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

Federal RegisterMay 11, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022]

RIN 1904-AE47

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

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers. 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 to amend and establish energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers 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 July 10, 2023.

Meeting:

DOE will hold a meeting via a webinar on Wednesday, June, 14, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, “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 June 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

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

www.regulations.gov

under docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022, by any of the following methods:

(1)

Email: ACIM2017STD0022@ee.doe.gov.

Include the docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022 in the subject line of the message.

(2)

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.

(3)

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-2017-BT-STD-0022.

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 rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0729. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3595. Email:

Kristin.Koernig@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 Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

C. Deviation From Process Rule

1. Framework Document

2. Public Comment Period

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

B. Scope of Coverage

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. Equipment Classes

a. Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

2. Manufacturer Trade Groups

3. Market Share

4. Inventory

5. Technology Options

a. Compressors

b. Microchannel Condensers

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

a. Increased Condenser Air Flow

b. Reduced Energy Loss Due to Evaporator Thermal Cycling

c. Larger Diameter Remote Suction Line

d. Reduced Potable Water Use (<20 Gal/100 lb Ice)

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Energy Use

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

4. Manufacturer Selling Price

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

1. Ice Storage

2. Scaling

3. Harvest Rate

4. Duty Cycle

5. Low-Capacity ACIM Equipment

6. Water Use

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Equipment Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Water Prices

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

7. Equipment Lifetime

8. Discount Rates

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

10. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Equipment 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. Refrigerant Regulation

b. Scope Expansion

c. Supply Chain Concerns

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. Significance of Water Savings

c. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

d. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Automatic Commercial Ice Maker 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, 13563, and 14904

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. Participation in the Webinar

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

1. Conduct of the Webinar

C. Submission of Comments

D. 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 C of EPCA,

established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This includes automatic commercial ice maker (ACIM) equipment, the subject of this proposed 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 reflects the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

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

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. 6316(a); 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that, not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes to amend energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers and to establish new energy conservation standards for covered equipment not yet subject to energy conservation standards. The proposed standards, which are expressed in the maximum allowable energy use as a function of the harvest rate of the given equipment, are shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all automatic commercial ice makers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date that is (1) 3 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published or (2) if the Secretary determines, by rule, that 3 years is inadequate, not later than 5 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(B) and (3)(B))

DOE notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed refrigerant restrictions pursuant to the American Innovation

and Manufacturing Act (AIM Act)

affecting automatic commercial ice makers in a NOPR published on December 15, 2022 (December 2022 EPA NOPR). 87 FR 76738. The proposal would prohibit manufacture or import of such ice makers starting January 1, 2025, and would ban sale, distribution, purchase, receipt, or export of such ice makers starting January 1, 2026.

Id.

at 87 FR 76809. See section IV.A.5.a of this document for more details. DOE understands that it would be beneficial to ACIM equipment manufacturers to align the compliance date of any DOE amended or established standards as closely as possible with the refrigerant prohibition dates proposed by the December 2022 EPA NOPR. Therefore, DOE is proposing that the proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all automatic commercial ice makers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published.

Under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, entitled “Technology Transitions,” the EPA may by rule restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in sectors or subsectors where they are used. A person or entity may also petition EPA to promulgate such a rule. “H.R.133—116th Congress (2019-2020): Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.”

Congress.gov,

Library of Congress, 27 December 2020,

www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133.

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

Equipment type

Type of

cooling

Harvest rate (lb ice/24 hours)

Maximum

energy use *

(kWh/100 lb ice)

Maximum

condenser

water use **

(gal/100 lb ice)

Ice-Making Head

Water

>50 and <300

6.49-0.0055H

200-0.022H

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥300 and <785

5.41-0.00191H

200-0.022H

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥785 and <1,500

4.13-0.00028H

200-0.022H

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥1,500 and <2,500

200-0.022H

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥2,500 and <4,000

145

Ice-Making Head

Air

>50 and <300

9.4-0.01233H

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥300 and <727

6.45-0.0025H

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥727 and <1,500

5.09-0.00063H

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥1,500 and <4,000

4.23

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor)

Air

>50 and <988

7.83-0.00342H

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor)

Air

≥988 and <4,000

4.45

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

>50 and <930

7.82-0.00342H

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

≥930 and <4,000

4.64

Self-Contained

Water

>50 and <200

8.18-0.019H

191-0.0315H

Self-Contained

Water

≥200 and <2,500

4.38

191-0.0315H

Self-Contained

Water

≥2,500 and <4,000

4.38

112

Self-Contained

Air

≤50

Portable:

≤38

19.43-0.27613H

>38 and ≤50

8.94

Refrigerated Storage

29.8-0.37063H

Not Portable or Refrigerated Storage

21.08-0.19634H

Self-Contained

Air

>50 and <134

13.61-0.0469H

Self-Contained

Air

≥134 and <200

10.72-0.02533H

Self-Contained

Air

≥200 and <4,000

5.65

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

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

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

Equipment type

Type of

cooling

Harvest rate (lb ice/24 hours)

Maximum

energy use *

(kWh/100 lb ice)

Maximum

condenser

water use **

(gal/100 lb ice)

Ice-Making Head

Water

>50 and <801

6.24-0.00267H

180-0.0198H

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥801 and <1,500

4.1

180-0.0198H

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥1,500 and <2,500

4.34

180-0.0198H

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥2,500 and <4,000

4.34

130.5

Ice-Making Head

Air

>50 and <310

7.49-0.00629H

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥310 and <820

6.53-0.0032H

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥820 and <1,500

3.91

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥1,500 and <4,000

4.67

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor)

Air

>50 and <800

9.24-0.0058H

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor)

Air

≥800 and <4,000

4.6

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

>50 and <800

9.42-0.0058H

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

≥800 and <4,000

4.78

Self-Contained

Water

>50 and <900

6.5-0.00302H

153-0.0252H

Self-Contained

Water

≥900 and <2,500

3.78

153-0.0252H

Self-Contained

Water

≥2,500 and <4,000

3.78

Self-Contained

Air

≤50

Portable

22.99-0.27789H

Not Portable

24.51-0.29623H

Self-Contained

Air

>50 and <149

11.2-0.03H

Self-Contained

Air

≥149 and <700

7.66-0.00624H

Self-Contained

Air

≥700 and <4,000

3.29

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

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

DOE requests comments on its proposal to require that the proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all automatic commercial ice makers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final amended standard is published. More generally, DOE requests comment on whether it would be beneficial to ACIM equipment manufacturers to align the compliance date of any DOE amended or established standards as closely as possible with the refrigerant prohibition dates proposed by the December 2022 EPA NOPR.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

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

The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of automatic commercial ice makers, which is estimated to be 8.5 years for high-capacity automatic commercial ice makers and 7.5 years for low-capacity ACIM equipment (B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (≤38), B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM), and B-SC-A (≤50). See section IV.F.7 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.10 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.3—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Equipment class

Average LCC savings *

(2022$)

Simple payback period

(years)

B-IMH-W (≥300 and <785)

0.0

B-IMH-W (≥785 and <1,500)

0.0

B-IMH-A (≥300 and <727)

4.4

B-IMH-A (≥727 and <1,500)

232

3.4

B-RC(NRC)-A (≥988 and <4,000)

5.2

B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (≤38)

3.8

B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM)

2.1

B-SC-A (≤50)

5.7

B-SC-A (>50 and <134)

0.0

B-SC-A (≥200 and <4,000)

6.0

C-IMH-W (>50 and <801)

0.0

C-IMH-A (≥310 and <820)

4.8

C-RC&RC-A (≥800 and <4,000)

162

4.2

C-SC-A (>50 and <149)

5.3

C-SC-A (≥149 and <700)

5.7

B = batch; C = continuous.

IMH = ice making head; SC = self-contained; RC = remote condensing.

W = water type of cooling; A = air type of cooling.

Number in parentheses indicates harvest rate.

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

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

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars.

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the NOPR publication year through the end of the analysis period (2023-2056). Using a real discount rate of 9.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers in the case without new or amended standards is $96.4 million. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −14.4 percent to −12.0 percent, which is approximately −$13.9 million to −$11.5 million. To bring equipment into compliance with new and amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $15.9 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The 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 automatic commercial ice makers would save a significant amount of

energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for automatic commercial ice makers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056) amount to 0.16 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) or quads.

This represents a savings of 4 percent relative to the energy use of this equipment in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers ranges from $0.14 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.38 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 automatic commercial ice makers purchased in 2027-2056.

In addition, the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers 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 5 million metric tons (Mt)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 2 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 36 thousand tons of methane (CH

), 0.06 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), and 0.015 tons of mercury (Hg).

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

(

AEO2022

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

AEO2022

assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) 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 GHGs (SC-GHGs). 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 presentation purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $0.24 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.

To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published in February 2021 by the IWG. (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”

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

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO

and NO

emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.24 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.56 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.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.4—Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers (TSL 3)

Billion $2022

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

0.88

Climate Benefits *

0.24

Health Benefits **

0.56

Total Benefits †

1.68

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

0.51

Net Benefits

1.17

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

0.42

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

0.24

Health Benefits **

0.24

Total Benefits †

0.89

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

0.28

Net Benefits

0.61

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with equipment shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO

, SC-CH

, and 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 proposed rulemaking). 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; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published in February 2021 by the IWG.

** 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.

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

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 cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of ACIM equipment shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of ACIM equipment shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with a 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.5 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 discussed in the following paragraphs.

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

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 $29 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $44 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $14 million in climate benefits, and $25 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $53 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $29 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $51 million in reduced operating costs, $14 million in climate benefits, and $32 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $67 million per year.

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

[TSL 3]

Million 2022$/year

Primary

estimate

Low-net-

benefits

estimate

High-net-

benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

Climate Benefits *

Health Benefits **

Total Benefits †

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

Net Benefits

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

Health Benefits **

Total Benefits †

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

Net Benefits

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with automatic commercial ice makers shipped in 2027—2056. These results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2056 from the equipment shipped in 2027-2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the

AEO2022

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 sections IV.F.1 and 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 proposed rulemaking). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published in February 2021 by the IWG.

** 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 benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate.

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

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 energy conservation 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 equipment 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 automatic commercial ice makers is $29 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $44 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $14 million in climate benefits, and $25 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $53 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 standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 0.16 quads full-fuel-cycle (FFC), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 4.2 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO

emissions by 5 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has tentatively 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 these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (NOPR TSD).

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards and is still considering them in this proposed 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 automatic commercial ice makers.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes automatic commercial ice makers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(F)) EPCA prescribed initial standards for this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) EPCA also authorizes DOE to establish new standards for automatic commercial ice makers not covered by the statutory standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)) Not later than January 1,

2015, with respect to the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), and, not later than 5 years after the date on which the standards take effect, with respect to the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2), EPCA required DOE to issue a final rule to determine whether amending the applicable standards is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A)) And not later than 5 years after the effective date of any amended standards under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A) or the publication of a final rule determining that amending the standards is not technologically feasible or economically justified, DOE must issue a final rule to determine whether amending the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) or the amended standards, as applicable, is technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(B)) A final rule issued under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2) or (3) must establish standards at the maximum level that is technologically feasible and economically justified, as provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p). (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(4)) 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296)

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) 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. 6316(a))

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 61316(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for automatic commercial ice makers appear at 10 CFR 431.134.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers. Any new or amended standard for a covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 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. 6416(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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. 6316(a); 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 of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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 or equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that equipment within such group (1) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class), or (2) have a capacity or other performance-related feature that other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In

determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (

Id.

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

B. Background

1. Current Standards

In a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on January 28, 2015, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers manufactured on and after January 28, 2018 (January 2015 Final Rule). 80 FR 4645. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.136(c) and (d) and are repeated in Table II.1 and Table II.2.

Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Batch Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Equipment type

Condenser cooling

Harvest rate

(lb ice/24 h)

Maximum energy use

(kWh/100 lb ice)

Maximum condenser water use **

(gal/100 lb ice)

Ice-Making Head

Water

<300

6.88-0.0055H *

200-0.022H.

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥300 and <850

5.80-0.00191H

200-0.022H.

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥850 and <1,500

4.42-0.00028H

200-0.022H.

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥1,500 and <2,500

200-0.022H.

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥2,500 and <4,000

145.

Ice-Making Head

Air

<300

10-0.01233H

NA.

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥300 and <800

7.05-0.0025H

NA.

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥800 and <1,500

5.55-0.00063H

NA.

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥1,500 and <4,000

4.61

NA.

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor)

Air

<988

7.97-0.00342H

NA.

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor)

Air

≥988 and <4,000

4.59

NA.

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

<930

7.97-0.00342H

NA.

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

≥930 and <4,000

4.79

NA.

Self-Contained

Water

<200

9.5-0.019H

191-0.0315H.

Self-Contained

Water

≥200 and <2,500

5.7

191-0.0315H.

Self-Contained

Water

≥2,500 and <4,000

5.7

112.

Self-Contained

Air

<110

14.79-0.0469H

NA.

Self-Contained

Air

≥110 and <200

12.42-0.02533H

NA.

Self-Contained

Air

≥200 and <4,000

7.35

NA.

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

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

Table II.2—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Continuous Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Equipment type

Condenser cooling

Harvest rate

(lb ice/24 h)

Maximum energy use

(kWh/100 lb ice)

Maximum condenser water use

(gal/100 lb ice)

Ice-Making Head

Water

<801

6.48-0.00267H

180-0.0198H.

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥801 and <2,500

4.34

180-0.0198H.

Ice-Making Head

Water

≥2,500 and <4,000

4.34

130.5.

Ice-Making Head

Air

<310

9.19-0.00629H

NA.

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥310 and <820

8.23-0.0032H

NA.

Ice-Making Head

Air

≥820 and <4,000

5.61

NA.

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor)

Air

<800

9.7-0.0058H

NA.

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor)

Air

≥800 and <4,000

5.06

NA.

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

<800

9.9-0.0058H

NA.

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

≥800 and <4,000

5.26

NA.

Self-Contained

Water

<900

7.6-0.00302H

153-0.0252H.

Self-Contained

Water

≥900 and <2,500

4.88

153-0.0252H.

Self-Contained

Water

≥2,500 and <4,000

4.88

90.

Self-Contained

Air

<200

14.22-0.03H

NA.

Self-Contained

Air

≥200 and <700

9.47-0.00624H

NA.

Self-Contained

Air

≥700 and <4,000

5.1

NA.

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

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

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

On September 29, 2020, DOE published a request for information (RFI) that identified various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its determination of whether the energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers need to be amended (September 2020 RFI). 85 FR 60923.

On March 25, 2022, DOE published a notice that announced the availability of the preliminary analysis (March 2022 Preliminary Analysis) it conducted for purposes of evaluating the need for amended energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. 87 FR 17025. In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate efficiency levels for automatic commercial ice makers, the results of preliminary analyses performed, and the potential energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE presented in the accompanying preliminary TSD (March 2022 Preliminary TSD).

2022-03 Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. Available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009.

On May 5, 2022, DOE held a public webinar in which it presented the methods and analysis in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis and solicited public comment.

Webinar transcript available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0025.

DOE received comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.3.

Table II.3—List of Commenters With Written Submissions or Oral Comments in Response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis

Commenter(s)

Reference in this NOPR

Reference number. in the docket

Commenter type

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

AHRI

Trade Association.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, New York State Energy Research Development Authority, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Joint Commenters

Efficiency Organization.

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers *

AHAM

Trade Association.

Follett Products LLC **

Follett

Manufacturer.

GE Appliances, a Haier company

GEA

Manufacturer.

Hoshizaki America, Inc

Hoshizaki

Manufacturer.

North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers

NAFEM

Trade Association.

Pacific Gas and Electric; Southern California Edison; San Diego Gas & Electric

CA IOUs

Utilities.

PEG, LLC

PEG

Consultant.

Scotsman Ice Systems

Scotsman

Manufacturer.

Welbilt, Inc

Welbilt

*** 25

Manufacturer.

Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool

Manufacturer.

* AHAM submitted a public comment and a separate comment, which AHAM requested be treated as Confidential Business Information.

** Follett requested that its response be treated as Confidential Business Information.

*** Document number 25 is the transcript of the webinar. Commenter did not submit written comments.

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

To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the May 5, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this document.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

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

C. Deviation From Process Rule

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“Process Rule”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. 10 CFR 431.4.

1. Framework Document

Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE 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. While DOE published a preliminary analysis for this rulemaking (

see

87 FR 17025), DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, that chapter 2 of the preliminary technical support document that accompanied the preliminary analysis—entitled

Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses

—describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential amended energy conservation standards.

As such, publication of a separate Framework Document would be largely redundant of previously published documents.

The preliminary technical support document is available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009.

2. Public Comment Period

Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted instead to provide a 60-day comment period. DOE is opting to deviate from the 75-day comment period because stakeholders have already been afforded multiple opportunities to provide comments on

this rulemaking. As noted previously, DOE requested comment on various issues pertaining to this standards rulemaking in the September 2020 RFI and provided stakeholders with a 75-day comment period. 85 FR 60923. DOE initially provided a 60-day comment period for stakeholders to provide input on the analyses presented in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 87 FR 17025. DOE subsequently extended the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis comment period by 14 days. 87 FR 31964. The analytical assumptions and approaches used for the analyses conducted for this NOPR are similar to those used for the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate and 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. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.

AHRI commented in concern over the flux in regulations and standards that apply to this industry that make technical analysis difficult and encouraged DOE to balance the holistic scope of change in the ACIM industry in the context of energy conservation, environmental conservation, environmental protection, and end-user safety. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 6)

AHRI commented that it believes that current energy conservation standards are appropriate and more stringent standards are not necessary. (

Id.

at p. 3) AHRI does not believe it is appropriate to establish more stringent energy conservation standards based on the current efficiency level of ACIM equipment and the forecasted technology changes due to changing refrigerants, and AHRI believes the potential energy savings from a new standard would be negligible. (

Id.

)

Similarly, Hoshizaki commented that, based on the current efficiency level of ACIM equipment and forecasted technology changes due to changing refrigerants, it does not believe it is appropriate for DOE to establish energy conservation standards beyond the baseline, as the potential energy savings from a new standard are unlikely to exceed the 10 percent/0.3 quadrillion Btu threshold over baseline energy consumption needed to promulgate a rulemaking. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 2)

PEG commented that less is more when it comes to regulations and to let the competitive marketplace drive energy efficiency so that manufacturers can add value to their products by making them more efficient than competitor models. (PEG, No. 28 at p. 1)

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers the commercial equipment that meets the definition of automatic commercial ice makers.

See

10 CFR 431.132.

“Automatic commercial ice maker” is defined as a factory-made assembly (not necessarily shipped in one package) that (1) consists of a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated unit, with means for making and harvesting ice, and (2) may include means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ice. (

Id.

)

In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE considered potential new equipment classes for automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates less than or equal to 50 lb ice/24 hr (low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers). See chapter 3 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. On November 1, 2022, DOE published a final rule that amended the ACIM definitions and test procedure at 10 CFR part 431.132 and 431.134, respectively (November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule), which included definitions (

i.e.,

portable automatic commercial ice maker and refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker) and test requirements for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. 87 FR 65856. As a result, DOE is proposing in this document to establish energy conservation standards for ice makers with capacity of 50 lb ice/24 hr or less, including portable and refrigerated storage ice makers.

“Portable automatic commercial ice maker” is defined as an automatic commercial ice maker that does not have a means to connect to a water supply line and has one or more reservoirs that are manually supplied with water. 10 CFR 431.132.

“Refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker” is defined as an automatic commercial ice maker that has a refrigeration system that actively refrigerates the self-contained ice storage bin. (

Id.

)

See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment classes analyzed in this NOPR.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. DOE's current energy and condenser water conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers are expressed in terms of the maximum allowable energy use and maximum allowable condenser water use (if applicable) as a function of the harvest rate of the given equipment. (

See

10 CFR 431.134.)

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. 10 CFR 431.4; Section 7(b)(1) (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. 10 CFR 431.4; 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 automatic commercial ice makers, 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 TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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 automatic commercial ice makers, using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1.b of this document 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 automatic commercial ice makers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2027-2056).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of automatic commercial ice makers 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 equipment 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 automatic commercial ice makers. 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 equipment at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings 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.1 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 equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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. 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, 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).

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).

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. 6316(a); 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 proposed 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 manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section in this document. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national NPV of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.

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

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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 the equipment (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 equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.

The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered equipment in the first 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

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. 6316(a); 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 ACIM equipment under consideration in this proposed 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. 6316(a); 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. 6316(a); 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. 6316(a); 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 benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 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 IV.K of this document. DOE also estimated 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. 6316(a); 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

EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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.10 of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to automatic commercial ice makers. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the energy conservation 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 NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates NES and NPV 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-2017-BT-STD-0022.

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

Annual Energy Outlook

(

AEO

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

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturer trade groups, (3) market share, (4) inventory, and (5) technology options that could improve the energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers. 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. Equipment Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment (

i.e.,

establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that an equipment's capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 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. (

Id.

)

Automatic commercial ice makers are divided into equipment classes categorized by physical characteristics that affect commercial application, equipment utility, and equipment efficiency: (1) the ice-making process; (2) the configuration of the ice-making and refrigeration systems; (3) the type of condenser cooling fluid used; and (4) the harvest rate of the unit. The following list shows the key physical characteristics of ACIM equipment that DOE uses to distinguish equipment classes:

(1) Ice-making process: batch, continuous;

(2) Equipment configuration: ice-making head, remote condensing (but not remote compressor), remote condensing and remote compressor, self-contained;

(3) Condenser cooling fluid: air-cooled, water-cooled; and

(4) Capacity range.

DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for those equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.136, which are repeated in Table II.1 and Table II.2.

In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Hoshizaki commented that it does not see any need to change any of the harvest rate ranges or combine any classes, considering that each class has its own distinctive performance and energy ranges. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 2)

DOE has tentatively determined to adjust certain capacity ranges, as presented in Table I.1 and Table I.2, based on this NOPR analysis, as a result of proposing appropriate energy use standards across the overall capacity range for a given type of equipment (

i.e.,

B-IMH-W, B-IMH-A, B-SC-A, C-SC-A). DOE reviewed the ACIM market and tentatively determined that the adjusted capacity ranges are representative of the energy use characteristics of each equipment type.

a. Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

DOE has tentatively determined that additional equipment classes may be appropriate to address certain automatic commercial ice makers available on the market. Specifically, DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers, which are not currently subject to energy conservation standards. DOE has tentatively determined that the low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers can all be categorized under the self-contained equipment configuration and air-cooled condenser cooling fluid designation. DOE has also tentatively determined that the low capacity of these automatic commercial ice makers would require different energy conservation standards as compared to those already in place for automatic commercial ice makers with higher capacities. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the unique operation of refrigerated storage and portable automatic commercial ice makers would require separate equipment classes from other self-contained, air-cooled, low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. Based on a review of the low-capacity ACIM market, DOE tentatively determined that batch automatic commercial ice makers models represent nearly the entire market and include both portable and refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers. However, DOE has identified a limited number of continuous low-capacity ACIM models available on the market similar to batch automatic commercial ice makers, except that DOE found no continuous refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers available on the market. Accordingly, DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for the proposed low-capacity ACIM equipment classes presented in Table IV.1.

Table IV.1—Proposed Low-Capacity ACIM Equipment Classes

Process

Equipment type

Condenser cooling

Harvest rate

(lb ice/24 h)

Designation

Batch

Self-Contained

Air

≤50

B-SC-A (≤50).

Portable

Air

≤38

B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (≤38).

Air

>38 and ≤50

B-SC-A (Portable) (>38 and ≤50).

Refrigerated Storage

Air

≤50

B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM).

Continuous

Self-Contained

Air

≤50

C-SC-A (≤50).

Portable

Air

≤50

C-SC-A (Portable ACIM).

DOE received many comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis regarding the potential equipment classes for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers.

Scope of Coverage

AHAM commented that consumer stand-alone ice makers are not automatic commercial ice makers, and the term “commercial” in the ACIM category indicates an intent to cover commercial, not residential/consumer products. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 3) AHAM added that automatic commercial ice makers are included in EPCA part A-1 for “Certain Industrial Equipment” not part A, which is for Consumer Products other than Automobiles. (

Id.

) AHAM noted that automatic commercial ice makers are “covered equipment,” which is defined by EPCA as “The term `covered equipment' means one of the following types of industrial equipment . . . automatic commercial ice makers.” 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(F), and therefore, automatic commercial ice makers are, by definition, industrial equipment. (

Id.

)

AHAM provided an example that commercial clothes washers are “covered equipment,” and that commercial and residential clothes washers share similar construction and are often both used by individual consumers, but these equipment classes are differentiated by EPCA. (

Id.

) AHAM stated that Congress intended to include only truly commercial ice makers under the scope of the ACIM definition and DOE should not include consumer stand-alone ice makers in the scope of this commercial equipment rulemaking. (

Id.

)

Similarly, Whirlpool stated that DOE should not include residential appliances, which are defined as “consumer products,” under any energy conservation standards and test procedures in 10 CFR part 431 and added that EPCA has delineated between consumer products regulated under 10 CFR part 430, and commercial and industrial products regulated under 10 CFR part 431. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2)

AHAM and Whirlpool both commented that stand-alone ice makers that are capable of making 50 pounds of ice per day or less more squarely fit under the definition of consumer product, according to the definition found in 10 CFR 430.2. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2)

AHRI commented that DOE has already created a residential and commercial product distinction for other types of refrigeration equipment (such as distinguishing household refrigerators and freezers and commercial refrigeration equipment), and that this distinction should also apply to ice makers. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 7)

Hoshizaki commented that low-capacity models should be given their own category and separate section to review, similar to the division between domestic and commercial refrigerators. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 2)

The CA IOUs commented that although they prefer DOE not regulate residential ice making products under the ACIM rulemaking, the energy use of ice makers in residential freezers is certainly worthy of regulation and testing. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 5) The CA IOUs commented that the current DOE regulatory approach of including a universal adder for ice makers without testing the energy use of the devices may lead to a lack of improvements in ice-making efficiency. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs recommended that, in a future refrigerator/freezer rulemaking conducted under DOE's consumer product authority, DOE include ice making and dispensing in the energy test cycle. (

Id.

)

AHRI commented that residential ice makers have much different operating and market characteristics from other commercial ice makers. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 6) AHRI also noted that commercial ice makers operate in offices and large commercial establishments and produce 50-4,000 lb of ice, and that DOE's TSD should analyze commercial equipment and maintain those products in scope. (

Id.

at pp. 6-7) AHRI commented that DOE extending the scope beyond commercial equipment makes providing feedback challenging. (

Id.

at p. 8)

Whirlpool recommended that DOE separately define “residential ice makers” and exclude them from the scope of any amended ACIM standard. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 4) In the alternative, Whirlpool also recommended that DOE could make an amendment to the definition of automatic commercial ice maker that clarifies it as “any ice maker which is not a consumer product, per the definition in 10 CFR 430.2.” (

Id.

)

AHAM commented that consumer ice makers should be distinguished from commercial ice makers and stated it is not appropriate under EPCA or DOE's regulations for DOE to include them in the scope of the ACIM rulemaking (including the test procedure and standards). (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4)

AHAM stated that DOE makes its consumer/commercial product determination based on distinguishing design features or characteristics, whether the model operates in a manner that is significantly different from models of the same product type (

e.g.,

the energy use or energy-efficiency characteristics are significantly different), and the extent to which the product type can be used in a residential application. (

Id.

at pp. 3-5)

Joint Commenters supported the inclusion of low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers and evaluating potential standards for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers, and Joint Commenters additionally supported the scope expansion in response to the December 2021 ACIM Test Procedure NOPR so that low-capacity ACIM efficiency and capacity are based on a standardized test procedure. (Joint Commenters, No. 22 at p. 1)

DOE Guidance

AHAM noted that DOE's prior guidance stated that “consumer products and industrial equipment are mutually exclusive categories. An appliance model can only be considered commercial under the Act if it does not fit the definition of `consumer product'.” (

Id.

at p. 3) AHAM added that DOE stated that it made this determination without regard to how the model is in fact distributed, and instead looks to whether a product is the “type” of product sold for personal use or consumption by individuals. (

Id.

) AHAM stated that it is not consistent with EPCA or DOE's own regulations to regulate residential stand-alone ice makers as commercial equipment, and DOE must not include them as automatic commercial ice makers under

the energy conservation standard or the applicable test procedure. (

Id.

at p. 5)

The CA IOUs commented to note that the question of the proper division between DOE's consumer and commercial authority is not a new one, even within the refrigeration context. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 5-6) The CA IOUs commented that in 2010, DOE issued guidance in response to confusion regarding the scope of newly adopted residential refrigerator regulations. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs commented that, at that time, DOE indicated that, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1), it would make a determination if a product is “of a type” that could be sold to consumers, specifically noting that a dorm-style refrigerator a manufacturer marketed as a “hotel mini-fridge” would still be considered a residential product. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs stated that furthermore, DOE made clear that industrial/commercial and consumer/residential products must be mutually exclusive, as the statutory definition of “industrial equipment” specifies that such equipment “is not a covered [consumer] product” under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). Thus, the CA IOUs concluded that a product defined as residential cannot also be commercial. (

Id.

)

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

AHAM commented that the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC) working group for the miscellaneous refrigeration products (MREF) declined to cover consumer stand-alone ice makers as part of that rulemaking due to large differences from other products in the MREF category and low shipments of low-capacity ice makers. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 2) AHAM added that it is confusing how DOE could attempt to cover these products as consumer products in the MREF rulemaking and then, several years later, as commercial equipment in the ACIM rulemaking. (

Id.

at p. 3)

Likewise, Whirlpool commented that it supports and echoes the AHAM positions, particularly that DOE had concluded properly in the rulemaking for MREF to not include residential ice makers under the scope of DOE's energy conservation standards. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2) Whirlpool agreed with the ways in which AHAM described the differences between residential ice makers made by manufacturers like Whirlpool, and true commercial ice makers. (

Id.

)

Whirlpool commented that DOE had previously proposed the inclusion of these residential ice makers in the MREF Conservation Standards, indicating DOE's previous belief that these residential ice makers meet the definition of a consumer product and were under evaluation for possible standards under 10 CFR part 430. (

Id.

at p. 3)

End Users

AHAM commented that low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers are primarily used in residential applications, and, even if a business chooses to purchase a residential type product, that does not mean it is a commercial product, and added that low-capacity ice makers designed for consumers are not the same as lower capacity ice makers that are designed for businesses. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 5) AHAM additionally stated one main reason low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers do not produce as much ice as the larger commercial products is because residential applications do not require the same amount of ice as commercial applications that must produce ice on a daily basis and throughout the day, as opposed to on an intermittent basis, likely not even daily for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. (

Id.

)

Similarly, Whirlpool commented that there are key differences between residential and commercial icemakers: the end-purchasers of the products, the usage of the products, and the design of the products. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 3) Whirlpool commented that the end-purchasers of residential ice makers are consumers, whereas ice makers are purchased by businesses and business owners. (

Id.

)

Scotsman commented that ice makers with production capacities under 50 pounds per day should not be considered for inclusion in the automatic commercial ice machine category. (Scotsman, No. 30 at p. 2) Scotsman added that the application for low production ice makers is for residential, in-the-home installations, and those icemakers not designed or intended to support commercial foodservice, commercial business or retail operations. (

Id.

at pp. 2-3)

Portable Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

AHAM commented that portable ice makers are designed to fit on the countertop and are not plumbed into the water supply but rely on a reservoir, and are designed this way because they are meant to go in residential spaces or to be moved from space-to-space within a residence and are not intended to support a business. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4) AHAM added that a refillable reservoir is not a design feature that a commercial application would find practical or efficient because it would require constant re-filling throughout the day, particularly for the volume of ice required by the commercial user, whereas residential consumers, who use far less ice, are not bothered by the need to fill the reservoir. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that portable automatic commercial ice makers are designed for a residential application and designed to be able to move from room to room, avoiding the need for a complex, expensive installation because they are not plumbed into a water line. (

Id.

at p. 5) AHAM added that portable automatic commercial ice makers must be compact in size, light enough to move, and contain a water reservoir. (

Id.

) AHAM stated that the portable automatic commercial ice makers only allow small amounts of ice storage before turning the unit off. (

Id.

) AHAM added that portable automatic commercial ice makers are distinct from all other products DOE is considering under the scope of this proposed rulemaking. (

Id.

at pp. 5-6) AHAM concluded that it is more likely that residential consumers are purchasing a portable ice maker specifically for its portability and less complex and costly installation with the intent of using it only occasionally; thus these design differences make sense. (

Id.

at p. 4)

Safety Standards

In addition, AHAM commented there are different applicable safety standard requirements for consumer and commercial stand-alone ice-makers, but stated that commercial icemakers are covered by UL 60335-2-89, “Particular Requirements for Commercial Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor-Compressor,” whereas residential ice makers are covered by UL 60335-2-24, “Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances, and Ice Makers.” (

Id.

at. 6)

Sanitary Guidelines

AHAM commented that stand-alone ice makers designed for residential use do not need to meet commercial kitchen safety and sanitary guidelines (NSF certification/listing), which essentially prohibits the installation of residential ice makers in commercial spaces (

e.g.,

mopping the floor with certain chemicals in a commercial kitchen could damage a residential ice maker, whereas commercial ice makers are designed to be higher off the ground so that critical components are shielded from liquid intrusions). (

Id.

at p. 6)

Durability Requirements

AHAM stated that consumer stand-alone ice makers do not need to meet the same durability requirements of commercial ice makers because they are used less frequently. (

Id.

at p. 6)

Warranties

AHAM stated also that consumer stand-alone ice maker warranties may only be valid if the product is used in a residential application, adding that many warranties are void if used in a commercial kitchen. (

Id.

at p. 6)

Space Constraints

AHAM commented that undercounter ice makers are constrained by space (countertop height and cabinet depth), whereas commercial ice makers can be larger in height and depth. (

Id.

at p. 4) AHAM added that residential ice makers are designed this way because they are designed to fit in residential kitchens and other residential spaces, not in commercial spaces. (

Id.

)

GEA stated that there are significant and definite differences between residential and commercial ice makers, and those differences are reflected in GEA's residential ice makers. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2) GEA's residential ice makers are space constrained, certified to different UL standards than commercial ice makers, sold through traditional residential sales channels, and their warranties limit use of the products to residential applications. (

Id.

) GEA's portable icemakers are designed to fit on a standard residential depth counter. (

Id.

)

Whirlpool agreed that residential ice makers are typically designed for undercounter installation or countertop placement, whereas commercial ice makers can be designed for a number of different commercial installation locations, not limited to undercounter or countertop placement. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 3)

Ice Quality

AHAM commented that low-capacity ice makers make clear, cubed ice, and some make nugget ice depending on consumer choice, while commercial ice makers are designed for larger capacity and higher production rates with less focus on the quality or type of ice. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4)

Utilization Factor

GEA agreed with AHAM's comments that there are significant and definite differences between residential and commercial ice makers and noted that those differences are reflected in GEA's residential ice makers. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2). GEA recommended that the intermittent usage for residential ice makers should be taken into account for the standards for these products and is yet a further reason why regulations for commercial equipment should not apply to residential products. (

Id.

)

Equipment Classes

AHAM stated that it opposes DOE's decision to include the low-capacity equipment classes (harvest rates 50 lb or less per day) to the extent that they include consumer/residential ice makers. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 2) AHAM added that doing so conflicts with EPCA's distinction between consumer and commercial equipment and DOE's guidance on the distinction between consumer and commercial equipment. (

Id.,

p. 2)

AHRI commented that adding the proposed low-capacity ACIM equipment classes may not be appropriate, and AHRI does not believe it is helpful to categorize these types of ice makers in the same energy conservation standard as automatic commercial ice makers. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 2)

The CA IOUs commented that DOE should perform a more in-depth evaluation of ice machines rated at/under 50 lb/day to further support the development of these new ACIM product classes. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 1)

Testing

AHRI added that there is a lack of laboratory capacity due to a backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of an appropriately verified standard (ASHRAE 29), and a lack of expertise in testing low-capacity equipment. (AHRI, No 21 at p. 2) Hoshizaki commented that there are no known tests for low-capacity models. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 2) NAFEM commented that ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 provides for the testing of equipment with capacities from 50 to 4,000 lb/24 h, and, as it is unclear what test procedure would work for the low-capacity models, that further analysis and explanation of these must be made so that the applicability of the proposed test procedure can be evaluated. (NAFEM, No. 19 at p. 2)

Examples of Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Both AHRI and Hoshizaki commented to request examples of actual models on the market for “Proposed Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Maker Equipment Classes” B-SC-A Portable ACIM, B-SC-A Refrigerated Storage ACIM, and B-SC-A from Tables ES.2.37 and 3.2.2. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 11; Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 5)

NAFEM commented that it requests that DOE provide examples of existing models available in the marketplace that DOE has determined would fall into the two new proposed categories, as it is important for other information in the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, such as test procedures and shipments. (NAFEM, No. 19 at p. 2)

DOE's Response

In response to these comments, DOE notes that, although DOE's current energy and condenser water use standards are limited explicitly to automatic commercial ice makers with capacities between 50 and 4,000 lb/24 h (

see

10 CFR 431.136), the regulatory and statutory definitions of automatic commercial ice maker are not limited by harvest rate (

i.e.,

capacity). (

See

10 CFR 431.132 and 42 U.S.C. 6311(19), respectively.) DOE has noted, and commenters have confirmed,

that ice makers with harvest rates less than or equal to 50 lb/24 h (

i.e.,

low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers) are available in the market and are used in a variety of settings.

See Joint Commenters, No. 22 at p. 1 and

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0006-0014

at p. 8.

EPCA defines “covered equipment” to include certain types of “industrial equipment,” including automatic commercial ice makers. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)) EPCA defines “industrial equipment” to mean any article of equipment referred to in subparagraph (B)

of a type, including the ACIM type, (1) which in operation consumes, or is designed to consume, energy; (2) which, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for industrial or commercial use; and (3) which is not a “covered product” as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2), other than a component of a covered product with respect to which there is in effect a determination under 42 U.S.C. 6312(c); and this is without regard to whether such an article is in fact distributed in commerce for industrial or commercial use. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2))

Subparagraph (B) of 42 U.S.C. 6311(2) identifies the types of equipment under consideration and includes automatic commercial ice makers.

As discussed, the regulatory and statutory definitions of automatic commercial ice makers are not limited by harvest rate (

see

10 CFR 431.132 and 42 U.S.C. 6311(19), respectively) and automatic commercial ice makers are not a covered product as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291-6292. And in the November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE determined that low-capacity ACIMs are distributed in commerce for commercial

use. 87 FR 65856, 65681. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE has tentatively determined that low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers are, to a significant extent, distributed in commerce for commercial use. DOE has reviewed the low-capacity ACIM market and found that manufacturers specifically market certain low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers for commercial use and/or using commercial air and water ambient rating conditions (

i.e.,

90 °F air temperature and 70 °F water temperature, which are the same air and water ambient rating conditions used in DOE's test procedures for automatic commercial ice makers currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.134),

and distributors sell low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers for commercial use, including automatic commercial ice makers from the proposed low-capacity ACIM equipment classes.

As such, notwithstanding that low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers may also be distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals, low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers meet the definition of “industrial equipment” and therefore are covered under the EPCA definition of “covered equipment.”

See

www.scotsman-ice.com/service/Specs%20Sheets/2017/SIS-SS-CU0415_0117%20LR.pdf; www.hoshizaki.com/docs/color-specs/AM-50BAJ-(AD)DS.pdf; www.hoshizaki.com/docs/color-specs/IM-50BAA-Q.pdf; www.hoshizaki.com/docs/color-specs/C-80BAJ-(AD)DS.pdf; www.manitowocice.com/asset/?id=qsoqru&regions=us&prefLang=en; www.scotsman-ice.com/service/Specs%20Sheets/2018/SIS-SS-CU-CU50_0118%20LR.pdf;iom-stage.azurewebsites.net/getattachment/b06fdb7c-aaaa-4e5b-b5a6-b091e657a0d3/UCG060A-Spec-Sheet; and www.summitappliance.com/catalog/model/BIM44GCSS.

See

www.katom.com/cat/countertop-ice-makers.html?brand=Danby; www.katom.com/cat/undercounter-ice-makers.html?suggested_use=Commercial&production_range_lb%2Fday=1%20-%2099%20lbs; www.ckitchen.com/313767/ice-machine-with-bin.html?filter=type-of-cooling:air-cooled;4-hr-production:10-50lbs; www.webstaurantstore.com/13283/undercounter-ice-machines.html?filter=24-hour-ice-yield:38~102-pounds;

and

www.staples.com/ice+maker/directory_ice%2520maker.

DOE had previously considered test procedures for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers in a test procedures NOPR for MREFs. 79 FR 74894 (Dec. 16, 2014). During the December 2014 MREF Test Procedure NOPR public meeting, True Manufacturing commented that there are very few differences between ice makers with harvest rates less than 50 lb/24 h and those with harvest rates greater than 50 lb/24 h. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0029-0014 at p. 31) In a supplemental notice of proposed determination regarding MREF coverage, DOE noted that a working group established to consider test procedures and standards for MREFs made two observations: (1) ice makers are fundamentally different from the other product categories considered as MREFs; and (2) ice makers are covered as commercial equipment and there is no clear differentiation between consumer and commercial ice makers. 81 FR 11454, 11456 (Mar. 4, 2016). In a 2016 final notice of proposed determination, DOE determined that ice makers were significantly different from the other product categories considered, and ice makers were not included in the scope of coverage or test procedure for MREFs. 81 FR 46767, 46773 (July 18, 2016).

To this end, DOE is proposing to establish equipment classes for specific low-capacity ACIM categories because they have different capacity, unique consumer utility features, and different inherent energy use than other categories of automatic commercial ice makers.

DOE is also proposing to establish energy conservation standards for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. DOE has tentatively determined that all low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers are self-contained and have air-cooled condensers. DOE has also tentatively determined that the low-capacity of these automatic commercial ice makers would require different energy conservation standards as compared to those already in place for automatic commercial ice makers with higher capacities. Additionally, DOE has initially determined that the unique operation of refrigerated storage and portable automatic commercial ice makers would require separate equipment classes from other self-contained, air-cooled low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers.

Based on a review of the low-capacity ACIM market, DOE observed that both batch and continuous designs are available in the market, although DOE found no evidence of continuous refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers.

DOE requests comments on its proposal to establish equipment classes and energy conservation standards for low-capacity ACIM categories.

Refrigerated Storage Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Typical self-contained automatic commercial ice makers have an ice storage bin that is insulated but provides no active refrigeration. As a result, the ice melts slowly to balance the bin's thermal load, and the ice maker must periodically replenish the melted ice. Conversely, some self-contained low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers feature a refrigerated storage bin that prevents melting of the stored ice. Because of the different refrigeration system components, automatic commercial ice makers with a refrigerated storage bin (

i.e.,

refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers) have different energy use characteristics than automatic commercial ice makers without refrigerated storage. An example of a refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker is the Whynter UIM-155.

See

www.whynter.com/product/uim-155/.

In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE clarify the distinction between the refrigerated storage product class and residential freezers with built-in icemakers. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that the new refrigerated storage class uses the same design for the ice freezing mechanism as residential freezers, and it has similar production capacities (

i.e.,

3-6 lb/day). (

Id.

at p. 4) The CA IOUs recommended that DOE should provide a more precise definition to avoid unintentionally bringing within the scope of the ACIM rulemaking any residential freezers currently regulated by DOE under 10 CFR 430.32(a). (

Id.

) The CA IOUs also suggested that DOE consider including in the definition of refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers that these units do not provide any interior or door shelving storage (

i.e.,

they store only ice as the ice bin fills most of the interior volume). (

Id.

at p. 5)

The definition of “Freezer” at 10 CFR 430.2 includes a provision that excludes “any refrigerated cabinet that consists solely of an automatic ice maker and an ice storage bin arranged so that operation of the automatic icemaker fills the bin to its capacity.”

Based on comments received in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE is proposing to amend the definition to better differentiate refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers from freezers as follows:

“Refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker” means an automatic commercial ice maker that has a refrigeration system that actively refrigerates the self-contained ice storage bin and for which there is no internal storage space other than the ice storage bin that holds the produced ice.

DOE requests comments on its proposal to amend the definition of refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker.

2. Manufacturer Trade Groups

Whirlpool commented that the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD did not appear to include analysis of residential ice makers. Specifically, Whirlpool noted that AHAM was not listed as an impacted manufacturer trade group, nor were Whirlpool or other residential ice maker manufacturers listed as potentially-impacted manufacturers in chapter 3 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 3) AHAM suggested that the MIA should include manufacturers of residential products, and that DOE should include these manufacturers in its manufacturer interviews. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 8)

For this NOPR, DOE updated its assessment of manufacturer trade groups to include AHAM and its list of low-capacity ACIM equipment original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to include Whirlpool and other relevant manufacturers. To identify additional OEMs of low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers, DOE expanded the database used for the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis with publicly available data aggregated from web scraping retail websites. DOE reviewed this database and identified fifteen OEMs of low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for a list of OEMs by equipment category. In support of this NOPR, DOE's contractors reached out to a range of manufacturers and interviewed manufacturers specializing in both covered automatic commercial ice makers and low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers.

3. Market Share

AHRI commented that it does not appear that DOE performed its analysis of market share in Table 9.3.3 that aligns with the market participants in section 3.2.3.2, and that, as a result, AHRI cannot corroborate or refute the market share information because of the different scopes of equipment. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 8)

DOE acknowledges that the analysis of “major” industry participants in section 3.2.3.2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD chapter 3 did not encompass low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers as it was based on model listings in DOE's Compliance Certification Database (CCD). For the NOPR, DOE conducted a more comprehensive review of available low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers using publicly available data (

e.g.,

data aggregated from web scraping retail websites) to estimate low-capacity manufacturer model counts. Furthermore, DOE asked manufacturers in confidential interviews about the ACIM equipment manufacturer landscape. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for an updated review of manufacturers offering covered equipment and/or low-capacity ice makers.

4. Inventory

AHRI commented that Table 3.2.11 should be updated to show 2021 and 2022 inventory at an all-time low to improve the accuracy of the analysis compared to data based on 2019 levels. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 2)

In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, Table 3.2.11 showed the end-of-year inventory

for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 333415 from 2010-2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's

Annual Survey of Manufactures

(

ASM

While the

ASM's

reported end-of-year inventory is not an explicit input to DOE's analysis of potential amended standards, DOE appreciates the comment and has updated the relevant data to include the most up-to-date information from

ASM.

See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.

According to

ASM,

survey respondents report inventories owned by their establishment, “at cost or market as of December 31 of the survey year using generally accepted accounting practices but before any valuation method adjustments.” This would include finished goods, work-in-process, and materials, supplies, fuels, etc. Definitions and instructions for the

ASM

can be found online at

www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/technical-documentation/questionnaire/2021/instructions/MA_10000_Instructions.pdf

(Accessed January 16, 2023).

U.S. Census Bureau.

Annual Survey of Manufactures.

(2013-2021). Available at

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm.html

(last accessed February 1, 2023).

5. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 20 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers, as measured by the DOE test procedure and shown in Table IV.2.

Table IV.2—Technology Options for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers in the March 2022 Preliminary TSD

Technology options

Batch

ice makers

Continuous

ice makers

Notes

Compressor:

Improved compressor efficiency

Alternative Refrigerants

Part load operation

Condenser:

Increased surface area

Enhanced fin surfaces

Air-cooled only.

Increased air flow

Air-cooled only.

Increased water flow

Water-cooled only.

Brazed plate condenser

Water-cooled only.

Microchannel condenser

Air-cooled only.

Fans and Motors:

Higher efficiency condenser fans and fan motors

Air-cooled only.

Improved auger motor efficiency

Improved pump motor efficiency

Evaporator:

Design options that reduce energy loss due to evaporator thermal cycling

Design options that reduce harvest meltage or reduce harvest time

Larger evaporator surface area

Insulation:

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

Refrigeration Line:

Larger diameter suction line

Remote condensing units with remote compressor only.

Potable Water:

Reduced potable water flow

Drain water thermal exchange

Expansion Valves:

Higher Efficiency Expansion Valves

DOE received several comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis regarding the technology assessment.

a. Compressors

The CA IOUs commented that compressor energy efficiency ratios (EERs) and the make and model of the compressor are not listed in ice maker manufacturers' spec sheets, and that manufacturers test compressors according to AHRI 540, but there is no public database. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 8). The CA IOUs commented that providing a range of EERs for compressors of all sizes will show the potential energy savings of different compressor options. (

Id.

)

AHAM added that efficiency is largely driven by the compressor, but not all compressors can be approved for hot gas bypass, which is the typical harvest approach for batch automatic commercial ice makers. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM noted this means there are compressors specific to this application and the market is not large enough for compressor manufacturers to make new compressors periodically to improve efficiency, and that if DOE were to promulgate standards, compressor availability would be a significant concern. (

Id.

)

DOE considered the range of EERs for compressor sizes available for batch and continuous automatic commercial ice makers at each of the representative harvest rates. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.

Alternative Refrigerants

AHAM commented that DOE's analysis includes alternative refrigerants as possible options, and AHRI noted that not all types of alternative refrigerants are viable options for ice makers. (

Id.

at p. 12) AHAM further noted that use of alternative refrigerants may further limit the space available to include a more efficient compressor. (

Id.

). AHAM added that even if the EPA approves alternative refrigerant for ice makers, it may not necessarily be a viable design option, as ice makers use a flooded evaporator and that limits refrigerant types. (

Id.

)

AHRI commented that many of the A2L refrigerants have a high temperature glide, which negatively impacts performance and energy consumption, and that as a result, the ability of the ACIM industry to respond and deliver products with A2L or natural refrigerants is constrained. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 5)

The EPA proposed refrigerant restrictions pursuant to the AIM Act

affecting automatic commercial ice makers in the December 2022 EPA NOPR. 87 FR 76738. Specifically, EPA proposed prohibitions for three categories of automatic commercial ice machines (EPA's term for this equipment): (1) stand-alone, with refrigerant charge capacities of 500 grams or lower, when using or intended to use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a global warming potential (GWP) of 150 or greater; (2) stand-alone, with refrigerant charge capacities of more than 500 grams, when using or intended to use any of the following: R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-428A, R-422C, R-434A, R-421B, R-408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A, R-422D, R-421A, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-417A, R-438A, R-410B, R-407A, R-410A, R-442A, R-417C, R-407F, R-437A, R-407C, RS-24 (2004 formulation), and HFC-134a; and (3) remote, when using or intended to use any of the following: R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-428A, R-422C, R-434A, R-421B, R-408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A, R-422D, R-421A, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-417A, R-438A, and R-410B.

Id.

at 87 FR 76810-76811. The proposal would prohibit manufacture or import of such ice makers starting January 1, 2025, and would ban sale, distribution, purchase, receive, or export of such ice makers starting January 1, 2026.

Id.

at 87 FR 76809. DOE considered the use of alternative refrigerants that are not prohibited for automatic commercial ice makers in the December 2022 EPA NOPR. See section IV.C.1.a and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.

Under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, entitled “Technology Transitions,” the EPA may by rule restrict the use of HFCs in sectors or subsectors where they are used. A person or entity may also petition EPA to promulgate such a rule. “H.R.133—116th Congress (2019-2020): Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.”

Congress.gov

, Library of Congress, 27 December 2020,

www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133.

b. Microchannel Condensers

The CA IOUs commented that they recommend that DOE consider the impacts of microchannel condensers on refrigerant charge, because microchannel condensers allow for the reduction of the refrigerant charge compared to standard tube-and-fin condensers. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 7) The CA IOUs commented that using microchannel condensers with R-290 refrigerant will allow larger machines to use this refrigerant and reduce their energy usage without requiring an increased charge limit. (

Id.

)

DOE considered the use of microchannel condensers on ACIM performance. See section IV.C.1.b and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.

DOE is retaining the technology options from the March 2022 Preliminary TSD for this NOPR. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.

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 commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further.

(2)

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology 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.

If a technology is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers, or 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)

Safety of technologies.

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 technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(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 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.

DOE did not receive any comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis specific to the screening analysis.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

DOE is retaining the screened-out technologies from the March 2022 Preliminary TSD for this NOPR (Table IV.3).

Table IV.3—Screened Out Technology Options

Technology option

EPCA criterion (X = basis for screening out)

Technological feasibility

Practicability to manufacture,

install,

and service

Adverse

impacts on

utility or

availability

Adverse

impacts on

health and

safety

Unique-

pathway

proprietary

technologies

Increased Condenser Air Flow

Reduced Energy Loss Due to Evaporator Thermal Cycling

Larger Diameter Remote Suction Line

Reduced Potable Water Use (<20 gal/100 lb ice)

a. Increased Condenser Air Flow

Increased condenser air flow results in increased heat transfer and a reduced condensing temperature, which results in lower compressor power. However, increased air flow requires increased fan input power, offsetting some (or all) of the compressor power reduction. DOE expects that condenser fan motors in automatic commercial ice makers are generally sized to optimize performance of the refrigeration system, and improved efficiency due to increased air flow may not be technically feasible.

Additionally, increased fan sizes to allow for higher air flow rates generally require more space for the fan motor and fan assembly. DOE has observed that ACIM designs use the entirety of available cabinet space, and therefore any additional component size increases would likely require larger cabinet geometries. Because automatic commercial ice makers are typically used in locations prioritizing smaller equipment footprints (

e.g.,

commercial kitchens), larger cabinet sizes may adversely impact the availability of equipment with current sizes at a given harvest rate.

b. Reduced Energy Loss Due to Evaporator Thermal Cycling

During the rulemaking analysis for the January 2015 Final Rule (80 FR 4646), DOE determined that one technology used by commercially available ice makers to reduce thermal mass is proprietary. 80 FR 4646, 4674. The evaporators used by Hoshizaki America, Inc. contain proprietary elements that would make it difficult for others to replicate the design. Hence, DOE screened out this option because of its proprietary status. See chapter 4 of the January 2015 Final Rule TSD.

DOE has tentatively determined that the reduced thermal mass evaporator designs continue to contain proprietary elements, and therefore has continued to screen this technology option from further consideration in this NOPR.

Available at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037.

c. Larger Diameter Remote Suction Line

Increasing the suction line diameter could be considered to reduce suction line pressure drop for remote condenser equipment with remote compressors. However, the reduced suction vapor velocity associated with the approach could degrade oil return effectiveness. Remote ice maker line sets can be installed in the field so that suction line refrigerant runs up, down, or horizontally to the compressor; hence, they are conservatively sized to provide adequate oil return for a wide range of installation conditions. DOE has not considered an increase in suction line size because of reliability concerns associated with potential oil hold-up and compressor failure associated with larger-diameter line sets.

d. Reduced Potable Water Use (<20 gal/100 lb ice)

One purpose of water drained from batch ice makers is to remove dissolved solids that enter with the potable water supply. Selecting excessively low potable water levels can lead to insufficient removal of dissolved solids, resulting in increased maintenance costs

associated with an increased need for descaling operations, and, after the ice maker has operated for a number of cycles, the scale build-up can reduce ice production and increase energy use. Additionally, insufficient drain water may adversely impact ice quality.

In the January 2015 Final Rule analysis, DOE considered decreases in potable water flow down to 20 gal/100 lb ice to ensure proper drainage of particulates from the sump, based on feedback from stakeholders. See chapter 5 of the January 2015 Final Rule analysis.

To ensure appropriate automatic commercial ice maker operation, DOE has screened out reductions in potable water use to levels below 20 gal/100 lb ice produced for batch ice makers.

Available at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.5 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.4—Retained Design Options

Technology options

Batch

ice makers

Continuous

ice makers

Notes

Compressor:

Improved compressor efficiency

Alternative refrigerants

Part load operation

Condenser:

Increased surface area

Enhanced fin surfaces

Air-cooled only.

Brazed plate condenser

Water-cooled only.

Microchannel condenser

Air-cooled only.

Fans and Motors:

Higher efficiency condenser fans and fan motors

Air-cooled only.

Improved auger motor efficiency

Improved pump motor efficiency

Evaporator:

Design options that reduce harvest meltage or reduce harvest time

Larger evaporator surface area

Insulation:

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

Potable Water:

Reduced potable water flow (as low as 20 gal/100 lb ice)

Drain water thermal exchange

Expansion Valves:

Higher efficiency expansion valves

DOE has initially determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially-available equipment or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (

i.e.,

practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of automatic commercial ice makers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels (ELs) to analyze (

i.e.,

the efficiency analysis) and the determination of equipment cost at each efficiency level (

i.e.,

the cost analysis). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the equipment 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 equipment (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).

In this rulemaking, DOE relies on a design-option approach, supported with reverse engineering multiple analysis units. DOE generally relied on test data and reverse engineering to inform a range of design options used to reduce energy use. The design options were incrementally added to the baseline configuration and continued through the “max-tech” configuration (

i.e.,

implementing the “best available” combination of available design options).

DOE directly analyzed fifteen equipment classes, ten batch type and five continuous type, and has selected representative units for analysis in these classes. These equipment classes are listed in Table IV.5 and Table IV.6. Energy testing and reverse engineering were conducted on representative units in those equipment classes to develop cost-efficiency relationships for potential design options to reduce energy use. DOE has initially determined that the equipment classes selected are representative of the ACIM market. For those equipment classes not directly analyzed (

i.e.,

the secondary equipment classes), DOE represented the cost-efficiency relationship using the results for directly analyzed equipment classes with similar design characteristics (

e.g.,

the analysis of the continuous, remote condensing and remote compressor, ≥800 and <4,000 equipment class is also representative of the cost-efficiency characteristics of the continuous, remote condensing (but not remote compressor), ≥800 and <4,000 equipment class).

See

Table IV.7.

Table IV.5—Batch Equipment Classes Analyzed in This NOPR

Equipment type

Condenser

cooling type

Harvest rate

(lb/24 hours)

Reverse

engineering unit,

directly analyzed

equipment class

Ice-Making Head

Water

>50 and <300

≥300 and <785

✓

≥785 and <1,500

✓

≥1,500 and <2,500

≥2,500 and <4,000

Air

>50 and <300

≥300 and <727

✓

≥727 and <1,500

✓

≥1,500 and <4,000

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor)

Air

>50 and <988

≥988 and <4,000

✓

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

>50 and <930

≥930 and <4,000

Self-Contained

Water

>50 and <200

≥200 and <2,500

≥2,500 and <4,000

Air

Portable: ≤38

✓

>38 and ≤50

Refrigerated Storage

✓

≤50

✓

>50 and <134

✓

≥134 and <200

≥200 and <4,000

✓

Table IV.6—Continuous Equipment Classes Analyzed in This NOPR

Equipment type

Condenser

cooling type

Harvest rate

(lb/24 hours)

Reverse

engineering unit,

directly analyzed

equipment class

Ice-Making Head

Water

>50 and <801

✓

≥801 and <1,500

≥1,500 and <2,500

≥2,500 and <4,000

Air

>50 and <310

≥310 and <820

✓

≥820 and <1,500

≥1,500 and <4,000

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor)

Air

>50 and <800

≥800 and <4,000

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor

Air

>50 and <800

≥800 and <4,000

✓

Self-Contained

Water

>50 and <900

≥900 and <2,500

≥2,500 and <4,000

Air

Portable

≤50

>50 and <149

✓

≥149 and <700

✓

≥700 and <4,000

Table IV.7—Map of Secondary Classes to the Associated Directly Analyzed Equipment Class

Secondary equipment class

Associated directly analyzed equipment class

B-IMH-W (>50 and <300)

B-IMH-W (≥300 and <785).

B-IMH-W (≥1,500 and <2,500)

B-IMH-W (≥785 and <1,500).

B-IMH-W (≥2,500 and <4,000)

B-IMH-W (≥785 and <1,500).

B-IMH-A (>50 and <300)

B-IMH-A (≥300 and <727).

B-IMH-A (≥1,500 and <4,000)

B-IMH-A (≥727 and <1,500).

B-RC(NRC)-A (>50 and <988)

B-RC(NRC)-A (≥988 and <4,000).

B-RC&RC-A (>50 and <930)

B-RC(NRC)-A (≥988 and <4,000).

B-RC&RC-A (≥930 and <4,000)

B-RC(NRC)-A (≥988 and <4,000).

B-SC-A (Portable) (>38 and ≤50)

B-SC-A (Portable) (≤38).

B-SC-W (>50 and <200)

B-SC-A (>50 and <134).

B-SC-A (≥134 and <200)

B-SC-A (>50 and <134).

B-SC-W (≥200 and <2,500)

B-SC-A (≥200 and <4,000).

B-SC-W (≥2,500 and <4,000)

B-SC-A (≥200 and <4,000).

C-IMH-W (≥801 and <1,500)

C-IMH-W (>50 and <801).

C-IMH-W (≥1,500 and <2,500)

C-IMH-W (>50 and <801).

C-IMH-W (≥2,500 and <4,000)

C-IMH-W (>50 and <801).

C-IMH-A (>50 and <310)

C-IMH-A (≥310 and <820).

C-IMH-A (≥820 and <1,500)

C-IMH-A (≥310 and <820).

C-IMH-A (≥1,500 and <4,000)

C-IMH-A (≥310 and <820).

C-RC(NRC)-A (>50 and <800)

C-RC&RC-A (≥800 and <4,000).

C-RC(NRC)-A (≥800 and <4,000)

C-RC&RC-A (≥800 and <4,000).

C-RC&RC-A (>50 and <800)

C-RC&RC-A (≥800 and <4,000).

C-SC-W (>50 and <900)

C-SC-A (>50 and <149).

C-SC-W (≥900 and <2,500)

C-SC-A (≥149 and <700).

C-SC-W (≥2,500 and <4,000)

C-SC-A (≥149 and <700).

C-SC-A (≥700 and <4,000)

C-SC-A (≥149 and <700).

C-SC-A (Portable)

B-SC-A (Portable) (≤38).

C-SC-A (≤50)

C-SC-A (>50 and <149).

See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail on the different units analyzed.

a. Baseline Energy Use

For each 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 equipment class represents the characteristics of 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 this NOPR, DOE considered the current standards for automatic commercial ice makers when developing the baseline energy use for each analyzed equipment class. In the case of equipment without current standards (

i.e.,

low-capacity ACIM equipment), DOE considered tested energy use of directly analyzed units in a given proposed equipment class to inform the development of baseline energy use.

In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI and Hoshizaki commented that DOE's analysis should take into consideration and incorporate refrigerants that can be used going forward, and DOE's analysis should be updated to include A1 refrigerants that can meet the 1,500 GWP requirement. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 4; Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 3) AHRI and Hoshizaki also noted that R-290 is limited to 150 grams of charge, and this refrigerant is not practical for larger capacity ice makers so DOE should be mindful of what percentage of machines can use R-290 under the regulations and building codes currently in place. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 4; Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 4)

AHAM commented additionally that DOE has not accounted for the European Union's F-Gas rule and Canadian regulatory developments on refrigerant. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12)

AHRI added that DOE must also consider the impact of EPA regulations on lower GWP refrigerants on the ACIM industry, which can have a negative impact on equipment performance, energy consumption, and cost. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 4) AHRI added its members that have been testing the efficiency of alternative refrigerants and found these low GWP refrigerants can decrease ACIM equipment efficiency by 10 percent, depending on refrigerant and application. (

Id.

)

As recommended by stakeholders, DOE is considering the impact of the December 2022 EPA NOPR in this NOPR. The proposed date of the ban of manufacture or import of refrigerants prohibited in automatic commercial ice makers is at least 2 years earlier than the expected compliance date for any amended ACIM standards associated with the proposals in this document. Hence, the proposed refrigerant prohibitions listed in the December 2022 EPA NOPR are assumed to be enacted for the purpose of DOE's analysis in support of this NOPR. DOE acknowledges that the European Union and Canada have requirements that prohibit certain refrigerants but notes that the December 2022 EPA NOPR will require certain refrigerant prohibitions for automatic commercial ice makers in the United States.

Refrigerants not prohibited from use in automatic commercial ice makers in the December 2022 EPA NOPR are presumed to be permitted for use in automatic commercial ice makers. However, EPA has not yet listed all such potential refrigerants or use conditions as acceptable for use in automatic commercial ice makers.

For example, EPA currently lists R-290 as acceptable with use conditions for a refrigerant charge of up to 150 grams in automatic commercial ice makers with non-remote condensers, but DOE expects that EPA will increase the allowable charge to 500 grams to harmonize with the maximum charge quantity allowed by industry safety standards

and to be consistent with the December 2022 EPA NOPR (

i.e.,

prohibitions for stand-alone, or non-remote condensing, automatic commercial ice makers with refrigerant charge capacities of 500 grams or lower, when using or intended to use a regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a GWP of 150 or greater).

See

www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-commercial-ice-machines.

UL Standard 60335-2-89, Edition 2, published on October 27, 2021.

Based on feedback received during manufacturer interviews, public comments,

and certified ACIM models,

DOE understands that automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates of up to 500 lb ice/24 h can be produced using an R-290 charge up to 150 grams. Based on feedback received during manufacturer interviews, DOE expects that non-remote condensing ACIM harvest rates of up to 1,500 lb ice/24 h are possible with an R-290 charge of up to 500 grams and that manufacturers will choose R-290 (or, for lower-capacity automatic commercial ice makers, R-600a

) in all ACIM models with harvest rates of up to 1,500 lb ice/24 h to comply with the December 2022 EPA NOPR.

See

www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/Hoshizaki%20Comment.pdf.

See

www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-commercial-ice-machines/results?formId=650720-3-4334-05-6629642&scrollTo=460&search_text=&ice_type_filter=&equipment_type_filter=&brand_name_isopen=0&harvest_rate_lbs_ice_day_filter=&refrigerant_with_gwp_filter=Lower+impact+on+global+warming&markets_filter=United+States&zip_code_filter=&product_types=Select+a+Product+Category&sort_by=harvest_rate_lbs_ice_day&sort_direction=DESC&currentZipCode=23917&page_number=0&lastpage=0.

DOE expects that EPA will list R-600a as acceptable with use conditions, similar to R-290, for use in automatic commercial ice makers.

DOE expects that the use of R-290 or R-600a generally will improve efficiency as compared with the refrigerants currently in use (

e.g.,

R-404A and R-134a), which are proposed to be prohibited by the December 2022 EPA NOPR, because R-290 and R-600a have higher refrigeration cycle efficiency than the current refrigerants. Thus, for automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates of up to 1,500 lb ice/24 h with non-remote condensers, DOE expects that the December 2022 EPA NOPR will require redesign that will improve efficiency of these automatic commercial ice makers. Hence, DOE proposes to use baseline levels for automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates of up to 1,500 lb ice/24 h with non-remote condensers, which reflect the design changes made by manufacturers in response to the

December 2022 EPA NOPR that incorporates refrigerant conversion to R-290 or R-600a to a design at the current baseline level using current refrigerants in this NOPR. The expected efficiency improvement associated with this refrigerant change varies by class and is presented in Table IV.8. DOE's analysis considers that these efficiency improvements, equipment costs, and manufacturer investments required to comply with the December 2022 EPA NOPR will be in effect prior to the time of compliance for the proposed amended DOE ACIM standards for analyzed automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates of up to 1,500 lb ice/24 h with non-remote condensers.

EPA currently lists certain refrigerants as acceptable that are not prohibited by the December 2022 EPA NOPR for non-remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates above 1,500 lb ice/24 h and all remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers may use (

e.g.,

R-448A and R-449A). DOE expects that EPA will list as acceptable more viable refrigerants for non-remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates above 1,500 lb ice/24 h and all remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers.

DOE reviewed public information regarding refrigerants that are not prohibited by the December 2022 EPA NOPR for non-remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates above 1,500 lb ice/24 h and all remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers may use and found that energy use is comparable to current refrigerants.

For non-remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates above 1,500 lb ice/24 h and all remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers, DOE expects that the baseline level for the NOPR analysis is equal to the current DOE ACIM energy conservation standard level and that equipment costs and manufacturer investments required to comply with the December 2022 EPA NOPR will be in effect prior to the time of compliance for the proposed amended DOE ACIM standards.

See

www.ahrinet.org/analytics/research/ahri-low-gwp-alternative-refrigerants-evaluation-program?keyword=ice%20maker.

Table IV.8—Proposed December 2022 EPA NOPR R-290 or R-600

Energy Use Baseline

Directly analyzed equipment class

Representative harvest rate

Energy use

reduction below

DOE standard (%)

B-IMH-W (≥300 and <785)

461

B-IMH-W (≥785 and <1,500)

1,470

B-IMH-A (≥300 and <727)

351

B-IMH-A (≥727 and <1,500)

1,331

B-RC(NRC)-A (≥988 and <4,000)

1,508

B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (≤38)

B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM)

B-SC-A (≤50)

B-SC-A (>50 and <134)

105

B-SC-A (≥200 and <4,000)

227

C-IMH-W (>50 and <801)

760

C-IMH-A (≥310 and <820)

346

C-RC&RC-A (≥800 and <4,000)

1,100

C-SC-A (>50 and <149)

144

C-SC-A (≥149 and <700)

230

In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs commented that they commend DOE for comparing compressor EERs and would like to see more of this comparison for large ice makers. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 7) The CA IOUs noted that all size machines could benefit from upgraded compressor efficiencies. (

Id.

at p. 6) The CA IOUs commented that these upgraded components are widely available on the market, and that ice maker manufacturers can purchase them in high volume at a reduced price. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs stated that although R-290 compressors are currently limited to 5,000 Btu/h due to charge limits, DOE should perform EER range analysis for R-404A compressors over 5,000 Btu/h in order to provide complete data on compressor efficiency. (

Id.

at p. 8) The CA IOUs commented that this analysis will show the range of efficient and inefficient compressors available on the market for large ice machines rated at more than 500 lb/day. (

Id.

)

AHAM commented that even though efficiency is driven largely by the compressor, a higher efficiency compressor in and of itself does not necessarily drive a higher efficiency ice maker because the harvest cycle is driven by heat build-up within the system, so higher efficiency compressors that generate less heat can have a less efficient harvest cycle, leading to a lower overall efficiency for the ice maker. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12)

DOE considered compressors suitable for batch and continuous automatic commercial ice makers based on compressors currently available on the market. For directly analyzed classes that can use up to 500 grams of R-290 and for which there are no R-290 compressors currently available on the market at the compressor capacity required for the representative harvest rate, DOE used the R-404A compressor currently available on the market suitable for batch and continuous automatic commercial ice makers with the highest EER to inform the R-290 baseline in that equipment class.

In this NOPR, DOE used the equation from the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis to account for the reduced energy use improvements of higher efficiency compressors in batch automatic commercial ice makers because the harvest cycle limits the potential energy savings over a whole batch cycle because as batch automatic commercial ice makers typically use hot gas refrigerant to release the ice cubes from the evaporator during a harvest. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail.

In this NOPR, DOE did not consider additional compressor efficiency improvements beyond the baseline because DOE expects that the compressors currently available on the market for refrigerants used to comply with the December 2022 EPA NOPR represent the maximum compressor efficiency achievable for each respective equipment class.

The CA IOUs commented that the ice making mechanism for refrigerated storage ice makers is distinct from all commercial automatic commercial ice makers in that the ice is frozen by the air inside the refrigerated cavity rather than the ice making mechanism. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 3) The CA IOUs added that this ice making mechanism, identified by DOE for refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers, is almost identical to the ice making mechanism in residential refrigerator/freezer combinations. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs stated that DOE should base allowable energy usage consumption of refrigerated storage ice makers on the assumption of 12.8 kWh/100 lb, as used in the residential refrigerator/freezer rulemaking, rather than the 44.7 kWh/100 lb that is assumed in the preliminary TSD. (

Id.

at p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that allowing such high energy consumption for this product category would leave substantial energy savings unrealized. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs recommended DOE select a higher efficiency level for the refrigerated storage product class. (

Id.

at p. 3)

As discussed in section IV.A.1.a of this document, refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers have different energy use characteristics than automatic commercial ice makers without refrigerated storage. For refrigerator-freezers and freezers, the energy use associated with maintaining the cold ice storage bin temperature is covered by the test procedure and energy conservation standard absent consideration of energy use for making ice. In contrast, for refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers, the energy use required to keep the interior at freezing temperature during active icemaking is included in the test procedure and thus must be included in the energy conservation standards. The baseline energy use of refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers was developed through test data conducted in support of this proposed rulemaking.

AHRI stated that DOE's assumption that energy use values scale to other more traditional ACIM equipment is likely not accurate and that DOE should explain how its analysis was performed for non-representative units. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 9)

For those equipment classes not directly analyzed (

i.e.,

the secondary equipment classes), DOE represented the cost-efficiency relationship using the results for directly analyzed equipment classes with similar design characteristics (

e.g.,

the analysis of the C.RCRC.A.4000 equipment class is also representative of the cost-efficiency characteristics of the C.RCNRC.A.4000 equipment class).

AHAM commented that DOE should test and tear down an adequate number of residential low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers, noting that DOE only analyzed three low-capacity units and only tore down one. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 11-12) AHAM also commented that DOE's energy use analysis, design options, costs, and baseline and more efficient efficiency levels are likely inaccurate due to the limited testing. (

Id.

at p. 12) Additionally, AHAM commented that due to lack of testing of residential products, DOE's modeling does not account for the fact that the harvest cycle is not predictable and does not lead to predictable results. (

Id.

at pp. 12-13)

The CA IOUs commented that DOE could provide anonymous data on the low-capacity units it has tested and confirm the usage scenarios for the products to confirm they would have commercial applications. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 3)

In support of this NOPR, DOE tested and tore down seven portable automatic commercial ice makers (five batch and two continuous), four refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers (all batch), and six low-capacity, self-contained, air-cooled automatic commercial ice makers (four batch and two continuous) that are representative of the low-capacity automatic commercial ice maker market.

DOE requests comments on its proposal to use baseline levels for automatic commercial ice makers based upon the design changes made by manufacturers in response to the December 2022 EPA NOPR.

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for given equipment.

After conducting the screening analysis described in section IV.B of this document and chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD, DOE considered the remaining design options in the engineering analysis to achieve higher efficiency levels. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail on the design options.

Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to reconsider the max-tech levels for certain product classes where there are models listed in the CCD that are more efficient than the “max-tech” levels in the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Joint Commenters, No. 22 at pp. 1-2) Joint Commenters added that this discrepancy is particularly large for the high-capacity continuous, remote condensing and remote compressor, air-cooled equipment. (

Id.

at p. 1)

DOE reconsidered the max-tech levels for all directly analyzed equipment classes and updated its engineering analysis in this NOPR based on stakeholder and manufacturer feedback, test data, and market information.

AHAM commented that, in their understanding, the existing standards for automatic commercial ice makers drove changes to ice shape, style, clarity, and chewability. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM noted that clea

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.