Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

Federal RegisterMar 31, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039]

RIN 1904-AF00

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking; announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including miscellaneous refrigeration products. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically determine whether more stringent, standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

Comments:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than May 30, 2023.

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday, May 2, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section IV, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the

ADDRESSES

section on or before May 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal Rulemaking Portal at

www.regulations.gov,

under by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039, by any of the following methods:

Email: MRP2020STD0039@ee.doe.gov

. Include the docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039 in the subject line of the message.

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. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 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) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

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

Docket:

The docket for this activity, which includes

Federal Register

notices, 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, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket web page can be found at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039.

The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.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

on or before the date specified in the

DATES

section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this proposed rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Lucas Adin, 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. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov

Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email:

matthew.schneider@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) 287-1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@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

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

3. Test Procedure

4. Off Mode and Standby Mode

C. Deviation From Appendix A

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

B. Definitions

C. Test Procedure

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 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

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes

a. Product Classes With Automatic Icemakers

b. Addition of a Built-In Combination Cooler-Refrigerator-Freezer With Bottom-Mounted Freezer and Automatic Icemaker Product Class

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Technology Options

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Built-In Classes

b. Baseline Efficiency/Energy Use

c. Higher Efficiency Levels

d. VIP and VSC Analysis

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

4. Manufacturer Selling Price

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Product Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

9. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Product Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

a. Supply Chain Constraints

b. Built-in Product Classes

4. Discussion of MIA Comments

K. Emissions Analysis

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a. Social Cost of Carbon

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts

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. Direct Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for MREF Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule

3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities

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. Information Quality

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting Webinar

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

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B

of EPCA, established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”), the subject of this rulemaking.

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law. 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. The proposed standards, which are expressed in kWh/yr, are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all miscellaneous refrigeration products listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 5 years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking.

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

Product class

Equations for maximum

energy use

(kWh/yr)

1. Freestanding compact coolers (“FCC”)

5.52AV + 109.1

2. Freestanding coolers (“FC”)

5.52AV + 109.1

3. Built-in compact coolers (“BICC”)

5.52AV + 109.1

4. Built-in coolers (“BIC”)

6.30AV + 124.6

C-3A. Cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost

4.11AV + 117.4

C-3A-BI. Built-in cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost

4.67AV + 133.0

C-5-BI. Built-in cooler with refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer

5.47AV + 196.2 + 28I

C-9. Cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker

5.58AV + 147.7 + 28I

C-9-BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker

6.38AV + 168.8 + 28I

C-13A. Compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost

4.74AV + 155.0

C-13A-BI. Built-in compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost

5.22AV + 170.5

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft

, as determined in appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

I = 1 for a product with an automatic icemaker and = 0 for a product without an automatic icemaker.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of MREFs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of MREFs, which varies by product class (see section IV.F.6 of this document).

The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and 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 new or amended standards (see section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

Product class

Average LCC

savings

[2021$]

Simple payback

period

(years)

FCC

12.6

6.8

28.0

8.0

BICC

2.9

7.9

BIC

57.3

4.0

C-13A

12.0

6.9

C-13A-BI

15.3

6.7

C-3A

31.5

1.7

C-3A-BI

36.7

1.6

Note:

See Table I.1 for definition of the product class acronyms.

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows starting with the publication year (2023) of the NOPR and extending over a 30-year period following the expected compliance date of the standards (2023 to 2058). Using a real discount rate of 7.7 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of MREFs, in the case without amended standards is $742.0 million.

Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −12.1 percent to −8.4 percent, which is approximately −$89.8 million to −$62.7 million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $126.9 million.

Unless otherwise noted, all monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021 dollars.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for MREFs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for MREFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2029-2058) amount to 0.31 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 19.6 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (refer ed 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 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for MREFs ranges from $0.14 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.69 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for miscellaneous refrigeration products purchased in 2029-2058.

In addition, the proposed standards for MREFs 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 10.4 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

”), 4.8 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO

”), 15.9 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO

”), 70.3 thousand tons of methane (“CH

”), 0.11 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N

O”), and 0.03 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG) for the CO

projections.

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 2022

(“

AEO 2022

”).

AEO 2022

represents current Federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of

AEO 2022

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO

(“SC-CO

”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH

”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N

O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (SC-GHG).

DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the monetized climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $0.5 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.

On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized GHG abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021 (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”).

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf

(Last accessed September 22, 2022).

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO

and NO

emissions reductions, also discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the monetized health benefits would be $0.3 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.8 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions.

DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants, direct PM

2.5

and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.3—Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products (TSL 4)

[Billion 2021$]

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

2.0

Climate Benefits *

0.5

Health Benefits **

0.8

Total Monetized Benefits †

3.3

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

1.3

Monetized Net Benefits

2.0

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

0.8

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

0.5

Health Benefits **

0.3

Total Monetized Benefits †

1.6

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

0.7

Monetized Net Benefits

0.9

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product name shipped in 2029-2058. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2058 from the products shipped in 2029-2058.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO

), methane (SC-CH

), and nitrous oxide (SC-N

O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, 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.,

2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2022. 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.

The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result

of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of miscellaneous refrigeration products shipped in 2029-2058. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of miscellaneous refrigeration products shipped in 2029-2058. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.

Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NOx and SO

emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $81.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $97.6 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $28.9 million in monetized climate benefits, and $35.4 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $80.6 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $81.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $123.1 million in reduced operating costs, $28.9 million in monetized climate benefits, and $49.5 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $120.4 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products (TSL 4)

[Million 2021$/year]

Primary

estimate

Low-net-

benefits

estimate

High-net-

benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

123.1

116.3

131.2

Climate Benefits *

28.9

28.1

29.6

Health Benefits **

49.5

48.2

50.8

Total Monetized Benefits †

201.4

192.6

211.6

Consumer Incremental Product Costs †

81.0

82.3

79.4

Monetized Net Benefits

120.4

110.3

132.2

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

97.6

92.7

103.3

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

28.9

28.1

29.6

Health Benefits **

35.4

34.6

36.2

Total Monetized Benefits †

161.9

155.4

169.2

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

81.2

82.4

79.8

Monetized Net Benefits

80.6

72.9

89.4

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with miscellaneous refrigeration products shipped in 2029-2058. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2058 from the products shipped in 2029-2058. The Primary, Low-Net-Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low-Net-Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this NOPR). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

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 would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification,

DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO

and SO

reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products is $81.2 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $97.6 million in reduced product operating costs, $28.9 million in monetized climate benefits and $35.4 million in monetized health benefits. The net monetized benefit amounts to $80.6 million per year.

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

For example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.

Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).

As previously mentioned, the proposed standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 0.31 quad (FFC), the equivalent of the electricity use of 3.4 million homes in one year. In addition, they are projected to reduce GHG emissions. The NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $0.14 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.69 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions associated with these energy savings are 10.4 Mt of CO

, 4.8 thousand tons of SO

, 15.9 thousand tons of NO

, 0.03 tons of Hg, 70.3 thousand tons of CH

, and 0.11 thousand tons of N

O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $0.5 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO

and NO

emissions is $0.3 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $0.8 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for this tentative conclusion is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”).

DOE also considered more stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards 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 document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document 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 miscellaneous refrigeration products.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles which, in addition to identifying particular consumer products and commercial equipment as covered under the statute, permits the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) DOE added MREFs as covered products through a final determination of coverage published in the

Federal Register

on July 18, 2016 (the “July 2016 Final Coverage Determination”). 81 FR 46768. MREFs are consumer refrigeration products other than refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers, which include coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products. 10 CFR 430.2. MREFs include refrigeration products such as coolers (

e.g.,

wine chillers and other specialty products) and combination cooler refrigeration products (

e.g.,

wine chillers and other specialty compartments combined with a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers). EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not later than three years after issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

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

See

42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

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 product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)). The DOE test procedures for miscellaneous refrigeration products appears at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A,

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

(“appendix A”).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain products, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a 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)) 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 products subject to the standard;

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

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

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

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

Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for miscellaneous refrigeration products address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards that it may adopt.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

DOE added MREFs as covered products through a final determination of coverage published in the

Federal Register

on July 18, 2016 (the “July 2016 Final Coverage Determination”). 81 FR 46768. In that determination, DOE noted that MREFs, on average, consume more than 150 kilowatt hours per year (“kWh/yr”) and that the aggregate annual national energy use of these products exceeds 4.2 terawatt hours (“TWh”). 81 FR 46768, 46775. In addition to establishing coverage, the July 2016 Final Coverage Determination established definitions for “miscellaneous refrigeration products,” “coolers,” and “combination cooler refrigeration products” in 10 CFR 430.2. 81 FR 46768, 46791-46792.

On October 28, 2016, DOE published a direct final rule (the “October 2016 Direct Final Rule”) in which it adopted energy conservation standards for MREFs consistent with the recommendations from a negotiated rulemaking working group established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee. 81 FR 75194. Concurrent with the October 2016 Direct Final Rule, DOE published a NOPR in which it proposed and requested comments on the standards set forth in the direct final rule. 81 FR 74950. On May 26, 2017, DOE published a notice in the

Federal Register

in which it determined that the comments received in response to the October 2016 Direct Final Rule did not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the rule and, therefore, confirmed the adoption of the energy conservation standards established in that direct final rule. 82 FR 24214.

These current standards for MREFs are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(aa)(1)-(2) and are repeated

solely for reference in Table II.1 to aid the reader.

Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for MREFs

Product class

Equations for maximum

energy use

(kWh/yr)

1. Freestanding compact coolers (“FCC”)

7.88AV + 155.8

2. Freestanding coolers (“FC”)

7.88AV + 155.8

3. Built-in compact coolers (“BICC”)

7.88AV + 155.8

4. Built-in coolers (“BIC”)

7.88AV + 155.8

C-3A. Cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost

4.57AV + 130.4

C-3A-BI. Built-in cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost

5.19AV + 147.8

C-9. Cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker

5.58AV + 147.7

C-9-BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker

6.38AV + 168.8

C-9I. Cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker

5.58AV + 231.7

C-9I-BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker

6.38AV + 252.8

C-13A. Compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost

5.93AV + 193.7

C-13A-BI. Built-in compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost

6.52AV + 213.1

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft

, as determined in appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

On December 8, 2020, DOE published a notice that it was initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard for MREFs and a request for information (“RFI”). 85 FR 78964 (“December 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI”).

Comments received following the publication of the December 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the subsequent preliminary analysis.

DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the preliminary technical support document (“TSD”) on January 21, 2022 (“January 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). 87 FR 3229. DOE subsequently held a public meeting on March 7, 2022, to discuss and receive comments on the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. The January 2022 Preliminary Analysis that presented the methodology and results of the preliminary analysis is available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0009.

Comments are available at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039/comments.

DOE received five docket comments in response to the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.1.

Table II.1—January 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments

Organization(s)

Reference in this NOPR

Organization type

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

AHAM

Trade Organization.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

ASAP

Efficiency Organization.

California Investor-Owned Utilities

CA IOUs

Utility Supplier.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

Efficiency Organization.

Sub Zero Group, Inc

Sub Zero

Manufacturer.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039, which is maintained at

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039

). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).

3. Test Procedure

On October 12, 2021, DOE published in the

Federal Register

a final rule amending the test procedures for MREFs and other consumer refrigeration products at appendix A and appendix B of 10 CFR part 430 (the “October 2021 TP Final Rule”). 86 FR 56790 (October 12, 2021). The October 2021 TP Final Rule incorporates by reference the most recent industry test procedure, AHAM Standard HRF-1, “Energy and Internal Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products” (“AHAM HRF-1-2019”). However, DOE did not require the change in icemaker energy use included in the 2019 revision of HRF-1. 86 FR 56793. While DOE had proposed to implement this change in the proposed test procedure rulemaking (84 FR 70842, 70848-70850 (December 23, 2019)), DOE indicated in the October 2021 TP Final Rule that it would not require the calculations until the compliance dates of any amended energy conservation standards for these products, which incorporated the amended automatic icemaker energy consumption. 86 FR 56793. DOE determined that the test procedure amendments are not expected to impact the measured energy use of consumer refrigeration products, including MREFs, as compared to the test procedure in place at the time of the October 2021 Test Procedure Final Rule. 86 FR 56790.

The analysis presented in this NOPR is based on the test procedure as finalized in the October 2021 TP Final Rule, except for the calculation of the change in energy use attributed to icemaker energy use, which aligns with the icemaker energy use in HRF-1-2019. The value of the revised icemaker energy use and the plans to implement this change coincident with the date of future energy conservation standards were discussed at length in the October 2021 TP Final Rule. (

See

86 FR 56822, October 12, 2021) Hence, this change is proposed in this document.

4. Off Mode and Standby Mode

Pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE test procedures for refrigeration products measure the energy use of these products during extended time periods that include periods when the compressor and other key components are cycled off. All of the energy these products use during the “off cycles” is already included in the measurements. 79 FR 22320, 22345. The approach of testing with connected functions on but not connected to a network account for energy consumption of such functions as part of active mode testing, and as a result, this method provides consumers with representative estimates of energy consumption.

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“appendix A”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. For the reasons that follow, DOE finds it appropriate to deviate from this step-in appendix A and to instead publish this NOPR without issuing a framework document. A framework document is intended to introduce and summarize the various analyses DOE conducts during the rulemaking process and requests initial feedback from interested parties. As discussed in the preceding section, prior to this NOPR, DOE issued an early assessment request for information in which DOE identified and sought comment on the analyses conducted in support of the most recent energy conservation standards rulemaking, for which, DOE provided a 75-day comment period. 85 FR 78964, 78965-78966 (Dec. 8, 2020) (the “December 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI”) DOE then issued the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, seeking further general comments from stakeholders regarding the analyses conducted to support the upcoming standards rulemaking, for which, DOE provided a 60-day comment period for the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 87 FR 3229 (Jan. 21, 2022)

As DOE is intending to rely on substantively the same analytical methods as in the most recent rulemaking, publication of a framework document would be largely redundant with the published early assessment RFI and preliminary analysis. As such, DOE is not publishing a framework document.

Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A provides that the length of the public comment period for the NOPR will be at least 75 days. For this NOPR, DOE finds it appropriate to provide a 60-day comment period. As previously discussed, DOE provided a 60-day comment period on January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 87 FR 3229. DOE subsequently held a public meeting on March 7, 2022, to discuss and received comments on the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Consequently, DOE has determined it is appropriate to provide a 60-day comment period on the NOPR, which the Department believes will provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

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

To simplify the structure for presentation of maximum allowable energy use equations, DOE is proposing, for class pairs for which one class includes an icemaker and the other does not, to represent the icemaker energy use adder in a single energy use equation rather than in two separate equations. The product class discussion in section IV below explores this issue further. In addition, DOE is proposing standard levels for a new class covering built-in combination cooler-refrigerator-freezers with a bottom-mounted freezer, both with and without an automatic icemaker, (“combination cooler 5-BI”). This is also discussion in greater detail in section IV of this document.

B. Definitions

In 10 CFR 430.2, DOE has established definitions for a variety of refrigeration products, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products defined as MREFs. DOE recognizes that there are some products that may, based on their physical and operational characteristics, meet more than one of the definitions in § 430.2. This includes certain combination cooler refrigeration products, such as cooler-refrigerators, cooler-refrigerator-freezers, or cooler-freezers. When standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products were established, they were not established for all potential combination products. Rather, standards were established for combination products that were on the market at the time of the final rule. 81 FR 75194, 75210, 75215-75216 (October 28, 2016). In doing so, DOE anticipated that manufacturers would eventually introduce combination products for which standards were not originally established under § 430.32(aa). In these cases, a particular product could also meet the definition of a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer. To specifically delineate between those products and MREF products currently

subject to an energy conservation standard in § 430.32(aa), the definitions of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer in § 430.2 contain a provision that excludes any miscellaneous refrigeration product that must comply with an applicable miscellaneous refrigeration product energy conservation standard. Consequently, MREF products not exempted by that provision may still be defined as a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer.

In this NOPR, DOE is clarifying that a product that combines a cooler with a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer that otherwise meets the definition of one of those product types in § 430.2 and is not excluded from the definition through coverage by a standard in 10 CFR 430.32(aa) as a miscellaneous refrigeration product, must be tested and certified as a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer according to the applicable test procedure in appendix A or appendix B (with additional instruction addressing the cooler compartment of a cooler-freezer, as applicable—these additional instructions are discussed in section III.C of this document), be certified according to the certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.14, and meet the energy conservation standard for the applicable product class of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer. DOE concludes that the current regulations require this approach for such products and is proposing the changes to the regulatory language simply as clarification.

To ensure this clarification is properly applied, DOE identified potential clarifying amendments to the refrigerator and freezer definitions in § 430.2 that would lead to the appropriate determination of coverage for combination refrigeration products that do not have a prescribed MREF energy conservation standard. In particular, in this NOPR DOE proposes to amend the refrigerator and freezer definitions to clarify that the definitions do apply to products that have a cooler compartment included in addition to the fresh food compartment (for a refrigerator) or freezer compartment (for a freezer). DOE notes that this coverage status is already clear in the refrigerator-freezer definition, which explicitly allows for additional compartments other than the fresh food and freezer compartments, which are defined based on operating temperature, by including allowing the product to have compartments that may operate outside these defined parameters. DOE's proposal would make similar clarifications for the refrigerator and freezer definitions.

DOE requests comment on its proposal to amend the refrigerator and freezer definitions in § 430.2 to clarify that products that would otherwise be considered a refrigerator or a freezer that also include a cooler compartment would be considered a refrigerator or a freezer, unless a miscellaneous refrigeration product energy conservation standard in § 430.32(aa) is applicable for the product.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's current energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products are expressed in terms of Annual Energy Use, expressed in kWh/year. (See 10 CFR 430.32(a).)

As previously discussed, DOE planned to delay adopting for consumer refrigeration products the revised icemaker energy use adder of 28 kWh/yr that is in AHAM HRF-1-2019—which is the industry test standard—until the compliance date of a possible amended standard. As discussed in the October 2021 TP final rule, DOE determined it would not require testing with the amended icemaker energy use adder until the compliance dates of the next amended energy conservation standards for refrigeration products. 86 FR 56815. Therefore, as discussed previously, this NOPR proposes product classes that implement the 28 kWh/year icemaker adder, consistent with the icemaker energy use in HRF-1-2019, and also proposes to adopt the updated icemaker adder for MREF, to be used on or after the compliance date of revised standards.

As previously discussed, DOE is proposing clarifying amendments to product definitions indicating that products that include a cooler compartment in addition to a fresh food or freezer compartment but do not have an MREF energy conservation standard, would still meet the refrigerator or freezer definitions, as applicable. Additionally, DOE is proposing clarifying amendments to appendix A and appendix B, as it relates to testing combination cooler-freezers as well as testing combination refrigeration products that do not have a prescribed MREF energy conservation standards.

Specifically, DOE is proposing to add sub-sections to appendix A and appendix B to clarify the calculation of average per-cycle energy consumption for combination cooler-freezers and freezers with a cooler compartment, by referring to section 5.9.3 of HRF-1 2019 and stating specific “k” values to be used in equations presented therein. DOE also proposes to amend appendix B section 5.2 to refer to section 5.2 of appendix A when testing freezers with cooler compartments, because the appendix A requirements are more appropriate for products with more than one compartment. Lastly, DOE proposes to amend appendix B by adding a clarification to section 5.3 to specify the value of variable “K” when referencing section 5.8.2 of HRF-1-2019.

ASAP stated in response to the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis that they understand that produce growers with a source of refrigeration likely meet the definition of a cooler but, due to unique components present in a produce grower that maintain an environment with temperature and humidity controls that are conducive to growing plants, produce growers cannot be tested in the same manner as coolers whose primary function is to chill beverage products. NEEA commented on a need for implementing different test procedures for produce growers, citing technology differences between produce growers and other miscellaneous refrigeration products. NEEA stated that test procedures for produce growers should include energy use measurements for cabinet temperature and humidity control systems, water distribution systems, and carbon dioxide injection systems. ASAP and NEEA encouraged DOE to establish test procedures for these products. (ASAP, No. 19, p. 3; NEEA, No. 21, pp. 3-4)

DOE is aware of the produce grower market and appreciates input on this topic. At this point, only GE Appliances, a Haier Company (“GEA”) has submitted a petition for waiver from test procedures covering MREFs. GEA initially also requested an interim waiver. In an initial denial of the petition for interim waiver, DOE tentatively concluded that the GEA model meets the definition of a cooler, because the product consists of a cabinet used with one or more doors, and maintains compartment temperatures no lower than 39 degrees Fahrenheit, as determined when tested in a 90-degree Fahrenheit ambient temperature. 86 FR 35766, 35768 (July 7, 2021). In addition to this, DOE tentatively determined that the requested alternate test procedure

would not result in measured energy use of the basic model that is representative of actual energy used during representative average use.

Id.

In November 2021, GEA submitted a revised petition for waiver and interim waiver for its grower product that proposed a revised alternative test method designed to address the concerns that DOE expressed in its denial of the GEA's original petition. Having considered the merits of GEA's revised approach, and receiving no comments in opposition, DOE approved use of the revised alternate test procedure for rating GEA's product through the publication of a notification of decision and order on October 17, 2022 (87 FR 62835), reiterating that while the In-Home Grower basic model meets the cooler definition, it is not subject to the cooler energy conservation standards because of its unique characteristics, as discussed in the November 2021 Notification of Petition for Waiver. (87 FR 62835, 62838)

In consideration of the other produce growers mentioned in ASAP's comment—the Viking Under-counter Micro Green & Herb Cabinet—GCV12, the Seedo Automated Home Grow Device, and the Bloom In-Home Grow System—DOE has not received waiver petitions for these products but will consider investigating these products, including whether they may be subject to testing requirements based on meeting the definition of an MREF product, as GEA's product does.

NEEA advocated for the implementation of a test procedure to calculate the energy impact of interior lighting in all miscellaneous refrigeration products. NEEA claims that the use of lighting differs largely depending on manufacturer and personal usage, and with the proliferation of glass doors for coolers, interior lighting plays a large role in energy calculations. (NEEA, No. 21, pp. 4-5)

AHAM states the vast majority of the miscellaneous refrigeration product designs on the market no longer use incandescent lighting and have shifted to light-emitting diode (“LED”) technology, meaning efficiency gains from lighting are limited, and efforts to further regulate lighting options in miscellaneous refrigeration products will place undue burden on manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 7)

The test procedure does not include measurement of energy use with lighting turned on. DOE last finalized its test procedure for consumer refrigeration products including MREFs on October 12, 2021. 86 FR 56790. As part of the rulemaking to establish this test procedure, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) (82 FR 29780) on June 30, 2017, and a NOPR (84 FR 70842) on December 23, 2019. No comments in response to the RFI or NOPR suggested that lighting energy use should be included as part of the test procedure. In the final rule initially establishing the test procedures for MREF on July 18, 2016, DOE indicated that it set the requirement to test these products with light switches in the off position based on field surveys indicating that 90 percent of consumers kept light switches off in coolers. 81 FR 46768, 46782. This requirement was also consistent with the recommendations of the Working Group that negotiated MREF test procedures and energy conservation standards under the auspices of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”).

Id.

When DOE next considers revisions to the test procedure for MREF, DOE may request information regarding trends affecting lighting energy use in these products, and, based on information obtained, may consider at that time, whether the test procedure should be revised to include lighting energy.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of CFR the Process Rule.

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 product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for miscellaneous refrigeration products, 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 an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for miscellaneous refrigeration products, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1.c of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to miscellaneous refrigeration products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2029-2058).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of miscellaneous refrigeration products purchased in the previous 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 a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards.

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

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended or new standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products.

The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of 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 covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.

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

2. Significance of Savings

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

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand.

The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, health benefits, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted previously, 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)-(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 amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) 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 manufacturing 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 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.

For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on senior-only households.

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 product 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 products that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.

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 product 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 products in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.

c. Energy Savings

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

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE

evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products 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)) 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)) 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 to send comments to DOJ.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) 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 of this document.

DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental and health 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 estimated emissions impacts are reported in section I.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.

g. Other Factors

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

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year'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). 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.9 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to miscellaneous refrigeration products. Separate paragraphs 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 projections 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 are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039.

Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”)

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO”

), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

DOE received some comments in response to the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis that, rather than addressing specific aspects of the analysis, are general statements regarding the appropriateness of amending energy conservation standards and/or the efficiency levels that might be appropriate.

AHAM stated they support DOE in its efforts to ensure a national marketplace through the Appliance Standards Program. AHAM also stated that amended standards for MREFs may not be justified under EPCA given the relatively low number of shipments in the MREF product category and the limited opportunity for energy savings that result from that fact. AHAM therefore stated, especially given DOE's large backlog of rulemakings (many of which involve products with larger energy savings opportunities), DOE should prioritize other rulemakings. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 1)

While miscellaneous refrigeration products have a smaller number of shipments when compared to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, (“RFs”), that is not a factor DOE considers in determining when to proceed with reviewing a standard. DOE is mandated by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) to reconsider energy standards no later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending standards.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. 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 product 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 miscellaneous refrigeration products. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes

In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE identified one potential product class modification for miscellaneous refrigeration products. DOE did receive a comment in response to the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis regarding the product class structure, which is addressed.

a. Product Classes With Automatic Icemakers

DOE has identified an opportunity to simplify and consolidate the presentation of maximum allowable energy use for products within product classes that may or may not have an automatic icemaker.

To represent the annual energy consumed by automatic icemakers in MREFs, DOE's test procedures specify a constant energy-use adder of 84 kWh/year (by use of a 0.23 kWh/day adder; see section 5.3(a)(i) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A and section 5.3.(a) of appendix B). With this constant adder, the standard levels for product classes with an automatic icemaker are equal to the standards of their counterparts without an icemaker plus the 84 kWh/year. Consistent with prior discussions in the test procedure rulemaking, this NOPR proposes to amend this equation such that representations made on or after the compliance date of any potential new energy conservation standards, the adder to be used shall change from 84 kWh/yr to 28 kWh/yr. DOE determined as part of the October 2021 TP Final Rule that the revised adder would more accurately reflect energy use during a representative average use cycle. 86 FR 56811. However, DOE indicated that it would not require this change in the test procedure until the date of potential future energy conservation standard amendments.

Id.

at 86 FR 56793. Thus, this change is being proposed in this document, with an implementation date to coincide with the compliance date of the standards proposed in this document.

DOE has concluded that because the standards for the product classes with and without automatic icemakers are effectively the same, except for the constant adder, there is an opportunity to express the maximum allowable energy use for both icemaking and non-icemaking classes with the same equation, thus consolidating the presentation of classes and simplifying the energy conservation standards. The equation would, for those classes that may or may not have an icemaker, include a term equal to the icemaking energy use adder multiplied by a factor that is defined to equal 1 for products with icemakers and to equal zero for products without icemakers. This approach would consolidate the product class structure with a single product class descriptor and maximum energy use equation, while continuing to reflect that products with and without icemakers may have different maximum energy use values.

DOE requests comments on its proposal to consolidate the presentation of maximum allowable energy use for products of classes that may or may not have an automatic icemaker.

b. Addition of a Built-In Combination Cooler-Refrigerator-Freezer With Bottom-Mounted Freezer and Automatic Icemaker Product Class

Sub Zero stated they are planning to introduce a built-in combination cooler-refrigerator-freezer with bottom-mounted freezer and automatic icemaker. Sub Zero noted, although this configuration is an MREF covered product, it was not on the market in 2016 so a standard level was not set; using the same methodology used to set levels for the eight combination cooler types for which a standard was prescribed, the allowable maximum energy use would be 6.08AV + 302 kWh/yr. Sub Zero stated it is their understanding that they will need to request exception relief from DOE to certify this new product and requested that a future standard level for this product class be set in the upcoming MREF rulemaking. (Sub Zero, No. 17, pp. 2-3)

DOE is proposing energy use levels for the built-in combination cooler-refrigerator-freezer with a bottom-mounted freezer, with and without an automatic icemaker (“combination cooler 5-BI”), as requested by Sub Zero.

DOE agrees with Sub Zero that the baseline energy use for the class with an automatic icemaker would be using the methodology established in the MREF negotiations for setting energy use standards for new classes of combination products, if calculated on the basis of the 84 kWh/yr icemaker energy use of the current test procedure. When considering the revised 28 kWh/yr icemaker, to be implemented at the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards, the baseline energy use equation for the product class would be 6.08AV + 246 kWh/yr. Since there are no products on the market that could serve as the basis for analysis to support setting a future standard, DOE is using combination cooler class 3A as a proxy for setting of a future energy conservation standard for the new combination cooler 5-BI class.

Although Sub Zero requested a new class only for models with an automatic icemaker, DOE is extending the proposal to also include products without an automatic icemaker, consistent with the consolidation of the icemaker energy use into the energy use equation in the presentation of energy use standards.

DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish energy conservation standards for combination cooler 5-BI using the analysis for combination class 3A as proxy for setting the standard level, based on a baseline efficiency equal to 6.08AV + 218 +28*I kWh/yr, where I is equal to 0 if the model has no automatic icemaker and equal to 1 if it does.

2. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 37 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of miscellaneous refrigeration products, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

Table IV.1—Technology Options Identified in the Preliminary Analysis

Insulation

1. Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type)

2. Increased insulation thickness

3. Vacuum-insulated panels

4. Gas-filled insulation panels

Gaskets and Anti-Sweat Heat

5. Improved gaskets

6. Double door gaskets

7. Anti-sweat heat

Doors

8. Low-E coatings

9. Inert gas fill

10. Vacuum-insulated glass

11. Additional panes

12. Frame design

13. Solid door

Compressor

14. Improved compressor efficiency

15. Variable-speed compressors

16. Linear compressors

Evaporator

17. Increased surface area

18. Forced-convection evaporator

19. Tube and fin enhancements (including microchannel designs)

20. Multiple evaporators

Condenser

21. Increased surface area

22. Tube and fin enhancements (including microchannel designs

23. Forced-convection condenser

Defrost System

24. Off-cycle defrost

25. Reduced energy for active defrost

26. Adaptive defrost

27. Condenser hot gas defrost

Control System

28. Electronic temperature control

29. Air-distribution control

Other Technologies

30. Fan and fan motor improvements

31. Improved expansion valve

32. Fluid control or solenoid off-cycle valve

33. Alternative refrigerants

34. Improved refrigerant piping

35. Component location

36. Alternative refrigeration systems

Commenters provided feedback on some of these technology options. These comments are summarized below, along with DOE's responses.

AHAM stated several of the evaluated technology options are impractical or provide limited to no benefit given current manufacturing and design processes past EL 1. However, AHAM did not provide sufficient detail that would enable DOE to revise the listed technology options and subsequent analysis. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 7)

AHAM also cited issues with DOE's use of LED lighting in its analysis, DOE's over-reliance on vacuum-insulated panels (“VIPs”) in its analysis, and an insufficient supply of variable-speed compressors (“VSCs”). Specifically, AHAM states that the widespread use of LED lighting in the market currently means the possible efficiency gains from lighting will be limited. When considering VIPs, AHAM argues that DOE overused VIPs in its analysis in a manner that is not consistent with their current use on the market or overall effectiveness. Finally, AHAM points to the use of VSCs in the higher ELs as risky due to a potential shortfall of supply from manufacturers if they are included in a standards rulemaking as a primary design option for energy efficiency. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 7)

DOE is aware of the widespread use of LED lighting in the market currently. Therefore, lighting technologies were not considered as a technology option in the preliminary analysis. Likewise, they were also not considered in the NOPR analysis.

When considering the impact of VIPs, DOE took into consideration relevant rulemaking analyses for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer classes as a basis for VIP effectiveness as well as manufacturer feedback. With this information, VIP implementation in the NOPR analysis was more limited than in the preliminary analysis. For this analysis VIPs were only implemented partially in the max-tech levels of every directly analyzed class.

The impact of VSCs on the miscellaneous refrigeration product analyses was primarily based on their ability to provide a higher level of efficiency when compared to their single-speed counterparts. As a result of this compressor efficiency increase, they are prevalent in the higher ELs of the efficiency analyses. DOE acknowledges that more stringent standards would likely necessitate adoption of more efficient technologies, such as variable-speed compressors. However, DOE expects that standards, if adopted, would provide sufficient certainty for manufacturers and suppliers to establish additional capacity in the supply chain, if needed.

B. Screening Analysis

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

(1)

Technological feasibility.

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

(2)

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

(3)

Impacts on product utility or product availability.

If it is determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4)

Adverse impacts on health or safety.

If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

(5)

Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies.

If a design option utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).

In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections.

The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out the following technologies on the basis of technological feasibility, practicability to manufacture, install, and service, adverse impacts on utility or availability, adverse impacts on health or safety, and use of unique-pathway proprietary technologies.

Table IV.2—Technologies Screened Out in the Preliminary Analysis

Solid doors

Ultra-low-E (reflective) glass doors

Vacuum-insulated glass

Improved gaskets and double gaskets

Linear compressors

Fluid control or solenoid off-cycle valves

Evaporator tube and fin enhancements

Condenser tube and fin enhancements (except microchannel condensers)

Condenser hot gas defrost

Improved refrigerant piping

Component location

Alternative refrigeration systems

Improved VIPs

2. Technology Options

Through a review of each technology, DOE concluded in the preliminary analysis that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

Table IV.2—Technologies Remaining in the Preliminary Analysis

Insulation

1. Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type)

2. Increased insulation thickness

3. Gas-filled insulation panels

4. Vacuum-insulated panels

Gasket and Anti-Sweat Heat

5. Anti-sweat heat

Doors

6. Low-E coatings

7. Inert gas fill

8. Additional panes

9. Frame design

Compressor

10. Improved compressor efficiency

11. Variable-speed compressors

Evaporator

12. Forced-convection evaporator

13. Increased surface area

14. Multiple evaporators

Condenser

15. Increased surface area

16. Microchannel designs

17. Forced-convection condenser

Defrost System

18. Reduced energy for automatic defrost

19. Adaptive defrost

20. Off-cycle defrost

Control System

21. Electronic Temperature control

22. Air-distribution control

Other Technologies

23. Fan and fan motor improvements

24. Improved expansion valve

25. Alternative Refrigerants

DOE has initially determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially available products 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, product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

DOE received comments regarding the screened-out technologies; relevant comments are addressed.

AHAM agreed with DOE's decision to screen out solid doors as a technology option for the reason that ELs requiring solid doors will result in a significant loss in consumer utility. AHAM also agreed with DOE's decision to screen out Ultra-Low-E Glass Doors for similar reason, in that this technology also prevents the consumer from being able to see clearly into the cabinet. AHAM stated, should DOE include a door technology option in its final analysis for a possible amended standard, that analysis should provide careful justification to ensure that consumer utility and consumer costs are not unduly impacted. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 8)

The CA IOUs urged DOE to reconsider several technologies that they claimed were screened out of the analysis or improperly categorized. These technologies include ultra-low E glass doors, Inert Gas-Filled Glass, vacuum insulated glass, microchannel heat exchangers, and variable speed compressors. In considering ultra-low E glass doors, the CA IOUs request the DOE define an acceptable emissivity that does not significantly hinder visibility while providing energy savings. For inert gas-filled glass, the CA IOUs claim that triple-pane Argon-filled glass with low-e coating is widely available throughout the market and should be considered at lower ELs. Considering vacuum insulated glass, the CA IOUs point to several manufacturers offering the glass for refrigeration applications. Finally, the CA IOUs urged DOE to make more consideration into the implementation of microchannel heat exchangers and VSCs, claiming that their energy benefits were not fully considered in the preliminary analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 20, pp. 4-6)

DOE screened out ultra-low E glass panels due to loss in consumer utility associated with reduced visibility. DOE considers ultra-low E glass panels to be those with at least three glass layers and more than one low E coating. A large portion of the MREF market utilizes transparent glass doors as an option to allow the consumer to see inside the cooler compartment. Despite its ability to improve efficiency, ultra-low E glass reduces visibility into the cooler cabinet. In interviews, manufacturers specifically indicated that they avoid use of glass panels with more than one low E layer due to visibility concerns. DOE did include in its analysis triple-glazed panels with argon fill and one low E layer, consistent with panels that have been observed in available cooler products.

DOE likewise did not consider vacuum insulated glass as it impacts practicability of manufacture, repair, and installation. While it remains available as a technology option for use in refrigeration equipment (

e.g.,

walk-in cooler doors), DOE is not currently aware of vacuum-insulated glass currently in use for any MREFs. Also, because MREFs are typically much smaller than commercial refrigeration equipment, vacuum-insulated glass may not yet be available for all MREF sizes.

While the CA IOUs claim that five commercial refrigeration manufacturers already have integrated microchannel condenser coils in their equipment outside the MREF product category, DOE has not observed microchannel condensers in any of the products in the teardown analysis for MREFs. DOE notes that microchannel condensers may allow for refrigerant charge reductions and improved heat transfer but known drawbacks to these designs include irregular refrigerant distribution and greater pressure drops on the refrigerant side and air side. Therefore, microchannel condensers may not provide efficiency improvements. Hence, DOE screened out microchannel condensers as a technology option.

Variable speed compressors were included in the NOPR analysis and are implemented in higher-level ELs throughout the analyzed product classes. Published EER levels for VSCs are generally much higher than published EERs for single-speed compressors in the capacity range suitable for compact products, but DOE has not found many MREF products that use VSCs, nor many related compact refrigerators that use VSCs, and thus has little evidence on which to base confident predictions of large efficiency improvements. DOE received a range of estimates of the improvement potential associated with this technology from manufacturers during interviews. DOE believes that its MREF NOPR engineering analysis is representative of performance improvement potential using variable-speed compressors.

The door technology options that remain for increasing the efficiency of miscellaneous refrigeration products include low-e coatings, inert gas fills, additional panes, and frame design changes. Of these options, gas fills, additional panes, and low-e coating were the options implemented in the final EL analyses, with max-tech doors including triple-pane glass, argon gas fill, and a low-e layer on the outermost glass. These options were implemented based on their current use in the market.

DOE seeks further comment on any of the technologies screened out in this NOPR analysis as they were determined to not meet the screening criteria (

i.e.,

practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, safety, or use of unique-pathway proprietary technologies). DOE also seeks comment on those technologies retained for further consideration in the engineering analysis, based on the determination that they are technologically feasible and also meet the other screening criteria.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of miscellaneous refrigeration products. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (

i.e.,

the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (

i.e.,

the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses (

i.e.,

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

1. Efficiency Analysis

DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (

i.e.,

the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (

i.e.,

the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).

For the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the physical teardown approach supplemented with a catalog teardown approach for coolers. Several products from the cooler class (compact and standard size) and one product from the combination cooler class C-13A were used in physical teardowns. The physical teardown combination cooler was used to determine manufacturer production costs (“MPCs”) for one analyzed product class (C-13A), but that analysis primarily relied on the engineering conducted for the October 15, 2021, preliminary analysis for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (86 FR 57378) as the basis for other MPCs and incremental costs.

For this NOPR analysis, DOE chose to analyze classes C-3A and C-9 in addition to the original C-13A. Due to the lack of physical teardown products for these classes, the analysis relied heavily on adjusted analyses from the consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (“RF”) classes 3 and 9. RF product class 3 represents refrigerator-freezers with automatic defrost with top-mounted freezers without an automatic icemaker while RF product class 9 represents upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker. Product class 3 was chosen as a proxy to C-3A due to its similar configuration, and its analysis was able to be adapted relatively easily. Likewise, C-9's analysis used RF product class 9's analysis due to similarities in configuration.

A survey approach was taken to determine sizing and pricing for representative models, and relevant design options from C-13A were used in the additional analyses. DOE also considered input provided during manufacturer interviews to improve upon design option energy savings and representative ELs.

As described in section IV.C.1.c of this document, DOE conducted engineering analysis for class C-9, but did not conduct further analysis due to the limited potential for efficiency increase.

General comments regarding the efficiency analysis are addressed below.

AHAM noted DOE builds its incremental MPC based on a set path of technology options, but there is no standard ordering of technology choice within a single company, let alone across the total industry. AHAM stated DOE should recognize there is limited new technology that would allow for significant per-unit reduction in energy consumption, particularly true of technology options that DOE evaluated to reach efficiency levels beyond EL 1. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 6-7)

In response, DOE notes that the ordering of technologies is not intended to be aligned with the ordering that would be considered by a single company, nor is it intended to represent the ordering that the total industry would adopt. Instead, it is intended to provide reasonable representation, both of design options used by specific reverse-engineered products, and of an ordering that would prioritize the most cost-effective options, with gradual reductions in cost-effectiveness as the EL increases. Also, the certified data shows that existing products on the market demonstrate significant per-unit reduction in energy consumption. For example, among DOE's tested and reverse-engineered compact coolers was a 3.4 cuft cooler certified with energy use 45% less than the standard, and a 5.1 cuft cooler certified with energy use 49% less than the standard. These levels were EL3 for the preliminary analysis and beyond EL4 for the NOPR analysis, certainly beyond EL1. DOE test results confirmed that their energy use was consistent with the certifications.

CA IOUs stated that in its review of products currently available on the market, it was revealed that the incremental design options may not be the most appropriate (as presented by DOE in Table 5.5.1 of the preliminary TSD) as products on the market contain a combination of technologies DOE has attributed to different ELs. For example, smaller units within the compact category utilize efficiency features affecting the thermal envelope (argon and/or triple-pane glass), whereas larger units can utilize condenser, evaporator, and compressor efficiency features. (CA IOUs, No. 20, pp. 1-2)

When analyzing the models pointed to by CA IOUs, DOE was unable to confirm the efficiency level for one of the provided MREF models, due to the fact it was not listed on the Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”) as of August 2022. The compact model referred to above was located on the CCD system and rated at around 13% lower energy use than baseline; however, the model did not match the CCD rated AV, therefore, the efficiency information may not be up to date. Information regarding the design options used by each model was also limited, with relevant engineering design options absent from promotional

material, user manuals, and specification sheets.

Considering the issues related to gathering information on the specific models referenced in the comment, DOE is unable to point to specific reasoning behind the design options implemented in each model. DOE does note, however, that it considers design options in a manner as described previously: with design options used by specific reverse-engineered products, and of an ordering that prioritizes the most cost-effective options for initial EL steps and gradual reduction in cost-effectiveness as the EL increases.

DOE requests any further input from commenters regarding the approach for design option selection and implementation for a given model, beyond the information DOE has already considered.

a. Built-In Classes

In this NOPR analysis, DOE chose to continue using freestanding MREF classes as proxies for built-in classes. DOE's analysis of the current market for miscellaneous refrigeration products showed built-in and freestanding products occupying the same range of efficiencies, and DOE did not identify any unique characteristic that would inhibit efficiency improvements for built-in products relative to freestanding products based on a review on the market. As a result, DOE chose to apply its freestanding products analyses to built-in classes. Several comments were received following the preliminary analysis (which used the same approach) and are addressed below.

According to AHAM, and echoed by Sub Zero and NEEA, freestanding product classes are not a good proxy for built-in product classes, and DOE should evaluate them separately. AHAM stated that DOE's assumption that the products can employ similar technology options in order to achieve higher efficiency levels is fundamentally flawed as built-in designs face difference constraints than freestanding designs. NEEA and Sub Zero both specifically mentioned insulation thickness increases and airflow as a major difference between built-in and freestanding products. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 9; Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2; NEEA, No. 21, pp. 2-3)

Based on the comments provided, DOE revisited its review of the range of efficiency levels attainable by built-in and freestanding coolers. DOE noted that many products certified as freestanding have installation instructions that provide requirements for both freestanding and built-in installation and are advertised for both installations. DOE found that for such products, the majority of high-efficiency models are advertised as capable of both freestanding and built-in installations. For coolers between 2 and 6 cubic feet, DOE found that all of the most efficient products reviewed (roughly 37% better than baseline or more) were capable of both configurations, whereas some of the products that were less efficient in that adjusted volume range were advertised as freestanding only. This suggests that built-in products are not inhibited in their ability to achieve high efficiencies. For larger coolers between 14 and 16 cubic feet in adjusted volume, DOE found products up to 15% greater than the baseline level that were configurable in both, based on manufacturer instructions. There were a few large cooler products that reached the highest available efficiency reviewed, up to roughly 30% better than baseline, that are advertised as only capable of a freestanding configuration.

DOE also reviewed the depth of the various models considered to determine if models advertised for built-in installation have any clear dimensional limitation that might make achieving high efficiency levels more difficult. DOE was unable to determine a clear correlation between depth and energy use, for any of the models or capacity ranges considered, nor between depth and instructions or advertising for built-in installation. In fact, DOE found that the most efficient freestanding-only model in the large cubic volume range had the smallest depth of all the other models reviewed, suggesting that dimensional restriction on depth was not a key factor relative to the overall unit efficiency.

DOE also observed that the highest efficiency levels for coolers of the built-in class and efficiency levels for freestanding coolers having installation instructions or advertising for both freestanding and built-in installation were at or close to the maximum technology efficiency levels analyzed by DOE. DOE has not been provided evidence that manufacturers are using design options in built-ins other than those that have passed screening for this analysis. There are also no manufacturer comments that suggest other design options have been used to achieve max-tech efficiency levels in built-in products. Hence, DOE concludes built-ins are using the same set of design options as analyzed at max-tech for freestanding classes. Consequently, DOE did not conduct separate analysis for built-in classes.

While DOE chose, in this NOPR analysis, to continue using freestanding classes as proxies for built-in classes, DOE requests additional information regarding the constraints for built-in designs relative to freestanding designs, and the associated specific efficiency and cost impacts.

b. Baseline Efficiency/Energy Use

For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class (

e.g.,

capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.

For the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE chose baseline efficiency levels represented by the current Federal energy conservation standards, expressed as maximum annual energy consumption as a function of the product's adjusted volume. The baseline levels differ for coolers and combination coolers to account for design differences; all coolers share the same baseline level,

i.e.,

the baseline is the same function of adjusted volume for both freestanding and built-in models, for both compact and standard-size models.

For this NOPR, DOE kept the cooler baselines the same as the preliminary analysis; the combination cooler baseline has also been kept the same. From these baselines DOE conducted direct analyses for three different AV coolers, and two combination coolers (C-13A, and C-3A). In conducting these analyses, eight teardown units were used in construction of cost curves, and had their characteristics determined in large part by testing and reverse-engineering. Further information on the design characteristics of specific analyzed baseline models is summarized in the NOPR TSD.

c. Higher Efficiency Levels

For the NOPR analysis, DOE analyzed up to five incremental efficiency levels beyond the baseline for each of the analyzed product classes. The efficiency levels start at EL1, 10% more efficient than the current energy conservation standard. For the compact coolers NOPR analysis, DOE extended the efficiency levels in steps of 10% of the current energy conservation standard up to EL 4; for full-size coolers, EL 4 is analyzed at 35%. For combination coolers (excluding C-9) efficiency levels above EL 1 are in steps of 5% up to EL 4.

Finally, EL 5 represents maximum technology (“max-tech”), using design option analysis to extend the analysis beyond EL 4 using all applicable design options, including max efficiency variable-speed compressors, and maximum practical use of VIPs. For coolers, the current Energy Star specifications correspond to EL 1 for freestanding full-size coolers (10%), EL 2 for freestanding compact coolers (20%), and EL 3 for both classes of built-in coolers (30%).

DOE conducted analysis for product class C-9 starting with analysis for a class 9 upright freezer with comparable total refrigerated volume. In its analysis, DOE concluded that application of all of the design options being considered at max-tech would be required for the product to be compliant with the current energy conservation standards. Currently, the CCD includes only one product that is certified as C-9—an LG product certified with energy use 17% below the standard. DOE did not purchase, test, and reverse-engineer this product, in-part because of the limited product offering and expected insignificant potential for energy savings for the class. Thus, DOE is relying primarily on its analysis of the RF product class 9 freezer, to suggest that opportunities for energy savings are likely limited and likely not cost-effective, even if improved efficiency is technically feasible. DOE has not analyzed efficiency levels beyond baseline for this product class in this NOPR, but has taken into consideration all design options applied at max-tech in its analysis.

DOE received comments regarding intermediate efficiency levels as shown below.

The CA IOUs expressed concern that the cost analysis performed in the preliminary TSD is overly conservative; the marked drop in calculated benefits between the lower ELs does not accurately reflect the more nuanced state of the market. As such, they suggested DOE implement an intermediate EL, between EL 1 and EL 2, for the Cooler-FC and Cooler-F product classes. They also suggested an intermediate EL between EL 2 and EL 3 for product class C-13A. NEEA voiced similar concerns to CA IOUs and also suggested similar intermediate EL levels for coolers and C-13A. ASAP also urged DOE to consider an intermediate EL for compact coolers between ELs 1 and 2. (CA IOUs, No. 20, pp. 1-2; NEEA, No. 21, pp. 5-6; ASAP, No. 19, pp. 2-3)

In response, DOE notes that the efficiency levels considered in the NOPR analysis differ significantly from those considered in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

While all of the specific gap fill levels suggested by stakeholders may not have been included, DOE believes that, the levels suggested in this NOPR more accurately reflect the full efficiency range of the market. The proposed EL steps have been chosen to represent the full range of efficiency and reflect the products on the market for each product class.

The January 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD presenting the preliminary analysis is available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0009.

ASAP noted, in the preliminary TSD for consumer refrigerators and freezers, DOE estimated a 9-percent improvement in compressor efficiency associated with converting from a single-speed compressor to a VSC with similar rated energy efficiency ratio (“EER”) values, and ASAP stated they expect there to be similar savings for compact coolers. ASAP further noted, however, in the preliminary analysis for the 5.1 cubic foot compact cooler representative unit, DOE appears to show energy savings of only about 2 percent when going from the most efficient single-speed compressor at EL 3 to a VSC and a triple-pane glass pack at EL 4. ASAP therefore stated concern that DOE may be underestimating the energy savings associated with the design options incorporated at EL 4 and urged DOE to ensure that its analysis is appropriately capturing the savings from the incorporation of a VSC. (ASAP, No. 19, p. 2)

When constructing a direct analysis of the 5.1 cubic foot compact cooler DOE considered numerous design options when moving from EL 3 to EL 4. The effect of the triple-pane glass and switch to VSC alone do not contribute to the ultimate percentage difference between El 3 and EL 4. DOE has continued to work with manufacturers in order to accurately create ELs for both coolers and combination coolers that are based on real-world information and energy consumption.

The efficiency levels analyzed for this NOPR beyond the baseline are shown in Table IV.3.

Table IV.3—Incremental Efficiency Levels for Analyzed Products (% Energy Use Less Than Baseline)

Product class (AV, cu.ft.)

Coolers

FCC (3.1)

(%)

FCC (5.1)

(%)

FC (15.3)

(%)

Combination coolers

C-13A (5)

(%)

C-3A (21)

(%)

EL 1

EL 2 *

EL 3

EL 4

EL 5

* ENERGY STAR % level varies based on specific teardown units analyzed.

d. VIP and VSC Analysis

DOE received comments on the implementation of VIPs in its analyses, and the comments are addressed below.

AHAM stated DOE does not account for the limitations of VIPs and that DOE's modeling does not apply VIPs as they would likely be used in actual products and, as a result, overestimates their use and impact in its analysis. AHAM stated DOE should note the following when evaluating the effectiveness of VIPs: covering all sides of an MREF casing in VIPs is not reasonable or a good design practice, there are costs associated with VIPs beyond the price of the panels themselves, a failed VIP in the field cannot be repaired and it will require a total product replacement, and VIPs are not effective for smaller products because of “edge effects.” AHAM stated DOE should further discuss these issues with manufacturers during manufacturer interviews and evaluate more products in order to get a better understanding of the complexities and costs associated with VIPs and update its analysis accordingly. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 7-8)

In communicating with manufacturers DOE received similar comments relating to decreased effectiveness of VIPs on miscellaneous refrigeration products. For the NOPR analysis DOE aimed to adjust the usage of VIPs in order to provide more accuracy in associated energy savings. More focus was put on increasing efficiency in glass panels, gas fills, and thickness changes when moving up in efficiency levels. Only partial VIP coverage was included in max-tech levels for the NOPR analysis.

ASAP expressed concern that DOE is underestimating the potential savings from upgrading from a single-speed compressor to a VSC by not accounting for the higher EER values of VSCs. ASAP noted that, in the preliminary TSD, DOE states compressors typically present in MREFs have capacities of 300 to 400 Btu per hour, but at a capacity of 300 BTU per hour, for example, even the least efficient VSC has a higher EER than the most efficient single-speed compressor. ASAP further noted that the EER of the most efficient VSC at 300 BTU per hour appears to be about 30 percent higher than the most efficient single-speed compressor. ASAP therefore urged DOE to ensure that its analysis is capturing the improved full-load efficiency of VSCs relative to single-speed compressors. (ASAP, No. 19, p. 1)

In the preliminary analysis, as laid out in figure 5.5.1 in the preliminary TSD, DOE analyzed the capacity and efficiency ratings of numerous VSCs through publicly available compressor performance data. 79 FR 71705. This figure does show that VSCs account for a higher EER when compared to single-speed compressors as capacity (Btu/h) is decreased. However, relating back ASAP's claim relating to 300 Btu/h capacity compressors, manufacturer feedback indicates that these EER efficiency increases are not generally realized when implementing this technology. Manufacturers have reported a wide range of overall efficiency increases associated with use of variable-speed compressors. In in the NOPR analysis DOE considered manufacturer feedback regarding experience with implementing VSC's in order to avoid overestimating efficiency increases. The analysis primarily considers energy savings associated with increased heat exchanger effectiveness associated with lower compressor speed operation and reduced fan speeds, assuming that fans would be operated at reduced speed when operating at low compressor speed. VSCs are generally implemented at higher EL levels throughout the analysis, consistent with their projected cost effectiveness.

DOE seeks comment on the range of VSC nominal efficiencies and the relative overall efficiency gains offered by VSCs when operating at reduced compressor speeds along with reduced fan speeds in MREF products.

2. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:

☐

Physical teardowns:

Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.

☐

Catalog teardowns:

In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product.

☐

Price surveys:

If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (

e.g.,

large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels.

In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using primarily physical teardowns. Physical teardowns were used to provide a baseline of technology options and their pricing for a specific product class at a specific EL level. Then with technology option information, DOE estimated the cost of various design options including compressors, VIPs, and insulation, by extrapolating the costs from price surveys of relevant refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

AHAM stated VSC supply is not sufficient to accommodate a standard that requires their use for all MREF products, indicating that this will drive up costs, and further noting that DOE's analysis does not account for these increased costs. AHAM also stated MREFs are enclosed systems and the use of VSCs entails significant redesign costs for those that do not currently employ VSCs, which DOE's analysis also must account for. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 8)

DOE has considered the comments regarding VSC availability and cost of VSC implementation. For this NOPR analysis, DOE estimated the cost of implementing VSCs based on the costs of relevant variable-speed compressors available on the market for other refrigeration products. Regarding component availability, DOE acknowledges that more stringent standards would likely necessitate adoption of more efficient technologies, such as variable-speed compressors. However, DOE expects that standards, if adopted, would provide sufficient time and regulatory certainty for manufacturers and suppliers to establish additional capacity in the supply chain, if needed. Should this NOPR proceed to a final rule, compliance with any amended standards would not be required until 5-years after a final rule is published. DOE expects that this 5-year compliance period provides adequate time for OEMs to sign supply contracts with their compressor suppliers ahead of anticipated demand.

DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers expect manufacturing capacity constraints would limit product availability to consumers in the timeframe of the amended standard compliance date.

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

The results of the engineering analysis are presented as cost-efficiency data for each of the efficiency levels for each of the product classes that were analyzed, as well as those extrapolated from a product class with similar cooling capacity and features. DOE developed estimates of MPCs for each unit in the teardown sample, and also performed additional modeling for each of the teardown samples, to develop a comprehensive set of MPCs at each efficiency level. The resulting weighted average incremental MPCs (

i.e.,

the additional costs manufacturers would likely incur by producing miscellaneous refrigeration products at each efficiency level compared to the baseline) are provided in Tables 5.5.5 and 5.5.6 in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail on the engineering analysis.

DOE seeks comment on the method for estimating manufacturing production costs and on the resulting cost-efficiency curves.

See section VII.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

Table IV.1—Incremental Design Options * by Efficiency Level and Product Class

Product class (AV ***)

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

FCC (3.1)

EL Percent

10%

20%

30%

40%

59%.

Design Options Added

Tube and Fin Evaporator; Argon Filled Glass

Static Condenser;

Higher-EER Compressor; Tube and Fin Condenser

Variable-Speed Compressor; Roll Bond Evaporator; Manual Defrost; Increased Insulation Thickness

Partial VIP; Triple Pane Glass **; Tube and Fin Bond Evaporator.

FCC (5.1)

EL Percent

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%.

Design Options Added

Argon Filled Glass; Higher-EER Compressor

Higher-EER Compressor

Higher-EER Compressor; Hot Wall Condenser

Higher-EER Compressor; Tube and Fin Evaporator; HotWall + Tube and Fin Condenser; Increased Insulation Thickness

Variable-Speed Compressor; Partial VIP; Triple Pane Glass **.

FC (15.3)

EL Percent

10%

20%

30%

35%

38%.

Design Options Added

Higher-EER Compressor; Hot Wall + Tube and Fin Condenser

Higher-EER Compressor

Variable-Speed Compressor; Variable Defrost; 3x Tube and Fin Evaporator; Increased Insulation Thickness

Triple Pane Glass **

Partial VIP.

C-13A (5)

EL Percent

10%

16%

20%

25%

28%.

Design Options Added

Higher-EER Compressor

Variable-Speed Compressor

Triple Pane Glass **

Partial VIP.

C-3A (20.6)

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

24%

Design Options Added

Higher-EER Compressor

Variable-Speed Compressor; Variable (off-cycle) Defrost

Triple Pane Glass**; Timed (off-cycle) Defrost; Higher-EER Variable Speed Compressor

Partial VIP; Variable (off-cycle) Defrost

* Design options are cumulative between efficiency levels (except for component replacements).

** Triple-pane glass pack consists of soft-coated low-E glass and argon gas fill (with a reduced gap size to maintain door thickness).

*** AV represented in ft

Table IV.2—Cost-Efficiency Curves for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

Product Class (AV *)

EL0

EL1

EL2

EL3

EL4

EL5

FCC (3.1)

EL Percent

10%

20%

30%

40%

59%

MPC

$273.66

$289.88

$299.61

$309.88

$343.55

$392.74

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$16.21

$25.94

$36.22

$69.88

$119.08

FCC (5.1)

EL Percent

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

MPC

$307.76

$310.89

$313.29

$327.72

$354.18

$439.26

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$3.13

$5.53

$19.96

$46.42

$131.50

FC (15.3)

EL Percent

10%

20%

30%

35%

38%

MPC

$648.22

$661.71

$665.13

$709.87

$832.95

$845.25

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$13.49

$16.91

$61.65

$184.72

$197.02

C-13A (5)

EL Percent

10%

15%

20%

25%

28%

MPC

$533.25

$535.25

$537.01

$565.74

$589.63

$627.33

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$2.00

$3.76

$32.48

$56.37

$94.07

C-3A (20.6)

EL Percent

10%

16%

20%

24%

MPC

$601.00

$604.17

$639.47

$733.13

$790.03

Incremental MPC

$0.00

$3.17

$38.47

$132.13

$189.03

C-9 (20) **

EL Percent

MPC

$514.16

Incremental MPC

* Adjusted volumes provided in ft

** Only considered at baseline.

4. Manufacturer Selling Price

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K reports

filed by publicly-traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range includes miscellaneous refrigeration products. See chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail on the manufacturer markup.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,

Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system.

Available at

www.sec.gov/edgar/search/

(last accessed September 22, 2022).

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (

e.g.,

retailer markups and distributor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to

convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies markup equipment prices to cover business costs and profit margin.

For MREFs, DOE identified two distribution channels: (1) manufacturers to retailers to consumers, and (2) manufactures to wholesalers to dealers/retailers to consumers. The parties involved in the distribution channel are retailers, wholesalers and dealers.

DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution channel. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.

DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups. Specifically, DOE used the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the “electronics and appliance stores” sector to develop retailer markups, and the 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey for the “household appliances, and electrical and electronic goods merchant wholesalers” sector to estimate wholesaler markups. DOE recognized that the overall markup in the wholesaler channel should be higher than the direct retailer channel. Considering that most of the wholesalers and dealers/retailers hold special contract in the wholesaler channel, DOE assumed that the dealer/retailer markups are half of the values of the retailer makeups in the direct retailer channel.

DOE requests comment on the assumption used in developing the dealer/retailer markups and welcomes any feedback on the overall markup in the wholesaler channel.

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for MREFs.

E. Energy Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of MREFs at different efficiencies in representative U.S. households, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased MREF efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of MREFs in the field (

i.e.,

as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.

DOE determined a range of annual energy use of MREFs as a function of unit volume. DOE developed distributions of adjusted volume of product classes (Table IV.3) with more than one representative unit base on the capacity distributions reported in the TraQline® wine chiller data spanning from 2020 Q1 to 2022 Q1.

23 24

DOE also developed a sample of households that use MREFs based on the TraQline wine chiller data (see section IV.G for details). For each volume and considered efficiency level, DOE derived the energy consumption as measured by the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, with the exception that DOE used in its analysis the reduced icemaker energy use contribution that would take effect on the compliance date of new standards.

TraQline is a market research company that specialized in tracking consumer purchasing behavior across a wide range of products using quarterly online surveys.

DOE acknowledges that the pandemics which span the sample period may contribute to the medium- to long-term consumer behavior changes. DOE will continue monitor the consumer behavior trend and may make alternative estimation in the next rulemaking phase.

DOE requests comment on its methodology to develop market share distributions by adjusted volume in the compliance year for each product class with two representative volumes, as well as data to further inform these distributions in subsequent rounds of this rulemaking.

Table IV.3—Distribution of Adjusted Interior Volumes by Product Class

Adjusted volume

(ft

)

Percentage

FCC

3.1

83.4

5.1

16.6

BICC

3.1

81.3

5.1

18.7

FC and BIC

15.3

100.0

C-3A

100.0

C-9

100.0

C-13A

100.0

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use analysis for MREFs.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for MREFs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:

• The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.

• The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.

For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of MREFs in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.

NEEA encouraged DOE to calculate and consider the return on investment

(ROI) for each efficiency level as an additional metric of cost-effectiveness, which would only require the use of simple payback and device lifetime. (NEEA, No. 21, pp. 6-7).

DOE acknowledges that ROI is a metric that can be useful in evaluating investments in energy efficiency. However, the measures that DOE has historically used to evaluate the economic impacts of standards on consumers—LCC savings and PBP—are more closely related to the language in EPCA that requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product 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 product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) Therefore, DOE finds it reasonable to continue to use those measures.

For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples based on TraQline wine chiller survey data. The survey panel is weighted against the U.S. Census based on their demographic characteristic to make the sample representative of the U.S. population. The wine chiller survey asked respondents about the product features of the wine chillers they recently purchased, as well as the purchasing channel of the products. To account for the more recent MREF consumers, DOE used the latest two years of survey data (2020 Q1 to 2022 Q1) to construct the household sample used in this NOPR.

For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption for the MREF(s) and the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative sample of households, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of MREFs.

Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and distributor markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs (if applicable), product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.

The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and MREF user samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of MREFs as if each were to purchase a new product in the expected year of required compliance with new or amended standards. New and amended standards would apply to MREFs manufactured 5 years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) At this time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in 2024. Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2029 as the first year of compliance with any amended standards for MREFs.

Table IV.4 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The paragraphs that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.

Table IV.4—Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis *

Inputs

Source/method

Product Cost

Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling index to project product costs.

Installation Costs

Assumed no change with efficiency level. Not considered in the analysis.

Annual Energy Use

Derived from engineering inputs (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD).

Variability:

Based on the product class and rep unit volume, where applicable.

Energy Prices

Electricity:

Based on 2021 average and marginal electricity price data from the Edison Electric Institute.

Variability:

Electricity prices vary by region.

Energy Price Trends

Based on

AEO 2022

price projections.

Repair and Maintenance Costs

Assumed no change with efficiency level. Not considered in the analysis.

Product Lifetime

Average:

12.6 years.

Discount Rates

Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances.

Compliance Date

2029.

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

1. Product Cost

To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products.

Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of many products may trend downward over time according to “learning” or “experience” curves. Experience curve analysis implicitly includes factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation, materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-wide level.

In the experience curve method, the real cost of production is related to the cumulative production or “experience” with a manufactured product. DOE used historical Producer Price Index (PPI) data for “household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing” from the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics' (“BLS”) spanning the time period between 1989 and 2021 as a proxy of the production cost for MREFs.

This is the most relevant price index for MREFs as the main technology options are similar to full-size refrigerators and several refrigerator manufacturers also produce MREFs. An inflation-adjusted price index was calculated by dividing the PPI series by the gross domestic product index from Bureau of Economic Analysis for the same years. The cumulative production of MREFs were assembled from the estimated annual shipments using the stock accounting approach between 2016 and 2021, and a flat shipment trend was assumed prior to 1951. The estimated learning rate (defined as the fractional reduction in price expected from each doubling of cumulative production) is 15.5 ± 1.7 percent.

Taylor, M. and Fujita, K.S. Accounting for Technological Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses:

The Learning Curve Technique.

LBNL-6195E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. April 2013.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4#page-1.

Household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing PPI series ID: PCU3352203352202;

www.bls.gov/ppi/.

DOE included variable-speed compressors as a technology option for higher efficiency levels. To develop future prices specific for that technology, DOE applied a different price trend to the controls portion of the variable-speed compressor, which represents part of the price increment when moving from an efficiency level achieved with the highest efficiency single-speed compressor to an efficiency level with variable-speed compressor. DOE used PPI data on “semiconductors and related device manufacturing” between 1967 and 2021 to estimate the historic price trend of electronic components in the control.

The regression, performed as an exponential trend line fit, results in an R-square of 0.99, with an annual price decline rate of 6.3 percent. See chapter 8 of the TSD for further details on this topic.

Semiconductors and related device manufacturing PPI series ID: PCU334413334413;

www.bls.gov/ppi/.

AHAM noted that any declining costs are due to value engineering and/or productivity improvements, and agreed with DOE's decision not to use a price learning curve in the preliminary analysis. AHAM also stated that MREFs are not identical to refrigerators and freezers, and therefore DOE should not apply the learning curve from the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers rulemaking analysis. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 6) On the other hand, NEEA, ASAP and the CA IOUs, encouraged DOE to incorporate a price learning curve. ASAP and the CA IOUs expressed concern that assuming constant prices will result in overestimating the cost to achieve higher efficiency levels in the assumed compliance year and beyond and suggested the use of price data from consumer refrigerators to inform the development of an appropriate learning rate for MREFs, as many of the same design options are used for MREFs. (NEEA, No. 21, pp. 4-5, ASAP, No. 19 at p. 3, CA IOUs, No. 20, pp. 2-4).

As discussed earlier, in this NOPR DOE developed a price learning based on the historical refrigerator and freezer PPI and the cumulative production estimated specifically for MREFs, assuming that the refrigerator and freezer PPI is representative of MREFs. Given that similar design options are considere

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.