Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers

Federal RegisterJun 3, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]

RIN 1904-AB86

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

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 walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this final rule, DOE is adopting more-stringent energy conservation standards for some classes of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer components and has determined that these standards are technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in the significant conservation of energy.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is August 4, 2014. Compliance with the amended standards established for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers in this final rule is required on June 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

www.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.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003.

The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email:

walk-in_coolers_and_walk-in_freezers@EE.Doe.Gov

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

III. General Discussion

A. Component Level Standards

B. Test Procedures and Metrics

1. Panels

2. Doors

3. Refrigeration

C. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

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. Trial Standard Levels

2. Rulemaking Timeline

B. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Equipment Included in This Rulemaking

a. Panels and Doors

b. Refrigeration Systems

2. Equipment Classes

a. Panels and Doors

b. Refrigeration Systems

3. Technology Assessment

C. Screening Analysis

1. Panels and Doors

2. Refrigeration Systems

D. Engineering Analysis

1. Representative Equipment for Analysis

a. Panels and Doors

b. Refrigeration

2. Refrigerants

3. Cost Assessment Methodology

a. Teardown Analysis

b. Cost Model

c. Manufacturing Production Cost

d. Manufacturing Markup

e. Shipping Costs

4. Energy Consumption Model

a. Panels and Doors

b. Refrigeration Systems

5. Baseline Specifications

a. Panels and Doors

b. Refrigeration

6. Design Options

a. Panels and Doors

b. Refrigeration

E. Markups Analysis

F. Energy Use Analysis

1. Sizing Methodology for the Refrigeration System

2. Oversize Factors

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Equipment Cost

2. Installation Costs

3. Maintenance and Repair Costs

4. Annual Energy Consumption

5. Energy Prices

6. Energy Price Projections

7. Equipment Lifetime

8. Discount Rates

9. Compliance Date of Standards

10. Base-Case Efficiency Distributions

11. Inputs To Payback Period Analysis

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

H. Shipments

a. Share of Shipments and Stock by Equipment Class

2. Impact of Standards on Shipments

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

1. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit

J. Customer Subgroup Analysis

K. 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. Refrigerants

b. Installation Contractors

c. Small Manufacturers

d. Mark Up Scenarios

e. Number of Small Businesses

L. Emissions Analysis

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

N. Utility Impact Analysis

O. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

1. Trial Standard Level Selection Process

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. Customer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Direct Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Small Manufacturer Sub-Group

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect 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. Summary of National Economic Impact

8. Other Factors

C. Conclusions

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for Walk-in Coolers and Walk-in Freezers

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

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

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits

Title III, Part C of EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which includes the walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers that are the focus of this notice.

1 2

(42 U.S.C. 6311(1), (20), 6313(f) and 6314(a)(9)) Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for certain equipment, such as walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, “walk-ins” or “WICFs”), shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for the main components of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (walk-ins), refrigeration systems, panels, and doors. These standards are expressed in terms of annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF) for the walk-in refrigeration systems, R-value for walk-in panels, and maximum energy consumption (MEC) for walk-in doors. These standards are shown in Table I.1. These standards apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States once the compliance date listed above is reached.

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).

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

Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

Class descriptor

Class

Standard level

Refrigeration Systems

Minimum AWEF (Btu/W-h) *

Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.M.I, <9,000

5.61

Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.M.I, ≥9,000

5.61

Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Outdoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.M.O, <9,000

7.60

Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Outdoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.M.O, ≥9,000

7.60

Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Indoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.L.I, <9,000

5.93 × 10

−5

+ 2.33

Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Indoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.L.I, ≥9,000

3.10

Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Outdoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.L.O, <9,000

2.30 × 10

−4

+ 2.73

Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Outdoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.L.O, ≥9,000

4.79

Multiplex Condensing, Medium Temperature

MC.M

10.89

Multiplex Condensing, Low Temperature

MC.L

6.57

Panels

Minimum R-value (h-ft2-°F/Btu)

Structural Panel, Medium Temperature

SP.M

Structural Panel, Low Temperature

SP.L

Floor Panel, Low Temperature

FP.L

Non-Display Doors

Maximum energy consumption (kWh/day) **

Passage Door, Medium Temperature

PD.M

0.05 × A

+ 1.7

Passage Door, Low Temperature

PD.L

0.14 × A

+ 4.8

Freight Door, Medium Temperature

FD.M

0.04 × A

+ 1.9

Freight Door, Low Temperature

FD.L

0.12 × A

+ 5.6

Display Doors

Maximum Energy Consumption (kWh/day) †

Display Door, Medium Temperature

DD.M

0.04 × A

+ 0.41

Display Door, Low Temperature

DD.L

0.15 × A

+ 0.29

* Q represents the system gross capacity as calculated in AHRI 1250.

** A

represents the surface area of the non-display door.

† A

represents the surface area of the display door.

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of these standards on customers of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, 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 for which customers are impacted by the standards.

Table I.2—Impacts of the Final Rule's Standards on Customers of Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

Equipment class

Average LCC savings

2013$

Median payback period

Years

Refrigeration System Class *

DC.M.I *

5942

3.5

DC.M.O *

6533

2.2

DC.L.I *

2078

1.6

DC.L.O *

5942

3.5

MC.M

547

3.1

MC.L

362

3.1

Panel Class

SP.M

SP.L

FP.L

Non-Display Door Class

PD.M

PD.L

FD.M

FD.L

Display Door Class

DD.M

143

7.3

DD.L

902

5.4

Note:

“—” indicates no impact because standards are set at the baseline level.

*For dedicated condensing (DC) refrigeration systems, results include all capacity ranges.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year (2013) through the end of the analysis period (2046). Using real discount rates of 10.5 percent for panels, 9.4 percent for doors, and 10.4 percent for refrigeration,

DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers is $1,291 million in 2012$. Under these standards, DOE expects the industry net present value to change by −4.10 percent to 6.21 percent. Total industry conversion costs are expected to total $33.61 million. DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment to result from these standards.

These rates were used to discount future cash flows in the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. The discount rates were calculated from SEC filings and then adjusted based on cost of capital feedback collected from walk-in door, panel, and refrigeration manufacturers in MIA interviews. For a detailed explanation of how DOE arrived at these discount rates, refer to chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.

C. National Benefits

DOE's analyses

indicate that these standards would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime savings for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2017-2046) amount to 3.149 quadrillion British thermal units (quads). The annual savings in 2030 (0.10 quads) is equivalent to 0.5 percent of total U.S. commercial energy use in 2014.

All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013 dollars and are discounted to 2014.

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of these standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers ranges from $3.98 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $9.90 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated

increased equipment costs for equipment purchased in 2016-2047.

In addition, these standards are expected to have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative emission reductions of approximately 159.2 million metric tons (Mt)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 833 thousand tons of methane, 229 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 254.4 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 3.5 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), and 0.27 tons of mercury (Hg).

Through 2030, the cumulative emissions reductions of CO

amount to 61.6 Mt.

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

and Hg are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the

Annual Energy Outlook 2013

(

AEO 2013

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

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 by a recent Federal interagency process.

The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, DOE estimates that the net present monetary value of the CO

emissions reductions is between $1.2 billion and $16.3 billion. DOE also estimates that the net present monetary value of the NO

emissions reductions is $183.5 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and $366.1 million at a 3-percent discount rate.

Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; revised November 2013.

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

DOE is investigating the valuation of the other emissions reductions.

Table I.3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from these standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.

Table I.3—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers Energy Conservation Standards

Category *

Present Value

Billion 2013$

Discount Rate

(percent)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

9.5

19.7

Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) **

1.2

Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) **

5.3

Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) **

8.4

2.5

Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) **

16.3

Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) **

0.2

0.4

Total Benefits †

15.0

25.4

Costs

Incremental Installed Costs

5.5

9.8

Net Benefits

Including CO

and NO

Reduction Monetized Value †

9.5

15.6

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers shipped in 2017-2046. These results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2046 from the equipment purchased in 2017-2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the amended standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for this final rule.

** The CO

values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporates an escalation factor. The value for NO

is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate.

The benefits and costs of these standards, for equipment sold in 2017-2046, 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 operating the equipment (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV, plus (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 2014, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits, using discount rates of three and seven percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO

reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table I.4. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2017 through 2046) 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 adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 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 for the lifetime of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers shipped in 2017-2046. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of these standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO

reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the standards in this rule is $511 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $879 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $287 million in CO

reductions, and $16.93 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $671 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series, the cost of the standards in this rule is $528 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $1,064 million per year in reduced operating costs, $287 million in CO

reductions, and $19.82 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $842 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

Discount rate

Million 2013$/year

Primary

estimate *

Low net

benefits

estimate *

High net

benefits

estimate *

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

879

854

917.

1064

1027

1115.

Reduction at ($12.08/t case) **

86.

Reduction at ($40.5/t case) **

287

287.

Reduction at ($62.4/t case) **

2.5%

420

420.

Reduction at ($119/t case) **

884

884.

Reduction at ($2,684/ton) **

16.93

16.93.

19.82

19.82.

Total Benefits †

7% plus CO

range

981 to 1,780

957 to 1,755

1,020 to 1,818.

1,183

1,158

1,221.

3% plus CO

range

1,169 to 1,968

1,133 to 1,931

1,221 to 2,019.

1,371

1,334

1,422.

Costs

Incremental Equipment Costs

511

501

522.

−3%

528

515

541.

Net Benefits

Total †

7% plus CO

range

470 to 1,269

456 to 1,255

498 to 1,296.

671

657

699.

3% plus CO

range

641 to 1,440

617 to 1,416

680 to 1,478.

842

818

881.

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers shipped in 2017-2046. These results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2046 from the equipment purchased in 2017-2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the amended standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the final rule. The primary, low, and high estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the

AEO 2013

Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.I.

** The CO

is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate, which is the $39.7/t CO

reduction case. In the rows labeled “7% plus CO

range” and “3% plus CO

range,” the operating cost and NO

benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO

values.

D. Conclusion

Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the benefits to the nation from the standards (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some users of this equipment). DOE has concluded that the standards in this final rule 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), 6316(e))

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.

A. Authority

(42 U.S.C. 6311(1), (20), 6313(f) and 6314(a)(9)) Walk-ins consist of two major pieces—the structural “envelope” within which items are stored and a refrigeration system that cools the air in the envelope's interior.

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).

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

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. For walk-ins, DOE is responsible for the entirety of this program. The DOE test procedures for walk-ins, including those prescribed by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007) (“EISA”), and those established by DOE in a test procedure final rule, currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, section 304.

Any new or amended performance standards that DOE prescribes for walk-ins must achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)(A)) For purposes of this rulemaking, DOE also plans to adopt those standards that are likely to result in a significant conservation of energy that satisfies both of these requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

Technological feasibility is determined by examining technologies or designs that could be used to improve the efficiency of the covered equipment. DOE considers a design to be technologically feasible if it is in use by the relevant industry or if research has progressed to the development of a working prototype.

In ascertaining whether a particular standard is economically justified, DOE considers, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 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 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 6316(a))

DOE does not generally 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. Further, under EPCA's provisions for consumer products, there is 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For purposes of its walk-in analysis, DOE plans to account for these factors.

Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as walk-ins has two or more subcategories, in promulgating standards for such equipment, DOE often specifies more than one standard level. DOE generally will adopt a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy than that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class) or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature that other products within such type (or class) do not have, and which justifies a higher or lower standard. Generally, in determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. In a rule prescribing such a standard, DOE typically includes an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. DOE plans to follow a similar process in the context of this rulemaking.

DOE notes that since the inception of the statutory requirements setting standards for walk-ins, Congress has since made one additional amendment to those provisions. That amendment provides that the wall, ceiling, and door insulation requirements detailed in 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C) do not apply to the given component if the component's manufacturer has demonstrated to the Secretary's satisfaction that “the component reduces energy consumption at least as much” if those specified requirements were to apply to that manufacturer's component. American Energy Manufacturing Technology Corrections Act, Public Law 112-210, Sec. 2 (Dec. 18, 2012) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(6)) (AEMTCA). Manufacturers seeking to avail themselves of this provision must “provide to the Secretary all data and technical information necessary to fully evaluate its application.”

Id.

DOE codified this amendment into its regulations on October 23, 2013, at 78 FR 62988.

Since the promulgation of the amendment, one company, HH Technologies, submitted data on May 24, 2013, demonstrating that its RollSeal doors satisfied this new AEMTCA provision. DOE reviewed these data and all other submitted information and concluded that the RollSeal doors at issue satisfied 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(6). Accordingly, DOE issued a determination letter on June 14, 2013, indicating that these doors met Section

6313(f)(6) and that the applicable insulation requirements did not apply to the RollSeal doors HH Technologies identified. Nothing in this rule affects the previous determination regarding HH Technologies.

Federal energy conservation requirements generally pre-empt state laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)) However, EPCA provides that for walk-ins in particular, any state standard issued before publication of the final rule shall not be pre-empted until the standards established in the final rule take effect. (42 U.S.C. 6316(h)(2)(B))

Where applicable, DOE generally considers standby and off mode energy use for certain covered products or equipment when developing energy conservation standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3). Because the vast majority of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers operate continuously to keep their contents cold at all times, DOE is not proposing standards for standby and off mode energy use.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

EPCA defines a walk-in cooler and a walk-in freezer as an enclosed storage space refrigerated to temperatures above, and at or below, respectively, 32 °F that can be walked into. The statute also defines walk-in coolers and freezers as having a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet, excluding equipment designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)) EPCA also provides prescriptive standards for walk-ins manufactured on or after January 1, 2009, which are described below.

First, EPCA sets forth general prescriptive standards for walk-ins. Walk-ins must have automatic door closers that firmly close all walk-in doors that have been closed to within 1 inch of full closure, for all doors narrower than 3 feet 9 inches and shorter than 7 feet; walk-ins must also have strip doors, spring hinged doors, or other methods of minimizing infiltration when doors are open. Walk-ins must also contain wall, ceiling, and door insulation of at least R-25 for coolers and R-32 for freezers, excluding glazed portions of doors and structural members, and floor insulation of at least R-28 for freezers. Walk-in evaporator fan motors of under 1 horsepower and less than 460 volts must be electronically commutated motors (brushless direct current motors) or three-phase motors, and walk-in condenser fan motors of under 1 horsepower must use permanent split capacitor motors, electronically commutated motors, or three-phase motors. Interior light sources must have an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including any ballast losses; less-efficacious lights may only be used in conjunction with a timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 minutes of when the walk-in is unoccupied. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1).

Second, EPCA sets forth new requirements related to electronically commutated motors for use in walk-ins. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)). Specifically, in those walk-ins that use an evaporator fan motor with a rating of under 1 horsepower and less than 460 volts, that motor must be either a three-phase motor or an electronically commutated motor unless DOE determined prior to January 1, 2009 that electronically commutated motors are available from only one manufacturer. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(A)) DOE determined by January 1, 2009 that these motors were available from more than one manufacturer; thus, according to EPCA, walk-in evaporator fan motors with a rating of under 1 horsepower and less than 460 volts must be either three-phase motors or electronically commutated motors. DOE documented this determination in the rulemaking docket as docket ID EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072. This document can be found at

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072

. Additionally, EISA authorized DOE to permit the use of other types of motors as evaporative fan motors—if DOE determines that, on average, those other motor types use no more energy in evaporative fan applications than electronically commutated motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(B)) DOE is unaware of any other motors that would offer performance levels comparable to the electronically commutated motors required by Congress. Accordingly, all evaporator motors rated at under 1 horsepower and under 460 volts must be electronically commutated motors or three-phase motors.

Third, EPCA sets forth additional requirements for walk-ins with transparent reach-in doors. Freezer doors must have triple-pane glass with either heat-reflective treated glass or gas fill for doors and windows for freezers. Cooler doors must have either double-pane glass with treated glass and gas fill or triple-pane glass with treated glass or gas fill. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(A)-(B)) For walk-ins with transparent reach-in doors, EISA also prescribed specific anti-sweat heater-related requirements: Walk-ins without anti-sweat heater controls must have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively. Walk-ins with anti-sweat heater controls must either have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively, or the anti-sweat heater controls must reduce the energy use of the heater in a quantity corresponding to the relative humidity of the air outside the door or to the condensation on the inner glass pane. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(C)-(D).

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

EPCA directs the Secretary to issue performance-based standards for walk-ins that would apply to equipment manufactured 3 years after the final rule is published, or 5 years if the Secretary determines by rule that a 3-year period is inadequate. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4))

DOE initiated the current rulemaking by publishing a notice announcing the availability of its “Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers Energy Conservation Standard Framework Document” and a meeting to discuss the document. The notice also solicited comment on the matters raised in the document. 74 FR 411 (Jan 6, 2009). More information on the framework document is available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30

. The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for walk-ins and identified various issues to be resolved in conducting this rulemaking.

DOE held the framework public meeting on February 4, 2009, in 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) development of a test procedure and appropriate test metrics; (3) manufacturer and market information, including distribution channels; (4) equipment classes, baseline units, and design options to improve efficiency; and (5) life-cycle costs to consumers, including installation, maintenance, and repair costs, and any consumer subgroups DOE should consider. 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 walk-ins relevant to this rulemaking.

DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary analyses to help develop potential energy conservation standards for this equipment. This process culminated in DOE's announcement of another public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the following matters: (1) The equipment classes DOE planned to analyze; (2) the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate standards; (3) the results of the preliminary analyses performed by DOE; and (4) potential standard levels that DOE could consider. 75 FR 17080 (April 5, 2010) (the April 2010 Notice). DOE also invited written comments on these subjects and announced the availability on its Web site of a preliminary technical support document (preliminary TSD) it had prepared to inform interested parties and enable them to provide comments.

Id.

(More information about the preliminary TSD is available at:

http://www1.eere .energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30

.) Finally, DOE sought views on other relevant issues that participants believed either would impact walk-in standards or that the proposal should address.

Id.

at 17083.

The preliminary TSD provided an overview of the activities DOE undertook to develop standards for walk-ins and discussed the comments DOE received in response to the framework document. The preliminary TSD also addressed separate standards for the walk-in envelope and the refrigeration system, as well as compliance and enforcement responsibilities and food safety regulatory concerns. The document also described the analytical framework that DOE used (and continues to use) in considering standards for walk-ins, 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 TSD presented in detail each analysis that DOE had performed for these products 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 walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, 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 walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, 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 walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers;

• An

energy use analysis

estimated the annual energy use of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers;

• 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 walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, 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 walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers 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 walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers; and

• A

manufacturer impact analysis

(MIA) assessed the potential effects on manufacturers of amended efficiency standards.

The public meeting announced in the April 2010 Notice took place on May 19, 2010. At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. Interested parties that participated in the public meeting discussed a variety of topics, but the comments centered on the following issues: (1) Separate standards for the refrigeration system and the walk-in envelope; (2) responsibility for compliance; (3) equipment classes; (4) technology options; (5) energy modeling; (6) installation, maintenance, and repair costs; (7) markups and distributions chains; (8) walk-in cooler and freezer shipments; and (9) test procedures. The comments received since publication of the April 2010 Notice, including those received at the May 2010 public meeting, have contributed to DOE's resolution of the issues in this rulemaking as they pertain to walk-ins. This final rule responds to the issues raised by the commenters. (A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.)

On September 11, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in this proceeding (September 2013 NOPR). 78 FR 55781. In the September 2013 NOPR, DOE addressed, in detail, the comments received in earlier stages of rulemaking, and proposed new energy conservation standards for walk-ins. In conjunction with the September 2013 NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the complete technical support document (TSD) for the proposed rule, which incorporated the analyses DOE conducted and technical documentation for each analysis. Also published on DOE's Web site were the engineering analysis spreadsheets, the LCC spreadsheet, and the national impact analysis standard spreadsheet; these can be found at:

http://www1.eere.energy .gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30.

The standards DOE proposed for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers are shown in Table II.1.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

ER03JN14.010

In the September 2013 NOPR, in addition to seeking comments generally on its proposal, DOE identified a number of specific issues on which it was particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties, which were detailed in section VII.E of that notice. 78 FR at 55882-55887 (September 11, 2013) After the publication of the September 2013 NOPR, DOE received written comments on these and other issues. DOE also held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on October 9, 2013, to hear oral comments on, and solicit information relevant to, the proposed rule. The comments on the NOPR are addressed in this document.

III. General Discussion

A. Component Level Standards

In the NOPR, DOE proposed component-level standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, in order to ensure accurate testing and compliance. Specifically, DOE proposed to regulate separately three main components of a walk-in: Panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. See 78 FR at 55822 (September 11, 2013). DOE received comments from a number of different entities. A list of these entities is included in Table III.1 below.

Table III.1—Interested Parties Who Commented on the WICF NOPR

Commenter

Acronym

Affiliation

Comment number (docket reference)

Air Conditioning Contractors of America

ACCA

Trade Association

119

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

AHRI

Trade Association

083, 114

Alex Milgroom

Milgroom

Individual

090

American Panel Corporation

APC, American Panel

Manufacturer

099

Architectural Testing, Inc.

Manufacturer

111

Arctic Industries, Inc.

Arctic

Manufacturer

117

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and Natural Resources Defense Council

ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC (ASAP et al.)

Efficiency Organization

113

Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc.

Bally

Manufacturer

102

California Investor Owned Utilities

CA IOUs

Utility Association

089, 110

Center for the Study of Science Cato Institute

Cato, CSS

Efficiency Organization

106

Crown Tonka, ThermalRite and International Cold Storage

ICS et al.

Manufacturer

100

ebm-papst Inc.

ebm-papst

Component/Material Supplier

092

Hillphoenix

Manufacturer

107

Hussmann Corporation

Hussmann

Manufacturer

093

Imperial-Brown

Manufacturer

098

KeepRite Refrigeration

KeepRite

Manufacturer

105

Lennox International Inc./Heatcraft Refrigeration Products, LLC

Lennox

Manufacturer

109

Louisville Cooler

Manufacturer

081

Manitowoc Company

Manitowoc

Manufacturer

108

National Coil Company

NCC

Component/Material Supplier

096

National Restaurant Association

NRA

Consumer Advocate

112

New York State Office of the Attorney General

AGNY

State Official/Agency

116

Nor-Lake, Inc.

Nor-Lake

Manufacturer

115

North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers

NAFEM

Consumer Advocate

118

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and Northwest Power and Conservation Council

NEEA, NPCC (NEEA et al.)

Efficiency Organization

101

Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concenrned Scientists, Institute for Policy Integrity

NRDC, EDC, UCS, IPI (NRDC et al.)

Efficiency Organization

094

Robert Kopp

Kopp

Individual

080

Society of American Florists

SAF

Consumer Advocate

103

Suzanne Jaworowski

Jaworowski

Individual

074

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University

Mercatus, Mercatus Center

Efficiency Organization

091

THERMO-KOOL/Mid-South Industries, Inc.

Thermo-Kool

Manufacturer

097

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

US Chamber of Commerce

Regional Agency/Association

095

U.S. Cooler—Division of Craig Industries Inc

US Cooler

Manufacturer

075, 104

Heatcraft Refrigeration Products, LLC

Heatcraft

Manufacturer

Honeywell

Manufacturer

SmithBucklin Corporation

SmithBucklin

Manufacturer

Heating, Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International

HARDI

Manufacturer

Heat Transfer Products Group

HT, Heat Transfer

Manufacturer

The Danfoss Group

Danfoss

Component/Material Supplier

* These commenters were present at the public meeting but did not submit written comments.

DOE received several comments supporting its component-based approach to setting standards for walk-ins. Nor-Lake, Kysor, and Louisville Cooler agreed with this approach. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 1, Kysor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 40, and Louisville Cooler, No. 81 at p. 1) Bally, IB, and ICS commented that component-level standards were practical. (Bally, No. 102 at p. 1, IB, No. 98 at p. 1, and Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) ACCA notes that component-level standards simplify the compliance burden for assemblers. (ACCA, No. 119 at p. 2) US Cooler also agreed with the component approach, noting that the refrigeration industry is well established, and adding

that a component-level approach will give US Cooler more flexibility to meet the proposed requirements. (US Cooler, No. 88 at p. 51) ASAP and the CA IOUs agreed with the component performance approach for panels and doors. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 16 and CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 30)

DOE received additional comments concerning how WICF component standards could be set. Thermo-Kool commented that while component level standards were feasible, components added to doors such as windows and heater wires, among others, should be regulated separately—it added that doors should be regulated along with wall and ceiling panels. (ThermoKool, No. 97 at p. 1) Hillphoenix commented that standards for panels, walls, ceilings, and floors should also include the door panel. (Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) Bally noted that setting separate standards for windows would eliminate the need for door manufacturers to test the same door twice—i.e. with and without windows. (Bally, No. 102 at p. 5) APC commented that electrical components, such as vision windows, heater wires, relief vents, and temperature alarms, should have separate standards and not be included in the analysis of non-display doors. (APC, No. 99 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that separate standards for the envelope and refrigeration systems would be highly effective because they would reduce the possibility of underperforming envelopes or under-performing refrigeration systems. The CA IOUs remarked that it would have been difficult to enforce a standard that allowed performance trade-offs between the envelope and refrigeration system. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 1) The CA IOUs further commented that separate lighting performance standards for walk-ins would create more clarity for performance requirements of display doors. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 4)

In light of the comments received, DOE is finalizing an approach that sets out separate component-level standards for panels, doors, and refrigeration systems of WICFs. DOE recognizes that refrigeration systems may be sold as two other separate components—a unit cooler and a condensing unit—and is addressing this through a separate approach and certification process for this equipment. For more details on this approach, see section III.B.2.

B. Test Procedures and Metrics

While Congress had initially prescribed certain performance standards and test procedures concerning walk-ins as part of the EISA 2007 amendments, Congress also instructed DOE to develop specific test procedures for walk-in equipment. DOE subsequently established a test procedure for walk-ins. See 76 FR 21580 (April 15, 2011). See also 76 FR 33631 (June 9, 2011) (final technical corrections). Recently, DOE published additional amendments that would, among other things, permit the use of alternative efficiency determination methods when evaluating the energy usage of refrigeration system unit coolers and condenser units. See 79 FR 27387 (May 13, 2014). These amendments have been taken into account when formulating the standards promulgated in this notice.

The proposed amendments provide an approach that would base compliance on the ability of component manufacturers to produce components that meet the required standards. This approach is also consistent with the framework established by Congress, which set specific energy efficiency performance requirements on a component-level basis. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)) The approach is discussed more fully below.

1. Panels

In the test procedure final rule for walk-ins, DOE defines “panel” as a construction component, excluding doors, used to construct the envelope of the walk-in (

i.e.,

elements that separate the interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the exterior). 76 FR 21580, 21604 (April 15, 2011). DOE explained that panel manufacturers would test their panels to obtain a thermal transmittance metric—known as U-factor, measured in British thermal units (Btus) per hour-per square foot degrees (Fahrenheit) (Btu/h-ft

−°F)—and identified three types of panels: display panels, floor panels, and non-floor panels. A display panel is defined as a panel that is entirely or partially comprised of glass, a transparent material, or both, and is used for display purposes. Id. It is considered equivalent to a window and the U-factor is determined by NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, “Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors.” 76 FR at 33639. Floor panels are used for walk-in floors, whereas non-floor panels are used for walls and ceilings.

The U-factor for floor and non-floor panels accounts for any structural members internal to the panel and the long-term thermal aging of foam. This value is determined by a three-step process. First, both floor and non-floor panels must be tested using ASTM C1363-10, “Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus.” The panel's core and edge regions must be used during testing. Second, the panel's core U-factor must be adjusted with a degradation factor to account for foam aging. The degradation factor is determined by EN 13165:2009-02, “Thermal Insulation Products for Buildings—Factory Made Rigid Polyurethane Foam (PUR) Products—Specification,” or EN 13164:2009-02, “Thermal Insulation Products for Buildings—Factory Made Products of Extruded Polystyrene Foam (XPS)—Specification,” as applicable. Third, the edge and modified core U-factors are then combined to produce the panel's overall U-factor. All industry protocols were incorporated by reference most recently in the test procedure final rule correction. 76 FR 33631.

In response to the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE received comments stating that the ASTM C1363, DIN EN 13164, and DIN EN 13165 were significantly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. DOE addressed these comments in a separate notice published on May 13, 2014, which proposed certain simplifications to the current procedure. See 79 FR 27387. Specifically, under this approach, manufacturers would no longer need to use the performance-based test procedures for WICF floor and non-floor panels, which include ASTM C1363, DIN EN 13164, and DINE EN 13165 (10 CFR Part 431, Subpart R, Appendix A, sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2). DOE recognizes that these performance-based procedures for WICF floor and non-floor panels are in addition to the prescriptive requirements established in EPCA for panel insulation R-values and, therefore, may increase the test burden to manufacturers. As DOE is no longer requiring the performance-based procedures which were ultimately used to calculate a U-value of a walk-in panel, the Department reverted to thermal resistance, or R-value, as measured by ASTM C518, as the metric for establishing performance standards for walk-in cooler and freezer panels. Based on the comments submitted by interested parties, DOE finds that using ASTM C518 will provide a sufficient robust method to measure panel energy efficiency while minimizing manufacturer testing burdens.

2. Doors

The walk-in test procedure final rule addressed two door types: display and non-display doors. Within the general context of walk-ins, a door consists of the door panel, glass, framing materials,

door plug, mullion, and any other elements that form the door or part of its connection to the wall. DOE defines display doors as doors designed for product movement, display, or both, rather than the passage of persons; a non-display door is interpreted to mean any type of door that is not captured by the definition of a display door. See generally 76 FR 33631.

The test metric for doors is in terms of energy use, measured in kilowatt-hours per day (kWh/day). The energy use accounts for thermal transmittance through the door and the electricity use of any electrical components associated with the door. The thermal transmittance is measured by NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, and is converted to energy consumption via conduction losses using an assumed efficiency of the refrigeration system in accordance with the test procedure. See 76 FR at 33636-33637. The electrical energy consumption of the door is calculated by summing each electrical device's individual consumption and accounts for all device controls by applying a “percent time off” value to the appropriate device's energy consumption. For any device that is located on the internal face of the door or inside the door, 75 percent of its power is assumed to contribute to an additional heat load on the compressor. Finally, the total energy consumption of the door is found by combining the conduction load, electrical load, and additional compressor load.

DOE received several comments about the proposed metric. NEEA, et al. agreed with the door metric being a combination of the refrigeration load created by the heat loss through the door plus heater draw components associated with the door. (NEEA, et al., No. 101 at p. 5) Nor-Lake commented that doors also have a U-value metric like panels and that other energy consuming devices should be considered as an additional load on the refrigeration system. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 2) Bally commented that the metric for doors should be a function of the temperature of the WICF box, the linear periphery dimensions of the door, the thickness of the door and the temperature or humidity conditions that exist on the outside of the door. (Bally, No. 102 at p. 3) Hillphoenix commented that the energy consumption posed by the perimeter heat on a door is not associated with surface area, but instead the length of the heater wire. (Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) At the public meeting, Kysor commented that the door metric should include the R-value as tested by ASTM C518 and the electrical draw for heater wire, if used. (Kysor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 96) AHRI suggested that the energy metric for door efficiency be expressed as a function of door perimeter length, as opposed to surface area, since the largest heat gain was at the periphery and edges. AHRI pointed out that while the perimeter of a “medium” door was 11% greater than a “small” door, the surface area was 29% greater causing smaller doors to be over penalized. (AHRI, No. 114 at p. 5)

In response to Nor-Lake's comment, DOE agrees that non-display doors are very similar to panels in that they are both primarily made up of insulation. However, the DOE test procedure adds the additional heat load caused by components like lighting and heater wire to the daily power consumption of these doors. DOE opted for this method because the electrical components, like heater wire, are integrated into the doors. DOE thought this method was more appropriate because the door manufacturers determine which electricity consuming components are integrated into the door. In response to Bally's comment, DOE agrees that the space conditions of a walk-in have an impact on a door's energy consumption. However, the thermal conductance of a cooler or freezer door, a portion of the maximum energy consumption metric, is measured at specific rating conditions to allow for equipment comparisons. These conditions are listed in 10 CFR 431.304 and 10 CFR Subpart R, appendix A. Additionally, DOE expects the thermal transmittance as measured by NFRC 100-2010-E0A1 to capture the energy loss though the periphery of the door because this test method measures the heat transfer through an entire door. DOE appreciates Kysor's comment, but finds that NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, and industry accepted test procedure, more accurately represents the thermal transmittance of the door. DOE agrees with AHRI that the energy consumption of the heater wire is directly related to the amount or length of heater wire used. However, EISA set a precedent by limiting the amount of heater wire per door opening area. Therefore, DOE is setting the standards in terms of door surface area instead of perimeter.

DOE also received comments on the door test procedure. Bally remarked at the public meeting that the percent time off for device controls should be a floating value because it would be more practical than a set percent time off. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 148) DOE appreciates Bally's comment and acknowledges that some controls may reduce more energy than other. However, the current test procedure does not measure the effectiveness of the controls. Additionally, DOE is concerned that incorporating additional testing to measure a controls percent time off value would great undue burden on manufacturers. For these reasons the Department is not considering floating percent time off values.

3. Refrigeration

The DOE test procedure incorporates an industry test procedure that applies to walk-in refrigeration systems: AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, “2009 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers” (“AHRI 1250-2009”). (10 CFR 431.304) This procedure applies to three different scenarios—(1) unit coolers and condensing units sold together as a matched system, (2) unit coolers and condensing units sold separately, and (3) unit coolers connected to compressor racks or multiplex condensing systems. It also describes methods for measuring the refrigeration capacity, on-cycle electrical energy consumption, off-cycle fan energy, and defrost energy. Standard test conditions, which are different for indoor and outdoor locations and for coolers and freezers, are also specified.

The test procedure includes a calculation methodology to compute an annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF), which is the ratio of heat removed from the envelope to the total energy input of the refrigeration system over a year. AWEF is measured in Btu/W-h and measures the efficiency of a refrigeration system. DOE established a metric based on efficiency, rather than energy use, for describing refrigeration system performance, because a refrigeration system's energy use would be expected to increase based on the size of the walk-in and on the heat load that the walk-in produces. An efficiency-based metric would account for this relationship and would simplify the comparison of refrigeration systems to each other. Therefore, DOE is using an energy conservation standard for refrigeration systems that would be presented in terms of AWEF.

Several stakeholders commented on the applicability of the test procedure to refrigeration components (i.e., the unit cooler and the condensing unit) sold separately. NEEA, et al. expressed support for the proposed standard's approach of using AHRI 1250 for testing and rating all condensing units. (NEEA, et al., No. 101 at p. 3) CA IOUs, on the other hand, asserted that the AHRI 1250 test was inadequate because it requires a unit cooler for testing a dedicated condensing unit, which is a less reliable rating method due to the lack of a viable enforcement mechanism. (CA IOUs,

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 384) CA IOUs recommended modifying the AHRI 1250 test method so that all unit coolers connected to remote condensing units are treated the same, whether they are connected to a dedicated, shared, or multiplex remote condensing unit. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 2) CA IOUs further recommended developing a separate AHRI Standard for the performance rating of WICF refrigeration condensing units, along with TSLs (i.e. Trial Standard Levels) and energy conservation standards specific to refrigeration condensing units. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 3) Manitowoc asserted that manufacturers that build only condensing units—but not evaporator coils—could not test the efficiency of the entire refrigeration system. (Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 2)

Other stakeholders commented specifically on the metrics established by the test procedure. KeepRite and Bally suggested that the energy efficiency ratio (EER) of the condensing unit and evaporator be used as the refrigeration system metric and basis of performance specifications in place of AWEF. (KeepRite, No. 105 at p. 1; Bally, No. 102 at p. 3) AHRI commented that the use of duty-cycle adjusted EER for condensing units and unit coolers, separately, was a more accurate metric than AWEF and should be the basis for performance specifications, because evaporator assemblies, condensing units, and refrigerants were often specified by contractors, procured from multiple manufacturers, and assembled as custom systems. (AHRI, No. 114 at p. 2) Louisville Cooler commented that using a watts-per-hour was a more practical and replicable method of measuring energy use, and AWEF is impacted by variables such as ambient temperature and seasonal changes. (Louisville Cooler, No. 81 at p. 1) NEEA, et al., on the other hand, stated that AWEF was a logical metric to rate cooling system component efficiency in a way that enabled marketplace differentiation and simplified compliance and enforcement. (NEEA, et al., No. 101 at p. 2)

DOE understands that the test procedure, as originally conceived, required both a unit cooler and a condensing unit to be tested in order to derive an AWEF rating for the system. In light of the issues about enforcement and manufacturer burden raised by the CA IOUs and Manitowoc, DOE has developed a separate approach addressing certification issues for manufacturers who produce and sell condensing units and/or unit coolers as separate products. Under that approach, a manufacturer who sells a unit without a matched condensing unit must rate and certify a refrigeration system containing that unit cooler by testing according to the methodology in AHRI 1250 for unit coolers intended to be used with a parallel rack system (see AHRI 1250, section 7.9). The manufacturer would use the calculation method in this section to determine the system AWEF and certify this AWEF to DOE. Additionally, all unit coolers tested and rated as part of a system under this method must comply with the standards in the multiplex equipment classes. DOE notes that this approach is consistent with the approach recommended by the CA IOUs because the same approach is used for separately-sold unit coolers regardless of what kind of condensing unit they are paired with. A manufacturer who sells a condensing unit separately must rate and certify a refrigeration system containing that condensing unit by conducting the condensing unit portion of the test method (using the standard ratings in section 5.1 of AHRI 1250-2009) but applying nominal values for saturated suction temperature, evaporator fan power, and defrost energy, in order to calculate an AWEF for the refrigeration system basic model containing that condensing unit. These nominal values would be standardized, which means that other similarly situated manufacturers would use these values when calculating the efficiency of a refrigeration system using their particular condensing unit. For complete details on how refrigeration system components must be rated and certified under this approach, see 79 FR 27387 at 27397 (detailing revised approach to be incorporated under 10 CFR 431.304(c)(10)). In response to the comments about the appropriate metrics to use, DOE notes that it is continuing to use AWEF as the metric for WICF refrigeration systems and components, and continues to base its standards on AWEF. DOE believes AWEF is sufficient to capture WICF system and component performance and has not established a different metric, such as EER or watts/hour, for rating refrigeration equipment. In response to Louisville Cooler's comment on the effect of seasonal changes and temperatures, DOE notes that the test procedure established a set of uniform rating conditions that cover multiple ambient temperatures as a proxy for seasonal changes a system exposed to the outdoors may encounter. DOE's standards are based on rating systems under the uniform rating conditions contained in the test procedure, thus maximizing the repeatability of the test.

Lennox noted that the test procedure did not contain provisions for multiple unit cooler matches on a single condensing unit. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges this fact but notes that manufacturer installation instructions typically include setup of multiple unit coolers because this setup is commonly used; for instance, by installers who wish to distribute airflow more evenly around a large walk-in. During the test, the system should be set up per the manufacturer's installation instructions. DOE successfully conducted testing of a system with two unit coolers as part of its rulemaking analysis. However, if DOE finds that such instructions are sufficiently unclear to others testing their equipment, DOE may introduce a test procedure addendum or amendment with more specific instructions for setup and testing.

Further, some commenters identified types of systems or technologies that would not be covered by the test procedure. Hussmann commented that the AHRI 1250 procedure did not contain test methods for secondary refrigeration systems, such as those utilizing glycol, brine, or CO

. (Hussmann, No. 93 at p. 2) Danfoss commented that by regulating units in steady-state conditions, the proposed rule automatically excluded adaptive controls, which had tremendous energy savings potential. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 115) ACEEE agreed with Danfoss that the AHRI 1250 procedure lacked the ability to account for controls, and other design options not affecting steady-state energy consumption. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 149) AHRI added that the AHRI 1250 test procedure was likely to be updated in the next three to six months. (AHRI, No. 114 at p. 3)

DOE agrees with Hussmann that the AHRI 1250 procedure does not cover secondary refrigeration systems, and agrees with Danfoss and ACEEE that controls or other options not affecting steady-state energy would also not be covered by AHRI 1250. If a manufacturer believes that the test procedure in its current form does not measure the efficiency of the equipment in a manner representative of its true energy use, the manufacturer may apply for a test procedure waiver. DOE also notes that should the industry develop a test method for WICF units with secondary refrigeration systems or adaptive controls, or update the existing test method so as to include such provisions, DOE will consider adopting it for WICFs. To address AHRI's comment, DOE will also consider

adopting test procedure revisions once they are developed.

C. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement

In keeping with the requirements of EPCA, DOE proposed a compliance date of three years from the date of publication of the final rule. 78 FR 55830 (September 11, 2013) DOE received a variety of comments regarding this issue. Several stakeholders commented in favor of a three-year period between the final rule and the compliance date. Specifically, ASAP, et al. urged DOE to adopt a compliance date three years after publication of the final rule, since DOE's analysis of manufacturer impacts suggests that conversion costs to meet the proposed standards would be modest. (ASAP, et al., No. 113 at p. 5) Manitowoc stated that once the standard is finalized, three years is a sufficient timeframe for compliance. (Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 3) ASAP, et al. noted that a compliance date of three years after the publication of the final rule is reasonable and that a later compliance date would result in avoidable loss of energy savings. (ASAP et al., No. 113 at p. 5)

Several stakeholders favored a longer period between the final rule and the compliance date. Hussmann stated that DOE should consider the certification process when setting the compliance date and that the compliance date of the proposed standard should be delayed so as to allow for an AEDM to be enforced before the compliance date. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 75, and No. 93 at p. 6) Lennox expressed concern that a three-year compliance timeframe is not adequate. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 7) Nor-Lake requested that DOE extend the compliance date beyond 2017 and noted that a compliance date of April 2017 may not give manufacturers enough time to complete required testing since there are currently no known labs in the U.S. that can perform the DIN EN 13164/13165 tests. Nor-Lake observed that manufacturers that produce panels and refrigeration would be overloaded with having to perform both sets of tests. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at pp. 3-5) Hillphoenix requested additional time for the compliance date and testing to allow for more labs to qualify for testing, because currently none can. (Hillphoenix, No. at p. 69) AHRI recommended that the timeline consider the fact that there is no AHRI or other third-party certification program for these products. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 76)

Regarding enforcement, Hussmann commented that it was unclear how DOE intended to enforce the standard for cooling systems, and ACCA suggested that an outline of DOE's intended enforcement policy be included in the final rule. (Hussmann, No. 93 at p. 1; ACCA, No. 119 at p. 2) ACCA further urged that DOE simplify compliance obligations for the assembler, including giving the industry one year after adoption of an enforcement policy to comply with enforcement provisions. (ACCA, No. 119 at p. 3)

DOE notes that it has since simplified the testing requirements for WICF components—in part by eliminating the requirement to test panels using the ASTM C1363 and DIN EN 13164/13165 tests. For refrigeration systems, DOE established a testing approach for unit coolers and condensing units sold separately and allowed refrigeration systems, unit coolers, and condensing units to be rated using an Alternative Efficiency Determination Method, or AEDM. See 79 FR 27387 (May 14, 2014). DOE believes these changes substantially simplify the process for certification, compliance, and enforcement. Therefore, DOE does not believe additional time is needed for compliance beyond three years from the publication of this notice.

Since component-level standards were proposed in the NOPR, DOE requested comments on who should be responsible for complying with the regulation. DOE received comments from multiple interested parties in this regard. The CA IOUs stated that DOE found that the contractor is the “manufacturer” and that DOE should therefore provide a path to certification for contractors. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 20) The CA IOUs further commented that manufacturers sell lighting systems specifically designed for cold storage facilities and these could therefore be regulated at the point of manufacture. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 4) ACCA noted that the assembly of WICF component parts is often performed by independent heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC/R) technicians not employed by component part manufacturers. (ACCA, No. 119 at p. 1) US Cooler noted that the proposed standard could significantly impact manufacturers who made individual refrigeration components that were then assembled into complete systems by contractors. (US Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 344) More specifically, US Cooler expressed concern that wholesalers and contractors would not be held to the same level of compliance as component manufacturers, which would put US Cooler at a competitive disadvantage. (US Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 51) American Panel agreed that the standards must also apply to wholesalers, as well as component manufacturers to prevent wholesalers from circumventing the regulation (for instance, by selling cooler panels for freezer applications). (American Panel, No. 99 at p. 2) HARDI stated that holding the wholesaler responsible would limit product availability for replacement and repair. (HARDI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 53) ACEEE stated that the approach chosen should support the goal of legitimate repair parts without abusing the system, where “repair” components are being sold by manufacturers to subvert the law. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 54) Danfoss noted that about 25 percent of WICF refrigeration systems are assembled by contractors and not sold as combined sets, and American Panel noted that 15 percent of systems are unit coolers connected to rack systems, where below 10 percent are dedicated systems matched by a contractor. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 60, and APC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 60) Danfoss further expressed concern that the proposed standard would preclude manufacturers like itself who sold only condensing units, but not complete systems, from being able to sell products into the WICF market. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 343)

In general, DOE notes that the term “manufacturer” of a walk-in refers to any person who (1) manufactures a component of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer that affects energy consumption, including, but not limited to, refrigeration, doors, lights, windows, or walls; or (2) manufactures or assembles the complete walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer. (See 10 CFR 431.302.) For purposes of certification, DOE will require the manufacturer of the walk-in component to certify compliance with DOE's standards, which are component-based. Namely, the manufacturer of a panel or door that is used in a walk-in must certify compliance. Manufacturers of refrigeration system components—namely, unit coolers and condensing units—that sell those components separately must rate and certify those components, while manufacturers of complete refrigeration systems whose components are not already separately certified must rate and certify those systems, in a manner consistent with DOE's recent final rule, published at 79

FR 27387. This approach will allow manufacturers of one refrigeration component but not the other to sell their products into the WICF market, addressing Danfoss's concern. The manufacturer of the complete walk-in, or the assembler of any component thereof (for example, a person who assembles a walk-in refrigeration system from a separately-sold unit cooler and condensing unit) must use components that are certified to and compliant with DOE's WICF standards. This approach avoids the compliance and certification issues inherent in requiring assemblers or contractors to certify WICF equipment, while maintaining the responsibility of assemblers or contractors to abide by the same standards as WICF components manufacturers, which DOE believes addresses US Cooler's concern about competitive disadvantage. This approach also requires that newly manufactured components comply with the DOE standards, regardless of whether they are being assembled into a new walk-in or being used as a replacement component on an existing walk-in, which addresses ACEEE's concern about the abuse of the “repair” designation. DOE appreciates the statements made by Danfoss and American Panel, and notes that because several paths to “manufacture” are available for walk-in coolers, it has developed its certification requirements accordingly.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis, which it bases on information 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 means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes to be 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), as it could allow a single manufacturer to monopolize the market.

Once DOE has determined that particular design options are technologically feasible, it generally 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) Section IV.C of this notice discusses the results of the screening analyses for walk-in coolers and freezers. Specifically, it presents the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the TSLs in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for walk-ins using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.) The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section V.A.2 of this final rule.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the equipment at issue that are purchased during a 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2017-2046). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period.

The model forecasts total energy use over the analysis period for each representative equipment class at efficiency levels set by each of the considered TSLs. DOE then compares the energy use at each TSL to the base-case energy use to obtain the NES. The NIA model is described in section IV.I of this notice and in chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.

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 equipment purchased during 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 NIA spreadsheet model calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the savings in the primary energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook

(

AEO

DOE has begun to also estimate full-fuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE's evaluation of FFC savings is driven in part by the National Academy of Science's (NAS) report on FFC measurement approaches for DOE's Appliance Standards Program.

The NAS report discusses that FFC was primarily intended for energy efficiency standards rulemakings where multiple fuels may be used by a particular product. In the case of this rulemaking pertaining to walk-ins, only a single fuel—electricity—is consumed by the equipment. DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered equipment. Although the addition of FFC energy savings in the rulemakings is consistent with the recommendations, the methodology for estimating FFC does not project how fuel markets would respond to this particular standard rulemaking. The FFC methodology simply estimates how much additional energy, and in turn how many tons of emissions, may be displaced if the estimated fuel were not consumed by the equipment covered in this rulemaking. It is also important to note that the inclusion of FFC savings does not affect DOE's choice of proposed standards. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.I.

“Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy- Efficiency Standards,” (Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and included five recommendations. A copy of the study can be downloaded at:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12670

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt more-stringent standards for a covered product, DOE must determine

that such action would result in significant additional energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B),(v) and 6316(a)) Although the term “significant” is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in

Natural Resources Defense Council

Herrington,

768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended significant energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for these standards are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As discussed in section II.A, 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 6316(a)) The following sections generally discuss how DOE is addressing each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers

In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as discussed in section IV.K. First, DOE determines its quantitative impacts using an annual cash flow approach. This includes both a short-term assessment (based on the cost and capital requirements associated with new or amended standards during the period between the announcement of a regulation and the compliance date of the regulation) and a long-term assessment (based on the costs and marginal impacts over the 30-year analysis period

). The impacts analyzed include INPV (which values the industry based on 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 potential impacts on different types of manufacturers, paying particular attention to impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of new or amended standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for new or amended standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of other DOE regulations and non-DOE regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for equipment shipped in a 9-year period.

For individual customers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the price of the covered product that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including the cost of its installation) and the operating costs (including energy and maintenance and repair costs) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with amended standards.

The LCC savings and the PBP for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base-case scenario, which reflects likely trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.G.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA also 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 6316(a)) DOE uses NIA spreadsheet results to project national energy savings.

For the results of DOE's analyses related to the potential energy savings, see section I.A.3 of this notice.

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 seeks to develop standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration. DOE has determined that none of the TSLs presented in this final rule would reduce the utility or performance of the equipment considered in the rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(a)) During the screening analysis, DOE eliminated from consideration any technology that would adversely impact customer utility. For the results of DOE's analyses related to the potential impact of amended standards on equipment utility and performance, see section IV.C of this notice and chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA requires DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from setting new or amended standards for a covered product. Consistent with its obligations under EPCA, DOE sought the views of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). DOE asked DOJ to provide a written determination of the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from the amended standards, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii). To assist DOJ in making such a determination, DOE provided DOJ with copies of both the NOPR and NOPR TSD for review. DOJ subsequently determined that the amended standards are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. Accordingly, DOE concludes that this final rule would not be likely to lead to a lessening of competition.

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a)) The energy savings from new or amended standards are likely to improve the security and reliability of

the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity may also result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how new or amended standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity.

Energy savings from amended standards for walk-ins are also likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production (

e.g.,

from power plants). For a discussion of the results of the analyses relating to the potential environmental benefits of the amended standards, see sections IV.L, IV.M and V.B.6 of this notice. DOE reports the expected environmental effects from the amended standards, as well as from each TSL it considered for walk-ins in the emissions analysis contained in chapter 13 of the final rule TSD. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs in chapter 14 of the final rule TSD.

g. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary, 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(a)) There were no other factors considered for this final rule.

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a), 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 energy (and, as applicable, water) savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values that calculate the PBP for customers of potential new and amended energy conservation standards. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the customer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a). The results of these analyses serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level definitively (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 notice.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments

A. General Rulemaking Issues

During the October 9, 2013 NOPR public meeting, and in subsequent written comments, stakeholders provided input regarding general issues pertinent to the rulemaking, including the trial standard levels, the rulemaking timeline, and other subjects. These issues are discussed in this section.

1. Trial Standard Levels

In the NOPR, DOE proposed the adoption of TSL 4 as the energy conservation standard for walk-ins, based on analysis showing that this level was both technically and economically feasible. 78 FR 55845 (September 11, 2013) NEEA et al. agreed with DOE's proposal, noting that TSL 4 represented the highest economically justified efficiency level, even though higher efficiencies were technologically feasible. (NEEA et al., No. 101 at p. 4)

Reaction to DOE's proposal was somewhat mixed with several parties viewing the proposed standard as sufficiently aggressive for some components but insufficient for other components. Specifically, ASAP opined that DOE's proposed efficiency level was strong, but urged DOE to consider a TSL 4.5, which would combine the envelope components of TSL 4, and the refrigeration components of TSL 5. (ASAP, No. at p. 15) Similarly, the CA IOUs, while agreeing with the proposed TSL for panels, urged DOE to adopt TSL 5 for refrigeration systems, since enhanced condenser coil, improved evaporator fan blades, and improved defrost controls—all of which are refrigeration systems components—offered cost effective options DOE should consider. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 26)

On the other hand, some commenters viewed the proposal as infeasible for manufacturers to meet. ThermoKool and US Cooler opined that TSL 2 was adequate. (US Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 376, ThermoKool, No. 97 at p. 5) Lennox International also noted that DOE's AWEF values for TSL 4 were overly aggressive, based on modeling errors. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 1)

With regard to the selection of design options at each TSL, Nor-Lake recommended that TSL 4 should consider standard levels requiring panels no thicker than 4 inches for class SP.L, as this was the current panel thickness most common in the industry. Nor-Lake noted that increasing panel thickness greatly increases production time and cost. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 2)

In response to the comments from stakeholders, DOE reformulated its TSLs. See section V.A for further discussion on the TSLs.

2. Rulemaking Timeline

A number of stakeholders commented on DOE's proposed rulemaking timeline. ICS requested that the target date for the final rule be moved beyond April 2014 to allow more opportunity for discussion and the development of a standard, and specifically recommended the final rule date be extended to at least 2016 to resolve all uncertainties in the analysis, using more accurate industry data. (ICS, et al., No. 100 at p. 2 and 6). Lennox recommended a twelve-month delay in finalizing the proposed rule, in order for DOE to address modeling discrepancies and assumption errors in addition to providing separate performance targets for unit coolers and condensing units. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 7) Hillphoenix urged DOE to consider extending the completion date of the final rule, to allow, at minimum, four more opportunities for exchange of information between DOE and manufacturers. (Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 3) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE delay the adoption of energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers in order to rewrite the standards to make them more enforceable, and to develop separate standards for condensing units. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 3)

Additionally, Bally commented that the timeline is probably unrealistic due to the need for an additional public meeting. (Bally, No. 102 at p. 3) IB stated that DOE's proposal to have a final rule in place by April 2014 is very ambitious and does not allow enough time to make necessary modifications to the proposed rule. IB requested additional public meetings where the analysis assumptions can be reviewed in depth with manufacturers. (IB, No. 98 at p. 4) NCC stated that the time provided by DOE for manufacturers to evaluate the proposed standard was insufficient. (NCC, No. 96 at p. 2) Thermo-Kool commented that the target date for the final rule should be extended in order to allow manufacturers to fully understand DOE's analysis, and to facilitate more public meetings. (ThermoKool, No. 97 at

p. 5) Danfoss urged DOE to consider moving forward with the overall rulemaking but to take more time with the condensing unit and unit cooler split, potentially with an SNOPR, and to take separated condensing and cooling units into account. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 88 and 72)

Public comment was also received opposing to extending the schedule. On the industry side, ebm-papst recommended proceeding quickly with the regulation because it raises the bar and spurs development toward a more sustainable refrigeration industry. (ebm-papst, No. 92 at p. 2) Similarly, AGNY commented that the delay in amending efficiency standards for walk-ins has led to inefficient products staying on the market, depriving purchasers of more effective options, and further asserted that delays have cost the nation $2.2 billion in lost savings. (AGNY, No. 116 at p. 2)

While DOE appreciates the concerns expressed by commenters regarding the current rulemaking timeline, DOE believes that the recent modifications it has made will permit manufacturers to much more easily address the various requirements that will be established by this rule. For details regarding the separate analysis and certification of refrigeration system components, see 79 FR 27387 (May 14, 2014).

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 walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers and made a particular effort to identify and characterize small business manufacturers. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Equipment Included in This Rulemaking

a. Panels and Doors

In the NOPR, DOE identified three types of panels used in the walk-in industry: display panels, floor panels, and non-floor panels. Based on its research, DOE determined that display panels, typically found in beer caves (i.e. walk-ins used for the display and storage of beer or other alcoholic beverages often found in a supermarket) make up a small percentage of all panels currently present in the market. Therefore, because of the extremely limited energy savings potential currently projected to result from amending the requirements that these panels must meet, DOE did not propose to set new standards for walk-in display panels. Display panels, however, must still follow all applicable design standards already prescribed by EPCA. See 10 CFR 431.306(b). Additionally, DOE declined to propose standards for walk-in cooler floor panels because DOE determined through manufacturer interviews and market research that the majority of walk-in coolers are made with concrete floors and do not use insulated floor panels. DOE did, however, propose standards for other panels (i.e. door, ceiling and wall).

Several stakeholders supported DOE's proposal to not set new standards for display and cooler floor panels. Thermo-Kool and Hillphoenix agreed that display panels and cooler floor panels should be excluded. (Thermo-Kool, No. 97 at p. 2; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 3) NEEA stated that it was impractical to regulate or require floors for walk-in coolers. (NEEA, No. 101 at p. 3) American Panel, however, believed that additional energy savings were possible while imposing only a minimal burden on industry if walk-in coolers were required to use insulated floor panels or insulated concrete slabs with thermal breaks instead of requiring panel manufacturers to increase panel thickness. (American Panel, No. 99 at p. 10) DOE agrees with American Panel that in theory a walk-in coolers would consume less energy with a insulated floor. However, EPCA directs DOE to adopt performance standards of walk-in and thus the Department cannot require all walk-in coolers to be installed with insulated floors. Additionally, the Department expected that setting an R-value requirement for walk-in cooler floor panels would cause manufactures to stop selling cooler floor panels to avoid the certification burden.

American Panel asked if DOE considered freezers built inside a walk-in that are built inside another walk-in. American Panel noted that for cooler-freezer combination units, complicated dividing wall panels were required, which were complicated to manufacture, and would be very expensive, should the walk-in freezer require 5 inch insulation. (American Panel, No. 99 at p. 5) DOE agrees that its analysis does not account for the specific installation scenarios of walk-in panels beyond cooler versus freezer applications. However, the Department reiterates that it is not establishing prescriptive standards so freezer panels would not be required to be a specific thickness—only that they meet a particular thermal resistance value.

DOE also identified two types of doors used in the walk-in market, display doors and non-display doors, which are discussed in section VI.2.A. of this NOPR. All types of doors will be subject to the performance standards proposed in this rulemaking.

b. Refrigeration Systems

Blast Chillers and Blast Freezers

In the NOPR, DOE did not include blast freezers in its rulemaking analysis, but proposed to apply the same standards to blast freezer refrigeration systems as to storage freezer refrigeration systems, unless DOE were to find that blast freezer refrigeration systems would have difficulty complying with DOE's standards. DOE requested comments from the public on the inclusion of blast freezers within the scope of the proposed rule. 78 FR at 55799. In response, NEEA, et al., Hussmann, ACEEE, American Panel, the California IOU's, Heatcraft, Bally, Hillphoenix, Lennox, AHRI and Nor-Lake urged DOE to carefully define blast chillers and freezers, and to exclude them from the products covered by the proposed rule, since these were food processing equipment, as opposed to food storage equipment like most other walk-in coolers and freezers. (NEEA, et al., No. 101 at p. 5; Hussmann, No. 93 at p. 7; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 112; APC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 111; CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 109; Heatcraft, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 108; Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 108; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 109 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 114 at p. 3; Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 1) APC recommended that in addition to blast freezers, blast chillers should also be

excluded from the ambit of the proposed rule for similar reasons. (APC, No. 99 at p. 3) AHRI, on the other hand, suggested that blast coolers and freezers, along with ripening rooms, should be held to different efficiency standards than WICFs. (AHRI, No. 114 at p. 3)

After considering the comments received and conducting additional research, DOE agrees with commenters that blast chillers and blast freezers are food processing equipment and place them outside of the definition of a walk-in, which is defined as an “enclosed storage space.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A)) Additionally, DOE has found that blast chillers and blast freezers have very different energy consumption characteristics from storage coolers and freezers, which would justify their classification as a distinct product.

Based on the comments, along with other information reviewed by DOE (e.g. manufacturer brochures and literature) regarding the operation and use of blast chillers and blast freezers. DOE is declining to treat these equipment categories as walk-ins. As a result, these two categories of equipment would not be required to meet the standards that DOE has detailed in this notice. In delineating these equipment, in DOE's view, a blast chiller (or shock chiller) refers to a type of cooling device that is designed specifically to, when fully loaded, cool its contents from 150 °F to 55 °F in less than 90 minutes. Similarly, a blast freezer (or shock freezer) refers to a type of freezer that is designed specifically to, when fully loaded, cool its contents from 150 °F to 32 °F in less than 90 minutes.

While DOE believes that the above descriptions should be sufficiently clear to enable manufacturers to readily determine whether a particular device they produce falls under these descriptions, DOE may revise these descriptions in the future through guidance should additional clarification be necessary.

Special Application Walk-In Coolers

Several commenters suggested that certain walk-in coolers designed for special applications should be excluded from the rulemaking. ebm-papst commented that the proposed standard did not separate low-velocity and low-profile unit coolers. (ebm-papst, No. 92 at p. 4) NCC and KeepRite commented that two-way or low-velocity coolers were designed as food-processing workspaces, and should be excluded from the scope of the proposed rule. (NCC, No. 96 at p. 2; K-RP, No. 105 at p. 2) SAF noted that the floriculture industry had unique requirements with regard to air movement and humidity for walk-in coolers since potted plants and cut flowers had a rapid rate of respiration, and further expressed concern that the proposed standard did not account for the large degree of customization used in the engineering of floral storage units due to the higher humidity and gentle airflow required. (SAF, No. 103 at pp. 3 and 7) Manitowoc commented that grouping packaged refrigeration systems with split systems would make it difficult for packaged systems to meet the proposed standard levels at a reasonable cost, since packaged systems were typically 1 horsepower (hp) or less, and increased efficiency would have a greater cost impact. (Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 2) Lennox stated that there were no known test laboratories in the U.S. that were certified or fully capable of testing the range of products and application temperatures covered by the proposed rule. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 2)

With respect to low-velocity and floral application coolers, DOE agrees that there is a certain category of medium- and low-temperature unit coolers that are characterized by low airflow. In medium-temperature applications, these unit coolers may also be operated at a higher-than-usual temperature difference between the evaporator coil and the air, which contributes to a high humidity environment necessary for some applications. (For more details on temperature difference, see section IV.D.5.b.) Because these products are used for both storage and process applications, DOE cannot categorically exclude them from coverage, although DOE notes that equipment used for process cooling applications is excluded from the WICF standards. Also, DOE has not found evidence that such products would be at a disadvantage by having to satisfy the standards being adopted today, when tested under the rating conditions in the test procedure. In response to Manitowoc's comment, Manitowoc did not provide, nor has DOE found, evidence that packaged systems would have difficulty meeting the proposed standard; DOE notes that for dedicated condensing systems, which would include packaged systems, its standards for smaller systems are lower than those for larger systems and the required efficiency for smaller systems decreases with system size. To address Lennox's concern, if a manufacturer believes that the test procedure in its current form does not measure the efficiency of a model of covered equipment in a manner representative of its true energy use, the manufacturer may apply for a test procedure waiver for that model.

High-Temperature Products

Hillphoenix commented that the definition of a walk-in cooler as having a maximum temperature of 55 °F was incongruent with the NSF limit of 41 °F as the maximum safe temperature for food. (Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 1) ICS, et al., American Panel, IB, Kysor, and ThermoKool suggested that DOE revise its definition of a walk-in cooler to align with the NSF's requirement of food storage at or below 41 °F. (ICS, et al., No. 100 at p. 3; APC, No. 99 at p. 2; IB, No. 98 at p. 1; Kysor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 40; ThermoKool, No. 97 at p. 1) Hussmann expressed concern that if the standards cover products up to 55 degrees, it may cover some products that have very different energy profiles than traditional [food] storage systems. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 62) Lennox, however, agreed with DOE's proposal to base the definition of freezers vs. coolers on an operating temperature [at or] below and above 32 °F, respectively. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 5)

DOE recognizes that the NSF requires food storage at 41 °F or below. However, DOE is retaining its definition of walk-in coolers and freezers because while the foodservice industry accounts for a large portion of the walk-in cooler market, these units also have applications in other industries, which do not fall within the ambit of the NSF standard. DOE notes that it based its analysis on coolers operating at 35 °F (the AHRI 1250 test procedure rating temperature for coolers), which should not disadvantage products that must comply with the NSF requirement.

2. 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 other performance-related feature that justifies a different standard for equipment having such a feature. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility of the feature to users. DOE normally establishes different energy conservation standards for different equipment classes based on these criteria. In the NOPR, DOE proposed separate classes for panels, display doors, non-display doors, and refrigeration systems because each component type has a different utility to the consumer and possesses different energy use characteristics.

a. Panels and Doors

In the NOPR, DOE proposed three equipment classes for walk-in panels: cooler structural panels, freezer structural panels, and freezer floor panels. DOE's proposal was based on the understanding that freezer floor panels and structural panels serve two different utilities.

Freezer floor panels, which are panels used to construct the floor of a walk-in freezer, must often support the load of small machines like hand carts and pallet jacks. Structural panels are panels used to construct the ceiling or wall of a walk-in, provide structure for the walk-in.

Structural panels are further divided into two more classes based on temperature—

i.e.,

cooler versus freezer panels. Cooler structural panels are rated at an average foam temperature of 55 °F, as required in the test procedure. Freezer structural panels are used in walk-in freezers and rated at an average foam temperature of 20 °F, also a test procedure requirement. See 79 FR at 27412. Walk-in freezer panels must also meet a higher R-value than walk-in cooler panels. See 10 CFR 431.306.

For doors, DOE distinguished between two different door types used in walk-ins: display doors and non-display doors. DOE proposed separate classes for display doors and non-display doors to retain consistency with the dual approach laid out by EPCA for these walk-in components. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C) and (3)) Non-display doors and display doors also serve separate purposes in a walk-in. Display doors contain mainly glass in order to display products or objects located inside the walk-in. Non-display doors function as passage and freight doors and are mainly used to allow people and products to be moved into and out of the walk-in. Because of their different utilities, display and non-display doors are made up of different material. Display doors are made of glass or other transparent material, while non-display doors are made of highly insulative materials like polyurethane. The different materials found in display and non-display doors significantly affect their energy consumption.

DOE divided display doors into two equipment classes based on temperature differences: cooler and freezer display doors. Cooler display doors and freezer display doors are exposed to different internal temperature conditions, which affect the total energy consumption of the doors. DOE's test procedure contains an internal rating temperature of 35 °F for walk-in cooler display doors and −10 °F for walk-in freezer display doors. See 76 FR at 21606 and 10 CFR 431.303

DOE also separated non-display doors into two equipment classes, passage and freight doors. Passage doors are typically smaller doors and mostly used as a means of access for people and small machines, like hand carts. Freight doors typically are larger doors used to allow access for larger machines, like forklifts, into walk-ins. The different shape and size of passage and freight doors affects the energy consumption of the doors. Both passage and freight doors are also separated into cooler and freezer classes because, as explained for display doors, cooler and freezer doors are rated at different temperature conditions. A different rating temperature impacts the door's energy consumption.

One stakeholder agreed with DOE's classification of equipment. Nor-Lake commented that the proposed definitions for all three door equipment classes appeared to be reasonable. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 1)

Other stakeholders recommended changes to the envelope equipment classes. Hillphoenix noted that classifying doors based on whether they were display or non-display doors, and whether they were hinged or non-hinged would allow for standards that would better represent their performance. (Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 3) ICS, et al., recommended that DOE categorize door panels with wall, floor, and ceiling panels and account for electrical consuming devices separately. (ICS, et al., No. 100 at pp. 2 and 3) American Panel also suggested that non-display doors should be classified with panels for the purpose of this rulemaking because they share the same R-value. (APC, No. 99 at p. 2) IB agreed with the proposed classes of panels and requested that door panels be included in these categories as they are manufactured from the same materials as those used in wall, floor and ceiling panels. (IB, No. 98 at p. 3)

DOE agrees that non-display doors are very similar to panels because both components are primarily composed of insulation. However, non-display doors have a different utility than panels and for that reason may require features, like windows or heater wire, which walk-in panels do not require. For this reason, in this final rule the Department is creating separate equipment classes for non-display doors and panels.

The Department did not receive any adverse comments regarding the equipment classes proposed for display doors.

The equipment classes being adopted are listed in Table IV.1 below.

Table IV.1—Equipment Classes for Panels and Doors

Product

Temperature

Class

Structural Panel

Medium

SP.M

Low

SP.L

Floor Panel

Low

FP.L

Display Door

Medium

DD.M

Low

DD.L

Passage Door

Medium

PD.M

Low

PD.L

Freight Door

Medium

FD.M

Low

FD.L

b. Refrigeration Systems

In the NOPR, DOE divided refrigeration systems into classes based on condensing unit type (i.e. whether the refrigeration system uses a dedicated condensing unit or is connected to a multiplex system), operating temperature (whether the system is designed to operate at medium or low temperature, corresponding to a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer, respectively), location (for dedicated condensing systems, whether the condensing unit is located indoors or outdoors), and size (for dedicated condensing systems, whether the gross refrigerating capacity exceeds or is less than 9,000 Btu/h). DOE received comments on its proposed equipment classes.

General Comments

NAFEM and Lennox opined that the equipment classes defined in the proposed rule did not fully encompass the variety of products and customizations currently available on the market. (NAFEM, No. 118 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 109 at p. 2) The CA IOUs suggested that the standard would be more enforceable if, instead of classifying products as dedicated condensing or multiplex condensing, WICF refrigeration is treated like commercial refrigeration equipment, with separate classes for self-contained systems, unit coolers, and condensing units. In its view, this approach would address the splitting of the unit cooler from the condensing unit in cases where they are separate. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 19 and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 30 and 103) ASAP commented that DOE should set a standard level for packaged dedicated refrigeration systems. (ASAP et al., No. 113 at p. 2) American Panel pointed out that the current classification did not account for pre-charged units (i.e. refrigeration units that come “pre-charged” with refrigerant coolant added to the unit). (APC, No. 99 at p. 3)

DOE takes note of manufacturer comments that the representative sizes in DOE's analysis do not fully

encompass the large variety of products and possible customizations. While recognizing that it would be impossible to model each and every one of these niche products, DOE has not changed the equipment classes or representative units from those analyzed in the NOPR, since these classes and units represent a large majority of the total market for walk-in coolers and freezers. DOE has not found, nor have stakeholders provided evidence, that “niche” products would be unable to meet the standards based on current equipment classification. DOE believes that its approach to testing and certification of unit coolers and condensing units sold separately addresses the comment from CA IOUs, and separate equipment classes are not needed; see section III.C for further discussion of certification. If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to undue hardship by regulations, the manufacturer may petition DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA's authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.

Condensing Unit Location

Lennox commented that for dedicated condensing units, systems manufactured and certified as outdoor units should be allowed to be used indoors without having to certify their units as indoor units as well; this approach would greatly reduce the testing and certification burden on manufacturers. (Lennox. No. 109 at p. 6) On the other hand, AHRI noted that it was possible for manufacturers to market a unit for use indoors, whereas contractors could choose to assemble it outdoors, where it may not meet the requisite standard. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 106)

DOE understands that indoor and outdoor refrigeration systems are rated differently under the DOE test procedure, and this warrants the creation of separate equipment classes for indoor and outdoor refrigeration systems. Furthermore, indoor and outdoor refrigeration systems are often easily distinguishable visually: outdoor systems are characterized by a metal cover that protects the system from the elements. DOE realizes that a product may be used in a different application from which it was originally designed. In response to Lennox's comment, the standard for an outdoor refrigeration system is generally more stringent than for an indoor refrigeration system of the same size and operating temperature. Therefore, DOE is not opposed to systems rated as outdoor systems being used in practice as indoor systems, without having to be separately certified as “indoor” systems. Conversely, as AHRI pointed out, an indoor system used outdoors would not likely meet the requisite standard. DOE believes that in practice, this is not likely to occur at a significant rate because indoor units lack the protective features of outdoor units and therefore would be very unlikely to be installed outdoors. However, if DOE finds that indoor systems are being installed outdoors so as to circumvent the more stringent requirements for outdoor systems, DOE may promulgate future labeling standards specifying that a unit used outdoors must be labeled as an outdoor unit.

Capacity

Lennox commented that the proposed classification for unit coolers did not fully account for various applications and that for dedicated condensing systems, the proposed equipment classification did not fully reflect the range currently available in the market. Further, Lennox noted that linear equations for units with capacity up to 36,000BTU/h, and fixed values for units with higher capacity, would be reasonable. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 5) Similarly, on the classification of condensing systems, KeepRite commented that the definition between large and small classes at 9,000 Btu/hr was fairly low, and left a disproportionately wide range of products in the “Large” category. (K-RP, No. 105 at p. 2) American Panel, too, made a similar suggestion, recommending that equipment be divided into three categories—small (<10,000 Btu), medium, and large (>25,000 Btu)—to better represented the market. (APC, No. 99 at p. 3) Heatcraft stated that DOE did not look at a broad enough range of equipment, and that refrigeration systems can get up to 190,000 Btus in the 3,000 square foot range. (Heatcraft, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 102)

In response to the comments from Lennox, KeepRite, and American Panel suggesting that separating the “large” equipment class could better represent the market, DOE notes that above the threshold for “large” equipment, the standard level is equally attainable by varying sizes of equipment. DOE did not receive data or evidence from Heatcraft suggesting that systems larger than the ones analyzed would have difficulty meeting DOE's standards. Therefore, DOE is maintaining the size thresholds for refrigeration system classes proposed in the NOPR.

In this document, the Department is adopting the equipment classes listed in Table IV.2.

Table IV.2—Equipment Classes for Refrigeration Systems

Condensing type

Operating temperature

Condenser location

Refrigeration capacity (Btu/h)

class

Dedicated

Medium

Indoor

<9,000

DC.M.I, <9,000.

≥9,000

DC.M.I, ≥9,000.

Outdoor

<9,000

DC.M.O, <9,000.

≥9,000

DC.M.O, ≥9,000.

Low

Indoor

<9,000

DC.L.I, <9,000.

≥9,000

DC.L.I, ≥9,000.

Outdoor

<9,000

DC.L.O, <9,000.

≥9,000

DC.L.O, ≥9,000.

Multiplex

Medium

MC.M.

Low

MC.L.

Technology Assessment

As part of the market and technology assessment performed for the final rule analysis, DOE developed a comprehensive list of technologies that would be expected to improve the energy efficiency of walk-in panels, non-display doors, display doors, and refrigeration systems. Chapter 3 of the TSD contains a detailed description of each technology that DOE identified. Although DOE identified a number of technologies that improve efficiency, DOE considered in its analysis only those technologies that would impact the efficiency rating of equipment as tested under the DOE test procedure. Therefore, DOE excluded several technologies from the analysis during the technology assessment because they would not improve the rated efficiency of equipment as measured under the specified test procedure. Technologies that DOE determined would impact the rated efficiency were carried through to the screening analysis and are discussed in section IV.C.

ACEEE commented that there were significant technology options used abroad which could, if included in the DOE analysis, provide greater potential for energy savings. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 142) However, ACEEE did not identify any specific technology options and in the absence of an actionable recommendation, DOE is continuing to apply its methodology. DOE notes that its methodology does not exclude technology options primarily used outside the U.S. if they meet the requirements of the screening analysis.

C. Screening Analysis

DOE uses four screening criteria to determine which design options are suitable for further consideration in a standards rulemaking. Namely, 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)

1. Panels and Doors

DOE proposed three efficiency improvements for walk-in panels: insulation thickness, insulation material, and framing material. Subsequent to the NOPR's publication, DOE modified its regulations to permit manufacturers to use ASTM C518—which measures panel performance by examining the panel's insulation performance—rather than ASTM C1363—which accounts for, among other things, the impact of structural members in a panel.. Because of this change, framing materials no longer impact the rated efficiency of walk-in panels—and hence, are no longer considered as design options.

Some manufacturers and consumers urged DOE to screen out any design options which would even marginally affect the geometry of a unit, either by increasing its total footprint or reducing the cooled internal space. Specifically, these comments referred to DOE's consideration of added insulation thickness as a design option. ICS, et al., Louisville Cooler, and NRA noted that the increased footprint or decreased internal volume associated with thicker foam panels reduced storage utility and increased cost, perhaps even requiring full kitchen redesigns.(ICS, et al., No. 100 at p. 4; Louisville Cooler, No. 81 at p. 1; NRA, No. 112 at p. 4) SAF expressed concern that some of the design options considered in the WICF analysis, like thicker insulation, would reduce the size of the walk-in and cause a substantial negative impact on floral industry businesses. (SAF, No. 103 at p. 7)

DOE understands stakeholder concerns that increased panel thickness may reduce the interior space of a walk-in and affect the equipment's utility. DOE discussed the relationship between panel thickness and interior walk-in space during the manufacturer interviews. During the interviews, manufacturers agreed that the addition of

1/2

″ of insulation above the baseline thicknesses modeled would be accepted by commercial customers. Manufacturers noted that increased panel thickness would require them to redesign their equipment and, in some cases, replace current foaming fixtures. DOE incorporated these potential outcomes into its engineering and manufacturer impact analyses. Regarding insulation greater than

1/2

an inch above the baseline thickness having an impact on the usefulness of the product to consumers, DOE notes that manufacturers are already employing these wall thicknesses in currently-available models. DOE believes that fact demonstrates that using thicker insulation is a viable technology option. Accordingly, DOE did not screen out increased panel thickness from its analysis.

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to screen in the following technologies for non-display doors: insulation thickness, insulation material, framing material, improved window glass systems, and anti-sweat heat controls.

DOE also proposed to “screen in” electronic lighting ballasts and high-efficiency lighting, occupancy sensors, improved glass system insulation performance, and anti-sweat heater controls as technologies that could improve the performance of display doors are rated by the test procedure.

Several manufacturers were concerned with DOE's proposal to require tinted glass for transparent doors. Hussmann, ACCA and the California IOU's noted that the use of low-e coatings on high-performance display doors would add a considerable tint to the glass, making product visibility difficult and impacting consumer utility. (Hussmann, No. 93 at p. 2) (ACCA, No. 119 at p. 2) (CA IOUs, No. 88 at p. 152) SAF commented that low-e coating would obscure floral products, and have a negative impact on the U.S. floral industry. (SAF, No 103 at pp. 6-7)

DOE clarifies that the performance standards proposed in the NOPR did not require manufacturers to use low-e coating on their doors. Low-e coating was considered as a design option. In the NOPR, DOE proposed TSL 4 which mapped to display cooler doors at efficiency level 1 (a baseline cooler door with LED lighting instead of fluorescent lighting) and mapped to baseline freezer doors. Baseline cooler doors do have one layer of hard coat low-e coating, but DOE expects that manufacturers could achieve this same level of performance by incorporating other design options like an additional pane of glass or a lighting sensor. Baseline display freezer doors do not have low-e coating. DOE notes that its market research shows that some display doors may have a low-e coating. While not all doors may have this feature, it is a viable one that manufacturers could opt to use in certain circumstances when appropriate. DOE also would like to remind stakeholders that it is not setting prescriptive standards, and should manufacturers value some features over others, they are free to use different design paths in order to attain the performance levels required by this rule.

American Panel suggested that DOE should consider air curtains, a device that blows air parallel to an opening to create an infiltration barrier, because the technology would reduce air infiltration, a major contributor to the heat load in a walk-in. American Panel commented that air curtains may save almost as much energy as freezer panels with 5-inches of insulation. (American Panel, No. 99 at p. 10) Manitowoc also commented that the largest factor to energy consumption was door open time and that cooler doors may be open

more than 200 times per day. Manitowoc suggested that door closers would significantly reduce energy consumption. (Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 1) DOE agrees with American Panel and Manitowoc that infiltration adds heat load to walk-ins and that air curtains can be used to reduce infiltration. However, DOE's test procedure establishes metrics to measure the energy consumption or energy use of walk-in components and does not include the heat load caused by infiltration. See 76 FR at 21594-21595. As a result, infiltration-related technologies do not improve the rated performance of walk-ins.

2. Refrigeration Systems

NRA commented that reducing the energy usage of walk-ins has the potential to reduce cooling recovery time for equipment subjected to constant door openings and closings in busy kitchen environments, which could result in food spoilage and create public health and safety risks. (NRA, No. 112 at p. 3) DOE's analysis has not shown that the improvements in equipment efficiency required by its standards would negatively impact the capacity of that equipment or its cooling ability; therefore, DOE does not believe its standards alone would be likely to increase the risks to public health and safety. As noted earlier, DOE has screened from consideration particular design options that it believes may pose undue risks to health and safety.

D. Engineering Analysis

The engineering analysis determines the manufacturing costs of achieving increased efficiency or decreased energy consumption. DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to generate the manufacturing costs needed for its engineering analyses: (1) The design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which provides “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate at particular efficiency levels.

As discussed in the Framework document, preliminary analysis, and NOPR analysis, DOE conducted the engineering analyses for this rulemaking using a design-option approach for walk-ins. The decision to use this approach was made due to several factors, including the wide variety of equipment analyzed, the lack of equipment efficiency data regarding currently available equipment, and the prevalence of relatively easily implementable energy-saving technologies applicable to this equipment. More specifically, DOE identified design options for analysis, used a combination of industry research and teardown-based cost modeling to determine manufacturing costs, and employed numerical modeling to determine the energy consumption for each combination of design options used to increase equipment efficiency. Additional details of the engineering analysis are available in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

1. Representative Equipment for Analysis

In performing its engineering analysis, DOE selected representative units for each primary equipment class to serve as analysis points in the development of cost-efficiency curves.

a. Panels and Doors

DOE proposed three different panel sizes to represent the variations within each class. Table IV.3 shows each equipment class and the representative sizes associated with that class.

Table IV.3—Sizes Analyzed: Panels

Equipment family name

Equipment family code

Temperature code

Size code

Representative height (feet)

Representative width (feet)

Structural Members

1.5

5.5

1.5

5.5

Floor Panels

Similar to the panel analysis, the engineering analyses for walk-in display and non-display doors both use three different sizes to represent the differences in doors within each size class DOE examined. Details are provided in Table IV.4 for non-display doors and Table IV.5 for display doors.

Table IV.4—Sizes Analyzed: Non-Display Doors

Equipment family name

Equipment family code

Temperature code

Size code

Representative height (feet)

Representative width (feet)

Passage Doors

6.5

2.5

7.5

6.5

2.5

7.5

Freight Doors

Table IV.5—Sizes Analyzed: Display Doors

Equipment family name

Equipment family code

Temperature code

Size code

Representative height (feet)

Representative width (feet)

Display Doors

5.25

2.25

6.25

2.5

5.25

2.25

6.25

2.5

American Panel commented that freight doors are typically more than 5 ft wide in order to allow for forklifts to pass through. (American Panel, No. 99 at p. 3) DOE notes that all the freight doors evaluated were 5ft or more in width, as shown in Table IV.4.

b. Refrigeration

In the engineering analysis for walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE used a range of capacities as analysis points for each equipment class. The name of each equipment class along with the naming convention was discussed in section IV.B.2.b. In addition to the multiple analysis points, scroll, hermetic, and semi-hermetic compressors were also investigated because different compressor types have different efficiencies and costs.

Scroll compressors are compressors that operate using two interlocking, rotating scrolls that compress the refrigerant. Hermetic and semi-hermetic compressors are piston-based compressors and the key difference between the two is that hermetic compressors are sealed and hence more difficult to repair, resulting in higher replacement costs, while semi-hermetic compressors can be repaired relatively easily.

Table IV.6 identifies, for each class of refrigeration system, the sizes of the equipment DOE analyzed in the engineering analysis. Chapter 5 of the TSD includes additional details on the representative equipment sizes and classes used in the analysis.

Table IV.6—Sizes Analyzed for Refrigeration System Analysis

Equipment class

Sizes analyzed (Btu/h)

Compressor types analyzed

DC.M.I, <9,000

6,000

Hermetic, Semi-hermetic.

DC.M.I, ≥9,000

18,000

Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.

54,000

Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.

96,000

Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.

DC.M.O, <9,000

6,000

Hermetic, Semi-hermetic.

DC.M.O, ≥9,000

18,000

Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.

54,000

Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.

96,000

Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.

DC.L.I, <9,000

6,000

Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.

DC.L.I, ≥9,000

9,000

Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.

54,000

Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.

DC.L.O, <9,000

6,000

Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.

DC.L.O, ≥9,000

9,000

Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.

54,000

Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.

72,000

Semi-Hermetic.

MC.M

4,000

9,000

24,000

MC.L

4,000

9,000

18,000

40,000

2. Refrigerants

DOE used R404A, a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerant blend, in its analysis for this NOPR because it is widely used currently in the walk-in industry, but requested comment on the ability of systems using other refrigerants to meet a standard based on systems with 404A. 78 FR at 55799. Several stakeholders suggested that future refrigerant policy would play a role in dictating which refrigerant would be used with future refrigeration systems and noted this possibility in response to the engineering analysis.

AHRI commented that future changes in refrigerant policy were likely to drive the market towards low global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants, which could detrimentally affect the performance and efficiency of units. (AHRI, No. 114 at p. 5) KeepRite stated that policies in the near future may require the phase-out of 404A in favor of low-GWP refrigerants which may be less efficient than 404A, making it more difficult to meet the proposed standard. (KeepRite, No. 105 at p. 2) Hussmann agreed that upcoming policies would likely require the phasing-out of 404A in favor of low-GWP refrigerants, which could negatively affect system performance (Hussmann, No. 93 at p. 2) ICS, et al. opined that the DOE analysis did not sufficiently factor in the impending phase-out of HFCs. (ICS, et al., No. 100 at p. 10) Lennox agreed that alternative refrigerants were likely to see growing adoption in walk-ins over the timeline of the rule, but added that this factor may affect the achievable efficiency of a unit either positively or negatively. It suggested that DOE should be prepared to establish separate classes for equipment that uses non-HFC refrigerants if they have an adverse impact on equipment performance. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 4) Danfoss noted that a change in policy requiring low-GWP refrigerants would greatly impact the cost of production of refrigeration systems, as WICF units use a relatively large volume of charge. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 164) Manitowoc stated that moving from HFCs to alternative refrigerants would increase cost. (Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 2)

At this time, DOE does not believe that there is sufficient specific, actionable data presented at this juncture to warrant a change in its analysis and assumptions regarding the refrigerants used in walk-in cooler and freezer applications. As of now, there is inadequate publicly-available data on the design, construction, and operation of equipment featuring alternative refrigerants to facilitate the level of analysis of equipment performance which would be needed for standard-setting purposes. DOE is aware that many low-GWP refrigerants are being introduced to the market, and wishes to ensure that this rule is consistent with the phase-down of HFCs proposed by the United States under the Montreal Protocol. DOE continues to welcome comments on experience within the industry with the use of low-GWP alternative refrigerants. However, there are currently no mandatory initiatives such as refrigerant phase-outs driving a change to alternative refrigerants. Absent such action, DOE will continue to analyze the most commonly-used, industry-standard refrigerants in its analysis.

DOE wishes to clarify that it will continue to consider WICF models meeting the definition of walk-in coolers and freezers to be part of their applicable covered equipment class, regardless of the refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to undue hardship by regulations, the manufacturer may petition DOE's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA's authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.

3. Baseline Specifications

a. Panels and Doors

In the NOPR, DOE set the baseline level of performance to correspond to the most common, least efficient component that is compliant with the standards set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(3)) DOE determined specifications for each equipment class by surveying currently available units and models. More detail about the specifications for each baseline model can be found in chapter 5 of the TSD.

DOE proposed that the baseline cooler structural panels would be comprised of 3.5 inches of polyurethane insulation, with wood framing members around the perimeter of the panel. Baseline freezer structural panels had 4-inches of polyurethane insulation, with wood framing members around the perimeter of the panel. Baseline freezer floor panels had 3.5 inches of polyurethane insulation with wood framing materials around the perimeter of the panel and additional wood structural material in the panel.

Nor-Lake and Thermo Kool commented that DOE's baseline panels seemed reasonable. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 2; Thermo Kool, No 97 at p. 2) American Panel made a number of suggestions regarding baseline panels. American Panel stated that 85% of the floor panels they built did not need additional structural members because they were going into restaurants. Thus, the floor panel is very similar to the structural panel. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 90) Additionally, American Panel commented that a 3.5-inch thick wood framed panel is not representative of the baseline for walk-in cooler structural panels. Baseline structural cooler panels should be 4 inches thick because that has the food service industry standard for the last 10 to 20 years. Regarding freezer panels materials, American Panel estimated that less than 5% of the total market share has wood framing materials. (American Panel, No. 99 at p. 4) At the NOPR public meeting, American Panel generally stated that wood and hard nose framing material is not commonly used with foam-in-place polyurethane insulation. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 128) Kinser also stated that 4-inch thick urethane panels without framing materials would be a representative baseline. (Kinser, No. 81 at p. 1) US Cooler also disagreed with the baseline assumptions and noted that by misrepresenting the baseline, DOE could overestimate the monetary and emissions savings resulting from this rulemaking. (US Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 129) NEEA stated that most panel manufacturers were using high density PU foam as panel framing instead of wood. (NEEA, No. 101 at p. 3)

DOE agrees with stakeholders that wood is not the predominate type of framing material in the WICF market, but it is present in the market. In a separate rulemaking, DOE proposed to eliminate the ASTM C1363 test, which measures the full panel thermal conductivity and accounts for features such as framing materials. (DOE subsequently finalized that proposal. See 79 FR at 27391 and 27405-27406.) Therefore, the impacts of framing material would not be captured by the WICF test procedure and framing material was no longer considered a design option for walk-in panels. In the final rule analysis, DOE incorporated high density polyurethane as the framing material for walk-in panels in order to more accurately capture the typical construction and cost of a baseline panel. However, for non-display doors, DOE continued to use wood as the baseline framing material, but DOE accounted for the market share of the baseline type unit and other design options in its efficiency distribution as part of the shipments analysis. See TSD chapter 9.

At the NOPR public meeting, Arctic noted that solid core foam insulation, which DOE interprets as extruded polystyrene, is also found in the walk-in market. (Arctic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 126) US Cooler also commented that a sizable number

of units on the market use extruded polystyrene. US Cooler opined that polyurethane insulation did not have better long term thermal performance than extruded polystyrene. (US Cooler, No. 75 at p. 1) DOE agrees that some walk-ins use extruded polystyrene insulation, but found that the majority of panels are made with poured-in-place polyurethane. For its analysis of a representative panel, DOE continued to use one type of insulation material (i.e. poured-in-place polyurethane) in order to more accurately evaluate the energy consumption of a representative baseline walk-in panel. DOE notes that manufacturers can use any insulation or other features so long as they meet the energy conservation standard levels.

In this final rule, DOE based its analysis on a representative model of a cooler structure panel by assuming that it is comprised of 3.5 inches of polyurethane insulation. Baseline freezer structural panels had 4-inches of polyurethane insulation. Baseline freezer floor panels had 3.5 inches of polyurethane insulation. As previously stated, DOE accounted for high density polyurethane framing materials in all types of panels, but the framing materials did not have an impact on the panel's measured energy efficiency. DOE modeled a baseline cooler structural panel, freezer structural panel, and freezer floor panel to portray an industry representative baseline panel for these equipment classes. These baseline panels correspond to the most common, least efficient component found in the market that complies with the standards set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(3)) In the case of walk-in cooler structural panels, the Department found that the most common, least efficient panel has an R-value that is higher than the current levels prescribed by EISA. However, the Department recognizes that there are other panel thicknesses and insulation materials employed in the WICF market. DOE used the baseline representative panels in its cost benefit evaluation to determine if energy efficiency improvements based on panel thickness were technologically feasible and economically justifiable.

DOE's NOPR analysis assumed that the baseline non-display doors are constructed in a similar manner to baseline panels. Therefore, DOE uses baseline non-display doors that consist of wood framing materials, foamed-in-place polyurethane insulation. Passage doors were assumed to have a 2.25-square foot window with anti-sweat heater wire. The small freight doors have a 2.25-square foot window with anti-sweat heater wire and both the medium and large freight doors have a 4-square foot window with anti-sweat heater wire. DOE did not include heater wire in the perimeter of the cooler doors in its models, but included heater wire in the perimeter of freezer doors.

Bally stated DOE should add heater wire to cooler doors because condensate from cooler doors could cause a workplace safety issue. (Bally, No. 102 at p. 3) DOE agrees with Bally and for this reason added heater wire to the perimeter of non-display cooler doors.

Nor-Lake, ICS, et al., and American Panel remarked that non-display doors typically do not have windows. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at pp. 1 and 2; ICS, et al., No. 100 at p. 4; American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 121) American Panel stated that less than 20% of their non-display doors have windows. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 121) Manitowoc commented that 25% of non-display doors sold by its company were fitted with 1.36-square foot windows and 5% of non-display doors sold had 2.23-square foot windows. (Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 2) DOE found from its manufacturer interviews that windows in non-display doors serve a specific utility for consumers by allowing the user to look through the window instead of opening the door causing heat gain through infiltration. Therefore, DOE modeled its walk-in cooler doors with windows.

At the public meeting Bally noted that consumers may choose to have windows on WICF doors, and these windows would need additional power to eliminate condensation. Therefore, Bally urged DOE to regulate doors (which DOE interprets to mean the door insulation) separately from windows and other electrical components. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 379). DOE agrees with Bally that windows

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.