Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Cooler and Freezer Refrigeration Systems

Federal RegisterSep 13, 2016

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016]

RIN 1904-AD59

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Cooler and Freezer Refrigeration Systems

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including walk-in coolers and freezers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. DOE proposes prescribing energy conservation standards for certain categories of walk-in cooler and freezer refrigeration systems and plans to hold a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards along with their accompanying analyses.

DATES:

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting on September 29, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

Comments:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) before and after the public meeting, but no later than November 14, 2016. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for details.

Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the

ADDRESSES

section before October 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1A-104, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

Instructions:

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR on Energy Conservation Standards for WICF refrigeration systems, and provide docket number EE-2015-BT-STD-0016 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-AD59. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: WICF2015STD0016@ee.doe.gov

. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

Postal Mail:

Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (“Public Participation”).

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

Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov

EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at

energy.standards@usdoj.gov

before October 13, 2016. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this rulemaking notice.

Docket:

The docket, which includes

Federal Register

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

www.regulations.gov

. All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, some documents listed in the index may not be publicly-available, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure.

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

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=56

. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this proposed rule on the

www.regulations.gov

site. The

www.regulations.gov

Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for further information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:

walk-in_coolers_and_walk-in_freezers@ee.doe.gov

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:

michael.kido@hq.doe.gov

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email:

walk-in_coolers_and_walk-in_freezers@EE.Doe.Gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedure

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

C. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

F. Compliance Date of Standards

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Technologies Having No Effect on Rated Energy Consumption

2. Adaptive Defrost and On-Cycle Variable-Speed Evaporator Fans

3. Screened-Out Technologies

4. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Refrigerants

2. As-Tested Versus Field-Representative Performance Analysis

3. Representative Equipment for Analysis

4. Cost Assessment Methodology

a. Teardown Analysis

b. Cost Model

c. Manufacturing Production Cost

d. Manufacturing Markup

e. Shipping Cost

5. Component and System Efficiency Model

a. Unit Coolers (Formerly Termed the Multiplex Condensing Class)

b. Condensing Units/Dedicated Condensing Class

c. Field-Representative Paired Dedicated Condensing Systems

6. Baseline Specifications

7. Design Options

a. Higher Efficiency Compressors

b. Improved Condenser Coil

c. Improved Condenser and Evaporator Fan Blades

d. Off-Cycle Evaporator Fan Control

e. Floating Head Pressure

8. Cost-Efficiency Curves

9. Engineering Efficiency Levels

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Oversize Factors

2. Net Capacity Adjustment Factors

3. Temperature Adjustment Factors

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. System Boundaries

a. Field-Paired

b. Condensing Unit-Only

c. Unit Cooler Only

d. System Boundary and Equipment Class Weights

2. Equipment Cost

3. Installation Cost

4. Annual Energy Use

5. Energy Prices and Energy Price Projections

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

7. Equipment Lifetime

8. Discount Rates

9. Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

10. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. National Energy Savings

2. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipment Scenarios

c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

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

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. 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

C. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

1. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

2. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

3. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

4. Other Factors

5. Summary of National Economic Impacts

D. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for WICF Refrigeration System Standards

2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Why This Action Is Being Considered

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule

3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

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

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part C

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”), Public Law 94-163 (December 22, 1975), coupled with Section 441(a) Title IV of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Public Law 95-619 (November 9, 1978) (collectively codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.

The covered equipment includes certain walk-in cooler and freezer (“WICF” or “walk-in”) refrigeration systems, including low-temperature dedicated condensing systems and both medium- and low-temperature unit coolers,

the subjects of this rulemaking.

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

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).

In previous proceedings, most notably the June 2014 final rule, DOE used the terminology “multiplex condensing” (abbreviated “MC”) to refer to the class of equipment represented by a unit cooler, which for purposes of testing and certification is rated as though it would be connected to a multiplex condensing system. In a separate test procedure NOPR, DOE has proposed to change the terminology to better reflect the equipment itself, which consists of a unit cooler sold without a condensing unit, and which can ultimately be used in either a multiplex condensing or dedicated condensing application. Accordingly, in this document, DOE has changed the class name from “multiplex condensing” to “unit cooler” and the class abbreviation from “MC” to “UC.”

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for WICF refrigeration systems must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42

U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)(A)) For purposes of this rulemaking, DOE also plans to adopt standards that are likely to result in a significant conservation of energy that satisfies both of the above requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes to establish performance-based energy conservation standards for the aforementioned classes of WICF refrigeration systems that will be in addition to those standards that DOE has already promulgated for dedicated condensing, medium temperature, indoor and outdoor refrigeration systems. See 10 CFR 431.306(e) (as amended by 80 FR 69838 (November 12, 2015)). The proposed standards, which are expressed in terms of an annual walk-in energy factor (“AWEF”) for classes of walk-in refrigeration systems being considered in this rule, are shown in Table I-1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all applicable WICF refrigeration systems listed in Table I-1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date three years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking. (For purposes of this analysis, that date is projected to fall on the day after December 31, 2019. This date is subject to change pending publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register

Table I-1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for the Considered Equipment Classes of WICF Refrigeration Systems

Equipment class

Capacity (q

net

)

(Btu/h)

Minimum AWEF

(Btu/W-h)

Unit Cooler—Low-Temperature

<15,500

≥15,500

1.575 × 10

−

× q

net

+ 3.91

4.15

Unit Cooler—Medium Temperature

All

9.00

Dedicated Condensing System—Low-Temperature, Outdoor

<6,500

≥6,500

6.522 × 10

−

× q

net

+ 2.73

3.15

Dedicated Condensing System—Low-Temperature, Indoor

<6,500

≥6,500

9.091 × 10

−

× q

net

+ 1.81

2.40

* Where q

net

is net capacity as determined in accordance with 10 CFR 431.304 and certified in accordance with 10 CFR part 429.

In various places in this document, DOE will use the following acronyms to denote the seven equipment classes of walk-in refrigeration systems that are subject to this rulemaking:

—DC.L.I. (dedicated condensing, low-temperature, indoor unit)

—DC.L.O (dedicated condensing, low-temperature, outdoor unit)

—UC.L. (unit cooler, low-temperature)

—UC.M. (unit cooler, medium-temperature)

For reference, DOE will use the following acronyms to denote the two equipment classes of walk-in refrigeration systems which are not subject to this rulemaking for which standards were established in the previous WICF rulemaking:

—DC.M.I (dedicated condensing, medium-temperature, indoor unit)

—DC.M.O (dedicated condensing, medium-temperature, outdoor unit)

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I-2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of the considered WICF refrigeration systems (

i.e.

medium- and low-temperature unit coolers and dedicated condensing low-temperature systems), as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

DOE's analysis demonstrates that the projected average LCC savings are positive for all considered equipment classes, and the projected PBP is less than the average lifetime of the considered WICF refrigeration systems, which is estimated to be 11 years (see section IV.F).

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 in the absence of standards (see section IV.F.9). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to baseline equipment (see section IV.C.1.a).

Table I-2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of WICF Refrigeration Systems (TSL 3)

Equipment class

Application

Design path

Average

life-cycle

cost savings

(2015$)

Simple

payback

period

(years)

DC.L.I

Dedicated, Indoor

Condensing Unit Only *

$1,717

1.3

Dedicated, Indoor

Field Paired **

1,820

1.5

Dedicated, Indoor

Unit Cooler Only †

156

4.6

DC.L.O

Dedicated, Outdoor

Condensing Unit Only

3,148

2.1

Dedicated, Outdoor

Field Paired

3,294

1.0

Dedicated, Outdoor

Unit Cooler Only

324

4.3

UC.L

Multiplex

Unit Cooler Only

7.3

UC.M

Dedicated, Indoor

Unit Cooler Only

1.3

UC.M

Dedicated, Outdoor

Unit Cooler Only

1.8

UC.M

Multiplex

Unit Cooler Only

2.9

Note:

DOE separately considers the impacts of unit cooler standards when the unit cooler is combined in an application with dedicated condensing equipment versus multiplex condensing equipment. Namely, DOE is examining the impacts of unit coolers that are combined with medium temperature dedicated condensing equipment (DC.M.I and DC.M.O). DOE is not considering establishing standards for the latter, as they are covered by the 2014 final rule and were not vacated by the Fifth Circuit order.

* Condensing Unit Only (CU-Only): Condensing unit-only. This analysis evaluates standard levels applied to a condensing unit distributed in commerce without a designated companion unit cooler for a scenario in which a new condensing unit is installed to replace a failed condensing unit, but the existing unit cooler is not replaced. See section IV.F.1.b for more details.

** Field Paired (FP): Field-paired unit cooler and condensing unit. This analysis evaluates standard levels applied to a condensing unit distributed in commerce without a designated companion unit cooler for a scenario in which both a new condensing unit and a new unit cooler are installed. See section IV.F.1.a for more details.

† Unit Cooler Only (UC-Only): Unit cooler only. This analysis evaluates standard levels applied to a unit cooler distributed in commerce without a designated companion condensing unit, either dedicated or multiplex, for a scenario in which a new unit cooler is installed to replace a failed unit cooler, but the existing condensing unit is not replaced. See section IV.F.1.c for more details.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this NOPR.

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 (2016 to 2049). Using a real discount rate of 10.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV from the seven WICF refrigeration system equipment classes being analyzed is $99.7 million in 2015$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects INPV may change approximately −14.8 percent to −4.4 percent, which corresponds to approximately −14.8 million and −4.4 million in 2015$. To bring equipment into compliance with the proposed standard in this NOPR, DOE expects the industry to incur $16.2 million in total conversion costs.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2015 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2015 unless explicitly stated otherwise. Energy savings in this section refer to the full-fuel-cycle savings (see section IV.H for discussion).

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without adopting the standards, the lifetime energy savings for the considered WICF refrigeration systems purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2020-2049) amount to 0.90 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu), or quads.

This represents a savings of 24 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without the proposed standards in place (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (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.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer costs and savings of the proposed standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems ranges from $1.8 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $4.3 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for the considered WICF refrigeration systems purchased in 2020-2049.

In addition to these anticipated benefits, the proposed standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 54.4 million metric tons (Mt)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 31.7 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 97.7 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 232.1 thousand tons of methane (CH

), 0.7 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), and 0.1 tons of mercury (Hg).

The cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 9.3 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of 849 thousand homes.

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2015

(

AEO 2015

) Reference case.

AEO 2015

generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2014.

The value of the CO

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

(otherwise known as the “Social Cost of Carbon”, or SCC) developed by a Federal interagency Working Group.

The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values (see Table I-3), DOE estimates the present monetary value of the CO

emissions reduction (not including CO

equivalent emissions of other gases with global warming potential) is between $0.4 billion and $5.4 billion, with a value of $1.8 billion using the central SCC case represented by $40.0/t in 2015. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NO

emissions reduction to be $0.08 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.18 billion at a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is still investigating the most appropriate economic estimates to use in valuing the reduction in methane and other emissions, and therefore did not include any values for those emissions in this rulemaking.

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 July 2015) (Available at:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf

DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis

.) See section IV.L.2 for further discussion. The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the rule implementing the Clean Power Plan until the current litigation against it concludes.

Chamber of Commerce, et al.

EPA, et al.,

Order in Pending Case, 136 S.Ct. 999, 577 U.S. ___(2016). However, the benefit-per-ton estimates established in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan are based on scientific studies that remain valid irrespective of the legal status of the Clean Power Plan. DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO

emitted from the Electricity Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski

et al.,

2009). If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele

et al.,

2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger.

DOE notes that the Secretary has determined that the proposed standards are technologically feasible and economically justified. This conclusion is further supported by, but does not depend on, the benefits expected to accrue as a result of the anticipated decreased production of CO

emissions. As detailed in section V.D.1 of this document, the projected benefits from these proposed standards exceed the related costs, even ignoring the benefits from reduced CO

emissions. Consideration of the benefits of reduced emissions further underscores the Secretary's conclusion.

Table I-3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems.

Table I-3—Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for WICF Refrigeration Systems (TSL 3) *

Category

Present value

billion 2015$

Discount rate

(percent)

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

2.2

5.1

Reduction Value ($12.4/t case) **

0.4

Reduction Value ($40.6/t case) **

1.8

Reduction Value ($63.2/t case) **

2.8

2.5

Reduction Value ($118/t case) **

5.4

Reduction Value †

0.1

0.2

Total Benefits ‡

4.0

7.0

Costs

Consumer Incremental Installed Costs

0.4

0.8

Net Benefits

Including CO

and NO

Reduction Value ‡

3.6

6.2

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with WICF refrigeration systems shipped in 2020-2049. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2049 from the equipment purchased in 2020-2049. 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

values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2015$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor.

† DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis

.) See section IV.L.2 for further discussion. DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO

emitted from the Electricity Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al., 2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger.

‡ Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.6/t case).

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards, for the considered WICF refrigeration systems sold in 2020-2049, 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 consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in equipment purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of CO

and NO

emission reductions, all annualized.

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

reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I-3. 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 values of operating cost savings and CO

emission reductions are both important, two issues are relevant. The national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered equipment. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of WICF refrigeration systems shipped in 2020-2049. The CO

reduction is a benefit that accrues globally due to decreased domestic energy consumption that is expected to result from this rule.

Like national operating cost savings, the amount of emissions reductions achieved as a result of the proposed standards is calculated based on the lifetime of WICF refrigeration systems shipped during that analysis period. Because CO

emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere, however, the SCC values reflect CO

-emissions impacts that continue beyond 2100 through 2300.

DOE's analysis estimates both global and domestic benefits of CO

emissions reductions. Following the recommendation of the interagency Working Group, DOE places more focus on a global measure of SCC. See section IV.L.1 for further discussion on why the global measure is appropriate.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I-4.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO

reduction (for which DOE used a3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that has a value of $40.6/t in 2015),

the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $43.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $217.9 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $98.4 million in CO

reductions, and $7.4 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $280 million per year.

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 IV.L).

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series that has a value of $40.6/t in 2015, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $45.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $283.3

million in reduced operating costs, $98.4 million in CO

reductions, and $10.3 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $346 million per year.

Table I-4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (TSL 3) for WICF Refrigeration Systems

Discount rate

Million 2015$/year

Primary

estimate *

Low net benefits estimate *

High net benefits estimate *

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

217.9

283.3

200.4

257.9

237.4.

314.7.

Reduction Value ($12.4/t case) **

29.2

27.8

30.7.

Reduction Value ($40.6/t case) **

98.4

93.5

103.7.

Reduction Value ($63.2/t case) **

2.5%

144.0

136.8

151.9.

Reduction Value ($118/t case) **

299.9

285.0

316.3.

Reduction Value

7.4

10.3

7.1

9.8

17.4.

24.6.

Total Benefits †

7% plus CO

range

255 to 525

235 to 493

285 to 571.

324

301

359.

3% plus CO

range

323 to 593

295 to 553

370 to 656.

392

361

443.

Costs

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

43.9

45.9

43.4

45.3

44.4.

46.5.

Net Benefits

Total †

7% plus CO

range

211 to 481

192 to 449

241 to 527.

280

258

314.

3% plus CO

range

277 to 548

250 to 507

323 to 609.

346

316

397.

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with the considered WICF refrigeration systems shipped in 2020-2049. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2049 from the equipment purchased in 2020-2049. 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

AEO 2015

Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

** The CO

† DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.)

See section IV.L.2 for further discussion. For the Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO

emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski

et al.

, 2009). For DOE's High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele

et al.

, 2011), which are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the ACS study.

‡ Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with a 3-percent discount rate ($40.6/t case). In the rows labeled “7% plus CO

range” and “3% plus CO

range,” the operating cost and NO

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

values.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.F, IV.I and IV.J of this NOPR.

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and the proposed standards would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that equipment achieving these standard levels is already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by this proposal. Based on the analyses described, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels for the considered WICF refrigeration systems, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively 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 receives in response to this NOPR and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this NOPR that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for WICF refrigeration systems.

A. Authority

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”), Public Law 94-163 (codified as 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which includes the refrigeration systems used in walk-ins that are the subject of this rulemaking, which include low-temperature dedicated condensing systems and low and medium temperature unit coolers. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) EPCA, as amended, prescribed energy conservation standards for this equipment (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), which applies to walk-ins through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), the agency must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for covered equipment. Under this requirement, the next review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for covered equipment.

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. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A), (r) and 6316(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that the covered equipment they manufacture complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of their covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether a manufacturer's covered equipment comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for WICF refrigeration systems appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) § 431.304.

DOE has, however, published a NOPR proposing amendments to the test procedures applicable to the equipment classes addressed in this proposal, 81 FR 54926 (August 17, 2016). The standards considered and proposed in this rulemaking were evaluated using those separately proposed test procedures. While DOE typically finalizes its test procedures for a given regulated product or equipment prior to proposing new or amended energy conservation standards for that product or equipment, see 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, Appendix A, sec. 7(c) (“Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” or “Process Rule”), DOE did not do so in this instance. As part of the negotiated rulemaking that led to the Term Sheet setting out the standards that DOE is proposing, Working Group members recommended (with ASRAC's approval) that DOE modify its test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems. The test procedure changes at issue would simplify the current test procedure in a manner that is consistent with the approach agreed upon by the various parties who participated in the negotiated rulemaking. This circumstance leads DOE to tentatively conclude that providing a finalized test procedure that incorporates this limited change prior to the publication of this standards proposal is not necessary. Accordingly, in accordance with section 14 of the Process Rule, DOE tentatively concludes that deviation from the Process Rule is appropriate here. With respect to more substantive future changes that DOE may consider making to the test procedure consistent with the Term Sheet, DOE anticipates conducting a more complete review and analysis of that modified procedure in advance of any subsequent amendments to the WICF refrigeration system standards that DOE may consider later.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including WICF refrigeration systems. Any new or amended standard for a type of covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)-(3)(B) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(a)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain equipment, including WICF refrigeration systems, 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) and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) 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 products (or 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) and 6316(a))

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 equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a))

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 type of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6316(a)) 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) and 6316(a))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for covered equipment divided into 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) and 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 6316(a))

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

Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, DOE is generally required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard satisfying the criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), DOE must generally incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that equipment. In the case of WICFs, DOE is continuing to apply this approach to provide analytical consistency when evaluating potential energy conservation standards for this equipment. See generally, 42 U.S.C. 6316(a).

B. Background

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

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

Second, EPCA sets forth requirements related to electronically commutated motors for use in walk-ins. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)). Specifically, in those walk-ins that use an evaporator fan motor with a rating of under 1 horsepower (“hp”) and less than 460 volts, that motor must be either a three-phase motor or an electronically commutated motor unless DOE determined prior to January 1, 2009 that electronically commutated motors are available from only one manufacturer. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(A)) Consistent with this requirement, DOE eventually determined that more than one manufacturer offered these motors for sale, which effectively made electronically commutated motors a required design standard for use with evaporative fan motors rated at under 1 hp and under 460 volts. DOE documented this determination in the rulemaking docket as docket ID EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072. This document can be found at

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072

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

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

EPCA also directed the Secretary to issue performance-based standards for walk-ins that would apply to equipment manufactured three (3) years after the final rule is published, or five (5) years if the Secretary determines by rule that a 3-year period is inadequate. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)) In a final rule published on June 3, 2014 (2014 Final Rule), DOE prescribed performance-based standards for walk-ins manufactured on or after June 5, 2017. 79 FR 32050. These standards applied to the main components of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (walk-ins): Refrigeration systems, panels, and doors. The standards were expressed in terms of AWEF for the walk-in refrigeration systems, R-value for walk-in panels, and maximum energy

consumption for walk-in doors. The standards are shown in Table I.1.

Table II-1—Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Cooler and Walk-In Freezer Components Set Forth in 2014 Rule

Class descriptor

Class

Standard level

Min. AWEF

Refrigeration Systems

(Btu/W-h) *

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

DC.M.I, <9,000

5.61

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

DC.M.I, ≥9,000

5.61

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

DC.M.O, <9,000

7.60

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

DC.M.O, ≥9,000

7.60

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

DC.L.I, <9,000

5.93 × 10

−

+ 2.33

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

DC.L.I, ≥9,000

3.10

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

DC.L.O, <9,000

2.30 × 10

−

+ 2.73

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

DC.L.O, ≥9,000

4.79

Multiplex Condensing, Medium Temperature **

MC.M

10.89

Multiplex Condensing, Low-Temperature **

MC.L

6.57

Min. R-value

Panels

(h-ft2-°F/Btu)

Structural Panel, Medium Temperature

SP.M

Structural Panel, Low-Temperature

SP.L

Floor Panel, Low-Temperature

FP.L

Max. energy

Non-Display Doors

consumption

(kWh/day) †

Passage Door, Medium Temperature

PD.M

0.05 × A

+ 1.7

Passage Door, Low-Temperature

PD.L

0.14 × A

+ 4.8

Freight Door, Medium Temperature

FD.M

0.04 × A

+ 1.9

Freight Door, Low-Temperature

FD.L

0.12 × A

+ 5.6

Max. energy

Display Doors

consumption

(kWh/day) ††

Display Door, Medium Temperature

DD.M

0.04 × A

+ 0.41

Display Door, Low-Temperature

DD.L

0.15 × A

+ 0.29

* These standards were expressed in terms of Q, which represents the system gross capacity as calculated in AHRI 1250.

** DOE used this terminology to refer to these equipment classes in the June 2014 final rule. In this rule, DOE has changed “multiplex condensing” to “unit cooler” and the abbreviation “MC” to “UC,” consistent with the proposals of the separate test procedure rulemaking under consideration by DOE.

† A

represents the surface area of the non-display door.

†† A

represents the surface area of the display door.

After publication of the 2014 Final Rule, the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) and Lennox International, Inc. (a manufacturer of WICF refrigeration systems) filed petitions for review of DOE's final rule and DOE's subsequent denial of a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Lennox Int'l, Inc.

Dep't of Energy,

Case No. 14-60535 (5th Cir.). Other WICF refrigeration system manufacturers—Rheem Manufacturing Co., Heat Transfer Products Group (a subsidiary of Rheem Manufacturing Co.), and Hussmann Corp.—along with the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (a trade association representing contractors who install WICF refrigeration systems) intervened on the petitioners' behalf. The Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Texas Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy intervened on behalf of DOE. As a result of this litigation, a settlement agreement was reached to address, among other things, six of the refrigeration system standards—each of which is addressed in this document.

The “six” standards established in the 2014 final rule and vacated by the Fifth Circuit court order have become “seven” standards due to the split of one of the equipment classes based on capacity. Specifically, the “multiplex condensing, low temperature” class (see 79 FR 32050, 32124 (June 3, 2014)) has become two classes of “unit cooler, low temperature,” one with capacity (q

net

) less than 15,500 Btu/h, and the other with capacity greater or equal to 15,500 Btu/h (see Table I-1).

A controlling court order from the Fifth Circuit, which was issued on August 10, 2015, vacates those six standards. These vacated standards relate to (1) the two energy conservation standards applicable to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems (re-named as “unit coolers” for purposes of this rule) operating at medium and low temperatures and (2) the four energy conservation standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. See 79 FR at 32124. The thirteen other standards established in the June 2014 final rule and shown in Table I-1 (that is, the four standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium temperatures; three standards applicable to panels; and six standards applicable

to doors) have not been vacated and remain subject to the June 5, 2017 compliance date prescribed by the June 2014 final rule.

To help clarify the applicability of these standards, DOE is also proposing to modify the organization of its regulations to specify the compliance date of these existing standards and the new standards in this proposal. To aid in readability, DOE is proposing to incorporate the new standards in this proposal with the refrigeration system standards that already exist into a single table that will be inserted into a new 10 CFR 431.306(f).

DOE has issued an enforcement policy with respect to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium temperatures. See

http://www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/walk-coolerwalk-freezer-refrigeration-systems-enforcement-policy

DOE subsequently established a Working Group to negotiate proposed energy conservation standards to replace the six vacated standards. Specifically, on August 5, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a walk-in coolers and freezers Working Group (“WICF Working Group”). 80 FR 46521. The Working Group was established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (“NRA”). (5 U.S.C. App. 2; 5 U.S.C. 561-570, Public Law 104-320.) The purpose of the Working Group was to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on proposed standard levels for the energy efficiency of the affected classes of WICF refrigeration systems. The Working Group was to consist of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards, and the group would consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues.

Ultimately, the Working Group consisted of 12 members and one DOE representative (see Table II-2). (See Appendix A, List of Members and Affiliates, Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group Ground Rules, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0005 at p. 5.) The Working Group met in-person during 13 days of meetings held August 27, September 11, September 30, October 1, October 15, October 16, November 3, November 4, November 20, December 3, December 4, December 14, and December 15, 2015.

Table II-2—ASRAC Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Working Group Members and Affiliations

Member

Affiliation

Abbreviation

Ashley Armstrong

U.S. Department of Energy

DOE.

Lane Burt

Natural Resources Defense Council

NRDC.

Mary Dane

Traulsen

Traulsen.

Cyril Fowble

Lennox International, Inc. (Heatcraft)

Lennox.

Sean Gouw

California Investor-Owned Utilities

CA IOUs.

Andrew Haala

Hussmann Corp

Hussmann.

Armin Hauer

ebm-papst, Inc

ebm-papst.

John Koon

Manitowoc Company

Manitowoc.

Joanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

ASAP.

Charlie McCrudden

Air Conditioning Contractors of America

ACCA.

Louis Starr

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA.

Michael Straub

Rheem Manufacturing (Heat Transfer Products Group)

Rheem.

Wayne Warner

Emerson Climate Technologies

Emerson.

All of the meetings were open to the public and were also broadcast via webinar. Several people who were not members of the Working Group attended the meetings and were given the opportunity to comment on the proceedings. Non-Working Group meeting attendees are listed in Table II-3.

Table II-3—Other ASRAC Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Meeting Attendees and Affiliations

Attendee

Affiliation

Abbreviation

Akash Bhatia

Tecumseh Products Company

Tecumseh.

Bryan Eisenhower

VaCom Technologies

VaCom.

Dean Groff

Danfoss

Danfoss.

Brian Lamberty

Unknown

Brian Lamberty.

Michael Layne

Turbo Air

Turbo Air.

Jon McHugh

McHugh Energy

McHugh Energy.

Yonghui (Frank) Xu

National Coil Company

National Coil.

Vince Zolli

Keeprite Refrigeration

Keeprite.

To facilitate the negotiations, DOE provided analytical support and supplied the group with a variety of analyses and presentations, all of which are available in the docket

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016

). These analyses and presentations, developed with direct input from the Working Group members, include preliminary versions of many of the analyses discussed in this NOPR, including a market and technology assessment; screening analysis; engineering analysis; energy use analysis; markups analysis; life cycle cost and payback period analysis; shipments analysis; and national impact analysis.

On December 15, 2015, the Working Group reached consensus on, among other things, a series of energy conservation standards to replace those that were vacated as a result of the litigation. The Working Group assembled its recommendations into a single term sheet (See Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0052) that was presented to, and approved by the ASRAC on December 18, 2015. DOE considered the approved term sheet,

along with other comments received during the negotiated rulemaking process, in developing energy conservation standards that this document proposes to adopt.

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedure

DOE's current energy conservation standards for WICF refrigeration systems are expressed in terms of AWEF (

see

10 CFR 431.304(c)(10)). AWEF is an annualized refrigeration efficiency metric that expresses the ratio of the heat load that a system can reject (in British thermal units (“Btu”)) to the energy required to reject that load (in watt-hours). The existing DOE test procedure for determining the AWEF of walk-in refrigeration systems is located at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R. The current DOE test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems was originally established by an April 15, 2011 final rule, which incorporates by reference the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) Standard 1250-2009,

2009 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers.

73 FR 21580, 21605-21612.

On May 13, 2014, DOE updated its test procedures for WICFs in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

(May 2014 test procedure rule). 79 FR 27388. That rule allows WICF refrigeration system manufacturers to use an alternative efficiency determination method (“AEDM”) to rate and certify their basic models by using the projected energy efficiency level derived from these simulation models in lieu of testing. It also adopted testing methods to enable an OEM to readily test and rate its unit cooler or condensing unit individually rather than as part of matched pairs. Under this approach, a manufacturer who distributes a unit cooler as a separate component must rate that unit cooler as though it were to be connected to a multiplex system and must comply with any applicable standard DOE may establish for a unit cooler. Similarly, a manufacturer distributing a condensing unit as a separate component must use fixed values for the suction (inlet) conditions and certain nominal values for unit cooler fan and defrost energy, in lieu of actual unit cooler test data, when calculating AWEF. (10 CFR 431.304(c)(12)(ii)

DOE notes that, although the final rule established the approach for rating individual components of dedicated condensing systems, it still allows matched-pair ratings of these systems. This approach is required for dedicated condensing systems with multiple capacity stages and/or variable-capacity, since the current test procedure of AHRI 1250-2009 does not have a provision for testing individual condensing units with such features. An OEM would have to use matched-pair testing to rate multiple- or variable-capacity systems, but can choose matched-pair or individual-component rating for single-capacity dedicated condensing systems.

The May 2014 test procedure final rule also introduced several clarifications and additions to the AHRI test procedure for WICF refrigeration systems. These changes can be found in 10 CFR 431.304.

The Working Group also recommended that DOE consider making certain amendments to the test procedure to support the refrigeration system standards being proposed in this NOPR to replace the six vacated standards. DOE is conducting a separate test procedure rulemaking to address these recommendations. All documents and information pertaining to the test procedure rulemaking can be found in docket [EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030]. The standard levels discussed in this document were evaluated using the proposed test procedure.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

As part of its energy conservation standards rulemakings, DOE generally conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the equipment at issue. 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) through (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 NOPR discusses the results of the screening analysis for WICF refrigeration systems, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR technical support document (“TSD”).

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt a 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) and 6316(a)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for WICF refrigeration systems, 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 IV.C.9 of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE often divides covered equipment into separate classes by the type of energy used, equipment capacity, or some other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE generally considers such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a))

As previously noted in section II.B, a court order vacated the portions of the June 2014 final rule relating to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems (re-named unit coolers for purposes of this rule) operating at medium and low temperatures and dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. Therefore, this rulemaking focuses on standards related to these refrigeration system classes. More information relating to the scope of coverage is described in section IV.A.1 of this proposed rule.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to the considered WICF refrigeration systems purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the proposed standards (2020-2049).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of the considered WICF refrigeration systems purchased in the above 30-year 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 at issue would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation standards.

Each TSL is comprised of specific efficiency levels for each equipment class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for equipment shipped in a 9-year period.

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential standards adopted for the considered WICF refrigeration systems at issue. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where they are used. Based on the site energy, DOE calculates 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.

DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by the covered equipment addressed in this notice. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 of this proposed rule.

The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012).

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standards for a type of covered equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)) 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

Herrington,

768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), opined that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in the context of section 325 of EPCA (

i.e.

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)) to be savings that are not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking, including the proposed standards (presented in section V.B.3), are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

E. 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)(I) through (VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of a potential proposed standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”), as discussed in section IV.J. 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) Industry net present value (

i.e.

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 consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in the LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a 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) and 6316(a)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including its installation) and the operating expense (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 consumers. 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 consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient 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 assumes that consumers will purchase the covered equipment in the first full year of compliance with the proposed standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of adopting the proposed standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F.

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) and 6316(a)) As discussed in section III.D, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

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) and 6316(a)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this proposed rule would 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 proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii) and 6316(a)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the

ADDRESSES

section for information on how to send comments to DOJ.

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) and 6316(a)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M.

The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; the emissions impacts are reported in section IV.L of this proposed rule. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L.1.

g. Other Factors

In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(a)) To the extent interested parties submit any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described in this preamble, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) (and as applied to WICFs through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer 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. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), which applies to WICFs through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). 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 proposed rule.

F. Compliance Date of Standards

Under EPCA, performance-based standards for WICFs, including the initial establishment of those standards, have a statutorily-prescribed lead time starting on the applicable final rule's publication date and ending three (3) years later. Starting on that latter date, WICF manufacturers must comply with the relevant energy conservation standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)-(5). DOE may extend the lead time to as long as five (5) years if the Secretary determines, by rule, that the default 3-year period is inadequate. (See id.) At this time, DOE anticipates that publication of a final rule would occur in the second half of 2016, which would provide a compliance date that would fall in the second half of 2019 for any new standards that DOE would adopt as part of this rulemaking.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to the considered WICF refrigeration systems. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed 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 national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments forecasts and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer 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, which are mainstays in DOE's standards rulemaking proceedings and continue to be refined in response to public input, are available on the DOE Web site for this rulemaking:

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=56

DOE also developed a spreadsheet-based engineering model that calculates

performance of different WICF equipment designs and summarizes cost versus efficiency relationships for the classes covered in this rulemaking. DOE made this spreadsheet available on the rulemaking Web site. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of EIA's

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

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. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) A determination of the scope of the rulemaking and equipment classes; (2) manufacturers and industry structure; (3) existing efficiency programs; (4) shipments information; (5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the WICF refrigeration systems under consideration. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized below. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

The NOPR of the separate WICF test procedure rulemaking noted earlier in section III.A addressed the coverage of process cooling walk-ins and their components under DOE's regulations and proposed a definition for process cooling to distinguish this equipment from other walk-ins. 81 FR at 54926 (August 17, 2016). As discussed in the test procedure NOPR, process cooling walk-ins would be considered to be walk-ins, making them subject to the prescriptive statutory requirements already established by Congress. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f). In addition, their panels and doors would be subject to both the statutorily-prescribed standards for these components, and the standards established by the June 2014 final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f) and 10 CFR 431.306. However, a process cooler may not need to satisfy the refrigeration system standards—including those being proposed today—depending on the circumstances.

DOE proposed to define a process cooling refrigeration system as a refrigeration system that either (1) is distributed in commerce with an enclosure such that the refrigeration system capacity meets a certain minimum threshold, indicating that it is designed for refrigeration loads much greater than required simply to hold the temperature of the shipped enclosure at refrigerated temperature, or (2) is a unit cooler with a height dimension of at least 4.5 feet—a specification that its discharge air flow will impinge directly on stored products. 81 FR at 54926 (Augsut 17, 2016). Because of the specific aspects of this definition, the exclusions to the refrigeration system standards would apply to (a) refrigeration systems sold as part of a complete package, including the insulated enclosure, and the refrigeration system for which the capacity per volume meets the proposed process cooling definition, (b) dedicated condensing systems sold as a matched pair in which the unit cooler meets the requirements of the proposed process cooling definition, and (c) unit coolers that meet the requirements of the proposed definition. As discussed in the test procedure document, the exclusion would not apply to condensing units distributed in commerce without unit coolers.

DOE proposes to specify that the refrigeration system standards exclusions be added to the regulatory text at 10 CFR 431.306.

As discussed in section II.B, this NOPR covers proposed energy conservation standards for walk-in refrigeration systems to replace the six standards vacated by the Fifth Circuit court order issued in August 2015. These vacated standards relate to (1) the two energy conservation standards applicable to unit coolers operating at medium and low temperatures and (2) the four energy conservation standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. As noted earlier, the remaining standards for walk-ins promulgated by DOE remain in place.

In the June 2014 final rule, DOE divided refrigeration systems into classes based on their treatment under the test procedure with respect to condensing unit configuration. 79 FR at 32069-32070. In the May 2014 test procedure rule, DOE established a rating method for walk-in refrigeration system components distributed individually; that is, unit coolers sold by themselves are tested and rated with the multiplex condensing system test, while condensing units sold by themselves are tested and rated with the dedicated condensing system test. In other words, all unit coolers sold alone would belong to the (as termed at the time) multiplex condensing class, while all condensing units sold alone would belong to the dedicated condensing class. WICF refrigeration systems consisting of a unit cooler and condensing unit that are manufactured as a matched system and sold together by the manufacturer would also be rated with the dedicated condensing system test and belong to the dedicated condensing class.

During the Working Group meetings, a caucus of manufacturers submitted shipment data showing that the vast majority (>90 percent) of their unit coolers and condensing units were sold as stand-alone equipment, rather than paired with the opposite component. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0029) The data suggested that manufacturers would certify the majority of the equipment they sell using the rating method specified for walk-in refrigeration components that are distributed individually; thus, DOE expects that the majority of systems being certified within the dedicated condensing class would consist of condensing units sold alone, while a much smaller number of systems certified within this class would have been tested as manufacturer-matched pairs under DOE's test procedure.

All unit coolers sold alone would be treated for certification purposes as belonging to the unit cooler class, and likewise, as discussed in the previous paragraph, unit coolers sold alone must be tested and rated with the multiplex condensing system test. However, manufacturer data also showed that the majority of WICF unit coolers are ultimately installed in applications where they are paired with a dedicated condensing unit. See id. (noting in column “K” that approximately 82 percent of unit coolers are used in dedicated condensing applications, while approximately 12 percent are used in multiplex condensing applications. For this reason, DOE is proposing to re-name the “multiplex condensing” class as the “unit cooler” class, in acknowledgment of the fact that most unit coolers are not installed in multiplex condensing applications. For this rulemaking, DOE also conducted additional analysis to evaluate the energy use of unit coolers if they are installed in a dedicated condensing system application—

i.e.,

an application for separately-sold unit coolers that is not covered in the test procedure or reflected in the equipment rating. This is discussed in sections IV.C.2 and IV.E.

In the June 2014 final rule, DOE established a single AWEF standard for low-temperature multiplex condensing systems (unit coolers) regardless of capacity. This particular standard was one of those vacated through the controlling court order from the Fifth Circuit. Based on further comment and analysis conducted during the negotiated rulemaking to examine potential energy conservation standards for this class of equipment, DOE is proposing to consider different standard levels for different capacities of unit coolers, which would necessitate establishing separate classes for these systems based on capacity ranges. The updated analysis showed that the appropriate standard level for low-temperature unit coolers could vary with capacity. As a result, in DOE's view, applying different standard levels (in the form of different AWEF equations or values) based on capacity would provide a better-fitting approach than its previous one when setting the energy efficiency performance levels for walk-in refrigeration systems. In addition to being consistent with EPCA, which authorizes DOE to create capacity-based classes, see 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), this approach would provide a parallel structure to the one DOE had established in the June 2014 final rule for low-temperature dedicated systems. See 79 FR at 32124 (detailing different capacity-based classes for low-temperature dedicated condensing refrigeration systems). (Although the June 2014 standards for low-temperature dedicated systems were also vacated, analysis conducted during the negotiated rulemaking continued to affirm that it is reasonable to consider different capacity-based classes for low-temperature dedicated condensing refrigeration systems.) The Working Group discussed this issue and ultimately agreed to consider two classes for low-temperature unit coolers based on whether their net capacity is above or below 15,500 Btu/h. See Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0056, recommendation #5. That agreement is reflected in this proposed rule, bringing the total number of standards proposed in this notice to seven. These seven standards would, if adopted, replace the six standards that were vacated.

2. Technology Options

In the technology assessment for the June 2014 final rule, DOE identified 15 technology options to improve the efficiency of WICF refrigeration systems, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

• Energy storage systems

• Refrigeration system override

• Automatic evaporator fan shut-off

• Improved evaporator and condenser fan blades

• Improved evaporator and condenser coils

• Evaporator fan control

• Ambient sub-cooling

• Higher-efficiency fan motors

• Higher-efficiency compressors

• Liquid suction heat exchanger

• Defrost controls

• Hot gas defrost

• Floating head pressure

• Condenser fan control

• Economizer cooling

DOE continued to consider these 15 options in formulating the WICF refrigeration system standards detailed in this proposal. Discussions during the Working Group negotiation meetings on September 11, 2015 and September 30, 2015 suggested that DOE should consider variable-speed evaporator fan control separately for periods when the compressor is off, and when the compressor is on. At various points in the meetings, Working Group members (Rheem, Hussmann, and Manitowoc) stated that while fan control in the off-cycle mode would be beneficial for both single-capacity and variable-capacity systems, fan control in the on-cycle mode would be beneficial only for variable-capacity systems. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Rheem and Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at pp. 56-72 and Rheem, Hussmann, and Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 0067 at pp. 112-117) This is because the unit cooler class is dominated by unit coolers that are also used in dedicated condensing installations, and these coolers—when equipped with evaporator fans that vary speed in the on-cycle mode—would need to be paired with either variable-speed or multiple-capacity compressors to produce an energy efficiency benefit from this feature. However, most dedicated condensing systems under consideration in this rule have single-speed/single-capacity compressors. In the scenario where a unit cooler with on-cycle and off-cycle variable-speed capability is paired with a single-speed or single-capacity compressor, the on-cycle variable-speed feature would not deliver in-field savings while the off-cycle variable speed feature would be expected to deliver savings. DOE determined that delineating these two features into separate design options would more readily facilitate analysis of savings attributed to each feature. Furthermore, during the September 30, 2015 public meeting, Rheem pointed out that using a variable-speed evaporator fan control during the on-cycle mode requires additional features such as a controller that can account for temperature and/or pressure sensor inputs to allow an algorithm to modify fan speed so that delivered cooling matches refrigeration load. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 0067 at pp. 119-123) These extra features would be expected to contribute to a cost difference between on-cycle and off-cycle variable-speed fan control, further suggesting that they should be considered as separate design options. Thus, as presented in the subsequent October 15, 2015 public meeting, DOE considered off-cycle and on-cycle fan controls to be different technology options for the purposes of this rulemaking analysis. (See October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, slide 42, available in Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026, at p. 42)

See chapter 3 of the TSD for further details on the technologies DOE considered.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

Technological feasibility.

Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes will not be considered further.

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.

Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability.

If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers 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.

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. Furthermore, DOE also excludes from consideration in the engineering analysis any technology that does not affect rated energy consumption as it would not be considered beneficial in the context of this rulemaking. The reasons for excluding any technology are discussed below.

1. Technologies Having No Effect on Rated Energy Consumption

In the June 2014 final rule, DOE determined that the following technologies do not affect rated energy consumption:

• Liquid suction heat exchanger

• Refrigeration system override

• Economizer cooling

DOE has not received any further evidence that these technologies should be considered and has not included them in the analysis supporting the proposals of this document.

As discussed in section III.A, DOE is proposing to remove the method for testing systems with hot gas defrost from the test procedure in a separate rulemaking. Thus, this option will not affect rated energy consumption and DOE is not considering it further.

2. Adaptive Defrost and On-Cycle Variable-Speed Evaporator Fans

Consistent with the recommendations made during the Working Group negotiations, DOE's supporting analysis for this proposal does not further consider adaptive defrost and on-cycle variable-speed fans as options that manufacturers can use to improve the rated performance of their equipment. Adaptive defrost is covered by the DOE test procedure as a credit applied to any piece of equipment that has the feature—the test procedure does not include a test method for validating the performance of this feature. The Working Group was unable to develop a definition that adequately defined this feature in a way that all systems meeting the definition would receive performance improvements consistent with the test procedure credit. Hence, the Working Group recommended that certified ratings and standards should be based on equipment not having the feature, although the test procedure could still include it to allow manufacturers to make representations regarding improved performance for equipment having the feature. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (December 3, 2015), No. 0057 at pp. 130-153) DOE has proposed this approach in the separate test procedure rulemaking it is conducting. Thus, the analysis does not consider adaptive defrost as a design option.

Regarding on-cycle variable-speed evaporator fans, as mentioned in section IV.A.1, unit coolers sold individually are tested as though they are used in multiplex applications, but the majority are in fact installed in dedicated condensing applications. Furthermore, most dedicated condensing systems are single-capacity while the design option would only save energy when part of a variable-capacity system. (As a multiplex system is a variable-capacity system, the design option would save energy when the unit cooler is actually installed with a multiplex system.) Because of this discrepancy, most of the savings that would be predicted based on ratings would not be achieved in the field, and manufacturers in the Working Group objected to DOE considering design options for equipment features that would not be useful to most end-users. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0006 at p. 1, item #5c and Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at pp. 56-72.) Despite the possibility of some field savings from this feature as mentioned in this preamble (that is, in scenarios where the unit cooler with the on-cycle variable speed feature is installed in a multiplex application or with a variable-speed or multi-capacity dedicated condenser), DOE is currently proposing not to consider this option in the analysis, which is consistent with a proposed modification to the test procedure that would preclude manufacturers from certifying compliance to DOE using ratings derived from testing of on-cycle variable-speed fans, as discussed in the following paragraph.

The Working Group ultimately included in the term sheet a recommendation that would require manufacturers to make representations, including certifications of compliance to DOE, of the energy efficiency or energy consumption of WICF refrigeration systems without adaptive defrost or on-cycle variable-speed fans. See Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0056, recommendation #4. Likewise, they recommended that compliance with the applicable WICF refrigeration system standard should be assessed without using these technologies. As part of this approach, manufacturers would be permitted to make an additional representation of the energy efficiency or consumption for a basic model using either of these technologies as measured in accordance with the DOE test procedure, provided that the additional represented value has been certified to DOE per 10 CFR 429.12. Id. However, the benefit from using these technologies would not be factored in when determining compliance with the proposed standard. Id. The separate test procedure rulemaking currently underway is proposing to adopt these changes, and the NOPR for that rulemaking discusses the reasoning behind adopting these changes in more detail. Because these technologies would not have an effect on the rated efficiency of refrigeration systems for purposes of compliance under the proposed revisions to the test procedure, DOE did not consider these technologies in its analysis supporting the proposed standards.

3. Screened-Out Technologies

In the June 2014 final rule, DOE screened out the following technologies from consideration:

• Energy storage systems (technological feasibility)

• High efficiency evaporator fan motors (technological feasibility)

• 3-phase motors (impacts on equipment utility)

• Improved evaporator coils (impacts on equipment utility)

DOE has not received any evidence beyond those technologies it has already considered that would weigh in favor of including these screened-out technologies and is continuing to exclude them for purposes of this proposal. Chapter 4 of the TSD contains further details on why DOE is screening out these technologies.

4. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 meet all four screening criteria and that their benefits can be measured using the DOE test procedure. In summary, DOE chose the following technology options to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis:

• Higher efficiency compressors

• Improved condenser coil

• Higher efficiency condenser fan motors

• Improved condenser and evaporator fan blades

• Ambient sub-cooling

• Off-cycle evaporator fan control

• Variable speed condenser fan control

• Floating head pressure

DOE determined that the benefits of these technology options can be measured using the DOE test procedure. Furthermore, the technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially-available equipment or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (

i.e.,

practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, equipment availability, health, or safety).

For additional details on DOE's screening analysis, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

In the engineering analysis, DOE establishes the relationship between the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) and improved WICF refrigeration system efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE typically structures the engineering analysis using one of three approaches: (1) Design option; (2) efficiency level; or (3) reverse engineering (or cost assessment). The design-option approach involves adding the estimated cost and associated efficiency of various efficiency-improving design changes to the baseline equipment to model different levels of efficiency. The efficiency-level approach uses estimates of costs and efficiencies of equipment available on the market at distinct efficiency levels to develop the cost-efficiency relationship. The reverse-engineering approach involves testing equipment for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed bill of materials (“BOM”) derived from reverse engineering representative equipment. The efficiency ranges from that of the typical WICF refrigeration system sold today (

i.e.,

the baseline) to the maximum technologically feasible efficiency level. At each efficiency level examined, DOE determines the MPC; this relationship between increasing efficiency and increasing cost is referred to as a cost-efficiency curve. DOE conducted the engineering analysis for the June 2014 final rule using a design-option approach. 79 FR at 32072. DOE received no comments suggesting that it use of one of the alternative engineering analysis approaches. Consequently, DOE used a design-option approach in the analysis supporting this proposal.

DOE did, however, make several changes to its engineering analysis based on discussions and information provided during the Working Group negotiation meetings. These changes are described in the following sections.

1. Refrigerants

The analysis for the June 2014 final rule assumed that the refrigerant R-404A would be used in all new refrigeration equipment meeting the standard. 79 FR at 32074. On July 20, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (“SNAP”) prohibiting the use of R-404A in certain retail food refrigeration applications. See 80 FR 42870 (“July 2015 EPA SNAP Rule”). Under the rule, R-404A can no longer be used in new supermarket refrigeration systems (starting on January 1, 2017), new remote condensing units (starting on January 1, 2018), and certain stand-alone retail refrigeration units (starting on either January 1, 2019 or January 1, 2020 depending on the type of system). The last of these groups could include WICF refrigeration systems consisting of a unit cooler and condensing unit packaged together into a single piece of equipment. See 40 CFR part 82, appendix U to Subpart G (listing unacceptable refrigerant substitutes). EPA explained that most commercial walk-in coolers and freezers would fall within the end-use category of either supermarket systems or remote condensing units and would be subject to the rule. 80 FR at 42902.

Given that manufacturers would not be allowed to use R-404A in WICF refrigeration systems when the proposed WICF standards would take effect, DOE conducted its analysis using an alternative refrigerant that can be readily used in most types of WICF refrigeration systems under the July 2015 EPA SNAP rule: R-407A. DOE made this selection after soliciting and obtaining input from the Working Group regarding which refrigerants would most likely be used to replace R-404A in WICF refrigeration systems and be most appropriate to use in its analysis to model WICF system performance. Lennox recommended the use of R-407A because it is currently a viable refrigerant for WICF refrigeration equipment and the manufacturer predicted that it would be the most common refrigerant in supermarket applications in the near future. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at pp. 12-13) With respect to the issue of whether R-407A would be appropriate for all types of WICF refrigeration equipment, Rheem acknowledged that R-407A would not be allowed for packaged refrigeration equipment (where the condensing unit and unit cooler components are factory-assembled into a single piece of equipment) beginning January 1, 2020, but noted that this type of equipment comprises a very small segment of the WICF refrigeration market. It added that for this type of equipment, R-448A and R-449A would likely be the preferred alternatives and that they are similar to R-407A in terms of their refrigerant properties, making the choice of using R-407A for the analysis an appropriate one to simulate WICF refrigeration system performance with any of the likely replacement refrigerants. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at pp. 14-15)

In a subsequent meeting on September 30, 2015, the Working Group voted that DOE should use R-407A in its analysis going forward. The vote passed with 12 members voting “yes” and one member voting “no.” The member who voted “no” (unidentified in the transcript) said that his constituency only uses R-448A. However, the CA IOUs observed that the performance of systems using R-448A is approximately equivalent to systems using R-407A. As a result of the Working Group's vote and discussion, DOE agreed to redo the analysis using R-407A going forward. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 0067 at pp. 34-39) For purposes of this proposal, DOE's analysis assumes the use of R-407A but a manufacturer would be permitted to use any acceptable refrigerant in its equipment to meet the proposed standard.

Changing the refrigerant used in the assumptions, however, required some changes to DOE's analysis due to the properties of R-407A. Both R-404A and R-407A are blends of refrigerants that have different boiling points. This means that unlike pure substances such as water, the temperature of the refrigerant changes as it boils or condenses, because one of the refrigerants in the blend, having a lower boiling point, boils off sooner than the other(s). This phenomenon is called “glide.” The refrigerants that make up R-404A have nearly identical boiling points. For simplicity, the analysis assumed that R-404 remains at the same temperature as it undergoes a phase change (that is, it would not experience glide). In contrast, R-407A undergoes a much more significant temperature change when it boils—the temperature can rise as much as 8 degrees between

the saturated liquid condition (the temperature at which a liquid begins to boil, also called the “bubble point”) and the saturated vapor condition (the temperature at which a vapor begins to condense, also called the “dew point”). The average of these two temperatures, bubble point and dew point, is called the mid-point temperature. DOE revised its analysis to account for the glide of R-407A, as discussed in the following sections.

2. As-Tested Versus Field-Representative Performance Analysis

DOE's engineering analysis is based on energy consumption characteristics as measured using the applicable DOE test procedure. The purpose is to replicate the manufacturer's rating so that the costs incurred for manufacturers to produce systems that meet the standard are accurately reflected. The engineering analysis outputs are generally also used as inputs to the downstream analyses such as the energy use, LCC, and NIA (which assess the economic benefits of energy savings of installed equipment), since energy use in the test is intended to reflect field energy use. However, for a number of reasons discussed during the negotiations, but primarily because of the switch in refrigerant from R-404A to R-407A described in the previous section, there are differences between as-tested performance and field performance (

i.e.

the performance that would be expected from a field-installed system). The field-installed system performance could not be captured sufficiently in the energy use analysis, so DOE conducted an intermediate analysis to bridge the gap between the engineering analysis and the downstream analyses to predict aspects of field performance that would not be measured by the test procedure. DOE refers to this intermediate analysis as the “field-representative analysis” to distinguish it from the engineering and other analyses. Specific differences in how DOE modeled as-tested and in-field performance in the analysis are discussed as part of section IV.C.5 and further in chapter 5 of the TSD.

Normally, when a test procedure becomes inadequate to capture representative equipment performance, DOE initiates a rulemaking to revise the test procedure. A revision of this magnitude fell outside the scope of the negotiated rulemaking. DOE has tentatively concluded that implementation of all the necessary test procedure changes is sufficiently complex that it would be prudent to work with the industry standard development groups that developed the original AHRI standard that DOE incorporated by reference into the WICF test procedure. The contemplation of such future changes does not implicate this standards rulemaking, however, because the standards set forth in this proposal are based on a limited group of refrigeration systems and rely on the modifications to the test procedure that DOE has already proposed to make. The fireld-representative analysis further ensures that the proposed test procedures adequately capture the impacts of the standard for the relevant equipment classes. Accordingly, the proposed standards would not have been affected by the incorporation of these additional test procedure changes. Furthermore, the contemplated future changes to the test procedure would affect the standards for medium temperature, dedicated condensing systems, which were not vacated by the litigation and are not at issue in this standards rulemaking. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to revise the test procedure within the context of this rulemaking (except as proposed in section III.A), but reserves the right to update the test procedure in a future rulemaking.

Although DOE is allowing manufacturers to rate and certify unit coolers and condensing units separately, as described in section IV.A.1, and has structured its revised analysis based on this separate-component rating approach, these components will ultimately be installed as part of complete refrigeration systems, and the field-representative analysis reflects this fact. Some installations involve new systems consisting of two new components (a new condensing unit and a new unit cooler). The efficiency of these systems will reflect the design options included in both components. Other installations will involve replacing just the condensing unit or just the unit cooler. The efficiency of these systems will reflect the design options included in the new component only; DOE assumed for purposes of this analysis that the existing component would be at the baseline efficiency level.

Ultimately, DOE provided outputs from the field-representative analysis outputs to the downstream analysis for four scenarios: (1) New unit cooler and new condensing unit that are installed together in the field; (2) new unit cooler that is installed with a multiplex system; (3) new unit cooler that is installed with an existing condensing unit in the field; and (4) new condensing unit that is installed with an existing unit cooler in the field. Scenarios 1 through 3 apply to the evaluation of unit cooler efficiency levels, while scenarios 1 and 4 apply to evaluation of condensing unit efficiency levels. The scenarios analyzed in the downstream analysis are described in section IV.F. DOE evaluated equipment classes of tested unit coolers and condensing units in each of the relevant scenarios. (In the case of the medium temperature unit cooler class, DOE modeled the first scenario as a new unit cooler paired with a dedicated condensing unit meeting the standard for dedicated condensing, medium temperature systems established in the June 2014 final rule, which remains in effect.) During the November 20, 2015 public meeting, DOE presented a diagram mapping the tested classes to the field-representative scenarios. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0041 at p. 17) Details of these four scenarios are also provided in chapter 5 of the TSD.

3. Representative Equipment for Analysis

In the analysis for the June 2014 final rule, DOE analyzed a range of representative WICF refrigeration systems within each equipment class. The representative systems covered different capacities, compressor types, and evaporator fin spacing. In all, DOE analyzed 47 different representative refrigeration systems across all 10 equipment classes. See the June 2014 final rule TSD, chapter 5, pages 5-4 through 5-6 (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015, No. 0031) and 79 FR 32050 at 32073. DOE made several changes to the set of representative systems it analyzed for this proposal.

First, as discussed in section IV.C.1, DOE conducted its analysis for this proposed rule based on the assumption that refrigerant R-407A would be used by walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers. In its prior analysis, not all of the compressor types analyzed in the June 2014 final rule were designed to be compatible with this refrigerant. In the Working Group meeting held on September 11, 2015, National Coil Company, a meeting attendee, pointed out that low-temperature hermetic compressors are not likely to be developed for use with R-407A, and Lennox suggested analyzing scroll compressors for the low-capacity classes that could have used hermetic compressors using R-404A. Emerson, a Working Group member and major compressor manufacturer, agreed with the approach. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, National Coil Company, Lennox, and Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at pp. 29-30) A caucus of

manufacturers later submitted a document to the docket recommending specific WICF equipment capacity ranges for different types of low-temperature R-407A compressors that DOE should consider in its analysis: 5,000 to 60,000 Btu/h for scroll compressors and 15,000 to 120,000 Btu/h for semi-hermetic compressors. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0008 at p. 25)

Second, the Working Group recognized that DOE's analysis would require additional capacity levels beyond those that had already been considered in the June 2014 final rule. As part of that rule's analysis, DOE analyzed low-temperature, dedicated condensing refrigeration systems with nominal capacities of 6,000, 9,000, 54,000, and 72,000 Btu/h. 79 FR at 32073. During the Working Group meetings, a caucus of manufacturers suggested that DOE consider analyzing low-temperature dedicated condensing systems with nominal capacities of 15,000 Btu/h and 25,000 Btu/h. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0008 at p. 25; see also Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 0067 at p.175) Following this recommendation, DOE analyzed low-temperature dedicated condensing systems at 25,000 Btu/h and considered adding a representative size of 15,000 Btu/h if the initial results indicated that an additional capacity size was required to better model the performance of low-temperature dedicated condensing systems. Ultimately, efficiency trends across capacities suggested that the 25,000 Btu/h point was adequate to represent the intermediate capacity range given the similarity to the AWEF range covered by the 9,000 Btu/h, 25,000 Btu/h, and 54,000 Btu/h. This trend is shown in a graph. See EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0051 (presenting a spreadsheet containing a “pivot awefs” tab showing efficiency trends across capacities for dedicated condensing systems). Thus, because of the sufficiency of the 25,000 Btu/h at representing the intermediate capacity range for these systems, a full analysis of a 15,000 Btu/h dedicated condensing system was unnecessary for the purposes of this proposal.

Third, in the June 2014 final rule, DOE analyzed representative unit coolers at two different configurations of evaporator fin spacing, 4 fins per inch and 6 fins per inch. (Unit cooler heat exchangers use a fin-tube design, meaning that refrigerant is circulated through copper tubes with aluminum strips, or “fins” attached to the tubes to facilitate heat transfer to the air passing through the heat exchanger.) See the June 2014 final rule TSD, chapter 5, pages 5-6 (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015, No. 0131). In the September 11, 2015, Working Group meeting, DOE sought feedback on the need to analyze both fin configurations for both medium- and low-temperature unit coolers. Rheem commented that an analysis based on configurations with 4 fins per inch for low-temperature and 6 fins per inch for medium-temperature applications would be appropriate. In their view, these fin configurations would adequately represent these systems. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at p. 109) On the basis of this input, DOE reiterated its plans to conduct the analysis using six fins per inch for medium temperature unit coolers and 4 fins per inch for low-temperature unit coolers. The Working Group raised no objections to this approach. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, DOE, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 0067 at pp. 183-184)

Table IV-1 identifies, for each class of refrigeration system, the nominal capacities of the equipment DOE analyzed in the engineering analysis for this proposed rule. Chapter 5 of the TSD includes additional details on the representative equipment sizes and classes used in the analysis.

Table IV-1—Details of Representative Equipment Analyzed

Equipment class

Sizes analyzed

(nominal Btu/h)

Compressor types analyzed

Unit cooler fins per inch

DC.L.I, <6,500 Btu/h

6,000

Scroll

N/A

DC.L.I, ≥6,500 Btu/h

9,000

Scroll

N/A

* 25,000

Scroll, Semihermetic

N/A

54,000

Semihermetic

N/A

DC.L.O, <6,500 Btu/h

6,000

Scroll

N/A

DC.L.O, ≥6,500 Btu/h

9,000

Scroll

N/A

* 25,000

Scroll, Semihermetic

N/A

54,000

Semihermetic

N/A

72,000

Semihermetic

N/A

UC.M

4,000

N/A

9,000

N/A

24,000

N/A

UC.L, <15,500 Btu/h

4,000

N/A

9,000

N/A

UC.L, ≥ 15,500 Btu/h

18,000

N/A

40,000

N/A

* Indicates a representative capacity that was not analyzed in the June 2014 final rule analysis. All other listed representative nominal capacities had also been analyzed in the June 2014 final rule.

4. Cost Assessment Methodology

a. Teardown Analysis

In support of the June 2014 final rule, DOE conducted a teardown analysis to calculate manufacturing costs of WICF components. The teardown analysis consisted of disassembling WICF equipment; characterizing each subcomponent based on weight, dimensions, material, quantity, and manufacturing process; and compiling a bill of materials incorporating all materials, components, and fasteners to determine the overall manufacturing cost. DOE supplemented this process with “virtual teardowns,” in which it used data from manufacturer catalogs to extrapolate cost assumptions to other equipment that DOE did not physically disassemble. 79 FR at 32077. For the analysis supporting this proposed rule, DOE conducted additional physical and virtual teardowns of WICF equipment to

ensure that its cost model was representative of the current market.

b. Cost Model

The cost model is one of the analytical tools DOE used in constructing cost-efficiency curves. In developing this model, DOE derives cost model curves from the teardown BOMs and the raw material and purchased parts databases. Cost model results are based on material prices, conversion processes used by manufacturers, labor rates, and overhead factors such as depreciation and utilities. For purchased parts, the cost model considers the purchasing volumes and adjusts prices accordingly. The manufacturers of WICF components (

i.e.

OEMs), convert raw materials into parts for assembly, and also purchase parts that arrive as finished “ready-to-assemble” goods. DOE bases most raw material prices on past manufacturer quotes that have been adjusted to present day prices using Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) and American Metal Market (“AMM”) inflators. DOE inflates the costs of purchased parts similarly and also considers the purchasing volume—the higher the purchasing volume, the lower the price. Prices of all purchased parts and non-metal raw materials are based on the most current prices available, while raw metals are priced on the basis of a 5-year average to smooth out volatility in raw material prices. In calculating the costs for this proposal, DOE updated its cost data to reflect the most recent 5-year price average.

DOE uses the cost model to analyze the MPC impacts of certain design options that affect the size of equipment components and casings. For instance, a design option that increases the volume of a condenser coil will incur material costs for the increase in condenser coil materials, and will incur further material costs for the increase in unit case size and condenser fan size that are required to accommodate the larger coil. To calculate costs for this proposed rule, DOE revised its assumptions about how some design options would impact the growth of a unit's case and components. DOE updated the cost data to account for the cost impacts from changes to the unit components and casing for certain design options. Chapter 5 of the TSD describes DOE's cost model and definitions, assumptions, data sources, and estimates.

c. Manufacturing Production Cost

Once it finalizes the cost estimates for all the components in each teardown unit, DOE totals the cost of the materials, labor, and direct overhead used to manufacture the unit to calculate the manufacturer production cost of such equipment. DOE then breaks the total cost of the equipment into two main costs: (1) The full manufacturer production cost, referred to as MPC; and (2) the non-production cost, which includes selling, general, and administration (“SG&A”) costs; the cost of research and development; and interest from borrowing for operations or capital expenditures. DOE estimated the MPC at each design level considered for each equipment class, from the baseline through max-tech. After incorporating all of the data into the cost model, DOE calculated the percentages attributable to each element of total production cost (

i.e.,

materials, labor, depreciation, and overhead). These percentages were used to validate the data by comparing them to manufacturers' actual financial data published in annual reports, along with feedback obtained from manufacturers during interviews. DOE uses these production cost percentages in the MIA. See section IV.J.3.a for more details on the production costs.

d. Manufacturing Markup

The manufacturer markup converts MPC to manufacturer selling price (“MSP”). DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission 10-K reports filed by publicly-traded manufacturers primarily engaged in commercial refrigeration manufacturing and whose combined equipment range includes WICF refrigeration systems. In the June 2014 final rule, DOE calculated an average markup of 35 percent for WICF refrigeration systems. 79 FR at 32079. In the absence of any adverse comments made during the Working Group meetings, DOE applied the same manufacturer markup in its supporting analysis for this proposal.

e. Shipping Cost

For the June 2014 final rule, DOE developed estimates of shipping rates by conducting market research on shipping rates and by interviewing manufacturers of the covered equipment. DOE found that most manufacturers, when ordering component equipment for installation in their particular manufactured equipment, do not pay separately for shipping costs; rather, it is included in the selling price of the equipment. However, when manufacturers include the shipping costs in the equipment selling price, they typically do not mark up the shipping costs for profit, but instead include the full cost of shipping as part of the price quote. 79 FR at 32079. DOE did not significantly change its methodology for calculating shipping costs in this proposed rule. See chapter 5 of the TSD for more details on the shipping costs.

DOE seeks comment regarding the method it used for estimating the manufacturing costs related to the equipment discussed in this proposal. This is identified as Issue 1 in section VII.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

5. Component and System Efficiency Model

At each representative capacity within each equipment class covered in this rulemaking (see section IV.C.3), DOE selected a particular model of unit cooler or condensing unit, as applicable, to represent the capacity. DOE then used a spreadsheet-based efficiency model to predict the efficiency of each representative unit as tested by the test procedure, similar to the method used in the June 2014 final rule. Generally, the efficiency is calculated as the annual box load—a function of the capacity of the unit—divided by the power consumed by the unit. The power consumption accounts for the power used by, as applicable, the compressor, condenser and evaporator fans, defrost, and/or other energy-using components. For dedicated systems with the condensing unit located outdoors, the box load is dependent on a distribution of outdoor ambient temperatures specified by the test procedure.

In the June 2014 final rule, DOE analyzed two types of systems: Dedicated condensing systems consisting of a manufacturer-paired unit cooler and condensing unit; and systems consisting of a unit cooler paired with a multiplex condenser. However, the focus of the analysis for this proposed rule was on performance of either the condensing unit or unit cooler as tested, rather than a matched pair, since the revised engineering analysis is based on the rating of these components. As discussed in section IV.C.2, DOE also conducted a field representative analysis to evaluate the behavior of systems as installed to develop inputs to the downstream analyses. The following sections describe changes to DOE's analysis as compared with the June 2014 final rule analysis, describing changes associated both with the as-tested engineering analysis and the field-representative analysis. More information on the efficiency analysis can be found in chapter 5 of the TSD.

a. Unit Coolers (Formerly Termed the Multiplex Condensing Class)

DOE continued to evaluate unit coolers in a manner similar to the June 2014 final rule analysis. That analysis, consistent with the DOE test procedure, examined the performance of unit coolers connected to a multiplex condensing system using AWEF—

i.e.

the ratio of the box load of the walk-in divided by the energy use attributed to the system. (Box load is a factor of the net capacity.) Also per the test procedure, the energy use is the sum of the energy consumed directly by the unit cooler, primarily by the fans (and defrost energy for low-temperature units), and the energy attributed to the multiplex condensing system (compressors, condensers, etc.), calculated by dividing the gross capacity of the unit cooler by an assumed multiplex system EER. However, DOE's updated analysis made changes to some aspects of the calculation.

First, DOE recognizes that the as-tested performance of unit coolers may differ from field-representative performance, a difference due primarily (though not solely) to the change in refrigerant from R-404A to R-407A. As discussed in section IV.C.1, R-407A experiences a significant change in temperature (“glide”) as it evaporates or condenses, while R-404 does not. In typical evaporators, R-407A experiences a glide of approximately 6 degrees from the evaporator entrance to the saturated vapor (dew point) condition. (Although the total glide of R-407A is approximately 8 degrees between bubble point and dew point, refrigerant entering the evaporator is already partially evaporated and is thus at a slightly higher temperature than the true bubble point). The test procedure specifies the evaporator dew point temperature that must be used during a test, and DOE continued to use this dew point temperature for unit coolers using R-407A in the as-tested analysis. In the field-representative analysis, however, DOE shifted the dew point to maintain equivalence of heat transfer of R-404A and R-407A: That is, the heat exchanger should operate with the same average refrigerant temperature in the two-phase region for both refrigerants. Because of the glide of R-407A, an average temperature consistent with R-404A would result in a dew point temperature that is 3 degrees higher than the dew point of a unit cooler using R-404A—that is, half of the 6-degree glide. Likewise, DOE also reduced the superheat (

i.e.

the excess of temperature of a vapor above its dew point) in the field-representative case by 3 degrees so that the exit temperature of the refrigerant from the evaporator is consistent with the as-tested case, where the superheat is specified. (See October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at pp. 20-22.)

Second, DOE adjusted its calculation to measure the net capacity for unit coolers. The June 2014 final rule analysis calculated the net capacity as the refrigerant mass flow multiplied by the rise in refrigerant enthalpy between the inlet and outlet of the unit cooler, minus the fan heat. DOE determined the mass flow rate by choosing for its analysis a compressor with a capacity close to that of the manufacturer-reported capacity of the unit cooler when measured at the test procedure's conditions. However, National Coil Company noted that once the inlet and outlet refrigerant conditions are defined, the compressor does not affect the capacity. It suggested that DOE avoid using a calculation methodology that relies on compressor characteristics. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, National Coil Company, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at p. 115) DOE also conducted additional testing, which indicated that the unit coolers' measured capacities are lower than the nominal capacities reported in manufacturer literature. These results suggested that using a unit cooler's nominal capacity would overestimate both capacity and efficiency measured in the test. (September 11, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0003 at p. 40) Rheem suggested that this discrepancy may be due in part to the different test conditions used during testing versus those used when determining the nominal capacity of a unit cooler. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at pp. 116-117) For the current analysis, DOE used performance modeling of WICF evaporator coils, calibrated based on testing data, to develop an equation relating manufacturer-reported nominal capacity to the net capacity that would be measured during unit cooler testing (as DOE is assuming all unit coolers will be rated using the multiplex system test as discussed in section IV.C.2). (September 30, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0007 at pp. 55 and 57) The tests were conducted using R-404A, but DOE used the performance modeling to predict the capacity trend for unit coolers using R-407A refrigerant, since this was the refrigerant used in the engineering analysis, as discussed in section IV.C.1. (See the October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at pp. 24, 26, and 28) DOE also developed different equations for the as-tested analysis and for the field-representative results, where the field-representative calculations account for the 3-degree shift in dew point and reduction in superheat discussed in the previous paragraph. DOE used this approach for determining unit cooler measured capacity in the subsequent analysis, with agreement from Working Group members. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (October 15, 2015), No. 0062 at pp. 205-209)

Third, DOE revised the input assumption for refrigerant suction dew point temperature (

i.e.,

dew point temperature of the refrigerant at the entrance to the condensing unit—which is typically lower than the refrigerant dew point at the unit cooler exit due to pressure drop in the refrigerant line connecting the unit cooler and condensing unit). The suction dew point temperature is used in the engineering analysis calculations to determine the appropriate multiplex system EER values as specified in the test procedure. In the June 2014 final rule analysis, DOE used EER values corresponding to a suction dew point temperature of 19 °F for medium temperature systems and −26 °F for low-temperature systems. For the revised analysis, DOE used 23 °F for medium-temperature systems and −22 °F for low-temperature systems, both of which have higher corresponding EER levels. DOE's initial use of the lower temperatures was based on a conservative interpretation of the open-ended nature of the AHRI 1250-2009 test procedure, which is incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedure. The suction dew point temperatures used in the current analysis are now two degrees lower than the evaporator exit dew point temperature used in the test. (See September 11, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0003 at p. 39) The Working Group generally agreed with this approach and applying that 2-degree dew point reduction to account for pressure drop in the suction line. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at p. 113)

Fourth, DOE used a different set of EER values in its field-representative

analysis of unit coolers connected to multiplex condensing systems. The Working Group observed that the EER values used in the test procedure are likely based on R-404A, while, as discussed in this preamble, DOE's updated analysis to represent field performance was based on the use of R-407A. Members of the Working Group representing a caucus of manufacturers submitted EER values that they asserted would be more representative of a multiplex condensing system operating in the field, since the new values were based on the use of R-407A. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0009) DOE observed that the Working Group-recommended values were significantly lower than the test procedure values, which cannot be explained by the difference in refrigerants. The Working Group did not object to the use of the submitted EER values. Accordingly, DOE used these new EER values in the field-representative analysis for unit coolers (while continuing to use EER values from the test procedure in the as-tested analysis). (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Public Meeting Transcript (October 15, 2015), No. 0062 at pp. 194-198; See also the October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at p. 19)

b. Condensing Units/Dedicated Condensing Class

DOE made several changes to the way it analyzed dedicated condensing refrigeration systems. In the June 2014 final rule, DOE analyzed systems consisting of a paired unit cooler and condensing unit to represent the dedicated condensing class. In contrast, as described in sections III.A, IV.A.1, and IV.C.2, DOE based its analysis for this proposed rule on testing and rating condensing units as individual components rather than as part of matched-pair systems in order to evaluate efficiency levels for the dedicated condensing equipment classes. The as-tested analysis uses the nominal values for unit cooler fan and defrost energy use as prescribed in the DOE test procedure. (10 CFR 431.304(c)(12))

As in the June 2014 final rule analysis, DOE calculated compressor performance using the standard 10-coefficient compressor model described in section 6.4 of AHRI Standard 540-2004 (AHRI 540), “Performance Rating of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Compressor Units.” See the June 2014 final rule TSD, chapter 5, pp. 5-22 (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015, No. 0131) However, in the updated analysis, DOE used compressor coefficients for compressors operating with R-407A to be consistent with the approach discussed in section IV.C.1. (See the October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at p. 18.) Also, DOE used a return gas temperature of 5 degrees F in generating the coefficients using the software, suggested as the appropriate temperature for a low-temperature system by a caucus of manufacturers. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0008 at p. 26)

The change to refrigerant R-407A also affected the condensing temperature in the analysis. As discussed in section IV.C.1, R-407A experiences approximately 8 degrees of glide, or temperature change, as it condenses. A caucus of manufacturers submitted information on R-407A glide and requested that DOE increase the assumed condenser dew-point temperatures by 4 °F to maintain a midpoint temperature consistent with that of the analysis done with R-404A. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0008 at pp. 4-9) The midpoint temperature is representative of the average refrigerant temperature in the condenser heat exchanger. After considering the merits of the argument, DOE implemented this change in the analysis going forward. This change is similar to the shift in dew point on the evaporator side described in section IV.C.5.a, but is applied in the as-tested analysis as well as the field-representative analysis for condensing units. This is because the test procedure specifies the outdoor air temperature rather than the condensing temperature for tests of condensing units, unlike for unit coolers, for which the test procedure specifies the evaporating temperature. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 0067 at pp. 23-24 and Public Meeting Transcript (October 15, 2015), No. 0062 at pp. 184-187) (See also October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at pp. 19-20)

In the June 2014 final rule, DOE used the saturated vapor temperature at the evaporator exit to derive the compressor power and mass flow from the 10-coefficient equation described in this preamble. For the analysis supporting this proposed rule, DOE instead used the suction dew point in the compressor coefficient equations. (See October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at p. 29) As described in section IV.C.5.a, the suction dew point is 2 degrees lower than the dew point at the evaporator exit; this approach is consistent with DOE's selection of suction dew point for choosing the appropriate EER for multiplex systems.

Also in the June 2014 final rule, DOE assumed that the refrigerant entering the unit cooler would be a subcooled liquid (that is, its temperature would be lower than the saturated liquid temperature in the condenser, primarily due to exposure of the refrigerant line to lower ambient temperatures). Rheem suggested that this would be inappropriate for a condenser-only test because there would be two phases of refrigerant in the receiver, and without a separate subcooler within the condensing unit, the refrigerant would not experience subcooling significantly greater than zero at the condenser exit. DOE assumed liquid line subcooling would occur after the condenser exit and thus would not be captured in the condenser-only test. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at pp. 131-133) DOE revised its analysis to assume 0 degrees of additional sub-cooling in the condensing unit for baseline systems. (See October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at p. 30)

As described in section IV.C.3, one of the analyzed capacities of condensing unit—25,000 Btu/h nominal capacity—could be sold with two compressor types, scroll or semi-hermetic. The June 2014 final rule efficiency model also analyzed multiple compressor types at certain representative sizes. In that analysis, DOE developed a separate cost-efficiency curve for each different compressor type. The life-cycle cost analysis then aggregated both curves into one set of efficiency levels, and selected points among the aggregated efficiency levels defining a new “cost-effective” curve where, when faced with a choice between two compressors, the manufacturer would choose the less expensive design among the options at the same efficiency level. DOE indicated in the Working Group meeting on September 30, 2015 that for the revised analysis, a single cost-efficiency curve would be developed for each representative condensing unit capacity, but that DOE was considering whether compressor type should be considered as a design option or whether DOE should aggregate the efficiency curves for the two compressors into a single curve. In the same meeting, ASAP suggested that it would be appropriate to consider higher-efficiency compressors as a design option, but Rheem raised concerns that this could restrict them to using only one

compressor or one compressor manufacturer's offering. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 0067 at p. 181-182; Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 0067 at p. 182-183) As presented in the November 3, 2015 public meeting, DOE ultimately revised its approach to create a single aggregated cost-efficiency curve in the engineering analysis for the 25,000 Btu/h nominal capacity, thus aggregating results developed separately for the scroll and semi-hermetic compressors. Consequently, DOE did not consider compressor type as a design option. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0015, various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (November 3, 2015), No. 0064 at pp. 75-80 and the November 3, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, available in Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0033 at pp. 29-32) See chapter 5 of the TSD for more details of how DOE aggregated the cost-efficiency curves for the compressor types.

c. Field-Representative Paired Dedicated Condensing Systems

DOE based its “as-tested” engineering analysis for dedicated condensing systems on an evaluation of condensing units tested individually. DOE recognizes that this approach is an approximation of actual in-field performance, in large part because each condensing unit will ultimately be paired with a given unit cooler in the field. Furthermore, certain conditions specified in the test procedure are contingent upon the use of a refrigerant that does not experience significant glide, and systems using R-407A, a refrigerant that does experience glide, would behave differently under such conditions than systems using a non-glide refrigerant. To account for the potential calculated differences between as-tested versus in-field performance, DOE conducted a separate field-representative analysis that accounts for actual system operation, which necessarily includes the performance of both the condensing unit and the unit cooler with which it is paired. This field-representative analysis includes a number of key elements.

First, although refrigerant subcooling at the exit of a condensing unit tested alone would be zero degrees as discussed in section IV.C.5.b, during field operation of a system, subcooling between the condenser exit and unit cooler entrance may occur due to exposure of the refrigerant line to ambient air with a temperature lower than the refrigerant. DOE's June 2014 final rule analysis of paired systems assumed that subcooling at the unit cooler inlet would be 12 °F, based on test data for paired systems—DOE presented these data during the negotiated rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 0067 at pp. 133-135 and September 30, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0007 at p. 23) However, the test data were based on systems using R-404A and DOE reasoned that the glide from R-407A could result in a lower refrigerant temperature at the condenser exit (4 degrees) than for R-404A, assuming the same mid-point temperature is used. (See the discussion regarding glide and maintaining the same average refrigerant temperature for different refrigerants, described in the previous two sections, for further details.) Thus, DOE assumed a subcooling temperature of 8 degrees in the field-representative analysis—4 degrees lower than the 12 degrees attributed to operation with R-404A. In effect, the analysis assumes that the final liquid temperature would be the same for both refrigerants. DOE also checked to make sure that this final liquid refrigerant temperature was not lower than the ambient temperature. The Working Group did not object to this approach and DOE continued to use it in preparing this proposal. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, DOE, Public Meeting Transcript (October 15, 2015), No. 0062 at pp. 213-214; October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at p. 30.

Second, DOE assumed a unit cooler exit dew point for the field-representative analysis that is 3 degrees higher than the exit dew point temperature specified in the test procedure. This is similar to the adjustment made for condensing units, described in the previous paragraphs. To account for the 6 degrees of glide within an evaporator using R-407A and maintain the same average refrigerant temperature as the equivalent R-404A analysis, the exit dew point must be 3 degrees higher that the prescribed test procedure temperature. DOE also adjusted the evaporator exit superheat to maintain a refrigerant temperature at the unit cooler exit that would be consistent with the equivalent R-404A analysis. In the as-tested analysis, the evaporator superheat was assumed to be 6 °F for low temperature systems and 10 °F in medium temperature systems; in the field representative analysis, DOE reduced both of these by 3 degrees to account for the 3-degree increase in evaporator dew point temperature. (October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at p. 22) Similar to the as-tested analysis, DOE continued to use a 2-degree reduction in dew point temperature between the evaporator exit and condensing unit entrance to represent suction line pressure drop in the field-representative analysis. (October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at p. 29)

Third, the as-tested analysis of a dedicated condensing system (

i.e.

a condensing unit tested alone) uses nominal values for the unit cooler fan and defrost power, as required by the test procedure. See 10 CFR 431.304(c)(12)(ii). During the Working Group meetings, manufacturers provided data on representative unit cooler fan and defrost power. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0011). As presented in the October 15, 2015 public meeting, DOE used these data to estimate unit cooler fan and defrost power for a field-matched system since the manufacturer-supplied data would be, when compared to other available data, the most likely dataset to be reasonably representative of installed system performance. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0026 at p. 40 and Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (October 15, 2015), No. 0062 at pp. 227-228) DOE did not receive any adverse comments and proceeded with this approach in the analysis for this proposed rule.

6. Baseline Specifications

Because there have not been any previous performance-based standards for WICF refrigeration systems, there is no established baseline efficiency level for this equipment. DOE developed baseline specifications for the representative units in its analysis, described in section IV.C.3, by examining current manufacturer literature to determine which characteristics represented baseline equipment versus high-efficiency equipment. DOE conducted additional testing and teardowns to supplement the data used in the June 2014 final rule analysis and identify characteristics not listed in manufacturer literature. DOE assumed that all baseline refrigeration systems comply with the current prescriptive standards in EPCA—namely, (1) evaporator fan motors of under 1 horsepower and less than 460 volts are electronically commutated motors (brushless direct current motors)

or three-phase motors and (2) walk-in condenser fan motors of under 1 horsepower are permanent split capacitor motors, electronically commutated motors, or three-phase motors. (See section II.B for further details on current WICF standards.)

During the negotiations, Working Group members observed that DOE's baseline energy consumption values did not seem to account for some equipment features, such as controls, that may be included on the equipment and would use energy during a test. DOE's test procedure for WICFs incorporates by reference the industry standard AHRI 1250-2009 in its entirety, with certain exceptions as outlined in 10 CFR 431.304. (See 10 CFR 431.303, which incorporates this industry standard by reference.) One provision in section 5.1 of this industry standard requires that the power input measured during the test should include power used by accessories such as condenser fans, controls, and similar accessories. Members of the Working Group requested that DOE either revise its test procedure to introduce an exception to the industry standard modifying the provision so as not to measure these loads during a test, or to account for power used by these accessories in the analysis. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 0061 at pp. 51-56; See also Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 0006 at p. 1, recommendation #4.) DOE requested, and Working Group members then provided, additional data regarding auxiliary power-using equipment features, fan and defrost power, and condenser coil sizing for baseline refrigeration systems. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Nos. 0010, 0011, and 0030, respectively.) In lieu of introducing a modification to the test procedure, DOE considered this information in formulating baseline specifications in this NOPR analysis. See chapter 5 of the TSD for more detailed baseline specifications for the rep

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.