Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Federal RegisterMar 17, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037]

RIN 1904-AC39

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers (ACIM). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. The notice of proposed rulemaking also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than May 16, 2014. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for details.

DOE will hold a public meeting on Monday, April 14, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

ADDRESSES:

The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. For more information, refer to section VII, “Public Participation.”

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers and provide docket number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-AC39. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: ACIM-2010-STD-0037@ee.doe.gov

. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

Mail:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to

Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation).

Docket:

The docket, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

The link to the docket Web page is the following:

www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037

. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this proposed rule on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII for further information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email:

automatic_commercial_ice_makers@ee.doe.gov

Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:

Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

III. General Discussion

A. List of Equipment Class Abbreviations

B. Test Procedures

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

D. Energy and Water Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers

b. Life-Cycle Costs

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments

A. General Rulemaking Issues

1. Statutory Authority

2. Test Procedures

3. Need for and Scope of Rulemaking

B. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Equipment Classes

a. Cabinet Size

b. Large-Capacity Batch Ice Makers

c. Efficiency/Harvest Capacity Relationship

d. Continuous Ice Maker Equipment Classes

e. Remote Condensing Unit Classes for Equipment With and Without Remote Compressors

f. Remote to Rack Equipment

g. Ice Makers Covered by the Energy Policy Act of 2005

h. Regulation of Potable Water Use

2. Technology Assessment

a. Reduced Potable Water Flow for Continuous Type Ice Makers

b. Alternative Refrigerants

C. Screening Analysis

a. Tube Evaporator Design

b. Low Thermal Mass Evaporator Design

c. Drain Water Heat Exchanger

d. Design Options That Necessitate Increased Cabinet Size

e. Microchannel Heat Exchangers

f. Smart Technologies

g. Screening Analysis: General Comments

D. Engineering Analysis

1. Representative Equipment for Analysis

2. Efficiency Levels

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

b. Incremental Efficiency Levels

c. IMH-A-Large-B Treatment

d. Maximum Available Efficiency Equipment

e. Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels

f. Comment Discussion

3. Design Options

a. Improved Condenser Performance in Batch Equipment

b. Harvest Capacity Oversizing

c. Open-Loop Condensing Water Designs

d. Condenser Water Flow

e. Compressors

4. Development of the Cost-Efficiency Relationship

a. Manufacturing Cost

b. Energy Consumption Model

c. Retail Cost Review

d. Design, Development, and Testing Costs

e. Empirical-Based Analysis

f. Revision of Preliminary Engineering Analysis

E. Markups Analysis

F. Energy Use Analysis

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Equipment Cost

2. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs

a. Installation Costs

b. Repair and Maintenance Costs

3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Energy Price Projections

6. Water Prices

7. Discount Rates

8. Lifetime

9. Compliance Date of Standards

10. Base-Case and Standards-Case Efficiency Distributions

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

12. Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period

H. National Impact Analysis—National Energy Savings and Net Present Value

1. Shipments

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

3. National Energy Savings

4. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit

I. Customer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios

3. Discussion of Comments

a. Impact to Suppliers, Distributors, Dealers, and Contractors

b. ENERGY STAR

c. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

d. Small Manufacturers

4. Manufacturer Interviews

a. Price Sensitivity

b. Enforcement

c. Reliability Impacts

d. Impact on Innovation

K. Emissions Analysis

L. 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

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

1. Trial Standard Level Formulation Process and Criteria

2. Trial Standard Level Equations

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Direct Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Amount and Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits

c. Water Savings

d. Employment Impacts

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

C. Proposed Standard

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

1. Standards Compliance Dates

2. Utilization Factors

3. Baseline Efficiency

4. Screening Analysis

DOE considered whether design options were technologically feasible; practicable to manufacture, install, or service; had adverse impacts on product utility or product availability; or had adverse impacts on health or safety. See Section IV.C of today's NOPR and chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the screening analysis.

5. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

DOE seeks comments on the Maximum Technologically Feasible levels proposed in Table III.2 and Table III.3 of today's notice. More discussion on this topic can be found in Section IV.D.2.e of today's NOPR.

6. Markups To Determine Price

7. Equipment Life

8. Installation Costs

9. Open- Versus Closed-Loop Installations

10. Ice Maker Shipments by Type of Equipment

11. Intermittency of Manufacturer R&D and Impact of Standards

12. INPV Results and Impact of Standards

13. Small Businesses

14. Consumer Utility and Performance

15. Analysis Period

16. Social Cost of Carbon

17. Remote to Rack Equipment

18. Design Options Associated With Each TSL

19. Standard Levels for Batch-Type Ice Makers Over 2,500 lbs Ice/24 Hours

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part C

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment,

which includes the focus of this proposed rule: automatic commercial ice makers.

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1.

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for the covered

equipment, such as automatic commercial ice makers, shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B); 6313(d)(4))

In accordance with these and other statutory criteria discussed in this proposed rule, DOE proposes amended conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers,

and new standards for covered equipment not yet subject to energy conservation standards. The proposed standards, which consist of maximum allowable energy usage values per 100 lb of ice production, are shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2. Standards shown on Table I.1 for batch type ice makers represent an amendment to existing standards set for cube type ice makers by EPCA in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1). Table I.1 also shows new standards for cube type ice makers with expanded harvest capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hour period (lb ice/24 hours) and an explicit coverage of other types of batch machines, such as tube type ice makers. Table I.2 provides proposed standards for continuous type ice-making machines, which are not covered by DOE's existing standards. The proposed standards include, for applicable equipment classes, maximum condenser water usage values in gallons per 100 lb of ice production. If adopted, the proposed standards would apply to all equipment manufactured in, or imported into, the United States, beginning 3 years after the publication date of the final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(B)(i) and (3)(C)(i))

EPCA as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) established maximum energy use and maximum condenser water use standards for cube type automatic commercial ice makers with harvest capacities between 50 and 2,500 lb/24 hours. In this rulemaking, DOE proposes amending the legislated energy use standards for these automatic commercial ice maker types. DOE did not, however, consider amendment to the existing condenser water use standards for equipment with existing condenser water standards. In the preliminary TSD, DOE indicated that the ice maker standards primarily focus on energy use, and that DOE is not bound by EPCA to evaluate reductions in the condenser water use in automatic commercial ice makers, and may in fact consider increases in condenser water use, if this is a cost-effective way to improve energy efficiency. Section 0 of today's NOPR contains more information on DOE's analysis of condenser water use.

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Batch Type Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Equipment type

Type of

cooling

Rated harvest rate

lb ice/24 hours

Maximum

energy use

kilowatt-hours

(kWh)/100 lb ice *

Maximum

condenser

water use

gal/100 lb ice **

Ice-Making Head

Water

<500

5.84-0.0041H

200-0.022H

≥500 and <1,436

3.88-0.0002H

200-0.022H

≥1,436 and <2,500

3.6

200-0.022H

≥2,500 and <4,000

3.6

145

Ice-Making Head

Air

<450

7.70-0.0065H

≥450 and <875

5.17-0.0008H

≥875 and <2,210

4.5

≥2,210 and <2,500

6.89-0.0011H

≥ 2,500 and <4,000

4.1

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor)

Air

<1,000

7.52-0.0032H

Air

≥1,000 and <4,000

4.3

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

<934

7.52-0.0032H

Air

≥934 and <4,000

4.5

Self-Contained

Water

<200

8.55-0.0143H

191-0.0315H

≥200 and <2,500

5.7

191-0.0315H

≥2,500 and <4,000

5.7

112

Self-Contained

Air

<175

12.6-0.0328H

≥175 and <4,000

6.9

* H = rated harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given rated harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d).

** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice.

Table I.2—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Continuous Type Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Equipment type

Type of

cooling

Rated harvest rate

lb ice/24 hours

Maximum

energy use

kWh/100 lb ice *

Maximum

condenser

water use

gal/100 lb ice **

Ice-Making Head

Water

<900

6.08-0.0025H

160-0.0176H

≥900 and <2,500

3.8

160-0.0176H

≥2,500 and <4,000

3.8

116

Ice-Making Head

Air

<700

9.24-0.0061H

≥700 and <4,000

5.0

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor)

Air

<850

7.5-0.0034H

≥850 and <4,000

4.6

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

<850

7.65-0.0034H

≥850 and <4,000

4.8

Self-Contained

Water

<900

7.28-0.0027H

153-0.0252H

≥900 and <2,500

4.9

153-0.0252H

≥2,500 and <4,000

4.9

Self-Contained

Air

<700

9.2-0.0050H

≥700 and <4,000

5.7

* H = rated harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given rated harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d).

** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice.

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers

Table I.3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on customers of automatic commercial ice makers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings

and the median payback period (PBP).

The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes under the standards proposed by DOE.

Life-cycle cost of automatic commercial ice makers is the cost to customers of owning and operating the equipment over the entire life of the equipment. Life-cycle cost savings are the reductions in the life-cycle costs due to the amended energy conservation standards when compared to the life-cycle costs of the equipment in the absence of the amended energy conservation standards.

Payback period refers to the amount of time (in years) it takes customers to recover the increased installed cost of equipment associated with new or amended standards through savings in operating costs.

Table I.3—Impacts of Proposed Standards on Customers of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Equipment class *

Average LCC

savings

2012$

Median PBP

years

IMH-W-Small-B

328

2.27

IMH-W-Med-B

587

0.85

IMH-W-Large-B **

833

0.69

IMH-W-Large-B-1

701

0.72

IMH-W-Large-B-2

1,260

0.58

IMH-A-Small-B

396

1.42

IMH-A-Large-B **

1,127

0.84

IMH-A-Large-B-1

1,168

0.82

IMH-A-Large-B-2

908

0.94

RCU-Large-B **

983

0.65

RCU-Large-B-1

963

0.62

RCU-Large-B-2

1,277

1.00

SCU-W-Large-B

694

1.00

SCU-A-Small-B

396

1.56

SCU-A-Large-B

502

1.49

IMH-A-Small-C

391

0.97

IMH-A-Large-C

1,026

0.69

SCU-A-Small-C

146

1.85

* Abbreviations are: IMH is ice-making head; RCU is remote condensing unit; SCU is self-contained unit; W is water-cooled; A is air-cooled; Small refers to the lowest harvest category; Med refers to the Medium category (water-cooled IMH only); RCU with and without remote compressor were modeled as one group. For three large batch categories, a machine at the low end of the harvest range (B-1) and a machine at the higher end (B-2) were modeled. Values are shown only for equipment classes that have significant volume of shipments and, therefore, were directly analyzed. See chapter 5 of the NOPR technical support document, “Engineering Analysis,” for a detailed discussion of equipment classes analyzed.

** LCC savings and PBP results for these classes are weighted averages of the typical units modeled for the large classes, using weights provided in TSD chapter 7.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the present year (2013) through the end of the analysis period (2047). Using a real discount rate of 9.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers is $101.8 million in 2012$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 23.5 percent of their INPV, or approximately $23.9 million. Based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment.

C. National Benefits

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime savings for equipment purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended and new standards (2018-2047)

amount to 0.286 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of cumulative energy.

The standards analysis period for national benefits covers the 30-year period, plus the life of equipment purchased during the period. In the past DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for its national economic analysis.

The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total customer savings of the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers in 2012$ ranges from $0.791 billion (at a 7-percent

discount rate) to $1.751 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate

). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated increased installed costs for equipment purchased in the period from 2018-2047, discounted to 2013.

These discount rates are used in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003), and section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs,” therein. Further details are provided in section 0.

In addition, the proposed standards are expected to have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative emission reductions of 14.6 million metric tons (MMt)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 8.7 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 0.3 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), 75.8 thousand tons of methane (CH

) and 0.02 tons of mercury (Hg),

and 21 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

) based on energy savings from equipment purchased over the period from 2018-2047.

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

, Hg, and SO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the

Annual Energy Outlook 2013

(

AEO2013

) Reference Case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 2012.

DOE also estimated CO

and CO

equivalent (CO

eq) emissions that occur through 2030 (CO

eq includes greenhouse gases such as CH

and N

O). The estimated emissions reductions through 2030 are 5.8 million metric tons CO

, 576 thousand tons CO

eq for CH

, and 25 thousand tons CO

eq for N

The value of the CO

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

(otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed and recently updated by an interagency process.

The derivation of the SCC value is discussed in section IV.L. DOE estimates the net present monetary value of the CO

emissions reduction is between $0.102 and $1.426 billion, expressed in 2012$ and discounted to 2013. DOE also estimates the net present monetary value of the NO

emissions reduction, expressed in 2012$ and discounted to 2013, is between $0.54 and $5.53 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and between $1.71 and $17.56 million at a 3-percent discount rate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf

DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and SO

emissions.

Table I.4 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from today's proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers.

Table I.4—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Conservation Standards

Category

Present value

million 2012$

Discount rate

(percent)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

982

2,114

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) *

102

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) *

463

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) *

733

2.5

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) *

1,426

Reduction Monetized Value ($2,639/t case) **

Total Benefits

†, ††

1,448

2,587

Costs

Incremental Installed Costs

191

364

Net Benefits

Including CO2 and NO

Reduction Monetized Value

1,257

2,223

* The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in year 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The values of $11.8, $39.7, and $61.2 per metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $117.0/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor.

** The value represents the average of the low and high NO

values used in DOE's analysis.

†

Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and the 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $39.7/t.

††

DOE estimates reductions in sulfur dioxide, mercury, methane and nitrous oxide emissions, but is not currently monetizing these reductions. Thus, these impacts are excluded from the total benefits.

The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for automatic commercial ice makers sold in 2018-2047, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from the operation of equipment that meets the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy and water, minus increases in equipment installed cost, which is another way of representing customer NPV); and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO

emission reductions.

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 2013, 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 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO

reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table I.5. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2018 through 2047) that yields the same

present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments.

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO

emission reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. customer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO

reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO

savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured over the lifetimes of automatic commercial ice makers shipped from 2018 to 2047. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of some future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 1 ton of CO

in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I.5. (All monetary values below are expressed in 2012$.) Table I.5 shows the primary, low net benefits, and high net benefits scenarios. The primary estimate is the estimate in which the operating cost savings were calculated using the

Annual Energy Outlook 2013

(

AEO2013

) Reference Case forecast of future electricity prices. The low net benefits estimate and the high net benefits estimate are based on the low and high electricity price scenarios from the

AEO2013

forecast, respectively.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs, the cost in the primary estimate of the standards proposed in this rule is $20 million per year in increased equipment costs. (Note that DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the corresponding SCC series value of $39.7/ton in 2012$ to calculate the monetized value of CO

emissions reductions.) The annualized benefits are $104 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $27 million in CO

reductions, and $0.32 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the annualized net benefit amounts to $110 million. At a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the cost in the primary estimate of the amended standards proposed in this notice is $21 million per year in increased equipment costs. The benefits are $121 million per year in reduced operating costs, $27 million in CO

reductions, and $0.55 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $128 million per year.

The

AEO2013

scenarios used are the “High Economics” and “Low Economics” scenarios.

DOE also calculated the low net benefits and high net benefits estimates by calculating the operating cost savings and shipments at the

AEO2013

low economic growth case and high economic growth case scenarios, respectively. The low and high benefits for incremental installed costs were derived using the low and high price learning scenarios. The net benefits and costs for low and high net benefits estimates were calculated in the same manner as the primary estimate by using the corresponding values of operating cost savings and incremental installed costs.

Table I.5—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Discount

rate

(percent)

Primary

estimate *

million 2012$

Low net

benefits

estimate *

million 2012$

High net

benefits

estimate *

million 2012$

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

104

112

121

113

132

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) **

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) **

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) **

2.5

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) **

Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/t case) **

0.32

0.31

0.33

0.55

0.53

0.58

Total Benefits (Operating Cost Savings, CO2 Reduction and NO

Reduction)

†

131

124

139

149

139

160

Costs

Total Incremental Installed Costs

Net Benefits Less Costs

Total Benefits Less Incremental Costs

110

103

120

128

118

140

* The primary, low, and high estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices from the

AEO2013

Reference Case, Low Economic Growth Case, and High Economic Growth Case, respectively.

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The values of $11.8, $39.7, and $61.2 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $117.0 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. See section IV.L for details. For NO

an average value ($2,639) of the low ($468) and high ($4,809) values was used.

†

Total monetary benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of NO

and CO2 emissions calculated at a 3-percent discount rate (averaged across three integrated assessment models) , which is equal to $39.7/ton (in 2012$).

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) and 6313(d)(4)) DOE further notes that technologies used to achieve these standard levels are already commercially available for the equipment classes covered by this notice. Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of customer benefits, customer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some customers).

DOE also considered more-stringent energy use levels as trial standard levels (TSLs), and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy use levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this proposed rule and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy use levels presented in this notice that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for automatic commercial ice makers.

A. Authority

Title III, Part C of EPCA,

Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which includes the subject of this rulemaking: Automatic commercial ice makers.

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1.

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).

EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) EPCA requires DOE to review these standards and determine, by January 1, 2015, whether amending the applicable standards is technically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A)) If amended standards are technically feasible and economically justified, DOE must issue a final rule by the same date. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(B)) Additionally, EPCA granted DOE the authority to conduct rulemakings to establish new standards for automatic commercial ice makers not covered by 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)), and DOE is using that authority in this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(A))

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered equipment generally consists of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each type or class of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether that equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Manufacturers, when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of that equipment, must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for such representations. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) The DOE test procedures for automatic commercial ice makers currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart H.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended standards for covered equipment. As indicated above, any amended standard for covered equipment 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) and 6313(d)(4)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6313(d)(4)) DOE also may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain industrial equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers, if no test procedure has been established for the product; or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B) and 6313(d)(4)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4)) DOE must make this determination 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 equipment subject to the standard;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the U.S. Attorney General (Attorney General), that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII) and 6313(d)(4))

EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6313(d)(4)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6313(d)(4))

Further, EPCA, as codified, 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) and 6313(d)(4)) Section III.E.2 presents additional discussion about rebuttable presumption payback period (RPBP).

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered equipment. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of equipment for any group of covered products that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature that other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) and 6316(f)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(f).

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). 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. 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).

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 (OIRA) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that this NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.

Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the standards proposed herein by DOE achieves maximum net benefits.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

In a final rule published on October 18, 2005, DOE adopted the energy conservation standards and water conservation standards prescribed by EPCA in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) for certain automatic commercial ice makers manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. 70 FR at 60407, 60415-16. These standards consist of maximum energy use and maximum condenser water use to produce 100 pounds of ice for automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. These standards appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart H, Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. Table II.1 presents DOE's current energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers.

Table II.1—Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Standards Prescribed by EPCA—Compliance Required Beginning on January 1, 2010

Equipment type

Type of cooling

Harvest rate

lb ice/24 hours

Maximum energy use

kWh/100 lb ice

Maximum condenser water use *

gal/100 lb ice

Ice-Making Head

Water

<500

7.8-0.0055H **

200-0.022H.**

≥500 and <1,436

5.58-0.0011H

200-0.022H.

≥1,436

4.0

200-0.022H.

Air

<450

10.26-0.0086H

Not Applicable.

≥450

6.89-0.0011H

Not Applicable.

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor)

Air

<1,000

8.85-0.0038H

Not Applicable.

≥1,000

5.10

Not Applicable.

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

<934

8.85-0.0038H

Not Applicable.

≥934

5.30

Not Applicable.

Self-Contained

Water

<200

11.4-0.019H

191-0.0315H.

≥200

7.60

191-0.0315H.

Air

<175

18.0-0.0469H

Not Applicable.

≥175

9.80

Not Applicable.

Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d).

* Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice.

** H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

As stated above, EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards and water conservation standards for certain cube type automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours: Self-contained ice makers and ice-making heads (IMHs) using air or water for cooling and ice makers with remote condensing with or without a remote compressor. Compliance with these standards was required as of January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) DOE adopted these standards and placed them under 10 CFR part 431, subpart H, Automatic Commercial Ice Makers.

In addition, EPCA requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to determine whether to amend the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), and if DOE determines that amendment is warranted, DOE must also issue a final rule establishing such amended standards by January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A))

Furthermore, EPCA granted DOE authority to set standards for additional types of automatic commercial ice makers that are not covered in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1). (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(A)) While not enumerated in EPCA, additional types of automatic commercial ice makers DOE identified as candidates for standards to be established in this rulemaking include flake and nugget, as well as batch type ice makers that are not included in the EPCA definition of cube type ice makers.

To satisfy its requirement to conduct a rulemaking, DOE initiated the current rulemaking on November 4, 2010 by publishing on its Web site its “Rulemaking Framework for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers.” (The Framework document is available at:

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037-0024

DOE also published a notice in the

Federal Register

announcing the availability of the Framework document, as well as a public meeting to discuss the document. The notice also solicited comment on the matters raised in the document. 75 FR 70852 (Nov. 19, 2010). The Framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers, and identified various issues to be resolved in the rulemaking.

DOE held the Framework public meeting on December 16, 2010, at which it: (1) Presented the contents of the Framework document; (2) described the analyses it planned to conduct during the rulemaking; (3) sought comments from interested parties on these subjects; and (4) in general, sought to inform interested parties about, and facilitate their involvement in, the rulemaking. Major issues discussed at the public meeting included: (1) The scope of coverage for the rulemaking; (2) equipment classes; (3) analytical approaches and methods used in the rulemaking; (4) impacts of standards and burden on manufacturers; (5) technology options; (6) distribution channels, shipments, and end users; (7) impacts of outside regulations; and (8) environmental issues. At the meeting and during the comment period on the Framework document, DOE received many comments that helped it identify and resolve issues pertaining to automatic commercial ice makers relevant to this rulemaking. These comments are discussed in subsequent sections of this notice.

DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary analyses to help review standards for this equipment. This process culminated in DOE publishing a notice of another public meeting (the January 2012 notice) to discuss and receive comments regarding the tools and methods DOE used in performing its preliminary analysis, as well as the analyses results. 77 FR 3404 (Jan. 24, 2012). DOE also invited written comments on these subjects and announced the availability on its Web site of a preliminary analysis technical support document (preliminary analysis TSD).

Id.

(The preliminary analysis TSD is available at:

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037-0026

.) Finally, DOE sought comments concerning other relevant issues that could affect amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers, or that DOE should address in this NOPR.

Id.

The preliminary analysis TSD provided an overview of DOE's review of the standards for automatic commercial ice makers, discussed the comments DOE received in response to the Framework document, and addressed issues including the scope of coverage of the rulemaking. The document also described the analytical framework that DOE used (and continues to use) in considering amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers, including a description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships between the various analyses that are part of this rulemaking. Additionally, the preliminary analysis TSD presented in detail each analysis that DOE had performed for this equipment up to that point, including descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses were as follows:

• A

market and technology assessment

addressed the scope of this rulemaking, identified existing and potential new equipment classes for automatic commercial ice makers, characterized the markets for this equipment, and reviewed techniques and approaches for improving its efficiency;

• A

screening analysis

reviewed technology options to improve the efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers, and weighed these options against DOE's four prescribed screening criteria;

• An

engineering analysis

estimated the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) associated with more energy-efficient automatic commercial ice makers;

• An

energy and water use analysis

developed the annual energy and water usage values for economic analysis of automatic commercial ice makers;

• A

markups analysis

converted estimated MSPs derived from the engineering analysis to customer purchase prices;

• A

life-cycle cost analysis

calculated, for individual customers, the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of automatic commercial ice makers, compared to any increase in installed costs likely to result directly from the imposition of a given standard;

• A

payback period analysis

estimated the amount of time it would take customers to recover the higher purchase price of more energy-efficient equipment through lower operating costs;

• A

shipments analysis

estimated shipments of automatic commercial ice makers over the time period examined in the analysis;

• A

national impact analysis

(NIA) assessed the national energy savings (NES), and the national NPV of total customer costs and savings, expected to result from specific, potential energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers; and

• A

preliminary manufacturer impact analysis

(MIA) took the initial steps in evaluating the potential effects on

manufacturers of amended efficiency standards.

The public meeting announced in the January 2012 notice took place on February 16, 2012 (February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting). At the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary analysis TSD. Interested parties provided comments on the following issues: (1) Equipment classes; (2) technology options; (3) energy modeling and validation of engineering models; (4) cost modeling; (5) market information, including distribution channels and distribution markups; (6) efficiency levels; (7) life-cycle costs to customers, including installation, repair and maintenance costs, and water and wastewater prices; and (8) historical shipments. The comments received since publication of the January 2012 notice, including those received at the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting, have contributed to DOE's proposed resolution of the issues in this rulemaking as they pertain to automatic commercial ice makers. This NOPR responds to the issues raised by the comments. (A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.)

III. General Discussion

A. List of Equipment Class Abbreviations

In this notice, equipment class names are frequently abbreviated. The abbreviations are shown on Table III.1.

Table III.1—List of Equipment Class Abbreviations

Abbreviation

Equipment type

Condenser type

Rated harvest rate

lb ice/24 hours

Ice type

IMH-W-Small-B

Ice-Making Head

Water

<500

Batch.

IMH-W-Med-B

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥500 and <1,436

Batch.

IMH-W-Large-B *

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥1,436 and <4,000

Batch.

IMH-A-Small-B

Ice-Making Head

Air

<450

Batch.

IMH-A-Large-B* ** (also IMH-A-Large-B-1)

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥450 and <875

Batch.

IMH-A-Extended-B* ** (also IMH-A-Large-B-2)

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥875 and <4,000

Batch.

RCU-NRC-Small-B

Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor

Air

<1,000

Batch.

RCU-NRC-Large-B*

Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor

Air

≥1,000 and <4,000

Batch.

RCU-RC-Small-B

Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor

Air

<934

Batch.

RCU-RC-Large-B

Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor

Air

≥934 and <4,000

Batch.

SCU-W-Small-B

Self-Contained Unit

Water

<200

Batch.

SCU-W-Large-B

Self-Contained Unit

Water

≥200 and <4,000

Batch.

SCU-A-Small-B

Self-Contained Unit

Air

<175

Batch.

SCU-A-Large-B

Self-Contained Unit

Air

≥175 and <4,000

Batch.

IMH-W-Small-C

Ice-Making Head

Water

<900

Continuous.

IMH-W-Large-C

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥900 and <4,000

Continuous.

IMH-A-Small-C

Ice-Making Head

Air

<700

Continuous.

IMH-A-Large-C

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥700 and <4,000

Continuous.

RCU-NRC-Small-C

Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor

Air

<850

Continuous.

RCU-NRC-Large-C

Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor

Air

≥850 and <4,000

Continuous.

RCU-RC-Small-C

Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor

Air

<850

Continuous.

RCU-RC-Large-C

Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor

Air

≥850 and <4,000

Continuous.

SCU-W-Small-C

Self-Contained Unit

Water

<900

Continuous.

SCU-W-Large-C

Self-Contained Unit

Water

≥900 and <4,000

Continuous.

SCU-A-Small-C

Self-Contained Unit

Air

<700

Continuous.

SCU-A-Large-C

Self-Contained Unit

Air

≥700 and <4,000

Continuous.

* IMH-W-Large-B, IMH-A-Large-B, and RCU-NRC-Large-B were modeled in some NOPR analyses as two different units, one at the lower end of the rated harvest range and one near the high end of the rated harvest range in which a significant number of units are available. In the LCC and NIA models, the low and high harvest rate models were denoted simply as B-1 and B-2. Where appropriate, the analyses add or perform weighted averages of the two typical sizes to present class level results.

** IMH-A-Large-B was established by EPACT-2005 as a class between 450 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. In this notice, DOE is proposing to divide this into two classes, which could either be considered “Large” and “Very Large” or “Medium” and “Large.” In the LCC and NIA modeling, this was denoted as B-1 and B-2. The rated harvest rate break point shown above is based on TSL 3 results.

B. Test Procedures

On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule in which it adopted Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 810-2003, “Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers,” with a revised method for calculating energy use, as the DOE test procedure for this equipment. The DOE rule included a clarification to the energy use rate equation to specify that the energy use be calculated using the entire mass of ice produced during the testing period, normalized to 100 lb of ice produced. 71 FR 71340, 71350 (Dec. 8, 2006). ARI Standard 810-2003 requires performance tests to be conducted according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 29-1988 (reaffirmed 2005), “Method of Testing

Automatic Ice Makers.” The DOE test procedure incorporated by reference the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (Reaffirmed 2005) as the method of test.

On January 11, 2012, DOE published a test procedure final rule (2012 test procedure final rule) in which it adopted several amendments to the DOE test procedure. This included an amendment to incorporate by reference Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 810-2007, which amends ARI Standard 810-2003 to expand the capacity range of covered equipment, provide definitions and specific test procedures for batch and continuous type ice makers, and provide a definition for ice hardness factor, as the DOE test procedure for this equipment. 77 FR 1591 (Jan. 11, 2012). In March 2011, AHRI published Addendum 1 to Standard 810-2007, which revised the definition of “potable water use rate” and added new definitions for “purge or dump water” and “harvest water.” DOE's 2012 test procedure final rule incorporated this addendum to the AHRI Standard. The 2012 test procedure final rule also included an amendment to incorporate by reference the updated ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009.

Id.

In addition, the 2012 test procedure final rule included several amendments designed to address issues that were not accounted for by the previous DOE test procedure. 77 FR at 1593 (Jan. 11, 2012). First, DOE expanded the scope of the test procedure to include equipment with capacities from 50 to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours.

DOE also adopted amendments to provide test methods for continuous type ice makers and to standardize the measurement of energy and water use for continuous type ice makers with respect to ice hardness. In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE also clarified the test method and reporting requirements for remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers designed for connection to remote compressor racks. Finally, the 2012 test procedure final rule discontinued the use of the clarified energy use rate calculation and instead required energy-use to be calculated per 100 lb of ice as specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. The 2012 test procedure final rule became effective on February 10, 2012, and the changes set forth in the final rule became mandatory for equipment testing starting January 7, 2013. 77 FR at 1593 (Jan. 11, 2012).

EPCA defines

automatic commercial ice maker

in 42 U.S.C. 6311(19) as “a factory-made assembly (not necessarily shipped in 1 package) that—(1) Consists of a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated unit, with means for making and harvesting ice; and (2) May include means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ice.” This definition includes commercial ice-making equipment up to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours, though DOE had not previously established test procedures and standards for units with the capacity between 2,500 and 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. While 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) explicitly sets standards for cube type ice makers up to 2,500 lb ice/24 hours, 6313(d)(2) provides authority to set standards for other equipment types—all of which are covered by the EPCA definition of an automatic commercial ice maker.

The test procedure amendments established in the 2012 test procedure final rule are required to be used in conjunction with any new standards promulgated as a result of this standards rulemaking. Use of the amended test procedure to demonstrate compliance with DOE energy conservation standards or for representations with respect to energy consumption of automatic commercial ice makers is required on the compliance date of any energy conservation standards established as part of this rulemaking, and on January 7, 2013 for the energy conservation standards set in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). 77 FR at 1593 (Jan. 11, 2012).

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis, which it bases on information that it has gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such analysis, DOE develops a list of design options for consideration, in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of these options for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible if it is used by the relevant industry or if a working prototype has been developed. Technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) Although DOE considers technologies that are proprietary, it will not consider efficiency levels that can only be reached through the use of proprietary technologies (

i.e.,

a unique pathway), which could allow a single manufacturer to monopolize or control the market.

Once DOE has determined that particular design options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each of these design options in light of 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)(ii)-(iv) Chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD discusses the results of the screening analyses for automatic commercial ice makers. Specifically, it presents the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the bases for the TSLs in this rulemaking.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt (or not adopt) an amended or new energy conservation standard for a type or class of covered equipment such as automatic commercial ice makers, it determines the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible for such equipment. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 6313(d)(4)) Accordingly, in the preliminary analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for automatic commercial ice makers in the engineering analysis using the design parameters that passed the screening analysis. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for the results of the analyses, and a list of technologies included in max-tech equipment.

As indicated previously, whether efficiency levels exist or can be achieved in commonly used equipment is not relevant to whether they are max-tech levels. DOE considers technologies to be technologically feasible if they are incorporated in any currently available equipment or working prototypes. Hence, a max-tech level results from the combination of design options predicted to result in the highest efficiency level possible for an equipment class, with such design options consisting of technologies already incorporated in commercial equipment or working prototypes. DOE notes that it reevaluated the efficiency levels, including the max-tech levels, when it updated its results for this NOPR. Table III.2 and Table III.3 show the max-tech levels determined in the engineering analysis for batch and continuous type automatic commercial ice makers, respectively.

Table III.2—Max-Tech Levels for Batch Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Equipment type *

Energy use lower than baseline

IMH-W-Small-B

30%.

IMH-W-Med-B

22%.

IMH-W-Large-B

17% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours) 16% (at 2,600 lb ice/24 hours).

IMH-A-Small-B

33%.

IMH-A-Large-B

33% (at 800 lb ice/24 hours) 21% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours).

RCU-Small-B

Not analyzed—similar to IMH-A.-Large-B (1500).

RCU-Large-B

21% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours) 21% (at 2,400 lb ice/24 hours).

SCU-W-Small-B

Not analyzed—similar to SCU-A-Large-B.

SCU-W-Large-B

35%.

SCU-A-Small-B

41%.

SCU-A-Large-B

36%.

* IMH is ice-making head; RCU is remote condensing unit; SCU is self-contained unit; W is water-cooled; A is air-cooled; Small refers to the lowest harvest category; Med refers to the Medium category (water-cooled IMH only); Large refers to the large size category; RCU units were modeled as one with line losses used to distinguish standards.

** For equipment classes that were not analyzed, DOE did not develop specific cost-efficiency curves but attributed the curve (and maximum technology point) from one of the analyzed equipment classes.

Table III.3—Max-Tech Levels for Continuous Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Equipment type

Energy use lower than baseline

IMH-W-Small-C

Not analyzed—similar to IMH-A-Large-C (820).

IMH-W-Large-C

Not analyzed at 1,000 lb/day—similar to IMH-A-Large-C (820) Not analyzed at 1,800 lb/day—similar to IMH-A-Large-C (820).

IMH-A-Small-C

25.3%.

IMH-A-Large-C

17% (at 820 lb ice/24 hours) Not analyzed at 1,800 lb/day—similar to IMH-A-Large-C (820).

RCU-Small-C

Not analyzed—similar to IMH-A-Large-C (820).

RCU-Large-C

Not analyzed—similar to IMH-A-Large-C (820).

SCU-W-Small-C

Not analyzed—similar to SCU-A-Small-C.

SCU-W-Large-C *

No units available.

SCU-A-Small-C

24%.

SCU-A-Large-C *

No units available.

* DOE's investigation of equipment on the market revealed that there are no existing products in either of these two equipment classes (as defined in this NOPR).

D. Energy and Water Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from automatic commercial ice makers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended and new standards (2018-2047). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the base case. The base case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency standards, and considers market forces and policies that affect demand for more-efficient equipment.

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from amended standards for the equipment that are the subject of this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where they are used.

Because automatic commercial ice makers use water, water savings were quantified in the same way as energy savings.

For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the savings in energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To convert this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's)

Annual Energy Outlook.

DOE has also begun to estimate full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011). The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of efficiency standards. DOE's approach is based on calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the fuels used by covered equipment.

2. Significance of Savings

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting a standard for a covered product unless such standard would result in “significant” energy savings. Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in

Natural Resources Defense Council

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 estimated energy savings in the 30-year analysis period for the TSLs (presented in section V.A) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4)) The following sections generally discuss how DOE is addressing each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. For further details and the results of DOE's

analyses pertaining to economic justification, see sections IV and V of today's rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers

In determining the impacts of an amended standard on manufacturers, DOE first uses an annual cash flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; cash flows by year; changes in revenue and income; and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

For a detailed description of the methodology used to assess the economic impact on manufacturers, see section IV.J of this rulemaking. For results, see section V.B.2 of this rulemaking. Additionally, chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD contains a detailed description of the methodology and discussion of the results.

For individual customers,

measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. The LCC, which is specified separately 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 customers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. For a description of the methodology used for assessing the economic impact on customers, see sections IV.G and IV.H; for results, see sections V.B.1 and V.B.2 of this rulemaking. Additionally, chapters 8 and 10 and the associated appendices of the NOPR TSD contain a detailed description of the methodology and discussion of the results. For a description of the methodology used to assess the economic impact on manufacturers, see section IV.J; for results, see section V.B.2 of this rulemaking. Additionally, chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD contains a detailed description of the methodology and discussion of the results.

Customers, or consumers, in the case of commercial and industrial equipment, are considered to be the businesses that purchase or lease the equipment or may be responsible for the cost of operating the equipment.

b. Life-Cycle Costs

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including its installation) and the operating costs (including energy, water, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy and water consumption, energy and water prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the considered equipment in the first year of compliance with amended standards.

To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. DOE identifies the percentage of customers estimated to receive LCC savings, or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of customers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard. For the results of DOE's analyses related to the LCC, see section V.B.1 of this rulemaking and chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD; for LCC impacts on identifiable subgroups, see section V.B.1 of this notice and chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 6313(d)(4)) As discussed in section VI.B.3, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment

In establishing classes of equipment, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6313(d)(4)) The standards proposed in today's rulemaking will not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment considered in the rulemaking. For DOE's analyses related to the potential impact of amended standards on equipment utility and performance, see section V.B.4 of this rulemaking and chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It directs the Attorney General to make such determination, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and to transmit such determination to the Secretary, within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of today's proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will address the Attorney General's determination in the final rule.

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(e)(1))

The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with energy production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from today's standards, and from each TSL it considered, in sections IV.K, IV.L and V.B.6 of this rulemaking. DOE also

reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs.

g. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a new or amended 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) and 6316(e)(1)) In developing this proposed rule, DOE has also considered the comments submitted by interested parties. For the results of DOE's analyses related to other factors, see section V.B.7 of this rulemaking.

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6313(d)(4), EPCA provides for a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the customer of equipment that meets the new or amended standard level is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis generates values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the PBP for customers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the customer, manufacturer, the Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4). The results of these analyses serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.G.12 of this rulemaking and chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments

A. General Rulemaking Issues

During the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting and in subsequent written comments, stakeholders provided input regarding general issues pertinent to the rulemaking, such as issues of scope of coverage and DOE's authority in setting standards. These issues are discussed in this section.

1. Statutory Authority

In the preliminary analysis, DOE stated its position that EPCA prevents the setting of both energy performance standards and prescriptive design requirements (see chapter 2 of the preliminary analysis TSD). DOE also stated its intent to amend the energy performance standards for automatic commercial ice makers, and not to set prescriptive design requirements at this time (see chapter 2 of the preliminary analysis TSD).

2. Test Procedures

As discussed in section III.A, DOE published a test procedure final rule in January 2012 (2012 test procedure final rule). 77 FR 1591 (Jan. 11, 2012). All automatic commercial ice makers covered by DOE energy conservation standards promulgated as a result of this energy conservation standards rulemaking will be required to use the 2012 test procedures to demonstrate compliance beginning on the compliance date set at the conclusion of this rulemaking. 77 FR at 1593 (Jan. 11, 2012). The standards can be found at title 10 CFR part 431, subpart H (or, alternatively, 10 CFR 431.134).

Since the publication of the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE has received several inquiries from interested parties regarding proper conduct of the DOE test procedure. Specifically, interested parties inquired regarding the appropriate use of baffles and automatic purge water controls during the DOE test procedure. On January 28, 2013, DOE published draft guidance documents to address the issues regarding baffles

and automatic purge water controls

and provided an opportunity for interested parties to comment on those interpretations of the DOE test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers. The comment period for those guidance documents extended until February 28, 2013. DOE will publish a final guidance document and responses to all comments received on the DOE Appliance and Commercial Equipment Standards Web site (

www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1

). However, DOE notes that these guidance documents serve only to clarify existing test procedure requirements, as established in the 2012 test procedure final rule, and do not alter the DOE test procedure.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/acim_baffles_faq_2013-9-24final.pdf.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/acim_purge_faq_2013-9-25final.pdf.

DOE's test procedures are set in separate rulemaking processes. However, as part of the automatic commercial ice maker energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE did receive two comments related to the test procedures. Howe noted that measuring potable water use is important because de-scaling is crucial for maintaining the efficiency and utility of automatic commercial ice makers. Howe also recommended that DOE obtain information from additional manufacturers on the relationship between potable water use and automatic commercial ice maker performance. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 2)

A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket of DOE's “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers” (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037), which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

. This notation indicates that the statement preceding the reference is document number 51 in the docket for the automatic commercial ice makers energy conservation standards rulemaking, and appears at page 2 of that document.

The People's Republic of China (China) noted that there are differences among test processes for refrigeration products issued by different bodies in the U.S. China stated that different test procedures may lead to different results for one product, and it will affect the judgment of compliance. Therefore, China suggested that the U.S. government unify the test procedure. (China, No. 55 at p. 3)

As noted earlier, the 2012 test procedure final rule was published on January 11, 2012, and the energy conservation standards will be based on this test procedure. 77 FR at 1593. With regard to Howe's comment, in the final rule, DOE elected to not require measurement of potable water. Since DOE is not setting potable water limits for automatic commercial ice makers, requiring manufacturers to measure potable water use would be an unnecessary expense. With regard to China's comment, DOE has no authority regarding adjustment of the test procedures of other organizations. Also, if there is any uncertainty regarding how to conduct the test, manufacturers and others may request clarification from DOE. By updating the test procedure to reflect current AHRI and ANSI/ASHRAE standards, DOE expects any differences of the type noted by China will be minimized.

3. Need for and Scope of Rulemaking

At the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting and in written

comments, DOE received comments about the need for the rulemaking. Hoshizaki suggested DOE not adjust the energy standards for automatic commercial ice makers regulated under EPACT 2005, arguing that tightening the regulations that were just released 2 years ago would negatively impact both manufacturers and end users. (Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 3) AHRI opined that, because the full effects of the EPACT 2005 standards will not be known until at least 2013, DOE should only consider the previously uncovered continuous and high-capacity batch type ice makers in this rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 3)

Scotsman asked whether the upcoming rulemaking would cover products that both make and dispense ice. (Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 26)

A notation in the form “Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 26” identifies a comment that DOE has received during a public meeting and has included in the docket of this rulemaking at

www.regulations.gov

. This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Scotsman; (2) transcribed from the public meeting in document number 42 of the docket, and (3) appearing on page 26 of that document.

In response to the comments about the need for starting this rulemaking, DOE notes that under EPACT 2005, DOE must review the existing standards and, if justified, develop amended standards by January 1, 2015. Thus, DOE commenced the rulemaking to ensure compliance with the statutory deadline. During the rulemaking, DOE considered alternatives to this rulemaking in the regulatory impact analysis; this analysis is described in Section IV.O of today's NOPR. As for covering products that make and dispense ice, the scope of the rulemaking is ice-making products. While the 42 U.S.C. 6311(19) definition of automatic commercial ice maker stated an ice maker may or may not include a means for dispensing or storing ice, not all ice makers do include such ancillary equipment. As discussed in the preliminary analysis TSD, section 2.2.4.2, DOE determined that promulgating standards to regulate the energy usage of dispensers and storage bins may have an unintended impact on customer choices when choosing between models that include or do not include such ancillary equipment. By regulating energy usage of ancillary equipment, DOE could disincentivize the manufacturing of such equipment. If, and to the extent that, ice dispensing equipment use electricity, such electricity usage is not covered by this rulemaking.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on publicly available information (

e.g.,

manufacturer specification sheets, industry publications) and data submitted by manufacturers, trade associations, and other stakeholders. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) Quantities and types of equipment sold and offered for sale; (2) retail market trends; (3) equipment covered by the rulemaking; (4) equipment classes; (5) manufacturers; (6) regulatory requirements and non-regulatory programs (such as rebate programs and tax credits); and (7) technologies that could improve the energy efficiency of the equipment under examination. DOE researched manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers and made a particular effort to identify and characterize small business manufacturers. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Equipment Classes

In evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides covered equipment into classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or another performance-related feature that justifies a different standard for equipment having such a feature. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6313(d)(4)) 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 equipment classes based on these criteria.

Automatic commercial ice makers are divided into equipment classes based on physical characteristics that affect commercial application, equipment utility, and equipment efficiency. These equipment classes are based on the following criteria:

• Ice-making process

○ “Batch” icemakers that operate on a cyclical basis, alternating between periods of ice production and ice harvesting

○ “Continuous” icemakers that can produce and harvest ice simultaneously

• Equipment configuration

○ Ice-making head (a single-package ice-making assembly that does not include an ice storage bin)

○ Remote condensing

With remote compressor (compressor packaged with the condenser)

Without remote compressor (compressor packaged with the evaporator)

○ Self-contained (with storage bin included)

• Condenser cooling

○ Air-cooled

○ Water-cooled

• Capacity range

Table IV.1 shows the 25 automatic commercial ice maker equipment classes that DOE is including in the scope of this rulemaking. The capacity ranges for the continuous units have changed from the preliminary analysis.

Table IV.1—Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Equipment Classes

Type of ice maker

Equipment type

Type of

condenser

cooling

Rated harvest rate

lb ice/24 hours

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥50 and <500

≥500 and <1,436

≥1,436 and <4,000

Air

≥50 and <450

≥450 and <4,000

Batch

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor)

Air

≥50 and <1,000

≥1,000 and <4,000

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

≥50 and <934

≥934 and <4,000

Self-Contained Unit

Water

≥50 and <200

≥200 and <4,000

Air

≥50 and <175

≥175 and <4,000

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥50 and <900

≥900 and <4,000

Air

≥50 and <700

≥700 and <4,000

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor)

Air

≥50 and <850

≥850 and <4,000

Continuous

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

≥50 and <850

≥850 and <4,000

Self-Contained Unit

Water

≥50 and <900

≥900 and <4,000

Air

≥50 and <700

≥700 and <4,000

Batch type and continuous type ice makers are distinguished by the mechanics of their respective ice-making processes. Continuous type ice makers are so named because they simultaneously produce and harvest ice in one continuous, steady-state process. The ice produced in continuous processes is called “flake” or “nugget” ice, which is often a “soft” ice with high liquid water content, in the range from 10 to 35 percent, but can also be subcooled,

i.e.,

be entirely frozen and at temperature lower than 32 °F. Continuous type ice makers were not included in the EPACT 2005 standards and are therefore not currently regulated by DOE energy conservation standards.

Current energy conservation standards cover batch type ice makers that produce “cube” ice, which is defined as ice that is fairly uniform, hard, solid, usually clear, and generally weighs less than two ounces (60 grams) per piece, as distinguished from flake, crushed, or fragmented ice. 10 CFR 431.132 Batch ice makers alternate between freezing and harvesting periods and therefore produce ice in discrete batches rather than in a continuous process. After the freeze period, hot gas is typically redirected from the compressor discharge to the evaporator, melting the surface of the ice cubes that is in contact with the evaporator surface, enabling them to be removed from the evaporator. The evaporator is then purged with potable water, which removes impurities that would decrease ice clarity. Consequently, batch type ice makers typically have higher potable water usage than continuous type ice makers.

After the publication of the Framework document, several parties commented that machines producing “tube” ice, which is created in a batch process identical to that which produces cube ice, should also be regulated. DOE notes that tube ice machines of the covered capacity range that produce ice fitting the definition for cube type ice are covered by the current standards, whether or not they are referred to as cube type ice makers within the industry. Nonetheless, DOE has addressed the commenters' suggestions by emphasizing that all batch type ice machines are within the scope of this rulemaking, as long as they fall within the covered capacity range of 50 to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. This includes tube ice makers and other batch type ice machines (if any) that produce ice that does not fit the definition of cube type ice. To help clarify this issue, DOE now refers to all batch automatic commercial ice makers as “batch type ice makers,” regardless of the shape of the ice pieces that they produce. 77 FR 1591 (Jan. 11, 2012).

During the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting and in subsequent written comments, a number of stakeholders addressed issues related to proposed equipment classes and the inclusion of certain types of equipment in the analysis. These topics are discussed in this section.

a. Cabinet Size

Currently, DOE does not consider physical size as a criterion for setting equipment classes.

Several stakeholders commented on the size standardization of ice makers. Scotsman commented that most ice makers are built in standard widths of 22, 30, and 48 inches and standard depths between 24 and 28 inches, although heights may vary slightly depending on the machine. (Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 61) Manitowoc noted that the reason for this standardization is that most ice storage bins have standard sizes based on ice-making capacity, and the footprint of the ice maker on top needs to be the same as the footprint of the storage bin in order for them to fit together. Hence, according to Manitowoc, the industry has developed common sizes that have facilitated ice maker installations and replacements. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 91-92) Howe countered that, contrary to the assertions of other stakeholders, there are no “standard” ice maker dimensions. (Howe, No. 51 at pp. 1-2)

Earthjustice commented that it may be helpful to use cabinet size as an additional criterion for defining equipment classes because the existing standard sizes of ice makers affect their efficiency and their utility to the consumer, both of which are factors that DOE typically considers in identifying equipment classes. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 90-91)

However, Manitowoc commented that it manufactures ice makers in different cabinet sizes that deliver the same ice-making capacity, explaining that this facilitates flexible installation decisions but could complicate efforts to define equipment classes by cabinet size. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 91)

The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) commented that it would be helpful to see a size analysis that would elucidate the effects of size on utility to the customer and potential energy savings. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 73-74)

As noted by Manitowoc and Scotsman, there are standard sizes for

ice makers. DOE's review of product literature supports these claims, in contrast to Howe's assertion that there are no standard sizes. However, not all customers face size constraints.

DOE notes that a reason to consider separate equipment classes based on physical dimensions is to address differences in energy efficiency. An important size-related factor that can affect the efficiency of an ice maker is the size of its heat exchangers (

i.e.,

the evaporator and condenser).

A larger evaporator can make more ice per freeze cycle. Hence, for a given harvest capacity rate, the cycle can be allowed to take longer, thus reducing the required heat transfer rate per evaporator surface. The reduced heat transfer rate can be provided by a lower temperature differential between the ice and the refrigerant. Likewise, as the surface area of a condenser increases, the temperature differential between the refrigerant and the cooling medium (either air or water) decreases. These design changes can lead to higher evaporating temperature and lower condensing temperature, which both reduce the pressure differential between the compressor suction and discharge ports, which reduces the amount of electrical power necessary to compress the vapor, thus reducing energy consumption of the ice maker.

Other examples are use of some higher-efficiency compressors, which can be physically larger, and packaging of drain water heat exchangers within the equipment package.

To address size limitations and to save energy, DOE could consider Earthjustice's recommendation to use size as a criterion in setting equipment classes. To do so, DOE could establish parallel sets of equipment classes—size-constrained classes (in which physical size would be limited to a prescribed maximum) and non-size-constrained classes (for which there would be no size restrictions). In the size-constrained classes, DOE's ability to set stricter energy usage limits would be limited by the constraint that the physical size of the unit cannot be increased. In the non-size-constrained classes, additional energy savings could be achieved by setting standards that increase the physical size of the unit as well as making the units more efficient. Accounting for size constraints is important in the automatic commercial ice maker industry because replacement sales comprise a majority of sales and equipment must be able to fit into the same space as the unit it replaces, and fit on existing ice storage bins, as described above. For opportunities in which physical size is not critical, non-size-constrained equipment classes could save energy relative to the size-constrained units. If DOE decided not to establish separate equipment classes for space-constrained equipment, it may not be reasonable for DOE to consider design options that significantly increase physical size of the equipment, which would limit potential efficiency gains and/or make them more costly, thus likely resulting in less stringent standards for size-limited equipment classes.

Previous DOE rulemakings provide ample precedent for creating space-constrained equipment classes. For instance, DOE developed space-constrained equipment classes for packaged terminal air conditioners and through-the-wall air conditioners, both of which represent industries in which replacement comprises a majority of sales. 10 CFR 430.32

To determine whether space constraint is an issue (

i.e.,

whether efficiency and physical size are direct functions of one another), DOE followed ASAP's suggestion and prepared an analysis of the size and efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers. Using publicly available manufacturer information, DOE collected size

data for approximately 600 ice makers and mapped it to efficiency information listed in the AHRI database. After plotting and analyzing this data, DOE determined that, although there is a correlation between size and efficiency in automatic commercial ice makers, this correlation is not conclusive.

Size is expressed in terms of volume, calculated by multiplying unit width by unit depth and by unit height (width × depth × height).

Table IV.2 displays sample results of this size analysis, presenting information for two different large, air-cooled IMH batch type ice makers at each of several selected harvest capacities. In many cases, the larger equipment is more efficient. For example, among the ice makers that can produce 1,500 lb ice/24 hours, the 28 ft

products have total energy consumption values that are lower than the current energy consumption standard by greater than >20 percent, while the 19 ft

products have total energy consumption values that are only 6 percent below the standard. In other cases, the data do not support this trend. For example, among the 800 lb ice/24 hour ice makers, the 17 ft

products are less efficient than the 11 ft

products. Finally, in cases such as the 1,430 lb ice/24 hour machines, there are also products with the same harvest capacity and volume that nonetheless have different efficiencies. Therefore, it is difficult to draw a decisive conclusion from this data.

Table IV.2—Relationship between Volume and Efficiency for Large IMH Air-Cooled Batch Ice Makers

Rated harvest rate

lb ice/24 hours

Volume

% Below baseline

energy use

(percent)

500

9.1

12.4

3.2

2.2

800

10.8

16.8

13.5

3.5

1,150

18.0

20.8

13.5

18.1

1,430

20.1

3.0

4.6

1,530

19.3

27.7

6.0

21.3

Manitowoc noted during the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting that it produces units with the same harvest rate in different size chassis sizes, and that these units have very similar features. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 91) DOE, in its analysis, has noted that some manufacturers have achieved higher efficiencies for ice makers in smaller sizes (at constant harvest rates). Based on this information, DOE believes that size does affect efficiency levels (as it allows for large heat exchangers), but it is not the definitive factor in determining efficiency for ice makers.

Therefore, DOE has determined that separate equipment classes for size-constrained units are not warranted. DOE notes that there is not a strong correlation between product size and product efficiency that supports separate equipment classes. Furthermore, DOE believes that adding additional classes for size-constrained units complicates the equipment class structure and analysis but does not improve the rulemaking or standards.

b. Large-Capacity Batch Ice Makers

In the November 2010 Framework document for this rulemaking, DOE requested comments on whether coverage should be expanded from the current covered capacity range of 50 to 2,500 lb ice/24 hours to include ice makers producing up to 10,000 lb ice/24 hours. All commenters agreed with expanding the harvest capacity coverage, and all but one of the commenters supported or accepted an upper harvest capacity cap of 4,000 lb ice/24 hours, which would be consistent with the current test procedure, AHRI Standard 810-2007. Most commenters categorized ice makers with harvest

capacities above 4,000 lb ice/24 hours as industrial rather than commercial. To be consistent with the majority of these comments, DOE proposed during the preliminary analysis to set the upper harvest capacity limit to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours, even though there are few ice makers currently produced with capacities ranging from 2,500 to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. 77 FR 3405 (Jan. 24, 2012) Since the publication of the preliminary analysis, DOE revised the test procedure, with the final rule published in January 2012, to include all batch and continuous type ice makers with capacities between 50 and 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. 77 FR 1591, 1613-14 (Jan. 11, 2012). In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE noted that 4,000 lb ice/24 hours represented a reasonable limit for commercial ice makers, as larger-sized ice makers were generally used for industrial applications and testing machines up to 4,000 lb was consistent with AHRI 810-2007. 77 FR 1591 (Jan. 11, 2012). Therefore, because DOE now has a procedure for testing ice makers with capacities up to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours, DOE proposes in this NOPR to set efficiency standards that include all ice makers in this extended capacity range.

In written comments after the publication of the preliminary analysis, AHRI and Manitowoc both recommended that DOE refrain from regulating products with capacities above 2,500 lb ice/24 hours if there are not enough high-capacity batch machines available for DOE to analyze. (AHRI, No. 49 at pp. 3-4; Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 3)

DOE acknowledges that there are currently few automatic commercial ice makers with harvest capacities above 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. However, DOE already has a precedent of setting standards for harvest capacity ranges in which there are no products available. There are currently no IMH air-cooled ice makers on the market with harvest capacities above 1,650 lb ice/24 hours, yet EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to set standards for this equipment class of ice makers with harvest capacities up to 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. Because it is possible that batch-type ice makers with harvest capacities from 2,500 to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours will be manufactured in the future, DOE does not find it unreasonable to set standards in this rulemaking for batch type ice makers with harvest capacities in the range up to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. Therefore, DOE maintains its position to include large-capacity batch type ice makers in the scope of this rulemaking. However, DOE requests comment and data on the viability of the proposed standard levels selected for batch-type ice makers with harvest capacities from 2,500 to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. The proposed standard levels are discussed in Section V.A.2 of today's NOPR.

c. Efficiency/Harvest Capacity Relationship

In the current energy conservation standards, DOE uses discrete harvest capacity breakpoints to differentiate cube machine classes, and DOE proposes to do the same with new classes for continuous machines.

In reviewing industry literature, DOE found that compressor efficiency increases over a range of harvest rate capacities and then tends to flatten out at the higher capacities. This trend is illustrated in Table IV.3, which displays the capacities and energy efficiency ratios (EERs) of one family of reciprocating compressors. As shown in this table, the EERs of compressors in this family level off to between 6.5 and 7.2 British thermal units per watt-hour (Btu/Wh) at capacities beyond 14,300 Btu per hour.

Table IV.3—Relationship of Compressor Capacity to EER

Capacity

Btu/hr

EER

Btu/Wh

7,970

5.8

8,440

5.1

8,840

6.0

9,870

6.2

10,200

5.5

10,900

6.3

11,300

5.5

12,400

7.0

12,900

6.0

14,100

5.9

14,300

6.5

14,900

6.6

18,100

7.0

18,300

6.5

18,600

6.6

19,600

5.6

22,200

6.5

22,500

7.2

24,300

7.1

24,600

6.6

26,000

6.5

29,300

6.7

29,600

6.6

30,500

6.7

31,300

6.9

34,400

6.7

36,700

6.7

42,200

6.8

Due primarily to the compressor trends discussed above, ice maker energy usage also varies as products increase in cooling capacity. Ice maker energy use (in kilowatt-hours per 100 lb of ice) decreases as the harvest rate increases in all products, but because the compressor trends do not continue indefinitely, the ice maker energy usage becomes constant at larger harvest rates. The point at which usage becomes constant for ice makers varies by equipment type.

DOE has traditionally used a piecewise linear approach

to depict the standard levels, with the breakpoints defining the harvest capacity rate limits of different equipment classes. Thus, for the current energy conservation standards for batch type equipment, the maximum allowable energy use declines as harvest capacity increases for the smallest harvest capacity rate equipment classes. In contrast, for most of the larger harvest capacity rate equipment classes, the maximum allowable energy use is a constant. The one exception is the large IMH air-cooled equipment class, where the maximum allowable energy use continues to decrease as harvest capacity rate increases. DOE believes that its piecewise energy consumption limits facilitate the simple calculation of energy standards while accurately depicting the complex relationship between capacity and efficiency.

A piecewise function is a mathematical relationship where the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable varies over the inspected range. Different functions are used to describe this relationship for each discrete interval where this relationship is defined. The piecewise function is a way of expressing the full relationship (

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiecewiseFunction.html

Several stakeholders commented on DOE's decision to set piecewise efficiency levels according to harvest capacity. At the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) questioned whether setting standards by capacity range would create discontinuous breakpoints in efficiency requirements that would drive manufacturers to seek one level of capacity over another to take advantage of a more favorable standard. (NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 22) In written comments, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), NPCC, and the California Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) recommended that DOE imitate ENERGY STAR® and use a single equation for each equipment class to define energy consumption standards as a function of harvest rate, rather than having multiple efficiency standards for different harvest capacity bins. (NEEA/NPCC, No. 50 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 2) CA IOUs added that, if DOE elects to continue distinguishing equipment classes based on harvest capacity breakpoints, it should explain

its reasoning for doing so. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 3)

The newly finalized ENERGY STAR specification eliminates discontinuities by using one equation for IMH and self-contained cube equipment as well as all three continuous equipment types, while achieving something similar to the asymptotic relationship mentioned by Manitowoc. The ENERGY STAR specification accomplishes this with equations that are more complex than those currently embodied in DOE's cube ice machine standards, which have simple “intercept and slope” or “fixed and variable” components. For example, DOE's current energy consumption limit for small IMH air-cooled equipment is as follows:

Maximum Energy Usage (kWh) ≤ 10.26 − 0.0086H

(Where H = harvest rate capacity, up to 449 lb ice/24 hours)

The April 30, 2012 ENERGY STAR specification for the same equipment is:

Maximum Energy Usage (kWh) ≤ 37.72H

−

0.298

By means of a more complicated formula, the ENERGY STAR specification creates a continuous curve while still respecting the asymptotic relationship between efficiency and harvest capacity.

Manitowoc commented that it was not particularly important where the DOE places capacity breakpoints for different equipment classes as long as the breakpoints respect the asymptotic relationships between size and efficiency. Manitowoc also asked that there not be any real discontinuities at these breakpoints or discrepancies from the industry mean efficiency/capacity relationships. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 25-26) CA IOUs similarly requested that DOE base its harvest capacity breakpoints on an investigation of the market, rather than automatically using pre-existing breakpoints, and added that any new equipment classes generated by resetting these breakpoints must not allow backsliding. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 3)

The issue raised by NPCC and echoed by Manitowoc is that the equations used in the standards can cause points of discontinuity where rating equipment at slightly different capacity levels provides a benefit to the manufacturer in terms of allowable energy usage. In the current standards for IMH water-cooled units, one discontinuity exists at 500 lb ice/24 hours, the breakpoint between the small and medium harvest capacity rate equipment classes, where there is a 0.1 kWh/100 lb energy use gap, representing 2.0 percent of the 5.04 kWh/100 lb maximum allowable energy use at this harvest capacity rate. However, eliminating this type of gap in the energy conservation standards would not require departure from a piecewise linear representation of maximum allowable energy use.

Fitting a curve as was done to create the ENERGY STAR limits would be more complicated than creating a new standard that mirrors the existing usage limit structure. It would also be more difficult for customers, such as restaurant owners, who buy ice makers and need to make sense of the standards because the ENERGY STAR equation requires a calculator or a spreadsheet, and, DOE believes, leads to more questions and complexity.

The single equation approach also runs somewhat contrary to the comments received from manufacturers. With the single equation provided by ENERGY STAR, energy usage limits for large machines continue to decline to zero (albeit at diminishing rates). The manufacturer comments cited in the discussion of large machines above provided several reasons that, at very high capacities, design constraints cause these products to have constant energy usage across different harvest capacities. This means that, at a certain point, efficiency tends to become more constant as harvest capacity changes, as is embodied in the current standards. The single equation approach would make it more difficult for the DOE standards to reflect this trend in the market.

DOE has decided to continue structuring the equipment classes by utilizing multiple harvest rate sizes rather than moving to a single equation approach. By continuing to use multiple size classes, DOE will have greater flexibility to adequately address the efficiencies of large equipment classes. The risk of exploiting the system at size class break points can be mitigated by carefully developing standards. Moreover, DOE proposes amending the baseline energy standards to eliminate existing discontinuities at harvest capacity breakpoints. Note that under the DOE test procedure and specifically the updated ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 that was incorporated by reference in that rule, harvest rates are to be determined at the time of test, and are not based on manufacturer specifications. (10 CFR 431.134) Furthermore, in EPACT 2005, Congress directed DOE to monitor whether manufacturers reduce harvest rates below tested values for the purpose of bringing non-complying equipment into compliance. (42 U.S.C. 6316(f)(4)(A)) DOE therefore intends to carefully assess whether such manipulation occurs as a result of any final rule using distinct break points.

AHRI Standard 810-2007, as referenced by the DOE test procedure, states that the energy consumption rate of ice makers should be rounded to the nearest 0.1 kWh. By considering the standard levels using this rounding convention, the only existing discontinuity in DOE's standards for batch type ice makers occurs at the breakpoint of 500 lb/24 hr between the IMH-W-Small-B and IMH-W-Medium-B equipment classes. In its analysis, DOE adjusted the baseline energy level for the IMH-W-Small-B equipment class to 7.79-0.0055H from 7.80-0.0055H. This 0.01 change eliminates the discontinuity at this breakpoint, as seen in Table IV.4. In setting up TSLs, DOE sought to ensure that no discontinuities existed between equipment classes.

Table IV.4—Current Standard and DOE Engineering Baseline for IMH-W-Small-B Equipment Type

Equipment type

Current baseline

(7.80-0.0055H)

New baseline

(7.79-0.0055H)

IMH-W-Small-B

5.1 (rounded from 5.050)

5.0 (rounded from 5.040).

IMH-W-Medium-B

5.0 (rounded from 5.030)

5.0 (rounded from 5.030).

d. Continuous Ice Maker Equipment Classes

The EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA did not set standards for continuous type ice makers. At the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE presented NES results (see section IV.H.3 of this notice) that indicated the continuous equipment type accounted for approximately 0.03 quads of savings potential over the 30-year analysis period. The savings levels are low primarily because continuous type ice-making machines represent only 16 percent of automatic commercial ice maker shipments, of which only two equipment classes (IMH air-cooled small and self-contained air-cooled small equipment) represent three-quarters of shipments.

At the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting and in written comments, AHRI and Scotsman both questioned the need to regulate continuous type ice makers, noting that the preliminary results of DOE's national impact analysis show negligible NES (rounding to 0.000 quads) for most continuous type equipment classes. (AHRI, No. 49 at pp. 1-2; Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 5; Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 105)

AHRI and Scotsman questioned the need to include continuous remote condensing units (RCUs) with remote compressors as equipment classes, noting that these are niche products that represent a very small portion of the overall market. AHRI added that their minimal projected energy savings and low shipment volume would not justify the cost of testing and certifying these products to DOE. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 3; Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 2)

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to set new or amended energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers to: (1) Achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified; and (2) result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B); 6313(d)(4)) The EPCA language does not require DOE to determine the significance of savings at the individual equipment class level in order to justify setting standards for all equipment classes of an equipment type

DOE has decided to regulate all automatic commercial ice maker equipment classes. This will bring two important automatic commercial ice maker classes (self-contained, air-cooled small continuous and IMH air-cooled small continuous) under regulation. Regulating all equipment classes will create a consistent approach for regulating continuous type equipment as was done for batch type equipment.

e. Remote Condensing Unit Classes for Equipment With and Without Remote Compressors

The current standard levels differentiate between remote condensers with compressors in the condenser cabinet and remote condensers without remote compressors. DOE requested comment on whether to retain these equipment classes as separate groups. (DOE, Public Meeting Presentation, No. 7 at p. 30)

Numerous stakeholders expressed their support for DOE's differentiation of RCUs into two separate classes based on the location of their compressors. Manitowoc raised the issue at the public meeting, noting that locating the compressor remotely has a measurable impact on the overall efficiency of an ice maker. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 24-25) Scotsman added that these two classes of RCUs perform at different efficiencies in the field and provide different utility to the customer, thus justifying their separation into separate equipment classes. (Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 45 and No. 46 at p. 2) NPCC expressed agreement with Scotsman's comment on the issue. (NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 45)

Based on DOE's review of these comments and data arising from the analyses, DOE believes the location of the compressor provides different customer utility, and that each equipment class experiences different energy usage trends due to suction line losses. DOE did not receive any information indicating that these equipment classes should not be kept separate. Therefore, DOE will continue to categorize RCUs with and without remote compressors into separate equipment classes.

f. Remote to Rack Equipment

In the preliminary analysis, DOE found that some high-capacity RCU-RC-Large-C ice makers are solely designed to be used with compressor racks and the racks' associated condensers. A compressor rack is typically used with supermarket refrigeration equipment and consists of several compressors joined in a parallel arrangement to service several refrigeration products at once. One related issue is that the manufacturers of these automatic commercial ice makers do not provide for sale a condensing unit that could be paired with them as an alternative option. DOE noted that these units do not meet the statutory definition of ice makers, which states that an ice maker “consists of a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated unit, with means for making and harvesting ice.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(19)(A)) Hence, DOE determined during the preliminary analysis that rack-only RCUs are not defined as ice makers under the statute and thus should not be included in this rulemaking.

Howe recommended that DOE include remote to rack ice makers in the rulemaking because such units already represent a significant fraction of annual ice maker shipments and will become even more significant once the covered capacity range expands to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 4) Conversely, Scotsman commented that continuous RCUs with remote compressors comprise a very tiny piece of the overall automatic commercial ice maker market and thus questioned the need to establish equipment classes for these products. Scotsman added that these RCUs are difficult to test

because they are designed to be connected to supermarket rack systems. (Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 2)

The current and recently completed DOE test procedures do not provide test procedures for this type of equipment.

Earthjustice observed that DOE has not explained why it believes that ice makers designed for use with remote condenser rack systems do not consist of “a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated unit, with means for making and harvesting ice,” as automatic commercial ice makers are defined. Earthjustice argued that such ice makers use the same basic components, including both a condensing unit and an ice-making section. Moreover, Earthjustice continued, the two components are directly connected, and their integration is not nullified by the fact that other equipment may also be connected to the supermarket rack. Earthjustice added that DOE has long regulated split system residential and commercial air conditioners despite the fact that the outdoor and indoor components are frequently made by different firms. (Earthjustice, No. 47 at p. 5)

Given the small market share of large continuous RCU remote compressor equipment (0.35 percent), DOE finds that Scotsman's claim is credible in that continuous, rack-only equipment comprises only a fraction of the 0.35 percent, and thus a tiny piece of the overall market.

The Earthjustice comment drawing a parallel to split system residential air conditioners overlooks key distinctions. Residential equipment may pair components from different manufacturers, but only one manufacturer is responsible for the certification.

Supermarket racks simultaneously serve multiple units of equipment (including commercial refrigerators and freezers, walk-in coolers and freezers, ice makers, air conditioners, and heat pumps), so there is no way to hold one manufacturer responsible for certifying its energy consumption. Drawing a parallel between these two circumstances is therefore not reasonable in that respect.

Under DOE regulations, it is possible for more than one central air conditioner manufacturer to submit certification reports for a given condensing unit. 10 CFR 429.16 requires manufacturers of central air conditioners to certify compliance with the energy conservation standards to DOE. Where a coil manufacturer may offer a coil for sale to be matched with a condensing unit made by another manufacturer (mix-matched combination), the coil manufacturer can make representations for condensing unit coil combination, but, since the condensing unit manufacturer does not offer for sale the mixed-matched combination, only the coil manufacturer offering the combination for sale is responsible for certification of that combination.

Therefore, DOE decided to maintain its position not to cover rack-only RCU units in this standards rulemaking. DOE does request comment and supporting data on the overall market share of these units and any expected market trends.

g. Ice Makers Covered by the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Of the 25 equipment classes that DOE is considering in this rulemaking, 13 are already covered under energy conservation standards that were set for cube type ice makers as part of EPACT 2005. Current automatic commercial ice maker standards covering cube type ice makers took effect on January 1, 2010. Under the requirements of EPCA, DOE must review and make a determination as to whether amendments to the standards are technologically and economically justified by January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A))

In written comments, AHRI opined that, because the full effects of the EPACT 2005 ruling will not be known until at least 2013, DOE should only consider the previously uncovered continuous and high-capacity batch type ice makers in this rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 3) Similarly, Hoshizaki asked DOE not to adjust the energy standards for automatic commercial ice makers that are currently covered, arguing that tightening the regulations that were just released two years ago would negatively impact both manufacturers and end users. (Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 3)

DOE is required by statute to review the standards and, if amended standards are technologically feasible and economically justified, to issue a rule to amend the standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A))

Manufacturers have asserted that the automatic commercial ice maker industry is a small component of the commercial refrigeration industry, and that given their size they have little or no influence with the manufacturers of major components such as compressors. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 14-15) Manufacturers noted that they are generally restricted to design options available to larger customers. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 15)

Consistent with the comments from manufacturers, DOE's engineering analysis included design options that are viable for automatic commercial ice makers. Most of the design options are extensively used in existing products, and a few design options (brushless DC motors) are available but rarely implemented in this equipment. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD contains further details of the analysis for each design option used.

DOE has alternatives with respect to the date that new standards would take effect. EPCA requires that the amended standards established in this rulemaking must apply to equipment that is manufactured on or after 3 years after the final rule is published in the

Federal Register

unless DOE determines, by rule, that a 3-year period is inadequate, in which case DOE may extend the compliance date for that standard by an additional 2 years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(C))

For the NOPR analyses, DOE assumed a 3-year period to prepare for compliance. DOE requests comments on whether a January 1, 2018 effective date provides an inadequate period for compliance and what economic impacts would be mitigated by a later effective date.

DOE also requests comment on whether the 3-year period is adequate for manufacturers to obtain more efficient components from suppliers to meet proposed revisions of standards.

h. Regulation of Potable Water Use

Under EPACT 2005, water used for ice—referred to as potable water—was not regulated for automatic commercial ice makers.

The amount of potable water used varies significantly among batch type automatic commercial ice makers (

i.e.,

cube, tube, or cracked ice machines). Continuous type ice makers (

i.e.,

flake and nugget machines) convert essentially all of the potable water to ice, using roughly 12 gallons of water to make 100 lb of ice. Batch type ice makers use an additional 3 to 38 gallons of water in the process of making 100 lb of ice. This additional water is referred to as “dump or purge water” and is used to cleanse the evaporator of impurities that could interfere with the ice-making process.

The Alliance for Water Efficiency (Alliance), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and CA IOUs proposed that DOE regulate the water use of automatic commercial ice makers. (Alliance, No. 45 at pp. 3-4; NRDC, No. 48 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 6) The Alliance noted that the potable water lost from purging represents a waste of the energy required to pump, treat, deliver, and dispose of this water on a national scale. This embedded energy use, the Alliance argued, gives DOE justification to include water efficiency standards along with its energy efficiency standards for automatic commercial ice makers. The Alliance recommended that DOE analyze technical data from real ice makers in order to accurately determine the minimum potable purge water rate required to prevent scaling. The Alliance also observed that the huge variation in potable water use among ice makers of similar capacities suggests that some ice makers may be purging water at excessive rates in order to overcome poor maintenance practices and schedules, which is not a justifiable excuse in the opinion of the Alliance. (Alliance, No. 45 at pp. 3-4) CA IOUs also recommended that DOE consider establishing potable water use limits, especially because the ENERGY STAR program already includes such limits. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 6)

In response to comments from the Alliance, NRDC, and CA IOUs, DOE was not given a specific mandate by Congress to regulate potable water. EPCA, as amended, explicitly gives DOE the authority to regulate water use in showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals (42 U.S.C. 6291(6), 6295(j) and (k)), clothes washers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B)), dishwashers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)), commercial clothes washers (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)), and batch (cube) commercial ice makers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)) With respect to batch commercial ice makers (cube type machines), however, Congress explicitly set standards in EPACT 2005 only for condenser water use, which appear at 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), and noted in a footnote to the table that potable water

use was not included.

Congress thereby recognized both types of water, and did not provide direction to DOE with respect to potable water standards. This ambiguity gives the DOE considerable discretion to regulate or not regulate potable water. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that, when legislative intent is ambiguous, a government agency may use its discretion in interpreting the meaning of a statute, so long as the interpretation is reasonable.

In the case of ice makers, EPACT 2005 is ambiguous on the subject of whether DOE must regulate water usage for purposes other than condenser water usage in cube-making machines, so DOE therefore has chosen to use its discretion not to mandate a standard in this case. DOE instead considered potable water use reduction in batch-type ice makers as a design option for reducing energy use. DOE notes that the ENERGY STAR program has implemented potable water consumption requirements.

Footnote to table at 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1).

Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n

Brand X Internet Servs.,

545 U.S. 967, 986 (2005) (quoting

Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

467 U.S. 837, 845 (1984)).

Hoshizaki commented that potable water use varies from place to place, depending on water quality, and added that the market is already dictated to use less water. (Hoshizaki, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 73) AHRI added that limiting potable water use would decrease ice clarity and increase scaling, which would subsequently increase the overall energy use of the ice maker. Therefore, AHRI and Hoshizaki both recommended against establishing maximum potable water use standards in this rulemaking because of the reduced utility and efficiency that it would cause. (AHRI, No. 49 at pp. 2-3; Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 1)

The Hoshizaki and AHRI comments suggest that DOE intends to implement potable water use standards, but this is not the case. Rather, DOE is simply suggesting that reduction of potable water use is a viable technology option that satisfies the screening analysis criteria, as long as reductions are not excessive. This approach does not establish potable water use maximums since manufacturers are not required to use this design option in order to meet efficiency standards. Scotsman noted that the ENERGY STAR program has limited potable water use in ice makers to 25 gallons per 100 lb of ice and that the program is moving toward a new standard of 20 gallons per 100 lb of ice, which it believes to be the minimum levels for avoiding machine performance issues. Scotsman recommended that DOE refer to these ENERGY STAR standards in determining new potable water use limits. (Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 64-65 and No. 46 at p. 5) Manitowoc agreed with Scotsman and added that the new 20 gallons per 100 lb metric was developed with the aid of manufacturers and that further reducing potable water use could impact the long-term reliability of its machines. Therefore, Manitowoc stated that 20 gallons per 100 lb is the lowest water use limit with which it would be comfortable. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 65-66)

However, Manitowoc also commented that potable water use is a variable in the design process that manufacturers have already optimized to satisfy a number of competing factors. Manitowoc argued that, although reducing potable water use would improve machine efficiency up to a point, it would also decrease reliability and increase the required frequency for cleaning due to scaling. Manitowoc stated that the design limits for potable water use often depend on proprietary design elements; therefore, it would be difficult to set reasonable potable water use standards that were fair to all companies, in Manitowoc's opinion. (Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 3)

Howe noted that measuring potable water use is important because de-scaling is crucial for maintaining the efficiency and utility of automatic commercial ice makers. Howe also recommended that DOE obtain information from additional manufacturers on the relationship between potable water use and ice maker performance. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 2)

DOE has implemented in the analysis the recommendations of several stakeholders that 20 gallons per 100 lb of ice is a reasonable lower limit on potable water use for batch type ice makers, especially considering that there are numerous batch type ice machines that have potable water use at this level or lower. For example, in implementing batch water control as a design option, DOE is limiting the reduction in potable water use to 20 gallons per 100 lb. This should not be confused with the establishment of a standard—this limit affects the extent to which a specific design option saves energy by placing a floor under the potable water usage. Though NRDC claims that reducing potable water use beyond this level would be feasible and beneficial, it has not identified specific designs with significantly less potable water use, nor has it provided data to show that long-term field use of such equipment is viable. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD contains more information about this analysis.

2. Technology Assessment

As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE developed a comprehensive list of technologies to improve the energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers, shown in Table IV.5. Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD contains a detailed description of each technology that DOE identified. DOE only considered in its analysis technologies that would impact the efficiency rating of equipment as tested under the DOE test procedure. The technologies identified by DOE were carried through to the screening analysis and are discussed in section IV.C.

Table IV.5—Technology Options for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Technology options

Batch ice

Continuous

Notes

makers

ice makers

Compressor

Improved compressor efficiency

√

Part load operation

√

Condenser

Increased surface area

√

Enhanced fin surfaces

√

Air-cooled only.

Increased air flow

√

Air-cooled only.

Increased water flow

√

Water-cooled only.

Brazed plate condenser

√

Water-cooled only.

Microchannel condenser

√

Fans and Fan Motors

Higher efficiency condenser fans and fan motors

√

Air-cooled only.

Other Motors

Improved auger motor efficiency

√

Improved pump motor efficiency

√

Controls

Smart Technologies

√

Evaporator

Design options which reduce energy loss due to evaporator thermal cycling

√

Design options which reduce harvest meltage or reduce harvest time

√

Larger evaporator surface area

√

Tube evaporator configuration

√

Insulation

Improved insulating material and/or thicker insulation around the evaporator compartment

√

Refrigeration Line

Larger diameter suction line

√

RCUs with remote compressor.

Potable Water

Reduced potable water flow

√

Drain water thermal exchange

√

a. Reduced Potable Water Flow for Continuous Type Ice Makers

Howe questioned why the list of design options for continuous type ice makers did not include reduced potable water flow, considering that such machines can have clean or flush cycles. (Howe, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 30-31)

DOE notes that some continuous machines may include controls or design options that may reduce potable water flow. Therefore, DOE has included reduced potable water flow for continuous machines as one of its design options.

DOE also notes that the test procedure for continuous type ice makers calls for three 14.4-minute long measurements of ice-making production and energy use. The flushing cycles in continuous type ice makers typically do not occur within these measurement periods and the water used for flushing is not captured in the energy use metric; hence, because the engineering analysis cannot evaluate an improvement that occurs outside of the test procedure, this aspect of equipment operation was screened out in the screening analysis.

b. Alternative Refrigerants

Scotsman asked whether hydrocarbon refrigerants were considered as a design option. (Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 32) Manitowoc responded that hydrocarbon refrigerants should not be considered in the analysis because they have not been approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 32) AHRI added that refrigerants that are used as alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) must be approved by both the EPA and the SNAP program. AHRI noted that, although some hydrocarbon refrigerants were approved for use in residential refrigerators and some commercial refrigerated display cases, they have not been approved for ice makers. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 32-33)

Manitowoc observed that future legislation may require the use of refrigerants that, based on their current status, have the potential to decrease the energy efficiency of ice makers. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 33)

As indicated by AHRI, hydrocarbon refrigerants have not yet been approved by the EPA SNAP program and hence cannot be considered as a technology option in DOE's analysis. DOE also notes that, while it is possible that hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants currently used in automatic commercial ice makers may be restricted by future legislation, DOE cannot speculate on such future laws and can only consider in its rulemakings laws that have been enacted. This is consistent with past DOE rulings, such as in the 2011 direct final rule for room air conditioners. 76 FR 22454 (April 21, 2011). To the extent that there has been experience within the industry, domestically or internationally, with the use of alternative low-GWP refrigerants, DOE requests any available information, specifically cost and efficiency information relating to use of alternative refrigerants. DOE acknowledges that there are government-wide efforts to reduce emissions of HFCs, and such actions are being pursued both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions. DOE, in concert with other relevant agencies, will continue to work with industry and other stakeholders to identify safer and more sustainable alternatives to HFCs while evaluating energy efficiency standards for this equipment.

C. Screening Analysis

In the technology assessment section of this NOPR, DOE presents an initial

list of technologies that can improve the energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers. The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which of these technologies is suitable for further consideration in its analyses. To do this, DOE uses four screening criteria—design options will be removed from consideration if they are not technologically feasible; are not practicable to manufacture, install, or service; have adverse impacts on product utility or product availability; or have adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b) See chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the screening analysis. Additional screening criteria include whether a design option is expected to save energy or whether savings can be measured (using the prescribed test procedure), and whether an option is a proprietary technology or whether it is widely available to all manufacturers. Table IV.6 shows the EPCA criteria and additional criteria used in this screening analysis, and the design options evaluated using the screening criteria.

In the NOPR phase, DOE made several changes to the treatment of design options from the preliminary analysis approach. These changes included:

• Adding a design option to allow for growth of the unit to increase the size of the condenser and/or evaporator;

• Adjusting assumptions regarding maximum compressor EER levels based on additional research and confidential input from manufacturers;

• Adjusting potable water consumption rates for batch type ice makers subject to a floor that represents the lowest potable water consumption rate that would be expected to flush out dissolved solid reliably;

• Adding a design option to allow condenser growth in water-cooled condensers; and

• Adding a drain water heat exchanger design option.

EP17MR14.001

Table IV.7 contains the list of technologies that remained after the screening analysis.

Table IV.7—Technology Options for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers That Were Screened In

Technology options

Batch ice

Continuous

Notes

makers

ice makers

Compressor

Improved compressor efficiency

√

Condenser

Increased surface area

√

Increased air flow

√

Air-cooled only.

Increased water flow

√

Water-cooled only.

Fans and Fan Motors

Higher efficiency condenser fans and fan motors

√

Air-cooled only.

Other Motors

Improved auger motor efficiency

√

Improved pump motor efficiency

√

Evaporator

Larger evaporator surface area

√

Potable Water

Reduced potable water flow

√

Drain water thermal exchange

√

a. Tube Evaporator Design

Among the technologies that DOE considered were tube evaporators that use a vertical shell and tube configuration in which refrigerant evaporates on the outer surfaces of the tubes inside the shell, and the freezing water flows vertically inside the tubes to create long ice tubes that are cut into smaller pieces during the harvest process. Some of the largest automatic commercial ice makers in the RCU-NRC-Large-B and the IMH-W-Large-B equipment classes use this technology. However, DOE concluded that implementation of this technology for smaller capacity ice makers would significantly impact equipment utility, due to the greater weight and size of these designs, and to the altered ice shape. DOE noted that available tube icemakers (for capacities around 1,500 lb ice/24 hours and 2,200 lb ice/24 hours) were 150 to 200 percent heavier than comparable cube ice makers. Based on the impacts to utility of this technology, DOE screened out tube evaporators from consideration in this analysis.

b. Low Thermal Mass Evaporator Design

DOE's preliminary analysis did not consider low thermal mass evaporator designs. Reducing evaporator thermal mass of batch type ice makers reduces the heat that must be removed from the evaporator after the harvest cycle, and thus decreases refrigeration system energy use. DOE indicated during the preliminary analysis that it was concerned about the potential proprietary status of such evaporator designs, since DOE is aware of only one manufacturer that produces equipment with such evaporators. DOE requested comment on the proprietary status of low-thermal-mass evaporator designs in general, and the design used by the cited manufacturer (Hoshizaki) in particular.

Scotsman commented that Hoshizaki has recently patented or attempted to patent modifications to improve evaporator efficiency and noted that using such evaporator designs would be difficult for other manufacturers because it would require an expensive and risky redesign of entire product lines. (Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 35-36; Scotsman, No. 46 at pp. 2-3) However, Manitowoc observed that, although intellectual property is certainly a concern, there may be ways to implement this low thermal mass evaporator technology without exactly duplicating Hoshizaki's designs. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 36)

Hoshizaki commented that its batch type evaporators do indeed contain intellectual property in past and future designs, adding that the tooling costs for manufacturing these evaporators would be too expensive for competing manufacturers to replicate. (Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 2)

AHRI recommended that DOE eliminate proprietary designs from consideration and limit its analysis to technologies that are available to all manufacturers in the ice maker industry. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 4)

Manitowoc commented that, in addition to the obvious legal issues associated with favoring a proprietary design held by a single manufacturer, DOE's analysis tools are also incapable of predicting the potential benefit of low thermal mass evaporators, which are difficult to model accurately. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 36-37 and No. 54 at p. 3) Manitowoc also warned that the impact of this technology on one ice maker should not simply be extrapolated to other machines and that oversimplification of this analysis would affect the predicted efficiency benefits of each technology level. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 36-37) Manitowoc added that customers are very loyal to the style of ice that they get from its machines and that all manufacturers keep customer loyalty in mind when designing their evaporators. Consequently, Manitowoc expressed concern that a new evaporator design could force manufacturers to change the style of their ice, which could drive down sales and result in a low overall payback despite the improved energy performance, and therefore Manitowoc concluded that DOE should not establish higher efficiency levels based on this design option. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 36-37 and No. 54 at p. 3)

On the basis of its proprietary status, DOE concludes that its initial decision to screen out low-thermal-mass evaporator technology was appropriate. Thus, DOE has screened out this technology in its NOPR analysis.

c. Drain Water Heat Exchanger

Batch ice makers can benefit from drain water thermal exchange that cools the potable water supply entering the sump, thereby reducing the energy required to cool down and freeze the water. Technological feasibility is demonstrated by one commercially available drain water thermal heat exchanger that is currently sold only for aftermarket installation. This product is designed to be installed externally to the

ice maker, and both drain water and supply water are piped through the device.

A.J. Antunes and Co.

Vizion Product Catalog.

(Last accessed May 18, 2013.) <

www.ajantunes.com/VIZION/VIZIONProductCatalog/tabid/229/ProdID/481/CatID/280/language/en-US/Default.aspx

In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered whether such a component could be considered to be part of an ice maker as defined in EPCA. The EPCA definition for automatic commercial ice makers states that the ice maker consists of a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integral unit, with means for making and harvesting ice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(19)) The definition allows that the ice maker may include means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ice. None of the subcomponents of the ice maker listed in the definition could be interpreted as referring to heat exchangers for drain water thermal exchange. DOE notes that an ice maker can still make ice without a drain water heat exchanger; hence, the drain water heat exchanger cannot be considered an integral part of the equipment. For these reasons, DOE concluded during the preliminary analysis that external drain water heat exchangers, the only configuration of this technology for which technological feasibility is demonstrated, should be screened out, and requested comments on this approach.

NPCC asserted that DOE should consider drain water thermal exchange as a technology option. NPCC proposed that reducing the inlet water temperature could enable an ice maker to maintain the same capacity without increasing the overall size of the unit. Although NPCC does not manufacture ice makers, it acknowledged having seen this technology implemented in other applications, such as water heating, without reducing capacity or increasing overall size. (NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 37-38)

Earthjustice commented that DOE's rationale for screening out drain water thermal heat exchangers was defective on both legal and factual grounds. In the preliminary analysis TSD, DOE suggested that externally mounted drain water heat exchangers would fall outside EPCA's definition of automatic commercial ice makers, and that DOE therefore had no authority to consider them in this rulemaking. Earthjustice argued that this reading twists the statutory definition's role in identifying which products constitute the “automatic commercial ice makers” subject to efficiency standards into a “Dos and Don'ts” list from Congress as to which elements of ice makers DOE may examine when amending the standards that Congress enacted. Congress adopted standards that apply to the ice maker as a whole, and Earthjustice asserted that there is therefore no basis to conclude that EPCA intended to prohibit DOE from looking holistically at this equipment when amending the statutory standards. Earthjustice added that, if every technological innovation that improved the efficiency of a covered product needed to be specifically mentioned in the statute's definition of the product, there would be no need for a screening analysis. Earthjustice also noted that, in previous rulemakings, DOE consistently recognized that components that improve the efficiency of covered products merit consideration in the DOE's analyses, notwithstanding that they may be unnecessary to the basic function performed by the product, not referred to in the statutory definition applicable to the product, or external to the case or envelope of the device. Finally, Earthjustice commented that DOE's assertion that internally mounted drain heat exchangers would necessarily increase cabinet size is not true for all ice maker models. Moreover, Earthjustice stated, DOE has not considered options such as microchannel heat exchangers, which would increase both machine efficiency as well as available cabinet space within the ice maker. (Earthjustice, No. 47 at pp. 1-4)

DOE has reconsidered its preliminary suggestion that external drain water heat exchangers cannot be considered part of an ice maker simply because they are not specifically mentioned in the EPCA definition, now concluding that they can be considered as a design option and to be part of a basic model ice maker, assuming that the drain water heat exchanger is sold and shipped with the unit and that the installation and operating instructions clearly reinforce this inclusion by detailing the installation requirements for the heat exchanger.

Thus, DOE is including this technology as a design option. As NPCC noted, externally mounted drain water heat exchangers would provide energy savings by using “waste” water to cool the incoming potable water supply, thus reducing the amount of energy necessary to freeze the water into ice. Whereas internal heat exchangers may require increased cabinet size to fit within the ice maker, allowing external heat exchangers as a design option would prevent size increase.

DOE has concluded that drain water heat exchangers, both internally mounted and externally mounted, are design options that can increase the energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers. The current test procedures would give manufacturers credit for efficiency improvement of drain water heat exchangers, including externally mounted drain water heat exchangers as long as they are provided with the machine and the installation instructions for the machine indicate that the heat exchangers are part of the machine and must be installed as part of the overall installation.

d. Design Options That Necessitate Increased Cabinet Size

Some of the design options considered by DOE in its technology assessment could require an increased cabinet size. Examples of such design options include increasing the surface area of the evaporator or condenser, or both. Larger heat exchangers would enable the refrigerant circuit to operate with an increased evaporating temperature and a decreased condensing temperature, thus reducing the temperature lift imposed on the refrigeration system and hence the compressor power input. In some cases the added refrigerant charge associated with increasing heat exchanger size could also necessitate the installation of a refrigerant receiver to ensure proper refrigerant charge management in all operating conditions for which the unit is designed, thus increasing the need for larger cabinet size.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not consider design

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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.