Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines
Federal RegisterJan 8, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022]
RIN 1904-AD00
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines
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 refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines (beverage vending machines or BVM). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to periodically 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 amending the energy conservation standards for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. DOE is also amending the definition for Class A equipment to more unambiguously differentiate Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. In addition, DOE is amending the definition of combination vending machine, is defining two new classes of combination vending machines, Combination A and Combination B, and is promulgating standards for those new classes. Finally, DOE is adopting new provisions that DOE will use to verify the appropriate equipment class and refrigerated volume during enforcement testing.
DATES:
The effective date of this rule is March 8, 2016. Compliance with the new and amended standards established for beverage vending machines in this final rule is required on and after January 8, 2019. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 8, 2016.
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
www.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:
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022
. The
www.regulations.gov
Web page will contain 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:
Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email:
refrigerated_beverage_vending_machines@ee.doe.gov
.
Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email:
Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This final rule incorporates by reference into part 431 the following industry standard:
• ASTM E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test Method for Solar Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight,” approved April 1, 2009.
Copies of ASTM standards may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-2786, or go to
www.astm.org/
.
See section IV.O for a further discussion of this standard.
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Customers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Beverage Vending Machines
III. General Discussion
A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Compliance Dates
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 Customers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
a. Class A and Class B Beverage Vending Machines
b. Combination Vending Machines
c. Definition of Transparent and Optional Test Method for Determining Equipment Classification
2. Machines Vending Perishable Goods
3. Market Characterization
4. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Baseline Equipment and Representative Sizes
2. Refrigerants
a. Refrigerants Used in the Analysis
b. DOE Approach
c. Relative Energy Efficiency of Refrigerants
3. Screened-In Technologies Not Implemented as Design Options
4. Design Options Analyzed and Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Level
a. Glass Packs
b. Evaporator Fan Motor Controls
c. Coils
d. Compressors
e. Insulation and Vacuum Insulated Panels
f. Lighting and Lighting Low Power Modes
g. Fan Motors
h. Performance of Design Option Packages
5. Manufacturer Production Costs
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Customer Purchase Prices
2. Energy Prices
3. Maintenance, Repair, and Installation Costs
4. Equipment Lifetime
5. Discount Rates
6. Equipment Efficiency in the No-New-Standards Case
7. Split Incentives
G. Shipments Analysis
1. Market Share by Equipment Class
2. Market Share by Refrigerant
3. High and Low Shipments Assumptions
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
a. Full-Fuel-Cycle Analysis
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Customer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model
a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs
b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios
3. Discussion of Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
L. 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. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
O. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual 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 Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of National Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for BVM Standards
2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of 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. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974
N. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
Title III, Part A
1
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.
2
These products include refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines (beverage vending machines or BVM), the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v))
3
1
For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
2
All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).
3
Because Congress included beverage vending machines in Part A of Title III of EPCA, the consumer product provisions of Part A (not the industrial equipment provisions of Part A-1) apply to beverage vending machines. DOE placed the regulatory requirements specific to beverage vending machines in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 431, “Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment” as a matter of administrative convenience based on their type and will refer to beverage vending machines as “equipment” throughout this document because of their placement in 10 CFR part 431. Despite the placement of beverage vending machines in 10 CFR part 431, the relevant provisions of Title A of EPCA and 10 CFR part 430, which are applicable to all product types specified in Title A of EPCA, are applicable to beverage vending machines. See 74 FR 44914, 44917 (Aug. 31, 2009).
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE is adopting new and amended energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines. The new and amended standards, which are described in terms of the maximum daily energy consumption (MDEC) as a function of refrigerated volume, are shown in Table I.1. Specifically, DOE is amending the energy conservation standards established by the 2009 BVM final rule for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. In addition, DOE is establishing two new equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.292, Combination A and Combination B, as well as new energy conservation standards for those equipment classes. The new and amended standards adopted in this final rule will apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 8, 2019.
Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Beverage Vending Machines
[Compliance Starting January 8, 2019]
Equipment class *
New and amended
energy conservation
standards **
Maximum Daily Energy Consumption (MDEC)
(kWh/day †)
Class A
0.052 × V + 2.43 ‡
Class B
0.052 × V + 2.20 ‡
Combination A
0.086 × V + 2.66 ‡
Combination B
0.111 × V + 2.04 ‡
* See section IV.A.1 of this final rule for a discussion of equipment classes.
** “V” is the representative value of refrigerated volume (ft
3
) of the BVM model, as measured in accordance with the method for determining refrigerated volume adopted in the recently amended DOE BVM test procedure and appropriate sampling plan requirements at 10 CFR 429.52(a)(3). 80 FR 45758 (July 31, 2015). See section III.B and V.A of this final rule for more details.
† Kilowatt hours per day.
‡ Trial Standard Level (TSL) 3.
A. Benefits and Costs to Customers
Table I.2 and Table I.3 present DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the new and amended energy conservation standards on customers, or purchasers, of beverage vending machines, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP).
4
This
analysis is based upon beverage vending machines that use either CO
2
(R-744) or propane (R-290). These refrigerants were selected for analysis based on the recent actions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program,
5
including the listing of propane as acceptable in BVM applications under Rule 19 (80 FR 19454, 19491 (April 10, 2015)) and the change of status of R-134a to unacceptable in BVM applications beginning January 1, 2019 under Rule 20 (80 FR 42870, 42917-42920 (July 20, 2015)). The selection of these refrigerants was also guided by visible trends within the BVM marketplace and feedback from interested parties during public meetings, in written comments, and during manufacturer interviews.
4
The average LCC savings are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year (see section IV.F.6 of this final rule). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline model (see section IV.C.1 of this final rule). DOE acknowledges that not all BVM customers are also the entity that is responsible for the energy costs of operating the beverage vending machine in the field. However, there are many different contracting mechanisms for leasing and operating beverage vending machines, which are influenced by many factors, including the capital cost of the machine and the annual operating costs. As such, DOE believes that a simple “customer” LCC-model accurately demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of the potential energy efficiency improvements resulting from any new or amended
standards, regardless of by whom the costs and benefits are borne.
5
The EPA's SNAP program, which is the U.S. government regulatory program responsible for maintaining the list of alternatives to ozone-depleting substances allowed for use within specific applications in the United States, has taken two rulemaking actions that concern refrigerants for the U.S. refrigerated vending machine market. See section IV.C.2 of this final rule for more details.
Where applicable, the average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes and refrigerants, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of the equipment, which is estimated to be 13.5 years.
Table I.2—Impacts of New and Amended Energy Conservation Standards on Customers of Beverage Vending Machines—CO
2
Refrigerant
Equipment class
Life-cycle cost
savings
(2014$)
Payback
period
(years)
Class A
65
2.0
Class B
42
1.1
Combination A
990
0.8
Combination B
597
0.5
Table I.3—Impacts of New and Amended Energy Conservation Standards on Customers of Beverage Vending Machines—Propane Refrigerant
Equipment class
Life-cycle cost
savings
(2014$)
Payback
period
(years)
Class A
* 0
1.1
Class B
361
0.5
Combination A
772
0.7
Combination B
610
0.3
* In this case, $0 savings is a result of all customers in the no-new-standards efficiency distribution already achieving the efficiency standard.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the new and amended standards on customers is described in section V of this document.
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 through the end of the analysis period (2015 to 2048). Using a real discount rate of 8.5 percent, DOE estimates that the (INPV) for manufacturers of beverage vending machines in the case without amended standards is $94.8 million in 2014$. Under the adopted standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 0.8 percent of this INPV, which is approximately $0.7 million.
6
Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of beverage vending machines, DOE does not expect significant impacts on manufacturing capacity or loss of employment for the industry as a whole to result from the standards for beverage vending machines.
6
All monetary values in section I.B of this final rule are expressed in 2014 dollars; discounted values are discounted to 2014 unless explicitly stated otherwise.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document.
C. National Benefits and Costs
7
7
All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2014 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2015 unless explicitly stated otherwise. Energy savings in this section refer to the full-fuel-cycle (FFC) savings (see section IV.H for discussion).
DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for Class A, Class B, Combination A, and Combination B beverage vending machines purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended standards (2019-2048) amount to 0.122 quadrillion Btu (quads).
8
This represents a savings of 16 percent relative to the energy use of this equipment in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).
9
8
A quad is equal to 10
15
British thermal units (Btu). The quantity refers to FFC energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (
i.e.,
coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1.
9
The no-new-standards case represents a mix of efficiencies above the minimum efficiency level (EL 0). Please see section IV.F.6 for a more detail description of associated assumptions.
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total customer costs and savings of the standards for beverage vending machines range from $0.21 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.51 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate).
10
This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for
beverage vending machines purchased in 2019-2048.
10
These discount rates are used in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003), and section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs,” therein. Further details are provided in section IV.H of this final rule.
In addition, the standards for beverage vending machines are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 7 million metric tons (Mt)
11
of carbon dioxide (CO
2
), 4 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO
2
), 13 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO
X
), 32 thousand tons of methane (CH
4
), 0.09 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N
2
O), and 0.02 tons of mercury (Hg).
12
The cumulative reduction in CO
2
emissions through 2030 amounts to 1.16 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 160,000 homes.
11
A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NO
X
and Hg are presented in short tons.
12
DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the
Annual Energy Outlook 2015
(
AEO2015
) Reference case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2014.
The value of the CO
2
reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO
2
(otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a Federal interagency process.
13
The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.L of this final rule. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, DOE estimates that the net present monetary value of the CO
2
emissions reduction (not including CO
2
equivalent emissions of other gases with global warming potential) is between $49 million and $701 million, with a value of $230 million using the central SCC case represented by $40.0 per metric ton in 2015. DOE also estimates that the net present monetary value of the NO
X
emissions reduction to be $16 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and $42.0 million at a 3-percent discount rate.
14
13
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. Available at
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf
.
14
DOE estimated the monetized value of NO
X
emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants,
published in June 2014 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at
http://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf
.) See section IV.L.2 for further discussion. For the monetized NO
X
benefits associated with PM
2.5
in DOE's primary estimate, the benefit-per-ton values are based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al. Extended Follow-Up and Spatial Analysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. 2009), which is the lower of the two EPA central tendencies. DOE is using the lower value as its primary estimate to be conservative when making the policy decision concerning whether a particular standard level is economically justified. DOE also estimated monetized NO
X
benefits used EPA's higher benefit-per-ton estimates, and the overall benefits are over two times larger (see Table V.41). See chapter 14 of the TSD for further description of EPA's low and high values and the study mentioned above. DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and SO
2
emissions.
Table I.4 summarizes the national economic benefits and costs expected to result from the adopted standards for beverage vending machines.
Table I.4—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of New and Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Beverage Vending Machines*
Category
Present value
(million 2014$)
Discount rate
(%)
Benefits
Customer Operating Cost Savings
225
7
542
3
CO
2
Reduction Monetized Value ($12.2/metric ton case) **
49
5
CO
2
Reduction Monetized Value ($40.0/metric ton case) **
230
3
CO
2
Reduction Monetized Value ($62.3/metric ton case) **
366
2.5
CO
2
Reduction Monetized Value ($117/metric ton case) **
701
3
NO
X
Reduction Monetized Value †
16
7
42
3
Total Benefits ‡
471
7
814
3
Costs
Customer Incremental Installed Costs
18
7
34
3
Net Benefits
Including CO
2
and NO
X
† Reduction Monetized Value ‡
453
7
780
3
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with beverage vending machines shipped in 2019-2048. These results include benefits to customers that accrue after the last year of analyzed shipments (2048) from the equipment purchased during the 30-year analysis period. The costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule.
** The CO
2
values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporates an escalation factor. The value for NO
X
is the average of high and low values found in the literature.
† The $/ton values for NO
X
are described in section IV.L.
‡ Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with a 3-percent discount rate ($40.0/metric ton case).
The benefits and costs of the adopted standards for beverage vending machines sold in 2019-2048 can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are the sum of (1) the national economic value of the benefits in reduced operating costs, minus (2) the increases in equipment purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of CO
2
and NO
X
emission reductions, all annualized.
15
15
To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2015, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (
e.g.,
2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2015. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO
2
reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I.4. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year that yields the same present value.
Although the value of operating cost savings and CO
2
emission reductions are both important, two issues are relevant. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. customer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, whereas the value of CO
2
reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO
2
savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of beverage vending machines shipped in 2019-2048. Because CO
2
emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere,
16
the SCC values in future years reflect future CO
2
-emissions impacts that continue beyond 2100.
16
The atmospheric lifetime of CO
2
is estimated of the order of 30-95 years. Jacobson, MZ. Correction to `Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming,'
J. Geophys. Res.
2005. 110. pp. D14105.
Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the adopted standards are shown in Table I.5. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO
2
reduction (for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the SCC series that has a value of $40.0 per metric ton in 2015),
17
the estimated cost of the standards in this rule is $1.8 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $22.2 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $12.8 million in CO
2
reductions, and $1.6 million in reduced NO
X
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $35 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series that has a value of $40.0 per metric ton in 2015, the estimated cost of the standards is $1.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $30.2 million per year in reduced operating costs, $12.8 million in CO
2
reductions, and $2.3 million in reduced NO
X
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $43 million per year.
17
DOE used a 3-percent discount rate because the SCC values for the series used in the calculation were derived using a 3-percent discount rate (see section 0).
DOE also calculated the low net benefits and high net benefits estimates by calculating the operating cost savings and shipments at the
AEO2015
Low Economic Growth case and High Economic Growth case scenarios, respectively. The low and high benefits for incremental installed costs were derived using the low and high price learning scenarios. In addition, the low and high benefits estimates reflect low and high shipments scenarios (see section IV.G.3 of this final rule). The net benefits and costs for low and high net benefits estimates were calculated in the same manner as the primary estimate by using the corresponding values of operating cost savings and incremental installed costs.
Table I.5—Annualized Benefits and Costs of New and Amended Standards for Beverage Vending Machines*
Discount rate
million 2014$/year
Primary estimate *
Low net benefits
estimate *
High net benefits
estimate *
Benefits
Customer Operating Cost Savings
7%
22
16
27
3%
30
21
36
CO
2
Reduction Monetized Value ($12.2/metric ton case) **
5%
4
3
4
CO
2
Reduction Monetized Value ($40.0/metric ton case) **
3%
13
9
14
CO
2
Reduction Monetized Value ($62.3/metric ton case) **
2.5%
19
14
21
CO
2
Reduction Monetized Value ($117/metric ton case) **
3%
39
29
44
NO
X
Reduction Monetized Value †
7%
2
1 to 3
4
3%
2
2 to 4
6
Total Benefits ‡
7% range
28 to 63
20 to 46
36 to 75
7%
37
26
46
3% range
36 to 69
25 to 51
46 to 86
3%
45
32
56
Costs
Incremental Equipment Costs
7%
1.79
1.38
2.10
3%
1.89
1.42
2.13
Net Benefits
Total ‡
7% range
26 to 61
18 to 44
34 to 73
7%
35
25
44
3% range
34 to 70
24 to 50
44 to 84
3%
43
31
54
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with beverage vending machines shipped in 2019-2048. These results include benefits to customers that accrue after the last year of analyzed shipments (2048) from the equipment purchased in during the 30-year analysis period. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The primary, low benefits, and high benefits estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2015
Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively as well as the default shipments scenario along with the low and high shipments scenarios. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the primary estimate, a low decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the low benefits estimate, and a high decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the high benefits estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in appendix 8C of the technical support document (TSD).
** The CO
2
values represent global monetized SCC values, in 2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The SCC time series incorporates an escalation factor.
† The $/ton values used for NO
X
are described in section IV.L.2. The Primary and Low Benefits Estimates used the values at the low end of the ranges estimated by EPA, while the High Benefits Estimate uses the values at the high end of the ranges.
‡ Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with a 3-percent discount rate ($40.0/metric ton case). In the rows labeled “7% plus CO
2
range” and “3% plus CO
2
range,” the operating cost and NO
X
benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO
2
values.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is described in section V.B.3 of this final rule.
D. Conclusion
Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the benefits to the nation of the standards (energy savings, customer LCC savings, positive NPV of customer benefit, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some users of these 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.
DOE further notes that equipment achieving these standard levels is already commercially available for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. While DOE does not have certification data for combination equipment to determine the existence or extent of equipment meeting the adopted standard levels, DOE believes that the standard levels adopted for combination equipment are reasonable as they are based on technology options that are widely available in the BVM market today (see section III.D). DOE acknowledges that equipment using the SNAP-approved refrigerants (
i.e.,
CO
2
and propane) meeting the current or adopted standard levels is not available for all equipment classes, due to the limited use of CO
2
as a refrigerant to date and the fact that propane has only recently been approved for use in BVM applications. 80 FR 19454, 19491 (April 10, 2015).
However, DOE notes that Class B beverage vending machines using CO
2
are currently available. In addition, Class A and Class B equipment that meets the new and amended standard levels is currently available, although such equipment may not use refrigerants that will be acceptable under EPA SNAP at the time of compliance with these new and amended standards. While DOE acknowledges that industry experience with SNAP-compliant refrigerants is limited, DOE believes that the existing industry experience in improving the efficiency of R-134a-based equipment is applicable and transferable to equipment using CO
2
or propane as a refrigerant. DOE has addressed the technical feasibility and economic implications of meeting the new and amended standard levels utilizing CO
2
and propane refrigerants in the analyses presented in this final rule, and based on these analyses, DOE has concluded that the benefits of the new and amended standards to the nation (energy savings, positive NPV of customer benefits, customer LCC savings, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers).
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards. However, DOE concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE received in response to the 2015 BVM energy conservation standards notice of proposed rulemaking (2015 BVM ECS NOPR) and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE is adopting MDEC levels, in terms of kWh/day, that are less-stringent than the new and amended standards proposed in the NOPR and represent the standard levels resulting in the maximum economic benefits for the nation.
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 amended and new standards for beverage vending machines.
A. Authority
Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (codified as 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered products”), which includes the beverage vending machines that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6291(40)) As part of this program, EPCA directed DOE to prescribe energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v)) In addition, under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), DOE must periodically review its established energy conservation standards for the covered equipment. This final rule fulfills these statutory requirements.
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered
equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Secretary or the Federal Trade Commission, as appropriate, may prescribe labeling requirements for beverage vending machines. (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5)(A)) Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
DOE updated its test procedure for beverage vending machines in a final rule published July 31, 2015 (2015 BVM test procedure final rule). 80 FR 45758. In the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule, DOE adopted several amendments and clarifications to the DOE test procedure in appendix A and appendix B of subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431. As specified in the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule, manufacturers of beverage vending machines are required to use appendix B to demonstrate compliance with any new and amended energy conservation standards adopted as a result of this rulemaking.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including beverage vending machines. Any new or amended standard for a covered piece of equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain equipment, including beverage vending machines, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B))
In deciding whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory 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 standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely to result from 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 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))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a piece of equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) 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))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered equipment type. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that equipment within such group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for certain equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Id.
Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) In this final rule, DOE is prescribing energy conservation standards for different classes of beverage vending machines and DOE's basis for establishing such separate classes is discussed in this final rule.
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
Finally, pursuant to EPCA any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, must address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for any covered equipment after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into the standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B))
DOE reviewed the operating modes available for beverage vending machines and determined that this equipment does not have operating modes that meet the definition of standby mode or off mode, as established at 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3). Specifically, beverage
vending machines are typically always providing at least one main function—refrigeration. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)) DOE recognizes that in a unique equipment design, the low power mode includes disabling the refrigeration system, while for other equipment the low power mode controls only elevate the thermostat set point. Because low power modes still include some amount of refrigeration for the vast majority of equipment, DOE believes that such a mode does not constitute a “standby mode,” as defined by EPCA, for beverage vending machines. Therefore, DOE believes that beverage vending machines do not operate under standby and off mode conditions as defined in EPCA, and that the energy use of a beverage vending machine is captured in any standard established for active mode energy use. As such, the new and amended energy conservation standards adopted in this final rule do not specifically address standby mode or off mode energy consumption for the equipment.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on August 31, 2009 (henceforth referred to as the 2009 BVM final rule), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines. 74 FR 44914 (Aug. 31, 2009). The 2009 BVM final rule established energy conservation standards for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines, with a compliance date of August 31, 2012, as shown in Table II.1. DOE also established a class of combination machines, but did not set standards for combination machines, instead reserving a place for possible development of future standards for that equipment.
Table II.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Beverage Vending Machines, Prescribed by the 2009 BVM Final Rule—Compliance Date August 31, 2012
Class
Definition
Maximum daily energy consumption
A
Class A means a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is fully cooled, and is not a combination vending machine
0.055 × V + 2.56.
B
Class B means any refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine not considered to be Class A, and is not a combination vending machine
0.073 × V + 3.16.
Combination
Combination means a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine that also has non-refrigerated volumes for the purpose of vending other, non-“sealed beverage” merchandise
[reserved].
The 2009 BVM final rule document is currently available at
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0125-0005
.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Beverage Vending Machines
EPCA directed the Secretary to issue, by rule, no later than August 8, 2009, energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (v)) On August 31, 2009, DOE issued a final rule establishing performance standards for beverage vending machines to complete the first required rulemaking cycle. 74 FR 44914.
DOE conducted this energy conservation standards rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), which requires that within 6 years of issuing any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE shall publish either a notice of determination that amended standards are not needed or a NOPR proposing amended standards.
In initiating this rulemaking, DOE prepared a framework document, “Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines” (framework document), which describes the procedural and analytical approaches DOE anticipates using to evaluate energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines. DOE published a notice that announced both the availability of the framework document and a public meeting to discuss the proposed analytical framework for the rulemaking. That notice also invited written comments from the public. 78 FR 33262 (June 4, 2013). That document is available at
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022
.
DOE held the framework public meeting on June 20, 2013, at which it (1) presented the contents of the framework document; (2) described the various analyses DOE 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) Equipment classes, (2) analytical approaches and methods used in the rulemaking; (3) impact of standards and burden on manufacturers; (5) technology options; (6) distribution channels and shipments; (7) impacts of outside regulations; and (8) environmental issues. At the meeting and during the comment period on the framework document, DOE received many comments that helped it identify and resolve issues pertaining to beverage vending machines relevant to this rulemaking.
DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary analyses to help review standards for this equipment. DOE published a notice to announce the availability of the preliminary analysis TSD and a public meeting to discuss the preliminary analysis results. 79 FR 46379 (Aug. 8, 2014). In the preliminary analysis, DOE discussed and requested comment on the tools and methods DOE used in performing its preliminary analysis, as well as analyses results. DOE also sought comments concerning other relevant issues that could affect potential amended standards for beverage vending machines.
Id.
The preliminary analysis provided an overview of DOE's technical and economic analyses supporting new and amended standards for beverage vending machines, discussed the comments DOE received in response to the framework document, and addressed issues raised by those comments. The preliminary analysis TSD also described the analytical framework that DOE used (and continues to use) in considering new and amended standards for beverage vending machines, including a description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships between the various analyses that are
part of this rulemaking. Additionally, the preliminary analysis TSD presented in detail each analysis that DOE had performed for this equipment up to that point, including descriptions of inputs, data sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses included (1) the market and technology assessment, (2) the screening analysis, (3) the engineering analysis, (4) the energy use analysis, (5) the markups analysis, (6) the LCC analysis, (7) the PBP analysis, (8) the shipments analysis, (9) the national impact analysis (NIA), and (10) a preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA).
The preliminary TSD that presents the methodology and results of each of these analyses is available at
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022
. In this final rule, DOE is presenting additional and revised analysis in all of these areas.
The public meeting to review the preliminary analysis took place on September 16, 2014 (preliminary analysis public meeting). At the preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses prescribed in the preliminary analysis TSD. Comments received in response to the preliminary analysis helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the preliminary analyses and helped refine the analyses for beverage vending machines.
DOE presented its updated analyses and proposed new and amended standard levels in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, which DOE published on August 19, 2015. 80 FR 50462 (Aug. 19, 2015). On September 29, 2015, DOE held a public meeting to discuss the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR and request comments on DOE's proposal (BVM ECS NOPR public meeting). DOE received multiple comments from interested parties and considered these comments in the preparation of the final rule. In response to DOE's 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, several interested parties requested additional time to prepare their written comments. (AMS, No. 45 at p. 1; NAMA, No. 44 at p. 1; Royal Vendors, No. 46 at p. 1; and Coca-Cola, No. 49 at p. 1).
18
To accommodate this request, DOE issued a notice to reopen the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR comment period on October 23, 2015 until November 23, 2015. 80 FR 64370 (Oct. 23, 2015). Relevant comments received during both comment periods and the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting, as well as DOE's responses, are provided throughout this document.
18
DOE will identify comments received in response to the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR and placed in Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022 by the commenter, the number of document as listed in the docket maintained at
www.regulations.gov
, and the page number of that document where the comment appears (for example: Coca-Cola, No. 52 at p. 2). If a comment was made verbally during the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting, DOE will also specifically identify those as being located in the NOPR public meeting transcript (for example: Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 184).
III. General Discussion
DOE is amending standards for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. DOE is also amending the definition for Class A equipment to more unambiguously differentiate Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. In addition, DOE is amending the definition of combination vending machine, creating two classes of combination vending machine equipment, and promulgating standards for those classes. In the subsequent sections, DOE discusses the scope of coverage, test procedure, compliance dates, technical feasibility, energy savings, and economic justification of the new and amended standards.
A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
EPCA defines a beverage vending machine as “a commercial refrigerator
19
that cools bottled or canned beverages and dispenses the bottled or canned beverages on payment.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(40))
19
EPCA defines commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer as “refrigeration equipment that—
(i) is not a consumer product (as defined in section 6291 of this title);
(ii) is not designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes;
(iii) operates at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and frozen, or variable temperature;
(iv) displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials horizontally, semivertically, or vertically;
(v) has transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no doors;
(vi) is designed for pull-down temperature applications or holding temperature applications; and
(vii) is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote condensing unit.” 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A).
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justify differing standards, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the customer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
In the 2009 BVM final rule, DOE determined that unique energy conservation standards were warranted for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines and added the following definitions to 10 CFR 431.292 to differentiate such equipment:
Class A
means a beverage vending machine that is fully cooled, and is not a combination vending machine.
Class B
means any beverage vending machine not considered to be Class A, and is not a combination vending machine.
74 FR 44914, 44967 (Aug. 31, 2009).
DOE differentiated Class A and Class B beverage vending machines based on whether the refrigerated volume (V) of equipment was fully cooled, as DOE determined that this was the most significant criteria affecting energy consumption.
Id.
at 44924.
The 2009 BVM final rule also established a definition for combination vending machine at 10 CFR 431.292.
Combination vending machine
means a beverage vending machine that also has non-refrigerated volumes for the purpose of vending other, non-“sealed beverage” merchandise.
74 FR 44914, 44967 (Aug. 31, 2009).
DOE considered the definition of beverage vending machine broad enough to include any vending machine that cools at least one bottled or canned beverage and dispenses it upon payment. DOE elected to establish combination machines as a separate equipment class because such machines may be challenged by component availability and such machines have a distinct utility that limits their energy efficiency improvement potential compared to Class A and B beverage vending machines. However, DOE did not establish standards for combination machines in the 2009 BVM final rule.
Id.
at 44920.
While DOE's existing definitions of Class A and Class B equipment distinguish equipment based on whether or not the refrigerated volume is “fully cooled,” DOE regulations have never defined the term “fully cooled.” In the framework document, DOE suggested a definition for “fully cooled” and further refined that definition in the BVM test procedure NOPR DOE published on Aug. 11, 2014 (2014 BVM test procedure NOPR). 79 FR 46908, 46934. In response to comments received on both the framework document and 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to modify the definition of Class A to more unambiguously differentiate Class A and Class B equipment. In this final rule, DOE is using the presence of a transparent front on Class A beverage
vending machines as a key distinguishing characteristic between Class A and Class B equipment and is adopting this distinction as part of the Class A equipment class definition.
In this final rule, DOE is also amending the definition of combination vending machine to better align with industry definitions and provide more clarity regarding the physical characteristics of the “refrigerated” and “non-refrigerated” volumes, or compartments. In addition, DOE is creating two classes of combination vending machines, Combination A and Combination B, to differentiate combination vending machines based on criteria similar to those used to distinguish Class A and Class B beverage vending machines (
i.e.,
the presence of a transparent front). See section IV.A.1 of this final rule for more discussion on the equipment classes addressed in this final rule.
B. Test Procedure
The estimates of energy use and energy saving potential presented in the final rule analysis are based on the performance of beverage vending machines when tested in accordance with appendix B of the recently amended DOE BVM test procedure located at 10 CFR 431.294. (See sections IV.B, IV.C, and IV.E of this final rule for more discussion.) On July 31, 2015, DOE published the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule, which amended DOE's test procedure for beverage vending machines. 80 FR 45758. In the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule, DOE adopted several minor amendments to clarify DOE's test procedure for beverage vending machines and also adopted several amendments related to the impact of low power modes on the measured daily energy consumption of BVM models.
Id.
DOE also reorganized the DOE test procedure into two new appendices, appendix A and appendix B to subpart Q to part 431 of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations,
and adopted a minor change to the certification and reporting requirements for beverage vending machines at 10 CFR 429.52(b)(2) and 10 CFR 431.296.
The DOE BVM test procedure, as amended, incorporates by reference American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 32.1-2010 to describe the measurement equipment, test conditions, and test protocol applicable to testing beverage vending machines. DOE's test procedure also specifies that the measurement of “refrigerated volume” of beverage vending machines must be in accordance with the methodology specified in Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010.
In the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule, DOE also adopted several new clarifying amendments including:
(1) eliminating testing at the 90 °F ambient test condition,
(2) clarifying the test procedure for combination vending machines,
(3) clarifying the requirements for loading BVM models under the DOE test procedure,
(4) clarifying the specifications of the standard product,
(5) clarifying the next-to-vend beverage temperature test condition,
(6) specifying placement of thermocouples during the DOE test procedure,
(7) establishing testing provisions at the lowest application product temperature, and
(8) clarifying the treatment of certain accessories when conducting the DOE test procedure.
These test procedure amendments are all reflected in DOE's new appendix A, which became effective August 31, 2015 and must be used, beginning January 27, 2016, by manufacturers for representations and to demonstrate compliance with the BVM energy conservation standards adopted in the 2009 BVM final rule, for which compliance was required as of August 31, 2012. 80 FR 45758 (July 31, 2015). DOE also adopted amended language at 10 CFR 429.52(b) and 10 CFR 431.296 clarifying the certification and reporting requirements for beverage vending machines, which also became effective August 31, 2015.
Id.
at 45787.
Appendix B includes all provisions in appendix A, as well as, provisions for testing low power modes. The test procedure found in appendix B is to be used in conjunction with the new and amended standards established as a result of this final rule. As such, manufacturers are not required to use appendix B until the compliance date of the new and amended standards established in this final rule.
Id.
During the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting and subsequent comment period, several interested parties commented about DOE's updated BVM test procedure and how equipment are currently tested in the industry. ASAP commented in the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting that there may be potential ambiguity in the BVM test procedure DOE adopted in 2006 (71 FR 71340 (Dec. 8, 2006)) with regard to lighting low power modes in that some machines may have shown artificially lower energy consumption under this test procedure due to lighting controls automatically turning off the lights when no one is in the test room. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 67) Royal Vendors and SandenVendo America (SVA) commented that the current standard is achievable without the use of low power modes and that they test all of their equipment without low power modes enabled, and do not include payment systems in their reported energy consumption. (Royal Vendors, No. 54 at p. 4; SVA, No. 53 at p. 2) The National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) also commented that at least one manufacturer has achieved the current standard level without the use of energy management systems, and that reported energy consumption currently does not include payment systems. NAMA additionally urged DOE to allow energy management systems to be enabled during testing. (NAMA, No. 50 at p. 5) In its written comments, NAMA requested that DOE review the European Vending Association's Energy Management Protocol Program and stated that it may provide additional guidance related to the testing of beverage vending machines in Europe that may be applicable to the United States (NAMA, No. 50 at p. 14)
Automated Merchandising Systems (AMS) commented that the revised test procedure would adversely affect the daily energy consumption (DEC) even though performance has not changed. (AMS, No. 57 at p. 2) Specifically, SVA commented that including payment systems in reported energy consumption effectively lowers the allowable DEC by 0.2 kWh/day, which would account for over 9 percent of allowable energy consumption for Class A and 6 percent for Class B. (SVA, No. 53 at p. 4) SVA stated in written comments that the inclusion of payment systems in the reported energy consumption under the new test procedure would make it difficult to meet the current standard. (SVA, No. 53 at p. 2) Similarly, Coca-Cola and Royal Vendors stated that allowances for low power states are offset by the inclusion of payment systems in the reported energy consumption under the new test procedure. (Coca-Cola, No. 52 at p. 3; Royal Vendors, No. 54 at p. 1)
DOE recognizes that the previous DOE BVM test procedure adopted in DOE's 2006 test procedure final rule (71 FR 71340 (Dec. 8, 2006)) may have allowed for misinterpretation of some aspects of DOE's test procedure methodology. However, the clarifications and amendments recently adopted in appendix A of the DOE BVM test procedure seeks to unambiguously
clarify how BVM equipment should be configured and tested in accordance with the DOE BVM test procedure. 80 FR 45758, 45760 (July 31, 2015). Specifically, related to lighting controls, appendix A requires that all lights be in the “on” state for the full duration of the test. However, appendix B, which is required for demonstrating compliance with the energy conservation standards adopted in this final rule, allows lighting and other accessories that are controlled by an accessory low power mode to be turned off (by the accessory low power mode) for a period of 6 hours. DOE believes this accurately represents the impact of accessory low power modes on BVM DEC. Regarding the energy consumption and configuration of payment mechanisms when testing beverage vending machines, DOE clarified in the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule that energy consumed by BVM payment systems should be included in the measured energy consumption of this equipment under both appendix A and appendix B.
In the analysis supporting this final rule, DOE has analyzed equipment under appendix B, which accounts for the use of accessory and refrigeration low power modes. DOE's analysis also assumes the energy consumption of payment mechanisms are accounted for in the DEC of BVM equipment. DOE recognizes that some test procedure amendments included in appendix B, such as those addressing accessory and lighting low power modes, may change the measured energy consumption of covered equipment. As such, as stated in the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule, use of appendix B is only permitted to demonstrate compliance with the new and amended standards adopted in this final rule. 80 FR 45758, 45760-45761. DOE notes that, on the effective date of this BVM ECS final rule, manufacturers may elect to begin using the appendix B test procedure prior to the compliance date, provided they use the results of such testing to demonstrate compliance with the new and amended standards adopted in this final rule. Manufacturers may not use the results of testing under appendix B to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards adopted in the 2009 BVM final rule.
20
20
See DOE's test procedure guidance on this topic at
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/tp_earlyuse_faq_2014-8-25.pdf.
In response to NAMA's comment requesting that DOE allow for the use of energy management systems during testing, DOE notes that the revised DOE BVM test procedure now allows for the use of lighting and refrigeration low power states. In response to NAMA's suggestion that DOE consult the European Vending Association's Energy Management Protocol Program, DOE appreciates the suggestion from NAMA, but notes that DOE has already clarified the appropriate configuration and use of energy management systems when testing in accordance with the DOE BVM test procedure in the recently published 2015 BVM test procedure final rule. 80 FR 45758. DOE also notes that EPCA requires that the DOE BVM test procedure for beverage vending machines shall be based on ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, entitled “Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned or Other Sealed Beverages.” 42 U.S.C. 6395(15)
C. Compliance Dates
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(v)(3), the new and amended standards in this final rule will apply to equipment manufactured beginning on January 8, 2019, 3 years after the publication date of this final rule in the
Federal Register
. In its analysis, DOE used a 30-year analysis period of 2019-2048.
In written comments submitted in response to the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, Coca-Cola, NAMA, Royal Vendors, and the American Beverage Association (ABA) requested that the compliance date for DOE's proposed standards be delayed until 2022, 3 years after the compliance date for the new EPA SNAP Rules 19 and 20, which list as acceptable the use of CO
2
, propane, and isobutane refrigerants (80 FR 19454, 19491 (April 10, 2015)) and phase out the use of R-134a refrigerant for BVM applications (80 FR 42870, 42917-42920 (July 20, 2015)), respectively. (Coca-Cola, No. 52 at p. 1; NAMA, No. 50 at p. 2; Royal Vendors, No. 54 at p. 2; ABA No. 63 at p. 3) During the written comment period following the publication of the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, DOE also received 1,140 identical form letters (hereafter referred to as the Form Letters) from interested parties (the Form Letter Writers) regarding several aspects of DOE's proposal. In the Form Letter, commenters echoed the request for an extension of the compliance date to 2022. (The Form Letter Writers, No. 64 and 65 at p. 1)
In response to the request for an alternative compliance date for the new and amended BVM standards established as a result of this rulemaking, DOE notes that it does not have the discretion to deviate from the compliance period for beverage vending machines established under EPCA. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(v), any energy conservation standard prescribed for beverage vending machines “shall apply to [equipment] manufactured 3 years after the date of publication of a final rule establishing the energy conservation standard.” As such, DOE is not authorized to accommodate the request of commenters and maintains that compliance of the new and amended standards adopted in this final rule is required beginning 3 years after the publication date of this final rule in the
Federal Register
, or on January 8, 2019.
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on equipment 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). Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain efficiency level. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for beverage vending machines, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standard levels considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.
In response to the proposed standard levels in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, DOE received several comments regarding the technological feasibility of those proposed standard levels. In written
comments, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) (herein referred to as the Energy Efficiency Advocates Joint Commenters, or EEA Joint Commenters) submitted a joint comment ((herein referred to as the EEA Joint Comment) expressing support for DOE's proposed standards. (EEA Joint Commenters, No. 56 at p. 1) Conversely, in the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting and in written comments, NAMA, SVA, Coca-Cola, Royal Vendors, AMS, Seaga Manufacturing (Seaga), and the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy (SBA Advocacy) all stated that DOE's proposed standards were too aggressive, especially in light of EPA SNAP regulations concurrent with DOE's rulemaking. (NAMA, No. 50 at p. 1; SVA, No. 53 at p. 10; Coca-Cola, No. 52 at p. 1; Royal Vendors, AMS, and Seaga, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 175, 177; SBA Advocacy, No. 61 at p. 3) ABA requested that DOE coordinate with EPA to ensure the proposed standards are technologically and economically feasible relative to ENERGY STAR equipment specifications. (ABA, No. 63 at p. 3) The European Vending Association stated that adopting a standard more stringent than ENERGY STAR was not justifiable in Europe and it would not be feasible for DOE to adopt more stringent standards (EVA, No. 60 at p. 1) NAMA, SVA, and SBA Advocacy stated that the proposed standards are not technologically feasible or economically justified and will cause substantial negative impacts on the industry if enacted. (NAMA, No. 50 at p. 1; SVA, No. 53 at p. 10; SBA Advocacy, No. 61 at p. 3) AMS, SVA, and Royal Vendors stated in the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting and in written comments that compliance with DOE's proposed standards is unattainable, and Royal Vendors added that compliance would require cutting 1 kWh/day from its Class A machines and 1.5 kWh/day from its Class B machines. (AMS, SVA, and Royal Vendors, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 175; Royal Vendors, No. 54 at p. 1)
In the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting, Coca-Cola inquired about the manufacturer of the CO
2
unit that DOE examined and found to meet the 2009 standard, and expressed doubt that an existing CO
2
machine would be able to meet the proposed standard. (Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 96-101) Similarly, SVA and SBA Advocacy expressed agreement that the current standards could be met using any refrigerant but disagreement that the efficiency levels in the NOPR TSD could be met. (SVA, No. 53 at p. 3; SBA Advocacy, No. 61 at p. 3) SVA additionally expressed disagreement with DOE's assumption that all baseline Class A and Class B propane equipment and Class A CO
2
equipment would be able to meet EL1 because it believes many of DOE's proposed design options have already been implemented to meet the 2009 standard. (SVA, No. 53 at p. 7) AMS commented that it would not be able to meet even the 2009 standard for class A with CO
2
refrigerant, and further stated that it might be possible to meet trial standard level (TSL) 1 for Class A with substantial design changes. AMS additionally commented that it may be possible for it to meet TSL 2 for Combination A equipment using CO
2
and TSL 3 with propane with substantial design changes. (AMS, No. 57 at p. 4) In written comments, the Form Letter Writers stated DOE has not provided proof that CO
2
machines meeting the proposed standards are already available. (The Form Letter Writers, No. 64 and 65 at p. 1) Further, in the Form Letters, commenters stated the combination vending machines have not been tested to the proposed standard. (The Form Letter Writers, No. 64 and 65 at p. 1)
In the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting, SVA stated that the proposed standards do not leave room for any new or innovative features which consume energy. (SVA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 174) In its written comment, Coca-Cola stated that the proposed standards would make it difficult for suppliers to offer equipment with display panels for equipment interaction, video content, or advertising, and would therefore reduce utility of the equipment. (Coca-Cola, No. 52 at p. 4)
DOE appreciates the support for DOE's proposed standard levels from the EEA Joint Commenters. Regarding the concerns raised by Coca-Cola, NAMA, Royal Vendors, AMS, Seaga, and SBA Advocacy DOE has revised its engineering and economic analyses based on the specific feedback of interested parties. DOE believes that its analyses accurately reflect the capabilities of existing current equipment designs and component design options. Specifically, DOE compared its engineering outputs to empirical DEC data gathered from the units that DOE selected for testing and teardowns, as well as to certified DEC data included in the Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) and ENERGY STAR® directories in order to confirm the validity and accuracy of its engineering analysis inputs and results. Chapter 3 of the final rule TSD contains plots of the relevant ENERGY STAR and CCMS certification data, while Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD discusses DOE's methodology in selecting units for testing and teardown.
DOE also revised certain assumptions regarding the cost of more-efficient components and the cost to maintain, repair, and/or replace those more-efficient components to better reflect the BVM market today and throughout the analysis period. Component costs, as well as maintenance, repair, and replacement costs are discussed in chapters 5 and 8 of the final rule TSD, respectively. Based on these revised analyses, DOE is adopting in this final rule new and amended standards for beverage vending machines that are less stringent than the MDEC levels proposed in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR. As discussed further in section V, the MDEC levels adopted in this final rule represent the standard levels for each equipment class with the maximum net benefits for the nation. DOE's engineering and economic analyses presented in this final rule represent the best available data on BVM performance and costs and include substantial input from interested parties received throughout the course of the rulemaking. As such, DOE believes the MDEC standard levels adopted in this final rule are technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE also analyzed these adopted standard levels against the reported and tested DEC values of currently available equipment and notes that there are several models of Class A and Class B equipment that would meet the amended MDEC levels under either appendix A or appendix B (that is, with or without low power modes employed). While DOE acknowledges that not all of these models use refrigerants that will be required in 2019 when compliance with the amended standards is required, DOE notes that at least one BVM model using CO
2
as a refrigerant are listed in the ENERGY STAR database that comply with the amended MDEC standard for Class B equipment adopted in this final rule.
In response to ABA and EVA's comments suggesting that DOE coordinate with ENERGY STAR and highlighting the technological feasibility of the ENERGY STAR standard levels, DOE notes that DOE coordinates closely with EPA's ENERGY STAR program. Regarding the technological feasibility of the new and amended standards
adopted in this final rule as compared to ENERGY STAR levels, DOE is obligated to adopt the standard levels that represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, subject to specific criteria established by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2) and (3)(B)) DOE specifically analyzed the technological feasibility and economic benefits of the current ENERGY STAR levels for Class A and Class B equipment (and comparable levels for Combination equipment) as TSL 1. DOE's analysis considers only those technology options considered to be technologically feasible, as discussed in section III.D.2 and IV.B. Therefore, by definition, all ELs and TSLs analyzed by DOE represent technologically feasible energy consumption levels for beverage vending machines. Based on DOE's analysis, as discussed further in section V.B, DOE found TSL 3 to result in the maximum economic benefits for the nation. Therefore, while the current ENERGY STAR are also technologically feasible, TSL 3 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, based on DOE's analysis.
In response to the Form Letter Writers statement that DOE has not provided proof that CO
2
machines meeting the proposed standards are already available, DOE recognizes that there was a statement in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR that may have been misinterpreted by some to indicate that Class B equipment using CO
2
as a refrigerant was available that met the standard level proposed in the NOPR. Specifically, in both the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR public meeting and in written comments, Coca-Cola stated that it does not believe that there is a beverage vending machine with a CO
2
refrigeration system that is capable of meeting the proposed standards, even with credits for low power modes. (Coca-Cola, No. 52 at p. 2; Coca-Cola, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 184) In this final rule, DOE clarifies that the sentence in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR was intended to read “Class B equipment that utilizes CO
2
as a refrigerant and Class B equipment that meets the proposed standard level is currently available.” 80 FR 50462, 50467 (August 19, 2015). However, regarding the standard adopted in this final rule, DOE reiterates that at least one BVM model using CO
2
refrigerant is listed in the ENERGY STAR data base that meets the amended Class B standard level, and it is possible that additional units would meet the amended standard level when tested until the new appendix B test procedure adopted in the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule. 80 FR 45758 (July 31, 2015). BVM models of Class A and combination equipment using CO
2
refrigerant have not yet been developed, so a similar comparison is not possible.
In response to commenters concerns regarding combination equipment, DOE notes that combination equipment manufacturers are currently not required to report their DEC or comply with any energy conservation standards and, as such, DOE does not have the data that would be needed to perform a similar comparative analysis of the analytically-determined performance levels from the engineering analysis versus certification or testing data. However, DOE notes that the design options that DOE modeled in the engineering analysis as included at the adopted standard levels for Combination A and Combination B equipment are commonly available technologies that are also included in the packages of design options analyzed at the amended standard levels for Class A and B. That is, DOE believes that all Combination A and Combination B equipment should be able to meet the new energy conservation standard levels using the same technology options and equipment designs that would be employed by Class A and Class B equipment in meeting the amended standard levels adopted for the equipment. This determination was made based on an assessment of the commonalities in design present between the analogous classes, for example the presence of a transparent front and lighting in Class A and Combination A machines, and the use of a fully insulated cabinet and zone cooling in Class B and Combination B machines. A full discussion of DOE's analysis of the performance potential of combination vending machines is contained in Chapter 5 of the TSD.
In response to SVA and Coca-Cola's concerns regarding the ability of BVM models that feature digital display screens or other innovative, interactive designs, DOE notes that compliance with the new and amended standards is assessed based on the tested DEC, as measured in accordance with appendix B of the recently updated DOE BVM test procedure (80 FR 45758 (July 31, 2015)), and appropriate sampling plans (10 CFR 429.52(a)). In both appendix A and appendix B of the recently amended DOE BVM test procedure, DOE adopted specific provisions clarifying the configuration of BVM models featuring external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens, among other accessories and components. 80 FR 45758, 45778-45780 (July 31, 2015). Specifically, the DOE BVM test procedure specifies that external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens should be de-energized or, if they cannot be de-energized without impacting the primary functionality of the equipment, placed in the external accessory standby mode (if available) or the lowest energy consuming state (if no external accessory standby mode is available) that maintains such functionality. 10 CFR 431.292. As the incremental energy consumption of display signs and digital screens referred to by Coca-Cola and SVA potentially are not included in the measured DEC for such BVM models, DOE does not believe that innovation of manufacturers to include such features and accessories will be affected by the newly adopted test procedure or the standard levels adopted in this final rule. If any BVM manufacturers produce a BVM model with any features or accessories that cannot be accommodated by the DOE BVM test procedure or believe that application of the DOE BVM test procedure would produce results that are not adequately representative of the energy consumption of the equipment, the manufacturer of that equipment may submit a petition for a test procedure waiver in accordance with the provisions in 10 CFR 431.401.
21
21
DOE issued a final rule amending its regulations governing petitions for waiver and interim waiver from DOE test procedures for consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment. 79 FR 26591 (May 9, 2014). This final rule became effective on June 9, 2014.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such equipment. (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 beverage vending machines, using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section III.D.2 of this final rule and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to beverage vending machines purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with any new and amended standards (2019-2048).
22
The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for the equipment would likely evolve in the absence of new and amended energy conservation standards.
22
Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each equipment class. The TSL considered for this final rule are described in section V.A. DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for equipment shipped in a 9-year period.
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate energy savings from new and amended standards for beverage vending machines. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where they are used. Based on the site energy, DOE calculates national energy savings (NES) in terms of primary energy savings at the site or at power plants, and also in terms of full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (
i.e.,
coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
23
DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
23
The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt standards for any covered equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in “significant” energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Natural Resources Defense Council
v.
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 all the TSLs considered in this rulemaking, including the adopted standards, are nontrivial; therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted above, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Customers
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include: (1) The INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual customers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For customers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national NPV of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of customers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider 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 of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment that are likely to result from a 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 a piece of equipment and the operating cost (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for customers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes customers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient piece of equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumed that customers will purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of customers estimated to experience an LCC increase, as well as calculates the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses are discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project NES.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
In establishing equipment classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) DOE determined based on the data available that the standards adopted in this final rule will not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General that is likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE transmitted a copy of its proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE received no adverse comments from DOJ regarding the proposed rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
The adopted standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this final rule; the emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent interested parties submit any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described above, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA sets forth a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the customer of a piece of equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect the new and amended energy conservation standards have on the PBP for customers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to customers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F of this final rule.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to beverage vending machines. Each component of DOE's analysis is discussed in the following subsections, and DOE summarizes and responds to associated comments received in response to the NOPR.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments forecasts and calculates NES and NPV of total customer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE Web site for this rulemaking:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/73
. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of EIA's
AEO,
a widely known energy forecast for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information.
DOE reviewed relevant literature and interviewed manufacturers to develop an overall picture of the BVM market in the United States. Industry publications, trade journals, government agencies, and trade organizations provided the bulk of the information, including (1) manufacturers and their market shares, (2) shipments by equipment type, (3) detailed equipment information, (4) industry trends, and (5) existing regulatory and non-regulatory equipment efficiency improvement initiatives. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized below. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes
In this final rule, DOE is amending the energy conservation standards established by the 2009 BVM final rule for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. DOE believes that Class A and Class B equipment classes continue to provide distinct utility to customers and have different energy profiles and applicable design options, as described below. As such, DOE has determined that it is appropriate to
separately analyze and regulate Class A and Class B equipment. As noted previously, DOE is amending the definition for Class A equipment to more clearly and unambiguously describe the equipment characteristics that distinguishing Class A from Class B equipment. Specifically, DOE distinguishes Class A equipment from Class B equipment based on the presence of a transparent front. DOE is also amending the definition of combination vending machine to better align with industry definitions and provide more clarity regarding the physical characteristics of the “refrigerated” and “non-refrigerated” volumes, or compartments.
24
In addition, DOE is defining two new equipment classes, Combination A and Combination B, as well as establishing new energy conservation standards for those equipment classes. In the 2009 BVM final rule, DOE also established a definition for combination vending machines but elected not to set standards for them at that time. 74 FR 44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009). In considering standards for combination vending machines as part of this rulemaking, DOE determined that the presence of a transparent front is an important differentiating feature for combination equipment, similar to Class A and Class B beverage vending machines.
24
The definition of combination vending machine established by DOE in the 2009 BVM final rule referenced the presence of “non-refrigerated volumes” to differentiate combination vending machines from other styles of beverage vending machines. In the amended definition for combination vending machine, DOE is referring instead to “compartments,” which DOE believes captures the same intent as the term “volumes” in the previous definition, but better indicates that the “volumes” are to be physically separate.
Table IV.1 summarizes the new and amended definitions for the four equipment classes analyzed in this final rule. The definitions, as well as the general characteristics and differentiating features, of the four equipment classes adopted in this final rule are described in the following subsections of this document. In addition, the following subsections address any comments received from interested parties on DOE's proposed definitions presented in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR and DOE's response to those
comments.
25
DOE notes that in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, DOE proposed to the definition of Class A to include the term “combination beverage vending machine.” In this final rule, DOE is adopting a definition of Class A that, instead, references the term “combination vending machine,” as that is the defined term for combination equipment at 10 CFR 431.292. DOE notes that this minor editorial change does not affect the meaning or scope of the definition, just ensure consistency between all of the definition pertinent to the regulation of this equipment.
Table IV.1—Equipment Classes for Beverage Vending Machines
Class
Definition
A
A refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is not a combination vending machine and in which 25 percent or more of the surface area on the front side of the beverage vending machine is transparent.
25
B
Any refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is not considered to be Class A and is not a combination vending machine.
Combination A
A combination vending machine where 25 percent or more of the surface area on the front side of the beverage vending machine is transparent.
Combination B
A combination vending machine that is not considered to be Combination A.
a. Class A and Class B Beverage Vending Machines
Class A and Class B equipment are currently differentiated based on the cooling mechanism employed by the equipment. The distinguishing criterion between these two equipment classes is whether the equipment is fully cooled. 10 CFR 431.292.
When the definitions of Class A and Class B were established as part of the 2009 final rule, DOE did not define the term “fully cooled.” In the framework document, DOE suggested defining “fully cooled” to mean a beverage vending machine within which each item in the beverage vending machine is brought to and stored at temperatures that fall within ±2 °F of the average beverage temperature, which is the average of the temperatures of all the items in the next-to-vend position for each selection. 78 FR 33262 (June 4, 2013).
Throughout the course of this rulemaking and the parallel DOE BVM test procedure rulemaking, DOE has discussed and received comments on the most appropriate, clear, and unambiguous definitions for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines. Specifically, in the 2014 DOE BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to define “fully cooled” as “a condition in which the refrigeration system of a beverage vending machine cools product throughout the entire refrigerated volume of a machine instead of being directed at a fraction (or zone) of the refrigerated volume as measured by the average temperature of the standard test packages in the furthest from the next-to-vend positions being no more than 10 °F above the integrated average temperature of the standard test packages.” 79 FR 46908, 46934 (Aug. 11, 2014). To accompany DOE's proposed definition of “fully cooled,” the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR also proposed to adopt an optional test method that could be used to quantitatively differentiate between Class A and Class B equipment. 79 FR at 46917.
In response to the definition of “fully cooled” proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, several interested parties recommended that DOE consider an alternative differentiation between equipment types to better capture differences in energy consumption. In a joint comment submitted on behalf of the California investor-owned utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and Arizona Public Service (APS); hereafter referred to as CA IOUs) commenters suggested that the presence of a transparent or opaque front and/or the arrangement of products within the machine could be potential differentiating criteria that are more appropriate and consistent with the differentiation between equipment configurations applied in industry. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045, CA IOUs, No. 0005 at p. 1) SVA also supported this position. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045, SVA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at p. 52) Many interested parties also commented on the difficulty of establishing a quantitative temperature threshold to differentiate fully cooled equipment from non-fully cooled equipment that would be applicable across all BVM models. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
TP-0045, AMS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at p. 54; Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045, Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 4; Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045, Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 4; Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045, SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2; Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045, NEEA, No. 0009 at p. 1)
In light of the extent and scope of the comments received in response to the amendments proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR regarding the proposed definition of fully cooled, alternative criteria for differentiating Class A and Class B equipment, and the optional fully cooled verification test protocol, DOE wished to further consider potential classification options and criteria suggested by interested parties, as well as provide interested parties an additional opportunity to provide feedback on any proposals to amend the equipment class definitions. As such, DOE responded to the comments presented by interested parties in response to the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR and proposed an alternative approach to differentiate Class A and Class B equipment in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR. Specifically, in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the definition of Class A beverage vending machines to read as follows:
Class A
means a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is not a combination vending machine and in which 25 percent or more of the surface area on the front side of the beverage vending machine is transparent.
DOE did not propose in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR to substantively modify the definition of Class B, since Class B is defined as the mutually exclusive converse of Class A. However, DOE made a minor editorial change to include the term “that” to improve readability of the definition. 80 FR 50462, 50474-50475 (Aug. 19, 2015).
DOE also noted in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR that beverage vending machines with horizontal product rows are typically fully cooled and have a transparent front, while beverage vending machines with vertical product stacks are typically zone cooled and are fully opaque. DOE added that it is not aware of any instances of BVM models that are not fully cooled but which have a transparent front and/or horizontal product configuration or BVM models that are fully cooled but which have and opaque front and/or vertical stacks. Thus, DOE believed that, based on current equipment designs, using criteria of (a) whether the equipment is fully cooled, (b) whether the equipment has a transparent front, or (c) whether the product arrangement is horizontal or vertical, would result in virtually identical equipment categorization. Finally, DOE also noted that, since DOE's engineering analysis considers typical, representative equipment designs for each equipment class (see section IV.C), the cooling method, the presence of a transparent or opaque front,
26
and product arrangement are linked in DOE's engineering analysis, as shown in Table IV.2.
Id.
26
In this notice, DOE uses the terms “solid front,” “opaque front,” and “non-transparent” front interchangeably to refer to equipment that does not meet DOE's definition of Class A or Combination A. That is, equipment where greater than 75 percent of the material used to construct the front of the beverage vending machine does not meet the definition of “transparent” adopted in this final rule.
Table IV.2—Equipment Classes Design Parameters for Beverage Vending Machines Modeled in the Engineering Analysis
Class
Cooling method
Transparent or opaque front
Vendible product
orientation
A
Fully cooled
Transparent front
Horizontal product rows.
B
Zone cooled
Opaque front
Vertical product stacks.
Combination A
Fully cooled
Transparent front
Horizontal product rows.
Combination B
Zone cooled
Opaque front
Vertical product stacks.
In response to DOE's 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, NAMA and Royal Vendors, in their written comments, stated that the presence of a transparent front does not always correlate with fully-cooled equipment, and that at least one manufacturer has developed fully-cooled vending machines with solid fronts. (NAMA, No. 50 at p. 3; Royal Vendors, No. 54 at p. 3) SVA expressed disagreement with DOE's proposed definition of Class A equipment because it stated that not all fully-cooled beverage vending machines have a transparent panel and that this may discourage the production of Class B equipment due to the more stringent proposed standards for Class B. (SVA, No. 53 at p. 1) AMS stated that the presence of a transparent front does not necessarily reflect the design intent or energy consumption characteristics of the machine (AMS, No. 57 at p. 2)
NAMA also expressed concern that the transparency requirement excludes the use of digital video display screens in Class A equipment (NAMA, No. 50 at p. 3) SVA agreed with NAMA and expressed its belief that vending machines with digital video display screens should be considered as Class A instead of Class B equipment (SVA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 19) Conversely, the CA IOUs expressed their belief that equipment with transparent and opaque video screen fronts should be regulated as separate equipment classes, with non-transparent screens classified as Class B and transparent screens classified as Class A. (CA IOUs, No. 58 at p. 1)
In determining the best way to clarify the differentiation of Class A and Class B equipment, DOE considered all comments submitted by interested parties, as well as the manner in which equipment is currently categorized by DOE and industry. It is DOE's continued understanding that the cooling method is significantly correlated with the product configuration and presence of a transparent front. Therefore, differentiating Class A and Class B equipment based on either the product's configuration or the transparency of the front side of the BVM, rather than the cooling method, would preserve the same utility in each class of equipment. The presence of a transparent front provides a specific utility that allows a customer to view and select from all of the various next-to-vend product selections, which are all maintained at the appropriate vending temperature. In this manner, the presence of a transparent front is inherently related to the cooling method of a beverage vending machine (
i.e.,
whether or not the equipment is “fully cooled”). DOE acknowledges that there may be some fully cooled beverage vending machines that have an opaque front and, as such, will be subject to the energy conservation standard for Class B. For example, in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR,
DOE pointed to test data that demonstrated some equipment with opaque fronts and small refrigerated volumes experience temperature differentials of less than 2 °F between the next-to-vend and furthest from next-to-vend beverage locations and are, therefore, effectively “fully cooled.” 80 FR 50462, 50478 (Aug. 19, 2015). However, DOE believes that the Class B standards are more appropriate for such equipment because the insulating quality of the transparent versus non-transparent front has a larger impact on energy consumption than the cooling method.
DOE believes that the presence of a transparent front provides the customer with the specific utility of being able to see all the available the product selections and choose from the larger number of merchandise options that are provided by Class A equipment. In addition, DOE notes that the presence of a transparent material on the front side of a beverage vending machine has a larger impact on the energy consumption of a given beverage vending machine than the cooling method or equipment product arrangement. Thus, while DOE continues to believe that the presence of a transparent front, a “fully cooled” refrigerated volume, and horizontal product placement are all representative characteristics of most Class A equipment, DOE believes that defining equipment classes based on the feature that is most related to the unique utility and which has the largest impact on the energy use of the equipment is the most appropriate criterion to use to ensure that the utility provided by Class A equipment is maintained in the marketplace.
While DOE acknowledges that there may be some opaque front equipment that is fully cooled, DOE believes that it is more appropriate for such equipment to be treated as Class B. Because an opaque, insulated panel has significantly different heat transfer characteristics than a transparent glass front, a BVM model that is insulated on all six sides should use less energy than a similar BVM model with a transparent front. That is, DOE believes energy consumption and the presence of a transparent front are correlated.
DOE performed a sensitivity analysis using the engineering analysis spreadsheet to compare the impact of a transparent front versus solid front on DEC with the impact of a fully cooled refrigerated volume versus a zone cooled refrigerated volume on DEC. Specifically, DOE compared the analytically derived performance of two specific sets of representative units differing only in one design characteristic—either a transparent front or a fully cooled interior. That is, DOE modeled the following three BVM unit configurations:
(1) A BVM unit with a fully cooled refrigerated volume and a transparent front
(2) a BVM unit with a fully cooled refrigerated volume and a solid front
(3) a BVM unit with a zone cooled refrigerated volume and a transparent front.
DOE compared the modeled DEC of number 1) and number 2) to determine the impact of a transparent front and compared number 1) and number 3) to determine the impact of the cooling method. The results of this analysis indicated that the difference in energy consumption between a BVM model that has a transparent front as compared to a model that does not is greater than the difference in energy consumption between a BVM model that is fully cooled as compared to one that is not. Based on this analysis, DOE has determined that the presence of a transparent front is closely correlated to the utility associated with Class A equipment and directly corresponds to the energy consumption of the equipment. Because the cooling method and the presence of a glass or solid front are correlated in practice for the vast majority of equipment, DOE believes that clarifying DOE's equipment class definitions using the presence of a transparent front (an unambiguous equipment characteristic based on customer utility) will not result in significant changes to the classification of BVM models that are currently available on the market.
Similarly, regarding the treatment of digital screens, DOE agrees with CA IOUs that the transparency of BVM models equipped with digital screens should be ascertained as it is for BVM models with conventional glass or panel materials. That is, transparency should be determined for all the materials between the refrigerated volume and the ambient environment and only if the aggregate performance of all those materials yields a light transmittance of greater than or equal to 45 percent would that area be treated as transparent.
DOE believes that this is the most appropriate and reasonable treatment of equipment with digital screens because the energy consumption of BVM models with opaque digital screens is more similar to the energy consumption of BVM models with opaque, insulated fronts than to BVM models with transparent fronts. That is, as noted by SVA in the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting, the panel behind any external customer display signs or digital screens is typically insulated. (SVA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 24-25) DOE notes that external customer digital screens and customer display signs are not required to be energized during the testing of beverage vending machines, in accordance with the newly adopted BVM test procedure. 80 FR 45758, 45778-45780 (July 31, 2015). Accordingly, the energy consumption and heat transfer characteristics of a BVM model with an external, opaque digital screen is much more similar to the energy consumption and heat transfer characteristics of a BVM model with an opaque, insulated front than a BVM model with a transparent front.
Regarding equipment with transparent digital screens, DOE acknowledges the statement by CA IOUs that equipment with transparent display screens where all materials between the refrigerated space and external ambient environment meet the definition of transparent will be treated as part of the transparent surface area under DOE's definition. As such, equipment with large transparent display screens (such as, potentially, holograms projected onto glass) that still enabled the BVM user to see the refrigerated merchandise inside the BVM refrigerated compartment and constitute at least 25 percent of the front side of the beverage vending machine would be categorized as a Class A beverage vending machine. However, DOE notes that it is not aware of any such technology on the market today.
Consequently, in this final rule, DOE maintains that only BVM models where at least 25 percent of the surface area on the front side of the beverage vending machine is transparent, and that is not a combination vending machine, will be considered to be Class A. Conversely, if greater than 75 percent of the surface area on the front side of the beverage vending machine is not transparent, and the beverage vending machine is not a combination vending machine, then the beverage vending machine will be considered to be Class B. DOE notes that the amended Class A definition only considers transparent area on the front side of beverage vending machine and transparency must be determined for the entire panel, as described in section IV.A.1.c.
As interested parties did not suggest any alternative definitions or differentiating characteristics, DOE believes that modifying the definitions of Class A and Class B to rely on the presence of a transparent front allows for the most clear and unambiguous differentiation of equipment classes.
Further, DOE believes referencing the presence of a transparent front to identify Class A equipment generally aligns with DOE's and industry's interpretation of Class A machines to date. DOE notes that the amended Class A and Class B definitions are effective on the effective date of this final rule.
b. Combination Vending Machines
In the 2009 BVM final rule, DOE established a definition for combination vending machines (74 FR 44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009)). That definition describes a combination vending machine as a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage machine that also has non-refrigerated volumes for the purpose of vending other, non-“sealed beverage” merchandise. 10 CFR 431.292. However, the 2009 BVM final rule did not consider or differentiate equipment within the combination vending machine equipment category or address any specific criteria that could be used to differentiate “refrigerated” and “non-refrigerated.”
In its recent test procedure rulemaking, culminating in the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule, DOE considered the applicability of the combination vending machine definition to equipment designs it has encountered on the market, and considered stakeholder comments on the definition of “combination vending machine.” 80 FR 45758, 45765-45767 (July 31, 2015). In the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule, DOE clarified the test procedure for combination vending machines and noted that such equipment must include compartments that are physically separated, while acknowledging that some combination equipment designs may employ a common product delivery chute between the refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments for the purposes of delivering vendible merchandise to the customer. DOE also gave notice that it would seek to further clarify the definition of “combination vending machine” in this BVM energy conservation standard final rule.
Id.
at 45765-45767.
As such, in consideration of the input from various commenters throughout both the test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemaking processes, as well as of the range of equipment designs that DOE has observed for sale on the market, DOE proposed in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR an amended definition of “combination vending machine.” Specifically, DOE proposed to amend the definition of “combination vending machine” to more clearly and unambiguously establish the distinction between “refrigerated” and “non-refrigerated” compartments contained in a combination vending machine based on whether a compartment is designed to be refrigerated, as demonstrated by the presence of temperature controls. 80 FR 50462, 50478-50480 (Aug. 19, 2015).
DOE also proposed that, similar to Class A and Class B equipment classes, the transparency of the front side of the vending machine can differentiate certain styles of combination vending machines that provide a unique utility in the marketplace because their specific design attributes allow the equipment to be stocked with a wider variety of product selections that can be viewed directly through the equipment's transparent front. As such, in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, DOE proposed to define two new equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.292, Combination A and Combination B, and defined those equipment classes as follows:
Combination A
means a combination vending machine where 25 percent or more of the surface area on the front side of the beverage vending machine is transparent.
Combination B
means a combination vending machine that is not considered to be Combination A.
Id.
In response to DOE's proposed new and amended definitions for Combination A, Combination B, and combination vending machine, several interested parties raised questions about DOE's proposed definitions. In particular, AMS stated that machines intended to dispense both refrigerated and unrefrigerated products have an insulated tray between the refrigerated and unrefrigerated compartments and are defined as combination vending machines by their company. (AMS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 18) AMS also stated that its combination vending machines only have temperature controls for the compartment intended to be refrigerated and therefore do not meet DOE's proposed definition for combination vending machines. (AMS, No. 57 at p. 2) Steven Chesney of Seaga inquired if a non-cooled refrigerated compartment attached to a separate cabinet with a refrigerated compartment would be considered as a combination vending machine. (Steven Chesney, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 26) EVA commented that DOE should use “simple and understandable” definitions and consider defining them similar to the European definitions. (EVA, No. 60 at p. 2)
In response to AMS's comments regarding their combination vending machine designs, featuring an insulated shelf separating refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments and temperature controls in the compartment intended to be refrigerated, DOE notes that this is in fact consistent with its proposed definition for combination vending machines, provided the insulated shelf is a “solid partition” and does not allow for air transfer between the compartments outside of the product delivery chute. To clarify, DOE notes that the combination vending machine definition only requires temperature controls in the compartment that is designed to be refrigerated.
In response to Mr. Chesney's inquiry regarding whether two separate cabinets attached to each other would constitute a combination vending machine, DOE clarifies that, consistent with all equipment, compliance for each model is based on how that model is distributed in commerce. That is, if the vending machine: (1) Is distributed in commerce as a single piece of equipment and (2) includes at least one compartment that was designed to be refrigerated (demonstrated by the presence of temperature controls) and at least one compartment that is not designed to be refrigerated (and, therefore, does not include temperature controls) separated by a solid partition, such equipment meets the definition of combination vending machine and would be classified as either Combination A or Combination B for the purposes of compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards. Such equipment may share the same product deliver chute or include separate product delivery chutes.
In response to EVA's suggestion that DOE use simple and understandable definitions, similar to those in the European vending market, DOE researched the definitions used in Europe to describe beverage vending machines and was not able to find consistent definitions or terminology that are publically available and such definitions were note provided in EVA's comments. However, DOE continues to believe that the definitions adopted in this final rule represent the clearest and most unambiguous approach to differentiating equipment classes for the U.S. market.
In response to DOE's 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, NAMA stated that DOE's proposed definition of combination vending machines is inconsistent with industry practice and the EPA's ENERGY STAR definition and requested that DOE change this definition to be consistent with industry practice. NAMA specifically stated that very few vending machines have a [fully-
extending] solid partition, and that instead many of them allow air to comingle between the unrefrigerated and refrigerated compartments. NAMA additionally stated that the unrefrigerated space pulls down to nearly the same temperature as the refrigerated volume over time in machines it considers to be combination vending machines. (NAMA, No. 50 at p. 1) In the Form Letters, commenters stated the definition of combination vending machines were not consistent with terms used in industry. (The Form Letter Writers, No. 64 and 65 at p. 1)
In response to comments from NAMA and the Form Letter Writers that DOE's definition of combination vending machine should be consistent with the ENERGY STAR or other industry definitions for such equipment, DOE notes that the ENERGY STAR definition of combination vending machines is identical to the current DOE definition for combination vending machine. DOE is not aware of any other specific industry definitions that are relevant for this equipment, and notes that the “industry” terms mentioned by The Form Letter Writers were not provided in comments. As noted previously, DOE believes the existing definition could be made more clear and unambiguous to improve the consistency of equipment definition for regulatory purposes. In addition, in response to NAMA's observation that typical combination vending machines do not have a fully extending solid partition, DOE notes that the definition of combination specifies that such equipment have two compartments, separated by a solid partition, but that such equipment may also include a common product delivery chute. DOE agrees with NAMA that, for many designs of combination equipment on the market today, the common product delivery chute may prevent the solid partition separating the refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments from fully extending from front to back and side to side. That is, the solid partition need not thermally isolate the refrigerated compartment(s) from the non-refrigerated compartment(s) provided any air exchange between compartments occurs only unintentionally through the common product delivery chute. If a vending machine model were to feature openings in the solid partition designed to allow for air transfer between the compartments, other than the product delivery chute, such equipment would not be considered a combination vending machine as it would not include any “non-refrigerated” compartments. That is, DOE interprets the designed presence of openings in the solid partition as a means of “intentional refrigeration” of that compartment. Therefore, equipment that is designed for air transfer between compartments is treated as Class A or Class B, depending on whether or not the equipment featured a transparent front (see sections IV.A.1.a and IV.A.1.c)
Based on the comments submitted by interested parties, DOE is adopting, in this final rule, the amended definition for combination vending machine and new definitions for Combination A and Combination B, as proposed in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR. As noted in the 2015 BVM test procedure final rule, DOE believes that both appendix A and appendix B of the amended DOE BVM test procedure are applicable to combination vending machines. 80 FR 45758 (July 31, 2015). Specifically, appendix A of the DOE BVM test procedure is applicable to combination vending machines for the purposes of making any representations regarding the energy consumption of such equipment beginning January 27, 2016.
Id.
However, beginning on the compliance date of this final rule, manufacturers of combination vending machines will be required to use appendix B of the DOE BVM test procedure for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with any such energy conservation standards and when making representations regarding the energy consumption of covered equipment.
c. Definition of Transparent and Optional Test Method for Determining Equipment Classification
In the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, DOE proposed a quantitative criterion to clearly determine whether a BVM model “has a transparent front” based on the percentage of transparent surface area on the front side of the beverage vending machine. Specifically, DOE proposed the procedure by which DOE would (1) determine the surface area of beverage vending machines and (2) determine whether such surface area is transparent. However, DOE noted that these procedures would not be required for rating and certification of specific BVM models. Under the proposal, manufacturers would be able to certify equipment as Class A, Class B, Combination A, or Combination B based on knowledge of the specific equipment dimensions and characteristics. However, DOE would use these procedures in enforcement testing to verify the appropriate equipment classification for all cases. As such, DOE also noted that where the appropriate equipment classification is not abundantly clear, manufacturers may elect to perform the test to ensure they are categorizing their equipment properly. To clarify that such procedures are only optional for manufacturers, DOE proposed to add such procedures to the product-specific enforcement provisions at 10 CFR 429.134. 80 FR 50462, 50476-50480 (Aug. 19, 2015).
Specifically, to determine the surface area, DOE proposed to specify that the total surface area of the front side of the beverage vending machine, from edge to edge, be determined as the total length multiplied by the total height of a beverage vending machine. DOE also proposed to specify that the transparent surface area would consist of all areas composed of transparent material on the front side of a beverage vending machine, and that the non-transparent surface area would consist of all areas composed of material that is not transparent on the front side of a beverage vending machine, where the sum of the transparent and non-transparent surface areas should equal the total surface area of the front side of a beverage vending machine, as shown in Figure IV.1. 80 FR 50462, 50476 (Aug. 19, 2015).
ER08JA16.000
In the 2014 BVM ECS NOPR, DOE also noted that the same optional test protocol to determine the transparency of materials and the relative surface areas of transparent and non-transparent surfaces would be applicable to combination vending machines except that, the external surface areas surrounding the non-refrigerated compartment(s) would not be considered. That is, all the surfaces that surround and enclose the compartment designed to be refrigerated (as demonstrated by the presence of temperature controls), as well as any surfaces that do not enclose any product-containing compartments (
e.g.,
surfaces surrounding any mechanical equipment or containing the product selection and delivery apparatus) would be considered in the calculation of transparent and non-transparent surface area for a beverage vending machine, as shown in Figure IV.2. 80 FR at 50479 (Aug. 19, 2015).
ER08JA16.001
For both Class A and Combination A beverage vending machines, in the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, DOE also proposed a specific definition and criteria to determine whether a material is transparent. Specifically, DOE proposed to adopt the definition of transparent that is applicable to commercial refrigeration equipment,
27
as adopted in the 2014 commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure final rule. 10 CFR 431.62; 79 FR 22277, 22286-22287, and 22308 (April 21, 2014). Under this definition, the term “transparent” would apply to any material with greater than or equal to 45 percent light transmittance, as determined in accordance with the ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test Method for Solar Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight,” at normal incidence and in the intended direction of viewing. With regard to beverage vending machines, DOE also clarified that, when determining material properties, that the transparency of the BVM cabinet materials should be determined with consideration of all the materials used to construct the wall segment(s), since the utility of the transparent material is only applicable if the viewer can clearly see the refrigerated products contained within the refrigerated volume of the beverage vending machine. 80 FR 50462, 50477 (Aug. 19, 2015).
27
As a beverage vending machine is defined as a type of commercial refrigerator, DOE believes that it is consistent and appropriate to use the same definition of transparent for both commercial refrigeration equipment and beverage vending machines.
In response to DOE's proposed definition of transparent and optional test method for determining the relative transparent surface area, DOE received several comments and suggestions from interested parties. The CA IOUs recommended that DOE more clearly define the equipment classes being regulated using the term, “transparent.” The CA IOUs also recommended that DOE amend its definition of Class A equipment to take into account possible fluctuations in transparency of the front. (CA IOUs, No. 58 at p. 1) Similarly, in written comments, NAMA and Royal Vendors stated that the 45 percent light transmittance criterion for the determination of transparency of the glass front of a vending machine is acceptable at this time, but may not be so in the future if better low-emissivity coatings are developed. (NAMA, No. 50 at p. 3; Royal Vendors, No. 54 at p. 3) In written comments, Royal Vendors stated also that the definition of Class A would apply to a unit in which at least 25 percent of the front surface area is transparent, but that the definition of transparency would not always be met by equipment Royal Vendors considers to be “Class A.” (Royal Vendors, No. 54 at p. 3)
In response to the comments submitted by the CA IOUs regarding the treatment of certain equipment with respect to the term “transparent,” DOE clarifies that the definition of transparent adopted in this final rule is applicable to all classes of beverage vending machines. In particular, the
definition of transparent is pertinent to differentiating Class A equipment from Class B equipment and Combination A equipment from Combination B equipment. Similarly, DOE also uses the term to determine equipment classification for commercial refrigeration equipment, the definition of transparent adopted in this final rule is pertinent only to beverage vending machines.
In response to the comments by CA IOUs, NAMA, and Royal Vendors regarding the suitability of the 45 percent threshold for light transmittance, DOE notes that it has considered the current and potential future characteristics of advanced, high-performing glass and acrylic products featuring low-emissivity coatings, low solar heat gain, or other features that may impact the overall light transmittance of the material. In the commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure NOPR, DOE had originally proposed that a transparent material was any material with greater than or equal to 65 percent light transmittance, consistent with the definition of total display area in the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 (AHRI 1200-2010), “Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.” 78 FR 64295, 64301-64302 (Oct. 28, 2013). However, after conducting market research regarding the visible transmittance of typical materials used in commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturing, as well as new high-performing glass products that could be used in such an application, DOE adopted a threshold of 45 percent in the 2014 CRE test procedure final rule. 79 FR 22277, 22287 (April 21, 2014). In support of this BVM ECS final rule, DOE conducted additional research into the glass and acrylic products typically used by manufacturers to produce Class A and Combination A beverage vending machines, as well as any new, high-performing glass products that may have been introduced since DOE's review for the 2014 CRE test procedure final rule. Based on its review, DOE believes that the threshold of 45 percent light transmittance to determine transparency is equally applicable to materials that are typically used to manufacture both commercial refrigeration equipment and beverage vending machines. DOE will continue to monitor the BVM and CRE market for any new materials integrated into equipment designs that meet DOE's intent of allow customers to view the merchandise contained within the refrigerated space but do not meet DOE's definition of transparent and, if necessary, revise the definition of transparent accordingly.
Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is adopting a definition of transparent applicable to materials with greater than or equal to 45 percent light transmittance based testing in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009). DOE reiterates that this test method is optional and is not required for equipment certification or testing by manufacturers. Specifically, manufacturers may continue to specify the appropriate equipment class without determining the light transmittance of materials based on testing in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009) However, if the transparency of a material is in question, the determination of the light transmittance of a transparent material must be determined in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009) and DOE will use this test method to determine equipment classification in enforcement testing.
2. Machines Vending Perishable Goods
In response to DOE's 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, NAMA and Royal Vendors stated that vending machines that vend perishable goods should be regulated under a separate equipment class because they must maintain temperatures that do not allow for a refrigeration low power mode credit. (NAMA, No. 50 at p. 5; Royal Vendors, No. 54 at p. 4) Conversely, SVA expressed agreement with DOE's position that vending machines that vend perishable goods do not require a separate equipment classification. (SVA, No. 53 at p. 2)
DOE notes that there are beverage vending machines that are capable of vending certain perishable products that may require more strict temperature control than beverage vending machines that only vend non-perishable products, such as bottled or canned soda, juice, or water. DOE notes such perishable products may or may not be sealed beverages but that, if a vending machine is refrigerated and is capable of, or can be configured to, vend sealed beverages for at least one of the product selections, then the vending machine meets DOE's definition of beverage vending machine and must comply with DOE's regulations for this equipment.
Based on input from interested parties provided throughout this rulemaking, DOE believes that machines capable of vending perishable goods are generally not materially different from other beverage vending machines, and that the necessary levels of temperature maintenance needed to preserve perishables are achieved through the application of control settings rather than through design changes. In addition, such equipment can be tested using DOE's existing method of testing and does not have significantly different energy consumption profiles from other beverage vending machines when tested using DOE's methodology. Therefore, DOE does not believe separate equipment classes and standard levels are warranted for beverage vending machines that are capable of vending perishable goods, and DOE is not implementing a separate class for such equipment in this final rule. As such, equipment that vends perishable products along with at least one sealed beverage must be tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure and must meet applicable energy conservation standards. Vending machines that are not capable of vending sealed beverages or are not refrigerated do not meet DOE's definition of beverage vending machine and, as such, are not subject to standards, test procedures, and certification and reporting requirements for beverage vending machines.
DOE agrees with SVA that beverage vending machines that may be configured to, or capable of, vending perishable goods do not require a separate equipment class or separate energy conservation standards. Specifically, as noted in comments provided by interested parties in response to the framework document, including Witterns, Crane, AMS, and NAMA (see preliminary TSD chapter 2) DOE understands that the same BVM models may be configured to vend perishable or non-perishable goods. DOE also believes, based on market research and input from interested parties, that, if the BVM model is configured to vend perishable goods, the refrigeration low power mode that may be installed on the machine as distributed in commerce is simply disabled or overridden for that particular installation. DOE additionally understands that installations where beverage vending machines are configured to vend perishable goods represent a minority of installations, a position supported in public comments provided by Royal Vendors and NAMA (see preliminary TSD chapter 2).
3. Market Characterization
As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE identified and characterized relevant trade associations, manufacturers and their market shares, and current regulatory programs and non-regulatory initiatives related to BVM energy use. Details
related to this characterization are in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
In response to the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR, DOE received several comments related to the role that the ENERGY STAR program plays in the U.S. BVM market. In the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting and in written comments, EEA Joint Commenters expressed the belief that minimum efficiency standards and the ENERGY STAR program are complementary and that, by nature of being mandatory, DOE's energy conservation standards program is able to save more energy than ENERGY STAR alone. (EEA Joint Commenters, No. 56 at p. 4; EEA Joint Commenters, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 118) The Form Letter Writers stated standards would eliminate the current ENERGY STAR specification as the most efficient which would remove the credibility of the ENERGY STAR Industry. (The Form Letter Writers, No. 64 and 65 at p. 1) SVA expressed its belief at the BVM ECS NOPR public meeting that voluntary standards such as ENERGY STAR are more effective in driving the market towards more efficient equipment than DOE's mandatory standards. (SVA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 117) In written comments, Royal Vendors, NAMA, and Coca-Cola stated that ENERGY STAR certification is required by a majority of equipment purchasers, and that DOE's proposed standards would trigger a revision to ENERGY STAR to further reduce allowable energy consumption below the DOE standard. These stakeholders added that a revision to the ENERGY STAR standard in response to DOE's BVM ECS rulemaking would make it more difficult to meet their customers' expectations for the ENERGY STAR label. Coca Cola added that manufacturers may devote more resources to developing technologies that can immediately meet newly-revised ENERGY STAR standards, instead of investing in the development of technologies that may result in more significant energy savings in the long term. (Royal Vendors, No. 54 at p. 7; NAMA, No. 50 at p. 14; Coca-Cola, No. 52 at p. 3).
DOE thanks the EEA Joint Commenters and SVA for their comments regarding the efficacy of ENERGY STAR in driving the market towards increased efficiency and agrees with the EEA Joint Commenters' assessment of ENERGY STAR and DOE's energy conservation standards as being complementary and more effective than voluntary standards alone. In response to comments regarding potential revision to ENERGY STAR standards as a result of today's rulemaking, DOE notes that ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program that exists to help customers identify energy-efficient equipment on the market and save on energy costs. Specifically, the ENERGY STAR program includes only those equipment that exceeds mandated minimum standards that DOE is required by statute to set and enforce. Due to its nature as a voluntary program, DOE does not consider the impact of its energy conservation standards on potential updates to ENERGY STAR standards in its analysis. DOE coordinates with EPA on ENERGY STAR in order to reevaluate the ENERGY STAR specifications when DOE promulgates new or amended standards.
DOE also received several comments in response to the 2015 BVM ECS NOPR's request for updated estimates for the market share of combination vending machines. AMS commented that it only manufactures Class A machines and that its production volume is split roughly evenly between Class A and Combination A machines. (AMS, No. 57 at p. 2) In its written submission, NAMA stated that it did not have data to estimate the market share of combination vending machines specifically, but it estimated that beverage vending machines are approximately 60 percent of the total market for vending machines.
DOE thanks these stakeholders for their submission of specific data and has incorporated it into the analysis.
4. Technology Options
As part of the technology assessment, DOE developed a list of technologies to consider for improving the efficiency of beverage vending machines. DOE considers as design options all technologies that meet the screening criteria (see section I.B) and that produce quantifiable results under the DOE test procedure.
DOE typically uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to help determine which technologies manufacturers can use to attain higher energy performance levels. In consultation with interested parties, DOE develops a list of technologies for consideration in its screening and engineering analyses. Initially these technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are technologically feasible. Since many options for improving equipment efficiency are available in existing equipment, equipment literature and direct examination of BVM units currently on the market provided much of the information underlying this analysis. While DOE notes that the majority of currently available equipment uses R-134a for its refrigerant, and R-134a will no longer be available for BVM applications at the time compliance will be required with any amended standards established as part of this final rule (80 FR 42870, 42917-42920 (July 20, 2015)), DOE believes that the majority of technology options considered in DOE's analysis and presented in the following list are applicable to all beverage vending machines, regardless of the refrigerant utilized. Specifically, DOE considered the following technologies in this final rule analyses:
• Higher efficiency lighting
• higher efficiency evaporator fan motors
• higher efficiency evaporator fan blades
• improved evaporator design
• evaporator fan motor controllers
• low-pressure-differential evaporators
• insulation improvements (including foam insulation thickness increase and use of improved materials such as vacuum insulated panels)
• improved glass pack (for Class A and Combination A equipment)
• higher efficiency defrost mechanism
• higher efficiency compressors
• variable speed compressors
• increased condenser performance
• higher efficiency condenser fan motors
• higher efficiency condenser fan blades
• microchannel heat exchangers
• higher efficiency expansion valves
• improved anti-sweat heaters
• lighting controls (including timers and/or sensors)
• refrigeration low power modes.
Chapter 3 of the final rule TSD includes the detailed description of all technology options DOE identified for consideration in this rulemaking.
B. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies identified in the technology assessment to determine which technologies to consider further and which technologies to screen out. DOE consulted with industry, technical experts, and other interested parties in developing a list of energy-saving technologies for the technology assessment, detailed in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD. DOE then applied the screening criteria to determine which technologies were unsuitable for further consideration in this rulemaking. Chapter 4 of the final rule TSD contains details about DOE's screening criteria.
DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
(1)
Technological feasibility.
DOE considers only those technologies incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible.
(2)
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial equipment could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.
(3)
Impacts on equipment utility or product availability.
If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of customers or would result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.
(4)
Adverse impacts on health or safety.
If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b).
In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed below.
The subsequent sections address DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria and DOE's determination of technology options excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
These four screening criteria do not include the propriety status of design options. As noted previously, DOE will only consider efficiency levels achieved through the use of proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if they are not part of a unique path to achieve that efficiency level. DOE does not believe that any of the technologies identified in the technology assessment are proprietary, and thus, did not eliminate any technologies for that reason.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in this section IV.B.2 met all four screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:
• Higher efficiency lighting
• higher efficiency evaporator fan motors
• higher efficiency evaporator fan blades
• evaporator fan motor controllers
• improved evaporator design
• low-pressure differential evaporators
• improvements to anti-sweat heaters
• improved or thicker insulation
• higher efficiency defrost mechanisms
• higher efficiency compressors
• variable speed compressors
• microchannel heat exchangers
• improved condenser design
• higher efficiency condenser fan motors
• higher efficiency condenser fan blades
• improved glass pack design (for Class A and Combination A machines)
• lighting controls
• refrigeration low power modes
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically feasible becaus
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.