discussed during the NOPR public meeting. In response to comments raised during that meeting

and from written comments, DOE has modified the product class structure, as discussed in section 0, below.

1. Exclusion of Wine Coolers from This Rulemaking

The NOPR explained that wine coolers are not covered products under the definition for electric refrigerator, and hence, are not covered by this rulemaking. 75 FR at 59486 (September 27, 2010). DOE explained that it would consider initiating a future rulemaking to establish coverage and energy standards for these products.

Id.

Whirlpool commented that it agrees that wine coolers do not meet the definition of electric refrigerator, but that DOE should reconsider its decision not to include these products in this rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 8) GE commented that DOE should regulate these products and should consider the proper mechanism for doing so. (GE, No. 76 at p. 2) In light of the timetable prescribed by EPCA, insufficient time and resources are available for DOE to conduct the necessary analyses for these products within the context of the current rulemaking. In response to the preliminary analysis, the California Investor Owned Utilities agreed with DOE's initial decision not to include wine coolers in this rulemaking, indicating that they operate at temperatures outside the range defined for refrigerators, and that they have been covered by California's energy standards since 2002. (IOUs, No. 39 at p. 12) The IOUs submitted no new comments on this topic in response to the NOPR. Sub Zero indicated in the preliminary analysis public meeting that the California energy standard for these products has become a de-facto national standard. (Preliminary Analysis Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 108-109). As previously indicated, DOE will revisit the coverage of these products in the future.

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. DOE's regulations currently set forth 18 product classes for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

20

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).

20

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 has created 24 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, and an additional 13 were proposed in the NOPR. 75 FR at 59486-59487 (September 27, 2010). Table IV.1 presents the product classes established in this rulemaking, including both current and new classes. DOE changed the designation of some of the current product classes to address the division of these product classes. The subsections below provide additional details and discussion of comments relating to the product classes that have been added.

Table IV.1—Product Classes for Refrigeration Products

Number

Product class

Classes Currently 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 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 in the NOPR

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.

Additional Product Classes

9I

Upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker.

9I-BI

Built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker.

13I

Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker.

14I

Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker.

15I

Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker.

a. General Discussion Regarding Added Product Classes

DOE introduced 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 and ease the overall burden on manufacturers in ascertaining which standards to apply to these products.

Id.

at 59487-59488. AHAM supported adding the new product classes 5A and 10A. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 6)

Four additional product classes introduced in the preliminary TSD are all-refrigerators. As described in the NOPR, the new test procedure has led DOE to establish separate product classes for these products.

Id.

at 59488.

The NOPR also proposed 13 additional new product classes. These classes are based on the incorporation of icemaking energy use into the test procedure and address the different consumer utility and energy use characteristics of built-in products.

Id.

at 59489-59493.

EPCA provides that 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 applies to all of the new product classes in this rulemaking. DOE detailed the reasons for this approach in the NOPR.

Id.

at 59487-59493. DOE received no comments challenging this approach.

DOE also requested comment on whether any additional product classes should be established as built-in or automatic icemaker variants of products to address the range of commercially available products. Sub Zero recommended including additional product classes 9I and 9I-BI, freestanding and built-in versions of upright freezers with automatic defrost equipped with an automatic icemaker. The company asserted that such products currently are being sold (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 3) DOE's research confirms the existence of these two product classes (Upright Freezers with Automatic Icemakers, No. 86).

AHAM and Whirlpool recommended including product classes 9I, 9I-BI, 13I, 14I, and 15I as variants of proposed products without through-the-door ice service that may have automatic icemakers. (AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 6-7; Whirlpool, No. 74 at pp. 1-2, 3) AHAM also recommended including product class 9A, described as “upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker with through-the-door ice service”. (AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 6-7) DOE has adopted product classes 9I, 9I-BI, 13I, 14I, and 15I. DOE's research identified at least one existing compact bottom-freezer product with an automatic icemaker (product class 15I, Compact Products with Automatic Icemakers, No. 85 at p. 3). DOE was not able to positively identify any compact side-mount products with automatic icemakers (product class 14I), nor any compact top-mount products (product class 13I), but did identify one existing product whose product class is not clearly indicated in the manufacturer's literature that is either a 13I or 14I product. (Compact Products with Automatic Icemakers, No. 85 at p. 1)

The standard levels for these classes are equal to the standards of their counterparts without an icemaker plus the addition of 84 kWh to help account for the energy consumed by the automatic icemaker. However, the suggested product class 9A is not a

variant of any of the proposed product classes. Instead, it constitutes a new class that DOE had not considered within the context of this rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE is declining to incorporate this particular class as part of the final rule.

Lastly, Whirlpool asserted that the negotiated agreement intended to combine product classes 13 and 15, and Whirlpool likewise appeared to recommend combining product classes 13I and 15I, by grouping them together in its comments. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 2) Whirlpool offered no support for this view and no other comments indicated that these product classes should be combined. Hence, DOE is maintaining separate classes for Classes 13, 15, 13I, and 15I.

b. Possible Combination of Product Class 2 With 1, and Class 12 With 11

DOE also indicated in the NOPR that it did not propose the combination of two pairs of product classes that had been discussed in the preliminary TSD—specifically, a potential combination of product classes 1 (refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost) and 2 (refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost) and, separately, a potential combination of product classes 11 (compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost) and 12 (compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost). DOE requested comment on its proposal not to combine these pairs of product classes.

Id.

at 59493. AHAM and NPCC agreed with this proposal. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 52; AHAM, No. 73 at p. 6; NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 52) Whirlpool presented a table suggesting that they were opposed to keeping product classes 1 and 2 separated. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 2), but noted that it had nothing substantive to add on this matter because it does not manufacture these products. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 3) In light of these comments, which generally favored DOE's proposed approach, DOE is not combining these product class pairs.

c. All-Refrigerators and Basic Refrigerators

All-refrigerators are refrigerators that do not have a compartment for the freezing and long-term storage of food below 32 °F, but which may have a compartment not larger than 0.5 cubic foot in size for freezing and storage of ice. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 1.2) The definition for refrigerator appears in 10 CFR 430.2 and it includes both all-refrigerators and refrigerators that are not all-refrigerators. This latter category of refrigerator, which does include a compartment for the storage of food below 32 °F, is given the name “basic refrigerator” in both AHAM standards HRF-1-1979 and HRF-1-2008. Appendix A1 and Appendix A, respectively, both reference these industry-developed definitions.

AHAM supported establishing separate product classes for all-refrigerators, indicating that these new product classes were supported in the negotiated agreement described in the Joint Comments. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 4) However, AHAM indicated that the product classes for refrigerators that are not all-refrigerators should be renamed using “basic refrigerator” to ensure that they exclude all-refrigerators. (Id.) Whirlpool supported this view. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 2)

DOE agrees with AHAM that clarifying the product class names for certain classes will improve overall clarity. DOE notes that this change affects product classes 1 (refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost) and 11 (compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost). (These are the product class names as proposed—and currently used in the CFR.) DOE has also considered whether to rely on referencing the definition sections of HRF-1-1979 and HRF-1-2008, as described above, to provide the definition for basic refrigerator. The definitions for basic refrigerator are the same in these standards and they read as follows:

3.1.1

Basic Refrigerator

A refrigerator which includes a low temperature compartment for the freezing and storage of ice and intended for short-term storage of food at temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C) and normally above 8 °F (^13.3 °C). It is characterized by a refrigerated surface(s) that partially encloses the low temperature compartment and cools the fresh food compartment by natural convection. It frequently has a partition (called the chiller or drip tray) which when removed or adjusted exposes an additional area of the refrigerated surface to the fresh food compartment.

HRF-1-1979, HRF-1-2008, section 3.1.1.

DOE notes two concerns regarding this definition of basic refrigerator.

First, the definition does not define a lower size limit for the low temperature compartment, nor does it specify a temperature range for it. The clause “short-term storage of food at temperatures below 32 °F” does not distinguish the temperature range of such a compartment from the compartment of an all-refrigerator that is “for freezing and storage of ice”, since freezing and storage of ice also requires temperatures less than 32 °F. As a result, it is not clear whether a product with a low temperature compartment capable of reaching temperatures less than 32 °F and above 8 °F and a size no greater than 0.5 cubic foot is an all-refrigerator or a basic refrigerator under the AHAM definition.

Second, characterizing the basic refrigerator by describing the low-temperature compartment's sides and how they transfer cooling air to the fresh food compartment could exclude some types of refrigerators from AHAM's basic refrigerator definition. For instance, a product that uses a fan to provide forced convection transfer of cooling air to the fresh food compartment from the refrigerated surfaces enclosing the low-temperature compartment would not fit the definition. If the product class were renamed using “basic refrigerators”, such products that do not fit the basic refrigerator definition would not be included within the product class. A manufacturer could claim such a product is not covered, assuming it does not meet the requirements of the all-refrigerator definition either.

To resolve these issues, DOE has decided to clarify the product class names for product classes 1 and 11, indicating that these product classes do not include all-refrigerators. The new names for these product classes are “1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost” and “11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost.” DOE has taken this approach rather than using the term “basic refrigerator” and modifying its definition, thus allowing the existing definition for basic refrigerator to retain its current meaning.

AHAM provided in its written comments a table (Table A) showing the suggested changes to all of the product class names. A similar table appears in Whirlpool's comments. In addition to the suggested name changes for product classes 1 and 11, AHAM and Whirlpool included the following suggestions.

• Inclusion of basic refrigerators in product class 3.

• Correction of the proposed name for product class 11A.

• Insertion of an “s” to pluralize “all-refrigerators” in the product class 13 name.

(AHAM, No. 73 at p. 5; Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 2)

DOE notes that basic refrigerators have not previously been part of product class 3 (they instead have been

part of product class 1), which makes the incorporation of this suggestion inappropriate. DOE notes that product class 3 denotes “Refrigerator-freezers-automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker”. Basic refrigerators do not belong in this product class because they are not refrigerator-freezers. For this reason, DOE is declining to adopt this suggestion and will retain its proposed name for this class —“refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker” as proposed. However, DOE agrees with the other two suggestions and has implemented them in this final rule.

d. Built-In Refrigeration Products

DOE requested comment on its proposal to establish separate product classes for built-in products. 75 FR at 59492 (September 27, 2010). AHAM, Sub Zero, and Whirlpool agreed with this proposal. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 3; Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 3) DOE received no comments opposing the creation of built-in product classes.

DOE proposed to define built-in products as any refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer or freezer with 7.75 cubic feet or greater total volume and 24 inches or less depth, excluding handles and custom front panels. Such a product would also be designed to be encased on the sides and rear by cabinetry, securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor, and have sides that are not fully finished and not designed to be visible after installation. See 75 FR at 59492 (September 27, 2010).

AHAM and NPCC noted that the proposed definition differed from the definition developed as part of the consensus agreement and asked why it was different. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 54-55; AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 3-4; NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 53, 55) Sub Zero commented that the definition developed during the negotiations should be adopted. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 3) Whirlpool also supported this view. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 3) AHAM recommended that DOE adopt the consensus agreement definition. AHAM also pointed out that the most important difference between the consensus agreement definition and DOE's proposed definition is the specification in the consensus definition of what is not part of the 24-inch depth limit—specifically, the doors, panels, and/or handles. AHAM indicated that these components may extend beyond 24 inches in many built-in products. In AHAM's view, DOE's proposed definition would not account for such situations. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 4) The JAC also commented that the proposed definition was not the same as the definition of the negotiated agreement, and suggested that DOE adopt this definition with any minor changes that DOE deems necessary. (JAC, No. 75 at p. 2)

The negotiated agreement presented to DOE included the following definition for built-in products:

Definition of ‘Built-in’ product class—refrigerators, freezers and refrigerators with freezer units that are 7.75 cubic feet or greater in total volume and 24 inches or less cabinet depth not including doors, handles and custom front panels; are designed to be totally encased by cabinetry or panels attached during installation; are designed to accept a custom front panel or equipped with an integral factory-finished face; are designed to be securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor; and have sides which are not fully finished and are not intended to be visible after installation.

(Joint Comments, No. 52 at p. 30)

The substantive differences between this definition and the definition DOE proposed in its NOPR are as follows.

• The 24-inch depth allowed by the Joint Comments definition does not include the door depth. Technically, this removes the depth of the door edge and the gasket, a difference expected to be typically about 2 inches.

• The Joint Comments mention being “totally encased” by cabinetry or panels, while the proposed definition mentions being encased on the sides and rear by cabinetry. DOE did not propose to use the term “totally encased” as suggested in AHAM's preliminary analysis comment because the door is not always encased. 75 FR at 59492 (September 27, 2010). The Joint Comments added “panels” to apply to the cabinetry that may encase the product.

• The Joint Comments provide that the “panels [are] attached during installation” (emphasis added).

• The Joint Comments include the clause, “are designed to accept a custom front panel or equipped with an integral factory-finished face” whereas the proposed definition did not include this clause.

• The Joint Comments indicate that the sides “are not intended to be visible after installation”, while the proposed definition uses “not designed to be”.

DOE was aware when proposing the definition that, although establishing a depth limitation is entirely consistent with built-in designs and their use, the exact dimension that would be appropriate for this limit would be subject to further refinement from stakeholder discussion and comment. DOE considers the slightly less restrictive definition of the Joint Comments to embody the consideration and consensus of interested parties regarding the appropriate dimension, and will for this reason adopt the suggested change to the depth limitation.

Regarding the use of the term “totally encased,” DOE recognizes the limitation of its initially proposed approach and that the term does not necessarily mean fully encapsulated to the extent that absolutely no surface of the delivered product is visible after installation. Hence, DOE has reverted to the use of “totally encased” to indicate encased on all surfaces but the door, which clearly needs to be accessible to consumers for the product to function properly. DOE also agrees to the addition of the term “panels” that may also serve to encase the product, such as in the case where a product is installed at the end of a row of cabinets and one of the sides is covered with a panel. Further, DOE agrees with the inclusion of the words “attached during installation” in reference to panels, since this clause clearly distinguishes a built-in product from a freestanding product, for which there would be no attachment of panels during delivery and installation.

DOE is not convinced, however, that the clause “are designed to accept a custom front panel or equipped with an integral factory-finished face” helps distinguish built-in products from freestanding products, since freestanding products generally come with an integral factory-finished face that is part of the door assembly. Based on the language used in the Joint Comments definition, as well as the existence of built-in products that are not designed to accept custom front panels, DOE suspects that the purpose of including this clause is to ensure that built-in products that do not accept custom front panels are not excluded from the definition. Many built-in products have doors with a stainless steel finish (see,

e.g., http://products.geappliances.com/ApplProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=SPECPAGE&SKU=ZISP480DXSS&SITEID=MON2&TABID=2

). Such products are not designed to accept custom front panels, but otherwise have the same distinguishing design features of built-in products that do accept custom front panels. DOE has decided to use language to clarify that such products are not excluded from the built-in category.

Additionally, DOE believes that the definition proposed by the Joint Commenters in their negotiated

agreement needs to be altered to mitigate the risk of manufacturers applying the built-in definition to a free-standing product. To address this risk, DOE is requiring that a built-in product be one that is designed, intended, and marketed exclusively in a manner that would be consistent with how a built-in product would be installed for consumer use. Factors that DOE would likely consider relevant in this context could include whether the product is sold in an unfinished state and how the product is advertised. DOE believes that by specifying these additional conditions, the definition clearly requires that a manufacturer take affirmative steps establishing the built-in nature of its products. In effect, DOE has taken the “intended” language presented in the negotiated agreement's proposal and clarified this concept by specifying the conditions that must be met for a particular model to be considered a built-in product.

Because of the problems that both DOE and the industry have faced with respect to the actions taken by certain manufacturers, DOE believes that it needs to take a stronger approach than that proposed in the negotiated agreement with respect to the delineation of these products. Adopting this stronger approach helps establish a clear distinction between built-in and free-standing products. Such a distinction is necessary in light of the considerably higher energy consumption of these built-in products, a fact that DOE views with some concern. Should DOE receive reports that manufacturers are misapplying this definition or otherwise abusing it, DOE will avail itself of all other options at its disposal to correct that situation and may re-examine this definition to assess whether additional modifications are required.

Accordingly, based on the above considerations, the final definition for built-in products will read as follows:

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 doors, handles, and custom front panels; with sides which are not finished and not designed to be visible after installation; and that is designed, intended, and marketed exclusively (1) to be installed totally encased by cabinetry or panels that are attached during installation, (2) to be securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor, and (3) to either be equipped with an integral factory-finished face or accept a custom front panel.

e. Modification of the Definition for Compact Products

DOE proposed to eliminate the 36-inch height restriction in the definition for compact products. DOE underscored two reasons for this change. First, DOE noted that an increased height level provides no energy efficiency benefit. Second, DOE explained that the reason for this 36-inch height restriction, which applies to undercounter products, is not appropriate for the majority of compact products that are not undercounter products. DOE requested comment on this proposal. 75 FR at 59493-59494 (September 27, 2010).

ASAP and AHAM both indicated that the consensus agreement did not eliminate the 36-inch height limitation for compact products. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 57-58; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 58; AHAM, No. 73 at p. 6) (DOE notes that the consensus agreement is silent on this definition. (See, generally, Joint Comments, No. 52)) Whirlpool commented that the current 36-inch limitation should be retained to maintain consistency with the consumer's view of compact, and prevent “gaming”,

i.e.,

circumvention. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 3) The JAC agreed, noting that this limit helps to distinguish compact products from standard-size products and prevents the weakening of standards in other countries where products taller than 36” but within the 7.75 cubic foot volume limit are more prevalent. (JAC, No. 75 at p. 2)

Whirlpool's comments do not indicate how removing the 36-inch limitation could lead to circumvention. The new test procedure includes a modified volume calculation method that was specifically developed to limit circumvention associated with false volume claims. 75 FR at 78839-78840 (December 16, 2010). Further, given the importance of volume as an attribute important to consumers,

21

DOE does not believe that consumers will consider tall, but low-volume, products to be standard-size. None of the commenters took issue with any of the analysis or any of the reasons that DOE presented in the NOPR to support the decision to propose eliminating the height restriction. DOE notes that the impact of U.S. standards in other countries, while an important concern, are factors beyond the scope of DOE's authority to control. Hence, DOE is eliminating the height restriction as proposed.

21

See, for example the discussion of the importance of product volume in the 1995 TSD supporting the rulemaking to establish the 2001 energy conservation standard, in the discussion regarding increasing insulation thickness in Section 3, page 3-6.

f. Icemaking

DOE requested comments on its proposal to establish product classes for products with automatic icemakers, including its proposed approach to account for icemakers in the product class structure. 75 FR at 59489 (September 27, 2010). Sub Zero expressed support for AHAM's intent to work cooperatively with DOE to develop a robust repeatable laboratory-based test procedure to measure automatic icemaking energy use. Sub Zero also encouraged DOE to conduct field surveys to provide information on consumer use of ice by icemaker type (automatic or manual), product class, demographics, time of year, etc. This information, when combined with the laboratory test and accompanying results, would allow determination of the actual energy used by consumers to make ice. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 2) Sub Zero did not object to DOE's proposed product class structure to address icemaking. (Id.) DOE received no comments objecting to DOE's proposed product class structure to integrate icemaking energy use.

AHAM supported the approach proposed by DOE to integrate automatic icemaking into the product class structure. However, AHAM suggested that some additional product classes, not specifically proposed by DOE, have been sold with automatic icemakers. (AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 5-6) These added product classes were previously discussed in section IV.A.2.0 above.

AHAM also commented that products equipped with the option to install an automatic icemaker (“kitable models”) should be considered to be products with icemakers, explaining that this approach is consistent with the test procedure and that lack of clarity on this point would create confusion among manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 6)

DOE disagrees that AHAM's suggested approach with respect to the treatment of “kitable models” would be consistent with the test procedure. If such a product is installed in a residence without the icemaker installed, it will not use the additional energy use allocated for automatic icemaking, which is set at 84 kWh in the test procedure. The added energy associated with manual icemaking is likely to be significantly less, as indicated by initial test results conducted by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). These initial results suggest that the energy use associated with the mechanisms that are used to eject ice in

automatic icemakers is significantly greater than the energy use associated with the thermal load of freezing the ice. (NIST, Test Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 157-158) DOE agrees that some understanding of the energy use associated with manual icemaking should be developed to allow more accurate reporting of the energy use of products that do not have automatic icemakers but have freezers that allow for the freezing and storage of ice. However, prior to the development of a manual icemaking factor to account for this energy usage, better consistency with the test procedure will be maintained by certifying kitable models as two separate models (

i.e.,

with an automatic icemaker and without an automatic icemaker), since a consumer may purchase either version.

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 significantly impact in an adverse way the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not 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 energy efficient technologies under consideration for the rulemaking analyses. These technologies are listed below in Table IV.2. Please see chapter 3 of the 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.2—Technologies DOE Considered for Residential Refrigeration Products

Insulation

Expansion Valve

Improved resistivity of insulation

Improved expansion valves

Increased insulation thickness

Cycling Losses

VIPs

Fluid control or solenoid valve

Gas-filled panels

Defrost System

Gasket and Door Design

Reduced energy for automatic defrost

Improved gaskets

Adaptive defrost

Double door gaskets

Condenser hot gas

Improved door face frame

Control System

Reduced heat load for TTD feature

Temperature control

Anti-Sweat Heater

Air-distribution control

Condenser hot gas

Other Technologies

Electric heater sizing

Alternative refrigerants

Electric heater controls

Component location

Compressor

Alternative Refrigeration Cycles

Improved compressor efficiency

Lorenz-Meutzner cycle

Variable-speed compressors

Dual-loop system

Linear compressors

Two-stage system

Evaporator

Control valve system

Increased surface area

Ejector refrigerator

Improved heat exchange

Tandem system

Condenser

Alternative Refrigeration Systems

Increased surface area

Stirling cycle

Improved heat exchange

Thermoelectric

Force convection condenser

Thermoacoustic

Fans and Fan Motor

Evaporator fan and fan motor improvements

Condenser fan and fan motor improvements

DOE requested, but did not receive, any comments at either the framework workshop or during the framework comment period that identified additional technologies that DOE should consider. Likewise, DOE received no comments recommending additional technologies during the preliminary analysis or NOPR public meetings or comment periods.

As described in chapter 4 of the TSD, Screening Analysis, DOE screened out several of the technologies listed in Table IV.2 from consideration in this rulemaking based on one or more of the screening criteria described above. A summary of the screening analysis identifying technologies that were screened out and the EPCA criteria used for the screening is presented in Table IV.3. The checkmarks in the table indicate which screening criteria were used to screen out the listed technologies. For greater detail

regarding the screening analysis, see chapter 4 of the TSD.

Table IV.3 Summary of Screening Analysis

ER15SE11.109

In addition to this screening, DOE did not analyze a number of technologies in the engineering analysis because they were judged unsuitable for improving the measured energy use of refrigeration products for one or more of the following reasons:

• Technology already used in baseline products and incapable of generating additional energy efficiency or reducing energy consumption;

• Technology does not reduce energy use; or

• Insufficient data available demonstrating benefit of the technology.

The technologies not analyzed for these reasons include Improved Expansion Valves, Off-Cycle Valves, Reduced Energy for Automatic Defrost, Condenser Hot Gas Defrost, Reduced Heat Load for TTD Feature, Warm Liquid or Hot Gas Refrigerant Anti-Sweat Heating, Electric Anti-Sweat Heater Sizing, Electronic Temperature Control, Air Distribution Control, Fan Blade Improvements, and Dual Loop System. Chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD discusses in greater detail the reasons for not analyzing these technologies.

1. Discussion of Comments

DOE discussed several screening issues in the NOPR. These issues are summarized, along with comments responding to the NOPR, in the sections below.

a. Compressors

DOE explained in the NOPR that the proprietary status of a technology is not a screening criterion. 75 FR at 59495 (September 27, 2010). However, DOE pointed out that selected technologies may be screened out if their proprietary status constrains their supply, and that DOE must consider “the impact of any lessening of competition * * * that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)). DOE indicated in the NOPR that it considered potential supply issues of high-efficiency single-speed and variable speed compressors, but concluded that the compressor performance levels analyzed would not likely be subject to significant supply constraints that would merit omitting the consideration of this particular design option. DOE requested comment on this position. Id.

Sub Zero commented that, as a smaller manufacturer, it may have more difficulty obtaining high-efficiency and variable speed compressors as compressor vendors ramp up to meet refrigeration product manufacturer demands in 2014. In its view, because of the proposed increased stringency of the standards, larger companies will demand many more of these compressors than they are currently

using. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 3) While it is difficult to predict the events that will occur up to the 2014 transition, DOE notes that it reached its tentative conclusion based on its NOPR phase investigation that indicated the compressor industry has been working to develop high efficiency and variable speed compressors for the residential refrigeration market for many years. (See,

e.g., http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/includes/pdf/invertercompressors-improvingefficiency.pdf,

a discussion of Panasonic's development of variable speed compressors, including initial introduction of variable speed compressors in refrigerators in 1996.) These efforts led DOE to believe that the refrigeration industry has had sufficient lead time to prepare for the possible increased demands for higher efficiency and variable speed compressors. Although the submitted comments reiterated the concerns of certain stakeholders, none contained information that would help justify altering the analysis DOE conducted regarding the projected supply of compressors available to manufacturers.

Whirlpool concurred with DOE's findings that availability of high-efficiency and variable-speed compressors will expand to meet demand, but indicated that prices might increase. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 3) Whirlpool did not, however, provide any specific information about compressor prices that would allow DOE to accurately revise its analysis to address this comment. Accordingly, the analysis was not altered in this respect.

b. Alternative Refrigerants

Most refrigeration products sold in the U.S. currently use HFC-134a refrigerant, a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) with a high global warming potential (GWP).

The NOPR described comments from several stakeholders made in response to the preliminary analysis. These comments indicated that the DOE analysis should acknowledge the widespread acceptance of hydrocarbon refrigerants in other parts of the world and the growing interest in their use in the U.S.

Id.

at 59496. The NOPR cited the ongoing consideration of these refrigerants for use in residential refrigerators, particularly isobutane, in Underwriters Laboratories' (UL's) ongoing revision of UL Standard 250, “Household Refrigerators and Freezers” (UL 250), and in the EPA's proposed rule (see 75 FR 25799 (May 10, 2010)) to add this refrigerant to its list of allowed substances under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. DOE explained in the NOPR that the EPA proposal calls for a total charge limit of 57 g of isobutane.

Id.

at 25803 (May 10, 2010). Neither effort has been finalized at the time of the preparation of this notice.

The NOPR explained that DOE's consideration of isobutane refrigerant was based on the 57 g limit proposed by the EPA, and that this limit was sufficient to allow consideration of the use of isobutane refrigerant only for compact refrigerators, based on the refrigerant charge amounts of the reverse-engineered products. The preliminary analyses for compact refrigerators, which did not include isobutane refrigera

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.