Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers

Federal RegisterOct 10, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007]

RIN 1904-AD82

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers

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, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer equipment and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers (“commercial refrigeration equipment” or “CRE”). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE” “the Department”) 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 new and amended energy conservation standards for CRE, 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 December 11, 2023.

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 November 9, 2023.

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, November 7th, 2023, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. This meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar.

ADDRESSES:

The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6E-069, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. See section VII of this document, “Public Participation,” for further details, including procedures for attending the in-person meeting, webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

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

www.regulations.gov

under docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007, by any of the following methods:

(1)

Email: CRE2017STD0007@ee.doe.gov.

Include the docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007 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-0007.

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 standards. 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:

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, 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) 586-9870. 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) 586-3593. Email:

Kristin.Koernig@hq.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 CRE

C. Deviation From Process Rule

1. Framework Document

2. Public Comment Period

3. Amended Test Procedures

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 Equipment

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Equipment Classes and Definitions

a. Current Equipment Classes

b. New Definitions

c. Equipment Class Modifications

2. CRE Market

3. Technology Options

a. Compressors

b. R-290

c. Insulation

d. Doors

e. Evaporators and Condensers

f. Fan Motors

g. Defrost

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

a. Increased Insulation Thickness

b. Vacuum-Insulated Panels

c. Linear Compressors

d. Air Curtain Design

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Energy Use

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

c. Engineering Spreadsheet Model

d. Industry Trade Association Survey

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Equipment Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs

6. Equipment Lifetime

7. Residual Value

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. Changes to the Cabinet Structure

b. 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. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for CRE 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 14094

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 Public Meeting and Webinar

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

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

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, part C of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment includes CRE, 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 (December 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

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(e)(1); 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(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

EPCA established standards for certain categories of CRE (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)-(4)) and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(B)). EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six trial standard levels (“TSLs”) for CRE. The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C, DOE has tentatively determined that TSL 5 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and to establish new energy conservation standards for covered equipment not yet subject to energy conservation standards. The proposed standards, which are expressed in maximum daily energy consumption (“MDEC”), are shown in table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all CRE listed in table I.1 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 new and amended standards are 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

rule is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(C)).

DOE notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) proposed refrigerant restrictions pursuant to the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (“AIM Act”)

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

Id.

at 87 FR 76809. See section IV.C.1.a of this document for more details. DOE understands that it would be beneficial to CRE 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 CRE listed in table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final new and amended standards are 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, December 27, 2020, available at

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

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for CRE

Equipment class

Maximum daily energy

consumption

(kWh/day)

VOP.RC.H

0.31 × TDA + 1.99

VOP.RC.M

0.56 × TDA + 3.57

VOP.RC.L

2.04 × TDA + 6.36

VOP.RC.I

2.59 × TDA + 8.08

SVO.RC.H

0.32 × TDA + 1.55

SVO.RC.M

0.58 × TDA + 2.79

SVO.RC.L

2.04 × TDA + 6.36

SVO.RC.I

2.59 × TDA + 8.08

HZO.RC.H

0.19 × TDA + 1.56

HZO.RC.M

0.34 × TDA + 2.81

HZO.RC.L

0.54 × TDA + 6.81

HZO.RC.I

0.69 × TDA + 8.64

VCT.RC.H

0.07 × TDA + 0.97

VCT.RC.M

0.134 × TDA + 1.74

VCT.RC.L

0.47 × TDA + 2.51

VCT.RC.I

0.56 × TDA + 2.97

HCT.RC.M

0.16 × TDA + 0.13

HCT.RC.L

0.34 × TDA + 0.26

HCT.RC.I

0.38 × TDA + 0.29

VCS.RC.H

0.06 × V + 0.14

VCS.RC.M

0.1 × V + 0.26

VCS.RC.L

0.21 × V + 0.54

VCS.RC.I

0.25 × V + 0.63

HCS.RC.M

0.1 × V + 0.26

HCS.RC.L

0.21 × V + 0.54

HCS.RC.I

0.25 × V + 0.63

SOC.RC.H

0.22 × TDA + 0.05

SOC.RC.M

0.39 × TDA + 0.1

SOC.RC.L

0.83 × TDA + 0.2

SOC.RC.I

1.04 × TDA + 0.25

CB.RC.M

0.03 × V + 0.39

CB.RC.L

0.13 × V + 1.37

VOP.SC.H

0.69 × TDA + 1.94

VOP.SC.M

1.25 × TDA + 3.48

VOP.SC.L

3.29 × TDA + 9.15

VOP.SC.I

4.18 × TDA + 11.63

SVO.SC.H

0.65 × TDA + 1.77

SVO.SC.M

1.18 × TDA + 3.18

SVO.SC.L

3.25 × TDA + 8.78

SVO.SC.I

4.13 × TDA + 11.16

HZO.SC.H

0.27 × TDA + 2.06

HZO.SC.M

0.48 × TDA + 3.71

HZO.SC.L

1.48 × TDA + 5.5

HZO.SC.I

1.97 × TDA + 7.34

VCT.SC.H

0.053 × V + 0.85

VCT.SC.M

0.054 × V + 0.86

VCT.SC.L

0.234 × V + 2.38

VCT.SC.I

0.6 × TDA + 3.2

HCT.SC.M

0.06 × V + 0.37

HCT.SC.L

0.08 × V + 1.23

HCT.SC.I

0.34 × TDA + 0.43

VCS.SC.H

0.0082 × V + 0.21

VCS.SC.M

0.02 × V + 0.54

VCS.SC.L

0.155 × V + 0.97

VCS.SC.I

0.25 × V + 0.88

HCS.SC.M

0.022 × V + 0.41

HCS.SC.L

0.043 × V + 0.81

HCS.SC.I

0.31 × V + 0.81

SOC.SC.H

0.17 × TDA + 0.33

SOC.SC.M

0.304 × TDA + 0.59

SOC.SC.L

1.1 × TDA + 2.1

SOC.SC.I

1.53 × TDA + 0.36

CB.SC.M

0.049 × V + 0.54

CB.SC.L

0.180 × V + 1.92

PD.SC.M

0.11 × V + 0.81

VCT.RC.M.PT

0.139 × TDA + 1.81

VCT.SC.M.PT

0.056 × V + 0.86

VCT.SC.L.PT

0.243 × V + 2.47

VCS.SC.M.PT

0.02 × V + 0.56

VCS.SC.L.PT

0.161 × V + 1.01

VCT.RC.M.SD

0.143 × TDA + 1.86

VCT.SC.M.SD

0.058 × V + 0.86

VCT.RC.M.SDPT

0.149 × TDA + 1.93

VCT.SC.M.SDPT

0.060 × V + 0.86

VCT.RC.M.RI

0.140 × TDA + 1.83

VCT.SC.M.RI

0.057 × V + 0.86

VCS.SC.M.RI

0.02 × V + 0.57

VCS.SC.L.RI

0.162 × V + 1.02

VCT.RC.M.RT

0.146 × TDA + 1.9

VCT.SC.M.RT

0.059 × V + 0.86

VCS.SC.M.RT

0.02 × V + 0.59

VCS.SC.L.RT

0.169 × V + 1.06

HCS.SC.L.FA

0.052 × V + 0.97

The equipment classes are separated by equipment family, condensing unit configuration, and operating temperature. Equipment Families: VOP—Vertical Open; SVO—Semi-Vertical Open; HZO—Horizontal Open; VCT—Vertical Closed Transparent; HCT—Horizontal Closed Transparent; VCS—Vertical Closed Solid; HCS—Horizontal Closed Solid; SOC—Service Over Counter; CB—Chef Base; PD—Pull Down. Condensing Unit Configurations: RC—Remote Condensing; SC—Self Contained. Operating Temperatures: H—High Temperature; M—Medium Temperature; L—Low Temperature; I—Ice Cream Temperature.

Table I.2—Description of Coefficients for Proposed Maximum Daily Energy Consumption Standards for CRE

Unique design characteristic

Abbreviation

Pass-through Door

Sliding Door

Sliding and Pass-through Doors

SDPT

Roll-in Door

Roll-through Door

Forced Air Evaporator

DOE requests comments on its proposal to require that the proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all CRE listed in table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final new and amended standards are published. More generally, DOE requests comment on whether it would be beneficial to CRE 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—represented by TSL 5—on consumers of CRE, 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 for the vast majority of CRE equipment classes,

which is estimated to be 13.9 years (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.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section IV.F.9 of this document).

For the HZO.RC.M equipment class, the estimated PBP at TSL 5 is 13.8 years for an estimated average lifetime of approximately 13 years.

Table I.3—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of CRE

Equipment class

Average LCC

savings

(2022$)

Simple payback period

(years)

CB.SC.L

566.92

2.2

CB.SC.M

44.90

5.0

HCS.SC.L

7.77

5.1

HCS.SC.M

84.89

1.8

HCT.SC.I

55.03

7.1

HCT.SC.L *

HCT.SC.M *

HZO.RC.L

46.57

13.0

HZO.RC.M

40.29

13.8

HZO.SC.L

841.89

2.8

HZO.SC.M

199.91

5.2

SOC.RC.M

929.51

3.3

SOC.SC.M

698.37

5.4

SVO.RC.M

406.59

7.3

SVO.SC.M

602.17

4.3

VCS.SC.H

162.47

3.7

VCS.SC.I

486.70

3.4

VCS.SC.L

260.73

3.2

VCS.SC.M

128.81

4.1

VCT.RC.L

331.04

6.4

VCT.RC.M

133.62

10.9

VCT.SC.H *

VCT.SC.I

77.46

8.3

VCT.SC.L

120.34

5.8

VCT.SC.M

82.53

7.6

VOP.RC.L

1524.52

3.6

VOP.RC.M

707.13

5.7

VOP.SC.M

992.17

3.6

* For these equipment classes, TSL 5 corresponds to efficiency level 0.

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 base year through the end of the analysis period (2023-2057). Using a real discount rate of 10.0 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of CRE in the case without new and amended standards is $3,286.4 million. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −4.8 percent to −0.9 percent, which is approximately −$159.3 million to −$30.9 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance with new and amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $226.4 million.

Conversion costs are incurred between the publication of the final rule (modeled as 2025) and the compliance year (modeled as 2028) and are included in the change in INPV presented in this section.

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

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for CRE would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new and amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for CRE purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended standards (2028-2057) amount to 3.11 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 16.8 percent relative to the energy use of these equipment in the case without new or 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.2 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for CRE ranges from $2.4 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $7.1 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for CRE purchased in 2028-2057.

In addition, the proposed standards for CRE 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 55.8 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

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

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

”), 472 thousand tons of methane (“CH

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

O”), and 0.12 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 2023

(

“AEO2023”

AEO2023

reflects, to the extent possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of

AEO2023

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

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

(“SC-

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

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

O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (“SC-GHG”). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit per ton of GHG emissions avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”).

The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $3.04 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 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 Environmental Protection Agency,

as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $2.32 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $5.94 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (PM

2.5

) concentrations from two precursors (SO

and NO

), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO

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

2.5

emissions.

U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted PM

2.5

, PM

2.5

Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors

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 CRE. 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 CRE (TSL 5)

Billion 2022$

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

12.8

Climate Benefits *

3.04

Health Benefits **

5.94

Total Benefits †

21.8

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs

5.74

Net Benefits

16.1

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡)

(0.16)-(0.03)

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

5.55

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

3.04

Health Benefits **

2.32

Total Benefits †

10.9

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs

3.17

Net Benefits

7.74

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡)

(0.16)-(0.03)

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with CRE shipped in 2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the equipment shipped in 2028-2057.

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

), methane (SC-CH

), and nitrous oxide (SC-N

O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; 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.

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below.

See

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 10.0 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For commercial refrigeration equipment, those values are −$159 million to −$31 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified.

See

section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $15.94 billion to $16.07 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $7.58 billion to $7.71 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses () indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach.

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 equipment 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 2023, 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 2023. 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 CRE shipped in 2028-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of CRE shipped in 2028-2057. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.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 as follows.

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 $334.6 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $586.1 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $174.4 million in climate benefits, and $245.5 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $671.4 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $329.8 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $737.7 million in reduced operating costs, $174.4 million in climate benefits, and $341.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $923.5 million per year.

Table I.5—Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for CRE (TSL 5)

Million 2022$/year

Primary estimate

Low-net-benefits estimate

High-net-benefits estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

737.7

714.3

773.7

Climate Benefits *

174.4

173.5

178.9

Health Benefits **

341.4

339.7

349.9

Total Benefits †

1253.3

1227.5

1302.8

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs

329.8

337.9

328.3

Net Benefits

923.5

889.5

974.1

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ‡‡)

(17)-(3)

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

586.1

569.3

613.0

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

174.4

173.5

178.9

Health Benefits **

245.5

244.7

250.9

Total Benefits †

1006.0

987.5

1042.8

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs

334.6

341.7

333.5

Net Benefits

671.4

645.7

709.3

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV ‡‡)

(17)-(3)

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with CRE shipped in 2028-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the equipment shipped in 2028-2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the

AEO2023

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 V.F.1 and V.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 document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four 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.

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H. DOE's NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 10.0 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For commercial refrigeration equipment, those values are −$16.65 million to −$3.23 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $906.8 million to $920.3 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $654.7 million to $668.2 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, design options used to achieve 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 CRE is $334.6 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $586.1 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $174.4 million in climate benefits and $245.5 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $671.4 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 equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than equipment 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 3.11 quad FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 33 million homes. The NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $2.38 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.10 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions associated with these energy savings are 55.8 Mt of CO

, 17.1 thousand tons of SO

, 104.2 thousand tons of NO

, 0.12 tons of Hg, 472.0 thousand tons of CH

, and 0.54 thousand tons of N

O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $ 3.04 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO

and NO

emissions is $ 2.32 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $ 5.94 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the

remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (“NOPR TSD”).

The NOPR TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007

DOE also considered more stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits.

Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer equipment 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 CRE, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E))

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 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(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA 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) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e) (applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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(e)(1); 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(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for CRE appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431, subpart C, appendix B (“appendix B”).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including CRE. 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. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain equipment, including CRE, 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(e)(1); 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(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;

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

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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 an 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(e)(1); 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 equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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(e)(1); 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: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

B. Background

1. Current Standards

On March 28, 2014, DOE published a final rule in the

Federal Register

that prescribed the current energy conservation standards for CRE manufactured on and after March 27, 2017 (“March 2014 Final Rule”). 79 FR 17725. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.66(e).

For CRE with two or more compartments (

i.e.,

hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers), 10 CFR 431.66(e)(2) specifies that the maximum daily energy consumption for each model shall be the sum of the applicable standard for each of the compartments, as specified in 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1). For wedge cases, 10 CFR 431.66(e)(3) specifies instructions to comply with the applicable standards specified in 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1).

Certain exclusions to the standards at 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1) are specified at 10 CFR 431.66(f) (

i.e.,

the energy conservation standards do not apply to salad bars, buffet tables, and chef bases or griddle stands).

A wedge case is a CRE that forms the transition between two regularly shaped display cases. 10 CFR 431.62.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for CRE

On July 16, 2021, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) in the

Federal Register

to undertake an early assessment review for amended energy conservation standards for CRE to determine whether to amend applicable energy conservation standards for this equipment. (“July 2021 RFI”) 86 FR 37708. Specifically, through the published notice and request for information, DOE sought data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether amended energy conservation standards would: (1) result in a significant savings of energy; (2) be technologically feasible; and (3) be economically justified.

Id.

On June 28, 2022, DOE published in the

Federal Register

a notification of the availability of a preliminary technical support document for CRE (“June 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). 87 FR 38296. In that notification, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards for CRE, 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 (“June 2022 Preliminary TSD”).

Id.

DOE held a public meeting related to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on August 8, 2022 (hereafter, the “August 8, 2022, public meeting”).

The June 2022 Preliminary TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013.

DOE received comments in response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in table II.1.

Table II.1—Written Comments Received in Response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis

Commenter(s)

Abbreviation

Comment No. in the docket

Commenter type

AHT Cooling Systems

AHT

Manufacturer.

Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute

AHRI

Trade Association.

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

Joint Commenters

Efficiency Organizations.

California Investor-Owned Utilities

CA IOUs

Energy Utilities.

Continental Refrigerator

Continental

Manufacturer.

Hillphoenix

* 42

Manufacturer.

Hussmann Corporation

Hussmann

Manufacturer.

ITW-Food Equipment Group, LLC dba Traulsen/Kairak

ITW

Manufacturer.

National Automatic Merchandising Association

NAMA

Trade Association.

North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers

NAFEM

Trade Association.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

Efficiency Organizations.

Zero Zone, Inc

Zero Zone

Manufacturer.

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

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

Where interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with their oral comments provided during the August 8, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this document. DOE did not identify any oral comments provided during the August 8, 2022, public

meeting, that are substantively different from written comments provided by interested parties.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for CRE. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007, 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 10 CFR 431.4 and 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 standard rulemaking.

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 38296), DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, that chapter 2 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD that accompanied the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis—entitled

Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses

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

As such, publication of a separate framework document would be largely redundant of chapter 2 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD.

The June 2022 Preliminary TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013.

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 is instead providing a 60-day comment period, consistent with EPCA requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p).

As noted previously, DOE requested comment in the July 2021 RFI on the analysis conducted in support of the last energy conservation standard rulemaking for CRE and provided a 45-day comment period. (

See

86 FR 37708). In its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and accompanying TSD, for which DOE provided a 60-day comment period, DOE's analysis remained largely the same as the analysis conducted in support of the last energy conservation standards rulemaking for CRE. DOE requested comment in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on the analysis conducted in support of this current rulemaking. In this NOPR, DOE incorporated the most recent data inputs but largely relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and approaches used in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Given that the analysis presented in this NOPR remains largely the same as the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and in light of the 45-day comment period DOE has already provided with the July 2021 RFI and the 60-day comment period DOE has already provided with its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE has determined that a 60-day comment period is appropriate and will provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

3. Amended Test Procedures

Section 8(d)(1) of the Process Rule specifies that test procedure rulemakings establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy conservation standards will be finalized prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Additionally, new test procedures and amended test procedures that impact measured energy use or efficiency will be finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the comment period for (1) a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards or (2) a notice of proposed determination that standards do not need to be amended.

On September 26, 2023, DOE published a

Federal Register

notice amending and establishing test procedures for CRE (“September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule”). 88 FR 66152. DOE determined that the amendments adopted in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule will not alter the measured efficiency of CRE currently subject to energy conservation standards. 88 FR 66152, 66156. However, the measured energy use for chef bases or griddle stands and high-temperature refrigerators would likely change as a result of the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. Nonetheless, the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule aligns with the requirements that the CRE industry has developed or proposed. Specifically, AHRI 1200-2023

was approved by the American National Standards Institute on June 12, 2023, and addendum B to ASHRAE 72-2022

was proposed on September 15, 2023. AHRI 1200-2023 specifies that high-temperature refrigerators shall be tested at an integrated average temperature of 55 °F ± 2.0 °F, consistent with the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. The addendum B to ASHRAE 72-2022 proposal specifies a dry-bulb temperature of 86.0 °F with a tolerance for the average over test period of ± 1.8 °F and a tolerance for the individual measurements of ± 3.6 °F; wet-bulb temperature of 73.7 °F with a tolerance for the average over test period of ± 1.8 °F and a tolerance for the individual measurements of ± 3.6 °F; and radiant heat temperature of greater than or equal to 81.0 °F, consistent with the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. Both AHRI 1200-2023 and the proposed addendum B to ASHRAE 72-2022 were developed by the CRE industry over several years, and the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule aligns with the provisions included in both test standards for chef bases or griddle stands and high-temperature refrigerators. As such, DOE finds it appropriate to deviate from the requirement that the amended test procedures for chef bases or griddle stands and high-temperature refrigerators be finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the comment period for this NOPR.

AHRI Standard 1200-2023 (I-P),

2023 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,

Proposed Addendum b to Standard 72-2022, Method of Testing Open and Closed Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.

See https://osr.ashrae.org/Online-Comment-Database/ShowDoc2/Table/DocumentAttachments/FileName/4130-72-2022%20Addendum%20b.21_072823_chair_approved.pdf/download/false.

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.

NEEA generally supported the process outlined in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 5) NEEA commented that DOE's analysis in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD showed a strong standard for CRE equipment would be economically justified and deliver significant energy savings to the Nation. (

Id.

) As a result, NEEA recommended DOE adopt increased efficiency standards for existing classes

of CRE and continue to push the industry toward more-efficient products and greater energy savings across all CRE equipment classes via technical, market, and economic analyses. (

Id.

) NEEA recommended further that DOE consider energy-saving technologies in CRE and that DOE collect additional data for analysis. (

Id.

) NEEA stated that they believe further analysis of specific features would help establish stronger standards, especially when the analysis improved representativeness of equipment in the market and appropriately characterized energy use and energy savings. (

Id.

) NEEA stated it recognized CRE as a complex energy conservation standard with many combinations of equipment and a variety of use cases and commended DOE for the depth of analysis and concerted efforts to incorporate new classes and utilize available data for analysis. (

Id.

) NEEA commented that DOE's analysis demonstrated significant cost-effective savings, and NEEA recommended DOE adopt increased energy conservation standards for existing CRE equipment classes as supported by the analysis in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (

Id.

)

Other commenters expressed concern with the rulemaking timeline. NAFEM commented that it had previously requested a comment period extension, which was denied, and requested to see the CRE engineering spreadsheets, which were provided on August 18, 2022, leaving an 11-calendar-day review period. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 2) NAFEM acknowledged that DOE had initiated multiple energy efficiency rulemakings on a compressed schedule, but NAFEM stated that this did not serve as justification for neglecting to provide important information and adequate time for review. (

Id.

) NAFEM disagreed with DOE's justification that the comment period could be shortened due to similarities between the June 2022 Preliminary TSD and its 2014 counterpart. (

Id.

) NAFEM commented that many of its concerns regarding the July 2021 RFI were dismissed or remain unresolved in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (

Id.

) Furthermore, NAFEM commented that DOE's claim was inaccurate that the engineering spreadsheets “do not contain any new or additional information that was not already published with the TSD in June.” (

Id.

) NAFEM added that it would have had two additional weeks to analyze the spreadsheets if DOE had adhered to the appendix A Process Rule permitting no less than a 75-day comment period. (

Id.

at pp. 2-3) NAFEM concluded that it was unable to provide a complete list of errors or concerns due to insufficient time and presented its comments as representative, but not exhaustive, of the types of problems and inaccuracies contained in the spreadsheets. (

Id.

at p. 3)

Hussmann commented that it supports the comments provided by AHRI and NAFEM and noted that it and other commenters were denied extensions to the August 29, 2022, comment deadline. (Hussmann, No. 45 at p. 1). Hussmann stated that it hopes discussions with DOE will improve this rulemaking. (

Id.

)

NAMA shared its view that, despite this CRE rulemaking being one of the most complex DOE has undertaken within EERE, DOE reduced the time for public comment. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 4) NAMA additionally commented that DOE released the engineering spreadsheets on August 8, 2022, leaving only 7 working days for review prior to the comment receipt deadline, and that this limited notice violated all elements of the notice and comment in the Administrative Procedure Act.

(

Id.

) NAMA added that the United States has admonished other countries for similar regulatory actions. (

Id.

)

See

5 U.S.C. 551-559.

ITW commented that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD made clear the importance of the CRE engineering spreadsheet, prompting ITW to request that DOE grant access to the spreadsheet. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 1). ITW stated that DOE provided the spreadsheet but did not extend the comment period to allow adequate time for review of information ITW considered critical. (

Id.

)

In response to comments regarding timing and the 2022 Engineering Spreadsheet Related to the Preliminary Analysis for Commercial Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers Standards (“engineering spreadsheet”), DOE published this document in the rulemaking docket on August 18, 2022 after commenters requested its publication. This practice was consistent with prior rulemakings conducted for CRE, such as when DOE did not include an engineering spreadsheet with the notice of availability of preliminary technical support document published on March 30, 2011 (“March 2011 Preliminary Analysis”). Instead, DOE published the engineering spreadsheet with its NOPR on September 11, 2013. Similarly, in this rulemaking, DOE did not publish the engineering spreadsheet used for the preliminary analysis at the time of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis publication. Consistent with past practice, DOE is publishing the engineering spreadsheet that supports this NOPR analysis along with this NOPR.

With respect to comments regarding the comment-period, DOE discusses deviations from the Process Rule, and the justifications for such deviations, in section II.C of this NOPR.

In response to comments regarding the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 provides requirements for a notice of proposed rulemaking. The June 2022 Preliminary Analysis was not a notice of proposed rulemaking as it was a notification that announced the availability of the preliminary analysis DOE had conducted for purposes of evaluating the need for amended energy conservation standards for CRE. However, DOE provided notice of that preliminary analysis and sought comment on the analysis.

See

87 FR 38296. The June 2022 Preliminary Analysis was in compliance with EPCA and the Process Rule.

Other commenters had general comments regarding the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the accompanying June 2022 Preliminary TSD, and the rulemaking process. NAMA commented that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD is flawed and should be re-written, with CRE categories split into ranges by size. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 8) NAMA stated that if the engineering analysis were to be incorrect, then the technology screening would be incorrect also, which means the baseline machine design was incorrect and the rest of the report could not be used. (

Id.

) NAMA recommended that DOE begin the process again, using machines that are currently available on the market as its baseline. (

Id.

) NAMA also recommended that DOE use low-GWP refrigerants and incorporate most of the design options shown in table 5.8.10 of NAMA's written submission, along with current costs. (

Id.

) NAMA added that if this approach is not possible, DOE should acknowledge the costs already incurred by manufacturers to meet the goals established by the Biden Administration to reduce global warming. (

Id.

)

NAMA commented that while it appreciated DOE's willingness to hold a hearing on the proposed energy efficiency standards levels, it believed that the August 8, 2022, public meeting was rushed and abruptly terminated before all questions were answered. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 4) NAMA requested that DOE return to “in-person” meetings to support dialogue on these subjects. (

Id.

)

NAMA commented that the market dynamic was currently distorted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of available equipment, making efficiency a secondary priority to availability. (

Id.

at p. 16)

NAMA recommended that DOE should cease the rulemaking on this category of CRE until after the beverage vending machines rulemaking is in the final rule stage and until the test procedure for CRE equipment is finalized. (

Id.

at p. 17) NAMA commented that due to the fact that the rulemakings for beverage vending machines and CRE affect the same manufacturers, overlapping comment periods result in result increased complexity to the responses. (

Id.

) NAMA also stated that a final test procedure should be established before setting future standard levels, and that the Process Rule requires DOE to finish the test procedure rulemaking before engaging in cost and energy calculations for a new standard. (

Id.

) NAMA further commented that DOE has requested comments on the CRE test procedure at the same time as it requested comments on the NOPR for future standards levels. (

Id.

) NAMA stated that, it is illogical to set future standards levels because the final test procedure for CRE is not yet known. (

Id.

)

Finally, NAMA commented that it does not believe the June 2022 Preliminary TSD or other documents for this rulemaking reflect the state of the CRE industry in 2022 or the projections for equipment manufactured after this rule becomes effective. (

Id.

at p. 19) NAMA requested that DOE conduct a complete revision of all energy efficiency changes, the base case, the standards cases, and the economic analysis after the test procedure final standard is issued and the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”)

extension is complete. (

Id.

) NAMA stated its belief that accurate information will show that a new set of standards levels for the classes of CRE covered by NAMA is unwarranted. (

Id.

) NAMA commented that the payback period will grow significantly when the net present value is re-calculated using accurate numbers. (

Id.

) NAMA recommended allowing manufacturers to complete the change to hydrocarbon refrigerants, which NAMA asserted would have up to 10 times the environmental impact of any new DOE standards. (

Id.

)

Most of the activities of the 2019-2021 CRADA were directed toward reduction of the risk involved in a possible leak situation if it were ever to occur. ORNL did extensive testing on leak scenarios and proposed new methods to reduce the risk from such a leak in a public space.

In response to NAMA's comments, DOE is maintaining the current equipment class structure in this NOPR, except for the new equipment classes which are proposed and discussed in section IV.A.1.c of this document. In accordance with section 6(d)(3) of the Process Rule, DOE may make any necessary changes to the engineering analysis or the candidate standard levels based on consideration of the comments received. DOE notes that it considered CRE that are currently available on the market when developing the NOPR engineering analysis. DOE acknowledges and accounts for the December 2022 EPA NOPR in this NOPR analysis. As noted in section I of this document, the December 2022 EPA NOPR would prohibit manufacture or import of such CRE starting January 1, 2025, and would ban sale, distribution, purchase, receipt, or export of such CRE starting January 1, 2026. 87 FR 76809. The December 2022 EPA NOPR compliance date would occur prior to the expected the compliance date of any DOE amended or established standards (

i.e.,

on or after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final new and amended standards are published). Thus, the transition to refrigerants in compliance with the December 2022 EPA NOPR (including hydrocarbon refrigerants) would have already occurred prior to the expected the compliance date of any DOE amended or established standards. Additionally, DOE considered the December 2022 EPA NOPR when developing the NOPR engineering analysis baseline as discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document. In the no-new-standards case, DOE incorporated the cost of refrigerant transition as discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this document. DOE also revised the components considered in the engineering analysis baseline in this NOPR as discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document and updated the costs as discussed in section IV.C.2. of this document. In response to market distortions, DOE used the latest shipments, market shares, and MPCs based on manufacturer feedback. Supply chain constraints are discussed in section V.B.2.c of this document.

In response to the comments about the August 8, 2022, public meeting, DOE notes that it responded to all questions asked during the August 8, 2022, public meeting.

Similar to the process with the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE welcomes comments in response to this NOPR and participation in the public meeting, and DOE provides information on public participation in response to this NOPR in section VII. of this document.

See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0049.

DOE notes that section 8(d)(1) of the Process Rule specifies that test procedure rulemakings establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy conservation standards will be finalized prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new and amended energy conservation standards. Additionally, energy conservation standards for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines are separate from CRE, and evaluated through a separate rulemaking process, and are located at 10 CFR 431.296.

AHT stated that there is a high risk of eliminating the entire equipment class if DOE were to further increase restrictions for horizontal closed transparent self-contained low temperature (“HCT.SC.L”), horizontal closed transparent self-contained medium temperature (“HCT.SC.M”), horizontal closed transparent self-contained ice-cream freezer (“HCT.SC.I”), and vertical closed transparent self-contained low temperature (“VCT.SC.L.”) equipment classes and recommended that DOE maintain the current regulatory framework in design options and efficiency standards for these equipment classes. (AHT, No. 48 at p. 6)

In response to AHT's comments, DOE has revised the components considered in the engineering analysis baseline in this NOPR as discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document and presented the results of this NOPR analysis in section V of this document. DOE also notes that it observed CRE models currently available and rated to the DOE Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”) that currently comply with the proposed energy conservation standards in this NOPR for the equipment classes listed in AHT's comment.

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers those commercial refrigeration equipment that meet the definition of “commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers,” as codified at 10 CFR 431.62.

A “commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer” means refrigeration equipment that—(1) is not consumer equipment (as defined in § 430.2); (2) is not designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes; (3) operates at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and frozen, or variable temperature; (4) displays or stores merchandise and other perishable

materials horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically; (5) has transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; (6) is designed for pull-down temperature applications or holding temperature applications; and (7) is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote condensing unit. 10 CFR 431.62.

However, this NOPR does not include some types of commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that meet the definition at 10 CFR 431.62. These include blast chillers, blast freezers, buffet tables or preparation tables, and mobile refrigerated cabinets.

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. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) DOE's current energy conservation standards for CRE are expressed in terms of maximum daily energy consumption as measured using appendix B. (

See

10 CFR 431.66(e))

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 equipment or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule.

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on equipment 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 CRE, 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(e)(1); 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 CRE, 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 proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to CRE purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year 2028 with the proposed standards (2028-2057).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of CRE 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 equipment would likely evolve in the absence of new and amended energy conservation standards.

Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period. Note that the analysis does not consider benefits and costs resulting from the December 2022 EPA NOPR.

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended and new standards for CRE. 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 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012).

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standards for covered equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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 equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than equipment 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.

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 12, 2021 (86 FR 70892, 70906).

As stated, the standard levels proposed in this document are projected to result in national energy savings of 3.11 quad FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 33 million homes. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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 new or 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 and amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard; for CRE, DOE evaluated the impacts on small businesses.

DOE requests comment on the impacts to CRE manufacturers and consumers from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

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

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

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

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

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered equipment in the first full year of compliance with new and 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 and 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(e)(1); 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 Equipment

In establishing equipment classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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 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(e)(1); 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(e)(1); 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(e)(1); 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 of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.

g. Other Factors

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(e)(1); 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(e(1)); 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 payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1) and 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 V.B.1.c of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

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

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended and new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this proposed rulemaking:

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007.

Additionally, DOE used output from the 2023 version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”)

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO

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

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of CRE. 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 and Definitions

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 a product's capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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.

)

a. Current Equipment Classes

DOE currently separates CRE into 49 equipment classes, which are categorized according to the following performance-related features: (1) operating temperature—refrigerator (≥32 °F), freezer (<32 °F), or ice-cream freezer (≤−5 °F); (2) presence of doors—open or closed; (3) door type—solid or transparent; (4) condensing unit—remote or self-contained; (5) configuration—horizontal, vertical, semi-vertical, or service over counter; (6) temperature pull-down capability. Definitions supporting the equipment classes are as follows:

Closed solid

means equipment with doors, and in which more than 75 percent of the outer surface area of all doors on a unit are not transparent.

Closed transparent

means equipment with doors, and in which 25 percent or more of the outer surface area of all doors on the unit are transparent.

Commercial freezer

means a unit of commercial refrigeration equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are capable of operating below 32 °F (±2 °F).

Commercial refrigerator

means a unit of commercial refrigeration equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are capable of operating at or above 32 °F (±2 °F).

Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer

means refrigeration equipment that—(1) Is not a consumer product (as defined in § 430.2);

(2) Is not designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes;

(3) Operates at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and frozen, or variable temperature;

(4) Displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically;

(5) Has transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no doors;

(6) Is designed for pull-down temperature applications or holding temperature applications; and

(7) Is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote condensing unit.

Door

means a movable panel that separates the interior volume of a unit of commercial refrigeration equipment from the ambient environment and is designed to facilitate access to the refrigerated space for the purpose of loading and unloading product. This includes hinged doors, sliding doors, and drawers. This does not include night curtains.

Holding temperature application

means a use of commercial refrigeration equipment other than a pull-down temperature application, except a blast chiller or freezer.

Horizontal Closed

means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a door angle greater than or equal to 45°.

Horizontal Open

means equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle greater than or equal to 80° from the vertical.

Ice-cream freezer

means:

(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 for ice-cream freezers, a commercial freezer that is capable of an operating temperature at or below −5.0 °F and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or intends specifically for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice cream or other frozen desserts; or

(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 for ice-cream freezers, a commercial freezer that is capable of an operating temperature at or below −13.0 °F and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or intends specifically for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice cream or other frozen desserts.

Pull-down temperature application

means a commercial refrigerator with doors that, when fully loaded with 12 ounce beverage cans at 90 degrees F, can cool those beverages to an average stable temperature of 38 degrees F in 12 hours or less.

Remote condensing unit

means a factory-made assembly of refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a specific refrigerant that is remotely located from the refrigerated equipment and consists of 1 or more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant condensers, condenser fans and motors, and factory supplied accessories.

Self-contained condensing unit

means a factory-made assembly of refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a specific refrigerant that is an integral part of the refrigerated equipment and consists of 1 or more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant condensers, condenser fans and motors, and factory supplied accessories.

Semivertical open

means equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle greater than or equal to 10° and less than 80° from the vertical.

Service over counter

means equipment that has sliding or hinged doors in the back intended for use by sales personnel, with glass or other transparent material in the front for displaying merchandise, and that has a height not greater than 66 inches and is intended to serve as a counter for transactions between sales personnel and customers.

Transparent

means greater than or equal to 45-percent light transmittance, as determined in accordance with the ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), at normal incidence and in the intended direction of viewing.

Vertical Closed

means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a door angle less than 45°.

Vertical Open

means equipment without doors and an air-curtain angle greater than or equal to 0° and less than 10° from the vertical.

10 CFR 431.62.

On March 28, 2014, DOE published in the

Federal Register

the March 2014 Final Rule that established the current equipment classes and corresponding standards for CRE. 79 FR 17725. DOE currently sets forth energy conservation standards and relevant definitions for CRE equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.66 and 10 CFR 431.62, respectively. Table IV.1 shows the current CRE equipment classes and standards.

Table IV.1—Current CRE Equipment Classes

Condensing unit

configuration

Equipment family

Operating

temperature

(°F)

Equipment

class

designation

Maximum daily

energy consumption

(kilowatt-hours

per day) *

Remote Condensing (RC)

Vertical Open (VOP)

≥32

<32

VOP.RC.M

VOP.RC.L

0.64 × TDA + 4.07

2.2 × TDA + 6.85

≤−5

VOP.RC.I

2.79 × TDA + 8.7

Semivertical Open (SVO)

≥32

<32

SVO.RC.M

SVO.RC.L

0.66 × TDA + 3.18

2.2 × TDA + 6.85

≤−5

SVO.RC.I

2.79 × TDA + 8.7

Horizontal Open (HZO)

≥32

<32

HZO.RC.M

HZO.RC.L

0.35 × TDA + 2.88

0.55 × TDA + 6.88

≤−5

HZO.RC.I

0.7 × TDA + 8.74

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT)

≥32

<32

VCT.RC.M

VCT.RC.L

0.15 × TDA + 1.95

0.49 × TDA + 2.61

≤−5

VCT.RC.I

0.58 × TDA + 3.05

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT)

≥32

<32

HCT.RC.M

HCT.RC.L

0.16 × TDA + 0.13

0.34 × TDA + 0.26

≤−5

HCT.RC.I

0.4 × TDA + 0.31

Vertical Closed Solid (“VCS”)

≥32

<32

VCS.RC.M

VCS.RC.L

0.1 × V + 0.26

0.21 × V + 0.54

≤−5

VCS.RC.I

0.25 × V + 0.63

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS)

≥32

<32

HCS.RC.M

HCS.RC.L

0.1 × V + 0.26

0.21 × V + 0.54

≤−5

HCS.RC.I

0.25 × V + 0.63

Service Over Counter (SOC)

≥32

<32

SOC.RC.M

SOC.RC.L

0.44 × TDA + 0.11

0.93 × TDA + 0.22

≤−5

SOC.RC.I

1.09 × TDA + 0.26

Self-Contained (SC)

Vertical Open (VOP)

≥32

<32

VOP.SC.M

VOP.SC.L

1.69 × TDA + 4.71

4.25 × TDA + 11.82

≤−5

VOP.SC.I

5.4 × TDA + 15.02

Semivertical Open (SVO)

≥32

<32

SVO.SC.M

SVO.SC.L

1.7 × TDA + 4.59

4.26 × TDA + 11.51

≤−5

SVO.SC.I

5.41 × TDA + 14.63

Horizontal Open (HZO)

≥32

<32

HZO.SC.M

HZO.SC.L

0.72 × TDA + 5.55

1.9 × TDA + 7.08

≤−5

HZO.SC.I

2.42 × TDA + 9

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT)

≥32

<32

VCT.SC.M

VCT.SC.L

0.1 × V + 0.86

0.29 × V + 2.95

≤−5

VCT.SC.I

0.62 × TDA + 3.29

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS)

≥32

<32

VCS.SC.M

VCS.SC.L

0.05 × V + 1.36

0.22 × V + 1.38

≤−5

VCS.SC.I

0.34 × V + 0.88

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT)

≥32

<32

HCT.SC.M

HCT.SC.L

0.06 × V + 0.37

0.08 × V + 1.23

≤−5

HCT.SC.I

0.56 × TDA + 0.43

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS)

≥32

<32

HCS.SC.M

HCS.SC.L

0.05 × V + 0.91

0.06 × V + 1.12

≤−5

HCS.SC.I

0.34 × V + 0.88

Service Over Counter (SOC)

≥32

<32

SOC.SC.M

SOC.SC.L

0.52 × TDA + 1

1.1 × TDA + 2.1

≤−5

SOC.SC.I

1.53 × TDA + 0.36

Pull-Down (PD)

≥32

PD.SC.M

0.11 × V + 0.81

* The term “V” means the chilled or frozen compartment volume (ft

) as defined in the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) Standard HRF 1-2008. The term “TDA” means the total display area (ft

) of the case, as defined in Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) Standard 1200-2006.

b. New Definitions

In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE sought comment on whether updates to the existing equipment class structure are appropriate. In response, ITW commented that DOE failed to recognize that manufacturers might use other options to produce cabinets with increased heat loads due to their physical features (other than those required by a simple reach-in refrigerator), citing the following applications as examples: (1) pass-through refrigerators—cabinets with doors on both sides, providing access to stored items from either side; (2) roll-in refrigerators—cabinets with ramps and door sweeps that allow for loading of bakery carts; and (3) roll-through refrigerators—cabinets with ramps and door sweeps on both sides that allow for bakery carts to move in and out from one side to the other. (ITW, No. 41 at p. 33)

NAFEM stated that it and other commenters recommended separating forced-air and cold-wall refrigeration systems into different categories in response to the July 2021 RFI, yet it appeared that DOE deferred making a decision until a future proposed rule. (NAFEM, No. 40 at p. 3)

Continental commented that DOE should provide separate equipment classes and standard levels to segregate forced-air from cold-wall models, as well as roll-in from reach-in models, and pass-through from non-pass-through models, because these equipment types have differentiating characteristics that impact energy consumption, and separate energy standard levels are needed to avoid weighting standards in an unfair manner. (Continental, No. 38 at p. 2)

In response to commenter's suggestions and after a review of similar terms defined by the California Code of Regulations,

DOE is proposing to define the terms “cold-wall evaporator,” “forced-air evaporator,” “pass-through doors,” “roll-in door,” “roll-through doors,” and “sliding door” as follows:

See https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I7AE76FC19E3011EDA9D5EB8195EB4110?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1.

Cold-wall evaporator

means an evaporator that comprises a portion or all of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer cabinet's interior surface that transfers heat through means other than fan-forced convection.

Forced-air evaporator

means an evaporator that employs the use of fan-forced convection to transfer heat within the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer cabinet.

Pass-through doors

means doors located on both the front and rear of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer.

Roll-in door

means a door that includes a door sweep to seal the bottom of the door and may include a ramp that allows wheeled racks of product to be rolled into the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer.

Roll-through doors

means doors located on both the front and rear of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer, that includes a door sweep to seal the bottom of the door and may include a ramp that allows wheeled racks of product to be rolled into and through the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator freezer.

Sliding door

means a door that opens when a portion of the door moves in a direction generally parallel to its surface.

In addition to proposing to define the terms “cold-wall evaporator,” “forced-air evaporator,” “pass-through doors,” “roll-in door,” “roll-through doors,” and “sliding door,” DOE is proposing to allow certain equipment classes that contain CRE with forced-air evaporators, CRE with pass-through doors, CRE with roll-in doors, CRE with roll-through doors, and CRE with sliding doors to use a higher amount of energy use than the proposed standards, if the standard has been proposed to be amended for an equipment class, while also complying with EPCA's “anti-backsliding” provision. This proposal recognizes the unique utility and different energy use characteristics of certain types of CRE. DOE discusses these unique utility and different energy use characteristics in further detail in section IV.C.1.a.

DOE has also reviewed the current definitions for CRE at 10 CFR 431.62 and is proposing to revise the definition for “rating temperature” to update the reference to the required integrated average temperature (“IAT”) or lowest application product temperature (“LAPT”), as applicable, as follows:

Rating temperature

means the integrated average temperature a unit must maintain during testing, as determined in accordance with section 2.1. or section 2.2. of appendix B to subpart C of part 431, as applicable.

DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for “cold-wall evaporator,” “forced-air evaporator,” “pass-through doors,” “roll-in door,” “roll-through doors,” “sliding door,” and “rating temperature.”

c. Equipment Class Modifications

In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE had initially determined that additional equipment classes may be appropriate to address certain CRE available on the market. Specifically, DOE initially determined to split several commercial refrigerator equipment classes and establish separate classes for high-temperature refrigerators. Also, DOE initially determined to establish standards for chef bases or griddle stands with operating temperatures of ≥32 °F or <32 °F (10 CFR 431.66(f) currently excludes chef bases or griddle stands from energy conservation standards). See chapter 3 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD for additional details.

In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE established and amended definitions and test procedures for high-temperature refrigerators, medium-temperature refrigerators, and chef bases or griddle stands. 88 FR 66152, 66154-66155. Specifically, DOE established definitions for “high-temperature refrigerators” and “medium-temperature refrigerators,” amended the definition for “chef bases or griddle stands,” and incorporated by reference AHRI Standard 1200-2023 (I-P), which provides a IAT of 55 °F ±2.0 °F for which high-temperature refrigerators may be tested.

Id.

DOE also established a definition for “low-temperature freezers” and amended the definition for “ice-cream freezers.”

Id.

The newly established and amended definitions in the test procedure final rule are as follows.

Chef base or griddle stand

means commercial refrigeration equipment that has a maximum height of 32 inches, including any legs or casters, and that is designed and marketed for the express purpose of having a griddle or other cooking appliance placed on top of it that is capable of reaching temperatures hot enough to cook food.

High-temperature refrigerator

means a commercial refrigerator that is not capable of an operating temperature at or below 40.0 °F.

Medium-temperature refrigerator

means a commercial refrigerator that is capable of an operating temperature at or below 40.0 °F.

Ice-cream freezer

means:

Low-temperature freezer

means a commercial freezer that is not an ice-cream freezer.

88 FR 66152, 66223-66224.

Based on CRE models certified to DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (“CCMS”) under the LAPT designation for commercial refrigerators, DOE has tentatively determined that high-temperature refrigerators can be categorized under the self-contained and remote condensing unit configurations and under the vertical closed transparent (“VCT”), vertical closed solid (“VCS”), service over counter (“SOC”), vertical open (“VOP”), semi-vertical open (“SVO”), and horizontal open (“HZO”) equipment families. For these equipment families with high-temperature equipment, DOE proposes to sub-categorize them as high-temperature refrigerators (operating temperature greater than 40.0 °F) and medium-temperature refrigerators (operating temperature greater than or equal to 32.0 °F and less than or equal to 40.0 °F). DOE proposes to maintain the categorization of commercial refrigerator (operating temperature greater than or equal to 32.0 °F) for the remaining equipment families (

i.e.,

any horizontal closed transparent (“HCT”), horizontal closed solid (“HCS”), chef bases (“CB”), or pull-down (“PD”) equipment that operates above 40 °F, if commercialized, would be considered a “commercial refrigerator” and required to comply with the “medium-temperature refrigerator” standard when tested at the LAPT). For this NOPR, DOE has directly analyzed high temperature refrigerators in the self-contained condensing unit configuration for the VCT and VCS equipment families.

DOE has also tentatively determined that chef bases or griddle stands can be categorized under the self-contained condensing unit configuration and the ≥32 °F or <32 °F operating temperatures (

i.e.,

commercial refrigerator or low-temperature freezer, respectively).

Accordingly, DOE is considering potential equipment classes for high-temperature refrigerators and chef bases or griddle stands and is proposing potential equipment class structure modifications as presented in table IV.2.

Table IV.2—Proposed Equipment Classes and Equipment Class Modifications

Condensing unit

configuration

Equipment family

Rating temperature **

Operating

temperature

(°F)

Equipment class

designation

Self-Contained (SC)

Vertical Open (VOP)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

VOP.SC.H *

VOP.SC.M

VOP.SC.L

VOP.SC.I

Semivertical Open (SVO)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

SVO.SC.H *

SVO.SC.M

SVO.SC.L

SVO.SC.I

Horizontal Open (HZO)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

HZO.SC.H *

HZO.SC.M

HZO.SC.L

HZO.SC.I

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

VCT.SC.H *

VCT.SC.M

VCT.SC.L

VCT.SC.I

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

VCS.SC.H *

VCS.SC.M

VCS.SC.L

VCS.SC.I

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT)

CR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

HCT.SC.M

HCT.SC.L

HCT.SC.I

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS)

CR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

HCS.SC.M

HCS.SC.L

HCS.SC.I

Service Over Counter (SOC)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

SOC.SC.H *

SOC.SC.M

SOC.SC.L

SOC.SC.I

Pull-Down (PD)

CR (38 °F)

x ≥32

PD.SC.M

Chef Base (CB)

CR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

x ≥32

x <32

CB.SC.M *

CB.SC.L*

Remote Condensing (RC)

Vertical Open (VOP)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

VOP.RC.H *

VOP.RC.M

VOP.RC.L

VOP.RC.I

Semivertical Open (SVO)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

SVO.RC.H *

SVO.RC.M

SVO.RC.L

SVO.RC.I

Horizontal Open (HZO)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

HZO.RC.H *

HZO.RC.M

HZO.RC.L

HZO.RC.I

Vertical Closed Transparent (VCT)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

VCT.RC.H *

VCT.RC.M

VCT.RC.L

VCT.RC.I

Horizontal Closed Transparent (HCT)

CR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

HCT.RC.M

HCT.RC.L

HCT.RC.I

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

VCS.RC.H *

VCS.RC.M

VCS.RC.L

VCS.RC.I

Horizontal Closed Solid (HCS)

CR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

HCS.RC.M

HCS.RC.L

HCS.RC.I

Service Over Counter (SOC)

HR (55 °F)

MR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

IF (−15 °F)

x >40

40 ≥ x ≥32

x <32

x ≤−13

SOC.RC.H *

SOC.RC.M

SOC.RC.L

SOC.RC.I

Chef Base (CB)

CR (38 °F)

LF (0 °F)

x ≥32

x <32

CB.RC.M *

CB.RC.L *

* Proposed new equipment class.

** HR—High-Temperature Refrigerator.

LF—Low Temperature Freezer.

MR—Medium-Temperature Refrigerator.

IF—Ice-Cream Freezer.

CR—Commercial Refrigerator.

DOE received several comments in response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis regarding the amendments to the equipment classes for CRE.

Equipment Classes With Newly Proposed Standards

NEEA supported DOE's proposed definitions in the June 2022 CRE Test Procedure NOPR for blast chillers and blast freezers, buffet tables and preparation tables, and high-temperature CRE, noting that these definitions allowed consideration of potential standards, categorization of equipment classes, and testing of the equipment separate from other CRE. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 2)

The Joint Commenters supported DOE's consideration of potential standards for additional equipment categories. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters stated that DOE found cost-effective potential energy savings for chef bases/griddle stands and high-temperature refrigerators in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD and commented that they support DOE setting standards for these equipment classes. (

Id.

)

The CA IOUs commended DOE for proposing to expand the scope of the energy conservation standards for CRE to include chef bases or griddle stands and high-temperature refrigeration. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 1) The CA IOUs stated that these added product classes constitute a significant inventory of equipment with a substantial cumulative energy load that were previously outside the scope of DOE's regulation. (

Id.

at pp. 1-2)

AHRI commented that it has no objection to the added equipment classes detailed in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 2) However, Continental recommended that DOE delay inclusion of any new categories until applicable industry standard test procedures are published and have been thoroughly evaluated. (Continental, No. 38 at p. 2)

DOE has proposed standards for new equipment classes (

e.g.,

chef bases, and high-temperature refrigerators) in this NOPR, as supported by commenters. And as described in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE has incorporated by reference the latest versions of ASHRAE 72 and AHRI 1200, which were evaluated by each respective committee and subject to public reviews, in the CRE test procedure. 88 FR 66152. In addition, based on the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, chef bases or griddle stands must be tested at a dry-bulb temperature of 86.0 °F and wet-bulb temperature of 73.7 °F. 88 FR 66152, 66203. Therefore, DOE has considered higher ambient temperature conditions in the analysis of chef bases or griddle stands compared to other CRE, which are tested at a dry-bulb temperature of 75.2 °F and wet-bulb temperature of 64.4 °F. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional information.

Equipment Classes Without Proposed Standards

NEEA recommended that DOE analyze the new equipment classes and consider adopting efficiency standards that would better reflect the specific energy consumption of equipment subclasses, resulting in more significant energy savings. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 4) NEEA commented that DOE had analyzed two of the four new product classes and, as was shown in the CRE June 2022 Preliminary TSD analysis, energy conservation standards were viable for high-temperature CRE and chef bases and griddle stands. (

Id.

) NEEA commented that for vertical closed transparent self-contained high temperature (“VCT.SC.H”), vertical closed solid self-contained high temperature (“VCS.SC.H”), and chef bases self-contained low temperature (“CB.SC.L”), the average life-cost savings ranged from $300-$500 at EL 3, presenting justification of the energy and cost savings for these equipment classes. (

Id.

) NEEA added that DOE should conduct similar analyses on blast chillers and buffet tables, citing DOE's test procedures for these classes as key to allowing data collection. (

Id.

at p. 4) NEEA commented that DOE's analysis of high-temperature refrigerators and chef bases indicated that additional significant savings would likely be available from these products. (

Id.

)

Similarly, the Joint Commenters commented that DOE stated DOE lacked sufficient information to fully analyze buffet/preparation tables and blast chillers/freezers in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, but the Joint Commenters noted that the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System (“MAEDbS”) includes over 100 buffet/preparation tables with a broad range of energy usage. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters requested that DOE further investigate the energy usage and savings potential for these products. (

Id.

)

However, Continental agreed with DOE that a preliminary analysis of energy consumption for buffet tables and preparation tables is not appropriate until a standard test procedure is established for these equipment types. (Continental. No. 38 at p. 2).

Consistent with comments from NEEA and based on the new rating temperature in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule for high-temperature refrigerators, DOE is proposing to amend the energy conservation standards for high-temperature refrigerators and to establish energy conservation standards for chef bases or griddle stands in this NOPR. See table IV.2.

With respect to the comments from NEEA and the Joint Commenters regarding blast chillers and blast freezers, DOE notes that it lacks sufficient data and information regarding blast chillers and blast freezer performance, and related design options, for units tested via the DOE test procedure. As stated in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, blast chillers and blast freezers are designed for “rapid temperature pull-down” capable of reducing the internal temperature from 135 °F to 40 °F within a period of 4 hours. 88 FR 66152, 66189. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is not currently able to model expected performance of this equipment because the established test procedure is significantly different from the test procedure applicable to other CRE categories, which are intended for “holding temperature application”. Due to a lack of data and information regarding performance of blast chillers and blast freezers, DOE has not conducted an analysis of potential energy conservation standards for these equipment categories.

DOE requests comment on blast chiller or freezer design options, design specifications, and energy consumption data tested per the DOE test procedure located in appendix D of 10 CFR 431.64.

With respect to the comments from NEEA and the Joint Commenters regarding buffet tables and preparation tables, while DOE acknowledges that

CEC's MAEDbS database contains data for buffet/preparation tables, DOE notes that title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires refrigerated buffet/preparation tables to follow the ANSI/ASTM F2143-01 test method.

This test method has been revised several times, with ASTM F2143-16 being the most recent version. In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE stated that ASTM F2143-16 cannot be referenced as a standalone test method but determined the approach based on ASTM F2143-16 with additional requirements is representative for buffet/preparation tables. 88 FR 66152, 66175. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is not able to model expected performance of this equipment at this time because the established test procedure is significantly different from the test procedure applicable to other CRE categories, and from the test procedure used to measure energy consumption for the CEC's MAEDbS. Due to a lack of data and information regarding performance and related design options of refrigerated buffet/preparation tables, DOE has not conducted an analysis of potential energy conservation standards for these equipment categories.

See table A-1 in 20 CCR section 1604.a.2 located at

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID5812C41DABD11ED852BC9A091C0DD8F?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default).

DOE requests comment on refrigerated buffet/preparation table design options, design specifications, and energy consumption data tested per the DOE test procedure located in appendix C of 10 CFR 431.64.

Customer Order Storage Cabinets

The CA IOUs supported creating a separate equipment class for customer-order refrigerated storage lockers. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 10) The CA IOUs commented that they expect the refrigerated storage locker market to increase as grocery delivery and pick up continues to be a growing segment of grocery sales. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs stated that they support aggregating the maximum daily energy consumption values for all compartments in a refrigerated storage locker according to 10 CFR 431.66(e)(2). (

Id.

) The CA IOUs also pointed out that “temperature controlled pick up lockers” can be refrigerated lockers; however, some of these models can be either refrigerated or heated or neither. (

Id.

)

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE analyze the individual refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator/freezer compartments in customer-order refrigerated storage lockers as a separate equipment family as noted in the CA IOUs comments on DOE's July 2021 CRE Test Procedure RFI. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs highlighted the Traulsen waiver

to show that these compartments will have distinct door-opening conditions compared to the CRE equipment families. (

Id.

)

CA IOUs provided the footnote reference 83 FR 46148 for the granted waiver.

In response to the CA IOUs comments, DOE has not conducted an analysis specifically for customer order storage cabinets in this NOPR.

DOE has analyzed a representative volume for the VCS equipment families of which customer order storage cabinets are typically included. In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE provides a discussion of customer order storage cabinets and determination to adopt a test procedure based on existing test procedure waivers. 88 FR 66152, 66211-66213.

DOE defines customer order storage cabinet at § 431.62 to mean a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer that stores customer orders and includes individual, secured compartments with doors that are accessible to customers for order retrieval.

Comments on Specific Equipment Classes

The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE analyze additional equipment classes and stated that DOE did not directly analyze the vertical closed solid remote condensing medium temperature (“VCS.RC.M”), vertical closed solid remote condensing low temperature (“VCS.RC.L”), horizontal closed transparent remote condensing medium temperature (“HCT.RC.M”), or horizontal closed transparent remote condensing low temperature (“HCT.RC.L”) equipment classes in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters commented that the number of models for each of these classes in the CCD suggests their market share could be larger than the estimated volume of shipments for these classes in the analysis for the March 2014 Final Rule. (

Id.

) The Joint Commenters stated that there are nearly 500 VCS.RC.M models certified in the CCD, and there are more HCT.RC.M models in the CCD than horizontal closed transparent self-contained medium temperature (“HCT.SC.M”), an equipment class that was analyzed by DOE in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (

Id.

) The Joint Commenters commented that, based on these data, the market share of these equipment classes may be larger than estimated, and the Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to analyze these additional equipment classes. (

Id.

)

AHRI asked that DOE clarify whether DOE removed the vertical self-contained class from the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 2) And Zero Zone commented that it did not see any evaluation of solid-door remote commercial refrigerators and inquired whether DOE is dropping that equipment class or has no plans to change the energy requirements. (Zero Zone, No. 44 at p. 5)

With respect to the comments from the Joint Commenters, AHRI, and Zero Zone, DOE notes that the equipment classes mentioned by the Joint Commenters were not directly analyzed as primary equipment classes in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, but are analyzed as secondary equipment classes in this NOPR using DOE's primary to secondary equipment class multipliers. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details on secondary equipment classes. Additionally, DOE notes that in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed vertical closed solid, self contained equipment, as well as other vertical self-contained equipment (

e.g.,

vertical open self-contained medium temperature (“VOP.SC.M”) and vertical closed transparent self-contained medium temperature (“VCT.SC.M”)). See table 5.8.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD for a full list of primary equipment classes DOE analyzed in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

AHRI commented that breaking equipment classes into smaller (under 30 cubic feet) and larger units (over 30 cubic feet) could be beneficial. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 7) Additionally, NAMA commented that DOE appeared to have overlooked or not fully recognized the existence of smaller refrigerated single- and double-door beverage (and food) coolers. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 5) NAMA stated that energy efficiency analyses of larger (

e.g.,

60 cubic feet) units may not be applicable to smaller (

e.g.,

24 cubic feet) units. (

Id.

) NAMA recommended that, for purposes of DOE analysis, units under 30 cubic feet should be considered differently from those over 30 cubic feet in refrigerated volume. (

Id.

)

In response to the June 2021 Test Procedure RFI, True Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“True”) commented that there are examples where the ice-cream freezer maximum allowable energy consumption is less than for an equivalent commercial freezer.

(Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008,

True, No. 4 at p. 3) True provided three examples of common VCT.SC.L CREs found in the marketplace where the maximum DOE energy allowance for the ice-cream freezer is less than that of the equivalent commercial freezer. (

Id.

) True also commented that when comparing the VCS.SC.I and VCS.SC.L formulas, for cabinets with a volume of 4 cubic feet or less, the energy use allowance for the ice-cream freezer is less than for the equivalent commercial freezer. (

Id.

)

See www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008-0004.

Additionally, in response to the July 2021 RFI, Glastender, Inc. (“Glastender”) provided a chart and commented that the energy allowance for VCT.SC.M CRE is less than the energy allowance for VCS.SC.M CRE when the refrigerated volume is less than 10 cubic feet. (Glastender, No. 4 at p. 1). Glastender commented that it believed the requirement curves were generated from primarily larger volume models and smaller volume refrigerators need to be considered when generating new curves. (

Id.

)

In response to comments from AHRI and NAMA, DOE is maintaining the current equipment class structure in this NOPR, except for the new equipment classes which are proposed and discussed in section IV.A.1.c of this document. DOE considers all volumes and TDAs when developing the proposed standards in this NOPR in addition to the representative volume or TDA for each directly analyzed equipment class. Based on market research and feedback received during manufacturer interviews, DOE expects the use of sliding and pass-through doors represent equipment utilities that have unique energy use characteristics that differentiate CRE in the VCT.SC.M equipment class and that beverage coolers are a common type of equipment in the VCT.SC.M equipment class that use sliding and pass-through doors. Therefore, based on market research and feedback received during manufacturer interviews, DOE has proposed separate energy use equations based on an energy consumption multiplier for CRE with sliding and pass-through doors.

In response to comments from AHRI, NAMA, True, and Glastender, DOE considered all volumes and TDAs when developing the proposed standards in this NOPR in addition to the representative volume or TDA for each directly analyzed equipment class. When developing the proposed standards in this NOPR, DOE generally applied the energy use reduction percentage selected in section V.C of this document to the baseline energy use equation's slope and intercept. However, in three directly analyzed equipment classes, VCT.SC.M, VCS.SC.I, and HCT.SC.I, DOE has tentatively determined that, based on the efficiency distribution of the market across the equipment classes, additional consideration is necessary. For these three classes, DOE maintained the current standard equation intercept and calculated a slope based on the current intercept and the proposed energy use level at the representative volume or TDA. This approach addresses the standard line crossover that True and Glastender mentioned in their comments and better represents the energy use characteristics of CRE at volumes and TDAs that are smaller than the representative volume or TDA for these three classes. Additionally, DOE reviewed the proposed standard for VCT.SC.I and VCT.SC.L and observed that the standard lines do not have the crossover that True mentioned in its comment.

See section IV.C.1 of this document and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.

The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE eliminate the equipment class for pull-down CREs. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters stated that while there are currently no pull-down models certified in DOE's CCD, the Joint Commenters are concerned that models could be certified as pull-down CRE in the future in order to be subject to a less-stringent standard. (

Id.

)

In response to the Joint Commenters, DOE notes that the “pull-down temperature application” is defined in 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(d) and the equipment class was established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58).

In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE established verification provisions for pull-down temperature applications based on the EPCA definition, which are intended to ensure CRE are certified correctly as pull-down temperature applications. 88 FR 66152, 66187-66189. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to eliminate the equipment class for pull-down CREs in this NOPR.

See

119 STAT. 639 at

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf.

Equipment Rating

The CA IOUs recommended changing the key metric for service over the counter (“SOC”) refrigeration from total display area (“TDA”) to either refrigerated volume or refrigerated floor area. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 9-10). The CA IOUs commented that the current energy conservation standard for SOC is based on TDA, which incentivizes the use of more glass to increase the TDA and the corresponding maximum daily energy consumption. (

Id.

at p. 9) The CA IOUs stated that basing the energy conservation standard for SOC equipment on refrigerated volume would ensure that any increases in an SOC unit's maximum allowable energy consumption is directly linked to an increase in the equipment's useful holding capacity. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs commented that this change would ensure that manufacturers wanting to increase TDA would be incentivized to use glass with better thermal insulation properties. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs commented also that switching to a refrigerated volume metric would also be more consistent with other closed refrigeration categories with display functionality, such as refrigerators with glass doors. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs stated that the burden of shifting to refrigerated volume as a metric could be minimized by allowing either physical measurement or measurement based on a diagram or computer-aided design (“CAD”) drawing. (

Id.

at p. 10) The CA IOUs added that an alternative metric for deli cases without shelving could also be refrigerated floor area, which would be the available surface area for product, although the CA IOUs noted that most SOC refrigerators are sold with shelving that can be added or removed depending on food product being displayed. (

Id.

)

However, in response to the July 2021 RFI, other commenters indicated that TDA is the appropriate metric for the respective equipment classes, and the industry has adapted to the use of TDA or volume and that no change is necessary (see chapter 2 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD for additional information). Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE has not evaluated revising the capacity metrics for any equipment classes.

The CA IOUs commented that they support the proposal to rate equipment capable of operating at temperatures of multiple equipment classes at all relevant temperature conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8-9)

Consistent with the CA IOUs comment, in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE specified in 10 CFR 429.42 that basic models of CRE that operate in multiple equipment classes must be certified and comply with the energy conservation standards for each applicable equipment class. 88 FR 66152, 66162.

2. CRE Market

In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE received

several comments regarding the CRE market.

NAMA commented that it was not listed in the proposed regulation or list of manufacturers. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 4) NAMA added that the names of CRE manufacturers represented by NAMA, which were filed in the DOE's CCMS, were not mentioned. (

Id.

)

In response to this comment from NAMA, for this NOPR, DOE updated its assessment of manufacturer trade groups to include NAMA and reviewed the list of CRE manufacturers based on the list of supporters on NAMA's website.

See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for additional information regarding CRE original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) and manufacturer trade groups.

DOE reviewed the “2022 Annual Dues Donors” accessible at

namanow.org/foundation/supporters/

to identify members of NAMA (last accessed March 31, 2023).

Continental commented that relying on manufacturer model counts in the CCD is not an accurate way of approximating company market share and stated that model counts in DOE's CCD reflect the variety of models offered, but do not represent the sales or market share of a company. (Continental, No. 38, p. 2)

In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE used manufacturer model counts to identify key CRE OEMs operating in the United States. DOE presented an abridged list of OEMs with more than 1-percent share of basic model listings in chapter 3 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. DOE understands that model counts do not reflect company market shares. For this NOPR, DOE conducted confidential manufacturer interviews. During these interviews, DOE asked manufacturers about their estimated CRE market share, annual shipments by equipment class, and the estimated market shares of other CRE manufacturers. DOE used the information from confidential interviews, data from the shipments analysis, and model listings from CCD to estimate manufacturer market shares, which were then used to weight certain inputs used in the MIA (

e.g.,

industry financial parameters, manufacturer markups). DOE does not present these company-specific market share estimates in the NOPR TSD chapter 3 as the information is protected under nondisclosure agreements (“NDAs”). See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for additional details on the CRE market and manufacturers.

DOE requests comment on publicly available market data on CRE manufacturers or identification of any CRE manufacturers with large market shares not identified in Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.

3. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of CRE, as measured by the DOE test procedure and shown in table IV.3.

Table IV.3—Technology Options for CRE

Insulation:

Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type).

Increased insulation thickness.

Vacuum-insulated panels.

Lighting:

Higher-efficiency lighting.

Occupancy Sensors.

Improved transparent doors: *

Low-emissivity coatings.*

Inert gas fill.*

Vacuum-insulated glass.*

Additional panes.*

Anti-sweat heater controls.*

Anti-fog films.*

Frame design.*

Compressor.**

Improved compressor efficiency.**

Alternative refrigerants.**

Variable-speed compressors.**

Linear compressors.**

Evaporator:

Increased surface area.

Improved evaporator coil design.

Low-pressure differential evaporator.

Condenser: **

Increased surface area.**

Tube-and-fin enhancements.**

Microchannel heat exchanger.**

Fans and fan motors:

Evaporator fan motors.

Evaporator fan blades.

Evaporator fan controls.

Condenser fan motors.**

Condenser fan blades.**

Condenser fan controls.**

Other technologies:

Defrost systems.

Expansion valve improvements.

Air curtain design.***

Night curtains.***

Liquid suction heat exchanger.**

* Only applies to equipment classes with doors.

** Only applies to self-contained equipment classes.

*** Only applies to equipment classes without doors (open equipment classes).

DOE received several comments in response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis regarding the technology options.

a. Compressors

NEEA referred to its previous comment to the July 2021 RFI that DOE consider the energy-use impact of compressor technologies like scroll compressors and variable-speed compressors. (NEEA No. 47 at pp. 4-5) NEEA commented that DOE had expressed agreement with NEEA in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD that variable-speed compressors represented an energy-saving technology and estimated that implementing variable-speed compressors could save 3-38 percent of energy consumption, depending on equipment class. (

Id.

at p. 4) NEEA pointed out that DOE had not tested a model with a variable-speed compressor and encouraged DOE to further research the energy-savings potential of variable-speed compressors in CRE. (

Id.

) NEEA commented that, in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD Table 5.5.1,

DOE noted propane variable-speed compressors as a design option for a majority of CRE equipment classes. (

Id.

) NEEA encouraged DOE to collect data and consider other equipment classes that could utilize variable-speed compressors to improve the energy-savings potential and common use of this technology option. (

Id.

at pp. 4-5)

Technical Support Document: Commercial Refrigeration Equipment: Table 5.5.1 Design Options by Equipment. Class. PreTSD CRE 2022. June 2022.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013.

Consistent with the preliminary analysis, DOE has included R-290 variable-speed compressors as a technology option in this NOPR. Due to the refrigerant transition in response to the December 2022 EPA NOPR, DOE has analyzed R-290 compressors (single and variable speed) for all self-contained equipment classes. See section IV.C.1 of this document and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details on the refrigerant transition and analyzed compressors. Additionally, scroll compressors have not been included as a design option in this NOPR. While DOE has not observed scroll compressors in any directly analyzed models, DOE is aware that scroll compressors may be used on very large, self-contained CRE. Based on market research, DOE observed that fixed-speed scroll compressors have similar efficiencies to hermetic, reciprocating compressors; therefore, DOE has not considered scroll compressors in this analysis.

Continental commented that variable-speed compressors hold promise for reducing energy consumption of self-contained CRE, but the increased technical complexity and related increases in material and service costs have thus far limited use of this technology. (Continental, No. 38 at p. 2) Similarly, AHRI commented that variable-speed compressors do not

contribute significantly to energy savings in specific products and present additional technical challenges for servicers. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 5) Further, AHRI commented that DOE should not assume that equipment employing variable-speed compressors will automatically have an energy-efficiency increase of 15-20 percent and that this design option is more complex and requires more careful analysis. (

Id.

)

To estimate the performance impacts of transitioning to a variable-speed compressor, DOE incorporated the performance data for variable-speed R-290 compressors currently available on the market into DOE's engineering spreadsheet. DOE assumed that variable-speed compressors would operate at the minimum speed under steady-state operation. DOE also assumed that the fan motors would operate during the compressor run time (

i.e.,

the fan motor operating duration would likely increase compared to a single-speed compressor). Overall, DOE estimated a 0.5-25 percent energy consumption reduction when implementing variable-speed compressors, with savings varying depending on equipment class. See chapters 3 and 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details on variable speed compressors.

b. R-290

NAMA stated that it began evaluating the changes necessary for CRE to utilize lower GWP refrigerants, such as R-290, in 2018, and NAMA pointed out that the ASHRAE 15 standard was changed in the summer of 2020 to allow CRE using up to 114 grams of A-3 refrigerants to be placed in public places and that CRE with A-3 refrigerants began to appear in the U.S. market in the first quarter of 2021. (NAMA, No. 37 at p. 6) NAMA stated that manufacturers had to re-design heat exchangers, use new compressors and expansion valves, and make all switches, electrical components, motors, wiring, connectors, and larger electrical components (

e.g.,

compressors) compliant with “spark-proof connections” to manufacture machines using A-3 refrigerant. (

Id.

at pp. 6-7) NAMA commented that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD did not adequately address this level of re-design using expensive components, nor the re-design of factories to comply with health and safety regulations through greater ventilation, safety sensors, and other measures. (

Id.

at p.7) NAMA noted that every model, product line, quality assurance facility, factory, warehouse, and service center must be updated to install, warehouse, and service units with R-290 refrigerant, and only a handful of State and local building codes have been updated to accommodate these changes. (

Id.

) NAMA stated that significant work remains to be done in finalizing these codes, and they are unlikely to be complete before 2026. (

Id.

) NAMA commented that DOE did not address this transition in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD. (

Id.

)

Similarly, AHRI commented that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD cited an example of a transition from an R-134a (ASHRAE Class A1) to an R-290 (propane or an ASHRAE Class A3) compressor as the only required change, but AHRI added that compressors, switches, and other components in the system must also be upgraded to comply with UL60335-2-89 requirements to reduce the risk of ignition. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 13)

The CA IOUs noted that their comments to the July 2021 RFI stated that since energy conservation standards were last analyzed, the market has developed higher-efficiency compressors, and self-contained CRE has increasingly shifted to R-290. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 4-6) While the CA IOUs thanked DOE for analyzing these technology advances, they noted that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD analyzes the refrigerant propane as a technology option for nearly all self-contained refrigeration categories except for vertical open self-contained medium temperature (“VOP.SC.M”), semi-vertical self-contained medium temperature (“SVO.SC.M”), and horizontal glass self-contained ice cream (“HCT.SC.I”) categories. (

Id.

at pp. 4-5) The CA IOUs stated that propane had already become an industry standard for self-contained refrigeration equipment, and the CA IOUs recommended considering it as a baseline refrigerant for all self-contained refrigeration categories. (

Id.

at p. 5) The CA IOUs further commented that the June 2022 Preliminary TSD excludes variable-speed compressors as a technology option for almost all categories where it does not consider propane as an option. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs commented that variable-speed compressors can use any refrigerant and are not limited to propane. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs stated that the current market availability of variable-speed compressors that use refrigerants other than propane is limited to compressors above 1 horsepower, and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE work with manufacturer stakeholders to determine future market availability of variable-speed compressors for all refrigerants. (

Id.

at pp. 5-6)

NEEA stated support for DOE's consideration of propane refrigerants as an energy-saving technology option in the technology assessment and engineering analysis for CRE, but NEEA noted that table 5.5.18 in the June 2022 Preliminary TSD showed that DOE had not considered propane as an option for all CRE equipment classes. (NEEA, No. 47 at p. 4) NEEA commented that CRE refrigerants are transitioning from hydrofluorocarbons (“HFC”) refrigerants to alternative options like propane (R-290) and NEEA anticipated an increase in the use of propane in other equipment classes. (

Id.

) NEEA recommended that DOE ensure its analysis take into consideration the current availability of propane products in the product classes not currently considered by DOE as a design option (

e.g.,

VOP.SC.M and SVO.SC.M). (

Id.

) NEEA further recommended DOE anticipate that more products would likely become available with propane refrigerants if the charge limit (currently 150 grams under the EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (“SNAP”)) for propane were to increase, as allowed in ASHRAE 15-2022. (

Id.

)

Similarly, the Joint Commenters commented that DOE excluded propane compressors as a design option for some equipment classes due to propane charge limits, but the Joint Commenters further commented that ASHRAE 15 is proposing to increase the charge limits for higher-flammability refrigerants. (Joint Commenters, No. 39 at p. 2) Additionally, the Joint Commenters stated that models are available on the market in some of the equipment classes for which DOE excluded propane technology options, including the VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, and HCT.SC.I categories. (

Id.

at pp. 2-3) The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE consider propane refrigerant for these additional equipment classes. (

Id.

at p. 3)

In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE considered only CRE that could meet the 150-gram charge limit for R-290, per the EPA's SNAP regulations.

Based on the December 2022 EPA NOPR's proposed GWP limits, DOE anticipates EPA will harmonize with UL 60335-2-89 and allow R-290 charge limits of 304g for closed CRE and 494g for open CRE. Therefore, DOE has updated its engineering analysis in the NOPR to analyze R-290 compressors as a technology option for all self-contained CRE. See section IV.C.1 of this

document and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional information.

See

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-04-10/pdf/2015-07895.pdf.

Additionally, based on information gathered from interviews, component data, and teardowns, DOE has reevaluated the cost associated with the switch to R-290 on self-contained units. Because DOE has analyzed R-290 as the baseline for all self-contained classes in response to the December 2022 EPA NOPR, the costs associated with additional components necessary to comply with safety st

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.